From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Jun 1 00:45:20 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 00:45:20 -0000 Subject: Nice vs. Good, honesty, and Snape: Was Snape, Apologies, and Redemption In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153211 Lanval: > A set-up? Lupin had a cunning plan? He lay awake > at night, maliciously scheming how to humiliate his > old enemy? > > That would involve: > > 1.) prior knowledge of Neville's worst fear > > 2.) prior knowledge that Snape would be present, > which is against the odds. Lupin says this: p.133 > Scholastic HB Ed.: "This one (boggart) moved in > yesterday afternoon, and I asked the headmaster > if the staff would leave it to give my third years > some practice." Seems the staff, having left the > boggart alone, also politely vacated the room since > DD informed them that Lupin would be holding class there. houyhnhnm: Are you interpreting "leave *it*" as meaning leave the room? I read it as leave the boggart--don't get rid of it; Lupin wants to use it for his class. So there's no indication here for me that staff politely vacated the room or even that Dumbledore told them Lupin was going to hold his class there. If Lupin lay awake thinking at all that night, I'm sure he was planning his boggart lesson. But I think he knew holding the class in the staff room, forcing Snape either to leave or to stay and see-how-much-better-I-am-than-you-at-DADA was going to get under Snape's skin. And that may have been a little extra inducement for Lupin. Why do I think Lupin knew that holding class in the staffroom would produce the serendipitous bonus of getting under Snape's skin? Because it did. And these two have a history. Does Snape ever rise to the bait! Teasing little Snivellus must have been like shooting fish in a barrel. Snape not only overreacted, he handed Lupin a weapon by making the churlish remark about Neville. I think Lupin had a pretty good idea at that moment what form Neville's boggart might take. But this is where it should have stopped if Lupin really is the better man. Instead he escalated the conflict, by at least an order of magnitude. Lupin had the whole year to work on raising Neville's self-esteem if he really cared that much about the kid. He stopped Harry from confronting the boggart; he could have stopped Neville, too. He should have, if he really thought that turning Snape into an old woman was the *least* humiliating way Neville could have defeated his boggart. He used a student to get back at a colleague and make him a figure of ridicule in front of students. It's wrong. I don't care what his reason was. There's no good reason. Then Snape escalated the conflict still further when he took Lupin's class. I condemn the way he criticized the Lupin's instruction while taking his class as strongly as I condemn what Lupin did. At each level, each one feels justified to up the ante by what the other has already done. The conflict between Snape and Lupin in PoA is interesting because it gives a glimpse of the pattern of escalation that may have prevailed between Snape and the three Gryffindors (I don't include the poodle in a rat suit) when they were teenagers. It is supplemental information to the Pensieve scene. It may prefigure what we learn in book 7 about what really happened back in the 70s at Hogwarts (if we do). From leslie41 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 1 01:53:01 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 01:53:01 -0000 Subject: Terminal Stupidity of Snapey-Poo (was Re: Nice vs. Good - Compassion)b In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153212 > > Leslie41: > > And, Lupinlore, a word to the wise: Better take a different > > tack, than calling Snape "terminally stupid." That's never > > going to get you *anywhere*. > > > Lupinlore: > Depends on where you're trying to get, I suppose. If you mean it > won't change anyone's mind, that is definitely true, but this just > isn't a place where anyone ever changes their mind, particularly > about the three main characters (Snapey-poo, Dumbledore, or > Harry). Leslie41: Not necessarily, at least as long as the books keep coming out. People become forced to change as canon itself changes. But after Book VII... > Lupinlore: > Now, if you mean we aren't getting anywhere with regard to > statements about Snapey-poo, I don't think that's true. No one on > this list is going to compromise with anyone else when it comes to > fundamental viewpoints, but there are ways in which fundamental > viewpoints become clearer. Leslie41: Certainly, that's true. > Lupinlore: > IMO, for instance, anyone who acts the way Snapey-poo does > throughout the books (i.e. anyone who acts that way to those > people in those situations) pretty much needs to have > their picture put in a phrasebook somewhere beside the > words "terminally stupid." Leslie41: You are, of course, perfectly entitled to believe anything you like. Perhaps I should have phrased it more like "You're never going to get anywhere proving Snape is stupid via reasoned argument, supported by canon." There are words for what Snape is. "Stupid" isn't one of them. I would cite numerous examples in canon to support this, but Snape's intelligence seems to me something that 99.9% of readers take as self-evident. The other .1%, I think, would not be convinced even if Rowling got into a plane and wrote "Snape is not stupid!" across the sky in Slytherin green. > Lupinlore: > Indeed, we are dealing with multiple layers of meaning, here, > including, I think, not only "too stupid to live" but > "guaranteeing one's own demise through the creative > application of stupidity." Both, I think, fit Snapey-poo nicely. Leslie41: Again, you are free to think what you like. Your opinion is not logical or supportable, but no one is going to force you to abandon it. Cite it on this forum, however, and there are those of us who will demand evidence, and, perhaps, call you on the hypocrisy of admiring Lupin as you vilify Snape. > Lupinlore: > It is interesting the degree to which all other threads wither. > Even I, radical that I am, have tried a half-dozen times to start > non-Snape/non-DD threads over the last few months. All of them \ > were stillborn or died within a couple of rounds. Meanwhile, > Snape and/or DD threads flourish - despite the fact that anyone > who has been around for a while knows exactly where they are going > to go. Leslie41: Well, if people didn't want to go there, they wouldn't come along for the ride then! I personally don't get tired of analyzing Snape, Lupin, etc. And if I did, I'd just stop visiting the board for awhile. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Jun 1 01:48:32 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 01:48:32 -0000 Subject: Question about Horcrux? In-Reply-To: <478.24042ac.31af6700@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153213 Clare: > What I would ask is why was it not destroyed at the time and what > does the fact that it wasn't imply? Personally I think it implies > that RAB wasn't all that commited to the Light; one would only keep > something like that if one intended to use it as a bargaining tool. Ceridwen: You may be right about that, it's certainly something I haven't thought of before. But there are possible other answers, too, as you indicate. The one I think is most plausible is that R.A.B. was Regulus Black; he left the Death Eaters after becoming disillusioned for some reason or other (something he was ordered to do that he couldn't stomach, dawning awareness of the wrongness of LV's rule, name your scenario); he somehow has discovered the secret of the locket horcrux and somehow overcomes the obstacles and takes it back to number 12. This is his last action as a Death Eater as much as it is his first action as a fugitive from LV's thugs. He didn't destroy the locket because he didn't figure out how to do it before he was killed. Remus Lupin says in HBP, pg 106 US Scholastic hardcover: "...Sirius's brother, Regulus, only managed a few days* as far as I can remember." *before he was killed Ceridwen. From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Jun 1 02:47:48 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 02:47:48 -0000 Subject: Nice vs. Good, honesty, and Snape: Was Snape, Apologies, and Redemption In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153214 "houyhnhnm102" Snape not only overreacted, he > handed Lupin a weapon by making the churlish remark about Neville. I > think Lupin had a pretty good idea at that moment what form Neville's > boggart might take. Potioncat: In Snape's favor, I think he was warning Lupin to watch out for Neville's Boggart. Just as Lupin expected Harry's to be LV, I think Snape expected Neville's to be specific DEs, or to be something connected with the Longbottoms' torture. In Lupin's favor, once Neville announced Professor Snape as his greatest fear, Lupin had to come up with something funny. It could have been worse, but I've never seen anything offered that would be better (once it had gotten this far.) From kellymolinari at yahoo.com Thu Jun 1 02:40:35 2006 From: kellymolinari at yahoo.com (Kelly Molinari) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 02:40:35 -0000 Subject: Why I think Harry Potter is more than a whodunnit (my opinion) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153215 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Randy" wrote: > > This scene represents my opinions about the hidden lessons being > taught to Harry Potter and the rest of us. > > Dumbledore looks at Harry and begins to speak. "Harry, your power > of Love can help you defeat Voldemort!" > > Harry replies, "What do I know about Love?" > Dumbledore replies "We have been teaching you about Love all along. > Everyone you have met has been teaching you something about love. > Some teach by their acts of love, and others teach by doing the > exact opposite. It's all about our choices." > Kelly replies: Please forgive the lateness of this reply, as I have been busy with the truly mundane aspects of life, unable to read e-mail. Well done! I first started reading (reluctantly, I might add) the HP series in July 2005, while my kids were fighting over book 6. They insisted that I read them. It took me about 3 weeks to read book one, only because I had many (negative) pre-conceived notions of what the books were really about. By the time I finished I was hooked and had the entire series done by the time school started in September. I told anyone and everyone who would listen that they must read the Harry Potter series, that it was so much more than a "kids thing". I told them that it was a story of friendship and truth, joy and sorrow, prejudice, pain, love and sacrifice. It was everything that we face each and every day. If there is anything that I have learned from these books it is that no matter how bad things get "... Love is all you need..." How grateful I am to have been able to experience it. Kelly, who does not want to appear sappy, but at the same time knows she is. From kernsac at earthlink.net Thu Jun 1 04:18:15 2006 From: kernsac at earthlink.net (Peggy Kern) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 21:18:15 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Nice vs. Good, honesty, and Snape: Was Snape, Apologies, and Redemption References: Message-ID: <01f901c68532$6836aaf0$6401a8c0@user2b3ff76354> No: HPFGUIDX 153216 Houyhnhnm: I think Lupin had a pretty good idea at that moment what form Neville's boggart might take. But this is where it should have stopped if Lupin really is the better man. Instead he escalated the conflict, by at least an order of magnitude. Lupin had the whole year to work on raising Neville's self-esteem if he really cared that much about the kid. He stopped Harry from confronting the boggart; he could have stopped Neville, too. He should have, if he really thought that turning Snape into an old woman was the *least* humiliating way Neville could have defeated his boggart. He used a student to get back at a colleague and make him a figure of ridicule in front of students. It's wrong. I don't care what his reason was. There's no good reason. Peggy now: I don't think Lupin's goal in the boggart lesson was to raise Neville's self-confidence or to humiliate Snape. I think he wanted to teach the class how to handle boggarts. Snape's comment about Neville gave Lupin a way to start the lesson, perhaps differently than he otherwise would have. I think Lupin accepted Neville's honest admission of his fear of Snape, rather than putting him down for it or telling him to think of something else. If they're going to learn how to tackle a boggart, they can't be picky about what fears they're going to use to practice; otherwise they really haven't learned anything. I wonder if perhaps Lupin knew Neville's grandmother, and was just helping him to find a funny image to picture when Boggart Snape came out. I honestly don't think he planned the lesson to humiliate Snape, and used the students to do it. As for not letting Harry have a chance at the boggart, I think that because of the general attitude toward Voldemort, to the point that almost everyone was afraid to say his name, having a boggart Voldemort come out would have been more than the class could realistically have been expected to handle. It's kind of interesting to wonder just what Harry would have experienced if he'd had a turn, and maybe he should have been given the chance. But I don't think Lupin's actions were about humiliating Snape; I think they were about using something someone feared as an object lesson to teach them how to handle it. It would have been no big deal if Snape hadn't gotten so upset about it. I do wonder about Dumbledore's handling of the bonnet or cap or whatever it was (can't remember off the top of my head) that came out of the cracker at Christmas. I wonder if Dumbledore was trying to show Snape by example that the whole thing was no big deal; but perhaps Snape was so sensitive that he took this as a further insult. Peggy From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Jun 1 04:44:41 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 04:44:41 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Snape=92s_Patronus/_Harry=92s_Eyes?= Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153217 I think "I've got it!" Course I have said this before, and well we will say no more. But here it is: Theory 1: Snape's patronus is something to do with Lily. That is why it "would give too much away" as JKR said. It is also why DD trust Snape. Because Snape's patronus gives away his real allegiance. Theory 2. Snape's patronus is something to do with Harry. All rest above applies here as well. Now I hear you all saying, `but everyone that saw it would know'. But do we know of any time when someone has seen it? If someone does remember a time, please remind me. Harry's Eyes As I was listening to HBP on CD something jumped out at me when DD and Harry were in the cave. (no, not an Inferni) The reader said that Harry looked into DD's blue eyes that took on the color green from the reflection of the liquid in the pensive. It just sort of hit me green Lily DD Harry. Is there anyone else in the series with green eyes?? Anyone?? I don't remember. But if there isn't, what if the color green for eyes is a symbol (ya, you knew I was going to throw one in here somewhere).. a symbol of sacrifice. If this hunch is correct, it doesn't look good for Harry, but then it never has, so nothing new there. What do you all think? Green eyes = you are going to give your life for another or the world. Tonks_op From juli17 at aol.com Thu Jun 1 06:05:03 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 06:05:03 -0000 Subject: The Chosen One (was Re: Nice vs. Good - Compassion) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153218 > > Leslie41 wrote: > > There's a difference between knowing that Harry is *considered* the > > chosen one, and actually believing it. Snape is obviously being > > sarcastic here, especially considering the context. I would say > > this is evidence Snape *doesn't* believe Harry is the "Chosen One," > > just that he knows others believe it and he thinks it's suspect. > Carol responds: > Or he could be pretending not to believe it because DE!Draco is in the > class. (However, he's not pretending that he doesn't take cheek, even > from celebrities or heroes!) I think that his statement to Bellatrix > that Harry is a mediocre wizard is along the same lines: he doesn't > want the DEs to realize that Harry is a real threat, or that his > somewhat underdeveloped wizarding skills have nothing to do with the > threat he poses (which I think Snape guesses has everything to do with > the powers Harry acquired at Godric's Hollow, including Parseltongue > and the scar connection, both of which Snape knows about). Julie: I think Snape's beliefs about Harry's status as the Chosen One have evolved as the series has progressed. I suspect Snape didn't think Harry was the Chosen One in the beginning, but just a kid who hadn't earned the adulation he was receiving. I also suspect Snape would have been happy to see Harry expelled during Harry's first three or so years at Hogwarts. After all, Voldemort was still Vapormort at the time, and though Snape was smart enough not to underestimate the possibility of Voldemort actually returning to full power, he must have maintained some hope Vapormort wouldn't be able to do accomplish the transformation (and Voldemort might not have, without Peter). Then everything changed. At the end of GoF, Voldemort used Harry to regain bodily form, and from the moment Snape had to return to Voldemort possibility became reality. Harry went from a very dubious threat to Voldemort in Snape's mind to the WWs best hope for Voldemort's defeat. Even Snape couldn't ignore the greatest Dark Wizard ever being stymied by a 15 year old's wand! It's no coincidence that Snape quit trying to have Harry expelled from that moment, even when Harry provided ample ammunition. Nor that he started teaching Harry more directly, from Occulmency, to potions via the Half Blood Prince, to his final words of advice during his flight from the Tower. Snape may not completely understand the power Harry possesses, he may disagree with Dumbledore over how Harry should use that power, but he knows it is real. And he's not about to share that knowledge with Voldemort or the DEs. Julie From mathias_forseti at yahoo.com Thu Jun 1 05:03:46 2006 From: mathias_forseti at yahoo.com (Mathias Forseti) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 22:03:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Unforgivable? In-Reply-To: <7308.129.71.218.25.1149101846.squirrel@citymail.citynet.net> Message-ID: <20060601050346.1340.qmail@web39104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153219 Alla: >> Um, THAT is an incident that truly deserves investigation, because Harry used an Unforgivable. I mean, I am pretty confident that very good case for self-defense can be made, but Unforgivable had been used and the letter of the law demands investigation, IMO. << BAW: > Erm, when did Harry use an Unforgivable in that scuffle? As nasty > as 'sectumsempra' is, it isn't an Unforgivable. Mathias: I'd think that even an attempted use of a Unforgiveable should be investigated, but the Sectumsempra isn't an Unforgiveable, its just a curse. From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Thu Jun 1 06:49:37 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 06:49:37 -0000 Subject: Unforgivable? In-Reply-To: <20060601050346.1340.qmail@web39104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153220 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Mathias Forseti wrote: > > Alla: > >> Um, THAT is an incident that truly deserves investigation, because > Harry used an Unforgivable. << > > BAW: > > Erm, when did Harry use an Unforgivable in that scuffle? As nasty > > as 'sectumsempra' is, it isn't an Unforgivable. > > Mathias: > I'd think that even an attempted use of a Unforgiveable should be > investigated, but the Sectumsempra isn't an Unforgiveable, its just > a curse. > Aussie: Using one of the four Unforgiveables, needs intent to harm. Or as the Moody in GOF pointed out "you could all get your wands out now and point them at me and say the words, and I doubt I'd get so much as a nosebleed." So even Harry's attempt to use an Unforgiveable while Snape escaped was not worthy of investigation. From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Thu Jun 1 07:03:30 2006 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (IreneMikhlin) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 08:03:30 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Nice vs. Good, honesty, and Snape: Was Snape, Apologies, and Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <447E9142.40206@btopenworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153221 lanval1015 wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, IreneMikhlin > wrote: > Now, I'm going out on a limb here, but the fact that this >> was not reciprocated suggests strongly to me that it was uninvited. >> Lupin has no business to be on the first name basis with Snape. > > Lanval: > Of course he does. They're contemporaries; they were at school > together. Whether Snape likes it or not is another thing. But how do you imagine their first meeting went, after Dumbledore introduced his new DADA professor? How could Lupin not to pick up the clue that Snape does not reciprocate with the first name? Sure, he has a right to persist with it, it's not crime, but nice and friendly it's not either. > > Lanval: > Don't know which scene precisely you're referring to, but if it's in > front of students, it's to be expected. > There really are no set rules in the WW, are there? McGonagall and > Trelawney call one another by their first names, though there's no > love lost between them. "Call one another" is the operative word here. If Snape reciprocated, I would not have a problem with that. Fudge calls everyone but DD (I think) by > their first name. Fudge is the governor, he is allowed to do it. > > As for the notion that he calls Snape 'Severus' merely to annoy him, > well, canon would refute that: he still calls him 'Severus' with > Snape's wand pointed at him, in the Shrieking Shack. And whatever > Lupin may be, stupid he's not. In the Shrieking shack Lupin continues his line of behaviour "Severus, we were at school together". It only serves to infuriate Snape further, and it does not take a PhD in Psychology to figure it out upfront. So either Lupin was evil there :-), or very, very naive (to the point where some people will call it stupidity). > Irene: > >> If one of my schooldays' tormentors appeared at my work place and >> started behaving as if we were the best of chums, I'm not sure I'd > be >> able to keep my cool even to the level Snape does in PoA. >> > > Lanval: > Guess we're different then. I'd simply assume, until further notice, > that this person had decided to move on, stopped being childish, and > was making an effort to be pleasant. Lovely. I think an effort to be pleasant starts with apologies (or, at the very least) acknowledgment of previous unpleasantness. To pretend that nothing out of ordinary playground tussle has ever happened, to refer to "childish grudges" or some such, to continue with the bullshit "jealous of James's quidditch skills" does not strike me as moving on at all. Snape's biggest issue, as I see it, stems from the fact that no one has ever acknowledged that he was wronged during his Hogwarts years. Now, maybe he should move on of his own volition, forgive and forget. But the participants of the events have no right to expect it from him. Even Dumbledore, and certainly not the active participants, like Black or Lupin. If in PS Dumbledore didn't take the line with Harry "Your father was the bee's knees, and Professor Snape didn't like him for some unfathomable reasons, a spiteful old meanie that he is", but instead something like "Your father was a wonderful man. Professor Snape had some private reasons to dislike him, but that should not reflect badly on your father's shining personality in any way", the whole Snape-Harry dynamics would not be as poisonous. But then, we would not have the big payoff in book 7. :-) Irene From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jun 1 08:30:17 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 08:30:17 -0000 Subject: Unforgivable? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153222 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hagrid" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Mathias Forseti > wrote: > > > > Alla: > > >> Um, THAT is an incident that truly deserves investigation, because > > Harry used an Unforgivable. << > > > > BAW: > > > Erm, when did Harry use an Unforgivable in that scuffle? As nasty > > > as 'sectumsempra' is, it isn't an Unforgivable. > > > > Mathias: > > I'd think that even an attempted use of a Unforgiveable should be > > investigated, but the Sectumsempra isn't an Unforgiveable, its just > > a curse. > > > Aussie: > Using one of the four Unforgiveables, needs intent to harm. Or as the > Moody in GOF pointed out "you could all get your wands out now and > point them at me and say the words, and I doubt I'd get so much as a > nosebleed." So even Harry's attempt to use an Unforgiveable while > Snape escaped was not worthy of investigation. Geoff: I have previously pointed out in a couple of postings that, on the first occasion that Harry attempted to use "Crucio" at the Department of Mysteries, there were so many curses being used that the Ministry would have been hard pressed to differentiate who had used them - even if they were monitoring the event. Again, after the events on the tower in HBP, there had been a great deal of magical activity and it would have been difficult to analyse who cast which spell. Regarding Sectumsempra, since this appears to have been for Snape a case of "it's my own invention" (to quote the White Knight) the spell would have been an unknown one as far as the Ministry was concerned. From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jun 1 11:30:52 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 11:30:52 -0000 Subject: Nice vs. Good, honesty, and Snape: Was Snape, Apologies, and Redemption In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153223 > Lanval: > Eh, no offense, Pippin, but that's part of your ESE!Lupin theory, > isn't it? :) Which I don't buy (yet). Lupin may be a Legilimens, but > as far as I'm aware there's no proof. Pippin: Um, no, that was straightforward canon interpretation. The other three characters who show a consistent ability to tell what Harry is thinking, ie Dumbledore, Voldemort and Snape, have all been identified as legilimenses. At this point it seems more speculative to say definitively that Lupin is not a legilimens than that he is. How else do we account for his ability? But as long as you bring it up.... What's interesting form the ESE!Lupin standpoint is that Neville's boggart isn't a botched potion or even dead Trevor. ESE!Lupin theory would be that the image of Snape bursting through a closed door and going for his wand has nothing to do with potions class and everything to do with some buried memory of Neville's. Could young Neville, lying in his cot, have see Snape burst through a door and stun an attacker from behind? I can well believe that ESE!Lupin lies awake thinking of how he might determine where Snape's true loyalties lie. Certainly it's kept enough of *us* awake at night. And Snape would lie awake thinking of ways to stop him, such as coming down very hard on Neville in potions class that day so that Neville's image of scary Snape in the boggart lesson Snape knew was coming would be the present day Snape and not someone twelve years younger. > Lanval: > > My mind's reeling, thinking of what other and possibly MUCH worse > scenarios he might have come up with. He HAD to make him look > ridiculous, right? > Pippin: No, he did not. A boggart is not limited to one fear, as Molly showed us in OOP. Lupin could have suggested that Neville might want to think of something else. Lanval: > I think it can safely be argued that this episode did more for > Neville's self-confidence than anything else in his two years at > Hogwarts, the points in SS/PS included. Snape hates and bullies him > no matter what. Now at least Neville has the lovely memory of > boggart!Snape to cheer him up when things get rough in Potions. > > Btw, this was the same day Snape threatened to poison Trevor. Yes, I > do think JKR let Neville have his little revenge. > Pippin: Well, that would be the sitcom version. But Rowling evidently has something else in mind, because she pops this particular bubble in the next chapter. "Snape didn't seem to find it funny. His eyes flashed menacingly at the very mention of Professor Lupin's name and he was bullying Neville worse than ever." -- PoA ch 8 As a morale booster, it's on a level with putting Stan Shunpike behind bars. I'm sure a lot of people felt comforted by that too. I'll say this for Scrimgeour, though, at least his method didn't actually provoke Voldemort. What Lupin did was equivalent to waving a red flag in front of a bull and then stuffing it into the hands of some poor dweeb who gets charged down while the real culprit stands on the sidelines grinning. The Marauders would have laughed their tails off. Gettting dweeby kids in trouble was one of their specialities, or so Snape seems to be remembering when he accuses Harry of deliberately letting Neville mess up in PS/SS. It's a fine joke if Snape is just the cartoon of a bad teacher, but if he is, then Harry and Neville are in no more danger from him than the Roadrunner is of being caught by Wile E Coyote. OTOH, if Snape does turn out to be an unreformed DE and a once and future killer, then setting him on poor Neville isn't really very funny, is it? Pippin From orgone9 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 1 12:04:08 2006 From: orgone9 at yahoo.com (Len Jaffe) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 05:04:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Flint in OoP? ( was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Nice vs. Good, honesty, and Snape: Was Snape, Apologies, and Redemption) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060601120408.69924.qmail@web80613.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153224 Lanval said: My mind's reeling, thinking of what other and possibly MUCH worse scenarios he might have come up with. He HAD to make him look ridiculous, right? Then Pippin said: No, he did not. A boggart is not limited to one fear, as Molly showed us in OOP. Lupin could have suggested that Neville might want to think of something else. So Len opened his big yap and said: The boggart scene on OoP bothers me in that when Lupin appears and casts ridikulus at the boggart, it turns into a silver orb. We've seen the boggart as moon thing before, in Prisoner of Azkaban. But the moon was the fear, not the ridikule. So did I miss something in my reading of OOP, or is it just an oversight by the continuity department? From donnawonna at worldnet.att.net Thu Jun 1 12:59:40 2006 From: donnawonna at worldnet.att.net (Donna) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 08:59:40 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: Question about Horcrux? References: Message-ID: <447EE4BC.00000C.01400@D33LDD51> No: HPFGUIDX 153225 Clare: > What I would ask is why was it not destroyed at the time and what > does the fact that it wasn't imply? Ceridwen: You may be right about that, it's certainly something I haven't thought of before. But there are possible other answers, too, as you indicate. The one I think is most plausible is that R.A.B. was Regulus Black; he left the Death Eaters after (snipped) he somehow has discovered the secret of the locket horcrux and somehow overcomes the obstacles and takes it back to number 12. This is his last action as a Death Eater as much as it is his first action as a fugitive from LV's thugs. He didn't destroy the locket because he didn't figure out how to do it before he was killed. Donna: Do we really know the locket at number 12 is the horcrux? Do we really know R.A.B. didn't destroy the horcrux? Have I missed something? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jun 1 13:37:18 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 13:37:18 -0000 Subject: Flint in OoP? ( was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Nice vs. Good, honesty, and Snape: Was Snape, Apologies, and Redemption) In-Reply-To: <20060601120408.69924.qmail@web80613.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153226 So Len opened his big yap and said: > > The boggart scene on OoP bothers me in that when Lupin > appears and casts ridikulus at the boggart, it turns > into a silver orb. We've seen the boggart as moon > thing before, in Prisoner of Azkaban. But the moon > was the fear, not the ridikule. > > So did I miss something in my reading of OOP, or is it > just an oversight by the continuity department? > Pippin: You're lucky if that's the only 'oversight' in Lupin's saga that troubles you. :) There's twelve years to be accounted for, no explanation for why Snape suspected him of being in on the prank, no explanation of why Sirius thought he was the spy, no explanation of why he didn't transform inside the shrieking shack when the moon was already visible, and no 'good' reason for him to try to kill Pettigrew. Either JKR has been inconsistent in tone, continuity and development to a greater extent than with any other character, or she is Up To Something -- in which case there's a logical but not obvious explanation for it all. The logical but not obvious explanation of this particular incident is that the spell failed. It may have failed in PoA also, when the boggart became a cockroach. Cowards cannot laugh at their fears, and Lupin has confessed to cowardice. You might consider whether the glowing silver orb which Harry sees really resembles the full moon as much as it does the glowing orbs in the Hall of Prophecy. Pippin From distaiyi at yahoo.com Thu Jun 1 14:03:56 2006 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 14:03:56 -0000 Subject: Nature of a Patronus (Horcrux hunting) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153227 I thought I'd break this off of the Horcrux Hunting thread... So what is a Patronus charm. I've seen a few posts implying it's basically a shield and some comments. My thoughts are this. The Patronus charm is essentially an extension of the caster's primal essence (insert sould if you like). However, unlike making a Horcrux and splitting one's soul, this spell manifests aspects of oneself to perform certain tasks... maybe almost like a familiar in some respects. So why would it be difficult for some wizards to cast... I posit that it's because, like most of us muggles, most wizards don't really understand themselves very well. I posit that casting this spell requires an intimate understanding of one's own nature. In Harry's case, he's spent so much time alone and confined to a cupboard that he's had plenty of opportunity to analyze himself and thus was able to cast this spell much younger and more easily than other wizards. Why would it protect you from Dementors? Well, dementors pull aspects of a person out of themselves. Someone who is grounded and self aware enough to cast a patronus charm may not be able to resist this attack consciously, but when invoking the charm their inner resources and reserve they built up are released to resist the dementors. As an aspect of oneself then it would be logical that it could be used to communicate with others. What's interesting then is that the forms won't necessarily be unique but I'd doubt we'd see identicle forms either. Harry's is a stag. I'm not privvy to JKR's mind but... the Stag is the symbol of the Greenman, Cernunnos, The Celtic Horned God of Fertility. The Horned God is born at the winter solstice, marries the Goddess at Beltane, and dies at the summer solstice. He alternates with the Goddess of the moon in ruling over life and death, continuing the cycle of death, rebirth and reincarnation. Cernunnos is also known as the "Lord of the Hunt" ... nice as Harry now begins the hunt for LordV's Horcruxes and LV himself! Distaiyi the Cynical From distaiyi at yahoo.com Thu Jun 1 14:16:12 2006 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 14:16:12 -0000 Subject: Nature of a Patronus (Horcrux hunting) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153228 Should have waited a bit more before hitting send as now I have more thoughts... What Patroni do we know about... And some thoughts given JKR's penchant(sp?) for using mythological themes... Harry Potter--Stag--See my previous post. Hermione Granger--Otter-- Otr is a Dwarf in Norse mythology with a pencheant for changing shape. He was accidently slain by Loki and a huge ransom was demanded for the life of this dwarf. Interesting point. Loki is aften considered another form of Cernunnos... the horned one... the stag. Ron Weasley--Jack Russell Terrier--I've really got nothing here except this: Crup :Magical creature that strongly resembles a Jack Russell terrier, except that a Crup has a forked tail. Crups are extremely loyal to wizards and ferocious toward Muggles. They eat almost anything Cho Chang--Swan--SWAN-MAIDENS: Related to the VALKYRIES : Norse Mythology. Albus Dumbledore--Phoenix--I'm sure we don't need a lesson here but... interesting that it's the bird of rebirth and dumbledore is now dead... Distaiyi the Cynical. From tareprachi at yahoo.com Thu Jun 1 11:59:50 2006 From: tareprachi at yahoo.com (pforparvati) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 11:59:50 -0000 Subject: What would be Dumbledore's boggart ? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153229 I don't know whether this has been already discussed here, but I wonder what would be Dumbledore's boggart? This question has been asked to JKR to which her answer was: JKR: I can't answer that either, but for theories you should read six again. There you go. [http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet- anelli-2.htm ] I wonder where in boox six she has hinted it and what others in the group have to say on this... PP From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Jun 1 15:02:26 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 15:02:26 -0000 Subject: What would be Dumbledore's boggart ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153230 > pforparvati wrote: > I don't know whether this has been already discussed here, but I wonder > what would be Dumbledore's boggart? This question has been asked to > JKR to which her answer was: > > JKR: I can't answer that either, but for theories you should read six > again. There you go. > [http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet- > anelli-2.htm ] > > I wonder where in boox six she has hinted it and what others in the > group have to say on this... > > PP zgirnius: Hi! I think the likely place to look for Dumbledore's boggart is in the Cave scene of HBP. The mysterious statements he makes under the influence of the glowing green goo suggest to me his greatest fear may be that in his role as a leader he will make decisions which lead to the deaths of innocents, or someting along those lines. (This would also be consistent with his desire that Snape kill him to save Harry and Draco and remove the Death Eaters from the school promptly, assuming that is what he was asking Snape for in the Tower scene.) From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Thu Jun 1 16:02:40 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 16:02:40 -0000 Subject: Mrs Figg dies in Bk 7: Prediction Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153231 I was wondering what effect Harry's Birthday would have once DD's protection leaves the Dursley house. After the Court case in OOTP, the whole wizarding world could know where Harry lives. DE also. Also, JRK has already stuck dog lovers when Snuffles was killed. Now it's a cat lover's turn. Crookshanks or Mrs Noris wouldn't be enough. McGonagall in Animagi form would be too much. Finch would be doing Harry a favour. It has to be Figg - and in a way that the Dursleys realize she has been part of the Wizarding World all along (they don't know that part yet. She left Harry before the door opened after Dudley got Demented.) From sarah at eskimo.com Thu Jun 1 14:52:58 2006 From: sarah at eskimo.com (Sarah E. Schreffler) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 07:52:58 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What would be Dumbledore's boggart ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c6858b$16160cd0$6401a8c0@Sandbox> No: HPFGUIDX 153232 PP wrote: "I wonder where in boox six she has hinted it " (About JKR telling people to reread book six for a hint of Dumbledore's boggart.) Sarah says: I believe in this quote she was referring to the green liquid in the cave that Dumbledore drank. Somehow, that potion made him face his greatest fear. Even before she said that, I heard people referring to it as a liquid boggart. As for what it means? The best I can get out of it is a fear of harming his charges. Or of having harm come to them because of something he did. From inspirit at ptd.net Thu Jun 1 17:00:48 2006 From: inspirit at ptd.net (Kim) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 13:00:48 -0400 Subject: Wand Thoughts References: Message-ID: <008c01c6859c$eea5bf30$6501a8c0@your27e1513d96> No: HPFGUIDX 153234 I was thinking about the wands and something that has been bothering me since I first read the books. As I reread them I think it's becoming more clear what's been tickling my brain so I'll try to type it out coherently. My first thought brought about some rather minor questions: "The wand chooses the wizard." How? Why this wizard instead of that one? What this wand instead of one of the other 300? What if this wand is broken, will another choose you? Then I got a bit deeper and thought something that was probably brought up here before I joined but I can't find archives for it. If the wand chooses the wizard, and there are two wands with Fawkes feather in it, and one chose Voldy and the other chose Harry... Then I have some more questions: Why did a wand with Fawkes' feather choose Voldy? And why does Olivander expect great things from the person chosen by the other wand with that feather? Is that a common thing? Do many creatures give only two heartstrings, two tail feathers, two hairs? And do each of those two wands react the same way Harry's and Voldy's do when they meet? And do the two wizards chosen by those two wands have something in common such as greatness or mediocrity or a love for tennis? IF that's the case, as it seems to be based on Olivander's remark, then what if Dumbledore's wand has a pair? Who might have the other wand? Dumbledore is surely a great wizard who does great things. So wouldn't Olivander be curious to see who got the other wand that shares his wand's core? Would it be someone on the opposite side (good vs evil)? Or could it be anyone? Or am I reaching too far for a plot twist to unravel? Thanks for your thoughts, Kim [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From enlil65 at gmail.com Thu Jun 1 18:06:27 2006 From: enlil65 at gmail.com (Peggy Wilkins) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 13:06:27 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wand Thoughts In-Reply-To: <008c01c6859c$eea5bf30$6501a8c0@your27e1513d96> References: <008c01c6859c$eea5bf30$6501a8c0@your27e1513d96> Message-ID: <1789c2360606011106l552bf25escc975ec1bcf371d3@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153235 On 6/1/06, Kim wrote: Kim wrote some questions about wands and wizards: > "The wand chooses the wizard." How? Why this wizard instead of > that one? What this wand instead of one of the other 300? What if > this wand is broken, will another choose you? Peggy W: Many people seem to take "the wand chooses the wizard" quite literally, and perhaps there is somehow some magic involved, but it can also be understood in more general terms. Let me give an example: I am (more accurately, was) a violinist. From my experience, the instrument I play on makes a difference, and I might play a given violin to produce sound that is better or worse than another violinist of comparable skill level would produce playing on the same instrument. This makes sense to me because I have a physical structure, and so does the violin, and to play the instrument I have to physically contact the instrument. Maybe a specific instrument resonates particularly well with the conformation of my bones. The wood contacts my body which has a certain water content, bone density, etc. that is peculiar to me; the wood that makes the violin will also have physical characteristics of shape, density, water content, etc. My body will conduct vibrations from some instruments better than from others. So to me, when choosing a violin it's a matter of trying out a bunch of violins, and one of them will fit my body size and other physical characteristics well, and I won't "fight" it in order to play it, it will play easily. In this sense, you can say that my ideal violin "chooses" me because it is suited to me. This doesn't mean someone else can't play my violin, or that I can't play someone else's; just that a particular combination of person and instrument naturally works well together. I interpret "the wand chooses the wizard" in this way: that it's a matchup between a specific wizard's physical and magical characteristics with those of the wand such that they work well together. The only way the matchup can happen is if the wizard tries a bunch of different wands. The savvy wandmaker, like the savvy violinmaker, will be able to tell when the two go together well. Kim: > If the wand chooses the wizard, and there are two wands with Fawkes > feather in it, and one chose Voldy and the other chose Harry... Then I > have some more questions: > > Why did a wand with Fawkes' feather choose Voldy? Peggy W: That is a very interesting question. Fawkes as a phoenix effortlessly passes from life to death and regenerates, passing through the cycle again and again. Voldemort, on the other hand, has gone to a great deal of trouble to avoid the whole life/death cycle and is deathly afraid of dying. He seems to be completely blind to his own immortal soul and is fighting against what is natural. Is it ironic that he focuses his great magic though a wand with a phoenix feather? Perhaps... In any case, the pairing is very interesting. Kim: > And why does Olivander expect great things from the person chosen > by the other wand with that feather? Is that a common thing? Peggy W: To continue with the violin analogy, perhaps it was one of his finer or potentially more powerful wands: carefully chosen fine wood, carefully crafted. Probably the core has something to do with it also (though I couldn't say why this particular one would). Don't forget as well, that he also expected great things from Voldemort's wand--in other words, he doesn't expect great things from Harry just because Harry has Voldemort's wand brother; rather, he expected great things from anyone who worked well with either of those wands. The brother wands going to Voldemort/Harry can also be understood as an indication of the magical connection between Harry and Voldemort. Harry can open the Chamber of Secrets and is a Parselmouth--these things show that he is somehow directly connected to Voldemort (he got these powers from Voldemort via the failed killing curse). The affinity of LV's wand brother with Harry also is an indicator of this connection between them. It can be seen as indicating a similar "magical signature" (characteristic) between them. That's about all the questions I have any idea how to answer... -- Peggy Wilkins enlil65 at gmail.com From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Thu Jun 1 18:09:25 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 18:09:25 -0000 Subject: Nice vs. Good, honesty, and Snape: Was Snape, Apologies, and Redemption In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153236 Pippin: > No, he did not. A boggart is not limited to one fear, as Molly > showed us in OOP. Lupin could have suggested that Neville might want to think of something else. Amiable Dorsai: Pippin, are you suggesting that a person gets to choose their greatest fear? In that case, my greatest fear is a new HDTV, a comfy chair, and a few bottles of 16-year-old Lagavulin. Amiable "Bring on the Boggarts!" Dorsai From empress.najwa at gmail.com Thu Jun 1 18:07:14 2006 From: empress.najwa at gmail.com (Najwa) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 18:07:14 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Snape=92s_Patronus/_Harry=92s_Eyes?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153237 Tonks_op wrote: > Harry's Eyes > As I was listening to HBP on CD something jumped out at me when DD > and Harry were in the cave. (no, not an Inferni) > The reader said that Harry looked into DD's blue eyes that took on > the color green from the reflection of the liquid in the pensive. > It just sort of hit me green Lily DD Harry. Is there anyone > else in the series with green eyes?? Anyone?? I don't remember. > But if there isn't, what if the color green for eyes is a symbol > (ya, you knew I was going to throw one in here somewhere).. a > symbol of sacrifice. If this hunch is correct, it doesn't look > good for Harry, but then it never has, so nothing new there. What > do you all think? Green eyes = you are going to give your life for > another or the world. Najwa: First of all, Harry's and I suppose Lily's eyes have always been green. Never has it been hinted otherwise. Dumbledore's eyes reflected a green color. I think that other than eyes, we should take a look at what is green and what green has connotated in the past. The first thing that comes to mind is the slytherin colors. Of course there is that mysterious goo. The color that the wand emits from the AK curse. Unfortunately this all looks bad and I'd be thinking that Lily and Harry have something evil within them, however green eyes are a common color. I think that according to a past post by someone (so sorry it was a while back and I cannot recall), that this may signify that Harry's eyes are so like his mother's eyes because it's sort of an antihorcrux that looks like Lily's eyes. This can only be proven true if Harry somehow gets a scar that looks like the London Underground, because Dumbledore died in order to save Harry, among some others. Maybe Draco can get one too, who knows, but aside from this, I think we should look further into the color green, what it means in the Potterverse, and what it means in general, and why does it tie in to such dark and devious aspects of the Magical world. Najwa From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 1 18:04:48 2006 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 18:04:48 -0000 Subject: Lupin, Snape and the boggart, Was: Nice vs. Good, honesty, and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153238 Lanval: Seems the staff, having left the > > boggart alone, also politely vacated the room since > > DD informed them that Lupin would be holding class there. > > houyhnhnm: > > Are you interpreting "leave *it*" as meaning leave the room? I read > it as leave the boggart--don't get rid of it; Lupin wants to use it > for his class. So there's no indication here for me that staff > politely vacated the room or even that Dumbledore told them Lupin was > going to hold his class there. Lanval: No, see above. I interpreted it as "the staff left the boggart alone". Leaving the room, so Lupin could hold class without the boggart swooping down on teachers, or Lupin feeling 'supervised', seemed a further logical conclusion for me. No canon support for that, I know. But since the boggart had not been moved by the time Lupin's third year class was about to start, it seems once again logical that they would assume for the class to be held in the staff room. houyhnhnm: But I think he knew holding the class in > the staff room, forcing Snape either to leave or to stay and > see-how-much-better-I-am-than-you-at-DADA was going to get under > Snape's skin. And that may have been a little extra inducement for > Lupin. Lanval: I doubt he even knew Snape was off during that time. It was his first lesson for the Third Years, his first few days of teaching. He would have enough trouble keeping his own schedule in his head, much less Snape's. Again, it's a lot of planning and scheming for no real reason at all, except to aggravate Snape. houyhnhnm: Why do I think Lupin knew that holding class in the staffroom > would produce the serendipitous bonus of getting under Snape's skin? > Because it did. And these two have a history. Lanval: But you haven't given me a convincing reason WHY Lupin would want to get Snape's hackles up on the first occasion he gets, and make an already tense situation worse. That's just not Lupin's style, and since he's obviously hard pressed for a job, why on earth would he jeopardize everything for a childish grudge, by PLANNING how to annoy Snape? He doesn't know DD all that well; for all he knows Snape has DD's ear and trust, and could get him fired without much effort. houyhnhnm: I > think Lupin had a pretty good idea at that moment what form Neville's > boggart might take. Lanval: Maybe. Pure speculation, though. Now I'm not saying that once Snape made that remark, Lupin didn't secretly enjoy the direction things were taking. He's not THAT nice. I get the feeling that he was rather taken aback by Snape's vicious comment, then quickly decided to pick Neville, both to spite Snape, and to give Neville a chance to prove himself... and then, when Neville's worst fear turned out to Snape -- great! But I won't buy for a minute that it was anything but a spontaneous reaction, triggered by Snape. Whether it was the smart thing to do is another question. houyhnhnm: > He used a student to get back at a colleague and make him a figure of > ridicule in front of students. It's wrong. I don't care what his > reason was. There's no good reason. Lanval: Making people a figure of ridicule is Snape's speciality. Here he does it, once again, to Neville. With some help from Lupin, the insult comes back to Snape to bite him. JKR likes this comeuppance thing. See Dudley, see Malfoy. See Harry in the train compartment. There's plenty of it in the books. If you disapprove, you should take it up with the author. > houyhnhnm: > Then Snape escalated the conflict still further when he took Lupin's > class. I condemn the way he criticized the Lupin's instruction while > taking his class as strongly as I condemn what Lupin did. > > At each level, each one feels justified to up the ante by what the > other has already done. Lanval: I agree, except that we seem to differ on who started it. I get the impression thoughout the book that Lupin comes to Hogwarts perfectly willing to let bygones be bygones, and stay out of Snape's way as much as possible. houyhnhnm: The conflict between Snape and Lupin in PoA > is interesting because it gives a glimpse of the pattern of > escalation that may have prevailed between Snape and the three > Gryffindors (I don't include the poodle in a rat suit) when they were > teenagers. Lanval: I agree. Though I wouldn't exclude Peter. But if you're saying that this gives us a glimpse of the pattern back in the Marauder days, that's interesting. Because IMO Snape's unbridled penchant for nastiness started it in the boggart case. It follows, then, that this was the case back in their schooldays as well? :) Irene: > > But how do you imagine their first meeting went, after Dumbledore > introduced his new DADA professor? How could Lupin not to pick up the > clue that Snape does not reciprocate with the first name? Sure, he has a > right to persist with it, it's not crime, but nice and friendly it's not > either. Lanval: I would agree completely if Snape had stuck to calling him 'Professor Lupin'. From what I've seen in the books, calling someone by their last name, to their face, is either done when talking to an inferior, or else with a negative intent. Hagrid seems to be the exception. So Snape calls him, probably with his best sneer, 'Lupin'. That's worse than 'not nice and friendly'. > In the Shrieking shack Lupin continues his line of behaviour "Severus, > we were at school together". It only serves to infuriate Snape further, > and it does not take a PhD in Psychology to figure it out upfront. > So either Lupin was evil there :-), or very, very naive (to the point > where some people will call it stupidity). Lanval: No, I don't think he was evil there. :) But neither would *I* call it stupid. It's just not something Lupin seems to recognize as offensive (apparently he has that problem with Tonks, too, who hates her first name, and has pointed it out to him several times). It may be careless, naive, whatever. You can call it stupid. But since my main argument was that Lupin does not act out of malice by sticking with Snape's first name, I'll accept that. Irene: > Lovely. I think an effort to be pleasant starts with apologies (or, at > the very least) acknowledgment of previous unpleasantness. To pretend > that nothing out of ordinary playground tussle has ever happened, to > refer to "childish grudges" or some such, to continue with the bullshit > "jealous of James's quidditch skills" does not strike me as moving on at > all. Lanval: First of all, we don't KNOW that Lupin does not, at some point during PoA, bring up the issue with Snape, and tries to make peace. Personally I think if he did, Snape would slap down any such effort before Lupin could say "Weeping Willow". Snape's not the kiss-and- make-up type; he enjoys his grudges far too much for that. Irene: > Snape's biggest issue, as I see it, stems from the fact that no one has > ever acknowledged that he was wronged during his Hogwarts years. Lanval: Where is the canon that Snape, and only Snape was 'wronged'? That he was the permanent victim for seven long years? Does he not also owe Lupin an apology for spying on him, and trying to get him expelled? Where is the canon that Snape was innocent in the whole Prank scenario? Where is the canon that Sirius & Co went unpunished, and Snape's suffering unacknowledged? DD's memory is *as good as ever*. That he doesn't tell Harry/the reader every aspect of what went on during the Prank in the first book is no proof that Snape was wronged. Irene: Now, > maybe he should move on of his own volition, forgive and forget.But the > participants of the events have no right to expect it from him. Lanval: Funny, isn't this eactly what many Snape fans expect, even demand, of Harry, Neville, and whoever else suffered from Snape? > Irene > > But then, we would not have the big payoff in book 7. :-) > Lanval: Indeed. And we'd never have this much fun discussing it. :) > Pippin: > Um, no, that was straightforward canon interpretation. > The other three characters who show a consistent ability to tell what > Harry is thinking, ie Dumbledore, Voldemort and Snape, have all been > identified as legilimenses. At this point it seems more speculative to say > definitively that Lupin is not a legilimens than that he is. How else do we > account for his ability? > > But as long as you bring it up.... Lanval: I know a number of people who have a scary knack of guessing other people's thoughts and emotions. That's no proof. A simple counter- argument, if one wanted to go with the Lupin-planned-it scenario would be that he did some research on Neville, and others, before he even came to Hogwarts. The way a secret agent does research before starting an assignment. No legilimency required. Pippin: > > I can well believe that ESE!Lupin lies awake thinking of how he > might determine where Snape's true loyalties lie. Certainly it's > kept enough of *us* awake at night. And Snape would lie > awake thinking of ways to stop him, such as coming down > very hard on Neville in potions class that day so that Neville's > image of scary Snape in the boggart lesson Snape knew was > coming would be the present day Snape and not > someone twelve years younger. > Lanval: That's a lot of speculation based on speculation. I prefer the simple answer, see above in my answer to Houyhnhnm. > Pippin: > Well, that would be the sitcom version. But Rowling evidently has > something else in mind, because she pops this particular bubble > in the next chapter. "Snape didn't seem to find it funny. His eyes > flashed menacingly at the very mention of Professor Lupin's name > and he was bullying Neville worse than ever." -- PoA ch 8 > > As a morale booster, it's on a level with putting Stan Shunpike > behind bars. I'm sure a lot of people felt comforted by that too. > I'll say this for Scrimgeour, though, at least his method didn't > actually provoke Voldemort. Lanval: Then Rowling apparently is fond of sitcom humor. Nor do I see any significance in Snape's wrath but a natural reaction to being made to look ridiculous. It would be significant if Snape had NOT reacted this way... perhaps shrugged it off and laughed about it. Then my red warning lights would go off. And really, this is not at all on the same level as Stan Shunpike being thrown in prison. It's made clear that Stan is NOT a DE, and that any warm fuzzy feeling originating from his arrest is hardly morally acceptable. Snape on the other hand DID make an ugly remark. He got 'rewarded' promptly. >Pippin: > It's a fine joke if Snape is just the cartoon of a bad teacher, but > if he is, then Harry and Neville are in no more danger from > him than the Roadrunner is of being caught by Wile E Coyote. > > OTOH, if Snape does turn out to be an unreformed DE and a > once and future killer, then setting him on poor Neville isn't > really very funny, is it? > Lanval: Are you saying there's still a possibility of that? *veg* I'd say this little incident would hardly weigh into it. If Snape's a DE, Neville is a marked man from the beginning, by family association alone -- and if not in PoA, then certainly by the time he fights at the MoM. Besides, how could Lupin have any possible knowledge of Snape being a DE? Sirius certainly did not know. By that line of thought, anyone who ever contributed to Snape's dislike of Neville is to blame. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Jun 1 18:59:03 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 18:59:03 -0000 Subject: Wand Thoughts In-Reply-To: <008c01c6859c$eea5bf30$6501a8c0@your27e1513d96> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153239 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > ...edited,,, > > My first thought brought about some rather minor questions: > "The wand chooses the wizard." How? Why this wizard instead of > that one? ... > bboyminn: Peggy has already done an excellent job of answering you, hopefully I can expand in that slightly. First, there is no intellectual or moral component in the 'wand choosing the wizard', it is purely mechanical or perhaps a blend of mechanics and magic. I also think that it means you can't walk into a Wand Shop and say, oh isn't that a pretty wand, I think I'll have that one. Or you can't say, no I don't want any whimpy short wand, I want a nice fat long one. Well, you could say those things and get a wand that worked, but you would never get a wand that matched you. So, in this sense, the wizard can't choose the wand. He can't choose it based on aesthetics or personal preference for size, shape, or color. Because a wizard can't choose a closely matched wand based on personal preference, then we can only concluded figuratively that the wand chooses the wizard. I use the illustration of magical resonance. When a wizard and a wand have a very close magical resonance, when they are in magical harmony, then the wizard has found a wand that matches him. > ...edited... > > If the wand chooses the wizard, and there are two wands with > Fawkes feather in it, and one chose Voldy and the other chose > Harry... Then I have some more questions: > > Why did a wand with Fawkes' feather choose Voldy? And why does > Olivander expect great things from the person chosen by the other > wand with that feather? ...edited... > > Or am I reaching too far for a plot twist to unravel? > > Thanks for your thoughts, Kim bboyminn: >From what I can tell Ollivander only had two wands that had Fawkes Phoenix feathers. One was sold to Voldemort many years ago. It seems that Dumbledore and Ollivander are in close contact, and we can assume that Ollivander has at least has a vague idea about Harry's fate, which explains why he wrote to Dumbledore as soon as Harry bought his wand. So, we know in the intervening roughly 50 or 60 years since Voldemort bought his wand, he has proven himself a very great and powerful wizard. Since Harry buys a wand that is very similar to Voldemort's, and since Ollivander has a general sense of Harry's fate, it is reasonable for him to conclude that we can also expect great things from Harry. Now if you will all indulge me, I will dip into the realm of pure and heavy speculation, and also into an area I have spoken about many times before. For those who are bored with hearing it, please feel free to allow you minds to wander. I speculate that wand cores have characteristics. The books seem to imply that wands with Unicorn Hair are suited to subtle magic like Charms. Magic that requires a very refined and precise technique. Certainly they work for any and all magic but they are particularly suited for the subtle and precise magic necessary to Charm. Where as Dragon Heart is more suited to the powerful transient burst magic necessary for Transfigurations. Certainly you can perform subtle magic with a Dragon Heart core, but Dragon Heart is especially powerful at preforming magic that requires a strong burst of magic to force a transfigured object to change state. I consider Phoenix Feather the 'Royal' core; it is equally suited and especially powerful in both subtle and delicate as well as high energy burst transformation magic. Also note that Dragon parts, blood, claw, skin, meat, heart, are all readily available. We see them several times in the course of the books. Unicorn Hair is also readily available. Hagrid gives away a huge ball of it to Slughorn. We see that Unicorns are somewhat easy to capture since Ollivander, Grubbly-Plank, and Hagrid have all done this. However, we have only seen one Phoenix, and a reading of the history and nature of Phoenix tells us that their feathers are likely to be very rare and very expensive. I believe an extension of that is the assumption that most people walk out of Ollivander's with either a Dragon Heart String or a Unicorn Hair wand. Those who match the very rare Phoenix wands are equally as rare. I think the fact that Harry matched a 'Royal' Phoenix feather wand, and the fact that that particular wand was a brother to Voldemort's was also a sign that Harry was indeed a powerful wizard. Also, note that Harry tried other Phoenix feather wands, but only Fawke's wand feather was a match to him. A little thought and a lot of speculation. Steve/bboyminn From pegdigrazia at yahoo.com Thu Jun 1 19:15:06 2006 From: pegdigrazia at yahoo.com (Peg DiGrazia) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 12:15:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Nice vs. Good, honesty, and Snape: Was Snape, Apologies, and Redemption In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060601191506.16234.qmail@web42201.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153240 Pippin: > No, he did not. A boggart is not limited to one fear, as Molly > showed us in OOP. Lupin could have suggested that Neville might >want to think of something else. Amiable Dorsai: >Pippin, are you suggesting that a person gets to choose their greatest >fear? >In that case, my greatest fear is a new HDTV, a comfy chair, and a few >bottles of 16-year-old Lagavulin. Peg: Yeah, my interpretation has always been that Molly's greatest fear is the death of a family member. Any family member. And since the boggart can only assume one form at a time, it morphs from one to the next. --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Thu Jun 1 19:26:56 2006 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 19:26:56 -0000 Subject: Nice vs. Good, honesty, and Snape: Was Snape, Apologies, and Redemption In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153241 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > Lanval: > > > > My mind's reeling, thinking of what other and possibly MUCH worse > > scenarios he might have come up with. He HAD to make him look > > ridiculous, right? > > > > Pippin: > No, he did not. A boggart is not limited to one fear, as Molly showed > us in OOP. Lupin could have suggested that Neville might want to think > of something else. > Renee: Not a very good example. Essentially, Molly's boggart represents one and the same big fear: the death of any of her loved ones. It may take various individual shapes, but the fear remains the same. The Neville equivalent would be Snape looking threatening, Snape shouting, Snape pointing his wand at Neville, etc. It's not clear from canon if you can change your boggart at will, and I doubt such a thing is possible. Fear is an emotion, not a choice. If I'm not mistaken, though, Lanval wasn't talking about other fears Neville may have had, but about different suggestions Lupin could or could not have made to riddikulise the Snape-boggart. Once the boggart turned out to be Snape, making fun of him was the only possibility. Dressing him like Neville's gran definitely wasn't the worst Lupin could have thought of. And I fail to see why Lupin should have suggested that Neville think of a different fear if such a thing were possible (which, as I said, i doubt). Snape fully deserved what he got after his unprofessional remark. You simply don't take a student down in the presence of a colleague. Not Done. It's true that Lupin obviously enjoyed making a fool of him - definitely Not Nice. But that doesn't make Snape's action okay, and I've never understood why people seem to think so, just because his remark backfires and he draws the shortest straw in the end. Ren?e From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Jun 1 19:52:37 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 19:52:37 -0000 Subject: Nice vs. Good - Compassion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153242 > Alla: > > Of course if one believes that Snape may not be DD!M, than his > behaviour on the Tower becomes the very epithome of cowardice. > a_svirn: Not that I am a Snape's fan, but why is his behaviour on the Tower is an epitome of cowardice? If he were a coward he wouldn't have ended up at the Tower at all. From honeykissed246 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 1 19:18:21 2006 From: honeykissed246 at yahoo.com (Darlene Carroll) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 12:18:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Nature of a Patronus / Snape's Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060601191821.5714.qmail@web33211.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153243 Distaiyi wrote: > What Patroni do we know about... And some thoughts given JKR's > penchant(sp?) for using mythological themes... > honeykissed246: You are very knowledgeable about patrounuses. :) I do have one question for you. Do patronuses have to be an "animal"? I am not sure if that question has been asked before. I am new to the books and posting so I don't want to sound "stupid" (lol). I have read all six books and re-read the last two. Because can you just imagine Snape's patronus not being a phoenix at all but an image of Dumbledore! Nothing would scream loyalty like that. Can't you see JKR doing something like that? I can since it appears that she loves shocking her readers. Wouldn't that be shocking! Imagine the look on Harry and Voldemort's faces. Just a thought. From blink_883 at hotmail.com Thu Jun 1 14:38:36 2006 From: blink_883 at hotmail.com (whirledgirl) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 14:38:36 -0000 Subject: Flint in OoP? (was Re: Nice vs. Good, honesty, and Snape: Was Snape, Apologies, and Redemption) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153244 > Pippin: > You might consider whether the glowing silver orb which > Harry sees really resembles the full moon as much as > it does the glowing orbs in the Hall of Prophecy. This though came as a total shock to me, thanks Pippin for nudging my brain into overdrive heheh. I guess the film had poisoned my imagination until now, because they make it obvious - with the addition of clouds, etc.- that the orb is indeed the moon. The miracles of CGI. Now, while this is not canon, it is true that JKR had a say in things she deemed important. She, for instance, I recall made sure that Dean Thomas was cast as a black Londoner (Thomas was apparently a character whose back story had to be cut from the books). Following that line of thought, it seems to me that if the orb had _not_ been a moon, she would have stepped in and said so. WG* From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 1 21:46:06 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 21:46:06 -0000 Subject: Wand Thoughts In-Reply-To: <008c01c6859c$eea5bf30$6501a8c0@your27e1513d96> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153245 Kim wrote: > My first thought [about the wands] brought about some rather minor questions: > "The wand chooses the wizard." How? Why this wizard instead of that one? What this wand instead of one of the other 300? > > If the wand chooses the wizard, and there are two wands with Fawkes feather in it, and one chose Voldy and the other chose Harry... Then I have some more questions: > > Why did a wand with Fawkes' feather choose Voldy? And why does Olivander expect great things from the person chosen by the other wand with that feather? Do many creatures give only two heartstrings, two tail feathers, two hairs? And do each of those two wands react the same way Harry's and Voldy's do when they meet? And do the two wizards chosen by those two wands have something in common such as greatness or mediocrity or a love for tennis? Carol responds: I've read Peggy's and Steve's posts and agree with some of their points, but I decided to respond to the original post directly rather than to their responses. First, I agree that in most cases "the wand chooses the wizard" is true in the general sense--a wand will choose a wizard with whom it's compatible. It seems to sense the level of power (or potential) and an affinity for certain branches of magic. Evidence: Lily's first wand was "a nice wand for Charm work"; James's (only?) wand was a bit more powerful and especially suited for Transfiguration. Voldemort's, I mean young Tom's, which Ollivander describes as very powerful, no doubt sensed his potential greatness in the sense that Ollivander uses the word "He Who Must Not Be Named did great things, terrible but great." I don't think that Ollivander would make a wand that sensed potential Darkness (or extant Darkness, in little Tom's case), but perhaps a wand with an affinity for DADA spells would also be particularly effective for the Unforgiveables and other Dark curses (which is not to say that they can't be cast with some other wand). I'm assuming that Harry's wand is especially effective for DADA, his forte, as opposed to Charms or Transfiguration, and the brother wand could well share this affinity. While similar cores probably have similar properties, Ollivander notes that every wand is different. Choosing a different unicorn or dragon or phoenix makes a difference, as does the wood the wand is made of. The wood is particularly important in the case of Harry's and Voldemort's wands. Phoenixes symbolize immortality. Yew wood (LV's wand) symbolizes earthly immortality (his one desire, evidenced by his Horcruxes--I just had the shocking thought that his wand may have had an affinity for Horcrux-making, which does not speak well for Ollivander if he knew it though I don't think he did). Harry's wand is made of holly, which as most people know is associated with eternal life (*not* earthly immortality) in Christianity. (No, I don't think that Harry is a Christ figure, but unlike LV, he doesn't fear death. His wand, even if it was made at the same time as LV's, would not, IMO, have chosen Tom Riddle.) These two wands also have a close affinity with Fawkes himself, and through him, with Dumbledore. Exactly how that works I don't know, but it may have enabled Fawkes to come to Harry's aid (on DD's orders) in CoS. I think that DD may have been simply curious when he asked Ollivander to inform him that the wands were sold, but when the first one went to Tom Riddle, he became wary, and when Tom Riddle became Voldemort, I think that the ownership of the second wand became a matter of great importance to both DD and Ollivander. I think that Ollivander set it aside, assuming that it, too, would "do great things" and that it was not to be tried out by just any child wizard who came into the shop. When Harry, the Boy Who Lived, entered the shop (and found no other wand compatible), Ollivander took down the special wand on the hunch that he had found its rightful owner, and he was right. Length and flexibility also vary. Whether that's important or not, I don't know, but I think the wand may sense the wizard's comfort level as well as his power. I'm not going to speculate about other wands except to say that it's probably rare for two wands to share a core. Fawkes dropped only two feathers, Ollivander talks about pulling a single hair from the tail of "a particularly fine male unicorn," a dragon perhaps yields only one or two heartstrings (nerves formerly thought to sustain the heart). Combine the rarity of shared cores with different wood for each wand with the same core, and you have no two identical wands. (Ollivander could vary them further with different cores if he so desired; we know that he rejects Veela hair as too temperamental.) Carol, wondering what Snape's wand core consists of and guessing that it's dragon heartstring like Hermione's From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 1 22:28:22 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 22:28:22 -0000 Subject: The Boggart incident (Was: Nice vs. Good, honesty, and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153247 Potioncat wrote: > In Snape's favor, I think he was warning Lupin to watch out for > Neville's Boggart. Just as Lupin expected Harry's to be LV, I think > Snape expected Neville's to be specific DEs, or to be something > connected with the Longbottoms' torture. > > In Lupin's favor, once Neville announced Professor Snape as his > greatest fear, Lupin had to come up with something funny. It could have been worse, but I've never seen anything offered that would be better (once it had gotten this far.) Carol (raising her hand): I 'gree with Potioncat. Of course, we may be the only two people who hold this view, but I think it's at least plausible. First, I think everyone (except Pippin!) agrees that Snape did not anticipate that Neville's Boggart would be himself. As Lanval noted, it ought logically to be Death Eaters (not necessarily specific DEs given Neville's age when his parents were Crucio'd into insanity). We know from the spider Crucioing incident in GoF that he is indeed troubled by his parents' terrible fate. He's unable to sleep after the class with Crouch!Moody, as the narrator slips out of Harry's POV to inform us (a hint, IMO, that his reaction is important). We see more evidence of its impact in Neville in OoP when he attacks Draco for making fun of people whose brains have been addled by magic and in the "Christmas on the Closed Ward" scene. This incident has shaped Neville more than anything else in his past (and Crouch!Moody's prolonged Crucioing of the spider causes him much greater suffering than any words of Snape's). Snape, who thinks logically but is not good at empathizing with other people, would, I am sure, expect Neville's Boggart to be one or more DEs based on his knowledge of what happened to Neville's parents. I think that he remained in the staff room, knowing that Lupin intended to teach a lesson on Boggarts, specifically for this reason. That he did so immediately following the Trevor incident is, I think, irrelevant except that it shapes Harry's reaction (and, through him, the reader's reaction). But post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy; just because one incident preceeds another does not mean that the first incident caused the second, any more than Snape's looking at Harry in SS/PS causes Harry's scar to hurt (the real cause is, of course, the eyes in the back of Quirrell's head). As Pippin points out, we have hints that Lupin may be a Legilimens, and (as she didn't mention) hints that one Legilimens can pass a message to another. So it's possible that Snape sent a message to Lupin indicating the shape he expected Neville's boggart to take as a warning to take care ("Do you really want Longbottom to relive this memory? And the other students may be terrified as well.") Snape could not, of course, speak such a message out loud. Lupin could then perform Legilimency on Neville to see whether Snape was correct. Since the Boggart was not a DE but Snape, Lupin could safely go ahead with the lesson (at the cost of embarrassment to Snape and a further eroding of Snape's trust in Lupin). But note that he *did* apply the precaution to Harry, preventing both him and the class from (as he thought) seeing Voldemort. But a message passed by Legilimency isn't necessary for this theory. Snape would expect Lupin to know Neville's past and be able to deduce logically what he was warning him against. Lupin, being perhaps less logical but more psychologically astute may have suspected that Neville had repressed the DE memory and replaced it with a more endurable "worst" fear, which turns out to be Professor Snape. So, again, Lupin could safely proceed with the lesson (at Snape's expense), applying the note of caution to Harry rather than to Neville. I think we have sufficient canon to make this theory one of several possibilities rather than simply assuming the worst of either Snape or Lupin or both. Carol, who thinks that this lesson was Neville's first step in overcoming an unrealistic fear of Mean!Snape and working toward confronting his true personal demons, chief among them Bellatrix Lestrange From distaiyi at yahoo.com Thu Jun 1 22:29:34 2006 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 22:29:34 -0000 Subject: Wand Thoughts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153248 As the wizard is measured before getting a wand... Are they measured for size to match the length of the wand to the wizard ... or are they measured more along the "Mary Poppins" idea of measurement... Ala : Jane is found to be 'rather inclined to giggle, doesn't put things away.' Michael is 'extremely stubborn and suspicious.' Perhaps, had Mary measured Harry we would have seen something of the discussion had between Harry and the Sorting hat in CoS. From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Fri Jun 2 01:55:33 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 01:55:33 -0000 Subject: Wand Thoughts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153249 --- "Steve" wrote: > > --- "Kim" wrote: > > > > ...edited,,, > > > > My first thought brought about some rather minor questions: > > "The wand chooses the wizard." How? Why this wizard instead of > > that one? ... > > > > bboyminn: > > Peggy has already done an excellent job of answering you, (SNIP) > > I also think you can't walk into a Wand Shop and say, oh > isn't that a pretty wand, I think I'll have that one. (SNIP) > > I use the illustration of magical resonance. When a wizard and a > wand have a very close magical resonance, when they are in magical > harmony, then the wizard has found a wand that matches him. > > > > ...edited... > > > > If the wand chooses the wizard, and there are two wands with > > Fawkes feather in it, and one chose Voldy and the other chose > > Harry... Then I have some more questions: > > > > Why did a wand with Fawkes' feather choose Voldy? And why does > > Olivander expect great things from the person chosen by the > > other wand with that feather? ...edited... > > > > Or am I reaching too far for a plot twist to unravel? > > > > Thanks for your thoughts, Kim > > bboyminn: > > From what I can tell Ollivander only had two wands that had Fawkes > Phoenix feathers. One was sold to Voldemort many years ago. (SNIP) in the intervening roughly 50 or 60 years since > Voldemort bought his wand, he has proven himself a very great and > powerful wizard. Since Harry buys a wand that is very similar to > Voldemort's, and since Ollivander has a general sense of Harry's > fate, it is reasonable for him to conclude that we can also expect > great things from Harry. (SNIP) AUSSIE ONCE FAWKES TAIL FEATHER HAD ASSISTED A DARK WIZARD, DD MAY NOT HAVE WANTED ANY MORE OF HIS PHOENIX'S FEATHERS TO GO TO OLLIVANDER. A SECOND WAS ALREADY IN A WAND BY THE TIME TOM TOOK ON THE LV NAME, SO THAT WAND REMAINED TILL HARRY CAME IN. > bboyminn: > I speculate that wand cores have characteristics. The books seem to > imply that wands with Unicorn Hair are suited to subtle magic like > Charms. (SNIP) Where as > Dragon Heart is more suited to the powerful transient burst magic > necessary for Transfigurations. (SNIP) I consider Phoenix Feather > the 'Royal' core; it is equally suited and especially powerful in > both subtle and delicate as well as high energy burst > transformation magic. > > Also note that Dragon parts, blood, claw, skin, meat, heart, are all > readily available. We see them several times in the course of the > books. Unicorn Hair is also readily available. (SNIP) However, we have only seen one Phoenix, and a reading of the > history and nature of Phoenix tells us that their feathers are > likely to be very rare and very expensive. (SNIP) > > Also, note that Harry tried other Phoenix feather wands, but only > Fawke's wand feather was a match to him. > AUSSIE RARE? CODSWALLOP (to quote Hagrid)! Both Ollivanders and Phoenixes were around before Hogwarts. CANON: "Ollivanders: Makers of Fine Wands since 382 B.C" (PS Chap 5) ... "Every Ollivander wand has a core of a powerful magical substance, Mr. Potter. We use unicorn hairs, phoenix tail feathers, and the heartstrings of dragons. No two Ollivander wands are the same, just as no two unicorns, dragons, or phoenixes are quite the same." "I've never used veela hair myself, of course. I find it makes for rather temperamental wands" (GOF Chap 18) So if they limit the cores to 3 substances, they need a supply for the demand. LENGTH is notable too. Most of the wands Harry tried were shorter than the one he has. Eleven inches is the same length as James, and shorter only that Cedric's, LV's and Hagrid's old one. Neville - Cherry and Unicorn hair as the first wand that chose him (and the last that Ollivander sold), instead of his dad's old wand broken during the fight in MOM. Will that change Neville's magical ability? From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 1 20:01:01 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 20:01:01 -0000 Subject: Nice vs. Good, honesty, and Snape: Was Snape, Apologies, and Redemption In-Reply-To: <447E9142.40206@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153250 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, IreneMikhlin wrote: > > If in PS Dumbledore didn't take the line with Harry "Your father was the > bee's knees, and Professor Snape didn't like him for some unfathomable > reasons, a spiteful old meanie that he is", but instead something like > "Your father was a wonderful man. Professor Snape had some private > reasons to dislike him, but that should not reflect badly on your > father's shining personality in any way", the whole Snape-Harry dynamics > would not be as poisonous. > But then, we would not have the big payoff in book 7. :-) > DID he take the first tack? I would say DD actually came down somewhere between your first and second examples, largely by using the Harry/Draco relationship as an illustration. Now, I grant you that doing so did nothing whatsoever to help with the Harry/Snape problem. One way of helping with that, in this particular conversation, would have been for DD to say to Harry "Look, Professor Snape really isn't the monster you think, look how he worked so hard to help you," (which would have only worked in the long term if DD had followed this be telling Snape very firmly to KNOCK IT OFF). But, for whatever reason, DD did not make that attempt that we know of. Instead, he basically told Harry "Professor Snape saved your life, but you needn't bother being grateful -- he only did it because he hated your father and wanted out from under the debt." Strange, strange Dumbledore. Or perhaps WalkingPlotDevice! Dumbledore is more to the point. This seems to be yet another point where Dumbledore shows up as mind-numbingly incompetent because it suits the needs of the plot for him to act in stupid ways. Lupinlore From leslie41 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 2 02:38:32 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 02:38:32 -0000 Subject: The Boggart incident (Was: Nice vs. Good, honesty, and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153251 > Carol: > I think we have sufficient canon to make this theory one of several > possibilities rather than simply assuming the worst of either Snape > or Lupin or both. > > Carol, who thinks that this lesson was Neville's first step in > overcoming an unrealistic fear of Mean!Snape and working toward > confronting his true personal demons, chief among them Bellatrix > Lestrange > Leslie41: A hundred thousand pardons if someone's mentioned this before, but strangely enough I always thought of this scene as Lupin's way of getting Neville to face his fear of his *grandmother*, who is scary to Neville in an entirely different way. Lupin pauses and considers Neville's mention of Snape, but then Lupin himself brings up his grandma, whom Neville makes plain he doesn't want to see either. Neville is afraid of Snape but obviously does not love him. But I would suggest it's actually perfectly fine for Neville to remain afraid of Snape in perpetuity, at least a little. Considering Snape's personality I'd be frightened of him too were I his student. Neville must merely be able to function in Snape's class. He doesn't have to like it, or the teacher. It's much more important for Neville to be able to relate to his grandmother, who is his guardian. Even Bellatrix isn't really the fear, I think. What if Neville had lost his parents in an accident, for example? I think in Neville's case the fear of his grandmother is related to his inability to fully accept that his parents are probably forever lost to him. To love and accept her fully he must stop being afraid of her, but if he stops being afraid of her in some way he betrays his parents. He accepts that they are gone. I don't think Neville wants to do that, at least not yet. But Lupin senses that he should, and provides a way to make his grandmother-- AND Snape--less threatening. From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 1 16:46:08 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 16:46:08 -0000 Subject: Snape and the "Chosen One" Was: Nice vs. Good - Compassion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153252 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" wrote: > > > My initial instinct is to believe that Snape inherently distrusts > Harry's status as the "Chosen One," and doesn't really believe Harry > is as important as everyone says he is. > > Snape has, of course, every reason to believe Harry *is* important, > but I don't think he does, because of the reasons *why* Harry is > important. > > And once again, we are back to a terminally stupid Snapey-poo. Actually, we are more back to a terminally incompetent Dumbledore, who seems to hold personal privacy above the imperative to protect children from being abused. Yet the question of what Snapey-poo knows and when he knows it IS an interesting one. What does Snape know? Not the full prophecy, we are told, but what else has he been told? Just how deep does Dumbledore's incompetence run? One thing that comes to mind is the conversation overheard by Hagrid. What is it that Snapey-poo wants out of? Killing Dumbledore? That would be, IMO, cheesy and bad writing beyond belief. Watching over Harry? Now that would be very interesting. It bespeaks that not all is well in happy Hogwarts land and EpitomeofGoodness!Dumbledore is not quite the reprehensible idiot he comes over as. Or maybe, he is even a bigger idiot than he seems, if Snape did in fact betray him. Lupinlore, who really does hope Dumbledore isn't quite the total incompetent he seems -- if only in the area of assembling a world- class lemon sherbert-wrapper collection. From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 2 02:59:56 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 02:59:56 -0000 Subject: Terminal Stupidity of Snapey-Poo (was Re: Nice vs. Good - Compassion)b In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153253 > > Leslie41: > > Again, you are free to think what you like. Your opinion is not > > logical or supportable, but no one is going to force you to abandon > > it. Oh, I don't know about that at all - the supportable part. Let's take for instance the idea that Snapey-poo is DDM! Well, he's managed to get himself into quite a bind, hasn't he? If he wants to prove his loyalty to the one person who matters, i.e. Harry, then he's up the proverbial creek o' excrement. For that matter, it seems hardly likely that anyone will listen to him in the face of Harry's eye-witness testimony. So even to get, say Lupin, to listen he probably would have to convince Harry first. Even leaving aside that he wants to contact the Order and argue for his innocence, or at least his following DD's orders, suppose he wants to cooperate and coordinate efforts with Harry to bring down Voldemort. Once again, he's up Excrement Creek. And who does he have to thank for this? Who does he have to thank for the speed with which everyone turns on him? Who does he have to thank for the jeers of derision that would likely greet any protests on his part of working according to DD's plan? Why, Snapey- poo can only thank ... Snapey-poo! By his treatment of Harry, he has essentially guaranteed that the one person he needs to listen to him will not do it. An extraordinarily stupid thing to do. Indeed, a terminally stupid thing to do, as such a state of affairs bids fair to bring an end (sad, painful, but not at all untimely) to his life. And all because poor Snapey-poo couldn't be bothered to act like a decent human being to the children he's supposed to be teaching (and no, his actions in saving Harry do not, IMO, make him a decent human being). Then again, it is a wonderful lesson in how to keep away life- insurance salesmen. Lupinlore From dougsamu at golden.net Fri Jun 2 03:07:30 2006 From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 23:07:30 -0400 Subject: Nature of a Patronus (Horcrux hunting) Message-ID: <579D7B2C-E29D-42EC-BC62-BBFD9AA9C40B@golden.net> No: HPFGUIDX 153254 Distaiyi the Cynical: >> So what is a Patronus charm. I've seen a few posts implying it's basically a shield and some comments. My thoughts are this. The Patronus charm is essentially an extension of the caster's primal essence (insert soul if you like). However, unlike making a Horcrux and splitting one's soul, this spell manifests aspects of oneself to perform certain tasks... maybe almost like a familiar in some respects. << Doug: I like the way you're thinking here, because I was thinking along these same lines. :-) It is my contention that Magic is basically Imagination made real. That's what we Muggles define it as, but for wizards it actually happens. Rowling has given us only one theory of magic in Lupin's explanation of the Patronus spell. It is a happy thought conjured, manifest as corporeal, made real. It is Imagination, emotion, thought, mind, made real. As you say, spells seem to manifest various aspects of Self to perform various tasks. Distaiyi: >> Why would it protect you from Dementors? Well, dementors pull aspects of a person out of themselves. << Doug: Lupin says that Dementors feed off despair and that the Patronus is pure happiness with nothing for the Demetor to latch onto. Distaiyi: >> Harry's is a stag. I'm not privy to JKR's mind but... << Doug: As was his father's Animagus form. There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in. ____________________ From leslie41 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 2 03:54:48 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 03:54:48 -0000 Subject: Snape and the "Chosen One" Was: Nice vs. Good - Compassion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153255 > > Leslie41: > > My initial instinct is to believe that Snape inherently > > distrusts Harry's status as the "Chosen One," and doesn't really > > believe Harry is as important as everyone says he is. > > > > Snape has, of course, every reason to believe Harry *is* > > important, but I don't think he does, because of the reasons > > *why* Harry is important. > > > Lupinlore: > And once again, we are back to a terminally stupid Snapey-poo. > Actually, we are more back to a terminally incompetent Dumbledore, > who seems to hold personal privacy above the imperative to protect > children from being abused. Leslie41: And once again, we're back to the "Snape as Abuser" assertion. One question: Do you count Lupin "abusive" for roaming about Hogwarts for years while he was a werewolf, nearly killing people? He did it every month for years, and actually *laughed* about the "near misses" they had. Whatever Snape does to students, he does not methodically go about endangering their lives on a monthly basis, then laughing about it afterwards. And if your defense is "oh, they were only teenagers!", what about not telling DD that Black was an unregistered animagus? Lupin himself says that Snape was right about him. You give Remus an awful lot of slack, and I don't begrudge you that. I give him slack too. But you use Remus' slack to make a noose for Snape, and that, Lupinlore, don't make no sense at all. Thus I find it hard to take your assertions about Snape seriously, because you're most obviously can't dole out your assessments of the character's behaviors with impartiality. You like Lupin, so you explain away what he does, even though it's illegal and immoral and wrong and could have led to the deaths of many. You don't like Snape so he's "abusive" and can do absolutely no right. It's just not that cut and dried. > Lupinlore: > Yet the question of what Snapey-poo knows and when he knows it IS > an interesting one. What does Snape know? Not the full prophecy, > we are told, but what else has he been told? Leslie41: I wish I knew. I could make myself a big pot of money and retire. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Jun 2 04:11:17 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 04:11:17 -0000 Subject: RAB case is broken - all Aurors please read! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153257 Special Meeting of the Office of Magical Law Enforcement - Auror division. I know that many of your in the detective division of the Auror office have been working diligently on the Horcrux Locket R.A.B. case. We have new evidence which will now be presented by our own Nymphadora Tonks. Go ahead Detective Tonks: Hello. After listen to the HBP CD over and over and over again, getting past the emotions that the scene naturally invokes, I have evidence that I think that we can use to crack the case. We have all been thinking that R.A.B. is Regulus Black and have come up with a variety of theories as to how and when he switched the lockets. We, I regret to say, after hours and hours of work, have been wrong. It was not Regulus Black. Let me give the evidence: (HBP -Page 609 U.S. edition) "The locket that they had managed to steal so many hours before had fallen out of Dumbledore's pocket. It had opened, perhaps do to the force with which it hit the ground. And although he could not feel more shock or horror or sadness than he already felt, Harry knew, as he picked it up, that there was something wrong He turned the locket over in his hands. This was neither as large as the locket that he REMEMBERED SEEING in the Pensive, nor were there any marking upon it, no sign of the ornate S that was supposed to be Slytherin's mark. " On the parchment with the note and the RAB. in the U.S. version the letters R and B and joined together at the bottom to make a V under the letter A. Is this also the case in the U.K. and other versions? Is there anyone out there that has it in another language where the last letter is not a B but the first letter of the word "Brother" in your language? Please let us know ASAP. If you read carefully, or better yet listen on tape or CD, you will see that Harry says that it is not the locket that he saw in the cave. We have all been thinking that he was mistaken. But indeed it is *not* the same locket that he and DD got from the cave. DD did get the Slytherin locket that has the Horcrux in it. It was that night while DD's body lie on the ground and Harry and the others were battling in the castle that the locket was switched. This is what I think happened: Aberforth is DD's brother, but this is a little known fact and kept quiet. Aberforth is DD's older brother, we don't know if by years or minutes. He may be Albus' fraternal twin. In any case he works for the order by being the bartender (as we all know) in the Hogshead. This is a place where the criminal and low life elements of the WW frequently are found. This gives Aberforth a unique placement for a spy for the Order. DD must have alerted Aberforth to the fact that he was looking for a locket, perhaps Slytherin's locket and to tell him if he heard or saw anything. When Mundungus took the locket out of the Black home, Aberforth was able to get it from Mundungus. Aberforth was able to open it. Perhaps there was a map inside, or some other clue as to the whereabouts of the true locket. This is how DD got his information. Later Aberforth find out that something is wrong. Rosmerta may have told him after contacting the Ministry, or he may have seen the dark mark or he may (if he is a twin) have a psychic connection to his bother Albus. Aberforth has probably been instructed to keep a low profile. Only a few know that he is DD's brother. Aberforth must know that DD was going for the locket and that the locket was a horcrux. He comes into the grounds of the castle when things are happening on the tower and sees his brother's body fall. While the others are battling inside the castle he is able to switch the lockets and leave again. He knows what he must do. He can not blow his own cover by staying to fight the DE and risk death himself before the horcrux can be destroyed. R.A.B. = R=Remember A=Albus' B=Brother . at the BAR. (RAB backwards) On the parchment with the note and the RAB. in the U.S. version the letters R and B and joined together at the bottom to make a V under the letter A. Is this also the case in the U.K. and other versions? Is there anyone out there that has it in another language where the first letter is the letter for the word Remember and the last letter is not a B but the first letter of the word "Brother" in your language? Please let us know ASAP. Also an acknowledgement to whoever it was here some time ago that made a suggestion that someone else may have come on to the grounds and switched the lockets. We all ignored you at the time, but your contribution is now recognized. Tonks_op (Thinks to self maybe I will get a promotion for this one!!) From leslie41 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 2 04:11:45 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 04:11:45 -0000 Subject: Terminal Stupidity of Snapey-Poo (was Re: Nice vs. Good - Compassion)b In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153258 > > > Leslie41: > > > Again, you are free to think what you like. Your opinion is > > > not logical or supportable, but no one is going to force you to > > > abandon it. > > Lupinlore: > Oh, I don't know about that at all - the supportable part. Let's > take for instance the idea that Snapey-poo is DDM! Well, he's > managed to get himself into quite a bind, hasn't he? If he wants > to prove his loyalty to the one person who matters, i.e. Harry, > then he's up the proverbial creek o' excrement. For that matter, > it seems hardly likely that anyone will listen to him in the face > of Harry's eye-witness testimony. So even to get, say Lupin, to > listen he probably would have to convince Harry first. Leslie41: But you see, if Snape is DDM, his first concern is not proving his innocence. His first concern is defeating Voldemort, and if he had to, he'd die to accomplish that. > Lupinlore: > Even leaving aside that he wants to contact the Order and argue for > his innocence, or at least his following DD's orders, suppose he > wants to cooperate and coordinate efforts with Harry to bring down > Voldemort. Once again, he's up Excrement Creek. Leslie41: He's accomplished quite a lot, if he's DDM. For one, he's secured his place as Voldemort's most trusted advisor, and is thus in a position to be of more use to the order than ever. If he is DDM, that will be made evident in Book VII via any number of ways. Something like a Shrieking Shack scene, perhaps, or the revelation of Snape's patronus, etc. I don't know how, but I'm looking forward to seeing it. In addition, he also saw to it that Draco, who surely would have been killed had Snape not killed Dumbledore, was spared from Voldemort's wrath. > Lupinlore: > And who does he have to thank for this? Who does he have to thank > for the speed with which everyone turns on him? Who does he have > to thank for the jeers of derision that would likely greet any > protests on his part of working according to DD's plan? > Why, Snapey- poo can only thank ... Snapey-poo! Leslie41: But you yourself have just described an act of great nobility. He is willing to bear the scorn of the wizarding world to accomplish Dumbledore's goals, and the defeat of Voldemort. Again, not to mention the sparing of the life of Draco Malfoy, who thinks that Snape just wants part of his glory. There's a word to describe the kind of person who is brave enough to to bear the scorn of others to accomplish a noble goal. That word is "good." From leslie41 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 2 04:17:46 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 04:17:46 -0000 Subject: RAB case is broken - all Aurors please read! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153259 Your assertions about RAB are very interesting, Tonks! But how can your theory explain away the fact that in all the non- English translations, the "B" morphs into the first letter of that language's word for "black"? From the wikipedia entry on "Regulus Black: "Support for the theory that Regulus Black is R.A.B. has been gathered from the translation of Half-Blood Prince to other languages. In the Dutch translation of the novel, Regulus Black is called Regulus Zwarts and the initials in the locket are R.A.Z. In the Norwegian edition, Regulus Black is called Regulus Svaart, and the initials R.A.S. are in the locket, while in the Finnish translation, Regulus Black is called Regulus Musta, and the initials are R.A.M. These make the theory that R.A.B. is Sirius's brother quite plausible." I like your theory a lot, but I don't know if I can reconcile it with the translation evidence. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Jun 2 04:58:03 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 04:58:03 -0000 Subject: RAB case is broken - all Aurors please read! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153260 Leslie wrote: > From the wikipedia entry on "Regulus Black: > > "Support for the theory that Regulus Black is R.A.B. has been > gathered from the translation of Half-Blood Prince to other > languages. In the Dutch translation of the novel, Regulus Black is > called Regulus Zwarts and the initials in the locket are R.A.Z. In > the Norwegian edition, Regulus Black is called Regulus Svaart, and > the initials R.A.S. are in the locket, > I like your theory a lot, but I don't know if I can reconcile it > with the translation evidence. zgirnius: To further rain on Tonks's parade, as in most (all?) Germanic languages, the word for brother begins with the letter 'B': Dutch: Broeder or broer Norwegian: Bror Of course, there is the possibility the translators were unable to get Rowling to help them with the translation; which could mean they are merely making their best guess (doubtless, that RAB is Regulus). But that would be sort of mean of Rowling, to mess things up for her large audience of non-English speaking fans... From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 2 05:07:35 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 05:07:35 -0000 Subject: RAB case is broken - all Aurors please read! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153261 Tonks wrote: > We have all been thinking that R.A.B. is Regulus Black and have come > up with a variety of theories as to how and when he switched the > lockets. We, I regret to say, after hours and hours of work, have > been wrong. It was not Regulus Black. Let me give the evidence: > > (HBP -Page 609 U.S. edition) > "The locket that they had managed to steal so many hours before had > fallen out of Dumbledore's pocket. It had opened, perhaps do to the > force with which it hit the ground. And although he could not feel > more shock or horror or sadness than he already felt, Harry knew, as > he picked it up, that there was something wrong > > He turned the locket over in his hands. This was neither as large > as the locket that he REMEMBERED SEEING in the Pensive, nor were > there any marking upon it, no sign of the ornate S that was supposed > to be Slytherin's mark. " > > If you read carefully, or better yet listen on tape or CD, you will > see that Harry says that it is not the locket that he saw in the > cave. We have all been thinking that he was mistaken. But indeed it > is *not* the same locket that he and DD got from the cave. Carol responds: The "locket that he remembered seeing in the Pensieve" is not a reference to the locket that Harry saw in the Pensievelike bowl in the cave (the one that Dumbledore snatched up and put in his pocket) but to the locket he saw in *Dumbledore's* Pensieve, briefly and perhaps not clearly when Marvolo nearly choked Merope by pulling on the chain to show the locket to Bob Ogden, and again, perfectly clearly and long enough to remember what it looked like when Hepzibah Smith showed it to Tom Riddle. That locket *des* have markings on it, Slytherin's mark, IIRC. Otherwise, Merope could hardly have proven to Caractacus Burke that it was a Slytherin heirloom. I can find the actual quotes and page numbers if you need them. Carol, 99 percent sure that the locket described in these two Pensieve excursions is the unopenable locket that Harry saw at 12 Grimmauld Place From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Jun 2 05:41:56 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 05:41:56 -0000 Subject: RAB case is broken - all Aurors please read! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153262 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" wrote: > But how can your theory explain away the fact that in all the non- > English translations, the "B" morphs into the first letter of that > language's word for "black"? > > From the wikipedia entry on "Regulus Black: > > "Support for the theory that Regulus Black is R.A.B. has been > gathered from the translation of Half-Blood Prince to other > languages. In the Dutch translation of the novel, Regulus Black is > called Regulus Zwarts and the initials in the locket are R.A.Z. In > the Norwegian edition, Regulus Black is called Regulus Svaart, and > the initials R.A.S. are in the locket, while in the Finnish > translation, Regulus Black is called Regulus Musta, and the initials are R.A.M. These make the theory that R.A.B. is Sirius's brother quite plausible." > > I like your theory a lot, but I don't know if I can reconcile it > with the translation evidence. > Tonks: I can not find an online translator that translates into those languages. Does anyone on this list know what it says in the German, Spanish, or French editions? I am not so sure that I trust everything that we read at Wikipedia. I would like to see confirmation from people on this list. And if it is confirmed then we have to consider the possibility that Regulus was alive on the night of DD's death. If he was still alive, was he the one on the grounds? How did he get the locket from Aberforth? Does Aberforth know him? Are they working together? Is this how DD found out about the Horcruxes in the first place? Is Regulus hiding out at the Hogshead? "They can't kill you if you are already dead" might apply to him. If so we might have seen him before somewhere. Who do we know him as?? Does DD really have a brother? (You see that this leads us to all sorts of speculation such as the DD does not really having a brother; Regulus is a Metamorphmagus pretending to be Aberforth theory which I am sure someone out there will pick up and run with.) I hold to the 2 things that I am sure of: 1. DD and Harry did get the real locket in the cave and it was still a horcrux. 2. By the time that Harry got to DD's body the other locket was there and the real locket was gone. And there is evidence that Mundungus had a locket and that it could have come into the possession of Aberforth. This event was before the cave. Now we could go off into a bit more speculation here: Let's say that Regulus is still alive and hiding all these years and is somehow in contact with Aberforth. Mundungus gets the locket and gives it to Aberforth who knows that DD is looking for a locket. Regulus knows that it is not the Slytherin locket and recognizes that it is the Black family locket. His mother's. And he is the only one that knows how to open the Black family locket. He takes out the picture of Mom who is protecting the contents of the locket which may have information as to the real locket. (This information is given to DD.) He puts the note in the locket. And either he or Aberforth put it at the scene of DD's murder after taking the true Horcrux. This would mean that Regulus knows enough Dark Magic to destroy a horcrux and maybe Aberforth does not. So if RAB is not Aberforth and is Regulus it still holds that the locket was a horcrux when DD got it out of the cave and that the real locket was in DD's possession upon his death and was switched after his death while he was on the ground. Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Jun 2 06:06:44 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 06:06:44 -0000 Subject: RAB case is broken - all Aurors please read! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153263 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Carol responds: > The "locket that he remembered seeing in the Pensieve" is not a > reference to the locket that Harry saw in the Pensievelike bowl in the cave (the one that Dumbledore snatched up and put in his pocket) but to the locket he saw in *Dumbledore's* Pensieve, briefly and perhaps not clearly when Marvolo nearly choked Merope by pulling on the chain to show the locket to Bob Ogden, and again, perfectly clearly and long enough to remember what it looked like when Hepzibah Smith showed it to Tom Riddle. That locket *des* have markings on it, Slytherin's mark, IIRC. Otherwise, Merope could hardly have proven to Caractacus Burke that it was a Slytherin heirloom. I can find the actual quotes and page numbers if you need them. > > Carol, 99 percent sure that the locket described in these two Pensieve excursions is the unopenable locket that Harry saw at 12 Grimmauld Place Tonks: Hold head in shame... oh well.. if you are gone to make a mistake make a big one!! This will be in the Quibbler I am sure. I can see the headlines now. ;-( I'll be demoted to the Janitoral crew. ;-( Yes, Carol what you say makes sense too. I was thinking that the passage confirmed that the thing in the cave was a pensive. She writes it that way to confuse us a bit, I think. So is she talking about the cave thing being a pensive or the pensive in DD's office? Oh.. sometimes don't you just hate her!! Tonks_op My third post for the day and it is only 2:00am. Hey Sibyll want to share some of your wine?? It is going to be a long day... From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Jun 2 06:33:09 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 06:33:09 -0000 Subject: Nice vs. Good, honesty, and Snape: Was Snape, Apologies, and Redemption In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153264 > > Pippin: > Um, no, that was straightforward canon interpretation. > The other three characters who show a consistent ability to tell what > Harry is thinking, ie Dumbledore, Voldemort and Snape, have all been > identified as legilimenses. At this point it seems more speculative to say > definitively that Lupin is not a legilimens than that he is. How else do we > account for his ability? Potioncat: It would also explain how he knows that Snape is so good at Occlumency. Although, if he can tell, so could LV... Pippin: > What's interesting form the ESE!Lupin standpoint is that Neville's > boggart isn't a botched potion or even dead Trevor. ESE!Lupin > theory would be that the image of Snape bursting through a closed > door and going for his wand has nothing to do with potions class > and everything to do with some buried memory of Neville's. > Could young Neville, lying in his cot, have see Snape burst through > a door and stun an attacker from behind? Potioncat: I really like this idea. The biggest problem is that Snape would have had to burst in without any of the 4 DEs seeing him. He would have had to stun all 4 at once without stunning Neville or his parents. (Although not stunning the parents may not have been so much a concern by that point.) It does seem clear--well, to me at least--that Snape has a reason to speak to Lupin before the Boggart lesson. Just like in the conversation about the spare bit of parchment, there could be a completely different message going on between Lupin and Snape than to Harry and the readers. I always thought he was warning Lupin that Neville's fear might uncover something DD wouldn't want uncovered. But at this point, Snape doesn't trust Lupin, so why would he warn him.... It's 2AM in my world and I'm thinking in circles. You know, Snape insulted Neville in front of another DADA teacher too. Back in Lockhart's day, Snape said that Longbottom's wand caused devastation with the simplest of spells. Of course, at that time, his purpose was to get Harry on stage. Or was it? > >Pippin: > I can well believe that ESE!Lupin lies awake thinking of how he > might determine where Snape's true loyalties lie. Certainly it's > kept enough of *us* awake at night. And Snape would lie > awake thinking of ways to stop him, such as coming down > very hard on Neville in potions class that day so that Neville's > image of scary Snape in the boggart lesson Snape knew was > coming would be the present day Snape and not > someone twelve years younger. Potioncat: It does come back down to the fact that he's given the two Prophecy boys reasons to fear or at least dislike him. It could be a very nice cover for something... > > Pippin: > No, he did not. A boggart is not limited to one fear, as Molly showed > us in OOP. Lupin could have suggested that Neville might want to think > of something else. Potioncat: I would think if a witch could prepare herself for an attack on a Boggart by choosing her fear, Molly would have been fighting a different image. But I haven't given up on the Prophecy Orb as Lupin's fear either. From iam.kemper at gmail.com Fri Jun 2 07:00:45 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 00:00:45 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wand Thoughts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40606020000n6e455f8y6ec61fa4c9da4a1c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153265 > bboyminn: > > > > > > > I use the illustration of magical resonance. When a wizard and a > > wand have a very close magical resonance, when they are in magical > > harmony, then the wizard has found a wand that matches him. > > > > > > > ...edited... > > > > > > If the wand chooses the wizard, and there are two wands with > > > Fawkes feather in it, and one chose Voldy and the other chose > > > Harry... Then I have some more questions: > > > > > > Why did a wand with Fawkes' feather choose Voldy? And why does > > > Olivander expect great things from the person chosen by the > > > other wand with that feather? ...edited... > > > > > > Or am I reaching too far for a plot twist to unravel? > > > > > > Thanks for your thoughts, Kim > > > > bboyminn: > > > > From what I can tell Ollivander only had two wands that had Fawkes > > Phoenix feathers. One was sold to Voldemort many years ago. (SNIP) > > in the intervening roughly 50 or 60 years since > > Voldemort bought his wand, he has proven himself a very great and > > powerful wizard. Since Harry buys a wand that is very similar to > > Voldemort's, and since Ollivander has a general sense of Harry's > > fate, it is reasonable for him to conclude that we can also expect > > great things from Harry. (SNIP) > > AUSSIE > ONCE FAWKES TAIL FEATHER HAD ASSISTED A DARK WIZARD, DD MAY NOT HAVE > WANTED ANY MORE OF HIS PHOENIX'S FEATHERS TO GO TO OLLIVANDER. A > SECOND WAS ALREADY IN A WAND BY THE TIME TOM TOOK ON THE LV NAME, SO > THAT WAND REMAINED TILL HARRY CAME IN. > .. . Kemper: DD DIDN'T GIVE FAWKE'S FEATHERS TO DD. (WHY AM I YELLING?!) Olivander: .... It so happens that the phoenix whose tail feather is in your wand, /gave/ another feather -- just one other. .... (emphasis mine) Fawkes gave the feather, not DD. Though you imply a good point. There's no canon either way to suggest that feathers were given at the same time or at separate times/rebirths. My unsupported-by-canon theory: Both feathers were given during the same rebirth cycle. What makes the two feathers from Fawkes rare, is that Fawkes is the first phoenix. I realize in FB it says of the phoenix that they live to an immense age, which to me, suggests that there is some end to their existence. But I prefer Fawkes as the first, the eternal, the most regal of the 'royals', to play off Steve's word. . .. > > bboyminn: > > > I speculate that wand cores have characteristics. The books seem to > > imply that wands with Unicorn Hair are suited to subtle magic like > > Charms. (SNIP) Where as > > > Dragon Heart is more suited to the powerful transient burst magic > > necessary for Transfigurations. (SNIP) I consider Phoenix Feather > > > the 'Royal' core; it is equally suited and especially powerful in > > both subtle and delicate as well as high energy burst > > transformation magic. > > > > Also note that Dragon parts, blood, claw, skin, meat, heart, are > all > > readily available. We see them several times in the course of the > > books. Unicorn Hair is also readily available. (SNIP) However, we > > have only seen one Phoenix, and a reading of the > > history and nature of Phoenix tells us that their feathers are > > likely to be very rare and very expensive. (SNIP) > > > > > Also, note that Harry tried other Phoenix feather wands, but only > > Fawke's wand feather was a match to him. > > > > AUSSIE > RARE? CODSWALLOP (to quote Hagrid)! Both Ollivanders and Phoenixes > were around before Hogwarts. > > CANON: "Ollivanders: Makers of Fine Wands since 382 B.C" (PS Chap > 5) ... "Every Ollivander wand has a core of a powerful magical > substance, Mr. Potter. We use unicorn hairs, phoenix tail feathers, > and the heartstrings of dragons. No two Ollivander wands are the > same, just as no two unicorns, dragons, or phoenixes are quite the > same." > "I've never used veela hair myself, of course. I find it makes for > rather temperamental wands" (GOF Chap 18) > > So if they limit the cores to 3 substances, they need a supply for > the demand. > > ... snip ... > .. . Kemper now: Why not RARE? It seems that the phoenix has to give the feathers willingly, based on the above Olivander statement I quoted earlier. (Are there any bird-geeks on this list? If so, approximately how many tail feathers are on a swan, FB list phoenix as a swan sized bird.) Sure, maybe other phoenixes give more tail feathers, but how many can they give without affecting their flight or mating dances? Huh, bird geeks? Kemper, wondering if anyone else thinks Hagrid's wand isn't broken in half, but rather bent in half. His wand, as Olivander, was sixteen inches long and rather bendy. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Jun 2 07:07:20 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 07:07:20 -0000 Subject: Nature of a Patronus / Snape's Patronus In-Reply-To: <20060601191821.5714.qmail@web33211.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153266 > Distaiyi wrote: > > What Patroni do we know about... And some thoughts given JKR's > > penchant(sp?) for using mythological themes... > > Potioncat: My quibble with your post would be that the Patronus doesn't tell us so much about the person as it tells us where the person seeks protection/safety. So far we've seen two specific cases where canon tells us who the Patronus represents. In Harry's case the stag represented James (in this case Patron(us) really being Father) and in Tonks's case the large animal was a wolf to represent Lupin. > > honeykissed246:> > Because can you just imagine Snape's patronus not being a phoenix > at all but an image of Dumbledore! Nothing would scream loyalty > like that. Can't you see JKR doing something like that? I can > since it appears that she loves shocking her readers. Wouldn't that > be shocking! Imagine the look on Harry and Voldemort's faces. Potioncat: I think Patronuses are alwyas animals, although I don't know if that has been confirmed. I thought Snape's Patronus would be something that represented DD. I suspected a bumblebee because the phoenix hadn't been so firmly a part of DD before. But, if I was correct and it always was a DD!Patronus, would it change now? Or if it changes to DD!Patronus (in whatever form) what might it have been? I think it's more likely we'll see Harry's Patronus change to a Phoenix and later find out Snape's always has been one. If we could only figure out what the heck a JR Terrior would represent! From h.m.s at mweb.co.za Fri Jun 2 06:00:35 2006 From: h.m.s at mweb.co.za (H.M.S) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 08:00:35 +0200 Subject: Dates for book 7 Message-ID: <003901c6860b$1b59a5a0$77d017c4@Sharon> No: HPFGUIDX 153267 I was wondering about the release date for HP Book 7. We are all hoping for Saturday 07/07/07 (personally, I'm on my knees praying), but the new HP movie will be released on Friday 13/07/07. Considering that the book will (probably) be a world wide release again, and the movie won't (I think GOF came out in South Africa about 2 weeks after USA); how likely is this to happen? If it does - how will fans react / which way will the spending power go. Will either release be adversely affected by the almost simultaneous publicity, or will the book and/or the movie feed the hype of the other? What thoughts anyone? I WANT BOTH! Sharon (South Africa) From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Fri Jun 2 08:23:59 2006 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 08:23:59 -0000 Subject: RAB case is broken - all Aurors please read! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153268 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" > wrote: > > > But how can your theory explain away the fact that in all the non- > > English translations, the "B" morphs into the first letter of that > > language's word for "black"? > > > > From the wikipedia entry on "Regulus Black: > > > > "Support for the theory that Regulus Black is R.A.B. has been > > gathered from the translation of Half-Blood Prince to other > > languages. In the Dutch translation of the novel, Regulus Black is > > called Regulus Zwarts and the initials in the locket are R.A.Z. In > > the Norwegian edition, Regulus Black is called Regulus Svaart, and > > the initials R.A.S. are in the locket, while in the Finnish > > translation, Regulus Black is called Regulus Musta, and the > initials are R.A.M. These make the theory that R.A.B. is Sirius's > brother quite plausible." > > > > I like your theory a lot, but I don't know if I can reconcile it > > with the translation evidence. > > > > Tonks: > I can not find an online translator that translates into those > languages. Does anyone on this list know what it says in the German, > Spanish, or French editions? I am not so sure that I trust > everything that we read at Wikipedia. I would like to see > confirmation from people on this list. And if it is confirmed then > we have to consider the possibility that Regulus was alive on the > night of DD's death. Renee: The evidence Leslie brings up has been mentioned before on this list on quite a few occasions, and not based on Wikipedia, but on the actual translations. I can vouch for the Dutch version. Also "Remember Albus' Brother" would become GAB, HJAB or HUAB in the Dutch translation, depending on how you translate "remember". But the actual text has RAZ. Also, there would have been no reason whatsoever for the Dutch translator to change the B into a Z unless he *knew* who/what it referred to. If he had no inkling, it would have been far better to leave it alone and adapt the text in the seventh book. I'ts what I would have done, after more than 30 years of experience as a translator. Also, the Finnish translator has stated that he (she?) has consulted JKR concerning the rendering of RAB. Therefore, RAM is bound to be more than just a wild guess - and it's reasonable to assume other translators have also contacted JKR. So I'm afraid your theory doesn't work. But I *am* curious to know why you believe Regulus Black may have been alive on the night of DD's death. Renee From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Jun 2 09:38:22 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 09:38:22 -0000 Subject: The Boggart incident (Was: Nice vs. Good, honesty, and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153269 > Carol: > Snape, who thinks logically but is not good at empathizing with other > people, would, I am sure, expect Neville's Boggart to be one or more > DEs based on his knowledge of what happened to Neville's parents. I > think that he remained in the staff room, knowing that Lupin intended > to teach a lesson on Boggarts, specifically for this reason. a_svirn: I think you give Snape entirely too much credit here. First of all, there is absolutely no evidence in canon that he concerns himself with students' (and more specifically Neville's) peace of mind. Quite the contrary, as far as we can see. Second, even if he did, in this instance there were much less elaborate (not mention less humiliating and embarrassing for Neville) ways to achieve such an objective. Absolutely no need to insult Neville for the umpteenth time in order to save him from a terrible vision of a Bogey Death Eater. From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Fri Jun 2 09:39:04 2006 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (IreneMikhlin) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 10:39:04 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Nice vs. Good, honesty, and Snape: Was Snape, Apologies, and Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44800738.6090106@btopenworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153270 lupinlore wrote: > > DID he take the first tack? I would say DD actually came down > somewhere between your first and second examples, largely by using > the Harry/Draco relationship as an illustration. But the thing is, the whole Harry/Draco parallel is misleading. Even if we accept that there was more to Snape/James&Co dynamics than popular bullies vs. asocial victim, then the only "noble" explanation I've seen offered is Snape's political views. But it's impossible for a half-blood boy to cross two pure-bloods from prominent families on this basis. I wonder whether it was JKR being careless, or Dumbledore being intentionally misleading, or just blind, or all of the above. Unless she is going to repeat the trick with Tom and Merope, and make the parallel with James==Draco. > > Now, I grant you that doing so did nothing whatsoever to help with > the Harry/Snape problem. One way of helping with that, in this > particular conversation, would have been for DD to say to > Harry "Look, Professor Snape really isn't the monster you think, > look how he worked so hard to help you," (which would have only > worked in the long term if DD had followed this be telling Snape > very firmly to KNOCK IT OFF). > > But, for whatever reason, DD did not make that attempt that we know > of. Instead, he basically told Harry "Professor Snape saved your > life, but you needn't bother being grateful -- he only did it > because he hated your father and wanted out from under the debt." > > Strange, strange Dumbledore. Or perhaps WalkingPlotDevice! > Dumbledore is more to the point. This seems to be yet another point > where Dumbledore shows up as mind-numbingly incompetent because it > suits the needs of the plot for him to act in stupid ways. I hope the elves don't kick me for it, because it's so much more than "me too". It's something worth recording - I've agreed with your every word, and on a Snape related topic, no less! :-) Irene From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Jun 2 10:22:14 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 10:22:14 -0000 Subject: Nature of a Patronus / Snape's Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153271 Potioncat: > If we could only figure out what the heck a JR Terrior would > represent! Ceridwen: A friend of mine has a JRT. The dogette stands up to everybody and everything. She has gone after dogs much larger than herself for an affront to her dogly dignity. When she gets something in her craw, she's on it and she doesn't let it go. Words I would use to describe my friend's JRT: Tenacious, loyal, fearless, single-minded. If JKR got the idea for a JRT for Ron from knowing a JRT, perhaps we don't need to look as far as mythology or legend to find out what it would represent. Ceridwen. From greekgoddessofthenight at yahoo.com Fri Jun 2 07:39:21 2006 From: greekgoddessofthenight at yahoo.com (Nyx) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 07:39:21 -0000 Subject: CAN SOMEONE HELP? -- Lucius & Narcissa Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153272 Hi Guys - please can someone clear some misconceptions? When my friends and I come together, our "Harry Potter" discussions can become somewhat heated. Does anyone know the "real" story of the Lucius/Narcissa union? What I understand from reading the books, they are together because of their "pureblood" background, and I don't really pick up "much love" in that relationship. Please help - Am I the one with the misconception? Nyx From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Jun 2 13:34:25 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 13:34:25 -0000 Subject: CAN SOMEONE HELP? -- Lucius & Narcissa In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153273 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nyx" wrote: > > Hi Guys - please can someone clear some misconceptions? When my friends and I come together, our "Harry Potter" discussions can become > somewhat heated. Potioncat: Can't help you there. It seems to be the nature of the beast. > Nyx: > Does anyone know the "real" story of the Lucius/Narcissa union? What > I understand from reading the books, they are together because of > their "pureblood" background, and I don't really pick up "much love" > in that relationship. Potioncat: I think we only see Narcissa and Lucius together one time. Narcissa did not look happy, but I think the implication was that she didn't like sharing space with Harry and the Weasleys. I did think it was odd that Lucius introduced her to Fudge. I would have thought they would have met before that. (Hmmm, Fudge doesn't come to the Malfoys, but Marchbanks does.)(or does she?) It's common in fanfics to write the Malfoy union as an arranged marriage. But I don't think anything in the HP series indicates that parents arrange marriages. It would make sense that if you were a Pure Blood fanatic, you would only be attracted to a Pure Blood--at least for official unions. I think there are hints within the series before HBP that Narcissa may not be so loyal to the Dark Lord's philosophy. From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jun 2 13:49:35 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 13:49:35 -0000 Subject: Nice vs. Good, honesty, and Snape: Was Snape, Apologies, and Redemption In-Reply-To: <44800738.6090106@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153274 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, IreneMikhlin wrote: > > lupinlore wrote: > > > > > DID he take the first tack? I would say DD actually came down > > somewhere between your first and second examples, largely by using > > the Harry/Draco relationship as an illustration. Irene: > But the thing is, the whole Harry/Draco parallel is misleading. Even if > we accept that there was more to Snape/James&Co dynamics than popular > bullies vs. asocial victim, then the only "noble" explanation I've seen > offered is Snape's political views. But it's impossible for a half-blood > boy to cross two pure-bloods from prominent families on this basis. > I wonder whether it was JKR being careless, or Dumbledore being > intentionally misleading, or just blind, or all of the above. Pippin: Dumbledore was misled himself. We must be wary of movie contamination here. In the book, the Hogwarts authorities never find out that there really was a dragon. McGonagall accused Harry and Hermione of plotting to make Draco think there was a dragon so that he'd get in trouble. From Dumbledore's PoV, it *would* look like Harry had been the aggressor, and he would be comparing the relationship between Harry and Draco and the one between James and Snape on that basis. Lupinlore: > Now, I grant you that doing so did nothing whatsoever to help with > > the Harry/Snape problem. One way of helping with that, in this > > particular conversation, would have been for DD to say to > > Harry "Look, Professor Snape really isn't the monster you think, > > look how he worked so hard to help you," (which would have only > > worked in the long term if DD had followed this be telling Snape > > very firmly to KNOCK IT OFF). Pippin: Er, Dumbledore tried to do that. He tried to explain that Snape had worked very hard to protect Harry (and Harry should feel grateful, because Snape had done this despite having very good reasons to hate James's guts) but it made Harry's head ache, first because Harry is too young to understand that adults have conflicting motives, and secondly because of the double misunderstanding. Dumbledore thinks that Harry is the aggressor in the Draco/Harry relationship and thinks that Harry will understand that when James saved Snape it was the aggressor who saved his accustomed victim, not the other way around. Hmmm...I need to think about this in connection with the events in HBP as well. How would Harry's insistence on pursuing Draco look to someone who thought Harry was picking on Draco all the time? Pippin From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 2 14:51:29 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 14:51:29 -0000 Subject: Snape and the "Chosen One" Was: Nice vs. Good - Compassion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153275 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" wrote: > > > You give Remus an awful lot of slack, and I don't begrudge you > that. I give him slack too. But you use Remus' slack to make a > noose for Snape, and that, Lupinlore, don't make no sense at all. Buy Lupin is not an abuser of children. A man who makes many mistakes, yes. A man who has paid for them, yes. But a man who with cruelty and sadism abuses children while an "epitome of goodness" stands by and lets it happen? No. > > It's just not that cut and dried. Yes, it most certainly is. Snape is an abuser of children, IMO, over and out. And if JKR does not deal with that, then she will have failed in a reprehensible manner that leaves her books good for nothing but mulch. Lupinlore From ejom723 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 2 12:54:51 2006 From: ejom723 at yahoo.com (ejom723) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 12:54:51 -0000 Subject: My Theory On The Prophecy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153276 I've probably read the prophecy about a billion times and have been attempting to figure it out. I know everyone including Harry and Dumbledore believe that for Harry to destroy LV he has to become a murderer, ie. that little thing about surviving the other. It gave me an idea. What if when LV attacked baby Harry, he not only transferred some of his powers into Harry (parseltongue, Slytherin traits), but also transferred a part of Harry into himself (LV)? I'm thinking that maybe LV acccidently without his awareness made himself HARRY'S Horcrux! Think of all the times he has faced death and deadly challenges and came out on top, surviving even the most hideous things. Yes, I am aware of Lily's protective charm, but what if it is not only that? If this is true and LV is Harry's Horcrux, LV can try to destroy Harry, but will not succeed and will allow Harry to defeat him. A little twisted in theory, but almost plausible if you let it mull around a little bit in your mind. I keep going back to what JK said about the prophecy "That it is very carefully worded". It's sort of one of those read between the lines kind of things. Any theories or back up for this and did anyone else think this too? Jules From megs0124 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 2 15:44:04 2006 From: megs0124 at yahoo.com (Megan) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 15:44:04 -0000 Subject: Nice vs. Good, honesty, and Snape: Was Snape, Apologies, and Redemption In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153277 Pippin Wrote: > Dumbledore thinks that Harry is the aggressor in the Draco/Harry > relationship and thinks that Harry will understand that when > James saved Snape it was the aggressor who saved his > accustomed victim, not the other way around. > > Hmmm...I need to think about this in connection with the events > in HBP as well. How would Harry's insistence on pursuing Draco > look to someone who thought Harry was picking on Draco all the > time? > > Pippin > Megan Writes: While reading HBP, Harry's almost OBSESSIVE insistance (no matter how well founded) that Draco was up to something was, in a way, annoying and bothersome. It bothered Hermione and Ron also (when they were not at each others throats). Harry wanted IMMEDIATE results to his inquiries, and wanted other people to prove Draco and Family were bad without waiting for tangible proof and relying on Gut instinct. Listening to your Gut can be right but others might not believe you and if you end up being wrong, which Harry was on at least one occassion, they might think of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf". Harry has his little circle of friends/trust: Ron and Hermione and eventually Ginny (to a point but not until later). They know the facts, as Harry chooses to share with them or facts they wintness themselves. Arthur was a little dubious of Harry's claims, especially after the failed Raid on the Malfoy Mansion. After that, Arthur needed to profect himself and his job and be a little more warry of Harry's claims. He, as well as many others, know of the bad blood between Harry and Draco and not being in Harry's circle of Trust, might see this as an attempt by Harry to Bully a boy who has just lost his father to prison. How can you trust a boy who has become obsessed with the movements of a boy who is seemingly doing nothing wrong? Sometimes I wanted to yell at Harry to "Give it a rest!" at times and THINK and gather concrete evidence (if it would have been able) and learn to ask more questions. From megs0124 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 2 15:52:03 2006 From: megs0124 at yahoo.com (Megan) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 15:52:03 -0000 Subject: Nature of a Patronus / Snape's Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153278 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > > Potioncat: > > If we could only figure out what the heck a JR Terrior would > > represent! > > Ceridwen: > A friend of mine has a JRT. The dogette stands up to everybody and > everything. She has gone after dogs much larger than herself for an > affront to her dogly dignity. When she gets something in her craw, > she's on it and she doesn't let it go. Words I would use to describe > my friend's JRT: Tenacious, loyal, fearless, single-minded. > > If JKR got the idea for a JRT for Ron from knowing a JRT, perhaps we > don't need to look as far as mythology or legend to find out what it > would represent. > > Ceridwen. > Megan writes: I agree. Ron has always been at the bottom at the totem-pole of his family. Being the youngest (male), he has all his brothers accomplishments and achievements pushing down on him and making it sometimes hard to notice. JRT are small dogs and can be forgotten in the large amount of other larger dogs. Ron has had to "bark himself to death" to be known and recognized. He is loyal to his friends and has proved himself fearless in many situations. He just has to be a little extra loud (and sometimes annoying as smaller dogs can sometimes be- think Ron + Lav-Lav) to get noticed by others. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 2 16:01:00 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 16:01:00 -0000 Subject: Draco and Harry WAS: Re: Nice vs. Good, honesty, and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153279 > Megan Writes: > > While reading HBP, Harry's almost OBSESSIVE insistance (no matter how > well founded) that Draco was up to something was, in a way, annoying and > bothersome. It bothered Hermione and Ron also (when they were not at > each others throats). Harry wanted IMMEDIATE results to his inquiries, > and wanted other people to prove Draco and Family were bad without > waiting for tangible proof and relying on Gut instinct. Listening to > your Gut can be right but others might not believe you and if you end up > being wrong, which Harry was on at least one occassion, they might think > of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf". Alla: Annoying and bothersome? I beg to differ. If Harry's inquiries bothered Ron and Hermione a bit less, Ron may have not ended up almost dead, IMO. And Harry's gut did turn out to be absolutely correct, did it not? It seems to me that Harry cannot win, he is wrong when he does not go to adults with his concerns and when he does to to pretty much everybody with his concerns, he is wrong too. JMO, Alla, who is still gets angry at DD for not stopping Draco, if he knew about his plans and putting the lifes of many students in danger. From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 2 15:30:06 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 15:30:06 -0000 Subject: DD's Knowledge (was Re: Nice vs. Good, honesty,) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153280 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > PIPPIN: > > Dumbledore thinks that Harry is the aggressor in the Draco/Harry > relationship and thinks that Harry will understand that when > James saved Snape it was the aggressor who saved his > accustomed victim, not the other way around. > LUPINLORE: Then is Harry mistaken about Dumbledore knowing everything that goes on at Hogwarts? That would explain a lot, but if so it needs to be made clear. Dumbledore's knowledge seems to wax and wane in awfully suspicious ways. For instance, let's look at OOTP. He becomes enraged at Umbridge for "manhandling" Marietta, yet takes no action whatsoever to protect Harry from the scar quill. Why? Why does one thing enrage him into the most "proactive" DD we've seen to that point and the other get not even a whimper of protest out of him? Is it because he doesn't know what's going on? Is it because he is a spider trapped in the threads of his own web? Or is it because JKR has a bad habit of sometimes using him as a real character and sometimes as a cipher whose only purpose is to push the plot in a particular direction? IRENE: "I've agreed with every word you've said ... and on a Snape post..." LUPINLORE: Miracles do happen, even in this sick and weary world, :-). The question of the extent to which DD is responsible for the Snape/Harry dynamic is, I think an important one. He just can't seem to bring himself to be proactive, there. Even when presented with golden opportunities to ratchet down the tension he either lets them slide or actually pours gas on the flames (i.e. the situation at the end of PS when he seems to actually assure Harry that he needn't feel any gratitude or warmth toward Snape or, most obviously, at the end of PoA when he seems to be taking glee in reducing Snape to a helpless fury over the whole situation). Why? Is he simply ignorant of the true dynamic? Is he a spider spinning some sort of strange web of manipulation? Is he simply a plot device who gets good lines from time to time? I think a defensible premise is one that shows him as somewhat foolish but not malicious. It goes like this: DD, being 150 years old and somewhat distant and detached by temperment, isn't used to dealing with anyone's emotions, including his own. He finds himself caught off guard by his attachment to Harry, and lets that color his thinking about a lot of things. Particularly, DD is serene in his belief that Severus will, over time, get over it. After all, Harry is so obviously not James, and so obviously possessed of such good qualities, that ill-will surely has to fade over time. Snape's comment in HBP about Harry being DD's "favorite student" is, in this way of thinking, not mere window- dressing. It is Snape's genuine, weary, bitter statement of what he sees as the obvious state of affairs -- a state which DD has communicated to him in various ways. DD is wrong, of course. Snape will not get over it. But we have here a VERY common situation. Person A goes gaga (in the general, not the sexual way, please) over person B. Person C, a friend/disciple/employee/acquaintance/whatever of Person A, cannot stand Person B. If C makes the mistake of saying anything, however, the response is generally, "oh, you just don't know A very well," or "give it time" or -- worst of all -- "look, I know you two don't see eye to eye but can't you try to get along with B for my sake?" Nothing is more likely to produce frustration and resentment. DD doesn't realize his mistake until OOTP. At that point, he sees a chance with Occlumency. He was, I think, telling the truth to Harry when he explained why he chose Snape for the lessons, but perhaps he also thought that this would, AT LAST, lead to Snape getting over his bitterness. He has no choice but to "get to know" Harry now. But DD runs up against the disaster that the A's of the world always face. That is, C just really, genuinely, DOES NOT LIKE B. And C knows and understands B very well, thank you very much. And yes, I'll try to keep my mouth shut about B in your presence, but don't ask me to like B or pretend that I like B. This is why wise people treat their friendships like a garden. Some flowers take to cross-pollination, most don't. Sometimes it's a wonderful idea to bring your friends together. Most of the time you are well advised to expend energy keeping them apart. DD tried a disastrous experiment in cross pollination, when he would have been better advised to plant a very high hedge. Lupinlore From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Fri Jun 2 16:22:27 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 16:22:27 -0000 Subject: RAB case is broken - all Aurors please read! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153281 --- "Tonks" wrote: > > --- "leslie41" wrote:(-SNIP-) > > > I like your theory a lot, but I don't know if I can reconcile it > > with the translation evidence. > > > > Tonks: (-SNIP-) > we have to consider the possibility that Regulus was alive on the > night of DD's death. > > If he was still alive, was he the one on the grounds? How did he > get the locket from Aberforth? Does Aberforth know him? Are they > working together? Is this how DD found out about the Horcruxes in > the first place? Is Regulus hiding out at the Hogshead? "They > can't kill you if you are already dead" might apply to him. If so > we might have seen him before somewhere. Who do we know him as?? (-SNIP-) > > I hold to the 2 things that I am sure of: > > 1. DD and Harry did get the real locket in the cave and it was > still a horcrux. > 2. By the time that Harry got to DD's body the other locket was > there and the real locket was gone. > > (-SNIP-) > > So if RAB is not Aberforth and is Regulus it still holds that the > locket was a horcrux when DD got it out of the cave and that the > real locket was in DD's possession upon his death and was switched > after his death while he was on the ground. > > Tonks_op > ~aussie~ - Who do we know Regulus as? - What do we really know about Filch? Just as DD kept Trelawney on in Hogwarts, more for her own protection as the medium who revealed the prophecy, I am wondering what Filch is doing there. As a Squib, no wizard would have remembered going to school with Filch (so none of the parents could talk about his background). As the Cranky caretaker, no student (and few teachers) get personal with him. If Regulus wanted DD's protection inside Hogwarts, that squib would be the perfect disguise. Can anyone find canon proof to support or reject this suggestion? for example: - How far back was he in Hogwarts? After James or further back? - He had the Maunderer's Map. One of the Maunderers being Sirius. - Would Regulus accept memory altering charm or would he act out any disguised role? Would he accept the "aging draft" the twins tried to use to get their names into the GOF? The best place JKR could hide something is right under our noses. From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Fri Jun 2 16:37:36 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 16:37:36 -0000 Subject: CAN SOMEONE HELP? -- Lucius & Narcissa In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153282 --- "potioncat" wrote: > > --- "Nyx" wrote: > > > > Hi Guys - please can someone clear some misconceptions? When my > friends and I come together, our "Harry Potter" discussions can > > become somewhat heated. > > > > Does anyone know the "real" story of the Lucius/Narcissa union? > > What I understand from reading the books, they are together > > because of their "pureblood" background, and I don't really pick > > up "much love" in that relationship. > > Potioncat: > I think we only see Narcissa and Lucius together one time. Narcissa did > not look happy, but I think the implication was that she didn't > like sharing space with Harry and the Weasleys. (-SNIP-) > > I think there are hints within the series before HBP that Narcissa > may not be so loyal to the Dark Lord's philosophy. > ~aussie~ The Malfoys married WHEN? Was it in the thick of LV's reign of terror? With Bella already following LV, Narcissa may have been introduced to the young DE as a way people did in occupied war torn countries. Not so much for "Love" as "Insurrance" as being connected to the most powerful side. Love still abides in the Malfoy household however. Draco defends his mother (and bounces around as a ferret because of it -GOF) Narcissa defends Lucius against Bella in Snapes house. Just a few ramblings From mros at xs4all.nl Fri Jun 2 07:09:06 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 09:09:06 +0200 Subject: RAB case is broken - all Aurors please read! References: Message-ID: <001501c68613$6fe977f0$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 153283 Sorry, no can do. In my language Sirius Black is Sirius Zwarts and R.A.B. is... R.A.Z. So the locket was put there by Regulus, I'm afraid. PS 'brother' is 'broer' btw. Marion From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jun 2 17:35:09 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 17:35:09 -0000 Subject: DD's Knowledge (was Re: Nice vs. Good, honesty,) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153284 > LUPINLORE: Then is Harry mistaken about Dumbledore knowing everything > that goes on at Hogwarts? That would explain a lot, but if so it > needs to be made clear. Dumbledore's knowledge seems to wax and wane > in awfully suspicious ways. > > For instance, let's look at OOTP. He becomes enraged at Umbridge > for "manhandling" Marietta, yet takes no action whatsoever to protect > Harry from the scar quill. Why? Why does one thing enrage him into > the most "proactive" DD we've seen to that point and the other get not > even a whimper of protest out of him? Pippin: We must accept that Dumbledore's ability to spy on the DADA teachers is limited. A lot goes on with them that Dumbledore doesn't seem to know about: not only Umbridge's quill but Fake!Moody keeping real Moody imprisoned in his trunk and brewing up quantities of polyjuice, Quirrell's conferences with his turban, and Harry hearing voices through the walls of Lockhart's office. I have a feeling the Founders thought they needed a check against the mighty powers of the Headmaster, so they made the DADA teacher's office Imperturbable. But after all, if Dumbledore thinks Harry has been bullying Draco in PS/SS (and whatever was discovered after the fact about the polyjuice episode in CoS probably confirmed that impression) then Harry getting bullied begins to sound like, um, just deserts. And Dumbledore doesn't stand in the way of people getting their just deserts, does he? It seems to me that a lot of Harry's troubles come from trying to parent the adults. If he hadn't tried to cover up Hagrid's dragon problems, he would've been able to tell McGonagall the truth. If he hadn't been trying to protect McGonagall, he could have told her about Umbridge. If he hadn't been trying to protect Sirius, he could have used the Mirror. In fact, if he'd let Sirius and Lupin deal with Snape and then with Pettigrew in PoA, a whole boatload of troubles might have been avoided. Pippin From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Jun 2 17:46:04 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 17:46:04 -0000 Subject: CAN SOMEONE HELP? -- Lucius & Narcissa In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153285 ~aussie~ *(snip)* > Love still abides in the Malfoy household however. > > Draco defends his mother (and bounces around as a ferret because of > it -GOF) > Narcissa defends Lucius against Bella in Snapes house. > > Just a few ramblings Ceridwen: Good points, Aussie. Narcissa becomes almost lionine when defending Lucius to Bellatrix, in fact. She goes from sobbing, worried mother to snarling tiger defending her own. And, Draco seems to revere both, and at the end of HBP, to be worried about both (Dumbledore's reference to Lucius being safe for the moment in Azkaban as a reassurance) so there must be some love, at least for Draco, and it seems that he has seen love at home toward more than just himself. In my opinion. Ceridwen. From megs0124 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 2 18:39:30 2006 From: megs0124 at yahoo.com (Megan) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 18:39:30 -0000 Subject: Draco and Harry WAS: Re: Nice vs. Good, honesty, and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153286 > Alla: > > Annoying and bothersome? I beg to differ. If Harry's inquiries bothered > Ron and Hermione a bit less, Ron may have not ended up almost dead, IMO. > > And Harry's gut did turn out to be absolutely correct, did it not? > > It seems to me that Harry cannot win, he is wrong when he does not go > to adults with his concerns and when he does to to pretty much > everybody with his concerns, he is wrong too. > > JMO, > > Alla, > > who is still gets angry at DD for not stopping Draco, if he knew about > his plans and putting the lifes of many students in danger. > Well, maybe it didn't come out right. Basically, it frustraited me that Harry became EXTREMELY obsessed and that nothing was done or could be done about his concerns. There were some points that bothered me a lot, especially when I read it the first time. There was no physical proof or if there was, such as at the Malfoy Mansion, it could not be found, Harry just seems to have no luck going to adults when he has concerns. Either he goes to them and he is RIGHT and they cannot see his POV, or see the truth in the situation, or he keeps his mouth shut and finds out the hard way (as was when he was younger it seems). He has grown a lot and finally learned to approach adults initially even though they have not come to necessarily respect or listen to his concerns. Harry seems to always be right, in a way. As he gets older, he "gut feelings" are getting more and more on the dot. It seems to me that sometime he let his fixation on an idea cloud his judgement. But, though this happened, the events worked themselves out and reveled the true bad guy and allowed Harry to save the day. Hopefully since now he has finally proved Snape to be the Bad Guy (whether he is truely evil or not), people will begin to respect and listen to, his instincts/ideas. DD is gone and now the only person standing in VMs way is this 16/17 year old boy. It is time for them to recognize Harry as the powerfil wizard and man he is and will become. I wish too that DD would have stopped Draco. But as with the whole Miltonic idea of Free will, God (ie DD in this case), knows whats going to happen, knows that people are going to get hurt and die, but allows people and the events to play themselves out without stepping in to save himself. For whatever reason DD did not stop Draco. Was it to allow Snape to continue on as a spy and save his cover/life? Was it to show Draco that he was not a murderer and see the error of his ways? Make Harry take that last step towards acceptance of his fate? Make the Ultimate sacrifice? Think of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Aslan sacrificed himself to save Edmund, the traitor, and allow Peter to take charge. Now will DD miracuously ressurect himself? Part of me says no. I don't know, but Harry has now come to accept his Lot and is going to take charge instead of telling others and stepping back. It is Harry's turn to lead. Unfortunately, we won't find out until 2007 or later. :( [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From distaiyi at yahoo.com Fri Jun 2 18:58:33 2006 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 18:58:33 -0000 Subject: DD's Knowledge (was Re: Nice vs. Good, honesty,) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153287 RE The Scar Quill/Punishment... DD didn't generally interfere in the affairs of punishment and whatnot, otherwise, every time Snape unfairly punished students he would have been on it. He might not agree, but he seemed to let them do as they will within the confines of rules he had set out. Given other activities ongoing I'd suspect that his attention does wax and wane given a) whether or not he's present and b) what else is going on in his life at any given moement. However, I'm not one to buy into DD's omniscience regarding Hogwarts. As I said in another post. Only VOLDEMORT and HARRY found the CoS... Dumbledore didn't.... TWICE. Distaiyi -- Dumbledore Lives! From distaiyi at yahoo.com Fri Jun 2 19:07:20 2006 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 19:07:20 -0000 Subject: RAB case is broken - all Aurors please read! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153288 RAB... Assume it means Regulus Black. Maybe DD is Regulus and he had switched the locket and was taking this other locket back to taunt LV when he came looking for it. Just another wacky off the wall thought to add to my other off the wall theories. Distaiyi : Dumbledore Lives! From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Jun 2 19:33:10 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 19:33:10 -0000 Subject: RAB case is broken - all Aurors please read! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153289 Tonks_op > (Thinks to self maybe I will get a promotion for this one!!) Ceridwen: Apparently this owl was misdirected: 'Auror Tonks, thank you for your good work and diligence on the ongoing case of R.A.B. This time your idea did not pan out, but you put a lot of thought and effort into it and the Department of Magical Law Enforcement appreciates your efforts. 'As you have been so diligent in your efforts to crack this case, we offer you one extra day off this week. When you return, you will be in charge of Alternate Theories Regarding R.A.B., the Locket, and anything else which might shed light on the case. We have come to an impasse and you have demonstrated the willingness and the ability to think beyond conventional ideas.' (me again) I think that R.A.B. is Regulus, but what's happened to him? Sirius said he was killed shortly after he tried to leave the DEs, supported by Lupin's announcement at Harry's b-day party in HBP (Regulus managed to evade being killed for just a few days). But Dumbledore's talk with Draco on the Tower has led many to believe that perhaps Regulus is still alive and disguised as Filch Aberforth Another character we might have seen If Regulus is dead (evidence: Grimmauld Place passing to Harry uncontested magically) then what did he do with the locket? Is it the locket at GP? Did he leave some sort of message for DD/Followers of the Light in any event? What can Harry learn from Regulus's story? - he has to learn something or it wouldn't have been introduced in a book about finding and recognizing clues. In other words, what is the lesson for Harry in his hunt for the Horcruxes? Ceridwen. From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 2 19:22:55 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 19:22:55 -0000 Subject: DD's Knowledge (was Re: Nice vs. Good, honesty,) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153290 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > It seems to me that a lot of Harry's troubles come from trying to > parent the adults. If he hadn't tried to cover up Hagrid's dragon > problems, he would've been able to tell McGonagall the truth. > If he hadn't been trying to protect McGonagall, he could have > told her about Umbridge. If he hadn't been trying to protect > Sirius, he could have used the Mirror. In fact, if he'd let Sirius > and Lupin deal with Snape and then with Pettigrew in PoA, > a whole boatload of troubles might have been avoided. > And yet we have the claim that the series is not very friendly toward childhood and that Harry's duty is to grow up as fast as possible and become a parent himself rather than trying to search for parental figures. Seems like this is saying that Harry has been doing TOO good of a job of growing up fast and needs to look around a lot harder for parental figures and stay a child longer. As for the idea that DD thinks Harry is a bully well, I just don't buy it. That seems to rely awfully heavily on castles built in the air. And the idea that he would turn a blind eye to Snape and the scar quill because he thinks it's Harry's "just desserts" postulates a kind of manipulative, Spider!Dumbledore (not to mention a Superignorant! Dumbledore) that we haven't seen in a long time, and that I would have thought the revelations of HBP would have put to rest permanently. Lupinlore From megs0124 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 2 20:02:47 2006 From: megs0124 at yahoo.com (Megan) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 20:02:47 -0000 Subject: Child of a Love Potion Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153291 While attepting to fill time during a slow evening at work, I decided to puruse the editorials on mugglenet and found one of interest. Not too long ago, there came a thread about love potions and Merope and Tom Sr. The editorial on mugglenet (http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/editorials/edit-pamelap01.shtml) deals similarly with this topic but takes an approach I do not remember reading about so I thought I'd bring it up. What if the evil of Tom Jr stems from the result of his "unnatural" birth? Could the love potion that flowed through Tom Srs veins have an adverse effect on his ability to love? Could this be the reason that the Fidelious Charm was so strong and VM could not touch Harry? If anyone has read the Gregory Magurire book WICKED or seen the musical, something similar happens. The Wicked Witch of the West was a child of an adulterous relationship and therefore was the color of GREEN. She was not evil to begin with but events lead her to turn evil. The events surround her conception, such as Tom Jrs, lead to her personality and adult form. I don't know if anyone else has thought about it but upon reading that editorial, I thought it brought up an interesting question. Could the Love Potion (false love) have been a catalyst in the Evil of Voldemort? Megan From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 2 20:50:13 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 20:50:13 -0000 Subject: Macnair and Dawlish Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153292 On an entirely different note from recent posts, I've been thinking about the Hagrid-centered events in OoP. We know that Hagrid was trailed by some "berk" from the MoM and that later he observed Macnair and "another Death Eater" negotiating with the murderous new "Gurg,"Golgomath. Neither the MoM tracker (whom Hagrid and Madam Maxime shake off their trail near "Dee John") nor the second Death Eater is identified. We don't know whether Hagrid ever sees his face. What if he's the same person? Could he be Dawlish? We know that Macnair is both a Death Eater and a Ministry of Magic employee whose job is to deal with dangerous beasts and Dark creatures (he was the would-be executioner of Buckbeak and the messenger sent by Fudge to fetch the Dementors to suck out Sirius Black's soul). But Voldemort has promised him more rewarding jobs. Who better to send as his ambassador to the largest "Dark creatures" of all than Macnair/ And yet Fudge (no Death Eater, just deluded about DD's motivations) also has reason to contact the giants. DD himself has advised him to do it, and if DD is sending Hagrid (as Fudge certainly suspects--see Umbridge's words and actions in OoP), then it's in his interest (or so he would think) to send his own ambassador. Again, who better than Macnair to handle the job? I think that Macnair was serving two masters here, pretending to work for Fudge but really working for Voldemort. Quite possibly Lucius Malfoy suggested Macnair for the job, knowing quite well who was Macnair's true master. And what about the second Death Eater, assuming that Hagrid is right in so identifying him? (He's working with Macnair, a known Death Eater; therefore Hagrid assumes that he must be a DE himself.) Could the second man be Dawlish? We know that Dawlish has been tailing DD in HBP (and has been jinxed for his pains). He is among the Aurors who attempt to send DD to Azkaban after Dumbledore gets Harry off the hook by pretending to be training "Dumbledore's Army" to overthrow Fudge. He is also among the Aurors who show up with Umbridge to arrest Hagrid (and end up hospitalizing McGonagall with four Stunners to the chest). If both the man who trailed Hagrid and the man who accompanies Macnair as the DE (and MOM?) ambassador to the giants are the same person, it makes sense to me that he is Dawlish. If that's the case, he certainly knows that Macnair is a Ministry employee. Does he know that Macnair is also a Death Eater? If so, Hagrid must be right, and Dawlish is a Death Eater, too. But it's also possible that he doesn't know that Macnair is a DE, any more than Fudge knows that his dear friend Lucius and his useful beast slayer Macnair are DEs. Anybody? Are they the same person? Are they Dawlish? Is Dawlish a Death Eater? Carol, who thinks that Dawlish is too conspicuous in both OoP and HBP to be merely a name From lolita_ns at yahoo.com Fri Jun 2 21:16:38 2006 From: lolita_ns at yahoo.com (lolita_ns) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 21:16:38 -0000 Subject: CAN SOMEONE HELP? -- Lucius & Narcissa In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153293 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > > ~aussie~ > *(snip)* > > Love still abides in the Malfoy household however. > > > > Draco defends his mother (and bounces around as a ferret because of > > it -GOF) > > Narcissa defends Lucius against Bella in Snapes house. > Ceridwen: > Good points, Aussie. Narcissa becomes almost lionine when defending > Lucius to Bellatrix, in fact. She goes from sobbing, worried mother > to snarling tiger defending her own. > > And, Draco seems to revere both, and at the end of HBP, to be worried > about both (Dumbledore's reference to Lucius being safe for the > moment in Azkaban as a reassurance) so there must be some love, at > least for Draco, and it seems that he has seen love at home toward > more than just himself. > Lolita: Yes, you're right. And remember in GoF, when Draco says on the train that his father wanted him to go to Durmstrang, but didn't send him there because his mother didn't want him to be far away from her. The fact that Draco was sent to Hogwarts instead of Durmstrang shows that Lucius respects Narcissa's wishes, when their son in concerned, at least. Lolita From leslie41 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 2 21:22:04 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 21:22:04 -0000 Subject: Snape and the "Chosen One" Was: Nice vs. Good - Compassion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153294 > > Leslie41: > > You give Remus an awful lot of slack, and I don't begrudge you > > that. I give him slack too. But you use Remus' slack to make a > > noose for Snape, and that, Lupinlore, don't make no sense at > > all. > Lupinlore > But Lupin is not an abuser of children. Leslie41: Lots of criminals and dangerously reckless people don't abuse children. That doesn't make what they do right. Your argument, as usual, is fallacious. Also: Point 1: Snape is "an abuser of children" according to *you*. That's not agreed upon by all. You keep stating it as if it's an agreed upon fact and it most certainly not. You are actually in a minority. Stating something over and over again doesn't make it true. Point 2: EVERYONE agrees that Lupin endangered the entire population of Hogwarts, and Harry, by galumphing about each month as a werewolf, and not telling DD about Black being a registered animagus. Even Lupin himself. That *is* fact. > Lupinlore: > A man who makes many mistakes, yes. A man who has paid for them, > yes. But a man who with cruelty and sadism abuses children while > an "epitome of goodness" stands by and lets it happen? No. Leslie41: I saw one of those cop shows the other day, in which someone coked up out of his mind tried to elude police by going 100 mph the wrong way down an interstate. No one died, but that guy got 10 years in prison. Seems to me like Lupin did that over and over again, didn't he? But hey, that's okay...it's okay because he wasn't "sadistic". Naw, that's not sadistic, but it doesn't matter to the mother who potentially could have had to bury a child, or nurse them through terrible transformations each month. Lupin did it because he was a selfish bastard who cared more about having fun than for the public safety. This is something Lupin himself *admits*. But thanks for providing a stellar example of the "Lupinlore Slack". I'll refer back to it later if I need to. > Lupinlore: > Yes, it most certainly is. Snape is an abuser of children, IMO, > over and out. And if JKR does not deal with that, then she will > have failed in a reprehensible manner that leaves her books good > for nothing but mulch. Leslie41: I predict a nicely mulched garden in your future, and an extremely disappointed and horrified Lupinlore. From lolita_ns at yahoo.com Fri Jun 2 21:28:28 2006 From: lolita_ns at yahoo.com (lolita_ns) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 21:28:28 -0000 Subject: Nature of a Patronus / Snape's Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153295 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > If we could only figure out what the heck a JR Terrior would > represent! Lolita: We may be digging a bit too deep with that one. IIRC, Rowling said in an interview that she had a JRT. She's already given her favourite animal to Hermione as a patronus, for no other reason than the fact that it's her favourite animal. She may have well given Ron her pet as a patronus, for no other reason than the fact that it's her pet. Although I admit it's fun to speculate. Lolita From honeykissed246 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 2 20:54:56 2006 From: honeykissed246 at yahoo.com (honeykissed246) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 20:54:56 -0000 Subject: HBP - Draught of Living Death Potion?? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153296 I was wondering (being fairly new to posting) has anyone thought that the lake that Dumbledore and Harry went to in order to retrieve the Horcrux was actually filled with the Draught of Living Death. I read a very interesting summation of this and it makes sense. I kept wondering why when Harry would say "aguamenti" and the cup would fill with water it would automatically empty and he was coerced into getting "water" from the lake. Why did the inferi attempt to pull Harry into the lake but not Dumbledore? I am not sure if Dumbledore actually drank the "water" or (if I can remember correctly) he drank a little and got splashed with it. I also noticed that all the potions that JKR have mentioned in her books have played a pivotal role later on in the series. So Slughorn used the Felix potion (we seen it used), amortenia (sp), the love potion we seen it and of course the Polyjuice potion and we have seen that a few times. Slughorn also introduces us to the Draught of Living Death but we haven't actually "seen it yet" UNLESS that is what the lake was and what has affected Dumbledore. They were real specific about its symptoms and how it affects people. Now I am not saying that Dumbledore is alive or dead, thats a whole another post. I just think its curious how this was mentioned. And if I can recall correctly, after Ron ate that chocolate tainted with the love potion, Slughorn told Harry that potions can get "stronger" as they sit for awhile. Who knows how long that lake has been there. I think its also suspect that they made a lot of comments about Dumbledore appearing sleepy or tired. I have to look back at the book for specific comments but they were made. I think that Voldemort is powerful enough to concoct a lake full of potion and it would fit with what Dumbledore said. He said that Voldemort would want to "question" the person who made it past his defenses. What better way to do that than to put them to sleep and wake them up later. I also think that is why Dumbledore asked for Snape. Snape may know how to counter the effects of the Draught of Living Death but of course we know that the death eaters came and the plan then had to change. I do think that for that split moment when Snape did come out of the tower and looked at Dumbledore, they were able to communicate. I do believe that Snape did what he was asked to do by Dumbledore. Another thing that was suspect to me as well. Remember that Ginny told Harry that they (Ginny, Hermione, Ron) used the Felix potion that he had left for them and that is why all the curses "appeared to miss them". Now my question is the Felix potion makes people lucky. So why would the "lucky" thing be for Hermione and Ginny to allow Snape to past them? Just a few questions that I had. I also wanted to say thanks to "Tonks" for answering my questions and not making me feel like a moron in the process :). Since I am new to the books honeykissed246 From ClareWashbrook at aol.com Fri Jun 2 21:26:10 2006 From: ClareWashbrook at aol.com (ClareWashbrook at aol.com) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 17:26:10 EDT Subject: My Theory On The Prophecy Message-ID: <3ad.3914114.31b206f2@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153297 >In a message dated 02/06/2006 16:42:56 GMT Standard Time, >ejom723 at yahoo.com >writes: > >It's sort of one of those read between the lines kind of things. I agree that it is very carefully worded. It actually has nothing definite in it at all, other than the existence of a Dark Lord and one who *could* defeat him. One thing that always bothers me is the use of ellipses. Any writer worth their salt knows that ellipsis (ellipsis is three dots "...") means that something has been left out or the sentence is incomplete, it is often used nowadays to tail something off and leave the thought in the hands of the reader. It appears in every line. To me this indicates that there is much missing from the prophecy. Conjecture on a such a matter could go anywhere and probably will. I don't believe that there is room in the story for LV to be Harry's Horcrux. It isn't worked for in the texts and JKR does work for her revelations, they are set up. It is an idea which could be explored in fanfic if you could find a way to make it work, I can't see a way myself. smiles, Clare x [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dontask2much at yahoo.com Fri Jun 2 23:08:49 2006 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 19:08:49 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] HBP - Draught of Living Death Potion?? References: Message-ID: <003901c68699$823c3560$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 153298 "honeykissed246" said : >I was wondering (being fairly new to posting) has anyone thought > that the lake that Dumbledore and Harry went to in order to retrieve > the Horcrux was actually filled with the Draught of Living Death. > >Why did the inferi > attempt to pull Harry into the lake but not Dumbledore? I am not > sure if Dumbledore actually drank the "water" or (if I can remember > correctly) he drank a little and got splashed with it. > > I also noticed that all the potions that JKR have mentioned in her > books have played a pivotal role later on in the series. So > Slughorn used the Felix potion (we seen it used), amortenia (sp), > the love potion we seen it and of course the Polyjuice potion and we > have seen that a few times. Slughorn also introduces us to the > Draught of Living Death but we haven't actually "seen it yet" UNLESS > that is what the lake was and what has affected Dumbledore. rebecca: Welcome to the group! :) First, your observation about the Inferi attempting to pull Harry into the lake instead of Dumbledore is a very astute one, and not one I'd considered. That said, one could ponder the possibilities that if Dumbledore was not necessarily "alive" at the point when this occurred that perhaps they wouldn't attack him or simply that he wasn't the one who disturbed the lake. Still, it's thought provoking and I'm glad you brought it up. One item to consider for the potion DD drank is the Draught of Peace mentioned in OoP. That potion is concocted with hellebore and moonstone. Hellebore, while poisonous, is sometimes called the "Christmas Rose" because some varieties resemble roses and the plant is known to be violently narcotic, with the effects similiar to digitalis. When it is taken by mouth, it is said to be highly acidic and "burns." (One might need a drink after that, hm?) The symptoms of hellebore posioning might ring a bell: "....slow, irregular pulse, weakness, labored breathing, irregular heart beat, convulsions, respiratory failure and nervous system disturbances such as delirium, convulsions and even death due to respiratory collapse" Moonstone supposedly has many connotations surrounding its use in legend and lore, most notably as a "dream stone" (India, where it's from originally and where it is considered by some to be sacred) and as a talisman for fertility (primarly Arab, according to the ICGA) . Wiccans and new age followers believe it balanced the emotions, but also emphasize it enhances divination abilities and intuition. Moonstone in ancient times was thought to allow for one to "read the future", and interesting thing since it's been speculated here that perhaps the potion was a liquified "memory." (Carol, where are you? :)) Could be the potion was enabling Dumbledore to see a future that he didn't quite like at all. Thus there are things to ponder as last we saw Dumbledore's portrait, he/it was sleeping :) Have we seen the same warning about "irreversible sleep" applied to the Draught of Living Death? rebecca From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 2 23:20:39 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 23:20:39 -0000 Subject: HBP - Draught of Living Death Potion?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153299 honeykissed wrote: > > I was wondering (being fairly new to posting) has anyone thought > that the lake that Dumbledore and Harry went to in order to retrieve > the Horcrux was actually filled with the Draught of Living Death. > > I read a very interesting summation of this and it makes sense. I > kept wondering why when Harry would say "aguamenti" and the cup > would fill with water it would automatically empty and he was > coerced into getting "water" from the lake. Why did the inferi > attempt to pull Harry into the lake but not Dumbledore? I am not > sure if Dumbledore actually drank the "water" or (if I can remember > correctly) he drank a little and got splashed with it. > > I also noticed that all the potions that JKR have mentioned in her > books have played a pivotal role later on in the series. Slughorn also introduces us to the Draught of Living Death but we haven't actually "seen it yet" UNLESS that is what the lake was and what has affected Dumbledore. They were real specific about its symptoms and how it affects people. > Carol responds: Interesting idea. BTW, did you mean "*weren't* real specific" in that last sentence? Small sidenote to start off with. The Draught of Living Death is not introduced by Slughorn in HBP but by Snape in the very first Potions lesson in SS/PS (along with the bezoar and monkshood/wolfsbane questions). Since, as you say, the potions introduced in the books often play an important role, and since a bezoar has just saved Ron's life and the Wolfsbane Potion played a key role in PoA, I'd say that it's a safe bet that the Draught of Living Death will indeed be important in Book7. Slughorn may not say much about its effects, but Snape is quite specific: "For your information, Potter, asphodel and wormwood make a sleeping potion so powerful it is known as the Draught of Living Death" (SS/PS Am. ed. 158). I deduce from these words that the sleeper falls into a deathlike sleep rather like the sleep that Snow White fell into after biting the poisoned apple. Exactly how the sleeper is awakened or how the sleep can be distinguished from death is not stated (nor does Snape list all of the ingredients of the potion at this time, but the effects of the potion itself seem clear. And certainly Snape knows how to make it since the HBP's notes include directions for improving it. I would imagine that if anyone knows the antidote, it's also Snape. (We've speculated onlist that there could be some connection between the Draught of Living Death and "putting a stopper in death," but I don't think we've reached any agreement.) I don't think that the water in the lake is the Draught of Living Death. DD was only sprinkled with it, and perhaps a trickle went into his mouth, but I think the weakness, as well as the burning thirst, the mental and emotional anguish, and the physical agony that seems to have accompanied it were all the work of the potion (poisoned memory?) that DD drank. As I understand it, the potion drinker craved water, but only the water in the lake would quench the burning thirst--at the same time disturbing and alerting the Inferi to the presence of a (greatly weakened) intruder. DD fended them off with fire. Had he not done so, both he and Harry would have died a most horrible death. honeykissed: > I think its also suspect that they made a lot of comments about > Dumbledore appearing sleepy or tired. I have to look back at the > book for specific comments but they were made. I think that > Voldemort is powerful enough to concoct a lake full of potion and it > would fit with what Dumbledore said. He said that Voldemort would > want to "question" the person who made it past his defenses. What > better way to do that than to put them to sleep and wake them up > later. Carol: I think that LV concocted the potion in the Pnesievlike bowl, but a whole huge nearly bottomless lake full of potion of any kind seems like a tall order even for him. I think that both the lake and the island (which reminds me of Gollum's!) are natural. Only the boat and chain, the spells, the bowl on its column, and the potion are LV's doing. I do find DD's words about the potion not killing the drinker immediately and especially the part about LV wanting to question the Horcrux thief afterwards suspect. I think he's simply reassuring Harry that it's okay to feed him the potion: He's not going to die, at least not immediately. I think he suspects that something very bad will follow the drinking--probably something to do with the Inferi--but he doesn't want to alarm Harry. (Surely he knows, after the destruction of the diary, which LV didn't know about until Malfoy confessed it, and of the ring Horcrux, which he still doesn't know about or Snape would be dead, that emptying the bowl and stealing the locket won't alert LV. And we know that it won't, either. Regulus was killed for other reasons, the real locket is still intact, and Harry and DD escaped alive--barely so, in DD's case--after stealing the fake Horcrux.) > honeykissed: > I also think that is why Dumbledore asked for Snape. Snape may know > how to counter the effects of the Draught of Living Death but of > course we know that the death eaters came and the plan then had to > change. I do think that for that split moment when Snape did come > out of the tower and looked at Dumbledore, they were able to > communicate. I do believe that Snape did what he was asked to do by > Dumbledore. > Carol: Snape would know how to counter the effects of the potion, whatever it was, but of course he could not do so on the tower surrounded by Death Eaters with no antidote ingredients at hand. (I don't think a countercurse can counter a potion.) Otherwise, I agree with you. Snape did what he had to do, what DD wanted him to do, and that wish was probably communicated through Legilimency. (I realize that several people on this list hold a different opinion, which I'm not going to argue with here. I'm just expressing my agreement with you on this point.) honeykissed: > Another thing that was suspect to me as well. Remember that Ginny > told Harry that they (Ginny, Hermione, Ron) used the Felix potion > that he had left for them and that is why all the curses "appeared > to miss them". Now my question is the Felix potion makes people > lucky. So why would the "lucky" thing be for Hermione and Ginny to > allow Snape to past them? Carol: It was Luna who was watching outside Snape's office with Hermione (HBP Am. ed. 619), and it seems unlikely that she (Luna) would have been affected by the Felix Felicis since she didn't drink it. Nor could it have saved her from being killed by Snape (who, IMO, had no intention of killing either of them) for the same reason. But you're right. Why *would* it be lucky for Snape to rush past them, or past Ginny, Ron, and Neville, who were with the Order fighting DEs? Unless Dumbledore could not be saved and Snape's actions were the only way to save Harry and the school. Lucky indeed, for everyone except Snape (and DD, who would, IMO, have died in any case). Carol, who can't believe she's hearing thunder in early June! From MadameSSnape at aol.com Fri Jun 2 23:52:57 2006 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 19:52:57 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: My Theory On The Prophecy Message-ID: <46b.28931e3.31b22959@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153300 In a message dated 6/2/2006 5:40:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ClareWashbrook at aol.com writes: One thing that always bothers me is the use of ellipses. Any writer worth their salt knows that ellipsis (ellipsis is three dots "...") means that something has been left out or the sentence is incomplete, ======== Sherrie here: I didn't read it that way. Often in a script, an ellipsis will be used to indicate to the actor that a dramatic pause should be placed at that spot in the line. It's easier than writing "(pause)". Trance mediums usually pause several times while giving a prophecy/reading. (If you can find a tape of Kevin Ryerson or the late Sybil Leek, you'll see what I mean.) (Not John Edward or Sylvia Browne - they're not trancers, they're wide-awakes.) I just read the ellipses as Trelawney pausing in her "lines". Sherrie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 3 00:28:34 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 00:28:34 -0000 Subject: My Theory On The Prophecy In-Reply-To: <3ad.3914114.31b206f2@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153301 Clare wrote: > One thing that always bothers me is the use of ellipses [in the Prophecy]. Any writer worth their salt knows that ellipsis (ellipsis is three dots "...") means that something has been left out or the sentence is incomplete, it is often used nowadays to tail something off and leave the thought in the hands of the reader. > It appears in every line. To me this indicates that there is much missing from the prophecy. Conjecture on a such a matter could go anywhere and probably will. Carol responds: Not necessarily. Ellipses (the plural of "ellipsis") can also be used, and frequently are so used in the HP books, to express hesitation. (CMS* 10:39: "Ellipsis points suggest faltering or fragmented speech accompanied by confusion, insecurity, distress, or uncertainty" in contrast to an em dash, which signals "interruptions, abrupt changes in thought, or impatient fractures of grammar.") Since Trelawney is in a trance on both occasions, we can stretch the definitions of "confusion" and "distress" a bit to cover her situation. In either instance, we're not dealing with ordinary conversational speech. Trelawney's second prophecy, which Harry hears in its entirety, also uses ellipses: "The Dark Lord lies alone and friendless, abandoned by his followers. His servant has been chained these twelve years. Tonight, before midnight . . . the servant will break free and set out to rejoin his master. The Dark Lord will rise again with his servant's aid, greater and more terrible than ever he was. Tonight . . . before midnight . . . the servant . . . will set out . . . to rejoin . . . his master" (PoA Am. ed. 324, ellipses in original). Clearly, nothing has been omitted here. The last sentence makes perfect sense despite five sets of ellipses, which appear to indicate longish pauses. Interestingly, except for "greater and more terrible than ever," which has not yet come to pass and could fail to come true if Harry defeats LV in time, this prophecy is immediately fulfilled. "Chained," of course, is figurative. It *seems* to refer to Sirius Black but actually refers to Pettigrew being "chained" or imprisoned in rat form. There's very little ambiguity in this particular prophecy, but I agree that the first prophecy is another matter. (I consider both Harry and Voldie to be "surviving" now; the winner of the battle will "live" and the other will somehow die. Needless to say, I think that Harry will be the victor.) Speaking of conjecture relating to the first prophecy, I want to toss out a time-related theory here. Since the PoA prophecy occurs alsmost immediately (a few hours) before the events it refers to, I conjecture that the first prophecy was made either just before or just after the Prophecy boy(s) was(were) conceived--specifically, on October 31, 1979. Halloween, often if not always significant in the HP books, would have been exactly nine months before his birth (on July 31, 1980). IOW, though JKR is most unlikely to mention the fact in her books, Harry could well have been conceived on Halloween 1979, as could Neville. (Now I know perfectly well that the human gestation period is generally considered to be 38 weeks or 266 days, which is slightly less than nine calendar months, but it's very close and tradition regards it as nine months.) A Halloween date would also fit with the cold, rainy night and with Trelawney's statement that she had been teaching at Hogwarts *nearly* sixteen years at the beginning of Harry's fifth year, which suggests that she was not hired like the other teachers some time before September 1 (the first day of term) but a few months later. (McGonagall was hired in December, so such late hirings do occur at Hogwarts, probably on the death, or promotion to headmaster in this case, of the previous teacher.) Any takers on Halloween 1979 as the Prophecy date? Clare: > I don't believe that there is room in the story for LV to be Harry's > Horcrux. It isn't worked for in the texts and JKR does work for her revelations, they are set up. It is an idea which could be explored in fanfic if you could find a way to make it work, I can't see a way myself. > Carol: On this point I agree, not because there isn't room in the story for yet another complication but because the creation of a Horcrux requires an act of murder to split the soul before the soul bit can be encased in an object. I have enough problems with the idea that Harry is an accidental Horcrux containing a bit of Voldy's soul. The idea that part of *his* soul could have been split off when he was fifteen months old, an age at which even Tom Riddle was incapable of murder, is simply not consistent with Horcruxes as we understand them. DD points out that Harry's soul remains whole and pure, and must remain so if he's to defeat Voldemort. I doubt that Voldemort is anyone's Horcrux (though I do think that Nagini is one of his). I don't believe in accidental Horcruxes, but *if* one exists, it contains Voldies' soul bit, not Harry's. Carol, who thinks that Harry acquired certain *powers* (Parseltongue, communication via the scar, and possibly possession) but not a soul bit at Godric's Hollow *CMS ("The Chicago Manual of Style") is the copyeditor's bible. From honeykissed246 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 3 00:39:21 2006 From: honeykissed246 at yahoo.com (Darlene Carroll) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 17:39:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: HBP - Draught of Living Death Potion?? In-Reply-To: <003901c68699$823c3560$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: <20060603003921.36999.qmail@web33205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153302 rebecca wrote: Welcome to the group! :) One item to consider for the potion DD drank is the Draught of Peace mentioned in OoP. That potion is concocted with hellebore and moonstone. Hellebore, while poisonous, is sometimes called the "Christmas Rose" because some varieties resemble roses and the plant is known to be violently narcotic, with the effects similiar to digitalis. When it is taken by mouth, it is said to be highly acidic and "burns." (One might need a drink after that, hm?) The symptoms of hellebore posioning might ring a bell: "....slow, irregular pulse, weakness, labored breathing, irregular heart beat, convulsions, respiratory failure and nervous system disturbances such as delirium, convulsions and even death due to respiratory collapse" Moonstone supposedly has many connotations surrounding its use in legend and lore, most notably as a "dream stone" (India, where it's from originally and where it is considered by some to be sacred) and as a talisman for fertility (primarly Arab, according to the ICGA) . Wiccans and new age followers believe it balanced the emotions, but also emphasize it enhances divination abilities and intuition. Moonstone in ancient times was thought to allow for one to "read the future", and interesting thing since it's been speculated here that perhaps the potion was a liquified "memory." (Carol, where are you? :)) Could be the potion was enabling Dumbledore to see a future that he didn't quite like at all. Thus there are things to ponder as last we saw Dumbledore's portrait, he/it was sleeping :) Have we seen the same warning about "irreversible sleep" applied to the Draught of Living Death? Honeykissed246: Thanks for that information. Now I can't remember reading anything about the Draught of Peace but from what you were saying about it, it sounds like it would eventually kill you. Now Dumbledore said that Voldemort would not want the individual who got past his defenses to die immediately but be able to question them about "how" they did it. Does the Draught of Peace "kill you" or just put you in a state of "sleep" were you can be aroused if even temporarily to answer questions. And do you think the "Draught of Peace" is what was in the pensieve? Can I can see that.... Draught of Peace in the pensieve where the locket is hidden and Draught of Living Death is the lake. That would be very interesting. Also can you remember when Harry was making it that the "Draught of Living Death" kept changing colors where it eventually turned a slight "pink" but should have been almost "clear" - like water. I am going to go back and look at that section where Harry was making the potion. I don't think he got to finish it but I think it would have looked like water had he completed it. It was what he made to win the Felix potion. From ccaracciolo at nyc.rr.com Sat Jun 3 02:06:58 2006 From: ccaracciolo at nyc.rr.com (carolcaracciolo) Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 02:06:58 -0000 Subject: RAB case is broken - all Aurors please read! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153303 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > > In other words, what is the lesson for Harry in his hunt for the > Horcruxes? > > Hi All! Long time, no post..sorry for the big snip. Just dipping my toe in for a quick thought. I think the lesson Harry must learn in his search for the Horcruxes is the message that JKR has been feeding her readers since GOF (or maybe earlier?). That is unity. In GOF, its "inter-school" unity and, in later books, it becomes "intra-school" unity meaning that the four houses must come together in order to defeat LV. I think that is why each Horcrux represents each of the houses in Hogwarts. Harry must seek out each "house" (as represented by the Horcruxes) and unite them. I think that may actually be the over-arching theme of all 7 books; we're all in this togther. With my two cents in, I'm jumping out of the pool! Just want to thank everyone on this list for some really thought provoking stuff! Carol C. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Jun 3 03:17:22 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 03:17:22 -0000 Subject: HBP - Draught of Living Death Potion?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153304 carol wrote: > I don't think that the water in the lake is the Draught of Living > Death. DD was only sprinkled with it, and perhaps a trickle went into > his mouth, but I think the weakness, as well as the burning thirst, > the mental and emotional anguish, and the physical agony that seems to > have accompanied it were all the work of the potion (poisoned memory?) > that DD drank. As I understand it, the potion drinker craved water, > but only the water in the lake would quench the burning thirst--at the > same time disturbing and alerting the Inferi to the presence of a > (greatly weakened) intruder. DD fended them off with fire. Had he not > done so, both he and Harry would have died a most horrible death. zgirnius: The one point not addressed by the idea that the drinker of the green goo is made thirsty just so that the Inferi would attack him is that this WOULD be expected to result in the relatively quick death of the intruder. Dumbledore states that in his opinion, Voldemort would want to ensure the intruder stays alive long enough to be questioned. Of course, this could have just been Dumbledore blowing smoke to distract Harry from his worry that he is feeding a deadly poison to Dumbledore... But if not, and the defenses are as you suggest, Dumbledore was wrong. On the other hand, if the theory honeykissed describes is true, the defenses do exactly what Dumbledore predicted. The Inferi will leave the comatose drinker of the lake water (Draught) alive for Voldemort to find and question next time he drops by. (Which is probably not very soon.) > Carol: > I think that LV concocted the potion in the Pnesievlike bowl, but a > whole huge nearly bottomless lake full of potion of any kind seems > like a tall order even for him. I think that both the lake and the > island (which reminds me of Gollum's!) are natural. Only the boat and > chain, the spells, the bowl on its column, and the potion are LV's doing. zgirnius: I agree the potion can't be the whole lake. But the same effect coudl be achieved with an enchantment on the lake water...that it runs away from a cup to allow draught from a rather smaller reserve to fill any receptacle with which anyone draws water from the lake. The fact that the potion is 'clear as water' would mean the unsuspecting person getting the water would miss the substitution. Carol: > I do find DD's words about the potion not killing the drinker > immediately and especially the part about LV wanting to question the > Horcrux thief afterwards suspect. I think he's simply reassuring Harry > that it's okay to feed him the potion: He's not going to die, at least > not immediately. zgirnius: I admire the lake theory for its cleverness...but I do tend to agree with you. I don't really believe it. > Carol: > Snape would know how to counter the effects of the potion, whatever it > was, but of course he could not do so on the tower surrounded by Death > Eaters with no antidote ingredients at hand. (I don't think a > countercurse can counter a potion.) Otherwise, I agree with you. Snape > did what he had to do, what DD wanted him to do, and that wish was > probably communicated through Legilimency. (I realize that several > people on this list hold a different opinion, which I'm not going to > argue with here. I'm just expressing my agreement with you on this point.) zgirnius: The lake theory (at least the version I have read) is at its heart an Aliver theory. What Dumbledore would want, surrounded by Death Eaters and about to fall into a deathlike sleep, would be for Snape to *fake* his death. An interpretation of the third clause of Snape's Vow which would permit this (without killing Snape) can be argued. From honeykissed246 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 3 00:48:18 2006 From: honeykissed246 at yahoo.com (Darlene Carroll) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 17:48:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: HBP - Draught of Living Death Potion?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060603004818.36029.qmail@web33213.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153305 > honeykissed wrote: > > I was wondering (being fairly new to posting) has anyone thought > that the lake that Dumbledore and Harry went to in order to retrieve > the Horcrux was actually filled with the Draught of Living Death. > Carol responds: > I don't think that the water in the lake is the Draught of Living > Death. > honeykissed: > I think that Voldemort is powerful enough to concoct a lake > full of potion > Carol: > I think that LV concocted the potion in the Pnesievlike bowl, but a > whole huge nearly bottomless lake full of potion of any kind seems > like a tall order even for him. I think that both the lake and the > island (which reminds me of Gollum's!) are natural. honeykissed: Justcarol...there is a very interesting website that discusses this information, www.cosforums.com - This is where I began thinking that the Draught of Living Death is what was used. The writer of the article is a lot more eloquent than I am at explaining the facts and have read the books, obviously more than once (like me). I would recommend it. She really connects the information together. If you get to read it let me know what you think. I still believe it's the draught of living death that is in the lake. I believe Voldemort has the power to make a lake containing this potion. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 3 03:40:51 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 03:40:51 -0000 Subject: Draco and Harry WAS: Re: Nice vs. Good, honesty, and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153306 Megan: > I wish too that DD would have stopped Draco. But as with the whole > Miltonic idea of Free will, God (ie DD in this case), knows whats going > to happen, knows that people are going to get hurt and die, but allows > people and the events to play themselves out without stepping in to save > himself. For whatever reason DD did not stop Draco. Was it to allow > Snape to continue on as a spy and save his cover/life? Was it to show > Draco that he was not a murderer and see the error of his ways? Make > Harry take that last step towards acceptance of his fate? Make the > Ultimate sacrifice? Think of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Aslan > sacrificed himself to save Edmund, the traitor, and allow Peter to take > charge. Now will DD miracuously ressurect himself? Part of me says no. I > don't know, but Harry has now come to accept his Lot and is going to > take charge instead of telling others and stepping back. It is Harry's > turn to lead. > Alla: I snipped the part I completely agree with about Harry instincts being more and more on the mark with every book. Well, I do understand that DD may not have stopped Draco because he wanted to save him, or because he wanted to let Snape spy, etc, BUT the problem I see with it is that Dumbledore while wanting to save Draco puts other students in horrible danger from Draco hair brained assasination attempts. I mean, I am still not sure that DD knew all of Draco's activities, but if he did, oh my... That is beyond reckless IMO. I wonder how he would have felt if Katie and Ron WOULD have died. Could he have looked Katy's parents and Arthur and Molly in the eyes with clear conscience and told him. You know, I really wanted to save Draco that is why in the process I let your children die. As to Aslan, Aslan sacrificed himself and himself only IMO. That was his choice to make. Dumbledore's choices on the other hand often puzzle me a great deal :) JMO, Alla From laurel.coates at gmail.com Sat Jun 3 00:20:27 2006 From: laurel.coates at gmail.com (Laurel Coates) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 17:20:27 -0700 Subject: HBP - Draught of Living Death Potion?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3cd952930606021720t2aa8bff5k24991097b656de7@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153307 On 6/2/06, justcarol67 wrote: > Carol: > It was Luna who was watching outside Snape's office with Hermione > (HBP Am. ed. 619), and it seems unlikely that she (Luna) would have > been affected by the Felix Felicis since she didn't drink it. Laurel: I thought that Ginny, Ron, Hermione, Neville and Luna all drank Felix Felicis... -- Laurel From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Jun 3 05:28:54 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 05:28:54 -0000 Subject: My Theory On The Prophecy/ Love Potion Child In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153308 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ejom723" wrote: > > What if when LV attacked baby Harry, he not only transferred some of his powers into Harry (parseltongue, Slytherin traits), but also transferred a part of Harry into himself (LV)? I'm thinking that maybe LV acccidently without his awareness made himself HARRY'S Horcrux! Tonks: Well, this is the weekend and I have it off plus Monday, per the Ministry's Owl message passed on by Ceridwen. But before I take off for a few days at Scrimgeour's beach house(in a secret, unplotable location, of course.)(with Lupin ) I will just say that I have pondered this idea. But not that LV is a Horcrux himself. I don't think the word would be Horcrux either, because that is very dark magic. But I have wondered if it is possible for someone's soul to enter another person in a positive way, such as when they sacrifice their life for you. I know that some have suggested that some part of Lily is in Harry, and I am not a big fan of that theory. But I have wondered if killing splits your soul, is there something that makes you whole and also imparts something (????) to another person. If killing is the evil way, what is the opposite of that which would do the opposite of a Horcrux? I know these ideas have been brought up before, but I don't remember anything coming of them. It does make sense that we need an opposite. A Ying for our Yang, so to speak. But what?? It may be tied in to an idea similar to that of the Holy Spirit coming into a person because of the sacrificial Love of Christ, but that is as far as I have gotten with this. The spirit of DD or Fawkes maybe residing in Harry to help guide and protect him? And now we are back to the spirit of Lily possibly being in Harry. ??? As I think on this a bit more, I don't think that it will be the "soul" of the other, but maybe somehow the giving of ones life enlarges your soul in someway and the overflowing 'spirit' which is different than 'soul' is what goes into the person who was saved by the act. Megan said: What if the evil of Tom Jr stems from the result of his "unnatural" birth? Could the love potion that flowed through Tom Sr's veins have an adverse effect on his ability to love? (Snip) Could the Love Potion (false love) have been a catalyst in the Evil of Voldemort? Tonks: As to this idea, I have thought about the differences between Harry and Tom starting with Harry being conceived in Love and Tom conceived in deceit. I have not thought about the idea of the conception of a child conceived through an unnatural love as the conception of a child without the capacity to love. But this is an interesting idea and gives us something to think about especially now that Harry's blood is in LV. LV now has some of Lily's blood in him. He has in some fashion "love" in his blood. Exactly how this will play out remains a mystery to me. But it may be the reason for DD's twinkle. I have often thought that DD longed to see Tom redeemed, and may not have totally given up on him. Maybe DD knows something about the ill effects of love poition on the child of such a union. I wonder if this 'birth defect' could have been overcome if Tom had been loved by someone. He has never been loved and has never loved. He was not evil at birth, JKR has said that "no one is born evil". But poor Tom did not get off to a good start. I have often said that it is "we" who have made LV. That is to say when we turn our back on the orphan, the innocent and suffering, as a society and as individuals "we" are collectively responsible for the evil that has come into the world this time by the name of LV. When he is destroyed, if we do not learn from this, another will rise in his place. And on and on. Well that is all for now. Carry on... Tonks_op (packing suntan lotion, sunglasses, some of elf-tested Rosmerta's wine ;-) see you all later!) From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Sat Jun 3 06:03:47 2006 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (Jazmyn Concolor) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 23:03:47 -0700 Subject: Harry a Horcrux? No.. Something different... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44812643.4060502@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153309 I am wondering where people keep getting the idea that the simple act of using a killing spell creates a horcrux.. I find this HIGHLY unlikely that everyone who kills anyone is making horcruxes willy-nilly, right and left, popping them out of their ears or whatever. While the whole idea of soul splitting by killing is all very fun for some, its not likely that it just creates a random horcrux. If.. and I say IF, wizards killing splits the soul, then likely all the pieces stay together normally and the person just has to deal with it, with nothing more then whatever regrets they had caused by killing.. However, this means that Voldemort was likely carrying a number of pre-enchanted horcrux 'storage' items with him when attacking Harry and his parents. Posibly triggered by him killing someone or each item might have to be set for a specific person to be killed by the owner to activate it? Making a horcrux likely takes a pre-enchanted vessel to house the soul chunk, then once the soul piece is trapped in the item, the person suffers no regrets for what they did as they are removed from the split piece of soul. Its unlikely that one can accidentally make a horcrux due to the vessel having to be properly enchanted to receive the soul piece. If... and I say IF, Harry absorbed a piece of Voldemort's soul meant to go into an enchanted item, then he is not really a horcrux, as that piece of soul is apt to merge completely with Harry's, giving him some of Voldemort's powers and a link of sorts to him, but NOT making him a horcrux.. He might be some form of 'anti-horcrux', absorbing a piece of soul meant for an enchanted item, but being a free-willed being, unlike Voldemort's snake, the 'soul piece' will not be the same after long term exposure.. What happens if Voldemort ever got back that piece of soul, now 'changed' by Harry? Would be like suddenly giving Voldemort a conscience and the horror of what he had done with his life and the taint of 'love' in that piece of soul might destroy him. Harry would lose the powers he gained from Voldemort, but that would not really matter much.. No, I do not believe Harry is technically a horcrux, but something more, something taking a piece of an evil creature's soul and purifying it for return later... Jazmyn > > From dontask2much at yahoo.com Sat Jun 3 06:12:02 2006 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 02:12:02 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: HBP - Draught of Living Death Potion?? References: <20060603004818.36029.qmail@web33213.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00ff01c686d4$a1a212e0$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 153310 > honeykissed: > Justcarol...there is a very interesting website that discusses this > information, www.cosforums.com - This is where I began thinking that > the Draught of Living Death is what was used. The writer of the > article is a lot more eloquent than I am at explaining the facts and > have read the books, obviously more than once (like me). I would > recommend it. She really connects the information together. If you > get to read it let me know what you think. I still believe it's the > draught of living death that is in the lake. I believe Voldemort has > the power to make a lake containing this potion. > Bec: I've read a few editorials here and there (including the one you specified) and the main problem that I have with the lake potion theory is unfortunately, a great number of things including the fact that enchanted Inferi are all within it could render the lake affected in an "unnatural" manner by way of magic. Remember, the Harry's response outside the cave: "How can you tell?" Harry spoke in a whisper. "It has known magic," said Dumbledore simply. Harry could not tell whether the shivers he was experiencing were due to his spine-deep coldness or to the same awareness of enchantments" That "awareness" of magic in the immediate vacinity also happened, albeit slightly differently, earlier in the book when Dumbledore visited Privet Drive to pick up Harry. So I don't think it's too far fetched to speculate that rather than the lake be potion (the unnatural glassiness), the lake is effected by all the magic in the enclosed area of the cave, not to mention all the enchanted Inferi underneath it. Since touching the water makes the Inferi rise, it also could be speculated it's "booby trapped" which could just have easily been done with a wand. The latter of the prior sentence is more likely, because we know from Harry that Voldemort planned the water to be disturbed (again, by having the potion drinker want water desperately after the potion he drank) so the Inferi could do their thing: "Harry knew, instinctively, the only way left to get water, because Voldemort had planned it so ... He flung himself over to the edge of the rock and plunged the goblet into the lake, bringing it up full to the brim of icy water that did not vanish. "Sir - here!" Harry yelled, and lunging forward, he tipped the water clumsily over Dumbledores face. " Dumbledore does say that he believed that Voldemort would have wanted to keep the drinker alive for a bit to find out why he was there - so, curiousity is killing me here as to how that would have happened. Like, for example, Harry thought he was going to be pulled into and under the lake to lay with the dead Inferi. If that's what Voldemort intended, how's he going to question anybody? They'd kind of be dead and drowned, wouldn't they? rebecca From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jun 3 06:45:34 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 06:45:34 -0000 Subject: Harry a Horcrux? No.. Something different... In-Reply-To: <44812643.4060502@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153311 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Jazmyn Concolor wrote: Jazmyn: > I am wondering where people keep getting the idea that the simple act of > using a killing spell creates a horcrux.. I find this HIGHLY unlikely > that everyone who kills anyone is making horcruxes willy-nilly, right > and left, popping them out of their ears or whatever. While the whole > idea of soul splitting by killing is all very fun for some, its not > likely that it just creates a random horcrux. If.. and I say IF, > wizards killing splits the soul, then likely all the pieces stay > together normally and the person just has to deal with it, with nothing > more then whatever regrets they had caused by killing.. Geoff: I agree with this. Way back in post 139859, in a long discussion on whether Harry was or was not a Horcrux - and I have always argued strongly in favour of the latter - I wrote the following: 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]... [1] HBP "Horcruxes" p.465 UK edition Please note that Slughorn does not say that horcruxes are randomly created. They are created by an ACT OF EVIL. They do not just "happen" - they are made by a specific act of will. From kjones at telus.net Sat Jun 3 07:37:41 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 00:37:41 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry a Horcrux? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44813C45.6060002@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 153312 Geoff Bannister wrote: > Geoff: snip > > 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]... > > [1] HBP "Horcruxes" p.465 UK edition > > > Please note that Slughorn does not say that horcruxes are randomly > created. They are created by an ACT OF EVIL. They do not just > "happen" - they are made by a specific act of will. KJ: To me, this whole argument is a question of semantics. Is a soul part, whether intentionally, or unintentionally, encased in anything, a horcrux? Does a soul part actually have to be intentionally encased in order to make a horcrux? JKR has gone to great lengths to state that what occurred at Godric's Hollow had never happened before. Therefore, no one would have any idea of the repercussions. There had never before, in the history of the WW, been a backlash from a killing curse. If, during the explosion resulting from the backlash of the failed curse, a fragmented part of Voldemort's soul entered Harry, does it make a horcrux. The scar makes it obvious that something cut into Harry's head, we have now learned about horcruxes, and how they are made, and we know that Voldemort must had had several split fragments available. We know that there is a connection between them and that Harry has some of Voldemort's abilities. All of our information about horcruxes has come from Slughorn and Dumbledore, who also have no previous experience to know what could possibly have happened to Harry. I do think DD suspects. So, in my opinion, for what it is worth, I believe that it was the force of the explosion that is responsible for Harry being the repository of a soul part, and not through any design of Voldemort. I don't think that he had any intention of creating a horcrux at the scene of the crime. It would seem that a horcrux can be made at any time, although it is a bit confusing as to how to choose a particular soul piece to create a horcrux. In this instance, it is less confusing to argue whether or not we believe that Harry is holding a soul piece, than it is to argue whether or not he is a horcrux. KJ From iam.kemper at gmail.com Sat Jun 3 08:13:33 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 01:13:33 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Child of a Love Potion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40606030113t25260e8eqab827200ea5e2bc0@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153313 Megan wrote: > > While attepting to fill time during a slow evening at work, I decided > to puruse the editorials on mugglenet and found one of interest. > > Not too long ago, there came a thread about love potions and Merope > and Tom Sr. The editorial on mugglenet > (http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/editorials/edit-pamelap01.shtml) > deals similarly with this topic but takes an approach I do not > remember reading about so I thought I'd bring it up. > > What if the evil of Tom Jr stems from the result of his "unnatural" > birth? Could the love potion that flowed through Tom Srs veins have an > adverse effect on his ability to love? Could this be the reason that > the Fidelious Charm was so strong and VM could not touch Harry? If > anyone has read the Gregory Magurire book WICKED or seen the musical, > something similar happens. The Wicked Witch of the West was a child of > an adulterous relationship and therefore was the color of GREEN. She > was not evil to begin with but events lead her to turn evil. The > events surround her conception, such as Tom Jrs, lead to her > personality and adult form. > > I don't know if anyone else has thought about it but upon reading that > editorial, I thought it brought up an interesting question. Could the > Love Potion (false love) have been a catalyst in the Evil of > Voldemort? > .. . Kemper now: Hi Megan. I wrote a post touches upon this theme entitled 'Contrasting Harry's and Tom's Beginnings', but I went a different route than the mugglenet editorial. Below is the link: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/150245 Below is a cut and past (with some minor edits) of the post: Dumbledore mentions several times the differences between Harry and Tom when they had similar upbringing: orphaned. But does that matter as much as their conception/births? As love (abundance and lack) seems to be the primary difference, I think we should look at MeropeandTomSr v LilyandJames. Merope experienced no love, yet held hope for it though she misperceived lust for love. When she stopped the love (should be renamed to infatuation or fixation) potion, she suffered the truth of her situation: a loveless life. In that suffering she lost hope for love, giving up love entirely. In spite of the love potion, Tom was not conceived in love (not too uncommon in the RW, unfortunately), he was also not in utero with love, and he wasn't birthed in love. Yes, she gave him a name but then she went away. Though the Orphanage had seemingly caring people working in it, I believe in a real world sense that it would be hard for any staff working with this population to fully give parental love. Not because these staff would be callous, but because they, too, don't want to be heartbroken or have been heartbroken too much, so they give what they can. But sometimes, if not most, it's not enough. Harry was the opposite, up until he became orphaned. He was conceived, in utero, birthed, and reared (for 15 months) in and with love. I hope this moves the conversation further... Kemper [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sat Jun 3 10:43:17 2006 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 10:43:17 -0000 Subject: DD and Draco's murder attempts(was Draco and Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153314 > Alla: > Well, I do understand that DD may not have stopped Draco because he > wanted to save him, or because he wanted to let Snape spy, etc, BUT > the problem I see with it is that Dumbledore while wanting to save > Draco puts other students in horrible danger from Draco hair brained > assasination attempts. > > I mean, I am still not sure that DD knew all of Draco's activities, > but if he did, oh my... That is beyond reckless IMO. > > I wonder how he would have felt if Katie and Ron WOULD have died. > Could he have looked Katy's parents and Arthur and Molly in the eyes > with clear conscience and told him. You know, I really wanted to > save Draco that is why in the process I let your children die. Ginger: Maybe this will put your mind at a bit of ease, Alla. Let's look at the chronology. At the beginning of the year, Draco comes to school with the intent to kill DD. Whether or not DD knows this is up for grabs, but just for now, let's say he does. (If he didn't, we couldn't expect him to do anything anyway, now, could we?) So for the first part of the year, Draco does nothing. DD has to wait for him to make a move, if DD knows about it. Otherwise, it's just speculation as to whether or not he will actually do anything. In mid-October they have the first Hogsmead trip of the year. Filch is checking everyone coming in and out with a Secrecy Sensor. Katie gets the necklace. We know the rest. >From mid-October until mid-December there is no mention of Harry or anyone in his POV getting or needing anything from outside of Hogwarts. It's only in mid-December that Hermione warns him that Romilda is planning to spring a love potion on him. Harry wants to know how she plans to get it into the school, noting that the owls are being searched. This would indicate to me that the searching of the owls has been put into effect before mid-December. Given the use of the Secrecy Sensor in mid-October, I'd say even before that. DD has the handy excuse of the DE activity in the rest of the WW, and the protection of the students for that reason, but could he have also been attempting to thwart Draco as well? Again, that's up for grabs. The next attempt we see is in March on Ron's birthday. But the attempt is not made in March. Ron is poisoned by mead that was intended as a Christmas present for DD. I think we can safely assume that it was purchased before Christmas. HRH meet Sluggy in Hogsmead in October, so he could have bought it then, although being that Sluggy is staff, he can probably come and go as he pleases, so it could have been purchased at any time. As staff, Sluggy would probably not have been searched. Even if he was, F&G were still smuggling things in disguised as cough syrups or perfumes. Certainly the mead would have disguised it enough to get past Filch, and the Secrecy Sensor would not have been activated as Sluggy would have made no secret of the fact that he had bought mead for DD for Christmas. So it's not that DD did nothing, let Katie get poisoned in October, still did nothing, and let Ron get poisoned in March; it's that Draco had the presence of mind to have a plan A and a plan B. One was intended to happen in October, and the mead was intended to strike at Christmas. After whenever it was that Sluggy brought in the mead, Draco doesn't attempt to bring anything into the castle via any route other than the vanishing cabinets, which DD certainly didn't know about. This does raise the question of just how efficient the searching of the owls was if F&G could still smuggle things in. Just some food for thought. Ginger, who has been informed that there was a problem with her e-mail account which effected this group and extends any apologies appropriate to the situation. From greatraven at hotmail.com Sat Jun 3 11:53:56 2006 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 11:53:56 -0000 Subject: Nature of a Patronus / Snape's Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153315 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Megan" wrote: > > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" > wrote: > > > > Potioncat: > > > If we could only figure out what the heck a JR Terrior would > > > represent! > > > > Ceridwen: > > A friend of mine has a JRT. The dogette stands up to everybody and > > everything. She has gone after dogs much larger than herself for an > > affront to her dogly dignity. When she gets something in her craw, > > she's on it and she doesn't let it go. Words I would use to describe > > my friend's JRT: Tenacious, loyal, fearless, single-minded. > > > > If JKR got the idea for a JRT for Ron from knowing a JRT, perhaps we > > don't need to look as far as mythology or legend to find out what it > > would represent. > > > > Ceridwen. > > > > > Megan writes: > > I agree. Ron has always been at the bottom at the totem-pole of his > family. Being the youngest (male), he has all his brothers > accomplishments and achievements pushing down on him and making it > sometimes hard to notice. JRT are small dogs and can be forgotten in the > large amount of other larger dogs. Ron has had to "bark himself to > death" to be known and recognized. He is loyal to his friends and has > proved himself fearless in many situations. He just has to be a little > extra loud (and sometimes annoying as smaller dogs can sometimes be- > think Ron + Lav-Lav) to get noticed by others. Sue: Er - have I missed something here? Is there some mention about a Patronus for Ron anywhere in the books that I have missed? The only mention I can remember of a JRT is a creature in the Magical Creatures exam in which the animal looks exactly like one except for the tail. Sorry, this is what happens when you pick up a thread you haven't seen the beginning of. :-) I used to have one, BTW - she attacked a German Shepherd about two weeks before she died at the grand old age of 16 years. Jack Rusells are brave, intelligent and loving. Does this help in the discussion? > From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jun 3 13:29:44 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 13:29:44 -0000 Subject: DD's Knowledge (was Re: Nice vs. Good, honesty,) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153316 Pippin: > > > > It seems to me that a lot of Harry's troubles come from trying to > > parent the adults. If he hadn't tried to cover up Hagrid's dragon > > problems, he would've been able to tell McGonagall the truth. > > If he hadn't been trying to protect McGonagall, he could have > > told her about Umbridge. If he hadn't been trying to protect > > Sirius, he could have used the Mirror. In fact, if he'd let Sirius > > and Lupin deal with Snape and then with Pettigrew in PoA, > > a whole boatload of troubles might have been avoided. > > Lupinlore: > And yet we have the claim that the series is not very friendly toward > childhood and that Harry's duty is to grow up as fast as possible and > become a parent himself rather than trying to search for parental > figures. Seems like this is saying that Harry has been doing TOO good > of a job of growing up fast and needs to look around a lot harder for > parental figures and stay a child longer. Pippin: Well, Harry's problem, IMO, is that his parental instincts have been activated too soon, because he's basically had to parent himself. There's no way to undo that, as Dumbledore sadly discovered. But Harry doesn't have the experience or the mental development to parent wisely, so the series is, I would say, giving him the opportunity to develop these things and meanwhile showing how he suffers for the lack of them. Harry smuggles Norbert out of Hogwarts in order to keep Hagrid from having to face the just and lawful consequences of illegal dragon-keeping, which echoes the Dursleys' indulgence of Dudley. Harry withholds information lest people make wrong decisions which are theirs to make, which echoes the bad parenting decision Dumbledore made when he withheld the prophecy. (Re-read PS/SS if you want to grasp the full irony of Dumbledore's error. Harry already knew, from the centaurs, that his death had been foretold.) I do think that Dumbledore might at least wonder whether Harry was bullying Draco. After all, Draco often seems to come out the worst in these encounters-- he wouldn't be trying to get himself beaten up, would he? I don't think Dumbledore would believe that any child deserves the scar quill. OTOH, he does think scars can be useful -- as evidence, for example. And there is the fact that Arthur has scars from a Hogwarts punishment, and Molly seems to think they're a badge of honor. I doubt that Dumbledore would let Dolores use the quill in front of him. But exposure after the fact might backfire -- there seems to be no shortage of Aunt Marge's in the WW. We don't hear of any outcry when corporal punishment is officially reintroduced. One of the things adults do better than children is navigate between conflicting goals. Adults understand that in order to prevent a great evil it is sometimes necessary to tolerate a lesser one. Children, OTOH, often expect adults to provide them with a perfect world, and throw Dudley-style tantrums when they don't get it. Which is probably why Dudley has so many broken toys.:) Pippin From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Jun 3 16:53:58 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 16:53:58 -0000 Subject: Nature of a Patronus / Snape's Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153317 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sbursztynski" wrote: > > Sue: > Er - have I missed something here? Is there some mention about a Patronus for Ron anywhere in the books that I have missed? The only mention I can remember of a JRT is a creature in the Magical Creatures exam in which the animal looks exactly like one except > for the tail. Tonks: >From one of the iterview: MA: What's Ron's Patronus? JKR: Ron's Patronus? Have I never said that either? Oh no, that's shocking! [Laughter.] Ron's Patronus is a small dog, like a Jack Russell, and that's a really sentimental choice, because we've got a Jack Russell. He's insane. From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Sat Jun 3 16:56:46 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 16:56:46 -0000 Subject: DD and Draco's murder attempts(was Draco and Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153318 --- "quigonginger" wrote: > Ginger:(editted) > > It's only in mid-December that Hermione warns him (Harry) that > Romilda is planning to spring a love potion on him. Harry wants > to know how she plans to get it into the school, noting that the > owls are being searched. ... F&G were still smuggling things in > disguised as cough syrups or perfumes. > > Ron is poisoned by mead that was intended as a Christmas present > for DD. > Sluggy would have made no secret of the fact that he had bought > mead for DD for Christmas. aussie: Sorry Ginger, I don't think Sluggy bought the mead. Draco got Rosemertta (acting under Draco's Curse) to send the bottle as a gift. Draco overhears Hermoine in mid-December and plots the poison because of her big mouth. Sluggy would be allowed out of the school whenever he wished, being a teacher. On one of those visits, Rosemertta asked Sluggy to deliver the bottle to DD as a present. Sluggy "forgot" and still had the mead in his room in March. (Under impedamerta curse, would Rosmertta remembered who she passed the mead to if Draco asked why DD hadn't drunk his mead yet at Christmas? Did Sluggy still have it because Draco couldn't track down where that present went to?) > Ginger: > So it's not that DD did nothing, let Katie get poisoned in > October, still did nothing, and let Ron get poisoned in March; > it's that Draco had the presence of mind to have a plan A and a > plan B. One was intended to happen in October, and the mead was > intended to strike at Christmas. > aussie: Draco was getting frustrated with the cabinets, and made attempts when the chance offered itself. They may not have been planned too far in advance. (Draco cried to Moaning Myrtle because the cabinets were harder than he anticipated) DD was limited in who he could get to talk to Draco and how much to tell. LV is a powerful Occlemacy wizard. Besides himself, Snape is the only one he trusted to withstand LV's mind reading and Snape does take Draco to the classroom to tell him off for clumsy attempts. This was the reason DD gave to Draco when he finally spoke on the Tower. From pebbles104 at sbcglobal.net Sat Jun 3 04:37:31 2006 From: pebbles104 at sbcglobal.net (Kellie and Lady J) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 00:37:31 -0400 Subject: RAB case is broken - all Aurors please read! References: Message-ID: <007701c686c7$6daee470$6500a8c0@shannonn2zgd3u> No: HPFGUIDX 153319 Ceridwen: I think that R.A.B. is Regulus, but what's happened to him? Sirius said he was killed shortly after he tried to leave the DEs, supported by Lupin's announcement at Harry's b-day party in HBP (Regulus managed to evade being killed for just a few days). But Dumbledore's talk with Draco on the Tower has led many to believe that perhaps Regulus is still alive and disguised as Filch. Aberforth Another character we might have seen end snip Kellie: I am quite new to this list and this is my first post, but I want to say that I am enjoying what I have read so far. All that has been mentioned is quite thought provoking and I am loving the discussion. Ok, on to what I was going to say. smiles My first thought was that Regulus black were what the initials stood fore. I also have speculated that Regulus taking the horcrux may be what lead to his death. Perhaps, when he decided he wanted to get away from the dark side, he wanted to do something to try and bring LV down. So, he decided to get hold of one of the horcruxes, and in it's place left the note, that was in the fake locket. A message maybe? to anyone who was fighting against LV to let them know it wasn't the real thing? . Or, as a last message for LV if he were to read it. If I recall correctly, the writer of the message said that he would probably be dead. Perhaps that is why Regulus was killed. LV discovered that he had turned, and had hidden away the horcrux and he wouldn't reveal the location and died because of it. Regulus, expecting to die, left that note in the fake locket. I must admit I didn't consider the possibility of him still being alive. I will have to go back and reread the part when Dumbledore is speaking with Draco. I need to reread that book again anyway. When I first read it, I was focused more on emotions and when DD was killed I was upset and probably missed some pertinent information, since DD was my favorite character. smiles Ceridwen: >What can Harry learn from Regulus's >story? - he has to learn something or it wouldn't have been >introduced in a book about finding and recognizing clues. >end snip I also agree with this point. It has to be something important to the story, though I am not sure how yet. I am very eager to find out. The message in the locket is something my friends and I have discussed and puzzled over, since reading the book. I hope my comments made sense and that it wasn't to far fetched. smiles Kellie and my loveable Lady J. Luck never gives, it only lends. Chinese proverb msn sky_lark74 at hotmail.com From kayla_pittillo at hotmail.com Sat Jun 3 06:56:40 2006 From: kayla_pittillo at hotmail.com (Kayla Pittillo) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 01:56:40 -0500 (Central Daylight Time) Subject: Regulus and Kreacher References: <1149281489.3104.88413.m25@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153320 If Regulus was alive, wouldn't that mean Kreacher would have automatically gone to him as being a Black, instead of Harry? I seem to recall Kreacher was bound, although unwillingly, to Harry and not another Black. Just my two bits worth. Kayla From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 3 05:03:18 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 05:03:18 -0000 Subject: Snape and the "Chosen One" Was: Nice vs. Good - Compassion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153321 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" wrote: > > > > Lupinlore: > > Yes, it most certainly is. Snape is an abuser of children, IMO, > > over and out. And if JKR does not deal with that, then she will > > have failed in a reprehensible manner that leaves her books good > > for nothing but mulch. > > Leslie41: > I predict a nicely mulched garden in your future, and an extremely > disappointed and horrified Lupinlore. > Then, as I say, JKR will have failed in an abominable and reprehensible manner by approving of child abuse. I won't really be disappointed, as I rather expect her to fail in such an abominable and contemptible fashion. But, as you say, gardens do need mulch. But how do you expect things to end? What do you think would be appropriate? Surely you don't think that the Dursleys, Umbridge, and Snape can go unpunished for their reprehensible crimes against Harry and the series will still have a moral leg to stand on? Lupinlore From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Jun 3 19:43:00 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 19:43:00 -0000 Subject: Regulus and Kreacher In-Reply-To: <448132A8.000001.57195@LINWE> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153322 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kayla Pittillo" wrote: > > > If Regulus was alive, wouldn't that mean Kreacher would have > automatically gone to him as being a Black, instead of Harry? > I seem to recall Kreacher was bound, although unwillingly, to > Harry and not another Black. Just my two bits worth. > > Kayla > bboyminn: I think it depends on how much magic is involved. You can fool people and you can probably fool house-elves, but you can't fool magic. So, if it is really magic and nothing else the binds a house-elf then it would seem logical that Kreacher would not have felt any connection to Harry if Regulus was alive. If the binding factor is Elfin Honor as I suspect, then Kreacher would have had no way of knowing who was or wasn't alive, he would simply have to follow his honor and go where he seemed to belong regardless of his personal desires. Still, I can't think of any reason, poltwise, why Regulus would still be alive. At best he could help Harry find the one Horcrux that Harry is already MOST likely to find anyway. I just don't see any point in it. Since we heard Dumbledore make his claim that he can fake people's deaths, we have been eager to raise every person in the series from the dead, but to what point? How does it serve the story if Dumbledore is alive? I want him to be alive, but I just don't see any point to it. The only people that I think are LIKELY to come back from the dead are Sirius and/or Harry. Those deaths and resurections could serve the plot. Of course, I'm well aware that Harry isn't dead...yet...but there is still one book to go, and anything can happen. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From divya_thomas1 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 3 08:18:19 2006 From: divya_thomas1 at yahoo.com (divya_thomas1) Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 08:18:19 -0000 Subject: What's Harry going to get in Godric's Hollow? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153323 Hi all, We all know Harry is going to Godric's Hollow in the next book. So, what will he get there? 1) There is a chance that he might get some info his mom and dad left for him in their dying moments. 2) There is also anther chance that LV could have left him a trap knowing as we know that Harry and LV are mutually knowledgeable about how the other may behave. 3) Also there is another chance that someone must have left him some clues there or someone will meet him there when he arrives. To sum it up, Harry's visit to Godric's Hollow will be eventful. "divya_thomas1" From ktct1984 at gmail.com Sat Jun 3 05:33:38 2006 From: ktct1984 at gmail.com (Keith Tan) Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 13:33:38 +0800 Subject: My Theory On The Prophecy/ Love Potion Child In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20060603133118.01b64d10@gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153324 > "ejom723" wrote: > What if when LV attacked baby Harry, he not only transferred some > of his powers into Harry (parseltongue, Slytherin traits), but > also transferred a part of Harry into himself (LV)? I'm thinking > that maybe LV accidentally without his awareness made himself > HARRY'S Horcrux! But to make a horcrux, the person has to do a spell... before he was to make a horcrux, LV had to kill Harry first, so LV vanished before he was to make a horcrux for for the murder James & Lily Potter (Harry's parents)! Regards, Keith From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Jun 3 20:31:52 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 20:31:52 -0000 Subject: What's Harry going to get in Godric's Hollow? - Pure Speculation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153325 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "divya_thomas1" wrote: > > Hi all, > We all know Harry is going to Godric's Hollow in the next > book. So, what will he get there? > > ..edited.. > > To sum it up, Harry's visit to Godric's Hollow will be eventful. > > "divya_thomas1" > bboyminn: I have always suspected that before Harry goes to Godric's Hollow one of his friends (Molly, Arthur, MrGonagall, etc..) will tell him when he arrives he should look up 'so and so' (call him Mr. Ecks. Get it? Mr. X ;) ). That Mr. Ecks was a friend of his parents and that he will be able to help Harry find the site of the house and take him to their graves. I think inadvertantly Mr. Ecks will let information slip that he has always thought was unimportant, but Harry will (eventually) see great significants in it. It is also conceivable that Harry will find some small artifact in the rubble of the old house that the Potters were using. I do NOT think that the Godrics Hollow house was the ancestral home of the Potters. I think it was probably the house of a friend of Dumbledore or perhaps Dumbledore's house. Or it could have simply been a random house available for rent. Strikes me as better for the plot though if it was a house owned by a wizard. Since Bowman Wright - inventor of the Snitch (1300's) - was from Godrics Hollow, I think it is safe to assume other wizards live there too. While I can't be sure what Harry will find, nor do I think Harry will realize the immediate significants of what he find, I do think Harry's visit there will be productive. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From sarah at eskimo.com Sat Jun 3 20:16:56 2006 From: sarah at eskimo.com (Sarah E. Schreffler) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 13:16:56 -0700 Subject: DD and Draco's murder attempts(was Draco and Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c6874a$acbd13c0$6401a8c0@Sandbox> No: HPFGUIDX 153326 aussie: >Sorry Ginger, I don't think Sluggy bought the mead. Draco got >Rosemertta (acting under Draco's Curse) to send the bottle as a >gift. > >Draco overhears Hermoine in mid-December and plots the poison >because of her big mouth. Sarah: Where did Hermione's "big mouth" affect things? The only thing I can find is p.245 (ch.12 Silver and Opals) "What does it matter if we're smuggling Dark stuff OUT?" demanded Ron, eyeing the long thin Secrecy Sensor with apprehension. "Surely you ought to be checking what we bring back IN?" And Draco isn't there then -- he doesn't go to Hogsmeade, he's in detention with Miss McGonall. What conversation are you thinking about? From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jun 3 22:00:51 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 22:00:51 -0000 Subject: Draco and Harry WAS: Re: Nice vs. Good, honesty, and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153327 > Alla: > > I snipped the part I completely agree with about Harry instincts > being more and more on the mark with every book. > > Well, I do understand that DD may not have stopped Draco because he > wanted to save him, or because he wanted to let Snape spy, etc, BUT > the problem I see with it is that Dumbledore while wanting to save > Draco puts other students in horrible danger from Draco hair brained > assasination attempts. > > I mean, I am still not sure that DD knew all of Draco's activities, > but if he did, oh my... That is beyond reckless IMO. > > I wonder how he would have felt if Katie and Ron WOULD have died. > Could he have looked Katy's parents and Arthur and Molly in the eyes > with clear conscience and told him. You know, I really wanted to > save Draco that is why in the process I let your children die. Pippin: He'd have said Katie and Ron were tragic casualties of war. It was clear to Dumbledore that Draco was behind the attempts, but that can only have been from Snape's information. Snape was hardly in a position to accuse -- or are you suggesting that Draco should have been accused without any evidence other than Harry's suspicions, which he couldn't even get Ron and Hermione to take seriously? And you think Sirius was unfairly accused, with a whole street full of eyewitnesses! Dumbledore did the best he could to prevent any attacks, but the trouble with hare-brained attacks is that they are, well, hare-brained. The necklace would never have gotten past the Dark detectors and secrecy sensors -- Katie was only harmed because the package tore before she got to Hogwarts. Having Rosmerta poison a bottle of oak matured mead in case someone was planning to give it to Dumbledore was even dumber. I don't see how Dumbledore could have anticipated that, anymore than he could have anticipated that three of his students would turn themselves into animagi and run through Hogsmeade with a werewolf in tow -- or that one of them would tell another student how to enter the werewolf's enclosure. Do you think he'd have had to look Mr. and Mrs. Snape in the eye and tell them their son was dead because Dumbledore thought werewolves should be mainstreamed? Draco does seem to have taken Snape's warning to heart, because there are no more hb attempts after the first two, both of which were planned before Christmas. Alla: > As to Aslan, Aslan sacrificed himself and himself only IMO. That was > his choice to make. Dumbledore's choices on the other hand often > puzzle me a great deal :) > Pippin: Dumbledore had as much right to sacrifice himself for Draco and Snape as Lily did to give her life for Harry. She was a powerful witch and her loss would have been a great blow to the Order if the war had continued. She couldn't know that Voldemort would be vanquished or that Harry would grow up to be a hero even greater than she. Yet she was willing to die for the sake of an unproven child. Pippin From drednort at alphalink.com.au Sun Jun 4 00:52:16 2006 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 10:52:16 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and the "Chosen One" Was: Nice vs. Good - Compassion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4482BB60.27401.C7FE14@drednort.alphalink.com.au> No: HPFGUIDX 153328 On 3 Jun 2006 at 5:03, lupinlore wrote: > But how do you expect things to end? What do you think would be > appropriate? Surely you don't think that the Dursleys, Umbridge, and > Snape can go unpunished for their reprehensible crimes against Harry > and the series will still have a moral leg to stand on? Shaun: Well, I'd like to address this if I may. Yes, I most certainly do think that the series could have a 'moral leg to stand on' if the Dursleys and Umbridge fail to be punished for their ill treatment of Harry (personally I don't agree with the idea that Snape has abused Harry, so I don't include him in this - but the Dursleys, at the very least, are guilty of severe neglect in my view, and Umbridge is, again, in my view, genuinely abusive as a teacher). I would not *object* in any way to JKR deciding to address the issues of ill treatment (including that committed by Snape, if she personally considers it to be abuse - she's entitled to if she wants to, I won't insist everybody else except my personal opinions on what is and isn't abusive) if she wants to. These things have occurred in the books and if she wants to tie up that particular part of the storyline then that is fine with me. But it's also fine with me if she doesn't. There are at least dozens of themes and interlocking storylines in the Harry Potter books, some major, some minor and I think it would be completely unreasonable to expect JKR to attempt to wrap up every single one of those storylines and themes. It would also be inherently unrealistic *unless* we are treated to a completely apocalyptic storyline in which the entire world is destroyed. In real life, not everything gets wrapped up neatly at the same time. If book 7 follows the pattern of the other books and covers a single year in the life of Harry Potter and those around him we can't expect everything to be wrapped up neatly. Good grief - Chapter 150 (and it'd have to be at least that long) would have to be full of dozens of marriages to satisfy all the shippers (actually we'd also need Wizarding Marriage Law to be rather loose on issues like polygamy to satisfy *all* the shippers). Every single issue isn't going to be wrapped up. I hope that all the major issues are - and at least some of the more minor issues are. But some minor plot points will be left unresolved. These books are not books about the abuse of Harry Potter. While abuse is present in the books, it's not at the core of the story, it's not the major issue of the books. The nastiness of Vernon Dursley pales in comparison to the sheer evil of Lord Voldemort. It's the defeat of Voldemort that I expect to be the primary issue addressed in book 7 - although even that is just a guess. I hope some more minor issues are addressed, but I don't expect them all to be addressed. If JKR chooses to address the issues of abuse, and punish the abusers that would be fine with me. In fact, I would be delighted if she did, because I think that would be interesting to see. But if she instead chooses to address others of the myriad of issues she could also choose to address, then to me that will not be any type of moral failure - it's just a reflection of the fact that you can't tie up everything. Are there ways in which the books, in my view, could be a moral failure? Yes - but only if JKR explicitly presents a morality that is *wrong* (and even that is something that would almost certainly be open to very strong debate). Simply not explicitly addressing every single moral issue that has been raised in the opinion of at least some of her fans would not be any type of failure. These books are not "Harry Potter and the Horrible Stuff He's Had to Put Up With". To me, overall, if I had to go for a theme, they are "Harry Potter and the Future of the Wizarding World" - but again, that's just my theme. There are lots of issues I'd like to see JKR address in the final books ["Harry looked back and realised Snape was the best teacher he'd ever had." (-8] because of the personal things I read in the books and interest me about them and amuse me about them. But I'm not going to label an author - especially not an author whose given me six (so far) enjoyable books, a couple of thousand pages and hours of pleasure as having failed in anyway simply because she doesn't address my particular hobbyhorses in wrapping up the series she's given well over a decade of her life to. If she chooses to specifically address the things I'm interested in - great. If she chooses to specifically address whether Harry was abused or not, by certain people, and to punish them for that - great as well. If she chooses to focus instead on other minor issues, alongside the overarching ones - then I'm not going to criticise her just because she didn't cater to my particular prejudices. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 4 02:00:59 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 02:00:59 -0000 Subject: DD and Draco's murder attempts WAS: Draco and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153329 Alla: > > I mean, I am still not sure that DD knew all of Draco's activities, > > but if he did, oh my... That is beyond reckless IMO. > > > > I wonder how he would have felt if Katie and Ron WOULD have died. > > Could he have looked Katy's parents and Arthur and Molly in the eyes > > with clear conscience and told him. You know, I really wanted to > > save Draco that is why in the process I let your children die. > > Pippin: > He'd have said Katie and Ron were tragic casualties of war. It > was clear to Dumbledore that Draco was behind the attempts, but > that can only have been from Snape's information. Snape was hardly > in a position to accuse -- or are you suggesting that Draco should > have been accused without any evidence other than Harry's suspicions, > which he couldn't even get Ron and Hermione to take seriously? > > And you think Sirius was unfairly accused, with a whole street > full of eyewitnesses! Alla: Um, I am afraid I really don't follow you. The crux of the matter as I see it is whether DD knew of Draco's activities or not and how much he knew and if he knew everything than why he did not act upon it. I am afraid that in this scenario Katy and Ron would not have been the tragic casualties of war, but tragic victims of DD recklessness or DD desire to save one student while putting the hundreds of lives in danger. IMO of course. I mean, who cares HOW Dumbledore knew of Draco's activities IF he knew for sure ( I am not sure, mind you) that Draco is up to committing murders. IF DD has the genuine information whether from Snape or not, doesn't he have an obligation as the Headmaster of Hogwarts to act upon it. But here I of course run in the "wearing too many hats' Dumbledore again. I absolutely think that in very many situations Dumbledore's duties as Headmaster and Leader of Order of Phoenix contradict and this is IMO one of them. If one postulates DD's desire as Leader of the Order to protect Snape ( that is if he is DD!M of course, which I highly doubt), sure I understand his reluctance to act upon Snape's information. BUT as I said as Headmaster of Hogwarts, IMO DD first and foremost obligation is not to put his students' lifes in danger OR at least try to minimise it, since to DD's credit he is not the one who started this war. Oh, and what Sirius has to do with it? As you said it yourself, Sirius was UNFAIRLY accused. Accusations towards Draco would have been fair and just. If Snape could not have been a witness , DD should have transferred Draco somewhere, restrained him SOMEHOW, NOT giving him free reign in Hogwarts, especially after first strike IMO. Pippin: > Dumbledore did the best he could to prevent any attacks, but the > trouble with hare-brained attacks is that they are, well, hare- brained. > The necklace would never have gotten past the Dark detectors and > secrecy sensors -- Katie was only harmed because the package > tore before she got to Hogwarts. Having Rosmerta poison a bottle of > oak matured mead in case someone was planning to give it to > Dumbledore was even dumber. Alla: So, what did he do to prevent attacks? Attacks WERE stupid, but I think that DD had no right to take another chance of another stupid attack to follow. One near-miss should have been enough, IMO. Pippin: > I don't see how Dumbledore could have anticipated that, anymore > than he could have anticipated that three of his students would > turn themselves into animagi and run through Hogsmeade with > a werewolf in tow -- or that one of them would tell another student > how to enter the werewolf's enclosure. Alla: Oh, so DD did not know about the attacks? You see, I would much much prefer he would not, but it seems that people argue that he knew something, but how much exactly? Pippin: > Do you think he'd have had to look Mr. and Mrs. Snape in the eye > and tell them their son was dead because Dumbledore thought > werewolves should be mainstreamed? Alla: Since I think that we lack lots of information about that night, I cannot make the parallel at all. Pippin: > Draco does seem to have taken Snape's warning to heart, because > there are no more hb attempts after the first two, both of which > were planned before Christmas. Alla: That was kind of Draco :) Did DD had a right to take a chance that Draco indeed would take that to heart or decides to strike one more time? > > Alla: > > As to Aslan, Aslan sacrificed himself and himself only IMO. That was > > his choice to make. Dumbledore's choices on the other hand often > > puzzle me a great deal :) > > > > Pippin: > Dumbledore had as much right to sacrifice himself for Draco and > Snape as Lily did to give her life for Harry. She was a powerful > witch and her loss would have been a great blow to the Order if > the war had continued. She couldn't know that Voldemort would be > vanquished or that Harry would grow up to be a hero even greater > than she. Yet she was willing to die for the sake of an unproven child. Alla: Undoubtebly, Dumbledore has that right to sacrifice himself, but that is where I end his right to sacrifice. I don't see him having a right to sacrifice other lives on the off-topic chance that maybe Draco will see the light, possibly. Katie and Ron dying would not even be commander sending willing troops to battle, knowing that casualties will follow. That would be I am not even sure how to describe it. IMO of course. That is why I tend to think that DD did not know much if anything Of Draco's activities, because I don't see him as someone who would be stupid enough to sacrifice children's lifes, especially if it could be avoided. That will of course lead into Snape not telling DD much about Draco's activities in the first place. :) > Ginger: > > Maybe this will put your mind at a bit of ease, Alla. Alla: Heeeee. That's sweet of you :) Ginger: > Let's look at the chronology. At the beginning of the year, Draco > comes to school with the intent to kill DD. > > Whether or not DD knows this is up for grabs, but just for now, let's > say he does. (If he didn't, we couldn't expect him to do anything > anyway, now, could we?) Alla: Oh, sure, sure of course. If he did not know, Dumbledore is off the hook for recklessness :) Ginger: > So it's not that DD did nothing, let Katie get poisoned in October, > still did nothing, and let Ron get poisoned in March; it's that Draco > had the presence of mind to have a plan A and a plan B. One was > intended to happen in October, and the mead was intended to strike at > Christmas. After whenever it was that Sluggy brought in the mead, > Draco doesn't attempt to bring anything into the castle via any route > other than the vanishing cabinets, which DD certainly didn't know > about. Alla: Hmmm, just to refresh my memory ( honestly, I am feeling that I started to forget the most embarassing things - the reread is in order :)), could you refer me to Slugghorn bringing in the mead. I guess I have the same question as Hagrid asked. Oh, and about vanishing cabinets - I guess I am again not sure how far the argument goes as to extent of DD knowledge about Draco. If he knew SOME things, but not everything, I sort of understand, although still expect him to guess that the person who tried killing once will likely do it again, but if DD knew everything, that's worse in my book. JMO, Alla From little_scottie6 at hotmail.com Sun Jun 4 01:29:31 2006 From: little_scottie6 at hotmail.com (Victoria Scott) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 11:29:31 +1000 Subject: My Theory On The Prophecy In-Reply-To: <3ad.3914114.31b206f2@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153330 Clare: >I don't believe that there is room in the story for LV to be Harry's >Horcrux. It isn't worked for in the texts and JKR does work for her >revelations, >they are set up. It is an idea which could be explored in fanfic if you >could >find a way to make it work, I can't see a way myself. > > G.C. writes: I agree that there is really no room for LV to be Harry's horcrux, and it also wouldn't make any sense. This is because we know that you have to have killed to make a horcrux, and Harry so far hasn't done that, especially not when he was 1 year old. I also think it is weird that LV didn't die when his AK backfired on him, we know that it's because he has gone to many lengths to become immortal, but it's really frustrating thrying to think about what happened. Is it because his body had his original soul and therefore this heart, mind etc so that part could not be destroyed by an AK, but the rest of his horcrux's could? Does that make sense? What i'm trying to say is that Harry may have to go to greater length to destroy the body form of Voldemort than it is to destroy the oher horcrux's. This is because the soul in the body, that was hit with the AK was carrying his mind and heart and the rest. G.C Signing off From elfundeb at gmail.com Sun Jun 4 03:18:27 2006 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 23:18:27 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: RAB case is broken - all Aurors please read! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0606032018j56c0afd7h20352b96855ba45@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153331 Memorandum To: Auror Tonks, Alternative Theories Department From: Speculator Debbie Re: R.A.B. (Regulus [A] Black) For your consideration upon your return from holiday. (Note: some of this was written a week ago and not posted, and is responsive to another R.A.B. thread.) Najwa wrote: I think perhaps if we make a list of anyone who could have the initials RAB, or at least 2 out of three initials, and maybe we can include titles as well, such as Reverend or whatever, we could take a look at who RAB might be. Debbie: I have to say I can't muster much enthusiasm to scout for R.A.B. candidates. With all the loose threads hanging about after six books and only one book remaining tie them up (or not) it just doesn't seem likely to me that JKR will introduce a new character for this purpose when she has in Regulus Black a perfectly good one with a ready-made tie-in to Sirius, another character whose story arc seems incomplete even though he's dead. In addition, no other R.A.B. candidate has any connection to 12 Grimmauld Place, where we saw a good candidate for the real locket *and* have been provided with leads regarding its current whereabouts. I just wouldn't bet on those things all being red herrings. Ceridwen: If Regulus is dead (evidence: Grimmauld Place passing to Harry uncontested magically) then what did he do with the locket? Is it the locket at GP? Did he leave some sort of message for DD/Followers of the Light in any event? Debbie: In a book about finding and recognizing clues, I would be astonished if the real locket is not the one we saw at 12GP -- it's a big clue tying R.A.B. to Regulus. As for the second question, read on a bit. WG asks: Hermione, at the end of HBP, said she'd been looking for R.A.B. How could she possibly miss Regulus (supposedly A.) Black, if it was him? Debbie: This is a good question, but I think there are plausible answers. Maybe Regulus was just known as Regulus [no middle name] Black at school, so Hermione missed him. Also, she seems to have been looking for "reasonably well-known wizards" and I doubt Regulus would qualify there. Perhaps she thought only a great person -- or an Order member -- could defy Voldemort like that. In any event, assuming R.A.B. is Regulus, JKR certainly isn't going to have Hermione spill the beans after she's been planting clues like the locket, and offering tidbits about Regulus in HBP to keep him from fading out of our memories completely. And these tidbits also serve the purpose of corroborating or clarifying information that comes from a very biased, and therefore unreliable, witness. Sirius, our primary informant, had just finished telling Harry about how he left home to go live with James' family and what he says about Regulus is part of his justification for leaving, i.e., he hated the lot of them (OOP ch. 6). Sirius has every incentive to paint Regulus as a fool. So I'm going to test each of Sirius' assertions -- Assertion #1: "[M]y idiot brother, soft enough to believe [his parents' pureblood views]. . . . He was younger than me . . . and a much better son, as I was constantly reminded." As Sirius was by nature a rebel, and it as I have observed with my own children a tendency for one child to adopt a Good Child stance whenever the other is in Difficult Child mode, I find this comment unremarkable. Sirius "hated the whole lot of them" and I do not doubt that he made sure his family knew it. If Sirius' attitude added to the unpleasantness at 12 Grimmauld Place (Mrs. Black made it unpleasant enough without any assistance from anyone, I'm sure), Regulus may have conformed simply to avoid trouble. Assertion #2: "Stupid idiot . . . he joined the Death Eaters." That he joined the DEs, and that it was not a smart thing to do, is uncontroverted fact. But we can't just leap to the conclusion that Regulus was stupid. We need to ask why he joined. Did Regulus believe in his mother's pureblood mania? Maybe. Sirius says quite a few people thought Voldemort had the right idea before he showed his true colours, and that "I bet my parents thought Regulus was a right little hero for joining up at first." But Regulus is even younger than Sirius, who cannot have been more than 20 when Voldemort lost his powers. Didn't Voldemort start showing his true colours long before that? I think Regulus knew what the organization was all about when he joined. This just doesn't add up, to me, anyway, as an explanation. Did he join because his friends did? Maybe. Regulus was a Slytherin (we know Slughorn wanted to collect the set). If Regulus indeed "panicked about what he was being asked to do" perhaps he did not join as an idealogue but because it was fashionable. Maybe he hung with Snape's gang of Slytherins who virtually all joined up, and just didn't want to be left out. Did Regulus join as a spy for the Order? Maybe. This has been discussed before. Dumbledore had a number of spies, according to Fudge. However, if R.A.B. was a spy he would certainly have brought that information -- and the locket -- to Dumbledore. As Dumbledore has been working on a *theory* only, and considered the Diary the first piece of evidence to support that theory, this doesn't seem to have happened. Assertion #3: "[H]e was murdered by Voldemort. Or on Voldemort's orders, more likely; I doubt Regulus was ever important enough to be killed by Voldemort in person." As I said earlier, I think there was a body. And Mad-Eye Moody, in showing Harry the old Order picture, suggests that only very important people were killed by Voldemort himself ("Dorcas Meadowes, Voldemort killed her personally"); so does Fudge in HBP ch. 1 ("Amelia Bones . . . We think He Who Must Not Be Named may have murdered her in person"). So, aside from the implication that Voldemort saves himself for all the gifted women in the Order (because JKR doesn't have anything interesting for them to do), and Regulus was not a gifted woman, the question is whether Regulus was "important." I think the answer to that, from Voldemort's view, is *no* unless (i) Regulus is R.A.B. (I'm assuming he is for this discussion) and (ii) Voldemort was aware that Regulus had discovered his Horcrux secret. Now let's take a look at R.A.B.'s own words (the only ones we have): "To the Dark Lord I know I will be dead long before you read this but I want you to know that it was I who discovered your secret. I have stolen the real Horcrux and intend to destroy it as soon as I can. I face death in the hope that when you meet your match, you will be mortal once more." Ok, R.A.B. expected to be dead before Voldemort discovered the fake locket. This must mean that he expected to be killed for reasons other than discovering the Horcrux secret. And the locket, with message, was still in the cave 15 years later. Doesn't seem likely that Voldemort discovered the secret. Which means that Regulus was not "important" enough to be killed by Voldemort. We also have a little snippet of information from Lupin, who is amazed that Karkaroff lasted an entire year after failing to respond to Voldemort's call in the graveyard. His recollection was that "Regulus only managed a few days" after deserting the DEs (HBP ch. 6). This confirms that Regulus *chose* to leave the DEs. But where did he go? Who did he tell? It's not like Regulus was a runaway who came home after the going got rough. Did he go to the Order? No, I don't think so, or else Dumbledore would have known for certain that Voldemort had been creating horcruxes. Did he try to hide out somewhere? Inquiring minds must know, but we may have to wait for Book 7. But we're doing pretty well thus far testing the accuracy of Sirius' information. Assertion #4: "From what I found out after he died, he got in so far, then panicked about what he was being asked to do and tried to back out. Well, you don't just hand in your resignation to Voldemort. It's a lifetime of service or death." First question: Where did Sirius get this information? Did he go ask his Death Eater friends? What Death Eater friends? Or, did Spy!Snape tell this to Dumbledore? I want to know how reliable his sources were. And whether those were the words his sources used, or whether it's Sirius who decided that Regulus backed out because he "panicked about what he was being asked to do." Because there's a big difference between *panicking* at carrying out an evil task and refusing to do it because it is evil. And someone with the wherewithal to steal a horcrux doesn't sound like a panicker to me. Ceridwen asks: What can Harry learn from Regulus's story? - he has to learn something or it wouldn't have been introduced in a book about finding and recognizing clues. Debbie: Another symbol of courage. In particular, a symbol of what someone facing certain death can do. Harry thinks the odds are similarly against him. Also, a reminder that his mentors, valuable as they were, did not have all the answers. Harry will need to rely on himself. Harry knows that by now, but he may be reluctant to trust in himself. R.A.B. will help him do that. And turning to more speculation, Najwa asked: > With all the Hub bub about RAB, I am beginning to wonder what do we > know about Regalus's death, other than what Sirius said? Does anyone > recall anything definite about his death or was he M.I.A. and > considered dead? Debbie: Sirius refers to him as having been *killed* which strongly suggests that a body was found. In contrast, three chapters later, Mad-Eye Moody uses "killed" to describe each Order member's demise, except for Caradoc Dearborn, who "vanished six months after this, we never found his body." Although I've heard speculation that Regulus' body is swimming with the Inferi at the cave, that would be mere coincidence since the fact that the fake locket was still in the cave for Harry and Dumbledore to find suggests that Voldemort still doesn't know about the switch. Of course, as there is much more room for speculation if there is no body, I'm not going to reach a definitive conclusion on that one. Ceridwen: I think that R.A.B. is Regulus, but what's happened to him? Sirius said he was killed shortly after he tried to leave the DEs, supported by Lupin's announcement at Harry's b-day party in HBP (Regulus managed to evade being killed for just a few days). But Dumbledore's talk with Draco on the Tower has led many to believe that perhaps Regulus is still alive and disguised as Filch Aberforth Another character we might have seen Debbie: Like Stubby Boardman? I know the Quibbler claims ol' Stubby is Sirius, not Regulus. But if they looked alike . . . . Those gossip rags don't always make up all their stories out of thin air. If someone claimed to the Quibbler that Stubby is really Sirius, there's probably a resemblence. And while Sirius could not have been dining with Mrs Purkiss while he was hunting down Pettigrew, why couldn't Regulus have done so? Yup, maybe he just "vanished, we never found his body" because he isn't dead. Kayla raises a possible objection: > If Regulus was alive, wouldn't that mean Kreacher would have > automatically gone to him as being a Black, instead of Harry? > I seem to recall Kreacher was bound, although unwillingly, to > Harry and not another Black. Just my two bits worth. Debbie: Not a problem. Harry inherited 12 Grimmauld Place and Kreacher because Sirius left them to him (i.e., he had a will), bucking the Black family tradition (HBP ch. 3), not because all the Blacks are dead. Dumbledore was concerned that the Blacks had created an enchantment preventing Sirius' will from being carried out. Harry's ability to summon Kreacher lays this concern to rest. Thus, whether or not Regulus is alive, Sirius had the power to bequeath it to Harry instead. So why would Regulus reinvent himself as Stubby Boardman? For one thing, R.A.B. expected to be dead before Voldemort discovered the fake locket. He must have known that the DEs were after him. Escape is always better than death, so why not try? Which leads to a new question. R.A.B. stated his intention to destroy the Horcrux before he died. Therefore, if he is really Stubby, either the locket at 12GP is a red herring, or else it has been reduced to an inert object. There's one other possibility. Maybe Regulus *did* destroy the Horcrux. Dumbledore needed help to survive the destruction of the ring Horcrux. So maybe the effort killed Regulus, and it was written off as a DE attack. Sirius had information about *why* Regulus supposedly was killed, but we don't know *how* or *by whom.* Isn't that a bit odd? Still, I like the Stubby Boardman answer better. See, maybe Snape was assigned to kill him, but DDM!Snape wouldn't want to do any such thing and engineered his escape and disguise. And the real Stubby? Oh, he's probably locked in a trunk somewhere. . . . I'd better start looking for him. Debbie wondering if Boss!Ceridwen has more days off to hand out [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From honeykissed246 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 4 03:46:19 2006 From: honeykissed246 at yahoo.com (honeykissed246) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 03:46:19 -0000 Subject: Draught of Living Death Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153332 Bec: "snip" "Harry knew, instinctively, the only way left to get water, because Voldemort had planned it so ... He flung himself over to the edge of the rock and plunged the goblet into the lake, bringing it up full to the brim of icy water that did not vanish. "Sir - here!" Harry yelled, and lunging forward, he tipped the water clumsily over Dumbledores face. " "snip" *See I wonder what would have happened if Dumbledore would have "drank" the water instead of having it just spilled in his face. Dumbledore does say that he believed that Voldemort would have wanted to keep the drinker alive for a bit to find out why he was there - so,curiousity is killing me here as to how that would have happened. Like, for example, Harry thought he was going to be pulled into and under the lake to lay with the dead Inferi. If that's what Voldemort intended, how's he going to question anybody? They'd kind of be dead and drowned, wouldn't they? Honeykissed: Bec, you are right. I was wondering why the Inferi was trying to pull Harry into the lake to drown him. But I did notice one thing, they were only trying to drown Harry. There was no mention that the Inferi was trying to drown Dumbledore. This is purely speculation, but maybe they somehow knew not to drown Dumbledore since he was the one that consumed the potion and took the locket. I wonder if Harry had not been there, if the lake would have been distrubed. Since the potion alone may have knocked the person consuming it unconscious. I would think Dumbledore would not be in a position to get water himself if he had to drink the potion alone (which we know he would not have been able to do). dumbledore has already stated that the job required "two people". To me, this is like the scene in GOF when Voldemort ordered Peter to "kill the spare". Which lead to Cedric's death. Harry was technically a "spare" in this scene. JKR has defintely woven this one really, really well. I can't wait for the 7th book to come out to see how close we are in "guessing" what went on in that lake. Honeykissed From estesrandy at yahoo.com Sun Jun 4 04:20:41 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 04:20:41 -0000 Subject: Why RAB should be Regulus Black Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153333 I know this has been discussed and is no longer a mystery to most people, but there is another reason why RAB is probably Regulus Black. Regulus is Latin for Prince (or Little King) , and Regulus Black would be the Black Prince. If you remember the Chess board from the first Book in the Chapter called "Through the Trapdoor", Harry,Ron and Hermione become chess pieces for the Black side. Ron becomes a Knight and Harry becomes a Bishop and Hermione becomes a castle (or Rook). In other words, the threesome perform service for the Black King. In fact Ron says: "I suppose we've got to take the place of three of the black pieces..." As an analogy, Harry takes on the role that Regulus Black started to destroy the Horcruxes of Voldemort. The other interesting analogy for Regulus Black is that Regulus is a bright double star in the constellation of Leo (the Lion). This ties nicely with Griffindor and the Lion symbol. I think JKR likes to use names for symbols. Randy From bawilson at citynet.net Sun Jun 4 03:29:15 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 23:29:15 -0400 Subject: Child abuse? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153334 Lupinlore: "Then, as I say, JKR will have failed in an abominable and reprehensible manner by approving of child abuse. I won't really be disappointed, as I rather expect her to fail in such an abominable and contemptible fashion. But, as you say, gardens do need mulch." BAW: Where did she approve of child abuse? Please show me. I have read the series so far and I haven't seen it. Please show me the text. I have seen abuse in the text, but I haven't seen that JKR has approved of it. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jun 4 06:42:59 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 06:42:59 -0000 Subject: Why RAB should be Regulus Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153335 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Randy" wrote: Randy: > I know this has been discussed and is no longer a mystery to most > people, but there is another reason why RAB is probably Regulus Black. > > Regulus is Latin for Prince (or Little King) , and Regulus Black would > be the Black Prince. If you remember the Chess board from the first > Book in the Chapter called "Through the Trapdoor", Harry,Ron and > Hermione become chess pieces for the Black side. Ron becomes a Knight > and Harry becomes a Bishop and Hermione becomes a castle (or Rook). > > In other words, the threesome perform service for the Black King. In > fact Ron says: > > "I suppose we've got to take the place of three of the black pieces..." > > As an analogy, Harry takes on the role that Regulus Black started to > destroy the Horcruxes of Voldemort. Geoff: That's an interesting observation which hadn't crossed my mind previously. In fact, the more frequently used Latin word for 'prince' is 'princeps'. My Oxford Latin dictionary defines 'regulus' as 'petty king' which possibly fits your suggestion better. From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sun Jun 4 07:58:34 2006 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 07:58:34 -0000 Subject: DD and Draco's murder attempts WAS: Draco and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153336 > > Alla: > > Hmmm, just to refresh my memory ( honestly, I am feeling that I > started to forget the most embarassing things - the reread is in > order :)), could you refer me to Slugghorn bringing in the mead. > I guess I have the same question as Hagrid asked. Ginger: Well, I can't tell you exactly that Sluggy brought the mead in. In fact, now that I have reread, it sounds like he had ordered it, and Rosemerta had it sent up to the castle. We do know Rosemerta was Imperioused by mid-October when she gave the necklace to Katie. Sluggy said that he had intended to give the mead to DD as a Christmas present. He says this in March on Ron's birthday when Harry takes Ron to him to undo the love potion that Ron accidently took. It's in chapter 18. US edition p. 396-7: "Pick-me-up, that's what he needs, " Slughorn continued, now bustling over to a table loaded with drinks. "I've got butterbeer, I've got wine, I've got one last bottle of this oak-matured mead...hmm...meant to give that to Dumbledore for Christmas...ah, well..." He shrugged. "He can't miss what he's never had! Why don't we open it now and celebrate Mr. Weasley's birthday? Nothing like a fine spirit to chase away the pangs of disappointed love..." Sluggy goes on to propose a toast, during which Ron drinks the mead and is poisoned. I read this to mean that Sluggy had purchased the mead to give to DD as a Christmas present. He would have gotten it from Rosemerta, who would have been the one doing the poisoning as a result of being under the Imperious. I think it's pretty clear that (1) Sluggy bought it for DD, (2) Rosemerta poisoned it and sent it up to Sluggy, and (3) Sluggy kept it for himself, not knowing it was poisoned. Later, on the tower in ch. 27, when DD is talking to Draco about the crude attempts of the necklace and the mead, DD speculates that Rosemerta had it sent to Sluggy. Draco doesn't argue, so it would appear that Rosemerta did sent it. DD comments that Filch would not have checked anything from Rosemerta. So Hagrid is right. Rosemerta did send the mead. Sorry about that. My bad. Sluggy just ordered it. Alla: > Oh, and about vanishing cabinets - I guess I am again not sure how > far the argument goes as to extent of DD knowledge about Draco. > > If he knew SOME things, but not everything, I sort of understand, > although still expect him to guess that the person who tried killing > once will likely do it again, but if DD knew everything, that's > worse in my book. Ginger: DD was quite surprised about the vanishing cabinets. On the tower, (US ch. 27, p. 586-7), DD expresses surprise about it: "But you were saying...yes, you have managed to introduce Death Eaters into my school, which, I admit, I thought impossible...How did you do it?" (snip as Draco stalls) DD resumes: "So tell me, while we wait for your friends...how did you smuggle them in here? It seems to have taken you a long time to work out how to do it." (snip) Then, as thought he could not help himself, he (Draco) said, "I had to mend that broken Vanishing Cabinet that no one's used for years. The one Montague got lost in last year." "Aaaah." Dumbledore's sigh was a half groan. He closed his eyes for a moment. "That was clever...There is a pair, I take it?" "In Borgin and Burkes," (Draco goes on to outline the plan.) In this conversation, Draco asks DD why DD didn't try to stop him. DD says he did try. He had Snape tailing Draco. Draco doesn't believe this, thinking that Snape was acting on Narcissa's orders. So apparently, DD knew. DD couldn't have accosted Draco with no evidence. At the beginning of the year, Draco had done nothing. He was merely planning. You can't find out what someone is planning without getting close to them. DD couldn't get close to Draco, so he sent Head of House and Family Friend Snape to do it. Snape had no luck as Draco thought Snape was trying to steal his glory. I don't see that DD could have acted before Draco tried anything. That would have made him no better than Rufus imprisioning Stan. He did know that Draco was up to something and had him tailed. He also had things coming in and going out of the school checked. Until October, he had no idea whether or not Draco would even act at all (see the tower conversation) and after the necklace incident, Snape told Draco to knock it off with the bad attempts (again, the tower conversation). I don't know the exact timing of the mead, but it could have happened around the time of the necklace, and not much after, given that it was to be a Christmas gift. Not more than a month after, anyway. Just to throw in a RL example: long ago before such things as caller ID, I received several death threats on my answering machine. I didn't know who left them or why. I found out later it was a case of mistaken identity and I was in no danger, but it was alarming. All I could do was wait for someone to make a move. I did eventually find out who had left the messages, and it was someone I knew (she had called the wrong number), but knowing who it was didn't help until I found out that I wasn't her target. I couldn't very well walk up to her and say "Don't kill me." All I could do was practice constant vigilance. When you have to watch your every step, you become aware that there are so many ways for someone to try and kill you that it is impossible to anticipate them all. Now I ask: If someone you didn't like was rumoured to be wanting to kill you, what would you do? If you called the police (I am assuming that as a lawyer you are in the social position to do that, unlike my position at the time of my threats), the police would tell you that unless a definate threat was made to you, or an attempt was made, that they couldn't do anything. You could hire a security guard to check the comings and goings into your home. You could hire a body guard. But would you check something given to you by a trusted friend? Would you have all your groceries checked? Take out food? If the person who wanted to kill you gave something to someone who knew you, and it killed that person, would it be because you were lax in your security? If they sent something via UPS, and it killed the driver, should you have notified UPS not to accept any packages for you? And that's even without the Imperious, which Draco used. As Pippin said, the attempts were indeed hare-brained (DD agreed- he called them feeble), I don't see how DD could have stopped them, but given the searching of the owls and the use of the Secrecy Sensor, and putting a tail on Draco, I'd say he did try. At least that's how it reads to me. YMMV, of course. Ginger, who got longwinded and will now pause for breath. From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sun Jun 4 08:43:33 2006 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 08:43:33 -0000 Subject: Individual issues and JKR (was Re: Snape and the "Chosen One" ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153337 > > > Lupinlore: > > > Yes, it most certainly is. Snape is an abuser of children, IMO, > > > over and out. And if JKR does not deal with that, then she will > > > have failed in a reprehensible manner that leaves her books good > > > for nothing but mulch. > > > > Leslie41: > > I predict a nicely mulched garden in your future, and an extremely > > disappointed and horrified Lupinlore. > > > Lupinlore again: > Then, as I say, JKR will have failed in an abominable and > reprehensible manner by approving of child abuse. I won't really be > disappointed, as I rather expect her to fail in such an abominable > and contemptible fashion. But, as you say, gardens do need mulch. > > But how do you expect things to end? What do you think would be > appropriate? Surely you don't think that the Dursleys, Umbridge, and > Snape can go unpunished for their reprehensible crimes against Harry > and the series will still have a moral leg to stand on? Ginger: We all have our issues, soapboxes, morals and things of that nature. We don't all agree with each other, nor can we expect that JKR will agree with each of us on all things. My personal soapbox, about which I posted here before HBP was JKR's treatment of "inbred" people. I *do* hate that term. Hasn't someone come up with a politically correct term for that yet? The responses I received indicated to me that most people have the same prejudice as JKR. It's an issue to me because my family tree resembles a phone pole. I am not stupid, nor are my sisters, one of whom has a PhD, and the other of whom is almost done getting one. Yet people repeatedly put inbred people down as though we are automatically stupid and deserve to be treated badly because of our blood, which IMO, is no different that treating someone badly because of their race. We can't choose our ancestors. There's no reason a person should be ashamed of one's background, race, religion, gender, or other identifying features. One should only have to be ashamed of one's actions, if said actions are bad. JKR has shown that her feelings on prejudice, in general, are in tune with mine. I think it has been made clear by her use of Muggle-borns and half-bloods in the series. I fully expected her to straighten out the misconception about inbred folks in HBP or book 7. I didn't think she'd let this sort of prejudice stand, let alone feed into it. As you can see with HBP and her protrayal of the Gaunts, she not only believes the stereotype, but perpetuates it and encourages it. Was I disappointed? You bet your sweet bippy! Apparently JKR thinks that there are things in the world that need her attention more than a mere prejudice that is still socially acceptable. She is behaving according to her time. CS Lewis was horribly gender biased. It was the accepted standard of his time. I still like Narnia, although I have to read it through a very thick filter. (Don't get me started on the theoligical difficulties I have with it- I completely ignore that aspect.) The same holds true for HBP. I read the portrayal of the Gaunts with anger the first time. Now I just filter that out. If JKR doesn't address your issues to your standards, it probably means that there are issues that are more important to her than sadistic corporal punishment (Umbrigde and her quill), emotionally hurting a child (Dursleys) and being snarked at (Snape). In the end, it comes down to how much we expect others to agree with us. I like the books enough that I can ignore a very personal dig and enjoy the rest. You may not be able to do that. I don't know your past any more than you know mine, but we all have those things that have caused us grief in our lives. Our lives are not each other's nor are they JKR's. Her agenda in life is her own. We can't all expect her to change for each of us, no matter how right we think we are (and I do think I'm right!), nor can we expect that her soapboxes will be our soapboxes. We all tend to look at life through a filter of our experiences. I am particularly sensitive to the inbred issue; you to the abuse issue. We see our issues in places others may not, or may not be bothered by them. This is not to say that they are important, just that others have different views and priorities. I consider Snape a very low priority in the grand scheme of things, as JKR considers the inbred issue low in hers. At least you still have a chance with your issue. I think JKR has closed the door on mine. That's fine. They're her books. I can choose to read them or not. You can choose to mulch your garden (although it would be nice if you gave them to a library so that others who have different priorities can enjoy them). Either way, we can sit here and type paragraphs about our pet issues, but if others are unwilling to see our side of things, it makes no difference in the end. And I don't think JKR is listening ;) Whether, for your own sanity, you choose to have nothing more to do with the Potterverse is a personal decision. If it is truly in your best interest to put the books aside and not have anything more to do with all things Potter, I hope you do, for your own peace of mind. Ginger, who has been really restrained on her soapbox issue but just wanted to have a say on it. I don't expect others to agree, and I promise (raises right hand), now that I've had my post-HBP say on the matter, I will not pound the point unless this generates a thread, in which case, I will only clarify my position if asked, and not repeat myself ad nauseum (lowers right hand, and wonders if this is also a form of prejudice that a lefty like me is expected to raise the favoured hand of the predominant population, but decised to let it go). From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Jun 4 08:54:57 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 08:54:57 -0000 Subject: Draco and Harry WAS: Re: Nice vs. Good, honesty, and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153338 > > Alla: > > > > I mean, I am still not sure that DD knew all of Draco's activities, > > but if he did, oh my... That is beyond reckless IMO. > > > > I wonder how he would have felt if Katie and Ron WOULD have died. > > Could he have looked Katy's parents and Arthur and Molly in the eyes > > with clear conscience and told him. You know, I really wanted to > > save Draco that is why in the process I let your children die. > > Pippin: > He'd have said Katie and Ron were tragic casualties of war. a_svirn: I'd like to see the Epitome of Goodness blithely telling the grief- stricken parents that their children were casualties of war. No hard feeling, hey! Happens all the time. Of course, it's something the Epitome of Evilness would be all too likely to say, but surely Dumbledore's audience would know the difference. From catlady at wicca.net Sun Jun 4 09:10:00 2006 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 09:10:00 -0000 Subject: Chapter17Discussion/Levicorpus/Halloween as ProphecyDate/casualties of war Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153339 AnitaKH summarized Chapter 17 in : << Seamus, lost in dreams of besting his cousin in Apparating, inadvertently flattens Professor Flitwick with a blast of water. While Seamus is set writing his lines, >> "I am a wizard, not a baboon brandishing a stick." That seemed to me out of character for kindly Flitwick, who made no fuss about Neville whooshing him across the room instead of the cushion. It also reminded me of Ron in OoP dreaming of making Goyle do lines: 'I . . must. . . not. . . look . . .like . . . a . . . baboon's . . . backside.' I wonder if Rowling has been infected with the word 'baboon' by her children? << Harry asks why the Ministry didn't realize someone else was involved, since Tom at the time was underage and the Ministry can detect underage magic. Dumbledore explains that they can detect the magic but not the perpetrator, hence Harry's trouble when Dobby performed magic at number four, Privet Drive. He goes on to say that the Ministry relies on parents to monitor their children's use of magic, which Harry points out is faulty, at best. >> A shout-out to the fans, who have been arguing this matter forever. Confirmation of the fan theory that seemed to have gathered majority support, altho' there are always some fans who disagree with a theory until Rowling states it in so many words. << 7. We now have some explanation of how detection of underage magic works and the Ministry's decision to allow families to monitor their own children. Did you find this to match your earlier presumptions? Do you agree with Harry that this policy is "rubbish"? >> I think having a laW against against underage magic is rubbish. Misuse of magic by underage wizards is covered by other laws -- wizarding secrecy, muggle-baiting, etc. Legitimate use should not be prevented. As long as they have a law against underage magic and the ability to detect that magic was done, but not who did it, it CAN be enforced in magical families and magical places (e.g. the Quidditch World Cup campground) only by use of witnesses, not by use of detectors. Using detectors to enforce it on magical children in non-magical families is unfair, but unfairness to the Muggle-born is not uncommon, and it could be argued that those children have no one else to guide them not to risk wizarding secrecy, etc. << 6. Dumbledore describes the group of Tom's friends as "a mixture of the weak seeking protection, the ambitious seeking some shared glory, and the thuggish, gravitating towards a leader who could show them more refined forms of cruelty." Can we apply this description to any other groups in the series, both within and outside of Hogwarts? >> Presumably there were also some few who were simply in love with Tom's charm and charisma. Of course the description applies to the Death Eaters (the grown-up version of Tom's school-boy clique), with the amendment that the ambitious may seek power or money instead of glory and the thuggish may seek to avoid punishment for their ordinary thuggery more than to learn new forms of cruelty, and some may have joined in a sincere but mistaken goal of genociding Muggle-borns. In some ways it also applies to the Ministry of Magic. One assumes that some employees (Arthur Weasley, Newt Scamander, Nymphadora Tonks) joined for idealistic reasons, but definitely some joined for ambition (Percy Weasley) and some for an opportunity to practise thuggishness (Walden Macnair). << 11. Fawkes "speaks" twice in this scene, once after Harry calls himself Dumbledore's man and once after Dumbledore replies to Phineas. What is the significance of the placement of these two cries? >> The first acknowledges Harry's loyalty to DD and the second acknowledges DD's loyalty to Harry. Carol wrote in : << How James could have learned a nonverbal spell from Severus, who certainly would not have taught it to him, also remains unexplained.>> It is canon that many many students knew the Levicorpus spell, not just Severus and James: "Oh, that one had a great vogue during my time at Hogwarts," said Lupin reminiscently. "There were a few months in my fifth year when you couldn't move for being hoisted into the air by your ankle." As I've said before, I think Sevvie taught his spell to just a few of his Slytherin friends, and they told just a few of their friends, and it spread exponentially. Carol wrote in : << Any takers on Halloween 1979 as the Prophecy date? >> Wouldn't DD have been overseeing his students' Halloween party in the Great Hall? (I agree about the prophecy boys being conceived on that magically powerful date. In my fanfic, so was Susan Bones.) a_svirn wrote in : << I'd like to see the Epitome of Goodness blithely telling the grief-stricken parents that their children were casualties of war. No hard feeling, hey! Happens all the time. Of course, it's something the Epitome of Evilness would be all too likely to say, but surely Dumbledore's audience would know the difference. >> What did he tell Cedric's parents? From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jun 4 13:31:06 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 13:31:06 -0000 Subject: Snape and the "Chosen One" Was: Nice vs. Good - Compassion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153340 Lupinlore: > But how do you expect things to end? What do you think would be > appropriate? Surely you don't think that the Dursleys, Umbridge, and > Snape can go unpunished for their reprehensible crimes against Harry > and the series will still have a moral leg to stand on? > Pippin: I don't expect the Dursleys and Umbridge to live happily ever after unless they change their ways. But in both cases canon is explicit that they have abused other people to a far worse extent than Harry, so whatever judgement falls on them, I expect it will be for that. That would be true for murderer!Snape as well. As for Snape, I expect that when we know the truth, the LOONs among us will be compelled to go through canon and re-evaluate every single exchange between Harry, Snape and Dumbledore in the light of our new knowledge. I expect that JKR has arranged things so that the exercise will be rewarding. When we've done that, we can start deciding whether Snape's fate was appropriate or not. But I fancy the discussion will shift as it did with Ginny, from what is the true nature of Snape to whether JKR adequately prepared the reader to discover it. Pippin From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Sun Jun 4 13:35:50 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 13:35:50 -0000 Subject: DD and Draco's murder attempts(was Draco and Harry) In-Reply-To: <000001c6874a$acbd13c0$6401a8c0@Sandbox> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153341 --- "Sarah E. Schreffler" wrote: > > aussie: > >Sorry Ginger, I don't think Sluggy bought the mead. Draco got > >Rosemertta (acting under Draco's Curse) to send the bottle as a > >gift. > > > >Draco overhears Hermoine in mid-December and plots the poison > >because of her big mouth. > > > Sarah: > Where did Hermione's "big mouth" affect things? > > The only thing I can find is p.245 (ch.12 Silver and Opals) > "What does it matter if we're smuggling Dark stuff OUT?" demanded Ron, > eyeing the long thin Secrecy Sensor with apprehension. "Surely you > ought to be checking what we bring back IN?" And Draco isn't there > then -- he doesn't go to Hogsmeade, he's in detention with Miss > McGonall. > > What conversation are you thinking about? > aussie again: "It's only in mid-December that Hermione warns him (Harry) that Romilda is planning to spring a love potion on him. Harry wants to know how she plans to get it into the school, noting that the owls are being searched. ... F&G were still smuggling things in disguised as cough syrups or perfumes." was earlier in my posting. Also see Draco's conversation with DD on the Tower. There Draco says he overheard Hermoine (in the library) talking about how to smuggle liquids into Hogwarts. He said he wouldn't have had the idea if he hadn't heard her. Maybe BIG MOUTH was a poor choice of words which could offend. So I appologies to all crocodiles and hippos. From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Sun Jun 4 13:58:27 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 13:58:27 -0000 Subject: Hagrid Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153342 I haven't seen much speculation here on what role Hagrid will play in Book 7. Riddle was responsible for Hagrid's unjust expulsion from Hogwarts and I can't help but feel that for the sake of symetry and justice Hagrid will get the opportunity to pay him back in some way. He's also the only remaining character I can think of on the good side (other than Snape(?) and Harry) who has actually met and had contact personally with Voldemort. I think that in all the speculation re: Snape, etc., Hagrid gets overlooked. Not just by the readers but by the characters as well --- IMO whan Harry had the thought that "the last and greatest of his protectors had died" he was wrong --- the greatest protector may be gone but DD was not the "last" of Harry's protectors. This may be because Hagrid doesn't have much magical power and he often has a more childlike than adult point of view --- Harry viewed Sirius as mixture of father and brother, Dumbledore as a grandfather type figure, looks as Arthur/Molly/Lupin as adult uncle/aunt like figures --- but how does he look at Hagrid? I'm not really sure that I can give an accurate answer to that one. He certainly respects and loves him but doesn't view him as an authority figure. We have seen that Hagrid although childlike in many ways is extremely capable and tough and can handle himself even against a group of strong wizards (and will have Grawp to help him also). Dumbledore said he would trust Hagrid "with my life" which is a stronger endorsement that he gave Snape ("I trust Severus Snape") or anyone else. I think Hagrid will get the chance to do something very important in book 7 (like sacrifice himself to save Harry?) but I have no idea what. Steven1965aaa From estesrandy at yahoo.com Sun Jun 4 14:14:41 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 14:14:41 -0000 Subject: Just for Fun was Re: Why RAB should be Regulus Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153343 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Randy" wrote: > > I know this has been discussed and is no longer a mystery to most > people, but there is another reason why RAB is probably Regulus Black. > > Regulus is Latin for Prince (or Little King) , and Regulus Black would > be the Black Prince. If you remember the Chess board from the first > Book in the Chapter called "Through the Trapdoor", Harry,Ron and > Hermione become chess pieces for the Black side. Ron becomes a Knight > and Harry becomes a Bishop and Hermione becomes a castle (or Rook). > > In other words, the threesome perform service for the Black King. In > fact Ron says: > > "I suppose we've got to take the place of three of the black pieces..." > > As an analogy, Harry takes on the role that Regulus Black started to > destroy the Horcruxes of Voldemort. > > > The other interesting analogy for Regulus Black is that Regulus is a > bright double star in the constellation of Leo (the Lion). This ties > nicely with Griffindor and the Lion symbol. > > I think JKR likes to use names for symbols. > > Randy > Just for Fun...... If you take the chessboard analogy a little further, you could speculate about book seven. Harry is a Bishop which serves as an authority over the church (in sucession to the Apostles). Given the title of Bishop, you could refer to him as a Chosen One. Ron is a Knight which serves allegiance to a King (or a champion to a fair Lady like Hermione). He performs military duties to defend his sovereign. In the story he sacrifices himself, so that Harry may go on to defeat the White King. When I say he sacrifices himself, he knowingly moves to a square that must be taken by the white pieces. This allows Harry to move to checkmate. I believe Dumbledore has just done the same thing at the end of Book Six. I think a trap has been set for Voldemort just like the chessboard maneuver. Another analogy for this trap setting is spiders. Not only did Snape make a vow at Spinner's End, Aragog the spider died. When Dumbledore takes Harry to Ron's house, he is covered with little spiders in the shed. Spiders spin webs which are in essence traps set for other insects. The spider references have been in these books since the first book. In Chapter Two of Book One: "Harry was used to spiders, because the cupboard under the stairs was full of them, and that was where he slept." I really think these silly analogies are not just coincidences. I think JKR gets mischievous delight out of making little comments and references throughout the books that have a second meaning. If I spent 3 years writing a plotline for seven books, and I knew the ending before the first one was published, that is exactly what I would do. I think she plans to have a nice discussion of all of these after the books are finished. Randy From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Jun 4 14:36:48 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 14:36:48 -0000 Subject: My Theory On The Prophecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153344 G.C.: > I also think it is weird that LV didn't die when his AK backfired on him, we > know that it's because he has gone to many lengths to become immortal, but > it's really frustrating thrying to think about what happened. Is it because > his body had his original soul and therefore this heart, mind etc so that > part could not be destroyed by an AK, but the rest of his horcrux's could? > Does that make sense? What i'm trying to say is that Harry may have to go to > greater length to destroy the body form of Voldemort than it is to destroy > the oher horcrux's. This is because the soul in the body, that was hit with > the AK was carrying his mind and heart and the rest. Ceridwen: Yes, it makes perfect sense to me. We have discussed this a little and the consensus is that, as you say, the soul inside of LV is the original soul, which has had pieces of it shaved off through the murders he has committed. This is why that soul part did not leave the human level of existence when the body, or container, was destroyed. I haven't noticed much discussion about the original mind and heart and all the rest being attatched to the original soul. That is an interesting point. Ceridwen. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 4 14:38:18 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 14:38:18 -0000 Subject: DD and Draco's murder attempts WAS: Draco and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153345 > Ginger: > So Hagrid is right. Rosemerta did send the mead. Sorry about that. > My bad. Sluggy just ordered it. Alla: Thanks. > Ginger: > DD was quite surprised about the vanishing cabinets. On the tower, > (US ch. 27, p. 586-7), DD expresses surprise about it: Alla: Yes, I also think he did not know about vanishing cabinets, but that brings the question again of whether DD was bluffing about everything else or not. Does it make sense? I am just trying to figure out how much people think DD knew about Draco. Yes, it seems quite clear that he did not know about vanishing cabinets, absolutely, but what else did he know or not known? Ginger: At the beginning of the year, Draco had done nothing. He > was merely planning. You can't find out what someone is planning > without getting close to them. DD couldn't get close to Draco, so he > sent Head of House and Family Friend Snape to do it. Snape had no > luck as Draco thought Snape was trying to steal his glory. > > I don't see that DD could have acted before Draco tried anything. > That would have made him no better than Rufus imprisioning Stan. He > did know that Draco was up to something and had him tailed. He also > had things coming in and going out of the school checked. Alla: I guess I am saying that after Kathie's injury DD did not have a luxury to wait anymore and had to act immediately. Yes, to seize Draco right away before he did anything is wrong, but after Katie is hurt, I don't think it would be wrong anymore. Ginger: > Just to throw in a RL example: long ago before such things as caller > ID, I received several death threats on my answering machine. I > didn't know who left them or why. I found out later it was a case of > mistaken identity and I was in no danger, but it was alarming. Alla: Oh, my goodness. I am SO sorry that you had to go through all this. Of course it is alarming, Ginger: > But would you check something given to you by a trusted friend? > Would you have all your groceries checked? Take out food? If the > person who wanted to kill you gave something to someone who knew you, > and it killed that person, would it be because you were lax in your > security? If they sent something via UPS, and it killed the driver, > should you have notified UPS not to accept any packages for you? And > that's even without the Imperious, which Draco used. Alla: I suppose and of course it is hard to say how I would have acted in the similar RL situation I would have done all of that and more if I knew that because of attacks upon me somebody else would have been in danger. Does that make sense? Of course I may not be able to maintain such a high scrutiny if only that would have been concerned me, but if I had been responsible for other lives, like Dumbledore would, then I want to say yes, I would have tried to do all that. Alla. From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Sun Jun 4 16:02:09 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 16:02:09 -0000 Subject: Hagrid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153346 --- "steven1965aaa" wrote: > > I haven't seen much speculation here on what role Hagrid will play > in Book 7. Riddle was responsible for Hagrid's unjust expulsion > from Hogwarts and I can't help but feel that for the sake of > symetry and justice Hagrid will get the opportunity to pay him > back in some way. He's also the only remaining character I can > think of on the good side (other than Snape(?) and Harry) who has > actually met and had contact personally with Voldemort. (SNIP) > This may be because Hagrid doesn't have much magical power and he > often has a more childlike than adult point of view ---(SNIP) how > does he (Harry)look at Hagrid? I'm not really sure > that I can give an accurate answer to that one. He certainly > respects and loves him but doesn't view him as an authority > figure. We have seen that Hagrid although childlike in many ways > is extremely capable and tough and can handle himself even against > a group of strong wizards (and will have Grawp to help him > also). Dumbledore said he would trust Hagrid "with my life" which > is a stronger endorsement that he gave Snape ("I trust Severus > Snape") or anyone else. I think Hagrid will get the chance to do > something very important in book 7 (like sacrifice himself to save > Harry?) but I have no idea what. > > Steven1965aaa > aussie: DD also trusted Harry with the Dursleys even though they have even less magical powers. Why? Because DD personally set a strong protection over their house untill Harry turns 17. Likewise, we may find that Hagird's being "extremely capable and tough" is more than just his giant blood (as Hermione puts it). I've said before (Message 136558) we may later find a GRAPHORN or ERUMPENT skin lining of his overcoat. (both repell spells or curses - FBAWTFT) JKR introduced the THESTRALS refered to in Fantastic Beasts. Hagrid's affinity with Magical Creatures may include other things as well. Like his Cross-Bow. He may have magical tips on those bolts. (Erumpent fluid is explosive) Would his uncanny relationship with animals have any effect over LV's snake? DD knew Tom Riddle would underestimate an underaged wizard (so Harry could get in the boat with DD) and may be counting on that with Hagrid too. (I'd still like to see a flying armada swooping in on LV. Charlie Weasley having trained Norbert, the dragon, to take Hagrid into battle ... oh, well. I can dream.) From coverton at netscape.com Sun Jun 4 10:48:25 2006 From: coverton at netscape.com (corey_over) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 10:48:25 -0000 Subject: Thugs in HP books. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153347 Hi guys, been a while since I posted. But I think you guys are missing some thugs. Dudley and his crew of friends. Or more accurately, his gang. I mean come on, if ever there was a gang of thugs, it's Dudley and his gang. I mean, look what they did to the play park, to other children, and their bodies - they smoked, remember? Well, that's all for now. Your fellow member, Corey From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Sun Jun 4 16:22:03 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 16:22:03 -0000 Subject: LV motive for picking Draco (Was: DD and Draco's murder attempts) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153348 > > Ginger: > > DD was quite surprised about the vanishing cabinets. On the > tower, > > (US ch. 27, p. 586-7), DD expresses surprise about it: > > > Alla: > > Yes, I also think he did not know about vanishing cabinets, ... > I am just trying to figure out how much people think DD knew > about Draco. Yes, it seems quite clear that he did not know > about vanishing cabinets, absolutely, but what else did he know > or not known? > > aussie: A big factor in DD's reluctance to intervene would be, DD suspected a deeper darker motive behind using Draco to be the assasin. Certainly, the DE gathered around DD knew to leave it to Draco and no-one else do the AK-ing. - Was it a blood debt that Lucius owed and Draco could pay? - Was this the DE initiation ceremony? - to be a DE, you need to AK. - Did LV want Draco to tear his soul? Of course, Snape lovers will grab on this to show he saved Draco from a soul-shattering experience. But that would only work if Snape never killed anyone before. Otherwise, Snape would have just damned his soul as Draco almost did. So who did Snape kill before? - Regulus? Too many questions. Pick one or more and shoot my ramblings down in flames. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Jun 4 16:45:55 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 16:45:55 -0000 Subject: RAB case is broken - all Aurors please read! In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0606032018j56c0afd7h20352b96855ba45@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153349 > Debbie: > I have to say I can't muster much enthusiasm to scout for R.A.B. > candidates. With all the loose threads hanging about after six books and > only one book remaining tie them up (or not) it just doesn't seem likely to > me that JKR will introduce a new character for this purpose when she has in > Regulus Black a perfectly good one with a ready-made tie-in to Sirius, > another character whose story arc seems incomplete even though he's dead. > In addition, no other R.A.B. candidate has any connection to 12 Grimmauld > Place, where we saw a good candidate for the real locket *and* have been > provided with leads regarding its current whereabouts. I just wouldn't bet > on those things all being red herrings. > > Neri: It seems to me that the simplest RAB scenario that works with all the different sources we have would be something like this: 1. Regulus joins the DEs because he supports their ideology and hasn't realized Voldemort's true colors yet. 2. Regulus is somehow informed about the locket Horcrux in the cave (I'll discuss the how later). 3. During a typical DEs operation, Regulus is required for the first time to kill somebody (or worse). Like Draco on the tower, he balks and runs away. This is the event that Sirius (and apparently Lupin too) later learn about. 4. Regulus realizes that once the DEs capture him he's a dead man. He's too deep in it now so even if he goes to the Ministry with his information he's likely to end up in Azkaban, and Voldemort might be able to reach him even there, not to mention his family. The only thing left to him is revenge. He decides to destroy the Horcrux in the cave. 5. Regulus leaves a note to Voldemort in the cave: "I want you to know that it was I who discovered you secret". After all, what's the point in revenge if Voldemort wouldn't even learn who got him? Regulus knows that the DEs will catch up with him in a few days ("I face death" and "I know I will be dead long before you read this"). 6. Regulus runs to 12GP with the locket, but he fails in destroying it (there might be additional defenses on it Kreacher wouldn't know about) or he simply doesn't have time before the DEs indeed catch up with him and kill him (Sirius and Lupin's information). The locket remains in the Black house. The only problem I see with this scenario is in (2): how could Regulus, a beginner DE, discover Voldemort's secret and, furthermore, penetrate all the cave defenses? The most likely answer to that is Kreacher. Perhaps Voldemort had borrowed Kreacher when he went to hide the locket in the cave, to do all the menial work for him (it wouldn't be like Lord Voldemort to do that himself). Perhaps he thought he could ensure secrecy by having Mr. Black ordering Kreacher never to tell anyone anything about this service. But as we know, this isn't a complete insurance and Regulus found a way to make Kreacher tell him. Regulus might have known what a Horcrux is from one of the Dark Arts books in 12GP, and figured out this is what the locket was. It is obvious from his note that he thought Voldemort, like some previous Dark wizards before him, had made only one Horcrux. Kreacher also helped Regulus penetrate the cave defenses and possibly drank the green potion for him. Or Regulus drank it himself, knowing he didn't have long to live anyway. But in any case, as Dumbledore says after he drinks the potion himself: "the protection was after all well-designed. One alone could not have done it". This strikes me as an intended clue that RAB had a companion. Kreacher is also the most likely solution to another problem with any RAB scenario, which is how Harry is to learn all about it in Book 7. If this sounds *too* simple, remember that we have three additional Horcruxes to destroy in Book 7 and they seem to be better hidden. Neri From bob_was_right at hotmail.com Sun Jun 4 05:37:10 2006 From: bob_was_right at hotmail.com (Alice Pollard) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 15:37:10 +1000 Subject: RAB case is broken - Regulus In-Reply-To: <007701c686c7$6daee470$6500a8c0@shannonn2zgd3u> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153350 >Kellie: > Perhaps, when he decided he wanted to get away from the dark > side, he wanted to do something to try and bring LV down. So, > he decided to get hold of one of the horcruxes, and in its place > left the note, that was in the fake locket. A message maybe? to > anyone who was fighting against LV to let them know it wasn't the > real thing? Alice: The message in the locket is Harry's only clue for the search for the remaining horcruxes. Without this clue where would he begin? This is a writing trick, to make the next book easier to begin, and more intriguing for readers. From estesrandy at yahoo.com Sun Jun 4 16:59:32 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 16:59:32 -0000 Subject: A link to one of the most fascinating HP posts I have ever read ! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153351 Everyone in this group has read the HP books for clues. Some people read them with prescription glasses. Some read them with magnifying glasses, and some read them with microscopes. I stumbled across a series of posts that were written by a guy named Superwizard624. This guy read these books with an electron microscope. He has figured out so many clues and tied them together so well; it will make your head spin! I just posted about spiders as recurring themes. He calls these themes "running bits". I have spotted a few of them as many of you have done also. Socks, spiders, slugs, etc.... I have never read a post about bubbles before. We all know that Neville forgot something important. Superwizard624 takes this concept and explains almost everything! Make yourself a pot of coffee or tea, and set aside a couple of hours to read the posts in this link. If you want to figure it out yourself, do not read his posts. I was fascinated by his ability to tie so many things together! Enjoy! http://www.hpana.com/forums/topic_view.cfm?tid=58884 Randy From caiomhino at gmail.com Sun Jun 4 16:44:38 2006 From: caiomhino at gmail.com (Kevin Furey) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 09:44:38 -0700 Subject: Why RAB should be Regulus Black In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <570ecd1c0606040944r454e55fek94c0747f8b3bc46@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153352 On 6/3/06, Randy wrote: > > I know this has been discussed and is no longer a mystery to most people, > but there is another reason why RAB is probably Regulus Black. > > Regulus is Latin for Prince (or Little King), and Regulus Black would be > the Black Prince. If you remember the Chess board from the first Book in > the Chapter called "Through the Trapdoor", Harry,Ron and Hermione become > chess pieces for the Black side. Ron becomes a Knight and Harry becomes a > Bishop and Hermione becomes a castle (or Rook). > > In other words, the threesome perform service for the Black King. In fact > Ron says: > > "I suppose we've got to take the place of three of the black pieces..." > > As an analogy, Harry takes on the role that Regulus Black started to > destroy the Horcruxes of Voldemort. Very good points Randy, and while I agree that RAB is likely to be Regulus Black, I do have a couple of thoughts to confuse the issue. In monograms, it is quite common to put the initial for the last name in the center, slightly larger than the other two initials, a first last middle order to them. If the author of the note was trying to confuse the reader or obfuscate his identity, he (or she) could easily have used the convention, one of the tale-tell bits being the intertwining of the left and right initials under the middle initial, giving it a slightly superior point of place in the signature. Thus the initials translated to normal first middle last usage would be RBA. I have no clue as to who RBA would be. The other question I have is why, if a wizard as powerful as Dumbledore needed a second person to assist in making his way through the traps, would someone not known to be anywhere near as highly skilled be able to make that journey alone? Could RAB stand for R and B? Perhaps Regulus had a partner, one who survives to this day, if it was Regulus to begin with. Yes, I know much of this has been mentioned before. The question as to who took the missing horcrux remains unsolved as far as I can see. The initials on the note could also have been a sly way to point at someone already dead, and thus beyond retribution or questioning from Lord Voldemort. - Kevin From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Jun 4 17:13:08 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 17:13:08 -0000 Subject: Harry a Horcrux? In-Reply-To: <44813C45.6060002@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153353 > KJ: > > To me, this whole argument is a question of semantics. Is a soul > part, whether intentionally, or unintentionally, encased in anything, a > horcrux? Does a soul part actually have to be intentionally encased in > order to make a horcrux? > >In this instance, it is less confusing to > argue whether or not we believe that Harry is holding a soul piece, than > it is to argue whether or not he is a horcrux. Neri: I agree with KJ and, in a sense, with Jazmyn too. This is semantics. My own thoughts too are that Harry indeed got a Voldemort's soul part in GH, but that he is *not* a Horcrux, or at least he will not function as a Horcrux at the critical moment in Book 7. I think that, with our knowledge about Horcruxes, it is hardly possible to conclude that encasing a soul cannot happen by chance. My own favorite scenario for GH is like this: A. As Dumbledore theorized, Voldemort indeed had meant to make a living Horcrux with the murder of the prophesied baby. B. He wanted a Gryffindor Horcrux but failed in appropriating the only Gryffindor relic: the sword. So instead he decided on a Gryffindor student: he meant to make Lily into a living Horcrux. Maybe he got this idea because Peter had asked him to spare Lily. C. So, just before Voldemort enters the Potters house at GH, he performs the Horcrux spell in a way that only two things are still needed to seal it - the murder and the living Horcrux itself. D. He tries to spare Lily, but she refuses and he realizes that she would be too difficult to control. So he decides he'll use Nagini for his living Horcrux after all, and he kills Lily. The murder has now been done and the only thing left to seal the spell is the living Horcrux itself. E. Voldemort now tries to kill Harry but the AK rebounds on him. His two soul parts are released. The only body still alive in the house is Harry, so one of the soul parts enters him and the spell is finally sealed. Of course, JKR hasn't given us enough information to either accept or overrule such a scenario. But she had shown us in the past some complex magic that was first cast and then needed to be sealed with a last act of choice. Famously, as Dumbledore tells Harry in OotP, Petunia taking him into her house was the act needed to "seal the charm I placed upon you". Another example is Hermione's sneak jinx. Hermione (as she tells Ron and Harry later) had put it on the *parchment*. Then two things were still required to operate it: the victim signing the parchment while making a certain promise, and the victim breaking this promise. In this case the victim didn't even need to know that she was sealing any spell (indeed, her not knowing was the whole point). The scenario above explains several important mysteries: 1. How the connection between Voldemort and Harry was formed. 2. Why Voldemort himself was not aware that such a connection was formed. 3. Why Voldemort seems to be unsure about what exactly happened at GH (he says in the graveyard: "it appeared that one or more of my experiments had worked... for I had not been killed") 4. Why we were told about the possibility of a living Horcrux. 5. Why we were told that Voldemort wanted to make a living Horcrux with Harry's murder. 6. Why Voldemort tried to spare Lily (as JKR recently confirmed). 7. What was to be the Gryffindor Horcrux, and why we've been told that the only Gryffindor relic is safe. Note also that this scenario does not preclude that Nagini is a Horcrux too. Perhaps Voldemort believed that his soul part from GH was lost forever, so he made her a Horcrux later, as Dumbledore theorized. This gives a new meaning to Harry's experience the night Nagini attacked Arthur in the Ministry. It also suggests the interesting future possibility that Harry can seize control over Nagini. Neri From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Jun 4 17:25:31 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 17:25:31 -0000 Subject: Just for Fun was Re: Why RAB should be Regulus Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153354 > Randy: > Just for Fun...... > > If you take the chessboard analogy a little further, you could > speculate about book seven. > > Harry is a Bishop which serves as an authority over the church (in > sucession to the Apostles). Given the title of Bishop, you could > refer to him as a Chosen One. a_svirn: Neither bishops, nor apostles are in any way "chosen ones", though. Actually, it's king who is "the chosen one" (as in the "Lord's anointed"). > Randy: > Another analogy for this trap setting is spiders. Not only did > Snape make a vow at Spinner's End, Aragog the spider died. When > Dumbledore takes Harry to Ron's house, he is covered with little > spiders in the shed. Spiders spin webs which are in essence traps > set for other insects. a_svirn: Yes, well, the big question is who is the spider here and who is cast as a poor clueless fly (or flies). From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Jun 4 17:57:09 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 17:57:09 -0000 Subject: What's Harry going to get in Godric's Hollow? - Pure Speculation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153355 > bboyminn: > > I have always suspected that before Harry goes to Godric's Hollow one > of his friends (Molly, Arthur, MrGonagall, etc..) will tell him when > he arrives he should look up 'so and so' (call him Mr. Ecks. Get it? > Mr. X ;) ). That Mr. Ecks was a friend of his parents and that he will > be able to help Harry find the site of the house and take him to their > graves. > > I think inadvertantly Mr. Ecks will let information slip that he has > always thought was unimportant, but Harry will (eventually) see great > significants in it. > Neri: I agree with this scenario, except that I don't even see the need for Molly or any other person to point Mr. (or Mrs.) Ecks to Harry. It will only raise the question of how this information wasn't uncovered before, and it's not like it's really needed. Harry may simply ask a passing neighbor a few questions, or this neighbor might even start the conversation him/herself, noticing that Harry looks just like the man who used to live there sixteen years ago. And there seemed to be muggle neighbors, because Hagrid said in SS/PS Ch. 1 that he got Harry from the wrecked house "before the muggles started swarming around". One of them could have noticed someone suspicious in the neighborhood, or picked up some object form the rubble. And in a related subject ? I wonder what clue might Harry find at his parents' graves? Neri From yolandacarroll at yahoo.com Sun Jun 4 18:01:58 2006 From: yolandacarroll at yahoo.com (yolandacarroll) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 18:01:58 -0000 Subject: HP Chat room - How to get it. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153356 Hi, The HP chat room doesn't exist... still. Please IM (a.k.a. instant message) HPFGU_chat and you'll be added to the chat room. From estesrandy at yahoo.com Sun Jun 4 18:22:48 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 18:22:48 -0000 Subject: Just for Fun was Re: Why RAB should be Regulus Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153357 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > > Randy: > > Just for Fun...... > > > > If you take the chessboard analogy a little further, you could > > speculate about book seven. > > > > Harry is a Bishop which serves as an authority over the church (in > > sucession to the Apostles). Given the title of Bishop, you could > > refer to him as a Chosen One. > > a_svirn: > Neither bishops, nor apostles are in any way "chosen ones", though. > Actually, it's king who is "the chosen one" (as in the "Lord's > anointed"). > > > > > Randy: > > Another analogy for this trap setting is spiders. Not only did > > Snape make a vow at Spinner's End, Aragog the spider died. When > > Dumbledore takes Harry to Ron's house, he is covered with little > > spiders in the shed. Spiders spin webs which are in essence traps > > set for other insects. > > a_svirn: > Yes, well, the big question is who is the spider here and who is > cast as a poor clueless fly (or flies). > Sorry, I forgot to finish the thought earlier. Slughorn went to Aragog's funeral with Hagrid and Harry. Harry gets Slughorn to give up his true memory about Horcruxes. Without the death of Aragog, Slughorn does not meet up with Harry and drink excessive amounts of wine. In essence, the slug is caught in the Spider's web. In the other threads of this sort, Snape lives at Spinner's End. Snape and Dumbledore are setting a trap for Bellatrix and Voldemort when Snape takes the Unbreakable Vow. Snape is gaining the trust of Bellatrix and therefore Voldemort. Randy From kjones at telus.net Sun Jun 4 19:35:33 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 12:35:33 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry a Horcrux? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44833605.1030401@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 153358 Neri wrote: > Neri: > I agree with KJ and, in a sense, with Jazmyn too. This is semantics. > My own thoughts too are that Harry indeed got a Voldemort's soul part > in GH, but that he is *not* a Horcrux, or at least he will not > function as a Horcrux at the critical moment in Book 7. KJ writes: My theory is that the soul part in Harry *will* function as a horcrux, and that this is the "power that Voldemort knows not". Only Harry will recognize that Voldemort is not yet vanquished and will be able to take the steps necessary to destroy the final piece of soul. To me, this is what the prophesy means by "neither can live while the other survives". Neri: > A. As Dumbledore theorized, Voldemort indeed had meant to make a > living Horcrux with the murder of the prophesied baby. KJ: I don't think that Voldemort ever intended to make a "living horcrux". I do believe DD when he stated that he thought Voldemort did intend to make his final horcrux using the soul split that would have occurred when he murdered Harry. As this failed, there should only be six horcruxes in total. Harry's was the significant death, as a result of the prophesy for the final horcrux. I have a hard time believing that Voldemort is dumb enough to make Nagini a horcrux. I think that this was a plot device to let us know that a living horcrux was a possibility. Neri: > E. Voldemort now tries to kill Harry but the AK rebounds on him. His > two soul parts are released. The only body still alive in the house is > Harry, so one of the soul parts enters him and the spell is finally > sealed. KJ: This is interesting, as we know that the main soul of Voldemort drifted away to end up in Albania. We suspect that one piece ended up in Harry. One wonders what happened to the other piece. In fact, Voldemort was such a busy murderer, that I wonder how many other pieces there were. If there was no actual encasing spell applied to these other pieces, were they also destroyed, did they reunite with the main piece? Neri: > 2. Why Voldemort himself was not aware that such a connection was formed. KJ: To me, this proves that no spell was performed prior to the murders at GH, or he would have some idea of what might have occurred. This is also demonstrated by Voldemort's lack of knowledge of the destruction of any of his horcruxes. He can't feel them. I wonder if he is becoming suspicious about what happened and if that is why his DEs have instructions to leave Harry for him to deal with. Neri: > 3. Why Voldemort seems to be unsure about what exactly happened at GH > (he says in the graveyard: "it appeared that one or more of my > experiments had worked... for I had not been killed") KJ: Unfortunately, horcruxes are one of those things that are only demonstrated to work when actually field tested.:) > Neri: > Note also that this scenario does not preclude that Nagini is a > Horcrux too. Perhaps Voldemort believed that his soul part from GH was > lost forever, so he made her a Horcrux later, as Dumbledore theorized. > This gives a new meaning to Harry's experience the night Nagini > attacked Arthur in the Ministry. It also suggests the interesting > future possibility that Harry can seize control over Nagini. KJ: I tend to think that, if it becomes necessary, Harry could control Nagini as a direct result of being able to speak parseltongue, and because he has a piece of Voldie's soul. In this case, I believe DD's explanation that Harry could only see through Nagini because Voldemort had possessed the snake. I suspect that it might not be necessary due to a certain potions expert now living in close proximity to poor Nagini. Horcrux or not, I think Nagini is toast. KJ From estesrandy at yahoo.com Sun Jun 4 19:39:41 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 19:39:41 -0000 Subject: A link to one of the most fascinating HP posts I have ever read ! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153359 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Randy" wrote: > SNIP I stumbled across a > series of posts that were written by a guy named Superwizard624. > This guy read these books with an electron microscope. He has > figured out so many clues and tied them together so well; it will > make your head spin! > > I just posted about spiders as recurring themes. He calls these > themes "running bits". I have spotted a few of them as many of you > have done also. Socks, spiders, slugs, etc.... > > I have never read a post about bubbles before. We all know that > Neville forgot something important. Superwizard624 takes this > concept and explains almost everything! > > Make yourself a pot of coffee or tea, and set aside a couple of > hours to read the posts in this link. If you want to figure it out > yourself, do not read his posts. I was fascinated by his ability to > tie so many things together! > > Enjoy! > > http://www.hpana.com/forums/topic_view.cfm?tid=58884 > > Randy > A slight disclaimer on this post. The link does not explain everything about everything. It does link Neville's memory to RAB, Snape, Bellatrix, St. Mungos, Prof. Lockhart, Dept. of Mysteries, and tells you what happened to his parents! There is enough speculative kindling here to start a forest fire on this list! I tells you why Dumbledore would trust Snape! Now are you interested? Randy From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Jun 4 19:56:45 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 19:56:45 -0000 Subject: Individual issues and JKR (was Re: Snape and the "Chosen One" ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153360 zgirnius: Nice post, Ginger! Very thought-provoking, and the general point is one I very much agree with. > Ginger: > My personal soapbox, about which I posted here before HBP was JKR's > treatment of "inbred" people. I *do* hate that term. Hasn't someone > come up with a politically correct term for that yet? zgirnius: In parallel with the sort of parody of PC which labels the poor as 'monetarily challenged'...'ancestrally challenged'? Ginger: > Yet people repeatedly put inbred people down as though we are > automatically stupid and deserve to be treated badly because of our > blood, which IMO, is no different that treating someone badly because > of their race. We can't choose our ancestors. There's no reason a > person should be ashamed of one's background, race, religion, gender, > or other identifying features. One should only have to be ashamed of > one's actions, if said actions are bad. zgirnius: That's completely true, and I've never thought about it that way before! Now I'm sitting here thinking to myself that I have sixteen distinct great-great-grandparents, and suddenly feeling like the student in CoS who mentions his X generations of pure wizarding blood, whoever that was. Which makes me realize it is all a matter of degree, just like the purebloods in HP not being 'really' pure. A purely non-inbred person would be one whose number of ancestors in each previous generation doubles. Counting 30 years per generation, 30 generations back (1000 years ago, roughly), a 'purely non-inbred' person would need to have 2^30, or well over a billion distinct ancestors. Which is impossible, since this exceeds the estimated worldwide population at the time by a factor of more than three. Even if there is a statistically greater likelihood of certain genetic problems in people who are inbred to a greater degree than others, this is no reason for prejudice, any more than the (random- ) fact that women are statistically less likely to excel at mathematics than men is a reason to believe all women should avoid the stuff. > Ginger: I fully expected her to straighten > out the misconception about inbred folks in HBP or book 7. I didn't > think she'd let this sort of prejudice stand, let alone feed into it. zgirnius: You know, I don't think she has given it any thought from the perspective you present. She is writing the decay of the Gaunt family as the logical, and 'karmic', consequence of the extreme pureblood supremacist position, it seems to me. To her it is not about putting down people from families like the Gaunts, but showing another evil consequence of pureblood supremacist thinking. > Ginger: > Her agenda in life is her own. We can't all expect her to change for > each of us, no matter how right we think we are (and I do think I'm > right!), nor can we expect that her soapboxes will be our soapboxes. zgirnius: Quite. And good for you, for stepping on yours! From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jun 4 20:04:37 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 20:04:37 -0000 Subject: Just for Fun was Re: Why RAB should be Regulus Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153361 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: a_svirn: > Neither bishops, nor apostles are in any way "chosen ones", though. > Actually, it's king who is "the chosen one" (as in the "Lord's > anointed"). Geoff: Yes they are. The twelve apostles were selected by Christ himself, chosen to go with him, learn from him and then take the gospel out into the world after his resurrection and ascension. From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Sun Jun 4 21:04:39 2006 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 17:04:39 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] A link to one of the most fascinating HP posts I have ever read ! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153362 Randy: >Make yourself a pot of coffee or tea, and set aside a couple of >hours to read the posts in this link. If you want to figure it out >yourself, do not read his posts. I was fascinated by his ability to >tie so many things together! PJ: You're right, I had a great time reading his theory. Sounds plausible but I could've sworn JKR said in one of her interviews that there was no memory charm on Neville. Thanks for the link! PJ From dpirson at shaw.ca Sun Jun 4 18:22:50 2006 From: dpirson at shaw.ca (Natalie Pirson) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 13:22:50 -0500 Subject: Looking for God in Harry Potter Message-ID: <001601c68803$e3aa3520$0300a8c0@wp.shawcable.net> No: HPFGUIDX 153363 Hi! I just joined this group. I have read all the HP books today and, of course, I love them. Currently, I am reading a book called, 'Looking God in Harry Potter.' Interesting. So many Christians shy away from HP because of the witchcraft/wizard but this book points to the contrary -- that the series is actually deeply rooted with Christian meaning. Has anyone else read this book? Natalie From foodiedb at optonline.net Sun Jun 4 19:59:22 2006 From: foodiedb at optonline.net (David) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 19:59:22 -0000 Subject: If it is not Voldemort, then who? - Is Dumbledore worried about someone else? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153364 Hi all, I was just rereading part of GOF when I came across something that I think might be noteworthy. On page 601 of the US edition, Harry is telling Dumbledore about the dream he had with Voldemort in it. After Harry finishes telling him about the dream, they talk about how Voldemort could have held a wand (if he was supposed to be so weak). Harry says: "...how could he have held the wand?" Dumbledore says: "How indeed?" Then Dumbledore uses the Pensieve, then it reads: "Professor," Harry said at last, "do you think he's getting stronger?" Now, to me, here is the curious part. After Harry asks the above question, Dumledore begins his reply by saying, "Voldemort?" Voldemort with a question mark?! He then continues to say, "Once again, Harry, I can only give you my suspicions." Well, speaking of suspicious, I find it suspicious that Dumbledore had to clarify who Harry was talking about. Who else did he think Harry might be talking about? Is there someone else out there that Dumbledore is worried about becoming stronger? I realize the Dumbledore was just using the Pensieve, but I still think it is strange that he had to clarify who Harry was speaking about. Have a nice day, David, who loves treacle tart! From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 4 19:42:59 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 19:42:59 -0000 Subject: Karma, Umbridge, etc. (Re: Snape and the "Chosen One") In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153365 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin: > I don't expect the Dursleys and Umbridge to live happily ever after > unless they change their ways. But in both cases canon is explicit > that they have abused other people to a far worse extent than > Harry, so whatever judgement falls on them, I expect it will be for > that. Okay, that would be a kind of argument for karma that operates in the general pattern of things as opposed to the specific. Correct me if I'm wrong about I think this is saying that, for instance, if the Dursleys have their treatment of Dudley blow up in their face they have been punished for being abusive people, just as if Snape ends up suffering mightily because Harry hates him and won't listen to him he has been punished for his own abusive behavior. It is the same thing as saying that it doesn't matter which particular burglary a thief gets convicted of, as long as he's going to jail he is being punished for being a burglar and therefore, in the general scheme of things, is being punished for all the burglaries he's done. Or, to give a real- world example, it really wasn't all that important, in the great scheme of things, that Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion rather than fraud, racketeering, or murder. If he had not been a fraud, a racketeer, and a murderer, people would not have been so determined to catch him out of the tax evasion charge and he would have gotten a slap on the wrist instead of ten years in the big house. Nothing wrong with that, as long as everyone understands that the underlying justice of the situation, in these examples, has to do with a lot more than tax evasion, or a particular burglary, or whatever. So far so good, but the part about them having "abused other people to a far worse extent" than Harry seems kind of problematic, at least with regard to Umbridge. With the Dursleys we have Dudley and JKR's statement, although I'm not so sure that statement is as clear as you imply (i.e. I recall that she said Dudley had been abused "in some ways as badly" as Harry, not that he had clearly been abused much worse). In the case of Snape, I'm also not at all sure that's true. Snape has committed crimes and evil acts (treachery and murder) but I'm not sure that he's abused anyone worse than he's abused Harry, unless you want to say that murder is a form of abuse, in which case under that definition you would be right. But when we get to Umbridge, we have a big problem with canon being clear about her "abusing other people to a much greater extent" than she abuses Harry. Who would that be, exactly? Who has she abused worse than she abused Harry, and what exactly did she do to them? What has she done that is clearly worse and more deserving of punishment than what she did to Harry? The werewolves, perhaps? We know that she was a prime sponsor of anti-werewolf legislation. Does that count as clearly abusing other people to a much greater extent than she has abused Harry? If so, I think we need more detail, there. I grant you we have some evidence, particularly with regard to Lupin's problems and the bitterness of the werewolves (and hence the difficulty Lupin has in dealing with them). But clear evidence of greater abuse than was done to Harry -- that I don't think we have. Lupinlore From ldorman at researchbydesign.com Sun Jun 4 21:02:14 2006 From: ldorman at researchbydesign.com (kibakianakaya) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 21:02:14 -0000 Subject: Nature of a Patronus / Snape's Patronus In-Reply-To: <20060601191821.5714.qmail@web33211.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153366 > Darlene Carroll wrote: > Because can you just imagine Snape's patronus not being a phoenix > at all but an image of Dumbledore! Nothing would scream loyalty > like that. Can't you see JKR doing something like that? I can > since it appears that she loves shocking her readers. Wouldn't > that be shocking! Imagine the look on Harry and Voldemort's faces. Hi Lilygale here: I was just reading in another thread about all the spider imagery in HBP: > Randy: > Another analogy for this trap setting is spiders. Not only did > Snape make a vow at Spinner's End, Aragog the spider died. When > Dumbledore takes Harry to Ron's house, he is covered with little > spiders in the shed. Spiders spin webs which are in essence traps > set for other insects. This got me thinking about how appropriate a spider might be as Snape's patronus. A spider sets up elaborate structures and waits for events to play out. Snape has set up an elaborate ruse as a double agent and is waiting for the end to play out. He subtly influences events, and works behind the scenes, just as a spider lies in wait behind the web for an insect to get trapped. Whether Snape is ESE, OFH or DDM, the analogy works. Spiders also can be ESE (Aragog certainly has his nastier side) but also can be very helpful to humans (taking care of other evil little insects). Maybe all that spider imagery foreshadows Snape's Patronus. Just a thought. Lilygale who left a spider named Aragog living in her basement for 7 months, until he ventured upstairs. From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 4 20:25:57 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 20:25:57 -0000 Subject: DD's Knowledge (was Re: Nice vs. Good, honesty,) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153367 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > Pippin: > Well, Harry's problem, IMO, is that his parental instincts have > been activated too soon, because he's basically had to parent > himself. There's no way to undo that, as Dumbledore sadly > discovered. But Harry doesn't have the experience or the mental > development to parent wisely, so the series is, I would say, > giving him the opportunity to develop these things and meanwhile > showing how he suffers for the lack of them. Okay. So we have the following scenario, I believe. At least, the following chain of events and causation seems to match with this set of ideas. I'm not arguing for or against this chain of causation or the ideas you put forth, I'm just trying to see how this might play out with regard to the events we know of: 1) DD leaves Harry with the Dursleys for whatever reason. 2) Harry shows up at Hogwarts. DD tries to make the best of it, but is surprised/horrified/disturbed/guilt-stricken/whatever about how all this has turned out. 3) DD knows he needs to tell Harry about the prophecy, but his horror/guilt/whatever keeps derailing the process. Perhaps he even discourages other people from speaking with Harry about the past, not wanting the poor boy to be upset by his possible fate and not wanting him to become depressed and brooding through thinking of what he has lost. This would explain why McGonagall, Lupin, Sirius, and even Snape are remarkably close to the vest with details about Lily and James. 4) The events of PoA and GoF highlight the danger Harry is in but also deepen DD's quandary, leading him to take steps to fix things by instituting draconic measures to keep Harry safe and Sirius alive. But it's too late and the damage from (1) can't be undone. 5) After OOTP, Dumbledore comes as close as he can, given his temperment and the overall situation, to lashing out in frustration. Basically, his confrontation with the Dursleys was as close as he could come to saying "This is all YOUR fault and thank you very much." > I do think that Dumbledore might at least wonder whether > Harry was bullying Draco. After all, Draco often seems to come out > the worst in these encounters-- he wouldn't be trying to get > himself beaten up, would he? DD's attitude toward Draco is, I have to admit, even more of a migraine-inducer than his attitude toward Harry. If he believes Draco is being bullied and that Draco is a reasonably competent, rational human being, then why on Earth does DD let Draco run around committing attempted murder? If he thinks Draco is basically a screw-up, that would explain why he isn't surprised that Draco keeps getting the worst of things.** But it still doesn't explain why he treats the matter of Draco's mission with such kid-gloves. After all, if he thinks Draco is essentially incompetent then letting the kid run around Hogwarts on a murder mission is like giving a chimp a loaded gun and letting it run loose. ** Scene with staff over breakfast: DD: I was reviewing the House Point awards. I see there was another encounter between Mr. Potter and Mr. Malfoy yesterday. >McG and SS look at each other cautiously< DD: Let us do this the easy way. Minerva, where is Harry? McG: In Gryffindor Tower. DD: Severus, where is Mr. Malfoy? SS: In the infirmary. >DD facepalm< Lupinlore From oppen at mycns.net Sun Jun 4 22:29:37 2006 From: oppen at mycns.net (ericoppen) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 22:29:37 -0000 Subject: Regulus---dead? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153368 It has occurred to me that if _I_ were in Regulus Black's shoes, a renegade DE who had just stolen and (hopefully) destroyed one of LV's horcruces, I might well want to confuse the trail. As far as we know, once someone who has taken Polyjuice Potion is dead, they retain the form in which they died. (Either that, or when Barty Crouch's mother was buried, the Dementors were not paying attention.) Now, keep in mind, I'm a trained Death Eater. What if I induced some poor wretch of a Muggle (possibly via Imperius? I'm already in more than enough trouble that being in trouble for Imperiusing a Muggle won't make any difference, after all...) to drink Polyjuice Potion and turn into "me" long enough for my now ex-friends to catch up and kill him. Once he's dead, the search is off...after all, what point chasing a corpse? The DEs can let the corpse be found and (mis)identified, and I'm off the hook! Or, for a crueller twist, what if I got the drop on whoever was chasing me, Imperiused him into taking Polyjuice to look just like me, switched clothes with him, AK'ed him, and left the corpse to be found by the other DEs? They might wonder "hey, what happened to old what's-his-name?" but with "my" corpse to show Lord V., they'll think I'm dead. --Eric Oppen, who feels _really_ sorry for whoever investigates murders in the WW. From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Jun 4 22:30:06 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 22:30:06 -0000 Subject: Prophecy timeline (was Re: My Theory On The Prophecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153369 > Carol responds: > > Speaking of conjecture relating to the first prophecy, I want to toss > out a time-related theory here. Since the PoA prophecy occurs alsmost > immediately (a few hours) before the events it refers to, I conjecture > that the first prophecy was made either just before or just after the > Prophecy boy(s) was(were) conceived--specifically, on October 31, > 1979. Halloween, often if not always significant in the HP books, > would have been exactly nine months before his birth (on July 31, > 1980). IOW, though JKR is most unlikely to mention the fact in her > books, Harry could well have been conceived on Halloween 1979, as > could Neville. (Now I know perfectly well that the human gestation > period is generally considered to be 38 weeks or 266 days, which is > slightly less than nine calendar months, but it's very close and > tradition regards it as nine months.) A Halloween date would also fit > with the cold, rainy night and with Trelawney's statement that she had > been teaching at Hogwarts *nearly* sixteen years at the beginning of > Harry's fifth year, which suggests that she was not hired like the > other teachers some time before September 1 (the first day of term) > but a few months later. (McGonagall was hired in December, so such > late hirings do occur at Hogwarts, probably on the death, or promotion > to headmaster in this case, of the previous teacher.) > > Any takers on Halloween 1979 as the Prophecy date? Potioncat: Getting an accurate timeline from a HP book is like getting a straight line out of a slinky-toy. Not that it's stopped us before. I want to post on what I've found so far. First off, Carol, I really like this idea. >From OoP it seems that Trelawney started teaching after the fall term of 1979 began. She says clearly that it's been almost 16 years in her first interview with Umbridge. A few days/weeks later, she says her 16 years of devoted service have passed unnoticed. It seems a real clue from JKR. McGonagall only mentions her time once. Snape only mentions his time once. ST says hers twice, and it's a different time. Because DD hired her immediately after hearing the prophecy, she must have made it in the fall of 79. I don't think it was around Halloween (sorry, Carol) because November begins two chapters after ST says her 16 years have passed. (I'll work this out in more detail later.) What does this mean? It means Snape and DD hear the prophecy before the boys are conceived. Neither one knows who the parents will be, but I would think there would be a great pool of couples to choose from. I also think it's a real possibility that Snape was there for a job interview. I'm sure he didn't mean to get caught at the keyhole. I know ST doesn't seem like a reliable witness, but I'm going to assume that she knew a DADA position was open. It could have been. The position is open every year. He was only 20, but he had a reputation for knowing the material and he may have thought DD would have no other choice. If he wasn't applying that year, I think he did apply in both 80 and 81. He may have started working for DD even before 80, but I think at least by 80. Then in 81 DD brought him in. Thoughts? From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Jun 4 22:55:10 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 18:55:10 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] DD's Knowledge (was Re: Nice vs. Good, honesty,) References: Message-ID: <011e01c68829$ef509470$6398400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 153370 Lupinlore: > DD's attitude toward Draco is, I have to admit, even more of a > migraine-inducer than his attitude toward Harry. If he believes > Draco is being bullied and that Draco is a reasonably competent, > rational human being, then why on Earth does DD let Draco run around > committing attempted murder? If he thinks Draco is basically a > screw-up, that would explain why he isn't surprised that Draco keeps > getting the worst of things.** But it still doesn't explain why he > treats the matter of Draco's mission with such kid-gloves. After > all, if he thinks Draco is essentially incompetent then letting the > kid run around Hogwarts on a murder mission is like giving a chimp a > loaded gun and letting it run loose. Magpie: I think DD's perspective on this matter goes back to the one that gets him into trouble (or not) most often: he's an old man looking down on the squabblings of kids (I'm speaking first here about Harry and Draco, obviously, not the attempted murder). People are quick to slot Snape and James into the "correct" roles with Harry and Draco--originally in PS people assumed Snape was Draco to Harry's James, then after OotP people though the twist was that Snape was Harry to James' Draco, the key always being for their to be one victim and one bully rather than two kids hating each other. I think Dumbledore is unintentionally misleading back in PS/SS and that when he uses Malfoy as an example to explain how Snape and James felt about each other he's not intending to cast Snape or James in the role of victim or bully. I don't think he thinks Harry is bullying Draco or that he's got any reason to intervene himself in that fight. It seems more like he sees two boys who hate each other and doesn't interfere. Not that this is necessarily the best thing to do--would it really be too interfering to have sat these kids down and forced them to work something out back when they were 11 instead of letting it escalate? But DD never does that (it would screw up the plot). Altercations between Harry and Draco, I suspect Dumbledore thinks, are taken care of by the boys themselves or their Heads of Houses. He knows Draco's background enough and I'm sure knows enough of both his and Harry's personality to not think that Harry's just beating the kid up for kicks. Dumbledore doesn't interfere when Harry or James hexes people in the hallways and so probably lets stuff like that go in general, whether it's Draco leg-locking Neville as a first year, Harry making Goyle's toenails grow in sixth or the entire school levicorpus-ing each other in the Marauders era. Now, as to the murder plot I think we actually are seeing Dumbledore put students at risk as potential collateral damage in his war. I actually don't think it's hard to believe that JKR's "epitome of goodness" would have told the Weasleys and the Bells that their kids were casualties in a war had either of them died in HBP--he might have taken blame on himself for not protecting them, but given what I've seen of Dumbledore I could easily imagine him presenting it that way--and still not revealing that he knew about what Draco was doing. DD starts the year knowing Draco's going to try to kill him. Perhaps he's originally thinking that puts no one but himself in danger. He puts Snape on the case to try to figure out what he's doing and head him off. Not only does Snape not know about the Cabinet plot (DD chooses not to follow up on Harry's warnings about it) but he doesn't know about either the mead of the necklace beforehand. Both Snape and DD seem to know that Draco was behind both of those attempts afterwards. Once Katie is hurt DD can no longer claim that he believes Draco's murder attempts are only a danger to himself and DD. He's seen that having a panicked teenager essentially shutting his eyes and hurling deadly things into the school is a danger--a chimp with a gun, as you said. He can't possibly claim once Katie is hurt (even if she probably wouldn't have been if she hadn't argued with Leanne) that he's got things under control. He seems to basically be admitting that hopefully any murder attempt can be reversed if not prevented. From that moment, if not before, Dumbledore decides to gamble with the lives of others to stick to his own plan with Draco. As a strategy, this may very well prove to be a gamble that pays off, but I think it is a strategy of war, not a Headmaster protecting his students. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 4 23:18:54 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 23:18:54 -0000 Subject: DD's Knowledge and some Hogwarts teachers (was Re: Nice vs. Good, honesty,) In-Reply-To: <011e01c68829$ef509470$6398400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153371 > Magpie: > I think Dumbledore is unintentionally misleading back in PS/SS and that when > he uses Malfoy as an example to explain how Snape and James felt about each > other he's not intending to cast Snape or James in the role of victim or > bully. I don't think he thinks Harry is bullying Draco or that he's got any > reason to intervene himself in that fight. Alla: Yes, completely agree with this. Magpie: > As a strategy, this may very well prove to be a gamble that pays off, but I > think it is a strategy of war, not a Headmaster protecting his students. Alla: Oh, yes, that is what I think too and this is again Dumbledore wearing too many hats IMO. I am thinking about how MUCH DD hurts his students IMO by fulfilling the role of the war leader and Headmaster at the same time. I mean, I obviously do think that very strong argument can be made that Snape hates teaching, would rather be anywhere else and DD only keeps him in school to protect him or to have his services as a spy, basically that the reason Dumbledore has Snape in Hogwarts is war related , NOT education related. BUT I really don't want to argue about whether Snape is a good teacher or not in this post, because even if we forget about him and assume that he is a perfect teacher, there are IMO too many teachers in Hogwarts, who are here because Dumbledore is a leader of the Order of Phoenix and NOT because they have to be there because they good at what they do. I mean, I love Hagrid dearly, I really do and as I argued earlier IMO he had some potential to become a not bad teacher, but Draco's incident helped squashed it badly. IMO Dumbledore mainly kept him in Hogwarts because he needed Hagrid as a soldier and does it really matter that students do not have good CoMc teacher? Then we of course have Sybill Trelawney. I actually go back and forth as to whether she makes some other genuine predictions or not, but her teaching? DD wanted to protect her, he hired her and I am sure I also mentioned it in the past, but it bears repeating, do we really doubt that if Dumbledore did not hear the Prophecy, he would have hired her? Basucally IMO an argument can be made that Hogwarts students education suffers because DD has to be concerned with war strategies too. JMO, Alla From leslie41 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 4 23:26:35 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 23:26:35 -0000 Subject: Snape and the "Chosen One" Was: Nice vs. Good - Compassion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153372 > Lupinlore: > But how do you expect things to end? What do you think would be > appropriate? Surely you don't think that the Dursleys, Umbridge, > and Snape can go unpunished for their reprehensible crimes against > Harry and the series will still have a moral leg to stand on? > > Lupinlore Leslie41: Even if I supposed Snape a murderer, child-abuser, thief and goose- raper I wouldn't necessarily "expect" him to be punished. Of Umbridge and the Dursleys (and to a lesser extent people like Filch)--do I expect them to be punished? Not necessarily. I think it would be perfectly appropriate for Dolores to remain at the Ministry in a highly coveted position. Umbridge is as malevolent and loathesome a creature as exists in any modern book, but my guess is she won't suffer much at the end herself. Why? Because that's just how things happen, sometimes. Kids know themselves that sometimes bad things happen and people don't pay for their deeds. As veterans of the school playground, they know that more than anyone. And they can smell a faked happy ending from a mile away. Rowling's comment that the reason that Snape exists is that "there are teachers out there like Snape" is a good one. There are all sorts of people out there who are difficult to deal with, yet one must learn to deal with them. Rowling doesn't candy-coat these things. And some of what many perceive as Dumbledore's "incompetence" is his way of not making too things easy, especially for Harry. What one does learn from Rowling's books is that the people like the Dursleys are pretty miserable in the end, and Umbridge as well. I think Rowling's "moral leg" is the fact that no one can envy any one of these people. I often admire Snape, and at some times (when he's being funny) I even like him. And I believe that in some small way I understand him. But he also is a "miserable" person in most ways. And this is because to a very great extent I think he hates the world, and he has a chip on his shoulder the size of Nebraska. I would assert that chip cuts into him far more than it does into others. The "punishment" for Snape is in being Snape. No reader envies him or wants to be like him, not really. Not deep down. He's too unhappy to really be envied. And Umbridge evokes a loathing disgust that is unparalleled. I would say this even of someone like Gilderoy Lockhart. The punishment is not in a failed spell that bounced back on him and sent him to St. Mungo's. The real punishment is that from the get- go we think he's a complete git. From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Mon Jun 5 00:37:39 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 00:37:39 -0000 Subject: If it is not Voldemort, then who? - Is Dumbledore worried about someone else? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153373 --- "David" wrote: > > Hi all, > > I was just rereading part of GOF when I came across something > that I think might be noteworthy. On page 601 of the US edition, > Harry is telling Dumbledore about the dream he had with Voldemort > in it. After Harry finishes telling him about the dream, they > talk about how Voldemort could have held a wand (if he was > supposed to be so weak). Harry says: > > "...how could he have held the wand?" > > Dumbledore says: > > "How indeed?" > > Then Dumbledore uses the Pensieve, then it reads: > > "Professor," Harry said at last, "do you think he's getting > stronger?" > > Now, to me, here is the curious part. After Harry asks the above > question, Dumledore begins his reply by saying, > > "Voldemort?" > > Voldemort with a question mark?! > > He then continues to say, "Once again, Harry, I can only give you > my suspicions." > > Well, speaking of suspicious, I find it suspicious that Dumbledore > had to clarify who Harry was talking about. Who else did he think > Harry might be talking about? Is there someone else out there > that Dumbledore is worried about becoming stronger? > > I realize the Dumbledore was just using the Pensieve, but I still > think it is strange that he had to clarify who Harry was speaking > about. > > Have a nice day, > David, who loves treacle tart! > aussie: I haven't put it all together, but I've been wondering if the Dark Wizard Grindelwald (famous from the back of Dumbledore's Choc Frog Card). - If LV is used in a similar way Quirrel was used to piggy back the defeated Voldy ... - Could Tom have been used to be a "Horcrux" for Grindlewald - and (this is stretching it now) ... Did LV want Draco to tear his soul to be a "Horcrux" for the next generation? OK, organist, you can stop playing that eiry music in the background now From sbarthell2001 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 4 23:06:23 2006 From: sbarthell2001 at yahoo.com (sarah barthell) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 23:06:23 -0000 Subject: R.A.B. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153374 Here is something that I found out on the Mugglenet site in their name origins section. Regulus means heart of a lion and it is one of the brightest stars in our galaxy. Alphred which is clearly his middle name means heart of the serpent or in Arabic the solitary one, which maybe should have gone to Sirius given that he was the only one in Gryffindor. Also it lies close to a star named Regulus. Sirius as you all know is named after the dog star, the brightest star in the Milky way. Just one question, who in the book is named Alphred? sbarthell From kellymolinari at yahoo.com Mon Jun 5 01:18:19 2006 From: kellymolinari at yahoo.com (Kelly Molinari) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 01:18:19 -0000 Subject: Hagrid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153375 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "steven1965aaa" wrote: > > I haven't seen much speculation here on what role Hagrid will play in > Book 7. Kelly: Hagrid's official position at Hogwarts is "Keeper of the Keys and Grounds", and Dumbledore is the only headmaster (or wizard, for that matter) to be buried on the grounds. Hagrid was the one who picked up Dumbledore's body and was not seen again until later (not really sure how much later) in the hospital wing when he reports to McGonagall that he has moved the body. We see him again shortly afterwards in the headmaster's office, where he is conspiciously quiet, yet crying. The last time we see him is when he is carrying in Dumbledore's covered body for the funeral, again sobbing. We have no reason to believe that anyone except Hagrid has had any contact with the dead Dumbledore. It is my belief that IF Dumbledore is not dead, that Hagrid is in on it. Dumbledore's line the he would trust Hagrid with his life is very fitting here. Is Hagrid feeding Dumbledore the Draught of the Living Dead potion, waiting for the time to be right for Dumbledore's return? Did Dumbledore transfigure himself into a white tomb, to be watched over by his ever faithful grounds-keeper? Or, if Dumbledore is in fact part Phoenix is Hagrid minding the bird until it matures? And what of Grawp? Why do we need that storyline? We already know that Hagrid has a soft spot for large unruly creatures. Could Dumbledore be with Grawp, deep in the forbidden forest? I too love the character of Hagrid and view him as one of Harry's protectors. I think he is smarter than he seems, after all he did predict that Voldemort was not gone for good. Even though he has a knack for putting his foot in his mouth, I often wonder if it is done on purpose to gently nudge Harry in the right direction. Whether Dumbledore is alive or not Hagrid can provide Harry and his friend's with valuable information on Voldemort. And it would truly be poetic justice for Hagrid, that lovable oaf, to have a hand in the downfall of the most powerful wizard of the time. Kelly, who loves all of the speculation, but hates that we have to do it. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Jun 5 02:20:22 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 02:20:22 -0000 Subject: R.A.B. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153376 "sarah barthell": > Alphred > which is clearly his middle name means heart of the serpent or in Arabic the solitary one, > which maybe should have gone to Sirius given that he was the only one in Gryffindor. zgirnius: The name is Alphard... I think, if Regulus retrieved and possibly destroyed a Horcrux before being killed by the Death Eaters instead of turning to Sirius or the Order for help, the description may be a good fit for his personality as well. sbarthell: > Just one question, who in the book is named Alphred? > zgirnius: A Black uncle, a wealthy one who died and left Sirius enough money that he was able to live on his own. That seems to be the sort of relative it makes sense to name a son after, for crass financial reasons! From AllieS426 at aol.com Mon Jun 5 03:21:36 2006 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 03:21:36 -0000 Subject: Child of a Love Potion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153377 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Megan" wrote: > > What if the evil of Tom Jr stems from the result of his "unnatural" > birth? Could the love potion that flowed through Tom Srs veins have an > adverse effect on his ability to love? Could this be the reason that > the Fidelious Charm was so strong and VM could not touch Harry? If > anyone has read the Gregory Magurire book WICKED or seen the musical, > something similar happens. The Wicked Witch of the West was a child of > an adulterous relationship and therefore was the color of GREEN. Allie: That's a really interesting idea. If that's the case, and a demented/sociopathic child can result from such a union, Love Potions should no doubt be a banned substance. (Maybe they should anyway.) If I remember Wicked, though, not only was the child from an adulterous relationship, but the mother had been drinking a green potion during her pregnancy. Even more like Tom Riddle Sr... From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jun 5 03:13:17 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 03:13:17 -0000 Subject: DD and Draco's murder attempts WAS: Draco and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153378 > Alla: > > I guess I am saying that after Kathie's injury DD did not have a > luxury to wait anymore and had to act immediately. > > Yes, to seize Draco right away before he did anything is wrong, but > after Katie is hurt, I don't think it would be wrong anymore. > Pippin: So, um, let me get this straight. AFAWK, Dumbledore had *no* direct evidence that Draco was involved in the attack on Katie. All he knew, assuming Snape reported truthfully everything that happened at Spinner's End, is that Draco had a motive to try and smuggle a cursed object into Hogwarts. Snape and Dumbledore suspected Draco on that basis, while Harry suspected him on general principles. Draco was not observed to purchase the necklace and not observed in Hogsmeade. Dumbledore ordered Snape to question Draco and had him tailed, (as did Harry) but neither discovered anything more, except that Draco was spending time in the Room of Requirement. (Harry did learn that Trelawney had been attacked, but as he neglected to report this, Dumbledore can hardly be blamed for not acting on the information.) Do you honestly think Dumbledore had enough evidence to throw a sixteen year old child into Azkaban??? The report of a secret informer and the suspicions of three people whose track record on suspecting the right person you yourself have criticized many times? Leaving aside the not so small matter of whether that would force Snape to fulfill his vow, how long do you think Draco should have been imprisoned without a trial? I'm assuming there wouldn't have been one, since there obviously isn't enough evidence to convict him of anything. I understand your concern for the students, but surely turning the WW into a police state is not JKR's idea of the answer. Is Crouch Sr. your idea of how Dumbledore should behave? After all, on the evidence of the pensieve, most of the people Crouch sent to Azkaban deserved to be there. I don't think Dumbledore's hats conflict as much as you think they do. Consider what Harry said in PS/SS : "Haven't you heard what it was like when [Voldemort] was trying to take over? There won't be any Hogwarts to be expelled from! He'll flatten it, or turn it into a school for the Dark Arts! Losing points doesn't matter any more, can't you see? D'you think he'll leave you and your families alone if Gryffindor wins the House Cup?" I ask, do you think Voldemort would leave Hogwarts alone if Dumbledore stopped opposing him? Pippin From kernsac at earthlink.net Mon Jun 5 03:28:04 2006 From: kernsac at earthlink.net (Peggy Kern) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 20:28:04 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] If it is not Voldemort, then who? - Is Dumbledore worried about someone else? References: Message-ID: <012f01c68850$0ef27610$6401a8c0@user2b3ff76354> No: HPFGUIDX 153379 David said: Well, speaking of suspicious, I find it suspicious that Dumbledore had to clarify who Harry was talking about. Who else did he think Harry might be talking about? Is there someone else out there that Dumbledore is worried about becoming stronger? I realize the Dumbledore was just using the Pensieve, but I still think it is strange that he had to clarify who Harry was speaking about. Peggy now: I take Dumbledore's comment as his having been called out of deep thought and back to the present moment by Harry's question. I think he was verbally giving his head a shake to get the various thoughts cleared out so he could continue the conversation with Harry. Have a nice day, David, who loves treacle tart! Peggy again: Where have you tasted treacle tart? I keep reading references to it in the books, and would love to sample some. I'd also like to sample mead. Peggy From AllieS426 at aol.com Mon Jun 5 03:27:52 2006 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 03:27:52 -0000 Subject: Macnair and Dawlish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153380 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol, who thinks that Dawlish is too conspicuous in both OoP and HBP > to be merely a name > It is very suspicious that he's mentioned by name in both OoTP and HBP... Like Mrs. Figg who was mentioned in passing in 2 books before she made her grand squib entry. Allie (who agrees that it could be the same person and it could be Dawlish, but has nothing to add on that front or any guess as to whether or not he's a Death Eater. And who also thinks the giant squid is mentioned far too often to be just a giant squid, but knows that sometimes a mouth organ is only a mouth organ) From AllieS426 at aol.com Mon Jun 5 03:38:42 2006 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 03:38:42 -0000 Subject: HBP - Draught of Living Death Potion?? In-Reply-To: <20060603003921.36999.qmail@web33205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153381 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, > rebecca wrote: > > One item to consider for the potion DD drank is the Draught of Peace > mentioned in OoP. That potion is concocted with hellebore and moonstone. > Hellebore, while poisonous, is sometimes called the "Christmas Rose" because > some varieties resemble roses and the plant is known to be violently > narcotic, with the effects similiar to digitalis. When it is taken by mouth, > it is said to be highly acidic and "burns." (One might need a drink after > that, hm?) The symptoms of hellebore posioning might ring a bell: > > "....slow, irregular pulse, weakness, labored breathing, irregular heart > beat, convulsions, respiratory failure and nervous system disturbances such > as delirium, convulsions and even death due to respiratory collapse" > > Allie: I don't remember reading anything about what the Draught of Peace does, but presumably it shouldn't cause the screaming, delusional agony that Dumbledore underwent after drinking it, unless brewed incorrectly. Or are you saying that he overdosed because he had to drink so much of it? Regardless of the ingredients, and what they might do individually when overdosed, I don't think a potion called "peace" would cause Dumbledore's symptoms. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 5 03:40:33 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 03:40:33 -0000 Subject: DD and Draco's murder attempts WAS: Draco and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153382 > Pippin: > So, um, let me get this straight. AFAWK, Dumbledore had *no* > direct evidence that Draco was involved in the attack on Katie. All he > knew, assuming Snape reported truthfully everything that > happened at Spinner's End, is that Draco had a motive to try and > smuggle a cursed object into Hogwarts. Snape and Dumbledore > suspected Draco on that basis, while Harry suspected him on general > principles. Draco was not observed to purchase the necklace and > not observed in Hogsmeade. Dumbledore ordered Snape to question > Draco and had him tailed, (as did Harry) but neither discovered > anything more, except that Draco was spending time in the Room > of Requirement. Alla: Um, NO in the scenario you described Dumbledore is not responsible of course ( and of course to me it is a BIG leap that Snape reported everything truthfully), but that is what I am trying to figure out and still do not get clear answer. How MUCH Dumbledore knew about Draco's activities in your opinion? He did not know about the cabinets? True, that seems to be supported by canon, but now you are saying that after attack on Katie Dumbledore STILL did not know that Draco was involved? Dumbledore seems to be very clear that he knew who was behind attack on her in his conversation, no? And if he indeed knew FOR SURE that Draco is involved than my answer is YES, Draco should have been restrained ASAP, but of course only if Dumbledore knew for sure. IMO of course. Pippin: > Do you honestly think Dumbledore had enough evidence to > throw a sixteen year old child into Azkaban??? The report of a > secret informer and the suspicions of three people whose > track record on suspecting the right person you yourself have > criticized many times? Alla: Let me say it again - SUSPICIONS are not enough, but if DD has direct knowledge than yes, absolutely. Dumbledore acted on much less in Sirius case ( giving evidence that he was a secret keeper, while not bothering to check if he indeed betrayed the Potters IMO) Pippin: > I understand your concern for the students, but surely turning the WW > into a police state is not JKR's idea of the answer. Is Crouch Sr. your > idea of how Dumbledore should behave? After all, on the evidence of > the pensieve, most of the people Crouch sent to Azkaban deserved > to be there. Alla: Um, who said that I suggested to keep Draco without trial? I am not even advocating sending him in Azkaban, although judging by his actions, NOT by his age, I totally think that is the place where he needed to be. I suggest that IF and only IF Dumbledore was absolutely, positively sure that Draco dear was behind attack on Kattie, Hogwarts was NOT a place for him to be. As Magpie said - strategy of war that could be, but to me that was NOT a strategy of Headmaster, who concerned about safety of his students. If Dumbledore wanted to play fast and loose with his life, that is his business, he had no right IMO to do the same to his students. Pippin: > I don't think Dumbledore's hats conflict as much as you think > they do. Consider what Harry said in PS/SS : "Haven't you heard > what it was like when [Voldemort] was trying to take over? There > won't be any Hogwarts to be expelled from! He'll flatten it, or > turn it into a school for the Dark Arts! Losing points doesn't > matter any more, can't you see? D'you think he'll leave you > and your families alone if Gryffindor wins the House Cup?" > > I ask, do you think Voldemort would leave Hogwarts alone if > Dumbledore stopped opposing him? Alla: Of course Voldemort would not have leave Hogwarts alone, if Dumbledore stopped opposing it, but I think that attempts on Katie and Ron's lifes are VERY good examples that Dumbledore hats DO conflict and badly, because he did not necessarily put the interests of his students above everything else, IMO. If that was not a story, but RL, I would totally say that Dumbledore should share responsibility and either gave up the leadership of OOP OR gave up Headmastership. IMO of course, Alla From bawilson at citynet.net Mon Jun 5 02:42:17 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 22:42:17 -0400 Subject: Underage Magic and Inbreeding Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153383 AnitaKH: "<< 7. We now have some explanation of how detection of underage magic works and the Ministry's decision to allow families to monitor their own children. Did you find this to match your earlier presumptions? Do you agree with Harry that this policy is "rubbish"? >> I think having a law against against underage magic is rubbish. Misuse of magic by underage wizards is covered by other laws -- wizarding secrecy, muggle-baiting, etc. Legitimate use should not be prevented." The statute is the "Decree for the Reasonable Restriction of Underage Magic"--not for the PROHIBITION. Both Ron & Hermione state that there are exceptions for emergencies, and Snape's statement about Draco's instruction in occulmancy indicates that private instruction by a relative is allowed. Also, for the person who reacted to JKR's prejudice against inbreeding, although I'm glad that it worked out in her family, as I live in West Virginia I have seen the results of what happens when cousins marry. BAW From quigonginger at yahoo.com Mon Jun 5 06:03:00 2006 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 06:03:00 -0000 Subject: R.A.B. and Imperioused Rosemerta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153384 > sbarthell: > > Just one question, who in the book is named Alphred? > > > zgirnius: > A Black uncle, a wealthy one who died and left Sirius enough money > that he was able to live on his own. That seems to be the sort of > relative it makes sense to name a son after, for crass financial > reasons! > Ginger: Isn't his middle name Arcturus on JKR's family tree? I mean the one she wrote, not the one on the wall. Actually, I meant the Black Family tree written by JKR, not JKR's family tree itself. Although I guess they're all related in the WW anyway ;) Anyway... I did a quick search and found the Wikipedia entry which says that Arcturus was the name given by JKR, but that some people believe it was Alphard. Do we have actualy confirmation on this or was my source faulty? Re: Rosemerta: note to Aussie: Sorry for being so dense, but I finally figured out what you meant! Thanks for setting me straight. You are quite right. The light bulb has gone on! I see what you mean that Draco got the idea for imperiousing Rosemerta via the coin in mid-December from the library conversation. This means, then, that he Imperioused her twice! Once on the Hogsmead weekend where she gave the necklace to Katie, and later with the coin to send the mead to Sluggy. Ginger nods. Got it. Need a lie down. Maybe some nerve tonic. Ginger, glad to have finally gotten her mind around that. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jun 5 06:27:19 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 06:27:19 -0000 Subject: Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: <001601c68803$e3aa3520$0300a8c0@wp.shawcable.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153385 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Natalie Pirson wrote: Natalie: > Hi! > > I just joined this group. > > I have read all the HP books today and, of course, I love them. > > Currently, I am reading a book called, 'Looking God in Harry Potter.' Interesting. So many Christians shy away from HP because of the witchcraft/wizard but this book points to the contrary -- that the series is actually deeply rooted with Christian meaning. > > Has anyone else read this book? Geoff: Welcome (from one of the Christian apologists on the group). This is John Granger's book if I remember correctly. I haven't read it but may I also recommend "The Gospel according to Harry Potter" by Connie Neal (Westminster John Knox Press 2002). From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Jun 5 06:33:54 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 06:33:54 -0000 Subject: DD and Draco's murder attempts - No Evidence! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153386 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Alla: > > ...edited.... > > How MUCH Dumbledore knew about Draco's activities in your opinion? > He did not know about the cabinets? True, that seems to be supported > by canon, but now you are saying that after attack on Katie > Dumbledore STILL did not know that Draco was involved? > > Dumbledore seems to be very clear that he knew who was behind > attack on her in his conversation, no? > > And if he indeed knew FOR SURE that Draco is involved than my answer > is YES, Draco should have been restrained ASAP, but of course only > if Dumbledore knew for sure. IMO of course. > bboyminn: Sorry, but I think you are suffering a case of a reversal of time. The first event to happen was the attack on Kate, yet you say, '...Dumbledore ***STILL*** did not know that Draco was involved'. There is no 'still' to it, this is the first significant event, and they have proof positive that Draco was NOT directly involved. Draco was not in Hogsmeade that day; he was in detention with McGonagall. I'd say that is a pretty good alibi. Further in the second significant event that resulted in the poisoning of Ron, there is no way to connect Draco to it. Yes, at the end, at the top of the tower just before Dumbledore died, he was able to bring the various fragments of information together and combine them with was Draco was saying in the moment, but that doesn't mean he had all that information all that time. Everyone knew Draco was up to something, partly because Draco is always up to something. This is just the first time that what he is up to is gravely serious. Yet, not knowing what he is up to means that they also have no way of knowing just how /gravely/ serious his actions are. I really don't think it is fair to expand Dumbledore's conclusion at the end backward in time and assume he always had that information. Certainly, Dumbledore had suspicious, but he lack any proof or any way to connect the events to Draco. If he had brought this to court, they would have laughed at him, even the very eager 'War' courts of Scrimgeour couldn't have made a case of what Dumbledore knew prior to the events on the tower. It is one thing to /think/ or suspect, but quite another to truly have enough evidence to act on. Just adding my own perspective. Steve/bboyminn From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Mon Jun 5 07:05:15 2006 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 07:05:15 -0000 Subject: Regulus---dead? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153387 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ericoppen" wrote: > > It has occurred to me that if _I_ were in Regulus Black's shoes, a > renegade DE who had just stolen and (hopefully) destroyed one of > LV's horcruces, I might well want to confuse the trail. > > As far as we know, once someone who has taken Polyjuice Potion is > dead, they retain the form in which they died. (Either that, or > when Barty Crouch's mother was buried, the Dementors were not paying > attention.) (snip) Doddie here: or perhaps upon death the polyjuiced indivdual retains said shape....or who knows what spells may have been case during said funeral.. > --Eric Oppen, who feels _really_ sorry for whoever investigates > murders in the WW. > > snip and doddie once again: I believe this issue may have been discussed before concerning DD's offers to Malfoy in HBP("They cannot kill you if you are already dead"...In my honest opinion, this didn't sound like the first time DD had mentioned this to some young fool or even an old one....perhaps he may have mentioned this to Regulus..if this is true...then this is sad for both Sirius and Harry both. (Sirius would probably be a much different man had he some family on the "good side" he could connect with.) At the very least, Harry has deceased parents who fought against Voldy....Sirius has deceased family that would wish him dead.(hence he was blasted of the family tapestry) Doddie (who chuckles at the thought of DD having a conversation with Phinneas Nigellus regarding who Grimauld Place would be willed to..and was not so helpful hence Kreature showing up at Privet Drive) > --Eric Oppen, who feels _really_ sorry for whoever investigates > murders in the WW. > From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Jun 5 07:40:27 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 07:40:27 -0000 Subject: Just for Fun was Re: Why RAB should be Regulus Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153388 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > a_svirn: > > Neither bishops, nor apostles are in any way "chosen ones", though. > > Actually, it's king who is "the chosen one" (as in the "Lord's > > anointed"). > > Geoff: > Yes they are. The twelve apostles were selected by Christ himself, chosen > to go with him, learn from him and then take the gospel out into the world > after his resurrection and ascension. > That's quibbling with the meaning. Apostle does not mean `chosen'; it means `envoy' or `messenger'. It was Christ himself who was "chosen". The very name Christ is a Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Messias, e.g. 'anointed'. Being anointed means being `chosen' or `designated'. That's why kings are being "anointed" too. a_svirn From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jun 5 10:42:46 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 10:42:46 -0000 Subject: Just for Fun was Re: Why RAB should be Regulus Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153389 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" > wrote: > > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > > > a_svirn: > > > Neither bishops, nor apostles are in any way "chosen ones", > though. > > > Actually, it's king who is "the chosen one" (as in the "Lord's > > > anointed"). > > > > Geoff: > > Yes they are. The twelve apostles were selected by Christ himself, > > chosen to go with him, learn from him and then take the gospel out > > into the world after his resurrection and ascension. a_svirn: > That's quibbling with the meaning. Apostle does not mean `chosen'; > it means `envoy' or `messenger'. It was Christ himself who > was "chosen". The very name Christ is a Greek equivalent of the > Hebrew Messias, e.g. 'anointed'. Being anointed means being `chosen' > or `designated'. That's why kings are being "anointed" too. Geoff: With respect, you are quibbling with the meanings, not me. I didn't say that the word 'apostle' had the meaning of 'chosen', being, as you say, from the Greek 'apostolos' (a messenger). I could have used 'disciple' from the Latin 'discipulus' (a learner) as an alternative. My point was that, regardless of whatever you choose to call them, there are the words of Jesus himself to consider: "You did not choose me, I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit - fruit that will last." (John 15:16 New International Version) If you are appointed by God in human form to be one of his followers, I think that makes you a 'chosen one' within the broader interpretation of the word. From blue_dragon_53 at yahoo.com.au Mon Jun 5 07:44:05 2006 From: blue_dragon_53 at yahoo.com.au (blue dragon) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 07:44:05 -0000 Subject: Another Horcrux Idea Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153390 Hi. I've been a member for a while, and have enjoyed reading the many discussions on this list. However, this is my first post! I've read various theories on Horcruxes. I have a question (or two). I'm not sure if this has been put forward before, but I'm sure I'll soon find out if it has! I may have missed something (I've only read HBP once, so I'm definitely no expert), and I would be very happy to be put right if I'm on the wrong track. Has anyone considered that Voldemort may have already used up one of his Horcruxes? When he tried to AK Harry as a baby, it backfired and vapourised his body. Wouldn't his "core" soul have been destroyed at the same time? If so, how would a Horcrux-encased soul-piece be accessed? Would it be automatically released when the core soul (or other Horcruxed soul- piece for that matter) was destroyed? It would then have to go searching for a body to inhabit, starting the whole cycle over again. blue dragon From annamhudson at yahoo.com Mon Jun 5 02:16:32 2006 From: annamhudson at yahoo.com (Anna) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 02:16:32 -0000 Subject: Question About Weasley Twins Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153391 I can't find it, but does anyone remember how the Weasley Twins got the bet with Ludo Baggin, right on? How did they know to bet that? I can't find it and it's frustrating me. Thanks Anna From honeykissed246 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 5 01:06:29 2006 From: honeykissed246 at yahoo.com (Darlene Carroll) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 18:06:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Spiders in the series In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060605010629.7174.qmail@web33208.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153392 Randy wrote: "Snip" "Another analogy for this trap setting is spiders. Not only did Snape make a vow at Spinner's End, Aragog the spider died. When Dumbledore takes Harry to Ron's house, he is covered with little spiders in the shed. Spiders spin webs which are in essence traps set for other insects. " The spider references have been in these books since the first book. In Chapter Two of Book One: "Harry was used to spiders, because the cupboard under the stairs was full of them, and that was where he slept." "I really think these silly analogies are not just coincidences. I think JKR gets mischievous delight out of making little comments and references throughout the books that have a second meaning. If I spent 3 years writing a plotline for seven books, and I knew the ending before the first one was published, that is exactly what I would do. I think she plans to have a nice discussion of all of these after the books are finished." Honeykissed: I was wondering the same thing about Aragog. I agree that it can't be coincidence. I don't know about you, but I thought it was odd that Slughorn wanted some of Aragog's venom before he was buried. That was the main "lure" for Slughorn. I wonder if that "venom" can or will be used in book seven as an ingredient for some sort of antidote for something - maybe the Draught of Death (just my thought). Slughorn kept saying how many galleons the venom would receive on the market but he never said what the antidote was used for. And now that you mentioned it, spiders have been used throughout the series, maybe not in everybook but its been consistent. So good points about the spiders. Honeykissed. From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Mon Jun 5 11:30:11 2006 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 11:30:11 -0000 Subject: Flint in OoP? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153393 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > So Len opened his big yap and said: > > > > The boggart scene on OoP bothers me in that when Lupin > > appears and casts ridikulus at the boggart, it turns > > into a silver orb. We've seen the boggart as moon > > thing before, in Prisoner of Azkaban. But the moon > > was the fear, not the ridikule. > > > > So did I miss something in my reading of OOP, or is it > > just an oversight by the continuity department? > > > > The logical but not obvious explanation of this particular > incident is that the spell failed. It may have failed in > PoA also, when the boggart became a cockroach. Cowards > cannot laugh at their fears, and Lupin has confessed to > cowardice. Another possibility: Lupin was in the company of Harry, Sirius and Moody. Remember that in PoA, Lupin said that there's safety in numbers when it comes to dealing with boggarts: "It's always best to have company when you're dealing with a boggart. He becomes confused. Which should he become, a headless corpse or a flesh-eating slug? I once saw a boggart make that very mistake -- tried to frighten two people at once and turned himself into half a slug. Not remotely frightening." The spell that Lupin uses in OOP results in the boggart vanishing in a puff of smoke, so it seems to have worked. Its transformation into a silver orb may only reflect the boggart's confusion. - CMC (who is also known to become confused at times) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 5 11:46:37 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 11:46:37 -0000 Subject: DD and Draco's murder attempts - No Evidence! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153394 > > Alla: > > > > ...edited.... > > > > How MUCH Dumbledore knew about Draco's activities in your opinion? > > He did not know about the cabinets? True, that seems to be supported > > by canon, but now you are saying that after attack on Katie > > Dumbledore STILL did not know that Draco was involved? > bboyminn: > > Sorry, but I think you are suffering a case of a reversal of time. > > The first event to happen was the attack on Kate, yet you say, > '...Dumbledore ***STILL*** did not know that Draco was involved'. Alla: Um, YES, I know that the event on Katie was the first attack. :) The reason I said still is that the claim was made ( or at least that was my understanding) that Dumbledore knew everything after Snape reported to him about Spinner End and by everything, I mean UV, Draco will try to kill him, etc. Then the attack on Katie becomes first practical attempt of waht DD already knew, NO? bboyminn: > There is no 'still' to it, this is the first significant event, and > they have proof positive that Draco was NOT directly involved. Draco > was not in Hogsmeade that day; he was in detention with McGonagall. > I'd say that is a pretty good alibi. Further in the second significant > event that resulted in the poisoning of Ron, there is no way to > connect Draco to it. Alla: Sigh. Let me try again. IF that is so, then Draco should not be arrested, IF DD has no evidence linking him to it, etc. I'd say that while we had plenty of evidence that DD does not know everything, etc, we also see that he knows A LOT ( watched Harry morec losely than he knew, etc), so I am not sure that Draco being in Hogsmeade would necessarily prevent DD from knowing that he was behind the attack, and if he KNEW it, let me say again, NOT suspected, KNEW than IMO he was obligated to take action. Maybe he did NOT know, then my argument is MOOT, there is no need to convince me that then DD should not have done anything, I buy it, what I do NOT necessarily buy is that DD did not know it in the first place. Bboyminn: > Yes, at the end, at the top of the tower just before Dumbledore died, > he was able to bring the various fragments of information together and > combine them with was Draco was saying in the moment, but that doesn't > mean he had all that information all that time. Alla: Well, see, we don't know that IMO. You think DD did not know all the time, I think ( and as I said I am not hundred percent sure of it) and made the conclusion at the end, I think that at the Twoer DD was not necessarily in the position to put the pieces together and knew it from the beginning, DESPITE Draco having an alibi. Now, HOW DD knew it, I don't know, but I think the possibility exists that he did. bboyminn: > It is one thing to /think/ or suspect, but quite another to truly have > enough evidence to act on. Alla: Absolutely, I agree and I want DD to act ONLY if he had enough evidence to act. Alla, who starts to get a feeling that she talks like a parrot and considers it a sign to bow out of the thread soon. :) From witherwing at sbcglobal.net Mon Jun 5 13:55:29 2006 From: witherwing at sbcglobal.net (Rebecca Scalf) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 06:55:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Question About Weasley Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060605135529.93942.qmail@web81215.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153395 --- Anna wrote: I can't find it, but does anyone remember how the Weasley Twins got the bet with Ludo Baggin, right on? How did they know to bet that? I can't find it and it's frustrating me. Thanks Witherwing: I don't think there is any explanation in canon for how they got the right score for the World Cup. I always assumed it was luck, and their prediction - that Ireland would win, but Krum would get the snitch- could be explained by the twins' rooting for Ireland, yet being in awe of the powerful Krum. Maybe it was their dream outcome - and it came true!? Was there perhaps more at play? Witherwing 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 SPONSORED LINKS Harry potter half-blood prince Half-blood prince Harry potter Harry potter birthday party Harry potter collectible Harry potter hat --------------------------------- YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "HPforGrownups" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: HPforGrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- From falkel at macs.biu.ac.il Mon Jun 5 14:05:55 2006 From: falkel at macs.biu.ac.il (againstsnape) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 14:05:55 -0000 Subject: Underage Magic and Inbreeding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153396 BAW wrote: > The statute is the "Decree for the Reasonable Restriction of Underage > Magic"--not for the PROHIBITION. Both Ron & Hermione state that > there are exceptions for emergencies, and Snape's statement about > Draco's instruction in occulmancy indicates that private instruction > by a relative is allowed. 1) In book 5 we see the beginning of the exception. 2) The fact that it is called a RESTRICTION, not a PROHIBITION doesn't change the status. 3) Snape's statement doesn't indicate that Draco is allowed to be instructed on these matters by his aunt. He is merely stating that he believes that Draco was - I don't think it's clear that Snape is sure about it. falkel From falkel at macs.biu.ac.il Mon Jun 5 14:26:57 2006 From: falkel at macs.biu.ac.il (againstsnape) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 14:26:57 -0000 Subject: Child of a Love Potion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153397 Megan wrote: What if the evil of Tom Jr stems from the result of his "unnatural" birth? Could the love potion that flowed through Tom Srs veins have an adverse effect on his ability to love? Could this be the reason that the Fidelious Charm was so strong and VM could not touch Harry? If anyone has read the Gregory Magurire book WICKED or seen the musical, She was not evil to begin with but events lead her to turn evil. The events surround her conception, such as Tom Jrs, lead to her personality and adult form. Against Snape's reply: I believe that HBP tells us how Tom Riddle Sr. became evil: He grew up in a muggle orphanage, knowing that his mother died giving birth to him. Once joining the wizarding world, he tried to find out about his family. His results were that his father left his mother because he (father) discovered that she was a witch. >From the summery above, I think that the reason Voldemort became evil is because he was trying to fix the mistakes which he believed his mother made, causing him to grow up without parents. Against Snape From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Mon Jun 5 14:59:48 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 14:59:48 -0000 Subject: Regulus---dead? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153398 --- "doddiemoemoe" wrote: > > "ericoppen" wrote: > > > > It has occurred to me that if _I_ were in Regulus Black's shoes, > > a renegade DE who had just stolen and destroyed one of > > LV's horcruces, I might well want to confuse the trail. > > > snip and doddie: > > I believe this issue may have been discussed before concerning DD's > offers to Malfoy in HBP("They cannot kill you if you are already > dead"...In my honest opinion, this didn't sound like the first time > DD had mentioned this to some young fool or even an old > one....perhaps he may have mentioned this to Regulus..if this is > true...then this is sad for both Sirius and Harry both. aussie: If DD arranged for Regulus to disappear, why wasn't RAB's memory in DD's pensive ... even if not for Harry to see. With that memory, DD wouldn't have been weakened and would be alive to hunt other Horcruxes today. Unless of course, DD asked the Longbottoms to disguise and hide RAB, and now no-one knows where he is since Neville's parents aren't talking (unless RAB is hiding in a gum wrapper). From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Jun 5 15:29:30 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 15:29:30 -0000 Subject: DD and Draco's murder attempts - No Evidence!/Regulus--dead? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153399 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" > wrote: > > > > > Alla: > > > > ...edited.... > > > > How MUCH Dumbledore knew about Draco's activities in your opinion? > > He did not know about the cabinets? True, that seems to be supported > > by canon, but now you are saying that after attack on Katie > > Dumbledore STILL did not know that Draco was involved? > > > > Dumbledore seems to be very clear that he knew who was behind > > attack on her in his conversation, no? > > > > And if he indeed knew FOR SURE that Draco is involved than my answer > > is YES, Draco should have been restrained ASAP, but of course only > > if Dumbledore knew for sure. IMO of course. > > > > bboyminn: > > Sorry, but I think you are suffering a case of a reversal of time. > > The first event to happen was the attack on Kate, yet you say, > '...Dumbledore ***STILL*** did not know that Draco was involved'. > There is no 'still' to it, this is the first significant event, and > they have proof positive that Draco was NOT directly involved. Draco > was not in Hogsmeade that day; he was in detention with McGonagall. > I'd say that is a pretty good alibi. Further in the second significant > event that resulted in the poisoning of Ron, there is no way to > connect Draco to it. > > Yes, at the end, at the top of the tower just before Dumbledore died, > he was able to bring the various fragments of information together and > combine them with was Draco was saying in the moment, but that doesn't > mean he had all that information all that time. > > Everyone knew Draco was up to something, partly because Draco is > always up to something. This is just the first time that what he is up > to is gravely serious. Yet, not knowing what he is up to means that > they also have no way of knowing just how /gravely/ serious his > actions are. > > I really don't think it is fair to expand Dumbledore's conclusion at > the end backward in time and assume he always had that information. > Certainly, Dumbledore had suspicious, but he lack any proof or any way > to connect the events to Draco. If he had brought this to court, they > would have laughed at him, even the very eager 'War' courts of > Scrimgeour couldn't have made a case of what Dumbledore knew prior to > the events on the tower. Magpie: I really don't think Dumbledore is looking for evidence one way or the other. Dumbledore rarely works in that way, and I can't see him wanting to go to Scrimgeour with evidence about what the kid is up to. He knows, it seems, what task Draco has been assigned and why and has put Snape on the case to try to find out what he's planning beforehand. Even if he had decided to act, imo, he would not be arresting Draco or expelling him, just doing something to restrict his movements or something--maybe confronting him. But I think his plan was more like what we got in the book. Obviously a lot of things went wrong and DD wasn't planning on ending up dead I don't think, but I think he was always more interesting in turning Malfoy a different way than arresting him. That, I think, is also part of why he's trying to keep Harry away from him. He knows what's going on and doesn't want Harry complicating matters. aussie: If DD arranged for Regulus to disappear, why wasn't RAB's memory in DD's pensive ... even if not for Harry to see. With that memory, DD wouldn't have been weakened and would be alive to hunt other Horcruxes today. Magpie: And if DD arranged for Regulus to disappear why was he wasting his time and swallowing green goo in pursuit of a fake horcrux? Wouldn't Regulus be on his side and telling him he'd taken it? I think Regulus could well be a wild card *because* no on in the WW thought much of him. He acted on his own or with an accomplice who is also unknown as of yet. To me that's part of what makes Regulus such a great character, that his act against Voldemort was potentially one he decided on his own and did without anyone knowing it until now. In order to discover the Horcrux people must get to know the real Regulus and learn the story that until now was a secret. I'd personally rather not learn that DD swooped in and orchestrated anything. -m From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Jun 5 15:41:01 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 15:41:01 -0000 Subject: Macnair and Dawlish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153400 Carol: > Anybody? Are they the same person? Are they Dawlish? Is Dawlish a > Death Eater? > > Carol, who thinks that Dawlish is too conspicuous in both OoP and HBP > to be merely a name Potioncat: I think you could very well be onto something here. Dawlish is no friend to DD. Isn't he also one of the Aurors assigned to guard Hogwarts in HBP? From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Jun 5 15:43:56 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 15:43:56 -0000 Subject: DD and Draco's murder attempts - No Evidence! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153401 Alla: > > Um, YES, I know that the event on Katie was the first attack. :) The reason I said still is that the claim was made ( or at least that was my understanding) that Dumbledore knew everything after Snape reported to him about Spinner End and by everything, I mean UV, Draco will try to kill him, etc. Then the attack on Katie becomes first practical attempt of waht DD already knew, NO? Ceridwen: I think that DD could not have been certain that the necklace attack was an attack on him. I do think he could well have suspected, but so many other things were going on during that year that a Draco attack on Dumbledore would not necessarily have been the first thing to cross his mind when this happened. They suspected something to happen, we know this from the owls being checked, Filch using that Dark Magic detector, and the heightened protections on the castle and its grounds. Mme. Bones and Emmaline Vance had been killed, a minor Muggle minister had been poorly cursed, a young boy had been Imperioused to try and kill his grandparents with an AK, and so on. The cursed necklace could have been for Dumbledore, but it could have been meant for someone else at the school, too. My first impression would not have been Dumbledore as the target, because I just can't imagine him receiving and wearing an opal necklace. Other people may have been targets and, since Harry didn't know about them, we don't either. But the general air of the book led me to believe that just about anyone was a potential target. Alla: > Maybe he did NOT know, then my argument is MOOT, there is no need to convince me that then DD should not have done anything, I buy it, what I do NOT necessarily buy is that DD did not know it in the first place. Ceridwen: I think that Dumbledore could both know that Draco might try to make an attempt on his life, yet not know that the necklace specifically was meant for him. The mead, yes. But that was not discovered until Ron's birthday in late March. Other people may have been in danger, and we see, through the various items in the Daily Prophet from the summer onward, that others are being attacked. And while I do believe that Snape told Dumbledore that Draco had this assignment, there was nothing to link Draco to any other potential attacks. If we were actually living the story of course, and not just reading the significant events in a book, we would have no reason to suspect that the necklace (an opal necklace for a man? esp. one with a beard that would hide it?) was an attempt on Dumbledore, or that Draco had anything to do with it since, after checking, we find that Draco was in detention while everyone else was in Hogsmeade. DD, living through the story, would have no firm evidence that this was indeed part of Draco's plot. It could have been aimed at someone else - more likely a woman due to the nature of the object: McGonagall, one of the students as a punishment to their families, maybe even Katie Bell herself, or her family, since Filch's detector would have caught the object and Katie would have been in trouble for trying to bring it in. And poor Katie couldn't be any help after she accidentally touched the thing. Bboyminn: > > Yes, at the end, at the top of the tower just before Dumbledore died, he was able to bring the various fragments of information together and combine them with was Draco was saying in the moment, but that doesn't mean he had all that information all that time. Alla: > Well, see, we don't know that IMO. You think DD did not know all the time, I think ( and as I said I am not hundred percent sure of it) and made the conclusion at the end, I think that at the Twoer DD was not necessarily in the position to put the pieces together and knew it from the beginning, DESPITE Draco having an alibi. Now, HOW DD knew it, I don't know, but I think the possibility exists that he did. Ceridwen: I think he began to suspect the necklace in particular after the mead incident with Ron. That bottle was earmarked for DD's Christmas (naughty Slughorn, he nearly avoided being poisoned himself, didn't he!) which places it in the timeframe with the necklace. It also echoes the way the necklace was innocently being brought into Hogwarts, through a disinterested third party. Until that moment, the necklace could have been intended for anyone, and sent by anyone. So on the tower, DD's suspicions were being validated, though that doesn't necessarily mean that he knew for a fact and was merely without concrete evidence back in October. Alla: > Absolutely, I agree and I want DD to act ONLY if he had enough evidence to act. Ceridwen: I don't think Dumbledore had enough evidence to act. In fact, I don't think he had enough evidence to have more than a vague suspicion about Draco at the point when Katie was hospitalized. We do know that Snape confronted Draco about the necklace during Slughorn's Christmas party, but that Draco denied any involvement. He suggested that someone had it out for Katie, and given the times, it could have been a reasonable suggestion. In my opinion, of course, Dumbledore wanted Snape to talk to Draco about the necklace, to see if he was involved. Draco was avoiding going to Snape's office or talking to him privately, which is probably why Snape dragged him out of the party for this talk. Dumbledore was doing all he could, with the information that he had and given the other events happening in the WW at the time. My opinion, of course, but while I do think Dumbledore pulls some strings at times for the Cause and the good of the WW, I cannot wrap my mind around an amoral Puppetmaster!Dumbledore. Hope this clears up my position! Ceridwen. From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jun 5 16:23:50 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:23:50 -0000 Subject: DD and Draco's murder attempts WAS: Draco and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153402 > Alla: > > Um, NO in the scenario you described Dumbledore is not responsible > of course ( and of course to me it is a BIG leap that Snape reported > everything truthfully), but that is what I am trying to figure out > and still do not get clear answer. > > How MUCH Dumbledore knew about Draco's activities in your opinion? > He did not know about the cabinets? True, that seems to be supported > by canon, but now you are saying that after attack on Katie > Dumbledore STILL did not know that Draco was involved? > > Dumbledore seems to be very clear that he knew who was behind > attack on her in his conversation, no? Pippin: Well, of course he was. I'm sure you know that there are thousands of unsolved crimes where the police have a clear idea of who is responsible but not enough evidence to proceed. Have they any right to deprive those suspects of their civil liberties? Get them thrown out of school, for example? I don't think so, though I'm aware that the threat of terrorism may move some people to think differently. Proof is not necessary for belief. Dumbledore knows that Draco has a motive, and he can see that Draco is behaving suspiciously, dodging appointments with Snape, crying in the bathrooms, missing Quidditch games, looking distraught and so forth. Draco is not acting like an innocent boy. But that is not proof. Dumbledore believes that people must be treated as innocent until proven guilty. I see no canon that he abandoned this belief in the case of Sirius. If Dumbledore had seen a note in Sirius's handwriting saying that the Potters were in Godric's Hollow, would he not think it proved that Sirius was the Secret Keeper? Was there any such evidence pointing to Draco's guilt? Further, DD has offered Hogwarts as a sanctuary: ' "Every guest in this hall," said Dumbledore, and his eyes lingered on the Durmstrang students, "will be welcomed back here at any time, should they wish to come."' Dumbledore was looking at the Slytherin Table when he said that. Was he endangering the students? No, because, as he explained, unity against Voldemort is the only way to defeat him. Is that unity only with those who have never expressed any sympathy toward Voldemort's cause ? Clearly not. I don't see how you can argue that it isn't in the interest of the students above everything else to see that Voldemort is defeated. They are in mortal peril -- kicking out everyone who is suspected of supporting Voldemort will not make them safer. More than that is speculation, but here's what I think DD knew. I think DD knew from Snape that there was a plan to smuggle a force of Death Eaters into Hogwarts and assassinate him. Dumbledore and Snape believed that the plan had *no* chance of success, because if Voldemort had thought the plan would work he wouldn't have given it to Draco. Its only purpose was to punish the Malfoys. That the DE's arrived at Hogwarts without any plan to ensure Dumbledore's return shows that Voldemort had no serious intention of their actually killing DD. They also had no plan to get Snape involved, so Voldemort can't have wanted that either. All the vow did, from Voldie's point of view, was give him a reason to prefer that Draco get himself killed rather than admit failure, since the appearance of failure would force Snape to attempt an impossible task and deprive Voldemort of a useful servant. Since the plan was impossible, its details were unimportant to Voldemort and Dumbledore alike, except in so far as Draco might hurt himself or someone else in attempting to accomplish it. Dumbledore therefore made sure that Draco didn't leave the castle, and tested for Dark or dangerous objects going in or out. After the attack on Katie, Dumbledore would know that Draco must have an accomplice in Hogsmeade. Draco's increasing distress would sugggest that someone was taking advantage of DD's absences from the school to deliver threats. Information about this might have come from Snape or other spies also. Snape warned Draco not to make any more moves without backup, ie without the Death Eaters whom he thought had no way to get in, but the poisoned bottle had already been sent by Rosmerta to Slughorn. Again there was no evidence that Draco had anything to do with it except that he had a motive and was acting suspiciously. Dumbledore made sure the school was guarded in his absence. He had Snape interrogate Draco, but did not dare to do so himself lest Voldemort discover that Dumbledore had become aware of the plan. That would have brought about at least two deaths: Draco's and Snape's, without necessarily making anyone at Hogwarts safer. They would still be in danger from bungled DE attacks,since Voldemort has many other stupid servants, but they would be deprived of the teacher who had already saved Dumbledore's life at least once and was their best expert on healing Dark curses. Pippin From iam.kemper at gmail.com Mon Jun 5 17:52:16 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 10:52:16 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hagrid In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40606051052v30aabea5p4db6fc50aa9d9954@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153403 wrote: > > > > I haven't seen much speculation here on what role Hagrid will play in > > Book 7. > > Kelly resonded: > > Hagrid's official position at Hogwarts is "Keeper of the Keys and > Grounds", and Dumbledore is the only headmaster (or wizard, for that > matter) to be buried on the grounds. Hagrid was the one who picked up > Dumbledore's body and was not seen again until later (not really sure > how much later) in the hospital wing when he reports to McGonagall > that he has moved the body. We see him again shortly afterwards in the > headmaster's office, where he is conspiciously quiet, yet crying. The > last time we see him is when he is carrying in Dumbledore's covered > body for the funeral, again sobbing. We have no reason to believe that > anyone except Hagrid has had any contact with the dead Dumbledore. > > It is my belief that IF Dumbledore is not dead, that Hagrid is in > on it. Dumbledore's line the he would trust Hagrid with his life is > very fitting here. Is Hagrid feeding Dumbledore the Draught of the > Living Dead potion, waiting for the time to be right for Dumbledore's > return? Did Dumbledore transfigure himself into a white tomb, to be > watched over by his ever faithful grounds-keeper? Or, if Dumbledore is > in fact part Phoenix is Hagrid minding the bird until it matures? And > what of Grawp? Why do we need that storyline? We already know that > Hagrid has a soft spot for large unruly creatures. Could Dumbledore be > with Grawp, deep in the forbidden forest? > > I too love the character of Hagrid and view him as one of Harry's > protectors. I think he is smarter than he seems, after all he did > predict that Voldemort was not gone for good. Even though he has a > knack for putting his foot in his mouth, I often wonder if it is done > on purpose to gently nudge Harry in the right direction. Whether > Dumbledore is alive or not Hagrid can provide Harry and his friend's > with valuable information on Voldemort. And it would truly be poetic > justice for Hagrid, that lovable oaf, to have a hand in the downfall > of the most powerful wizard of the time. > Kemper now: I'm mostly responding to your conditional supposition of Hagrid's possible part in DD's possible faked death. I think I'm the only one on the list that has the porchlight on for DD. My reasons are also based on Dumbledore's solid trust in Hagrid. We get this in the first chapter. DD could have had any member of the Order retrieve baby Potter from the rubble at Godric's Hollow, but he chose Hagrid out of all of them, most of whom are at the very least more competent with magic than Hagrid... though inarguably he's more competent with magic than Arabella and any other Squib in the Order. To have Hagrid pick up the boy who lived, is a powerful endorsement of Hagrid in and of itself. Then, when questioned (by whom the reader now knows to be a strong, courageous, and skilled witch) on whether it was /wise/ to trust Hagrid with something she also recognizes as important, DD affirms this trust and takes it a step further saying he would trust Hagrid (whom the reader now knows to be a wizard with a Year3/7thGrade education) with his life. How could such a powerful endorsement by such a powerful wizard (whom the reader now knows to do things with a wand that an ancient witch had never seen and to be the only one LV ever feared) not be proven anywhere in the series?! However, I do not think that Hagrid is in on DD's faked death. Hagrid wears his emotions on his sleeve. He would not be able to pull off faking grief for DD. I believe that DD had a will drawn up that had Hagrid perform certain duties with regards to his body and resting place. I think it's like a writer who writes into her story a gun, the reader knows that the gun is going to be used in some way. There are those on the list with the porch light off who don't see the purpose in the story for DD to live. Here is possible situation in which DD is needed for the story: DD lives and leaves the white tomb. He searches for one of the horcruxes. Harry searches for the horcruxes. He succeeds in finding and destroying all but one (with/without the help of Snape, depending on your world view) Voldemort finds Harry. They duel. Somehow, Voldemort dies. Harry is worried that he will return. There's still one more horcrux to destroy. His only plan is to find the last horcrux and destroy it, then bide his time for Voldemort's return. DD shows up! OMG! Harry tells about his duel and expresses fear of Voldemort's return. DD smiles and says Voldemort will not be returning. Harry's all, What?! DD tells how he (with/without the help of Snape, depending on your world view) found the last horcrux and destroyed it, mere hours before Harry and Voldemort dueled. Dumbledore (and maybe Snape, depending on your world view) is not the hero. Harry is. He, alone, faced and vanquished the Dark Lord. Of course, JKR can have Harry find and destroy all the horcruxes making the showdown with the Dark Lord a little less suspenseful. But, obviously, she's not a bad writer. Kemper, waiting for DD patiently with the porch-light on and pouring him a large brandy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Jun 5 18:00:49 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 18:00:49 -0000 Subject: Question About Weasley Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153404 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Anna" wrote: > > I can't find it, but does anyone remember how the Weasley Twins > got the bet with Ludo Baggin, right on? How did they know to bet > that? I can't find it and it's frustrating me. Thanks > > Anna > bboyminn: I think this was touched on in the Emmerson/Melissa interview with JKR when HBP was released. While JKR didn't come right out and say it, she somewhat confirmed that the Twins partly got lucky and partly reached a reasonable and logical conclusion. -Viktor Krum is undisputedly the greatest Seeker in the World. -The Irish Team though was clearly and obviously the stronger team. Combining those two facts and it seems a reasonable conclusion that Ireland would heavily out score Bulgaria, but there would still be a very strong likelihood that Krum would get the Snitch. Conclusion: Ireland wins, but Krum gets the Snitch. Yes, it was a gamble, but the conclusion they reached was not that far fetched. Now, some people have speculated that the Twins used Time Turners to know the outcome and based their bet on that. However, we have never seen Time Turners go forward in time into the future. I really find this speculation EXTREMELY farfetched. Usually, the obvious answer is the right and answer, and obviously, the Twins conclusion was very reasonable. Steve/bboyminn From distaiyi at yahoo.com Mon Jun 5 18:35:22 2006 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 18:35:22 -0000 Subject: Question About Weasley Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153405 I'm going to go the dreaded "answer a question with a question" route: How is it that people can bet with Las Vegas on the Super Bowl, or NHL finals, or NBA finals and get exact scores and win big money? Luck and if you are as smart as the Twins, a bit of skill is likely involved as well. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Jun 5 19:14:51 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 19:14:51 -0000 Subject: R.A.B. and Imperioused Rosemerta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153406 > > sbarthell: > > > Just one question, who in the book is named Alphred? > > > > > zgirnius: > > A Black uncle, a wealthy one who died and left Sirius enough money > > that he was able to live on his own. That seems to be the sort of > > relative it makes sense to name a son after, for crass financial > > reasons! > > > Ginger: Isn't his middle name Arcturus on JKR's family tree? zgirnius: The Lexicon listed RAB as Regulus Arcturus Black late last year, but then retracted it. The going theory I've heard is that someone like a translator may have leaked something to them, but they later decided the source was insufficiently canonical(?). (I have not personally come across an explanation for this series of events). I don't see why Jo would need to tell a translator of HBP the exact middle name of Regulus, though, just that RAB=Regulus the brother of Sirius. Arcturus could be a good guess based on the star name pattern in Black family names, I think it is a better known star than Alphard (which I was unaware was a star until recently, not being an astronomy buff, while Arcturus is in *my* general knowledge base, anyway). The Black family tree sold in a charity auction earlier this year does not list middle names, so it neither confirms nor denies this guess. It does provide new information in that both Alphard and Arcturus are the first names of males closely related to Regulus. Arcturus Black was the father of Orion Black, hence Regulus's paternal grandfather. Alphard Black was the brother of Walburga Black, hence his uncle. So either would be a reasonable choice for a middle name if the Blacks wanted to use a family name. I immediately believed, last July, that RAB was Regulus, and since there was a conveniently mentioned Uncle Alphard already available in the series, I assumed that was the name. But that is also a guess! From leslie41 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 5 19:36:12 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 19:36:12 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153407 What always perplexes me even more than Christians denouncing HP, is how the more paganish sorts don't want to believe the HP series has any basis in Christianity whatsoever. I'm not even talking about values/motifs, etc. I'm talking about the basic obvious facts like the celebration of Christmas (and the suits of armor don't just sing secular Christmas songs), Easter, and the fact that those in the wizarding world do have their children baptized. Most likely Harry was baptized into the Church of England (Episcopalians in the US). My guess is the Wizarding World follows the pattern of the Muggle world with regard to baptisms and Christianity, though obviously Christ isn't named specifically. Harry's baptism isn't seen as something out of the ordinary, either, I don't think. And though his parents had other things on their minds, they thought it important enough to do it. And, if Sirius is the godfather, he most obviously is a Christian as well. Here something from the 1662 prayer book which is relevant to this: > For every child to be baptized there shall be not fewer than three > godparents, of whom at least two shall be of the same sex as the > child and of whom at least one shall be of the opposite sex; save > that, when three cannot be conveniently had, one godfather and one > godmother shall suffice. Parents may be godparents for their own > children provided that the child shall have at least one other > godparent. My guess is that Harry's parents did just that--served as godparents for their own child, though it's possible that there is another female godparent and another male as well that we don't know of. > The godparents shall be persons who have been baptized and confirmed > and will faithfully fulfil their responsibilities both by their care > for the child committed to their charge and by the example of their > own godly living. Nevertheless the Minister shall have power to > dispense with the requirement of confirmation in any case in which > in his judgement need so requires. So, Sirius may have been confirmed, or may not have, but he most certainly was baptized as a Christian. Makes one think. From mysweetdar at yahoo.com Mon Jun 5 13:34:11 2006 From: mysweetdar at yahoo.com (mysweetdar) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 13:34:11 -0000 Subject: Question About Weasley Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153408 Anna wrote: > I can't find it, but does anyone remember how the Weasley Twins got > the bet with Ludo Baggin, right on? How did they know to bet that? I > can't find it and it's frustrating me. Thanks Anna---I think it was that they had a loyalty to the Irish team, but felt that Krum was the best seeker in the world,,,,so, therefore---- they felt the Irish would win, but, Krum would indeed catch the snitch. dar From celticfury22 at aol.com Mon Jun 5 13:40:15 2006 From: celticfury22 at aol.com (celticfury22 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 09:40:15 EDT Subject: Question About Weasley Twins Message-ID: <4c4.442d60.31b58e3f@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153409 Hi ! In the book, when they were introduced to Ludo at the campsite before the Quiddich match. Ludo was asked if Mr Weasley wanted to place a bet on the match, he declined, but the twins took the bet. Mr Weasley didn't want them to, but didn't stop them. The twins came up with the bet that Krum would get the snitch, but Ireland would win. Hope this helps! -- celticfury From distaiyi at yahoo.com Mon Jun 5 20:13:09 2006 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153410 Yes, this is an intriguing discussion... however... I'd like to refer you to : http://www.beliefnet.com/features/godparents_chart.html ... Particularly where it's called out that "Earth Based" religions also have Godparents while Hindu/Muslim do not. So essentially any Pagan or Christian sect may have this concept. So one might argue that saying the Potters are by force Christian because Harry was Baptised is a non valid point. Distaiyi : Who's also a part time Minister. From blink_883 at hotmail.com Mon Jun 5 19:32:16 2006 From: blink_883 at hotmail.com (whirledgirl) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 19:32:16 -0000 Subject: DD and Draco's murder attempts WAS: Draco and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153411 > Pippin wrote : > Further, DD has offered Hogwarts as a sanctuary: ' "Every guest > in this hall," said Dumbledore, and his eyes lingered on the > Durmstrang students, "will be welcomed back here at any time, > should they wish to come."' Dumbledore was looking at the > Slytherin Table when he said that. Was he endangering the > students? No, because, as he explained, unity against Voldemort > is the only way to defeat him. > More than that is speculation, but here's what I think DD knew. > I think DD knew from Snape that there was a plan to smuggle a > force of Death Eaters into Hogwarts and assassinate him. > Dumbledore and Snape believed that the plan had *no* chance of > success, because if Voldemort had thought the plan would work > he wouldn't have given it to Draco. Its only purpose was to > punish the Malfoys. > They would still be in danger from bungled DE attacks, since > Voldemort has many other stupid servants, but they would be > deprived of the teacher who had already saved Dumbledore's life > at least once and was their best expert on healing Dark curses. WG* : I agree with most of what Pippin wrote, save for a few points. Firstly, even though DD said that Hogwarts would remain a sanctuary for all the students, I'm not sure that that will happen. I think that Harry was right when he says that "you never get it right, you people (the MoM), do you? Either we've got Fudge...or we're got you! (Scrimgeour)" (HBP ch.16, pg325 eng. edition). I wonder whether DD's extreme views (which they were, from the MoM's point of view) about forgiveness will be remembered by the teachers and MoM. It seems to me that Hogwarts will not reopen, but hopefully will remain a place where Harry feels at home and safe. I don't think that DD knew DEs were going to be introduced into the school. From what I can tell, DD suspected an attempt was made to murder him, but I believe that he did not expect Draco to allow DEs to enter the school. I think that as a result of how things went and were handled, both Draco and Snape will be punished by LV (voldernaughty, as a friend of mine referred to him today...!), Snape because he interfered and made a UV that Voldernaughty obviously hadn't agreed to/allowed, and Draco, because he failed in his task. It is only recently I have started to believe that Snape is actually still on the 'right' side. His name, Severus Snape, is an anagram of 'save pureness'. Quibbler worthy?? Also...thought I'd mention...it's Draco's birthday today...Happy Birthday you *coward*. (As a sidenote, I doubt that Snape calling Remus 'Lupin' is of huge importance to the series because...well...throughout those posts, practically everybody was referring to Remus as 'Lupin'!) smiles and hope you're having a gd day! WG* From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jun 5 21:05:06 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 21:05:06 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153412 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "distaiyi" wrote: Distaiyi : > Yes, this is an intriguing discussion... however... I'd like to refer > you to : http://www.beliefnet.com/features/godparents_chart.html ... > Particularly where it's called out that "Earth Based" religions also > have Godparents while Hindu/Muslim do not. > > So essentially any Pagan or Christian sect may have this concept. So > one might argue that saying the Potters are by force Christian because > Harry was Baptised is a non valid point. Geoff: I beg to differ. Having looked at the most interesting website you indicated, it would seem that the only places where they are actually called by the names "godfather" or "godmother" are in the Christian churches. Although the Earth-based religions have folk who take on a godparenting r?le, they are not actually called by the title of "godfather" or "godmother". Speaking as a Christian who happens to have been led into a Baptist church, we do not have godparents per se because we do not baptise children as infants; they are brought to God to be dedicated, rather as Jesus was presented to God in the Temple at Epiphany. Baptism is a sacrament which they choose for themselves as adults. From this, I would surmise that the Potters seems to have followed something similar along the line of the Anglican/Methodist approach. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 5 21:18:11 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 21:18:11 -0000 Subject: DD and Draco's murder attempts WAS: Draco and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153413 > >>Pippin: > > Proof is not necessary for belief. Dumbledore knows that Draco > has a motive, and he can see that Draco is behaving suspiciously, > dodging appointments with Snape, crying in the bathrooms, missing > Quidditch games, looking distraught and so forth. Draco is not > acting like an innocent boy. But that is not proof. > Dumbledore believes that people must be treated as innocent > until proven guilty. > Betsy Hp: I think, though, that this is a good example of Dumbledore wearing two different hats, and that when those two hats collide, he goes more for the "Leader of the Order" role, rather than the "Headmaster of Hogwarts" role. Because, for all intents and purposes, Dumbledore *has* proof. At least, enough for him to be sure of Draco's activities. Assuming DDM!Snape (which I do), Dumbledore would know what Snape knew. It's not enough for a legal trial (possibly, though in the WW, who knows ), but it's certainly enough, I'd think, for Dumbledore to feel he knew what Draco was attempting. I was trying to think about how a headmaster would come at this situation in RL. He's told by the FBI (or MI-5 ) that one of his students has been recruited by a terrorist group to assassinate someone at his school. However, not to worry, they've got their best undercover agent working with the student. And that agent will make sure no one actually gets hurt while they work to recruit the young student to become an informer. *Maybe* the Headmaster would okay it. Especially considering the pressure I'd imagine the agency would put on him. However, as soon as the Katie Bell incident occurred (a student nearly killed and rushed to the hospital for a lengthy stay), I cannot imagine the headmaster who'd allow the known would-be assassin to stay. Proof or no proof, evidence or no evidence, the headmaster would worry less about the ramifications for the legal case and much more for the safety of his students. If only because his job depends on it. However, if Dumbledore was the FBI guy, then he'd possibly find the risk acceptable. But not because of Draco. I think the worry would be protecting that undercover agent (Snape). So he'd try and convince the headmaster that there's nothing to point to Draco being responsible for Katie's injuries (after all, there are terrorist attacks occuring all over), and put more pressure on Snape to win his way into Draco's confidence. Which is what Dumbledore of the books does. (Though honestly, I have a strong suspicion that putting school- children in danger is a pretty big no-no for the FBI or MI-5 or whomever. I suspect in real life, Draco and Narcissa would find themselves swooped into protective custody and under immense pressure to tell all they know.) > >>Pippin: > I don't see how you can argue that it isn't in the interest of the > students above everything else to see that Voldemort is defeated. > They are in mortal peril -- kicking out everyone who is suspected > of supporting Voldemort will not make them safer. > Betsy Hp: But why would Dumbledore merely kick Draco out? Why wouldn't he just kidnap Draco, disappear him and his mother as he claims the Order can do? Because Draco has gone beyond just "supporting" Voldemort. He's actively working for him. And now I'm going to answer my own question . The text requires it. Draco *must* be given the opportunity to reach a crossroads where he's forced to finally take an active role in his own life. It supports the theme of the books and makes for interesting reading. (Imagine HBP if Draco had suddenly disappeared after Katie got hurt.) Just as in PS/SS the text required that Dumbledore hide the Stone at his school and give Quirrell free rein even *after* Harry is nearly assassinated on the school grounds. And just as the text required Dumbledore to keep Tom Riddle's psychopathic tendencies to himself even after a family of Muggles of the same name are murdered. Of course, it does make for a rather Machiavellian!Dumbledore. But most, if not all, old guys with a beard have to be a bit Machiavellian. They are, after all, sending their students into a life or death struggle during which the students may well suffer irreparable damage. Even if they win. So yeah, Dumbledore's actions are often foolish and inexcusable (or cold-hearted and manipulative) in real life. But in this sort of book, they're par the course. Unfortunately, I think JKR tries to have her cake and eat it too, and the logic of Dumbledore's character suffers for it. Betsy Hp From leslie41 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 5 22:34:39 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 22:34:39 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153414 > Geoff: > I beg to differ. > Having looked at the most interesting website you indicated, it > would seem that the only places where they are actually called by > the names "godfather" or "godmother" are in the Christian churches. > > Although the Earth-based religions have folk who take on a > godparenting r?le, they are not actually called by the title > of "godfather" or "godmother". Leslie41: Another point: Rowling herselp specifically cites that Harry was christened" (from interview at Edinburgh Book Festival, 2004). "Harry's christening was very hurried and quiet, just the family and James' best friend Sirius." Er, that seems to me to be a CLEAR indication that it was a CHRISTIAN baptism. Hard to read it otherwise. > Geoff: > Speaking as a Christian who happens to have been led into a > Baptist church, we do not have godparents per se because we do not > baptise children as infants; they are brought to God to be > dedicated, rather as Jesus was presented to God in the Temple at > Epiphany. Baptism is a sacrament which they choose for themselves > as adults. From this, I would surmise that the Potters seems to > have followed something similar along the line of the > Anglican/Methodist approach. Leslie41: Yah. Obviously they're not Baptists. I am assuming they're Anglicans simply because it's the most prevalent form of Christianity in England, but that's just an assumption. From juli17 at aol.com Mon Jun 5 23:33:12 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 19:33:12 EDT Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter Message-ID: <439.28ced06.31b61938@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153415 Leslie wrote: What always perplexes me even more than Christians denouncing HP, is how the more paganish sorts don't want to believe the HP series has any basis in Christianity whatsoever. I'm not even talking about values/motifs, etc. I'm talking about the basic obvious facts like the celebration of Christmas (and the suits of armor don't just sing secular Christmas songs), Easter, and the fact that those in the wizarding world do have their children baptized. Most likely Harry was baptized into the Church of England (Episcopalians in the US). My guess is the Wizarding World follows the pattern of the Muggle world with regard to baptisms and Christianity, though obviously Christ isn't named specifically. Julie: Erm, I don't consider myself a "paganish" sort (whatever that actually means) though I am agnostic. I would say that the WW celebrations of Christian holidays seem to based on their cultural more than their religious relevance, as plenty of Muggles who are not Christian (or only nominally so) celebrate Christmas and Easter in the same manner in the RW. At Hogwarts, though we do hear of a nonsecular Christmas song or two, these songs are also heard in various public places (stores, malls, etc) and sung regularly during the season by people who don't practice the Christian faith, simply because those songs are so well known and so connected to the Christmas season regardless of their nonsecular origins. What we don't see at Hogwarts is any reference to the actual practice of Christianity. No chapel, no services even on Christmas Eve or on Easter (a time when even otherwise non-churchgoing Christians will often attend services). There is also no mention of church attendance or study of the Bible outside of Hogwarts that I can recall. Even the Dursleys don't seem to attend church services (or did I miss a mention), despite the fact that Harry was apparently baptised in the Christian faith. And I do agree Harry was baptised, so James and Lily were at least nominal Christians. But again, a lot of people are nominal Christians, sometimes merely following their society and family traditions.( And being a nominal Christian to me does NOT imply a disbelief in Christian theology, rather a disinterest in it in relation to everyday life). The wizards in Britian (or France, Russia, USA, etc) were brought up in a society deeply steeped in Christianity , along with the Muggles around them. There's no way to deny that influence. I just don't agree that JKR is using overtly Christian "values" in telling her story, because those values of love, mercy, sacrifice, etc are highly regarded in virtually *every* religion, as well as by non-religious groups like humanists. To summarize, I think the Harry Potter books certainly reflect the society where they take place, and from which the author writes-- both of which reflect a western Protestant background. I just don't think that this is the same thing as the books having a "basis" in Christianity in the sense of its specific religious theologies. (Or if they do, JKR has yet to reveal that direct connection.) Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Jun 5 23:52:00 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 23:52:00 -0000 Subject: Another Horcrux Idea In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153416 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "blue dragon" wrote: > > ...edited... > > I've read various theories on Horcruxes. I have a question > (or two). I'm not sure if this has been put forward before, > but I'm sure I'll soon find out if it has! ...edited... > > Has anyone considered that Voldemort may have already used up > one of his Horcruxes? When he tried to AK Harry as a baby, it > backfired and vapourised his body. Wouldn't his "core" soul > have been destroyed at the same time? > > If so, how would a Horcrux-encased soul-piece be accessed? > Would it be automatically released when the core soul (or other > Horcruxed soul-piece for that matter) was destroyed? It would > then have to go searching for a body to inhabit, starting the > whole cycle over again. > > > blue dragon > bboyminn: I think the final and ultimate answer at this point comes down to 'We don't know'. First, let me give my best guess interpretations of the Horcrux. I will do my best to make a distinction between what we know, and what I think. When you kill someone in cold-blood, it tears your soul. You can use this aspect to your advantage by performing some magic not yet revealed to us to place that torn piece of soul into a physical object. As long as that soul-piece remains trapped in that object, it remains earthbound. In other words, it can't cross over into the afterlife, or restated, it can't cross over into death. I seems that either the whole soul crosses over, or none of it crosses over. This means that as long as soul-pieces are trapped in their objects here on earth, the core-soul will also remain here on earth. This is a very vague and marginal immortality. You are left without a body, but you spirit remains tied to the earth. So, I don't think soul-pieces are /used up/ by events. Regarding the core-soul; that was Voldemort's Self that did not die when the Killing Curse rebounded on him. When his physical body died, Voldemort's core-soul and his essential Self remained on earth, held here by the existance of several remote Horcruxed soul-bits. Now the more speculative part; we don't know what happens to the remote soul-bits when they are released from the enchanted objects that are holding them. Do they return to the core-soul? Do they move on to the afterlife? Do they wander aimlessly no longer earthbound, yet not able to cross over? We don't know. But we do know that when they are release, they are no longer considered 'earthbound', since the soul-bits aren't earthbound, they no longer protect Voldemort. Once all the soul-bits have been released, then the core-soul becomes vulnerable to death. At this time, when Voldemort's soul and his body are separated (in otherwords, he dies), Voldemort will have no choice beyond staying back as a ghost or moving to where ever dead souls go. So, it is the existance of the soul-pieces that are trapped here on earth, that protect Voldemort's core soul and prevent his essential Self from dying. Soul-pieces can be release which means that, regardless of where they go, they are no longer considered earthbound and no longer protect Voldemort. When all the soul-pieces are released, then Voldemort can truly be killed, then he has nothing to hold his core-soul and his essential Self here on earth. So, to one of your questions, no Voldemort's core-soul was not and could not be destroyed, that part of his /Self/ was protected by the Soul-Bit Horcruxes. As to your other questions, it's anybody's guess. As to your last question above, you have it somewhat backwards based on my interpretation. The Soul-Bit are what hold the Core-Soul on earth. As long as Soul-Bits exist, Voldemort can not cross over into death. So, yes if he was physically killed again, and Horcruxes remained, it would just be a matter of getting help to create a new body. All the remote soul-pieces must be released /first/, then Voldemort, his core-soul, and his essential Self become vulnerable to death; true death. I'm not sure if any of this helps solve you questions, or for that matter, whether anyone else will agree with my assessment, but that is , none the less, how I see it. Steve/bboyminn From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jun 5 23:56:06 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 23:56:06 -0000 Subject: DD and Draco's murder attempts WAS: Draco and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153417 Betsy: > However, as soon as the Katie Bell incident occurred (a student > nearly killed and rushed to the hospital for a lengthy stay), I > cannot imagine the headmaster who'd allow the known would-be > assassin to stay. Proof or no proof, evidence or no evidence, the > headmaster would worry less about the ramifications for the legal > case and much more for the safety of his students. If only because > his job depends on it. Pippin: Um, well, I've had the dubious advantage of living through something like this in real life. It's not so simple. I went to a public high school in Chicago. It was full of members of a still notorious gang who probably deserved to be in jail and were certainly being spied on by the FBI. Here's what the principal could do about it...zilch. Yes, he was worried about the safety of the students, but he wasn't allowed to expel or suspend without due process. He'd have lost his job if he had. And rightly, IMO. Dumbledore may have been morally certain that Draco was behind the attacks, but the moment the authorities start substituting moral certainty for evidence is the moment the Crouch Srs take over. Pippin From leslie41 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 5 23:55:56 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 23:55:56 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: <439.28ced06.31b61938@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153418 > Julie: > And I do agree Harry was baptised, so James and Lily were at > least nominal Christians. But again, a lot of people are nominal > Christians, sometimes merely following their society and family > traditions.( And being a nominal Christian to me does NOT imply a > disbelief in Christian theology, rather a disinterest in it in > relation to everyday life). Leslie: Well, I guess my one disagreement there would be that Lily and James were "nominal" Christians. "Nominal" Christians do not make a singular effort to have their infant baptized in a "hurried affair" with just them and the godfather present. Obviously Lily and James were under duress, hunted by Voldemort, etc. Nevertheless they took the time and trouble to see to it their son was baptized. Were they "nominal" Christians they would not have bothered about it, I think. I have a friend who is the last of four kids, and her parents just never got around to having her baptized. I would say that more qualifies as "nominal" Christianity. (snip) > Julie: > I just don't agree that JKR is using overtly Christian > "values" in telling her story, because those values of love, mercy, > sacrifice, etc are highly regarded in virtually *every* religion, > as well as by non-religious groups like humanists. Leslie: Quite true. I do think you can definitely interpret specifically Christian themes, but I wouldn't want to do that until the last book. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue Jun 6 00:44:12 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 00:44:12 -0000 Subject: DD and Draco's murder attempts - No Evidence! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153419 > > bboyminn: > > > Yes, at the end, at the top of the tower just before Dumbledore died, > he was able to bring the various fragments of information together and > combine them with was Draco was saying in the moment, but that doesn't > mean he had all that information all that time. > > > I really don't think it is fair to expand Dumbledore's conclusion at > the end backward in time and assume he always had that information. Neri: Yes, I quite agree. We can't really fault Dumbledore for his handling of the Draco case. After all, he was extremely busy with a far more important, in fact the *most* important mission of the war ? discovering and destroying Voldemort's horcruxes. So actually, Dumbledore had handled Draco in the most sensible way. Or at least, in what appeared to be, from Dumbledore's point of view, the most sensible way at the time: He put secret agent Snape on the case. Now, you've got to admit that this must have looked like a very shrewd move at the time. Secret agent Snape (which Dumbledore trusted completely) was ideally situated and equipped for this specific job. He was Draco's teacher. He was Draco's head of house. He had a good relationship with Draco for the previous five years. He had good relationships with Draco's father and with Draco's mother for Jo knows how long. Draco believed him to be on Voldemort's side. He had connections with Voldemort himself. He most probably knew what Draco's mission was. He had an undisturbed communication with Dumbledore. He could receive from him any number of additional agents needed for assistance in the case: Hogwarts staff members, Order members, Aurors situated at Hogsmeade, over a hundred house elves and an unknown number of portraits. But most of all, he was a 38 years old experienced agent working against a 16 years old amateur. Yep, I'd say this was quite a sensible move from Dumbledore's point of view. Of course, everything's easier in hindsight. In hindsight it seems pretty obvious that Dumbledore should have delegated the case to secret agent Potter. Secret agent Potter, a 16 years old amateur himself working with zero help and zero information from his superiors and employing just two house elves, was very close to solving the case all by himself. In fact, several hours before the final attack he reported its likely source and time, if not its means and nature, and demanded proper action to be taken. The single unreasonable mistake that Dumbledore had made in the Draco case was that, trusting secret agent Snape to do his job, he completely ignored this report from secret agent Potter. A single and very critical mistake. And what was secret agent Snape doing at the time? He was sitting in his office. Well, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised. After all, secret agent Snape did deliver poor results several times before. So poor, in fact, that it was questionable whose side was secret agent Snape actually working on. But it was only as a result of his abysmal performances in the Draco case that secret agent Snape achieved a record no other agent in military history, as far as I know, had ever achieved ? killing his own supreme commander. So really, I don't think we can fairly fault Dumbledore for messing up the Draco case. Neri From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue Jun 6 00:49:26 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 00:49:26 -0000 Subject: Harry a Horcrux? In-Reply-To: <44833605.1030401@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153420 > KJ writes: > My theory is that the soul part in Harry *will* function as a > horcrux, and that this is the "power that Voldemort knows not". Only > Harry will recognize that Voldemort is not yet vanquished and will be > able to take the steps necessary to destroy the final piece of soul. To > me, this is what the prophesy means by "neither can live while the other > survives". > Neri: The dual meaning of these words is certainly one of the strong indications for Horcrux!Harry, either as a clue or as a red herring. I personally tend to think that they will prove a red herring, but a very useful one. That is, I completely agree that at one critical point in Book 7 Harry will be convinced that he has to sacrifice his own life in order to kill Voldemort. > Neri: > > A. As Dumbledore theorized, Voldemort indeed had meant to make a > > living Horcrux with the murder of the prophesied baby. > > KJ: > I don't think that Voldemort ever intended to make a "living > horcrux". I do believe DD when he stated that he thought Voldemort did > intend to make his final horcrux using the soul split that would have > occurred when he murdered Harry. As this failed, there should only be > six horcruxes in total. Harry's was the significant death, as a result > of the prophesy for the final horcrux. I have a hard time believing that > Voldemort is dumb enough to make Nagini a horcrux. I think that this was > a plot device to let us know that a living horcrux was a possibility. > 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. > Neri: > > E. Voldemort now tries to kill Harry but the AK rebounds on him. His > > two soul parts are released. The only body still alive in the house is > > Harry, so one of the soul parts enters him and the spell is finally > > sealed. > > KJ: > This is interesting, as we know that the main soul of Voldemort > drifted away to end up in Albania. We suspect that one piece ended up in > Harry. One wonders what happened to the other piece. In fact, Voldemort > was such a busy murderer, that I wonder how many other pieces there > were. If there was no actual encasing spell applied to these other > pieces, were they also destroyed, did they reunite with the main piece? > Neri: When I wrote "two soul parts" I meant the "main piece" that went to Albania and the one that went into Harry. Dumbledore tells us that Voldemort "seems to have reserved the process of making Horcruxes for particularly significant deaths". This implies that soul pieces created by other killings don't count. I think we may assume that they reunite with the main piece. > Neri: > > 2. Why Voldemort himself was not aware that such a connection was formed. > > KJ: > To me, this proves that no spell was performed prior to the murders > at GH, or he would have some idea of what might have occurred. > Neri: What it proves is that there was no spell to make *Harry* the Horcrux. In such a case Voldemort would have probably suspected a connection from the beginning. If, however, the spell wasn't meant for Harry as the Horcrux, Voldemort wouldn't have any special reason to suspect a connection. And indeed, until OotP Voldemort wasn't aware of it. Once Voldemort became aware of the connection he certainly has a reason to suspect what had happened in GH, if he's not dumb. Perhaps he even already knows. However, he still has many other Horcuxes and he still needs to kill Harry, so nothing has changed from his point of view. > KJ: > This is > also demonstrated by Voldemort's lack of knowledge of the destruction of > any of his horcruxes. He can't feel them. I wonder if he is becoming > suspicious about what happened and if that is why his DEs have > instructions to leave Harry for him to deal with. Neri: Certainly an interesting possibility. Perhaps he hopes to retrieve his lost soul piece when he kills Harry, and this requires some special equipment. However, he seemed ready enough to kill Harry on the spot in the Ministry, and that was after he discovered the connection. > Neri: > > 3. Why Voldemort seems to be unsure about what exactly happened at GH > > (he says in the graveyard: "it appeared that one or more of my > > experiments had worked... for I had not been killed") > > KJ: > Unfortunately, horcruxes are one of those things that are only > demonstrated to work when actually field tested.:) > Neri: Yes, but he's saying that *after* the field test had already succeeded. You'd think he'd be more sure of himself then. And he especially seems undecided regarding the number of his experiments that worked. Neri From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 6 01:00:18 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 01:00:18 -0000 Subject: DD and Draco's murder attempts WAS: Draco and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153421 > >>Betsy: > > > > Proof or no proof, evidence or no evidence, the headmaster would > > worry less about the ramifications for the legal case and much > > more for the safety of his students. If only because his job > > depends on it. > >>Pippin: > Um, well, I've had the dubious advantage of living through > something like this in real life. It's not so simple. > I went to a public high school in Chicago. It was full of members > of a still notorious gang who probably deserved to be in jail and > were certainly being spied on by the FBI. Here's what the > principal could do about it...zilch. > Betsy Hp: Part of the difference in this instance though is that Hogwarts is a private school. Or, it seems to be based on such with the Headmaster having a great deal of free rein over the running of the school. Hagrid was booted from Hogwarts with little to no proof of his having killed Myrtle. The suspicion, in that case, was enough to have him removed. Which shows, IMO, the power the Headmaster has. > >>Pippin: > Dumbledore may have been morally certain that Draco was behind the > attacks, but the moment the authorities start substituting moral > certainty for evidence is the moment the Crouch Srs take over. Betsy Hp: I do agree with this. Draco shouldn't be thrown into Azkaban without a fair trial (and at the time of Katie Bell I don't think there was any evidence, aside from Snape's testimony, that Draco was involved). However, Dumbledore has made it clear that he is no longer operating within the law. Dumbledore knows Draco's actions led to Katie and Ron nearly dying. The students (and the staff for that matter) are no longer safe, and Dumbledore *knows* exactly who is the cause of the danger. (He trusts Snape.) What Dumbledore could have done was pro-actively take Draco and Narcissa into the Order's custody. This would have been the best move to ensure the safety of his school. I'm not sure that it would have been the best move for the Order, in that I think Draco would have been lost to them if he'd been interfered with that early. Plus, Snape may have died (that pesky Vow ). So Dumbledore failed in his role of Headmaster for the majority of Hogwarts, but he may have done the best thing in his role as Leader of the Order. Betsy Hp (thinking she's waffling a bit... oh well ) From kjones at telus.net Tue Jun 6 01:03:55 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 18:03:55 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Macnair and Dawlish In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4484D47B.2050407@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 153422 potioncat wrote: > Carol: > > Anybody? Are they the same person? Are they Dawlish? Is Dawlish a > > Death Eater? > > > > Carol, who thinks that Dawlish is too conspicuous in both OoP and HBP > > to be merely a name > > > Potioncat: > I think you could very well be onto something here. Dawlish is no > friend to DD. Isn't he also one of the Aurors assigned to guard > Hogwarts in HBP? KJ writes: Dawlish was one of the aurors that attempted to arrest DD in OotP. He was assigned to follow DD in HBP to find out where he was going, and DD said that he felt badly about having to stun Dawlish again. I don't think DD sees him as anything more than a loyal auror to the ministry, whereas Shacklebolt and Kingsley are loyal to Dumbledore. KJ From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Jun 6 01:07:52 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 21:07:52 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Baptism/Christianity in HP/DD and Draco References: Message-ID: <004701c68905$a3600aa0$45ba400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 153423 > Leslie: > Well, I guess my one disagreement there would be that Lily and James > were "nominal" Christians. "Nominal" Christians do not make a > singular effort to have their infant baptized in a "hurried affair" > with just them and the godfather present. Obviously Lily and James > were under duress, hunted by Voldemort, etc. Nevertheless they took > the time and trouble to see to it their son was baptized. Were > they "nominal" Christians they would not have bothered about it, I > think. Magpie: They might have. A christening is a family gathering that has meaning beyond Harry being welcomed into a specific church. (Some family members have been known to be pressured into christening a child because it will please other family members too--not that I'm saying this is what happened with James and Lily.) More importantly, it seems that Sirius being godfather was a significant role in terms of his looking after Harry. Sirius seems to take the role seriously, but not in the sense that he's got to give Harry religious instruction. The Christening is very important for plot purposes to give Harry some tie to Sirius, which seems like the important part--but it is a Christening, not a naming ceremony or a made-up wizarding ritual. Betsy Hp: I think, though, that this is a good example of Dumbledore wearing two different hats, and that when those two hats collide, he goes more for the "Leader of the Order" role, rather than the "Headmaster of Hogwarts" role. Because, for all intents and purposes, Dumbledore *has* proof. At least, enough for him to be sure of Draco's activities. Assuming DDM!Snape (which I do), Dumbledore would know what Snape knew. It's not enough for a legal trial (possibly, though in the WW, who knows ), but it's certainly enough, I'd think, for Dumbledore to feel he knew what Draco was attempting. Magpie: Also he doesn't seem to be trying to investigate it that we see. The identity of the murderer isn't really a mystery. It is for Harry, but even Harry only ever has one suspect: Draco. And I think Dumbledore's reaction to him says that he knows it's Draco too. Betsy: Draco *must* be given the opportunity to reach a crossroads where he's forced to finally take an active role in his own life. It supports the theme of the books and makes for interesting reading. (Imagine HBP if Draco had suddenly disappeared after Katie got hurt.) Just as in PS/SS the text required that Dumbledore hide the Stone at his school and give Quirrell free rein even *after* Harry is nearly assassinated on the school grounds. And just as the text required Dumbledore to keep Tom Riddle's psychopathic tendencies to himself even after a family of Muggles of the same name are murdered. Magpie: Yup. And while it may be Machiavellian in RL terms, I can see Dumbledore's logic given the universe in which he lives. I suspect even the way that DD's plan went wrong with Draco will ultimately be better in terms of development for Draco. Pippin: Dumbledore may have been morally certain that Draco was behind the attacks, but the moment the authorities start substituting moral certainty for evidence is the moment the Crouch Srs take over. Magpie: But Dumbledore already does this all the time. I understand where you're coming from in terms of an objective look at the case, with DD not having evidence to really pin the attempts on Draco. But I don't think Dumbledore is looking for evidence that Draco is behind the murders. He actively tries to shut down Harry's own investigation for evidence. Dumbledore has no problem overriding official channels in favor of plans known only to himself, in the tradition of white bearded wizards throughout literature. Anyone asks him why he trusts Snape he gives them moral certainty instead of evidence. -m From kjones at telus.net Tue Jun 6 01:27:14 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 18:27:14 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry a Horcrux? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4484D9F2.7010801@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 153424 Neri 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. 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. KJ writes: You could be right. As I recall Voldie was dumb enough to call off his DEs so that he could handle Harry all by himself. Duh! > Neri: > When I wrote "two soul parts" I meant the "main piece" that went to > Albania and the one that went into Harry. Dumbledore tells us that > Voldemort "seems to have reserved the process of making Horcruxes for > particularly significant deaths". This implies that soul pieces > created by other killings don't count. I think we may assume that they > reunite with the main piece. KJ writes: They certainly could unite with the main piece, it works for me. When Voldemort arrived at GH, he must had had several splits that were not made into horcruxes. I can't see him using Ms Meadows as a horcrux, and then he killed James, and then he killed Lilly. So I'm thinking that if one piece was accidentally fired into Harry in the blast, could not the other split pieces also end up somewhere where they are not supposed to be. It wouldn't make any difference if they just sort of drifted back to the main piece. Perhaps that is what Harry will find at GH. > Neri: snip Perhaps he hopes to retrieve his > lost soul piece when he kills Harry, and this requires some special > equipment. However, he seemed ready enough to kill Harry on the spot > in the Ministry, and that was after he discovered the connection. KJ: This is an interesting theory because it was important for Voldemort to have 7 pieces. He knows that the diary horcrux was destroyed. If he makes an extra, ie Nagini, to make up for the loss of that one, will he lose his magical number of seven. If he suspects Harry has a piece, can he salvage the situation if he recovers it, and then kills Harry to use for his final horcrux as he originally planned. It would be like getting a free piece. He would still finish up with six pieces and himself. Is he concerned about the physical effects of making too many horcruxes? It doesn't seem to be improving his appearance so far. > Neri: > Yes, but he's saying that *after* the field test had already > succeeded. You'd think he'd be more sure of himself then. And he > especially seems undecided regarding the number of his experiments > that worked. > Neri KJ: Since no one had ever made more than one, he would have no way of knowing if they were all effective. Maybe it will turn out that one or more of them are duds. That will speed things up considerably in book 7. That feels like cheating, though. From chonpschonps at hotmail.com Tue Jun 6 00:20:49 2006 From: chonpschonps at hotmail.com (xuxunette) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 00:20:49 -0000 Subject: DD and Draco's murder attempts WAS: Draco and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153425 > Betsy Hp: > However, as soon as the Katie Bell incident occurred (a student > nearly killed and rushed to the hospital for a lengthy stay), I > cannot imagine the headmaster who'd allow the known would-be > assassin to stay. Proof or no proof, evidence or no evidence, the > headmaster would worry less about the ramifications for the legal > case and much more for the safety of his students. If only because > his job depends on it. This is a very interesting point. Things are it is not the first questionnable decision Dumbledore makes as a headmaster. It reminds of how he didn't seem to have expelled Sirius and co for the prank they pulled on Snape. In a regular RL situtation, any school headmaster would have expelled them; I remember students getting expelled for fights, attempt murder, even if it's not intentional, is not a light matter. However, as weird as they seem, I see those questionnable decisions as very coherent within JKR's characterization of Dumbledore. I think it is an illustration of what she meant when she makes Dumbledore says that as a man wiser than many, he tends to make proportionally bigger mistakes. IMO, it means that when DD makes a decision, he tends to take bigger risks because he sees further in the consequences his decision may trigger and that DD is well aware of those risks and take them consciously. In fact, DD admitting that he is faillible in his decision means that himself, when he makes them, is not 100 sure of the outcome. Hence, what is interesting is not to question whether DD's decision are appropriate pertaining to his role as a headmaster, but what are really his motivations behind them. And here I think that the headmaster under FBI pressure comparison fails because it supposes a too business-like relation to Draco on Dumbledore's part. I think a comparison more appropriate would be to cast DD in the role of a father. What is a loving father to do if he discovers that one of his sons is turning bad? DD's answer is obviously not to cast rejection on him. Of course, the peculiar parameters of the war situation they are in have to be considered here and I guess that Dumbledore must also believe that having Draco on the side of good would be tactically a good move. But in the end, I think that what is more important to DD - which is also what makes Dumbledore such a good man, different from a cold headed calculating general, and furthest from evil - is fo him to be able to offer mercy to Draco; a piece of freely given love and forgiveness Draco may remember in the future and help him making take the good path again. xuxunette From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Jun 6 03:34:40 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 03:34:40 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153426 Leslie: > Well, I guess my one disagreement there would be that Lily and James were "nominal" Christians. "Nominal" Christians do not make a singular effort to have their infant baptized in a "hurried affair" with just them and the godfather present. Obviously Lily and James were under duress, hunted by Voldemort, etc. Nevertheless they took the time and trouble to see to it their son was baptized. Were they "nominal" Christians they would not have bothered about it, I think. Ceridwen: They knew that they and Harry were in danger. They were in hiding, and there had been a prophecy made about a child who may have been theirs. Even nominal Christians may have their infant baptized in a hurried affair if they belive that infant's life to be in danger, such as from a disease. I think they were probably CofE, too, since it is the predominant religion. But I don't think we have enough to go on to say that they were practicing, devout, or nominal at this point. Ceridwen. From leslie41 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 6 04:01:09 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 04:01:09 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP/DD and Draco In-Reply-To: <004701c68905$a3600aa0$45ba400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153427 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" wrote: > > > Leslie: > > Well, I guess my one disagreement there would be that Lily and > > James were "nominal" Christians. "Nominal" Christians do not > > make a singular effort to have their infant baptized in > > a "hurried affair" with just them and the godfather present. > > Obviously Lily and James were under duress, hunted by Voldemort, > > etc. Nevertheless they took the time and trouble to see to it > > their son was baptized. Were they "nominal" Christians they > > would not have bothered about it, I think. > > Magpie: > They might have. A christening is a family gathering that has > meaning beyond Harry being welcomed into a specific church. Leslie41: Well of course. It's not really a "parochial" event at all, though usually people get baptized at their own church. It's a welcoming into Christ's kingdom. > Magpie: > (Some family members have been known to be pressured into > christening a child because it will please other family members > too--not that I'm saying this is what happened with James and > Lily.) Leslie41: I doubt that as well. I just don't see Lily and James folding in the face of social pressure, even if that pressure comes from their parents. > Magpie: > More importantly, it seems that Sirius being godfather was a > significant role in terms of his looking after Harry. Sirius seems > to take the role seriously, but not in the sense that he's got > to give Harry religious instruction. The Christening is very > important for plot purposes to give Harry some tie to Sirius, > which seems like the important part Leslie41: Yes, of course. But Rowling could have accomplished this by making Sirius a relative, or by making him the guardian should they die. Much is made, repeatedly, of the fact that he is his godfather. And sure, many people kind of ignore their roles as godparents, but when you go back to the actual ceremony of baptism (in the Anglican church), the godparent has to renounce the devil, acknowledge Christ as savior, etc. etc. etc. Those who are not Christians are not asked to be godparents, no matter how close the tie may be, because they either are not baptized, or they cannot claim Christ as savior, or both. I'm not saying that there is or will be any sort of explicit Christian message at the end of HP, but anyone who's ever been to a baptism in the Anglican church knows that it's pretty serious stuff. It's easy to make light of this, but my inclination would be *not* to take it so lightly. In the Anglican Church (as well as in the Catholic church) baptism actually confers grace. From foodiedb at optonline.net Tue Jun 6 02:51:41 2006 From: foodiedb at optonline.net (David) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 02:51:41 -0000 Subject: If it is not Voldemort, then who? - Is Dumbledore worried about someone else? In-Reply-To: <012f01c68850$0ef27610$6401a8c0@user2b3ff76354> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153428 > David said: Well, speaking of suspicious, I find it suspicious > that Dumbledore had to clarify who Harry was talking about. Who > else did he think Harry might be talking about? > > Peggy now: I take Dumbledore's comment as his having been called > out of deep thought and back to the present moment by Harry's > question. I think he was verbally giving his head a shake to get > the various thoughts cleared out so he could continue the > conversation with Harry. David says: I thought about Dumbledore just being deep in thought, but for some reason, I don't think that's it, I think that JKR wrote it that way for a reason. It could be just conincidence, but is there such a thing as "just a coincidence" in a JKR story? From kellymolinari at yahoo.com Tue Jun 6 03:01:04 2006 From: kellymolinari at yahoo.com (Kelly Molinari) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 03:01:04 -0000 Subject: Hagrid (and Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: <700201d40606051052v30aabea5p4db6fc50aa9d9954@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153429 > Kelly: > It is my belief that IF Dumbledore is not dead, that Hagrid > is in on it. Dumbledore's line that he would trust Hagrid with his > life is very fitting here. possible involvement in Dumbledore's faked death> > Kemper now: > I'm mostly responding to your conditional supposition of Hagrid's > possible part in DD's possible faked death. > > I think I'm the only one on the list that has the porchlight on > for DD. Kelly now: I'm still on the fence about DD being alive or dead. I'd like to believe JKR when she says *dead is dead*. I'd also hope that she wouldn't have put all the DD lovers through that gut-wrenching experience if he weren't really dead. But at the same time I can see many scenarios (can't go into all of them here) in which DD's faked death will be more beneficial to Harry, as well as the story line. The most obvious, IMO, is that LV and the DE's will let their guard down now that DD is out of the picture. Kemper: > My reasons are also based on Dumbledore's solid trust in Hagrid. > Kelly now: Yes, all excellent examples of the extent to which DD trusts Hagrid. Kemper: > How could such a powerful endorsement by such a powerful wizard > (whom the reader now knows to do things with a wand that an ancient > witch had never seen and to be the only one LV ever feared) not be > proven anywhere in the series?! Kelly now: Exactly! That is why I think Hagrid will play a huge role (no pun intended) in the outcome of the series. Hagrid, though very loyal and trustworthy in the most Gryffindorish way, has yet to show the finest Gryffindor trait of all: Courage. Sooner or later Hagrid will have to do something that shows how brave he really is. I know he came out to fight the DE's on the grounds but I think it will be bigger than that. Having only three years of Wizard schooling does not make Hagrid a strong candidate to out duel LV or a DE. Yet I can't see him running from a confrontation. Whatever he does I hope he does not loose his life over it. Kemper: > However, I do not think that Hagrid is in on DD's faked death. > Hagrid wears his emotions on his sleeve. He would not be able to > pull off faking grief for DD. Kelly now: I thought about that too. But I just can't get over the fact that having moved DD's body (twice) he would not have been able to tell that DD was still alive, if in fact that was the case. Kemper: > I believe that DD had a will drawn up that had Hagrid perform > certain duties with regards to his body and resting place. Kelly now: If that were true then Hagrid would have known about it, and wouldn't he have said as much while everyone was in the headmaster's office? Was he so grief stricken that he forgot what his duties were? Kelly now: Since Hagrid does wear his emotions on his sleeve maybe the bravest thing he will ever have to do is send HP out there to fight LV thinking that DD is not there to help him. If DD is alive this will not be an easy thing for Hagrid to do. Kind of like parenting, we always want to protect our children but there comes a time when WE have to be brave and let them fend for themselves, all the time knowing that we will bail them out if the need arises. Kemper: > Kemper, waiting for DD patiently with the porch-light on and > pouring him a large brandy Kelly, hoping that Dumbledore enjoys the brandy. From mi_nai_leeloo at yahoo.com Tue Jun 6 03:49:36 2006 From: mi_nai_leeloo at yahoo.com (Leeloo Volusia) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 20:49:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060606034936.55938.qmail@web38505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153430 They knew that they and Harry were in danger. They were in hiding, and there had been a prophecy made about a child who may have been theirs. Even nominal Christians may have their infant baptized in a hurried affair if they belive that infant's life to be in danger, such as from a disease. I think they were probably CofE, too, since it is the predominant religion. But I don't think we have enough to go on to say that they were practicing, devout, or nominal at this point. Leeloo here: I am a Baptist and in my denomination we do not believe in baptising your babies because we believe they are protected by God's love without man's intervention. No one is baptised in my faith until they can make the decision on their own. I was eleven before I was baptised and did not partake in communion until then. Just an FYI.... ;) I know we're talking about British culture and all, but the Wizarding World isn't exactly "normal". ~ Leeloo From chonpschonps at hotmail.com Tue Jun 6 04:21:16 2006 From: chonpschonps at hotmail.com (xuxunette) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 04:21:16 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153431 Leslie: > Well, I guess my one disagreement there would be that Lily and James were "nominal" Christians. "Nominal" Christians do not make a singular effort to have their infant baptized in a "hurried affair" with just them and the godfather present. Obviously Lily and James were under duress, hunted by Voldemort, etc. Nevertheless they took the time and trouble to see to it their son was baptized. Were they "nominal" Christians they would not have bothered about it, I think. Ceridwen: >They knew that they and Harry were in danger. They were in hiding, and there had been a prophecy made about a child who may have been theirs. Even nominal Christians may have their infant baptized in a hurried affair if they belive that infant's life to be in danger, such as from a disease. I think they were probably CofE, too, since it is the predominant religion. But I don't think we have enough to go on to say that they were practicing, devout, or nominal at this point. xuxu: I tend to think that James and Lily baptized Harry in haste more out of pragmatism than because of religious reasons. The couple was aware that the three of them were under serious death threat, and obviously they were also ready to sacrifice themselves to protect Harry's life. In this configuration, James and Lily wanting to designate a godfather for Harry through baptism, basically a tutor for their child, in case something bad happened to them seems to be a logical scheme of action. I think James and Lily christening Harry only because they were sure of his death is kind of OOC, submitting to destiny is not very gryffindorish. It would also made me sad. xuxu From chonpschonps at hotmail.com Tue Jun 6 04:39:00 2006 From: chonpschonps at hotmail.com (xuxunette) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 04:39:00 -0000 Subject: If it is not Voldemort, then who? - Is Dumbledore worried about someone else In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153432 > Peggy: I take Dumbledore's comment as his having been called > out of deep thought and back to the present moment by Harry's > question. > David says: > I thought about Dumbledore just being deep in thought, but for > some reason, I don't think that's it, I think that JKR wrote it > that way for a reason. It could be just conincidence, but is > there such a thing as "just a coincidence" in a JKR story. xuxu: I think it's most probably just a figure of speech. A rhetorical question JKR used to avoid reader getting lost in the dialogue. As far as the dialogue goes, it is fitting for Harry, jumping out of the pensieve, to ask a spontaneous question, imprecise in its formulating. But if the verbal exchange had continued without Voldemort being named, it would have lacked clarity. xuxu From Schlobin at aol.com Tue Jun 6 05:33:20 2006 From: Schlobin at aol.com (Schlobin at aol.com) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 01:33:20 EDT Subject: Snape as the lover of Regulus Black Message-ID: <41b.2cebf94.31b66da0@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153433 So why did Snape turn away from the Death Eaters? Perhaps because he loved Regulus Black and when Regulus was killed, Snape went berserk.... Also, perhaps Snape was interested in Sirius, and became angry at Sirius when a) Sirius rejected him and b) Sirius became involved with Remus Lupin Susan McGee 707-616-7898 (cell) _http://www.minervainc.org_ (http://www.minervainc.org/) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Tue Jun 6 05:35:58 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 05:35:58 -0000 Subject: Afterlife in the WW was Re: Baptism/Christianity in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153434 > > > Magpie: > > More importantly, it seems that Sirius being godfather was a > > significant role in terms of his looking after Harry. Sirius seems > > to take the role seriously, but not in the sense that he's got > > to give Harry religious instruction. The Christening is very > > important for plot purposes to give Harry some tie to Sirius, > > which seems like the important part > Leslie41: > Yes, of course. But Rowling could have accomplished this by making > Sirius a relative, or by making him the guardian should they die. > Much is made, repeatedly, of the fact that he is his godfather. And > sure, many people kind of ignore their roles as godparents, but when > you go back to the actual ceremony of baptism (in the Anglican > church), the godparent has to renounce the devil, acknowledge Christ > as savior, etc. etc. etc. > Julie: I wouldn't be totally surprised by some Christian allegory in the HP books, intentionally or not--Dumbledore as Christ, Snape as Judas, etc. But what I can't see happening is any actual references to the specific theology or doctrinism of Christianity. So it may be moot whether HP has some allegorical Christian references when it comes to those fundamentalists who object to the books. Which brings me to a subject that is very unclear and at the moment certainly not representative of Christian beliefs--the Afterlife in the WW, where we've had no references to God, Christ, angels, the Devil or other Christian concepts. The WW does have ghosts, or the spirits of those who have died but feared taking the next step. So they remain in the physical world, able to communicate (at least with wizards) but unable to partake of physical pleasures or pains (no senses of touch, smell, taste, etc). Besides spirits, there are souls--and what exactly is the difference between the two? Do spirits like Nearly Headless Nick still have their souls intact? Do those whose souls have been sucked out by Dementors still have their spirits? Are the two tied together, completely separate, or one in the same? For those souls who chose to move on, they go (apparently) "beyond the veil." Which is where exactly? Is it a metaphor for heaven? And if it is, then where do the truly evil souls like those of Voldemort or Bellatrix go? Is there a "hell" reserved for Voldy and his loyal Death Eaters, or will they be somewhere beyond the veil too? What does it really mean to have a torn soul? Does it affect where your soul goes when you die? Or does it just look a bit worn and tacky? What of Voldemort's various soul pieces? Do they still exist after a horcrux is destroyed or are they destroyed in the process? If you find a way to destroy a Dementor, are the souls it sucked out destroyed too, or are they freed? Do Inferi also have souls, and would there be a way to free those souls once Voldemort is destroyed? Okay, I'm rambling, but the point is we know so little about the WW concept of souls, spirit and the afterlife. I'm sure JKR knows more, though perhaps not. I have to wonder if she will delve into more complete explanations, or will leave it all speculative and mysterious, as of course it is in the real world (i.e., we can never have empirical evidence of what happens after we die, whatever our belief systems). I suspect the latter myself, though if she does elucidate further, I can't see Jesus, angels, or the Devil involved. Julie From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Jun 6 05:52:34 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 05:52:34 -0000 Subject: RAB revisited Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153436 Greeting all: Tonks here. Back from Holiday. Ready to assume my new position as head of the Alternative Theories unit. Let us begin by looking again at the case of RAB. As we discovered from the evidence presented by the translators it does appear that RAB stands for Regulus Alphard Black. (or is it Regulus Arcturus Black???) 1. We have heard that the last name is defiantly Black in all languages. I assume that we affirmed that this is also true for the first Regulus and middle name of Alphard as well. If anyone knows anything to the contrary please let us know ASAP. (Could it be Arcturus?) Thank you. 2. If we look closely at the Black family tree (see Lexicon) we will see that it appears to be a tradition to name children after older family members. We have more than one Sirius Black, more that one Phineas Black, and at *least one* other Regulus, etc. 3. The name Regulus is associated with a star, as are most of the Black family names. Regulus is a `double' star according to one of our informants. 4. Regulus was Sirius' younger brother. If Sirius was in his early 20's when James and Lily were killed that would make his brother in his late teens or maybe a year younger than Sirius. (Lexicon has his death at age 18.) This leads one to wonder how a man so young, graduating from a school where the Dark Arts were not taught, would even know what a Horcrux was, let alone how to destroy one. Harry only knows because DD told him. And Tom learned about them from Slughorn, but not how to make one and presumably would not have been told how to destroy one either. It took Tom many years to gather this imformation. I am pretty sure that LV does not teach a class in Dark Arts 101 to his DE. He probably just teaches them, if he teaches them at all, what they need to know to do the job they are assigned to do. And he would not teach anything about Horcruxes to his followers because he would be afraid that they would become his rival. We know that Regulus' uncle Alphard helped Sirius when he ran away from the family. That leads one to suspect that perhaps uncle Alphard did not agree with the Black `traditional family values'. What I am leading to here is what if there are 2 men named Regulus Alphard Black? What if Alphard went by his middle name and Regulus went by his first name? Or maybe Regulus does not have Alphard as a middle name at all. Either way, maybe the person we want is Uncle Alphard. We know that Uncle Alphard died around 1977. Here are some questions I would like a few volunteers to explore: 1. Do we know how Uncle Alphard died? 2. Came we come up with a plausible answer as to how the Slytherin locket would get in the Black family home when Sirius and Alphard are both burned off of the family tree? 3. If it was Alphard that got the locket. How? Does he have a house elf that would have helped him as we suspected Kreacher to have done? (on a side note: who ever it was that switched lockets, how did they know it was a locket and how did they know where it was?) 4. The Slytherin locket was in the Black family home and later stolen by Mundungus. Wouldn't Kreacher have noticed that it was not the Black family locket? OR if it was Alphard's, it would have been his locket and not the locket from Kreacher's masters. But this puts is back to how did the real one get into that house and what did people think that it was?? Mrs. Black did not die until 1985 (see Lexicon) so she would have had to have know that the locket was there. Doesn't this seem a bit odd to anyone? How did she get it? And what did she think it was? If she knew it was the Slytherin locket, she would not have just kept it in a drawer would she? One thing that might work against this idea is that the note left in the locket said "to the Dark Lord". I think only DE refer to LV as `the Dark Lord'. So I am not sure where this leaves us. Unless Uncle Alphard was also a DE, but I don't think that he was. Thank you in advance for your efforts and please report back with your finding ASAP. Tonks_op From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Jun 6 06:14:51 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 06:14:51 -0000 Subject: Hagrid. In-Reply-To: <700201d40606051052v30aabea5p4db6fc50aa9d9954@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153437 steven1965aaa at ...> wrote: > It is my belief that IF Dumbledore is > not dead, that Hagrid is in on it. Yes he'd have to be, but do you really think Hagrid is that good an actor, do you think he has the ability to pretend to be sad when he really isn't? I don't. Of all the characters in the Potter books Hagrid is the one with the least guile, what you see is what you get. And why on earth would JKR want to bring Dumbledore back from the dead, what a huge anticlimax that would be! JKR wants us to understand this is serious business, people are going to die, even very good people. Right after book 4 came out I predicted that Dumbledore would die at the end of book 6; it makes a great cliff hanger and you can't have a very powerful wizard like Dumbledore waiting in the wings ready to take over if Harry fails to defeat Voldemort. It's all up to Harry and nobody else. Eggplant From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Tue Jun 6 11:12:51 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 11:12:51 -0000 Subject: Hagrid. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153438 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > steven1965aaa@> wrote: > > > It is my belief that IF Dumbledore is > > not dead, that Hagrid is in on it. > STeven1965aaa: No, that wasn't me, I did not write that. That was somebody else. I did start the Hagrid thread yesterday but I can't take credit for that thought. Steven1965aaa From falkel at macs.biu.ac.il Tue Jun 6 07:33:02 2006 From: falkel at macs.biu.ac.il (againstsnape) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 07:33:02 -0000 Subject: Question About Weasley Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153439 Steve: Now, some people have speculated that the Twins used Time Turners to know the outcome and based their bet on that. However, we have never seen Time Turners go forward in time into the future. I really find this speculation EXTREMELY farfetched. Against Snape: How about this: One of the twins used the time turner after the game, going back far enough in time to tell the twins how to bet, and stayed hidden for the rest of the time. The biggest problem with the theory, though, is how the twins got the time turner. Against Snape From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jun 6 13:34:28 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 13:34:28 -0000 Subject: DD and Draco's murder attempts WAS: Draco and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153440 > > >>Pippin: > > Dumbledore may have been morally certain that Draco was behind the > > attacks, but the moment the authorities start substituting moral > > certainty for evidence is the moment the Crouch Srs take over. > > Betsy Hp: > I do agree with this. Draco shouldn't be thrown into Azkaban > without a fair trial (and at the time of Katie Bell I don't think > there was any evidence, aside from Snape's testimony, that Draco was > involved). However, Dumbledore has made it clear that he is no > longer operating within the law. Dumbledore knows Draco's actions > led to Katie and Ron nearly dying. The students (and the staff for > that matter) are no longer safe, and Dumbledore *knows* exactly who > is the cause of the danger. (He trusts Snape.) > > What Dumbledore could have done was pro-actively take Draco and > Narcissa into the Order's custody. This would have been the best > move to ensure the safety of his school. I'm not sure that it would > have been the best move for the Order, in that I think Draco would > have been lost to them if he'd been interfered with that early. > Plus, Snape may have died (that pesky Vow ). Pippin: ::boggles:: You want the Order to set up its own little relocation camp? Oh dear. I think JKR dealt rather extensively with the problems of 'protective custody' in OOP, but if that's not enough for you, there's a link to Amnesty International on JKR's website, and there you will find article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. http://web.amnesty.org/pages/aboutai-udhr-eng There are rules like this because people like JKR think they're a good idea. I would be very surprised if Dumbledore didn't think so too. Trusting Snape would be arbitrary, because though Dumbledore trusts Snape to be honest with him, he does *not* trust Snape to interpret evidence correctly. Surely I don't need to cite canon for this? I wonder how 'protective' the Order's custody would be. Do you think they'd have treated unrepentant Draco and Narcissa with kindness and respect? They couldn't even manage it with Sirius, and he was on their side and imprisoned voluntarily! As for Kreacher, with all the restrictions Sirius put on him he was still capable of sabotage. I shudder to think what Draco and Narcissa would be able to do --or do you suggest that Dumbledore station a few dementors around them so that they can't use their powers. Even as a practical matter, putting Draco in custody wouldn't have protected the students. It was Dumbledore's location, not Draco's, that made Hogwarts a target. Draco could have continued his mission, or rather his feeble but dangerous attempts at it, from anywhere. Pippin From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Jun 6 14:30:09 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 14:30:09 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP/DD and Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153441 > Leslie41: > Yes, of course. But Rowling could have accomplished this by making > Sirius a relative, or by making him the guardian should they die. Magpie: Actually she couldn't make him a relative, imo, because bloodlines are important in themselves, and obviously she didn't just want it to be a legal document saying Sirius was the guardian should they die. Godfather implies exactly what she needs, an adult who's been given a quasi-parental role without being related, that puts him above "a friend of your father" and yet outside of "blood relative." His parental role has a spiritual nature to it. That is why I think much is made, repeatedly, of the fact that he's Harry's godfather, more so than the specific words of the ceremony they used. Leslie: > Much is made, repeatedly, of the fact that he is his godfather. And > sure, many people kind of ignore their roles as godparents, but when > you go back to the actual ceremony of baptism (in the Anglican > church), the godparent has to renounce the devil, acknowledge Christ > as savior, etc. etc. etc. Magpie: Yes, the ceremony has stuff about renouncing the devil and acknowledging Christ, but as you said, many people go on to ignore the role. Leslie: > > Those who are not Christians are not asked to be godparents, no > matter how close the tie may be, because they either are not > baptized, or they cannot claim Christ as savior, or both. Magpie: And yet watch any soap opera and you'll see examples of non- religious characters named as godparents at Christenings with the importance being on the bond between the characters. This seems to me to be exactly the way it's used with Sirius and Harry so far. Sirius doesn't seem to ever be interested in whether Harry's been brought up with religious instruction. He seems more focused on this being his best friends son to whom he has a responsibility. Leslie: > > I'm not saying that there is or will be any sort of explicit > Christian message at the end of HP, but anyone who's ever been to a > baptism in the Anglican church knows that it's pretty serious > stuff. It's easy to make light of this, but my inclination would be > *not* to take it so lightly. In the Anglican Church (as well as in > the Catholic church) baptism actually confers grace. Magpie: Yes, I've been to christenings and I acknowledge that JKR is using the Christian ceremony of a christening. I do think the ceremony in HP canon is important and has a spiritual aspect to it, just not primarily due to Harry receiving grace he otherwise would have lacked and Sirius accepted Jesus as his Savior at some point. The ceremony still seems primarily important to me for the bonds it cements between the characters and their loved ones. I'm not removing the Christian aspect but I don't think the christening suggests much about their religious life so far--for many people the religious ceremonies are the only ones they know for these purposes. Maybe I'm not quite seeing how you think this is going to put into play that is different from the way I'm seeing it. Tolkien, I believe, considered grace to play an important role at the end of his story, while I see nothing of the kind, so the two povs can certainly exist within the same set of events. -m From whtwitch91 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 6 11:12:08 2006 From: whtwitch91 at yahoo.com (whtwitch91) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 11:12:08 -0000 Subject: Nature of a Patronus / Snape's Patronus Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153442 Lilygale wrote: snip >This got me thing about how appropriate a spider might be as Snape's patronus.< I, too, think that Snape's patronus is a spider. The clue that led me to this concluson is in GoF, chapter 31 in the sphinx's riddle, "First think of the person who lives in disguise, Who deals in secrets and tells naught but lies..." This leads us to a realy interesting point to ponder. In HBP, chapter 4 we see Harry and DD standng in the Weasley's broom shed. DD says, "There are only two people in the whole world who know the full contents of the prophecy ... and they are both standing in this smelly, spidery broom shed." A spider is crawling on DD's hat. I believe this is SS, and this is what Jo was referring to when she said telling us Snape's patronus would give too much away. I can only assume from this that Harry has not been told the full prophecy. He saw Trelawney speak the prophecy, but DD had been poking in his pensieve immediately before (and not in the same manner he used to conjure up the image of Caratacus Burke's memory of the purchase of the Slytherin locket). DD said that Slughorn's tampering with the horcrux memory was crude; we have every reason to believe that DD's wouldn't be. If something was left out of that prophecy revealed to Harry, the only thing I can think of would be very devastating to Harry indeed, and that would be a prediction of his death. Perhaps that is what the centaurs were referring to in CoS in such an oblique manner. This is such a grim thought. Yet let me say that although I believe that Harry will die in Book 7, he will be brought back. Somehow Harry's death would not be a suitable and satisfying conclusion to these marvelous books and I do not think that Jo intends to go there. Sue From chonpschonps at hotmail.com Tue Jun 6 11:37:46 2006 From: chonpschonps at hotmail.com (xuxunette) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 11:37:46 -0000 Subject: RAB revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153443 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > Greeting all: > Tonks: > What I am leading to here is what if there are 2 men named Regulus > Alphard Black? What if Alphard went by his middle name and Regulus > went by his first name? Or maybe Regulus does not have Alphard as > a middle name at all. Either way, maybe the person we want is > Uncle Alphard. xuxu: This is the first time I come across this theory and I think it is absolutely brilliant. As far as I am concerned I'm going to stick to it from now on. And in the light of this theory, here are my takes on the questions regarding the locket. The Mugundus plotline must be a redherring. I always thought that it was a very obvious clue, and felt ambivalent about it, but it couldn't be discarded as long as RAB was Regulus (which didn't convince me much either). But now with this good uncle theory, it is evident it must be a redherring, and one I predict Harry is going to fall for at first in HP7. Things are, if the uncle is RAB, then the locket doesn't need to have ever been hidden in Grimmauld Place. In fact, my guess is that it is already in Harry's possession but he doesn't know it yet: the locket may well be sleeping in the vault we know Sirius possessed (presents he sent to his godsons), which he must have inherited from his generous uncle (or at least in which he put the inheritance), vault which in turn came into the ownership of Harry upon Sirius 'death. Clues: - Mudungus plotline being obvious - Emphasis put on the inheritance Harry received from Sirius by the mean of the whole business with Kreacher. - Distraction of readers attention from other possible assets in the inheritance by emphasis on Kreacher and Grimmauld. And, I just thought of it, do you remember the twin mirror Sirius gave Harry? Wouldn't that be an occasion for it to come out to play for a bit? It may be a key to the vault (double keys!), or the mean through which Harry may realise who RAB is (contacting Sirius to ask/ RAB being engraved onto it/etc). I love your theory Tonks! Yay xuxu From falkel at macs.biu.ac.il Tue Jun 6 14:26:53 2006 From: falkel at macs.biu.ac.il (againstsnape) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 14:26:53 -0000 Subject: Understanding Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153444 During HBP, the question of where Snape's loyalties lie is an important question. This question isn't answered by the end of the book. Here is my theory: 1) Snape was a Death-Eater until he knew that Voldemort was going to murder the Potters. At this point, I believe, as a result of his life debt to James, he either decided he had to warn DD, or else the life debt forced him to. 2) Once he did this, he realized that he would have to explain to Voldemort why he went to DD. I believe, at this point, he decided that in order to survive, he woud have to live a double life - a spy on DD for Voldemort, and a spy on Voldemort for DD. 3) Voldemort's downfall at the Potters' was good news for Snape - he would be able to live a single life, without having to worry about what the other side would do to him. At this position, he obviously would make Lupin his potion (which Lupin would later use as evidence that Snape is a good guy!). 4) During GF, Snape and DD planned what Snape would do when Voldemort returned to power. DD believed that Snape would be a good guy` Snape resumes his double agent job. During the year, he was confronted by Karkaroff. Being good at Legilimency, he knew that Karkaroff was not going to join Voldemort, so he said that he will stay with DD. 5) Snape saved DD after DD was hurt in the capture of the ring Horcrux, because he was worried that if he didn't, DD would live long enough to tell someone else about it. I think that Snape would have prefered that DD would die, as this would, in his opinion, be the beginning of the end of the forces against Voldemort. The unbreakable vow was also a necessity to convince Narcissa and Bellatrix that he is on their side. He probably knew every loophole in the vow he made, in order to not kill DD. 6) At the end of HBP, he realized that his life as a double-agent has ended, so he took the side he thought was winning - Voldemort. He probably thought that once he killed DD, Voldemort's victory was a sure thing. I think that this explains all of Snape's actions duing the series. Against Snape [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From iam.kemper at gmail.com Tue Jun 6 16:04:22 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 09:04:22 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hagrid (and Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: References: <700201d40606051052v30aabea5p4db6fc50aa9d9954@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <700201d40606060904s23c090edk2c30c2dc107aceb0@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153445 > Kemper earlier: > > However, I do not think that Hagrid is in on DD's faked death. > > Hagrid wears his emotions on his sleeve. He would not be able to > > pull off faking grief for DD. > > Kelly responded: > I thought about that too. But I just can't get over the fact that > having moved DD's body (twice) he would not have been able to tell > that DD was still alive, if in fact that was the case. Kemper now: I'm supposing a hypothetical given: Snape faked Dumbledore's death. Other threads have suggested/supported this through canon, so I won't go through it here. Through Snape's wizardry, Dumbledore appears dead to Hagrid. Hagrid doesn't need to do anything to continue the faked death and isn't even in on it. Rather, Hagrid's responsible for the psuedo-(I hate to use this word)-resurrection, and he isn't in on this either. But he'll do this by following whatever instructions Dumbledore has left him with regards to the body or tomb. Hagrid will follow the instructions, no matter what they say including "tell no one what I'm asking of you", because he loves Dumbledore with so much heart that to do otherwise would be agonizing. This love is the reason for Dumbledore telling McGonagall, "I would trust Hagrid with my life." McGonagall, who agrees that Hagrid's heart is in the right place, challenges Dumbledore this trust, "... you can't pretend he's not careless. He does tend to..." She is cut off from finishing her don't-trust-Hagrid arguement by the sound of Sirius' motorcycle. Dumbledore is aware of Hagrid's myopic foresightedness (telling a stranger with a dragon's egg how to subdue a giant three-headed dog) which would appear like carelessness to McGonagall. Dumbledore trust Hagrid with big things and simple instructions: Get BabyHarry from Godric's Hollow. Bring him to Privet Drive where you will meet me. You are the only one to take charge of Harry. ... Hand deliver Harry's Letter of Acceptance. Help him get his things. Pick up the Stone from Gringotts. Bring the Stone to Hogwarts. He performed all these duties effectively and with care. So Hagrid doesn't need to know about a faked death. Dumbledore trusts him with his life. And it is even more evident that he does because if Hagrid doesn't follow the instructions, then Dumbledore will appear dead and may even become so, for some time. > > Kemper earlier: > > I believe that DD had a will drawn up that had Hagrid perform > > certain duties with regards to his body and resting place. > > Kelly responded: > If that were true then Hagrid would have known about it, and > wouldn't he have said as much while everyone was in the headmaster's > office? Was he so grief stricken that he forgot what his duties were? Kemper now: I don't think Hagrid received his instructions immediately. I imagine he received them when he returned to his cabin after meeting with the other professors and the new Headmistress in her office. Kemper From bawilson at citynet.net Tue Jun 6 15:08:17 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 11:08:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potte Message-ID: <40254.129.71.218.25.1149606497.squirrel@citymail.citynet.net> No: HPFGUIDX 153446 Geoff: >> Speaking as a Christian who happens to have been led into a Baptist church, we do not have godparents per se because we do not baptise children as infants; they are brought to God to be dedicated, rather as Jesus was presented to God in the Temple at Epiphany. Baptism is a sacrament which they choose for themselves as adults. >From this, I would surmise that the Potters seems to have followed something similar along the line of the Anglican/Methodist approach. << BAW: My speculation is that: 1. Before the Seclusion there were wizards among the clergy. The King Arthur myth states that Morgan leFay was 'put to school in a convent' where she learned magic--I wonder if the Prioress was the Reverend Mother Helga or the Reverend Mother Rowena? (I'm plumping for Rowena, myself; with the Chaplain being Father Salazar.) 2. At the time of the Seclusion, the wizardling clergy held a synod in which they established their own hierarchy, hammering out many of the differences between the various Christian sects. 3. Because of Muggleborns and half-bloods, there has been a 'backdoor' between the Wizardling Church and the various Muggle churches. I imagine that over in Lambeth Palace there have been visits from 'the Other Archbishop.' None of this has been mentioned in canon because it hasn't been directly relevant to the plot. Beyond that, there is so much Christian symbolism in HP that one would have to be blind not to notice it. The gryphon and the phoenix, for example, are both Christ symbols. BAW From sbarthell2001 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 6 17:15:45 2006 From: sbarthell2001 at yahoo.com (Sarah Barthell) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 10:15:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Question About Weasley Twins In-Reply-To: <4c4.442d60.31b58e3f@aol.com> Message-ID: <20060606171545.8766.qmail@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153447 Mr. Weasley didn't exactly decline, he bet a Galleon on Ireland to win and Ludo made it seem like he was being too cautious. Sarah Barthell From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Jun 6 18:19:24 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 18:19:24 -0000 Subject: DD and Draco's murder attempts - No Evidence! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153449 > Neri: > Yes, I quite agree. We can't really fault Dumbledore for his handling > of the Draco case. After all, he was extremely busy with a far more > important, in fact the *most* important mission of the war ? > discovering and destroying Voldemort's horcruxes. Potioncat: A very interesting post. To paraphrase Phineas Nigellus Black, Neri, I may disagree with much that you say, but I cannot deny you've got style. As this is something of a "not me too" one liner, I'm off to the basement to look for my ancient hot-curlers. From leslie41 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 6 19:30:47 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 19:30:47 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potte In-Reply-To: <40254.129.71.218.25.1149606497.squirrel@citymail.citynet.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153450 > Beyond that, there is so much Christian symbolism in HP that one > would have to be blind not to notice it. The gryphon and the > phoenix, for example, are both Christ symbols. > > BAW Leslie41: Interesting, but the phoenix as a symbol/mythical being predates Christianity, as does the Griffin. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jun 6 20:01:30 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 20:01:30 -0000 Subject: Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153451 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" wrote: > > > > Beyond that, there is so much Christian symbolism in HP that one > > would have to be blind not to notice it. The gryphon and the > > phoenix, for example, are both Christ symbols. > > > > BAW > > Leslie41: > Interesting, but the phoenix as a symbol/mythical being predates > Christianity, as does the Griffin. Geoff: This whole topic is one which has been covered in great detail in the past. Might I refer members to one of the longer and more interesting threads? This was "Christianity and HP" , which began back in September 2004 at message 112202 and is well worth reading through if you're following the current postings... ...assuming you can cope with !Yahoo playing the fool - with the message windows again! From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Tue Jun 6 20:08:22 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 20:08:22 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153452 Tolkien is reported to have told a Bishop once that Lord of the Rings is a "very Catholic" story. This may have been clear to the author but I wonder how many readers come away with this view. His meaning is more apparent to those who have read the backstory in his other writings, I think. It is clear that in Tolkien's world the elves and the "high humans" who were allowed to populate the island of Numenor had a more direct access to God through what we would call angels than the rest of humanity who were left mostly to fend for themselves in fact. Something similar could be going on the the Potterverse, the WW may have a different manner of relating to God and we either don't see it or don't recognize it for what it is when we do see it. The other possibility is that in both cases while the authors may be Christian and view their stories as compatible with Christianity the stories themselves are not concerned with religion and so we just don't see the character's practicing any religion. Whether Harry's Christening is clearly an exception or not may depend on British secular law. If British law allows the designation of a guardian for a child in case of the death of the parents by secular means then there would have been no need for Harry to have been Christened at all. If this is the case then the Potters were concerned about his spiritual welfare as well. If there is no provision for the designation of a guardian by secular means in British law, if the designation of godparents is the only means available to the Potters, then Harry's Christening may have no religious implication at all. Would someone from the UK care to enlighten us on that issue? For me a nominal Christian is someone who practices the faith for cultural and traditional reasons without any real belief in the teachings of the church. Someone who likes Christ's teaching as a philosophy but does not believe in God or sin or any such things, for example. Such a person would not bother with a Christening under the circumstances the Potters faced in their final days unless it were the only means available to designate a guardian for their child. One thing that surprises me about this discussion is that there are apparently two Baptists here who are in some sense fans of the books. This surprises me because the media and various Potter websites had me convinced that *I* must be the only one! Ken From chonpschonps at hotmail.com Tue Jun 6 20:54:58 2006 From: chonpschonps at hotmail.com (xuxunette) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 20:54:58 -0000 Subject: Nature of a Patronus / Snape's Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153453 > Lolita: > > We may be digging a bit too deep with that one. IIRC, Rowling said in > an interview that she had a JRT. She's already given her favourite > animal to Hermione as a patronus, for no other reason than the fact > that it's her favourite animal. She may have well given Ron her pet as > a patronus, for no other reason than the fact that it's her pet. > Although I admit it's fun to speculate. Well yes, but Hermione or Ron's patronuses (patroni?) are not important to the plot, JKR clearly stated that Snape's was. But I don't like the spider idea, because I can't see the emotional link Snape could have with a spider. Snape is not Hagrid. Plus I think if JKR doesn't want to reveal Snape's patronus it means that it must be something straightforward enough to make Snape's loyalty indubitable. In this case the spider theory is a bit far fetched. So Snape's patronus must be something which show that he has emotional attachement toward either Voldemort, or Dumbledore, or Harry, or Harry's relatives. Even if I don't like the idea, the case of Tonks' patronus make me think that it maybe be something revealing of Snape's amourous attachement, in this case most probably toward Lily. But then seeing that the Tonks plotline ws a red herring in HP6, all bets are off again. xuxu From blink_883 at hotmail.com Tue Jun 6 21:39:23 2006 From: blink_883 at hotmail.com (whirledgirl) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 21:39:23 -0000 Subject: If it is not Voldemort, then who? - Is Dumbledore worried about someone else? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153454 David said: >It could be just conincidence, but is there such a > thing as "just a coincidence" in a JKR story? > Yes! Was it Mark Evans, a student that was mentioned in one of the books, that everybody theorised (abit too much) was related to Lily and that therefore she wasn't a 'mudblood'? Except JKR later clarified it was simply a coincidence, albeit one she later said to regret...heh...I do love looking into the HP books (well, most books, really) in such depth but there is a part of me that is conscious of the fact that some things may have just been either subconscious on JKR's part or written 'by chance'. Having said that...she does plan very thoroughly, as can be seen on one of the 'easter eggs' that can be found on her website (it's a detailed grid of one of the books). WG* From leslie41 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 6 23:04:43 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 23:04:43 -0000 Subject: Repetitive discussion: Was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153455 > Geoff: > This whole topic is one which has been covered in great detail in the past. > > Might I refer members to one of the longer and more interesting threads? Thanks for the tip-- But as has been pointed out, much of what we discuss here has been gone over in great detail in the past. My guess is, after nearly a year, you won't be able to find anything on HBP that hasn't been mused over. Or the series in general. Snape, the identity of RAB, Dumbledore's death, the horcruxes, etc. The reason this group exists is because for us issues related to the books never get old, or settled conclusively. People often change their minds or come up with new things to say, or just want to express their opinions again to people who haven't read them before, especially after two years (the date of the post you cite). I'm sure the threads on God and Harry Potter from two years ago are interesting, and I will go back and read them. But doubtless they're not conclusive, especially after HBP. My guess is they won't ever be conclusive, because no discussion of the books will be "conclusive" except with regard to canon, and what is "canonical". We don't discuss anymore about whether or not Snape is a vampire, because Rowling has settled that he isn't. We don't talk about Harry and Hermione as a romantic couple anymore, because it's obvious they aren't. I would venture that if we were going to stop talking about what we've talked about before, the board would cease to exist until the seventh book came out. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 6 23:08:19 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 23:08:19 -0000 Subject: Mortality question Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153456 Hi, everybody! I joined this group a few weeks ago and I already found answers to a lot of questions that were torturing me for years. Thanks! But there are still things that keep bugging me. I honestly tried to find answers in old messages, but there are too many of them. Maybe someone of the veterans remembers and can point me to some old thread, or give me a push in the right direction, because I'm pretty sure that every word of every book was discussed. One of my questions concerns GoF. In the cemetery scene, in his speech to DEs, LV describes his return to a human body and says:"But I was willing to embrace mortal life again, before chasing immortality. I set my sights lower...I would settle for my old body back again, and my old strength." (GoF,p.656 US ed. or p.569 UK ed.) This is very frustrating, but I can't figure out why he is talking about mortality here. He still has his Horcruxes, hasn't he? Until they are destroyed, he is immortal, right? Please, please give me some general idea of where to find the answer(off-list, if you think it's too boring for others to read). Thanks in advance! zanooda From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Tue Jun 6 23:28:22 2006 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 15:28:22 -0800 Subject: The Bloody Baron In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153457 How did The Bloody Baron get bloody? He is described as being covered with silver blood. The only source I have read about for silver blood is a unicorn. Since he was covered with it as a ghost, I would assume that something happened to him at the time of his death that would have covered him with unicorn's blood. Is there anything else we know about him? Laura -- Laura Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com From leslie41 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 6 23:36:33 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 23:36:33 -0000 Subject: Understanding Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153458 > Againstsnape: > Snape was a Death-Eater until he knew that Voldemort was going > to murder the Potters. At this point, I believe, as a result of > his life debt to James, he either decided he had to warn DD, or > else the life debt forced him to. Leslie41: Hrm. Makes some sort of sense. But not sense that settles things *against* Snape. Rather makes Snape more admirable, for having a change of heart. > Againstsnape: > Once he did this, he realized that he would have to explain to > Voldemort why he went to DD. I believe, at this point, he decided > that in order to survive, he woud have to live a double life - a > spy on DD for Voldemort, and a spy on Voldemort for DD. Leslie41: No, he didn't have to live as a double agent, nor explain anything to Voldemort, because everyone thought Voldemort had been annihilated by the AK ricochet off of Harry's forehead. However, from your point of view, as Snape thought the dark side was vanquished, he might have wanted to get in good with the winning team. He thus affected a change of heart in order to lead a normal life and escape Azkaban (not a view I share, but it's logical). > Againstsnape: > At this position, he obviously would make Lupin his potion (which > Lupin would later use as evidence that Snape is a good guy!). Leslie41: Well, Snape could have been making the potion on orders from Dumbledore. Or he could have made it to make people *think* he was being nice. But it's obvious from the story that he made it, made it well, delivered it to Lupin himself, and discussed its dispensation, much like a pharmacist. He went above and beyond what was required of him, there. But my feeling is that it's not necessarily because he likes Lupin. It's because Snape has a work ethic that even a decades-old grudge can't cut through. > Againstsnape: > Snape saved DD after DD was hurt in the capture of the ring > Horcrux, because he was worried that if he didn't, DD would live > long enough to tell someone else about it. Leslie41: Or, Snape healed him because he's on the side of good, and a gifted healer (at least of curses that cause physical injury), and because he wants to preserve Dumbledore's life. > Againstsnape: > The unbreakable vow was also a necessity to convince Narcissa and > Bellatrix that he is on their side. Leslie41: I'm with you on that one. > Againstsnape: > At the end of HBP, he realized that his life as a double-agent has > ended, so he took the side he thought was winning - Voldemort. He > probably thought that once he killed DD, Voldemort's victory was a > sure thing. Leslie41: Except that he could have done far more damage if he had wanted to, and really was on the side of "evil". Killing Flitwick, Hermione and Luna, for example, instead of merely stupefying him and using that to distract the girls. Harry is looking for more reasons to be angry with him than the killing of DD, but no one involved with the fight can give him any, because the only "offensive" thing he's done is AK Dumbledore. He could have done sooooooo much more. From phil at pcsgames.net Tue Jun 6 23:53:27 2006 From: phil at pcsgames.net (Phil Vlasak) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 19:53:27 -0400 Subject: -=Spam=- [HPforGrownups] The Bloody Baron References: Message-ID: <00ec01c689c4$6df5abd0$6600a8c0@phil> No: HPFGUIDX 153459 Laura Lynn Walsh said: How did The Bloody Baron get bloody? He is described as being covered with silver blood. The only source I have read about for silver blood is a unicorn. Since he was covered with it as a ghost, I would assume that something happened to him at the time of his death that would have covered him with unicorn's blood. Is there anything else we know about him? Laura Now Phil: >From COS: "Oh, well ... I'd just been thinking ... if you had died, you'd have been welcome to share my toilet," said Myrtle, blushing silver. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Tue Jun 6 23:54:36 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 19:54:36 EDT Subject: Understanding Snape Message-ID: <4ac.15c7ec5.31b76fbc@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153460 Against Snape wrote: During HBP, the question of where Snape's loyalties lie is an important question. This question isn't answered by the end of the book. Here is my theory: 1) Snape was a Death-Eater until he knew that Voldemort was going to murder the Potters. At this point, I believe, as a result of his life debt to James, he either decided he had to warn DD, or else the life debt forced him to. Julie: I don't think we have any indication a life debt forces someone to act on it. In PS/SS Dumbledore told Harry he suspected Snape saved Harry because he owed Harry's father (James) a life debt. Dumbledore didn't say Snape *had* to save Harry, in fact he only theorizes that this is the reason Snape saved Harry. Unlike an Unbreakable Vow, a life debt seems to be more of a psychological burden that a physical one. So Snape must have chosen to warn DD, and DD says repeatedly that he trusts Snape completely and that he believes Snape was genuinely remorseful. This supports my theory that Snape *was* in fact genuinely remorseful about blabbing the prophecy, and likely also over his other actions while a DE. (Note that I say supports my theory, not proves it ;-) Snape was also willing to risk his life to help lbring down Voldemort, so he must have a lot to gain from that risk (release from Voldemort's service, clear path to becoming the next Dark Lord, redemption for his DE acts--all depending on your version of Snape!). And my version is RedemptivePattern!Snape (with credit to JKR for commenting originally on this possibility--more support for my theory ;-) 2) Once he did this, he realized that he would have to explain to Voldemort why he went to DD. I believe, at this point, he decided that in order to survive, he woud have to live a double life - a spy on DD for Voldemort, and a spy on Voldemort for DD. Julie: There are some indications in canon that Snape may have been trying to get a job at Hogwarts before he switched sides, that Voldemort wanted him in Hogwarts to spy on DD. If this is the case, then Snape wouldn't have to explain anything. He would simply let Voldemort believe he'd been successful obtaining a position from which to spy on DD, while in reality he is doing the opposite--spying on Voldemort for DD. He did decide he'd have to live a double life, but my theory is that he genuinely switched sides, and his loyalty is firmly to DD. Whatever information he passes on to Voldemort is sanctioned by DD. 3) Voldemort's downfall at the Potters' was good news for Snape - he would be able to live a single life, without having to worry about what the other side would do to him. At this position, he obviously would make Lupin his potion (which Lupin would later use as evidence that Snape is a good guy!). Julie: Voldemort's downfall was good news for Snape, though the books have given me the impression that Snape as well as DD believed Voldemort hadn't completely *died* and would return some day. Certainly Snape must have hoped Voldemort might fail at this, so he'd never have to deal with the Dark Lord again. But he knew the possibility was there. Still, he could have deserted DD and found ways to hide, building himself a new life. He is a very gifted wizard after all. But he didn't. As for Lupin's potion, he did make it. And whether Snape is good or evil or both, he's going to take actions that please DD, at least when DD is cognizant of what Snape is doing. Yet during times DD doesn't know what Snape is doing or thinking, Snape *still* takes actions that support the good side and help Harry survive. (E.g., saving Harry from Quirrel's hex in PS/SS, transporting Sirius and Harry back to Hogwarts and away from the possibility of returning Dementors in PoA, letting the Order know Harry had gone to the MoM in OotP--he could have easily feigned ignorance during any of these actions, but he acted anyway when he could have chosen not to act). Perhaps this is why Lupin continued to believe Snape was a good guy ;-) 4) During GF, Snape and DD planned what Snape would do when Voldemort returned to power. DD believed that Snape would be a good guy` Snape resumes his double agent job. During the year, he was confronted by Karkaroff. Being good at Legilimency, he knew that Karkaroff was not going to join Voldemort, so he said that he will stay with DD. Julie: Erm, well, I'm not sure of your point here, but Snape did stay with DD. Either out of loyalty (my belief) or because he wanted to continue playing him against Voldemort (your belief, I think?). We won't know for sure until Book 7 of course! 5) Snape saved DD after DD was hurt in the capture of the ring Horcrux, because he was worried that if he didn't, DD would live long enough to tell someone else about it. I think that Snape would have prefered that DD would die, as this would, in his opinion, be the beginning of the end of the forces against Voldemort. The unbreakable vow was also a necessity to convince Narcissa and Bellatrix that he is on their side. He probably knew every loophole in the vow he made, in order to not kill DD. Julie: There's absolutely no evidence DD would live long enough from the ring Horcrux to warn someone else. In fact if he was so close to dying, so dependent on Snape for his life, surely Snape could have bound him, hastened the effect of the poison, or by some other method made sure DD talked to no one before he died. Heck, I could have managed that, and I'm not a wizard! If Snape wanted DD to die while DD was completely vulnerable to Snape, then DD would be dead. I do agree Snape took the Unbreakable Vow at least partly to convince the sisters he was on Voldemort's side. If there were loopholes he no doubt knew them, but we don't have any direct evidence of loopholes. I think Snape also took it to protect Draco, and from his hand twitching I don't think he expected that third provision, but felt trapped into agreeing once he gotten to that point. The bigger question is whether DD expected the Vow before Snape took it, or Snape did it on his own and trapped both of them into a precarious situation. 6) At the end of HBP, he realized that his life as a double-agent has ended, so he took the side he thought was winning - Voldemort. He probably thought that once he killed DD, Voldemort's victory was a sure thing. Julie: I think Snape did the only thing he could do, whether he's ESE, OFH, or DDM. If he's one of the first two, he probably did it to save himself. If he's the latter, then he did it to save Draco and probably Harry. The biggest problem with DD's death is that we don't yet know everything that led to it. We don't know what DD meant when he said "Severus, please...", we don't know how ill DD was or if he could recover after the locket horcrux events, we don't even know if he could fully recover from the first (ring) horcrux he destroyed. DD's "dead" hand may well have been a harbinger of the eventual deterioration of the rest of his body. In fact, DD acted suspiciously like he was tying up loose ends throughout HBP, especially with Harry and all the lessons about Tom's past and how to destroy a horcrux. As if he knew he wouldn't be around for long. Against Snape finished: I think that this explains all of Snape's actions duing the series. Julie: My theory also explains all of Snape's actions during the series, with more canon support, IMO. It also makes Snape a much more interesting character, tragically flawed but not inherently evil. Julie, aka For Snape ;-) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 7 00:08:28 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 00:08:28 -0000 Subject: Understanding Snape In-Reply-To: <4ac.15c7ec5.31b76fbc@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153461 > Against Snape wrote: > > During HBP, the question of where Snape's loyalties lie is an important > question. This question isn't answered by the end of the book. Here is > my theory: > > 1) Snape was a Death-Eater until he knew that Voldemort was going to > murder the Potters. At this point, I believe, as a result of his life > debt to James, he either decided he had to warn DD, or else the life > debt forced him to. > > > Julie: > I don't think we have any indication a life debt forces someone to > act on it. In PS/SS Dumbledore told Harry he suspected Snape > saved Harry because he owed Harry's father (James) a life debt. > Dumbledore didn't say Snape *had* to save Harry, in fact he only > theorizes that this is the reason Snape saved Harry. Unlike an > Unbreakable Vow, a life debt seems to be more of a psychological > burden that a physical one. Alla: Eh, well, the hints could be interpreted both ways, I grant you that, but no more than that. There are PLENTY of hints in canon that IMO can be interpreted that Life Debt ( waves at Neri) indeed acts as very physical burden. DD as much as told Harry that Snape saved him because of Life debt, as JKR says his guesses or suspicions are never too far off ( paraphrase). DD fails and tragically IMO in evaluating people feelings, psychology so to speak, intellectually though he is right quite often, no? Besides, we have DD's insistence that life debt between Harry and Pettigrew is magic at its deepest ( paraphrase), sounds like pretty "physical" burden to me. Julie: > So Snape must have chosen to warn DD, and DD says repeatedly > that he trusts Snape completely and that he believes Snape was > genuinely remorseful. This supports my theory that Snape *was* in > fact genuinely remorseful about blabbing the prophecy, and likely > also over his other actions while a DE. (Note that I say supports my > theory, not proves it ;-) Alla: You make this conclusion because you don't think that Life debt literally forces person to act? Because if does, Snape did not really chose, din't he? As I said many times, too bad we don't know how exactly Life debt works, but because JKR still did not disclose the details, IMO it shows that it can prove critical. > Julie: > Voldemort's downfall was good news for Snape, though the books > have given me the impression that Snape as well as DD believed > Voldemort hadn't completely *died* and would return some day. > Certainly Snape must have hoped Voldemort might fail at this, > so he'd never have to deal with the Dark Lord again. But he knew > the possibility was there. Still, he could have deserted DD and > found ways to hide, building himself a new life. He is a very gifted > wizard after all. But he didn't. Alla: Could you refer me to Snape not believing that Voldemort died? Is it in Spinner End or somewhere else? Confused. And if he deserted Dumbledore, my guess is that he would or at least could have ended up in Azkaban, no? JMO, Alla From iam.kemper at gmail.com Wed Jun 7 00:21:18 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 17:21:18 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Mortality question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40606061721r40a1d23fu65cdb6a60e46e280@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153462 zandooda wrote: > Hi, everybody! I joined this group a few weeks ago and I already found > answers to a lot of questions that were torturing me for years. Thanks! > But there are still things that keep bugging me. I honestly tried to > find answers in old messages, but there are too many of them. > > Maybe someone of the veterans remembers and can point me to some old > thread, or give me a push in the right direction, because I'm pretty > sure that every word of every book was discussed. > > One of my questions concerns GoF. In the cemetery scene, in his speech > to DEs, LV describes his return to a human body and says:"But I was > willing to embrace mortal life again, before chasing immortality. I > set my sights lower...I would settle for my old body back again, and > my old strength." (GoF,p.656 US ed. or p.569 UK ed.) > > This is very frustrating, but I can't figure out why he is talking > about mortality here. He still has his Horcruxes, hasn't he? Until > they are destroyed, he is immortal, right? Please, please give me some > general idea of where to find the answer(off-list, if you think it's > too boring for others to read). Thanks in advance! > > Kemper now: Welcome zanooda! I did a quick check on gmail's search engine (effing awesome!) and only found a two threads that quote the scene in the graveyard. The first was in late July '05 which also asked about the quote, though no one responded. The second was in the middle of a thread on Sept. 6 '05 The subject of the thread is "either must die at the hand of the other, Contradiction or Clue." It was started by Valky. She and Saraquel were in discussion. The message number is 139720. Not sure if this will help, but there you are. On a side note: besides shipping, there are no boring topics only boring people. Kemper [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 7 00:32:58 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 00:32:58 -0000 Subject: DD and Draco's murder attempts WAS: Draco and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153463 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > What Dumbledore could have done was pro-actively take Draco and > > Narcissa into the Order's custody. This would have been the > > best move to ensure the safety of his school. I'm not sure that > > it would have been the best move for the Order, in that I think > > Draco would have been lost to them if he'd been interfered with > > that early. Plus, Snape may have died (that pesky Vow ). > >>Pippin: > ::boggles:: You want the Order to set up its own little relocation > camp? Betsy Hp: Doesn't the Order already have such a thing? Dumbledore says as much on the Tower to Draco when he's offering the Order's protection. They have the means to make Draco and his mother effectively disappear, thereby protecting them both from Voldemort. I'm not suggesting Dumbledore do something he'd find abhorent, merely do sooner what he offers to do at the end of the school year. > >>Pippin: > Oh dear. I think JKR dealt rather extensively with the problems > of 'protective custody' in OOP... Betsy Hp: Does she? Is it definitively stated that Dumbledore was *wrong* to keep Sirius protected? Is it even stated that Dumbledore was doing so against Sirius's will? > >>Pippin: > ...but if that's not enough for you, there's a link to Amnesty > International on JKR's website, and there you will find article 9 > of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: > No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. > Betsy Hp: I wasn't suggesting Draco suffer either arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. I was suggesting he be put into protective custody, a witness protection program, etc. (This could strike you as to-may- toh, to-mah-toh.) The key is though, JKR may support Amnesty International, but nothing we've seen suggests Dumbledore does. That's the rub. > >>Pippin: > There are rules like this because people like JKR think they're > a good idea. I would be very surprised if Dumbledore didn't think > so too. Betsy Hp: Dumbledore is perfectly willing to risk the lives of children (and other innocents) to further his own goals. He'll (apparently, per text) allow a child to enter an arena beyond his skill level that could lead to that child's death. As a test of character. I'm fairly sure Amnesty International would not approve. Neither do I think it'd approve of Dumbledore feeding a suspect truth serum without benefit of counsel. > >>Pippin: > Trusting Snape would be arbitrary, because though Dumbledore > trusts Snape to be honest with him, he does *not* trust Snape > to interpret evidence correctly. > Betsy Hp: Was Draco's role as Dumbledore's assassin supposed to be a mystery to Dumbledore? I never got that sense. The text seems to support Dumbledore knowing that Draco had been given the mission by Voldemort and why. I never got the sense that Dumbledore was confused about who sent the cursed necklace, or that he questioned what Snape told him. > >>Pippin: > Even as a practical matter, putting Draco in custody wouldn't have > protected the students. It was Dumbledore's location, not Draco's, > that made Hogwarts a target. Draco could have continued his > mission, or rather his feeble but dangerous attempts at it, > from anywhere. Betsy Hp: I don't think I understand what you're saying here. If Draco was removed from Hogwarts, the students of Hogwarts would still be in danger from him? How? > >>xuxunette: > > I think a comparison more appropriate would be to cast DD in the > role of a father. What is a loving father to do if he discovers > that one of his sons is turning bad? DD's answer is obviously not > to cast rejection on him. Betsy Hp: I love this idea, xuxunette: Draco as prodigal son. It especially makes sense with Draco being the Slytherin representative. (Slytherine being the rejected house, the scapegoat house.) And yes, per the story I think this is exactly what JKR was trying to show. Dumbledore wisely and compassionately giving Draco a chance to realize something about himself that Dumbledore seems to already know: Draco is an innocent; he is not a killer. So Dumbledore as spiritual leader, the leader of the good side, the side of light, etc. does exactly the right thing. Because he's battling beyond mere life and death. (Dumbledore has often scorned a too strong attachment to life.) So, for Dumbledore, Draco's soul is worth more than the absolute safety of his students. > >>xuxunette: > Of course, the peculiar parameters of the war situation they are > in have to be considered here and I guess that Dumbledore must > also believe that having Draco on the side of good would be > tactically a good move. Betsy Hp: I agree. Though it does paint a more Machiavellian!Dumbledore who places his role as Leader of the Order above his role as Headmaster. (Though an argument could be made that by actively fighting Voldemort he's more effectively safe-guarding his students in the long term. A Machiavellian argument. ) > >>xuxunette: > But in the end, I think that what is more important to DD - which > is also what makes Dumbledore such a good man, different from a > cold headed calculating general, and furthest from evil - is for > him to be able to offer mercy to Draco; a piece of freely given > love and forgiveness Draco may remember in the future and help him > making take the good path again. Betsy Hp: I think the issue with this view of Dumbledore is the taint of Katie's and Ron's very near deaths. I believe the near deaths were necessary for Draco's development (he needed the reality check), but that Dumbledore allowed the leeway for Draco to get that sort of development *does* suggest a bit of cold calculation under the kindly gleam. The lion lurking inside the lamb, perhaps? Betsy Hp From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Wed Jun 7 00:48:35 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 00:48:35 -0000 Subject: Mortality question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153464 --- "zanooda2" wrote: (editted) > > Hi, everybody! I joined this group a few weeks ago > Maybe someone of the veterans remembers and can point me to some > old thread, ... > One of my questions concerns GoF. In the cemetery scene, in his speech > to DEs, LV describes his return to a human body and says:"But I was > willing to embrace mortal life again, before chasing immortality. I > set my sights lower...I would settle for my old body back again, > and my old strength." (GoF,p.656 US ed. or p.569 UK ed.) > aussie: hope you have fun here. zanooda. Try a thread that starts from message 124268 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124268 From fairwynn at hotmail.com Tue Jun 6 20:20:28 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (fair wynn) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 15:20:28 -0500 Subject: Understanding Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153465 >From: "againstsnape" > >During HBP, the question of where Snape's loyalties lie is an important >question. This question isn't answered by the end of the book. Here is >my theory: > >1) Snape was a Death-Eater until he knew that Voldemort was going to >murder the Potters. At this point, I believe, as a result of his life >debt to James, he either decided he had to warn DD, or else the life >debt forced him to. > >2) Once he did this, he realized that he would have to explain to >Voldemort why he went to DD. I believe, at this point, he decided that >in order to survive, he woud have to live a double life - a spy on DD >for Voldemort, and a spy on Voldemort for DD. > >3) Voldemort's downfall at the Potters' was good news for Snape - he >would be able to live a single life, without having to worry about what >the other side would do to him. At this position, he obviously would >make Lupin his potion (which Lupin would later use as evidence that >Snape is a good guy!). > >4) During GF, Snape and DD planned what Snape would do when Voldemort >returned to power. DD believed that Snape would be a good guy` Snape >resumes his double agent job. >During the year, he was confronted by Karkaroff. Being good at >Legilimency, he knew that Karkaroff was not going to join Voldemort, so >he said that he will stay with DD. > >5) Snape saved DD after DD was hurt in the capture of the ring Horcrux, >because he was worried that if he didn't, DD would live long enough to >tell someone else about it. I think that Snape would have prefered that >DD would die, as this would, in his opinion, be the beginning of the end >of the forces against Voldemort. >The unbreakable vow was also a necessity to convince Narcissa and >Bellatrix that he is on their side. He probably knew every loophole in >the vow he made, in order to not kill DD. > >6) At the end of HBP, he realized that his life as a double-agent has >ended, so he took the side he thought was winning - Voldemort. He >probably thought that once he killed DD, Voldemort's victory was a sure >thing. > >I think that this explains all of Snape's actions duing the series. > Although there are many objections I could cite, the biggest and, in my opinion, most conclusive one is Snape on the night of the Ministry of Magic "fiasco" at the end of OOTP. After Harry gave his cryptic message to Snape that Padfoot was in the place where it was hidden, one might easily argue that from any loyalty standpoint, Snape had to check out that message or appear to be undermining the Order. So it would be possible for Snape to not be loyal to Dumbledore and the Order, and yet still have contacted Sirius at Grimmauld Place, to ascertain that Sirius was there, and be done with it. However, Dumbledore told told Harry that some time after his first contact to see if Sirius was at #12 GP, Snape contacted the Order again. At that time, 4 Order members were there. Snape told them that he was concerned that Harry and Co. might have gone to the Ministry. He sent the Order to the Ministry of Magic, as well as telling Sirius to stay put at #12 GP and alert Dumbledore to go to the Ministry of Magic also. Since everyone was aware that Dumbledore was the "only one he ever feared," this was an action that could only be BAD for Voldemort. There's no way that Snape's action in alerting the Order and Dumbledore to go to the Ministry could be anything other than an action to thwart Voldemort's goal of getting the prophecy and harming Harry. It would have been very easy to excuse Snape for never contacting the Order the second time. Why should he suspect that Harry had gone to the Ministry ? Unless, of course, he was thinking "out of the box" and wanted to gaurd Harry against the chance that he'd gone there. The last time he'd known where Harry went was when Harry and Hermione went with Umbridge into the forest. Since Umbridge had not returned, there was every reason to believe that they were all three still there. Further, there was no way that anyone would normally consider for Harry and Co. to get to the Ministry. The floo network was watched. Brooms were locked up. Harry couldn't apparate. He couldn't take the train. The only reason they were able to go was the odd chance that Harry and Hermione had blood on their clothes, thus attracting the thestrals. It would have been easy for Snape to say later that he couldn't imagine Harry ever getting outside of the general Hogwarts, Hogsmead, Forest locale. Further, during Dumbledore's conversation with Harry, later that night, when he tells Harry about Snape's actions, he also made clear to Harry that Snape had passed along to him all of the information from visions that Snape had seen in Harry's head during occlumency lessons. That means that information about Voldemorts attempts to get the prophecy and his attempts to use Harry, were being passed on to Dumbledore. Although there are many other actions that Snape takes that show his likelihood of being on the Order's side, his actions at the end of OOTP have really no other explanation than that he was supporting Dumbledore. wynnleaf (I'm new here - generally post on the Lexicon Forum) From penhaligon at gmail.com Wed Jun 7 01:54:36 2006 From: penhaligon at gmail.com (penhaligon at gmail.com) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 18:54:36 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: RAB revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000901c689d5$586521e0$0200a8c0@the248437c0a60> No: HPFGUIDX 153466 Great points. There is another location that might be of interest. Remember that Sirius bought his own home with the money he inherited from his uncle. This home should also have passed on to Harry through Sirius' will, and might have some interesting stuff there. Panhandle xuxu: In fact, my guess is that it is already in Harry's possession but he doesn't know it yet: the locket may well be sleeping in the vault we know Sirius possessed (presents he sent to his godsons), which he must have inherited from his generous uncle (or at least in which he put the inheritance), vault which in turn came into the ownership of Harry upon Sirius 'death. Clues: - Mudungus plotline being obvious - Emphasis put on the inheritance Harry received from Sirius by the mean of the whole business with Kreacher. - Distraction of readers attention from other possible assets in the inheritance by emphasis on Kreacher and Grimmauld. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/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 celizwh at intergate.com Wed Jun 7 02:01:22 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 02:01:22 -0000 Subject: Understanding Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153467 fair wynn: > There's no way that Snape's action in alerting the > Order and Dumbledore to go to the Ministry could be > anything other than an action to thwart Voldemort's > goal of getting the prophecy and harming Harry. > It would have been very easy to excuse Snape for > never contacting the Order the second time. Why > should he suspect that Harry had gone to the > Ministry ? [snip] The floo network was watched. > Brooms were locked up. Harry couldn't apparate. > He couldn't take the train. The only reason they > were able to go was the odd chance that Harry and > Hermione had blood on their clothes, thus attracting > the thestrals. It would have been easy for Snape to > say later that he couldn't imagine Harry ever getting > outside of the general Hogwarts, Hogsmead, Forest locale. > Further, during Dumbledore's conversation with > Harry, later that night, when he tells Harry about > Snape's actions, he also made clear to Harry that Snape > had passed along to him all of the information from > visions that Snape had seen in Harry's head during > occlumency lessons. That means that information about > Voldemorts attempts to get the prophecy and his attempts > to use Harry, were being passed on to Dumbledore. houyhnhnm: And there is the fact that the Order even knows about LV's plot to get his hands on the prophecy. They know about it by the time Harry comes to 12 Grimmauld Place. Either the information came from Snape or 1) Dumbledore has other spies placed as closely to Voldemort as Snape is, in which case the whole "Why does DD trust Snape?" question has to be revisited. 2) Dumbledore is omniscient, in which case the whole "Why does DD trust Snape?" question has to be revisited. So, Snape's actions in one way or another bring about the defeat of a plan that Voldemort threw all of his effort and resources into for a whole year. No way is that throwing scraps to the Order for the purpose of maintaining his cover as a DD loyal double agent. I don't think that it is possible to prove that Snape is Dumbledore's Man, but it is possible to disprove that he is Voldemort's, and his actions throughout OotP do so. Then it is necessary to read "Spinner's End" again with that in mind. Because everything he tells Bellatrix, whether confabulated out of half-truths or not, is basically a lie. He is representing himself to Bellatrix as a loyal Death eater when his actions OotP show that he cannot be one. It is also necesssary to reconsider his orders to the DEs to leave Harry for the Dark Lord. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Jun 7 03:48:32 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 03:48:32 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153468 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > > Tolkien is reported to have told a Bishop once that Lord of the Rings is a "very Catholic" story. This may have been clear to the author but I wonder how many readers come away with this view. Tonks: I am sure by now everyone here knows my views on this in regard to the HP series. I expect Harry to turn water into wine at the wedding, have a near death experience and come back with the help of the true Christ figures, DD and/or Fawlks. As far as the Christening is concerned. I agree that the Potters were concerned with Harry's spiritual welfare as well as his having a Godfather. The WW represents, IMO, amoung other things, the spiritual battle between good and evil on a cosmic plane. Also I have wondered for some time if DD wasn't the officiant at the christening. I think that after the baptism using the holy water, in place of chrism (the blessed olive-oil and balsam mixture used on the forehead and sometimes the hands) he used maybe olive-oil and a drop or two of blood from Fawkes, or a mixture of olive-oil, balsam and Fawkes blood. This would have given Harry an extra protection, an extra grace, in addition to his mother's sacrifice. Perhaps his mother's sacrifice protected his body and the blood of Fawkes protected his soul. Tonks_op (a high-church Episcopalian) From alexisnguyen at gmail.com Wed Jun 7 03:51:05 2006 From: alexisnguyen at gmail.com (P. Alexis Nguyen) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 23:51:05 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] RE: Understanding Snape In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153469 wynnleaf wrote: > It would have been very easy to excuse Snape for never contacting the Order > the second time. Why should he suspect that Harry had gone to the Ministry > ? Unless, of course, he was thinking "out of the box" and wanted to gaurd > Harry against the chance that he'd gone there. The last time he'd known > where Harry went was when Harry and Hermione went with Umbridge into the > forest. Since Umbridge had not returned, there was every reason to believe > that they were all three still there. Further, there was no way that anyone > would normally consider for Harry and Co. to get to the Ministry. The floo > network was watched. Brooms were locked up. Harry couldn't apparate. He > couldn't take the train. The only reason they were able to go was the odd > chance that Harry and Hermione had blood on their clothes, thus attracting > the thestrals. It would have been easy for Snape to say later that he > couldn't imagine Harry ever getting outside of the general Hogwarts, > Hogsmead, Forest locale. Not to argue the opposite since I don't necessarily believe it, but the idea must be brought up that it is simply NOT that easy to excuse Snape for not contacting the Order the second time and mentioning that Harry might have gone on another one of his "adventures." After all, Snape has been watching Harry for years. He knows that this is the kid who, when prevented from getting to Hogwarts, didn't immediately contact a nearby adult but instead drove a flying Ford Anglia to the school. This is the kid that has defied Voldemort several times. This is a kid that clearly acts before thinking and clearly acts on the option that isn't necessarily the most sensible one. Therefore, if I were in Snape's shoes, my first thought would be that Harry is going to find *some* way to get out of Hogwarts and to the Department of Mystery, and in fact, I think this thought should have occurred to any of Harry's teachers, especially given that Hermione is with him. (I know the thought apparently didn't really occur to anyone, but I'd like to think that was more plot device than logical thought on any of the Hogwarts staff members' parts.) Moreover, the evidence citing that Umbridge not coming back [from the forest] equates with Harry & Hermione coming still being there and with her doesn't quite work in my mind. After all, we know the forest is huge, and amidst a large grouping of trees and fantastical creatures, it can't be too hard to purposely lose track of someone, as Harry would be wont to do since he would be trying his best to get out of Hogwarts and get to Sirius. Anyway, those are my two bits, moot if Snape is not evil but needed saying nonetheless. ~Ali From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Jun 7 04:14:32 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 04:14:32 -0000 Subject: The heart and mind of Bella Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153470 I have been thinking for sometime about DE and what motivates them. At recent conferences I have taken to dressing up as Bella, because no one else does. But to really get into the role has been hard up till today. After a really hard day and a lot of anger and seeing someone screaming on a TV commercial at the same time I was 'ripping paper' to calm my nerves I have come to a closer understanding of Bella. (I read somewhere that if you can't go for a jog that ripping paper was a good idea to dispell the adrenalin.) So here it is... a trip into the mind of Bella: When you are very angry and the adrenalin is flowing through your body you must discharge this energy. Throw things, yell hit something or someone (as some do) or an even better way Crucio someone. The screams of your victim give pleasure, release. The same as throwing something only better. There is no empathy, only the pure release of the adrenalin induced rage that has engulfed your body. Hearing the screams releases the raw energy that surges through your body. You don't think of the screams as attached to a real human being or even a living being. The screams are a way to release the trapped energy within you. Better than ripping paper. The more they scream, the freer you become. ----------------- Tonks_op who is really a very nice person... (well after reading some recent post about 'nice people', maybe not quite that nice. ;-) From jdwilkes45 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 6 20:45:19 2006 From: jdwilkes45 at yahoo.com (JULIA WILKES) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 13:45:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Regulus and Kreacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060606204519.74211.qmail@web37901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153471 Kayla wrote: > If Regulus was alive, wouldn't that mean Kreacher would have > automatically gone to him as being a Black, instead of Harry? > I seem to recall Kreacher was bound, although unwillingly, to > Harry and not another Black. bboyminn: > If the binding factor is Elfin Honor as I suspect, then Kreacher > would have had no way of knowing who was or wasn't alive, he would > simply have to follow his honor and go where he seemed to belong > regardless of his personal desires. Julia: Even if Regulus is still alive, Kreacher would still go to Sirius because It Kreacher goes to the eldest surviving Black family member and that is Sirius... Right? From aida_costa at hotmail.com Wed Jun 7 00:25:38 2006 From: aida_costa at hotmail.com (nowheregirrrl) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 00:25:38 -0000 Subject: Snape as the lover of Regulus Black In-Reply-To: <41b.2cebf94.31b66da0@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153472 It's an interesting idea, but I don't think JKR will touch homosexuality with a ten foot pole, no matter how 'tolerant' she preaches to be. She is a practicing member of the Church of Scotland and the HP books have some pretty heavy-handed Christian allusions. "nowheregirrrl" From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 7 03:35:06 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 03:35:06 -0000 Subject: DD and Draco's murder attempts WAS: Draco and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153473 > Betsy Hp: > So yeah, Dumbledore's actions are often foolish and inexcusable (or > cold-hearted and manipulative) in real life. But in this sort of > book, they're par the course. Unfortunately, I think JKR tries to > have her cake and eat it too, and the logic of Dumbledore's > character suffers for it. Okay, I'll bite. In what way do you see JKR as trying to have her cake and eat it too with DD? Myself, I think most of the problem comes from the "epitome of goodness" comment. That creates an immense tension which fuels much of the DD argument. I wonder if, given the chance to give that interview again, JKR would phrase things the same way? Lupinlore From mros at xs4all.nl Tue Jun 6 23:16:18 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 01:16:18 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter References: Message-ID: <002301c689bf$38482990$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 153474 Ken wrote: >>>Tolkien is reported to have told a Bishop once that Lord of the Rings is a "very Catholic" story<<< Yes. But Tolkien also wrote (I paraphrase loosely) "everything I create sprouts from the mulch of everything I've experienced" A very true thought. And Tolkien *was* a very convinced Catholic. But he was also deeply in love with AngloSaxon culture language (as well as Greek and Latin myths and language, Gothic, Icelandic etc etc) And Tolkien also *detested* the Narnia stories. C.S. Lewis was one of his dearest friends, but Tolkien scoffed about the mishmash of magical beings and the anachronisms (fauns with umbrellas and beavers making tea etc) and he absolutely *abhorred* allergory, christian or otherwise. Stories, according to Tolkien (and I heartily agree with him), have merit only as *stories*. Of course, the cultural values of an author will be reflected in his/her writings, but is it really necessary of proclaiming everything a christian author writes as 'inherently christian'? Why? What would be the point? Can a story only be relevant if it carries some christian 'message' in the christian mind? Marion [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From leslie41 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 7 05:13:48 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 05:13:48 -0000 Subject: Homosexuality: Was: Snape as the lover of Regulus Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153475 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nowheregirrrl" wrote: > > It's an interesting idea, but I don't think JKR will touch > homosexuality with a ten foot pole, no matter how 'tolerant' she > preaches to be. She is a practicing member of the Church of Scotland > and the HP books have some pretty heavy-handed Christian allusions. > > "nowheregirrrl" > Leslie41: I agree that Rowling wouldn't touch homosexuality with a ten-foot pole, but I think it's because it would take attention away from the main story. And the fact that she's a member of the Church of Scotland (as opposed to the Catholic Church or Southern Baptist, for example) actually means she's a member of a church that is quite open minded when it comes to homosexuals and homosexual behavior, and even homosexual marriages and clergy. The Church of Scotland supports the repeal of "Clause 28", which forbids public schools from teaching about homosexuality. According to religioustolerance.org: "John Cairns, a senior official in the Church of Scotland called the existing law "completely useless." He said that it has created "fear and stigma" against homosexuals. The church's Convener, the Rev John J. Laidlaw, commented: "Young people in our schools are increasingly aware of the variety of sexual orientations and lifestyles, and education must start from where they are. Schools teach about positive relationships and that is the appropriate context in which to include understanding of sexual relationships." Does this mean Rowling agrees? Not necessarily. I'm an Episcopalian, and I support the ordination of Gene Robinson (gay bishop). Many of my fellow parishoners do not. But I would be extremely surprised to find that Rowling thinks homosexuality is wrong. I may be extremely incorrect about this, but my sense is that she would not only have no problem with homosexuality, but would also support the idea of homosexuals marrying. Just my "feel," nothing I can prove, of course. I would be shocked, however, to find that any quote of hers reveals her to think that homosexuality is some sort of perversion. I just cannot envision her thinking that. It does not jibe with my sense of the novels, which stress tolerance and open-mindedness almost above anything else. But of course, even if Rowling doesn't have any negative feelings about homosexuality, it still doesn't mean that Snape was RB's lover. From leslie41 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 7 05:19:14 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 05:19:14 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153476 > Tonks: > Also I have wondered for some time if DD wasn't the officiant at the > christening. I think that after the baptism using the holy water, > in place of chrism (the blessed olive-oil and balsam mixture used on > the forehead and sometimes the hands) he used maybe olive-oil and a > drop or two of blood from Fawkes, or a mixture of olive-oil, balsam > and Fawkes blood. This would have given Harry an extra protection, > an extra grace, in addition to his mother's sacrifice. Perhaps his > mother's sacrifice protected his body and the blood of Fawkes > protected his soul. > > Tonks_op > (a high-church Episcopalian) > Leslie41: You know, it occurs to me that Harry's scar is on his forehead in just the place that he would have been baptized! I never thought of that until your post. Certainly more evidence that the baptism might have provided him with some sort of spiritual protection. From pebbles104 at sbcglobal.net Tue Jun 6 21:43:09 2006 From: pebbles104 at sbcglobal.net (Kellie and Lady J) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 17:43:09 -0400 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potte References: Message-ID: <000c01c689b2$3474ed60$6500a8c0@shannonn2zgd3u> No: HPFGUIDX 153477 snip Leslie41: > Interesting, but the phoenix as a symbol/mythical being predates > Christianity, as does the Griffin. end snip Kellie here: I agree with this and just to add to it, many things that we consider part of Christianity predated the Christian faith. Many things we associate with Christmas, as well as Easter, have roots in non- Christian traditions. For instance, Easter is derived from the name of a pagan goddess of fertility. When Christianity was taking root, to try and encourage people to follow it, leaders of the church made Christmas at the same time as a pagan festival devoted to the winter solstice. From kelley_thompson at sbcglobal.net Wed Jun 7 05:15:42 2006 From: kelley_thompson at sbcglobal.net (Kelley) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 05:15:42 -0000 Subject: Snape as the lover of Regulus Black In-Reply-To: <41b.2cebf94.31b66da0@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153478 Susan wrote: > So why did Snape turn away from the Death Eaters? > > Perhaps because he loved Regulus Black and when Regulus was > killed, Snape went berserk.... Eh, much as I'd love to see it, I've lost hope JKR will give us a same sex couple in the series. > Also, perhaps Snape was interested in Sirius, and became angry > at Sirius when a) Sirius rejected him and b) Sirius became > involved with Remus Lupin Really hard for me to imagine Snape being interested in Sirius, but I would have loved to see Sirius/Remus; probably still my favorite fandom pairing. And, if she were hoping to make a point with a same sex couple, they would've been the best choice, imo. Of course, I still believe JKR missed the boat with Snape -- he's obviously a vampire. Hasn't she read the books? ;-) --Kelley From iam.kemper at gmail.com Wed Jun 7 05:43:37 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 22:43:37 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: <002301c689bf$38482990$63fe54d5@Marion> References: <002301c689bf$38482990$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: <700201d40606062243s68dbe6e6qed4610340efbe68c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153479 > Ken wrote: > >>>Tolkien is reported to have told a Bishop once that Lord of the Rings > is a "very Catholic" story<<< > > Marion responded: > Yes. But Tolkien also wrote (I paraphrase loosely) "everything I create sprouts from the mulch of everything I've experienced" > A very true thought. And Tolkien *was* a very convinced Catholic. But he was also deeply in love with AngloSaxon culture language (as well as Greek and Latin myths and language, Gothic, Icelandic etc etc) > And Tolkien also *detested* the Narnia stories. C.S. Lewis was one of his dearest friends, but Tolkien scoffed about the mishmash of magical beings and the anachronisms (fauns with umbrellas and beavers making tea etc) and he absolutely *abhorred* allergory, christian or otherwise. Stories, according to Tolkien (and I heartily agree with him), have merit only as *stories*. Of course, the cultural values of an author will be reflected in his/her writings, but is it really necessary of proclaiming everything a christian author writes as 'inherently christian'? > Why? > What would be the point? > Can a story only be relevant if it carries some christian 'message' in the christian mind? Kemper now: Of course it's not necessary to proclaim a book as 'inherently Christian' from an author who's a Christian (CSL is a Christian author; JRRT is an author who is Christian and as well as the least boring writer of the two). And of course a story can be relevant without carrying some Christian message. But what fun would it be for any of us to edit out or censor our real life interests when we write or respond to posts about a boy and his wand... and his potions professor, and his half-giant pseudo-big brother, and his headmaster, and his DADA professors, and his friends, and his friend's sister, and his Godfather, and his Godfather's brother, and his nemesis, and his elf, and his everything else? Kemper, a mostly non-christian and extremely progressive poster who's somewhat interested in the symbolic baptisms that may be in the books and who's very uninterested in Harry's probable Christian baptism but who believes in the American first amendment and would rather die for that than for oil [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Jun 7 05:58:05 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 05:58:05 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Bloody Baron's Blood In-Reply-To: <00ec01c689c4$6df5abd0$6600a8c0@phil> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153480 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Phil Vlasak" wrote: > > Laura Lynn Walsh said: > How did The Bloody Baron get bloody? He is described as > being covered with silver blood. The only source I have read > about for silver blood is a unicorn. Since he was covered > with it as a ghost, I would assume that something happened > to him at the time of his death that would have covered him > with unicorn's blood. Is there anything else we know about > him? > Laura > > Now Phil: > From COS: > "Oh, well ... I'd just been thinking ... > if you had died, you'd have been welcome to share my toilet," > said Myrtle, blushing silver. > bbboyminn: I think Phil is on the right track here. We know the blood is silver, but we also know that Ghost themselves are silvery in color. To put it another way, ghosts are monochromatic; they consist of varying shades of a single color that is a pale silvery color. The Bloody Baron's blood has come up several times in the book, and it is difficult to determine if JKR is simply maintaining the Bloody Barons mystic, or if she is constantly pointing out something that will eventually be significant to the story. So, no I don't think the Bloody Baron's blood is necessarily Unicorn blood, it could be, but I don't think we can use the silver color to determine that. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jun 7 06:27:04 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 06:27:04 -0000 Subject: Repetitive discussion: Was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153481 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" wrote: > > > > Geoff: > > This whole topic is one which has been covered in great detail in > the past. > > > > Might I refer members to one of the longer and more interesting > threads? > > Thanks for the tip-- > The reason this group exists is because for us issues related to the > books never get old, or settled conclusively. People often change > their minds or come up with new things to say, or just want to > express their opinions again to people who haven't read them before, > especially after two years (the date of the post you cite). I'm > sure the threads on God and Harry Potter from two years ago are > interesting, and I will go back and read them. But doubtless > they're not conclusive, especially after HBP. My guess is they > won't ever be conclusive, because no discussion of the books will > be "conclusive" except with regard to canon, and what is "canonical". Geoff: I wasn't suggesting for a moment that we stop discussing topics such as these but it is sometimes useful to refer back to what's been said in the past. I keep a personal archive of every message I've posted in nearly three years of being on the group and this is often invaluable for re-quoting in a current thread. There has been a problem, certainly since HBP, when some topics have gone on and on and on... ad infinitum ad nauseum when the same material is recycled without really being added to. But bloing the dust off an old thread came sometimes be illuminating. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 7 06:36:35 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 06:36:35 -0000 Subject: Harry a Horcrux? In-Reply-To: <44833605.1030401@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153482 KJ wrote > To me, this proves that no spell was performed prior to the murders at GH, or he would have some idea of what might have occurred. Carol responds: Forgive me for responding to only one small protion of your post, but I'm still going around in circles trying to figure out Yahoo's new "improved" method of organizing our posts. Can you tell me where you found the idea that the Horcrux spell must be performed *before* the murder? As I understand it, Tom Riddle had murdered at least three (I count four becuse I see Moaning Myrtle's death as a murder) times before he even knew exactly what a Horcrux was, much less how to create one. And surely, the death of his father was sufficiently important to use for the creation of a Horcrux. IMO, it was used for the ring Horcrux. *But* Tom Riddle did not go to Little Hangleton planning to murder anyone. He went there to find Marvolo Gaunt. When he decided to kill his father and blame it on Morfin, he borrowed Morfin's wand and perhaps stole the ring, or he stole the ring after he had killed all three Riddles and implanted the false memory. But he certainly did not create the ring Horcrux until much later, certainly after the conversation with Slughorn the following school year and probably after extensive research, which could not have been done until he left Hogwarts. Apparently a Horcrux is created by a spell placed on an object *after* a murder is committed. AFWK, there is no statute of limitations on the amount of time that can pass between the murder and the creation of the Horcrux, and apparently LV can somehow choose the murder that is used to create the Horcrux. But the idea I've seen on this list that the object has to be present at the murder scene seems false. It's possible, of course, that Tom stole the ring before he killed his father and wore it when he committed the murder, but he certainly could not have put a Horcrux-creating spell on it first. More likely, it was a magpielike souvenir of the murders, not to mention that it was his "rightful" possession as the Heir of Slytherin. Which brings me to a sidenote: How could Tom be the Heir of Slytherin if Morfin, who was ahead of him genealogically, was still alive? Evidently Morfin, who was also a Parselmouth, never attended Hogwarts and consequently didn't count. (Only the Heir of slytherin could open the Chamber of Secrets.) To return to the topic, I think that the diary was created with Myrtle's murder (significant because it was the first), but the diary was not present at the murder, and it certainly was not a previously prepared Horcrux for the same reason that the ring wasn't: he didn't know how to make one. The cup and locket were present for Hepzibah Smith's murder, but he killed her to obtain them. They were not prepared by some spell to be Horcruxes before her murder. (I think that her murder was used to create the cup Horcrux because of her connection to Helga Hufflepuff.) I won't give any more examples. I'll just state what I think is the sequence of events in creating a Horcrux. A murder is committed. The soul is damaged (torn or perforated, so to speak, but not detached from the main soul). An object is selected for the Horcrux. A spell (probably a complex incantation) is performed to encase the soul bit in the object. Additional protections may be placed on the Horcrux, such as sealing the locket shut and placing a curse on the ring, but these are optional, as is the elaborate set of protections around the locket (presumably identical for the real and fake Horcruxes). But to state that no encasing spell was performed before Godric's Hollow (a point I agree with, BTW) does not prove that LV did or did not intend to make a Horcrux using Harry's murder. Perhaps he did, but if he had lived and Harry had died, he would, as far as I can determine from he evidence, have performed the encasing spell on the intended Horcrux *after* he had that particular soul bit to encase. Carol, well aware of the unanswered questions related to Horcruxes but not wanting to bring them up here From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jun 7 06:37:43 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 06:37:43 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: <002301c689bf$38482990$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153483 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Marion Ros" wrote: > > > Ken wrote: > >>>Tolkien is reported to have told a Bishop once that Lord of the Rings > is a "very Catholic" story<<< Marion: > Yes. But Tolkien also wrote (I paraphrase loosely) "everything I create sprouts from the mulch of everything I've experienced" > A very true thought. And Tolkien *was* a very convinced Catholic. But he was also deeply in love with AngloSaxon culture language (as well as Greek and Latin myths and language, Gothic, Icelandic etc etc) > And Tolkien also *detested* the Narnia stories. C.S. Lewis was one of his dearest friends, but Tolkien scoffed about the mishmash of magical beings and the anachronisms (fauns with umbrellas and beavers making tea etc) and he absolutely *abhorred* allergory, christian or otherwise. Stories, according to Tolkien (and I heartily agree with him), have merit only as *stories*. Of course, the cultural values of an author will be reflected in his/ her writings, but is it really necessary of proclaiming everything a christian author writes as 'inherently christian'? > Why? > What would be the point? > Can a story only be relevant if it carries some christian 'message' in the christian mind? Geoff: Just a brief quote from something I wrote in message 128453 - in /another/ thread on Christianity and HP(!) I note AyanEva's comment that Harry Potter is not strictly a Christian story. It has been pointed out on a number of occasions in the past that JK Rowling, like Tolkien, is writing from a personal Christian background and the tenets of Christianity can be seen covertly in many places. Yes, HP and LOTR can be read in a non-Christian fashion by non- Christians but I believe that the authors have used their own belief as a springboard for their created worlds of fiction. From kjones at telus.net Wed Jun 7 07:53:52 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 00:53:52 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry a Horcrux? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44868610.4070704@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 153484 justcarol67 wrote: > Can you tell me where you found the idea that the Horcrux spell must > be performed *before* the murder? KJ writes: I have never considered that a spell would be performed prior to a murder in order to make a horcrux. This has been an idea that has cropped up time to time over the past year, and I hate to attribute it because it may have been my own misunderstanding of another poster. > Apparently a Horcrux is created by a spell placed on an object *after* > a murder is committed. AFWK, there is no statute of limitations on the > amount of time that can pass between the murder and the creation of > the Horcrux, and apparently LV can somehow choose the murder that is > used to create the Horcrux. KJ: That interests me as well. How can he commit multiple murders and still be able to pick which murder, which soul split, and which horcrux holder go together????? > > But the idea I've seen on this list that the object has to be present > at the murder scene seems false. It's possible, of course, that Tom > stole the ring before he killed his father and wore it when he > committed the murder, but he certainly could not have put a > Horcrux-creating spell on it first. More likely, it was a magpielike > souvenir of the murders, not to mention that it was his "rightful" > possession as the Heir of Slytherin. KJ: I agree completely with this timing. Tom might not have made his first horcrux until well after he left Hogwarts. He "disappeared" for about 10 years, and on his return to apply for a job at Hogwarts, he showed only a few signs of damage. It has been suggested by others that Harry may find some object at GH that was meant to be made into a horcrux, but I find that very unlikely as well. > To return to the topic, I think that the diary was created with > Myrtle's murder (significant because it was the first), but the diary > was not present at the murder, and it certainly was not a previously > prepared Horcrux for the same reason that the ring wasn't: he didn't > know how to make one. KJ: While I agree whole-heartedly with your timing, I have a hard time recognizing the death of Myrtle as a murder. I don't think that Tom released the basilisk with the specific intention of killing people, that is just what basilisks do apparently. I don't suppose that Tom concerned himself about it, but I don't think that it would cause a split in his soul unless it was malicious and meant. I also don't think that he would find Myrtle of sufficient importance to use that murder as the basis for a horcrux. I have seen a few hardy posters attempt to come up with sufficiently important people to match to the horcruxes, but I find either too many murders or not enough significant murders. > Carol, well aware of the unanswered questions related to Horcruxes but > not wanting to bring them up here KJ, especially appreciative of posts that agree with me, there being so few of them From nrenka at yahoo.com Wed Jun 7 08:18:29 2006 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 08:18:29 -0000 Subject: Understanding Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153485 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > He is representing himself to Bellatrix as a loyal Death eater when > his actions OotP show that he cannot be one. I think there's a third option here, actually implied by the original post, which is being missed: IF Snape is playing two sides against the middle--and thus has both the ability and occasionally the motivation to work for either side-- THEN there is nothing to contradict the idea that he's generally being a good type in OotP but isn't acting for the good in HBP. In fact, that did seem the premise of the OP, and an argument which can't either be proven or conclusively refuted at this point, given the lack of information. It then means that actions in OotP can't and don't necessarily prove anything about Snape's mindset and actions in HBP. -Nora relaxes in yet another new city From elfundeb at gmail.com Wed Jun 7 10:29:19 2006 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 06:29:19 -0400 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 18, Birthday Surprises Message-ID: <80f25c3a0606070329u331aa949t9392e8bebdff2657@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153486 CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 18, Birthday Surprises The chapter opens with Harry confiding to Ron and Hermione that Dumbledore has assigned him to persuade Slughorn to divulge the true horcrux memory. Ron takes the view that Slughorn is not likely to refuse Harry anything, while Hermione believes it will be very difficult and he must work out a strategy first. When Harry mentions Ron's views, Hermione reacts angrily and storms off. In Potions class, Hermione avoids both Harry and Ron. Slughorn begins with Golpalott's Third Law, which (as Hermione recites) states that the antidote for a blended poison will be equal to more than the sum of the antidotes for each of the separate components. Slughorn explains that the task is to find "that added component" that will transform the disparate components, then sets the students to create an antidote for a phial of unidentified poison. Hermione, after brightly reminding Harry that the Prince will not be able to help Harry with this assignment, gets to work. Neither Harry nor Ron has any idea of what to do, so they begin imitating Hermione. Realizing his Potions reputation is about to disappear, Harry consults his copy of Advanced Potion-Making and finds that the Prince has scribbled the words, "Just shove a bezoar down their throats" in the margin. Harry rummages in the supply cupboard until he locates a bezoar. When Slughorn examines everyone's results, Harry shows him the bezoar. Roaring with laughter, and impressed with Harry's nerve, Slughorn applauds Harry's response and applauds Harry's intuitive grasp of potion-making "just like his mother." Meanwhile, Hermione (whose antidote contains 52 ingredients including her own hair) is livid. After class, Harry dawdles and after everyone else has left, casually asks Slughorn what he knows about horcruxes. Slughorn stiffens and begins to sweat, asserting vehemently that he knows nothing about horcruxes, as the memory attests, then rushes out and slams the door. Neither Hermione nor Ron has much sympathy for Harry's failure, as both are unhappy about Harry's triumph in Potions class. Harry decides to let Slughorn think he has forgotten his inquiry and Slughorn soon reverts to his affectionate treatment of Harry. Harry is determined to attend the next Slug Club party, but Slughorn doesn't seem to be having any. Meanwhile, Hermione reports that she has been unable to learn anything about horcruxes in the library. February arrives and the snow melts. It is replaced by "cold, dreary wetness" and the beginning of Apparition lessons for the sixth-years. The instructor, Wilkie Twycross, informs the students that the enchantment prohibiting apparating inside the Hogwarts grounds has been lifted in the Great Hall for the duration of the lesson. Harry spots Draco Malfoy having a whispered argument with Crabbe, and when Twycross asks the students to space themselves out for their first attempt, Harry positions himself directly behind Draco so he can eavesdrop. Draco tells Crabbe that it's none of his business what he's doing and that Draco doesn't know how much longer it will take, but that Crabbe and Goyle should just "do as you're told and keep a lookout." Harry snidely comments that he tells his friends what he's up to when he asks them to be lookouts. At that moment Twycross begins his lesson. None of the sixth-years is successful in the first lesson, although Susan Bones manages to splinch herself. Upon returning to the dormitory, Harry pulls out the Marauder's Map and begins looking for Draco who, as it turns out, is in the Slytherin common room. Harry states his determination to keep an eye on Malfoy so he can find out what he's up to. Over the next couple of weeks, Harry notices Crabbe and Goyle moving around the castle on their own more often than usual, or stationary in deserted corridors, but at those times Harry can't find Malfoy anywhere on the map. Ron's birthday arrives and he wakes up to a pile of presents. Harry tosses another on the pile. Ron digs in, finding, among other things, a gold watch with odd symbols around the edges and moving stars instead of hands. Harry barely glances at it, as he is rummaging through his trunk for the Marauder's Map, tossing out half its contents before finding the map. Harry searches the map in vain for Malfoy while Ron offers Harry a Chocolate Cauldron. Harry declines; Ron eats several. Harry is ready to go down to breakfast, but Ron, motionless and pale, declares his undying love for Romilda Vane. Harry laughs it off as a joke, but Ron responds by punching Harry in the ear. Harry retaliates with Levicorpus, but then realizes that the box of Chocolate Cauldrons was the one Romilda had given Harry for Christmas, spiked with Love Potion. Harry decides to take Ron to Slughorn's office for an antidote on the pretext that Romilda is there taking extra Potions lessons. Slughorn is in his office, and first suggests that Harry could have whipped up the antidote himself, but relents and agrees to prepare the antidote. The antidote is effective, though Ron is horrified. Slughorn decides Ron needs a pick-me-up and discovers a bottle of oak-matured mead he had meant to give Dumbledore for Christmas. He decides to open it anyway and offers a toast to 'Ralph'. Harry thinks this might be a good opportunity to bring up horcruxes again, but then notices ? before Slughorn does -- that there is something terribly wrong with Ron, who has already swallowed his glass. He crumples, extremities jerking, foaming at the mouth, with bulging eyes. Harry urges Slughorn to do something, but Slughorn is paralysed with shock. Harry tears through Slughorn's bag until he finds the bezoar and shoves it in Ron's mouth. With a great shudder, Ron becomes limp and still. QUESTIONS 1. What do you think of Golpalott's Third Law? Was it included as an example of magical principles? Do you think it will be applied in Book 7, either actually or metaphorically? And is there any significance to the name Golpalott, other than its resemblance to gulp-a-lot? 2. Harry and Ron appear incapable of anything in Potions class without Hermione's assistance. They can't even manage to consult Advanced Potion Making to figure out what to do (although Harry does look in the margins for advice from the Prince). How did they do so well on their Potions OWLs? And is this joke getting old now that the Trio are 16? 3. How do you think Lily acquired her reputation as having an "intuitive grasp of potion-making"? 4. Why is it so important to Hermione to outshine Harry in Potions? Is it a need for recognition? Fear of failure? Concern about Harry's reliance on an unknown author? Annoyance that Harry is taking credit for the Prince's work? Something else? And why do you think she put her own hair into her potion? 5. JKR frequently makes a point of describing the weather when she shifts to a new scene or section of narrative; for example, February brought "cold dreary wetness." Do you think JKR is using the weather to set a mood here or is it just transition? 6. Wilkie Twycross tells the students that the restrictions on Apparition have been lifted in the Great Hall for the duration of the lesson. If it's that simple, couldn't anyone undo the restriction? Why, then, is Draco spending an entire term trying to create an entrance through the Vanishing Cabinets? Shouldn't the DEs have tried to undo the restriction long before now? 7. Is the watch Ron received for his coming of age birthday significant in any way? 8. JKR uses Ron to portray the effects of Love Potions in a very humorous way (I thought Ron's deadpan comments about Romilda Vane were the most laugh-out-loud funny in the entire book). Does this scene help to envision the effect of Merope's love potion on Tom Riddle Sr.? How do you think Riddle's family and friends reacted to lovelorn Tom? Is JKR lampooning the effect of crushes on us Muggles? 9. Why is Ron horrified when Slughorn administers the antidote? Is he feeling the disappointment of the crush wearing off, or is he just embarrassed at having acted the way he did? And why does JKR always select Ron as a victim of forms of magic with sophomorically humorous effects? 10. There is so much Slughorn in this chapter it could have been named for him. Slughorn's actions include (i) invoking Lily, (ii) reacting badly to Harry's inquiry about horcruxes, (iii) calling Ron "Ralph", (iv)opening a bottle of mead intended for Dumbledore, and (v) failing to recognize Ron's symptoms or take responsive action, even though the bezoar was in his bag. How do these actions affect our prior perception of his character? Is Slughorn a sympathetic character despite his faults? What do you think of his ethics? His potion-making skills? Bonus Question. Despite the fact that ch. 18 is infused with potions, former potions master Snape is barely mentioned. If Snape had still been potions master, how do you think he would he have handled Ron's predicament? Debbie with many thanks to Petra Pan and SSSusan for their comments on the summary (and especially for pointing out all my mistakes) NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see "HPfGU HBP Chapter Discussions" at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Wed Jun 7 11:16:17 2006 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 12:16:17 +0100 (BST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: HBP 18, Birthday Surprises In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0606070329u331aa949t9392e8bebdff2657@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060607111617.9997.qmail@web86203.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153487 Great summary, great questions. --- elfundeb wrote: > > 1. What do you think of Golpalott's Third Law? Was > it included as an > example of magical principles? I think it demonstrates that Hogwarts teaches theory as well, that it's not a trade school as many readers seem to think. I always got a feeling that there is more theory there (especially in Transfiguration) that Harry lets us see, but Rowling felt the need to strengthen the impression. > > 2. Harry and Ron appear incapable of anything in > Potions class without > Hermione's assistance. They can't even manage to > consult Advanced Potion > Making to figure out what to do (although Harry does > look in the margins for > advice from the Prince). How did they do so well on > their Potions OWLs? Maybe OWLs have a lot of multiple choice questions, they are much easier to get right than open-ended research. > And is this joke getting old now that the Trio are > 16? No, I don't think so. Potions course seems to be increasing in complexity each year. If they missed basic principles, then the distance to any kind of understanding just increases with each lesson. > 4. Why is it so important to Hermione to outshine > Harry in Potions? Is it > a need for recognition? Fear of failure? Concern > about Harry's reliance on > an unknown author? Annoyance that Harry is taking > credit for the Prince's > work? Something else? Justice, I think. Harry does not have any understanding of the Potions, but he gets the top marks. She didn't have a problem accepting that Harry is better in DADA, so I don't think it's an envy or anything like that. > 9. Why is Ron horrified when Slughorn administers > the antidote? Is he > feeling the disappointment of the crush wearing off, > or is he just > embarrassed at having acted the way he did? And why > does JKR always select > Ron as a victim of forms of magic with > sophomorically humorous effects? I think it's embarassment. As to why Rowling does it to him, I don't know. But she'd better stop if she wants the readers and Hermione to take him for anything more than a clown. > > 10. There is so much Slughorn in this chapter it > could have been named for > him. Slughorn's actions include (i) invoking Lily, > (ii) reacting badly to > Harry's inquiry about horcruxes, (iii) calling Ron > "Ralph", (iv)opening a > bottle of mead intended for Dumbledore, and (v) > failing to recognize Ron's > symptoms or take responsive action, even though the > bezoar was in his bag. > How do these actions affect our prior perception of > his character? Is > Slughorn a sympathetic character despite his faults? > What do you think of > his ethics? His potion-making skills? I found Slughorn a sympathetic character. The only thing about him I'd call a "fault" was his handling of the Horcrux memory. Still, in the end he came through with the truth. More than can be said about Lupin. :-) > > Bonus Question. Despite the fact that ch. 18 is > infused with > potions, former potions master Snape is barely > mentioned. If Snape had > still been potions master, how do you think he would > he have handled Ron's > predicament? He would've let them in. Since Potter would not be in the Potions class, Snape wouldn't spend too much time ridiculing him for failing to produce the antidote by himself. If Madame Pomfrey is expected to have this antidote in stock, Snape would send them to her, of course. Otherwise he'd brew it just as flawlessly as Slughorn did. No celebration with mead, of course. :-) But if Ron still managed to get himself poisoned while in his office, I don't expect Snape would be as helpless as Slughorn. He probably carries bezoar with him all the time. Irene ___________________________________________________________ All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html From orgone9 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 7 11:49:31 2006 From: orgone9 at yahoo.com (Len Jaffe) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 04:49:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Homosexuality: Was: Snape as the lover of Regulus Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060607114931.50162.qmail@web80611.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153488 Regarding a Snape/Regulus Black realtionship, "nowheregirrrl" wrote: It's an interesting idea, but ... [ len edited ] The len saiys: I was, a few weeks back, going tosomewhat flippantly suggest a Snape/Filch relationship. Their always up late, and it is always Snape and/or Filch catching Harry out of bed, etc. But then a discussion of a Filch as papa snape developed and I just didn't have the heart to turn the conversation from family to lovers. I have a few thoughts to support the idea, but no matter how I try to phrase them, I can't find word that don't make me look like a jackass for developing the idea, and with gay marriage heating up again due to the election year, I'm just going to let it go at this. I find it interesting that there is a segment of HP readers who have decided that SNape might be gay, that we'd even care, and that we think we might see signs in the literature - by snapes actions inactions, and I wonder what makes us think we could judge, and why we might care. L. From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Wed Jun 7 12:17:32 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 12:17:32 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153489 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" wrote: > Leslie41: > You know, it occurs to me that Harry's scar is on his forehead in just > the place that he would have been baptized! > > I never thought of that until your post. Certainly more evidence that > the baptism might have provided him with some sort of spiritual > protection. > First let me state that I have nothing against christianity or christian symbolism. But as much as I don't like looking for paganism in Harry Potter (which is not there) I don't like this kind of reasoning either. Harry's scar is where the ak bounced. That's canon. Harry survived because his mother died for him. That's canon. There is nowhere in canon that Harry's mom's sacrifice was not good enough and that his christening somehow gave him something extra. Lots of people where baptised, obviously it did not help them. Gerry, pagan. From distaiyi at yahoo.com Wed Jun 7 12:23:15 2006 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 12:23:15 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: <002301c689bf$38482990$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153490 Since we're on ths topic.... I refer you all to : http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/OnlineDiscipleship/HarryPotterControversy/GinaBurkart_HalfBlood.asp Which notes HP can be used to teach the following Christian topics (I will only provide the first few then list the rest) : God gives us free will. He knows what we will do, but we always have the free will to choose our own actions. We can choose to do good or evil. God planned for JChrist's Gift of Eternal Life Dumbledore tells Harry: "There is nothing to be feared from a body, Harry, any more than there is anything to be feared from the darkness. Lord Voldemort, who of course secretly fears both, disagrees. But once again he reveals his own lack of wisdom. It is the unknown we fear when we look upon death and darkness, nothing more." (Chapter 26, Page 566) We often fear death because we don't know what the afterlife will be like. Jesus' words of reassurance that we will have life after death with him calm us and soothe our fears. As Christians, we believe the soul is important?not the body. Jesus' death on the cross protects us from death and darkness. Dumbledore points out that Voldemort unwisely fears the body and darkness. Walking in Light/Gifts of the Holy Spirit "However, like many creatures that dwell in cold and darkness, they fear light and warmth, which we shall therefore call to our aid should the need arise." (Chapter 26, Page 566) At Baptism, we are born into the light. The light helps us to follow Christ and lead others to him. The Holy Spirit guides us and helps us to find our way through the darkness. Satan and his follows live apart from God in darkness?they fear the light. Voldemort lurks in the darkness and fears the light. Seeing God's Goodness in Others "Was this more of Dumbledore's insane determination to see good in everyone?" (Chapter 26, Page 569) God calls us to look for the good in everyone. Christ calls us to even love our enemies. He ministered to all people?even the sinners. Harry struggles with Dumbledore's continued trust in Snape. We must also strive to see the good in everyone?even those who are unkind to us. Free Will Spiritual Death/Sin Finding God in Others Love even Our Adversaries Forgiveness and Mercy Life after Death The Power of Love Dressing Our Children in Spiritual Armor From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Jun 7 12:49:53 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 12:49:53 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 18, Birthday Surprises In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0606070329u331aa949t9392e8bebdff2657@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153491 > 1. What do you think of Golpalott's Third Law? Was it included as > an example of magical principles? Do you think it will be applied > in Book 7, either actually or metaphorically? And is there any > significance to the name Golpalott, other than its resemblance to > gulp-a-lot? SSSusan: I absolutely believe it was included because it will be back in book 7. I wish I were the kind of person who could *think* of possible metaphorical uses, but all I can think of is the notion that someone unexpected -- some one *additional* "ingredient" -- will play significantly into the victory over Voldy. Heh. Had never noticed the "gulp-a-lot" similarity to Golpalott. ;-) Debbie: > 2. Harry and Ron appear incapable of anything in Potions class > without Hermione's assistance. They can't even manage to consult > Advanced Potion Making to figure out what to do (although Harry > does look in the margins for advice from the Prince). And is > this joke getting old now that the Trio are 16? SSSusan: Well, you know, I suppose the joke *is* getting old now. I certainly understand Hermione's annoyance, after SIX YEARS of their seeming inability to develop some good study habits and critical thinking skills. I mean, I think they're both *capable,* but I think they don't quite know how to apply themselves fully to study and don't really care to learn, which frustrates her no end. Debbie: > 4. Why is it so important to Hermione to outshine Harry in > Potions? Is it a need for recognition? Fear of failure? Concern > about Harry's reliance on an unknown author? Annoyance that Harry > is taking credit for the Prince's work? Something else? And why > do you think she put her own hair into her potion? SSSusan: I do think it's a combination of many of the things you have listed here, Debbie -- for sure, if not a need for recognition, at least a very-well-ingrained expectation of outshining others. I think there is a bit of worry for Harry and a bit of annoyance that Harry's not showing any concern about trusting the Prince. But I also think, for Hermione, it goes back to question #2. The joke *is* getting old, Hermione *is* sick of babysitting these two friends through so many assignments, so many subjects, and let's be honest -- if this has ever happened to you, you'll know what I mean -- it's annoying as all get out when you help someone, only to have that person do better than you! It probably comes down to a sense, for Hermione, of what is DESERVED. She doesn't feel Harry deserves to outshine her, because he's not working hard enough, not thinking hard enough, not trying hard enough. As for using her own hair? Who the hell knows! She was clearly desperate and maybe thought that would be the one additional ingredient that would trigger Golpalott? Debbie: > 6. Wilkie Twycross tells the students that the restrictions on > Apparition have been lifted in the Great Hall for the duration of > the lesson. If it's that simple, couldn't anyone undo the > restriction? Why, then, is Draco spending an entire term trying to > create an entrance through the Vanishing Cabinets? Shouldn't the > DEs have tried to undo the restriction long before now? SSSusan: Hee. Well, either JKR didn't think this one through very well, or the lifted restriction is very much limited to that one spot within the castle, not on the castle as a whole. So unless the DEs were already inside and could use the lifted restriction to move around some within the castle, this wouldn't help them to get IN in the first place? Wait -- I see what you're asking: wouldn't it have been possible for Draco to have learned to lift the anti-apparition restriction? No, I don't think it *is* that easy. I think Wilkie could only do it because DD allowed it. I believe DD removed some magical barriers & protections himself, as opposed to their being some kind of standard "remove the barriers" spell anyone could discover. Debbie: > 7. Is the watch Ron received for his coming of age birthday > significant in any way? SSSusan: Yup. I just don't know in what way, but it's definitely coming back in Book 7. I'm beginning to feel the need for some Book 7 prediction polls.... Debbie: > 8. JKR uses Ron to portray the effects of Love Potions in a very > humorous way (I thought Ron's deadpan comments about Romilda Vane > were the most laugh-out-loud funny in the entire book). Does this > scene help to envision the effect of Merope's love potion on Tom > Riddle Sr.? SSSusan: I think this scene *is* instructive in comparing the two situations. The Ron thing is pretty funny, but it's only funny because he was stopped before anything untoward occurred. If he'd slugged Harry hard enough to knock him out and then run out of the room, "attacked" Romilda with his amorous attentions, done things he'd later seriously regretted, I think it would not have been funny in the slightest. Debbie: > 9. Why is Ron horrified when Slughorn administers the antidote? Is > he feeling the disappointment of the crush wearing off, or is he > just embarrassed at having acted the way he did? SSSusan: I think he is horrified precisely because he has no *true* romantic feelings for Romilda. I suspect it was the thought of what he might have done if Harry & Slughorn hadn't intervened which has him horrified. Debbie: > And why does JKR always select Ron as a victim of forms of magic > with sophomorically humorous effects? SSSusan: An excellent question. Hey, Jo, cut it out!! Debbie: > 10. There is so much Slughorn in this chapter it could have been > named for him. How do these actions affect our > prior perception of his character? Is Slughorn a sympathetic > character despite his faults? What do you think of his ethics? > His potion-making skills? If Snape had > still been potions master, how do you think he would he have > handled Ron's predicament? SSSusan: Well, I admit that I struggle with what to do with Slughorn. I don't think he's bad in the sense of Death Eater bad. But I think he may, at times, struggle with his baser instincts. I'd like him to turn out to be a pretty sympathetic character in the end, but I've still got mixed thoughts *now.* His "freezing" and not really thinking how to help Ron did bother me. To lead into your bonus question, NO WAY IN HECK could I picture Snape **not** knowing exactly how to handle Ron's situation. And not only knowing how, but actually doing so. Siriusly Snapey Susan From replicarter22 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 7 06:43:03 2006 From: replicarter22 at yahoo.com (replicarter22) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 06:43:03 -0000 Subject: Nature of a Patronus / Snape's Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153492 Sue: This leads us to a realy interesting point to ponder. In HBP, > chapter 4 we see Harry and DD standng in the Weasley's broom shed. > DD says, "There are only two people in the whole world who know the > full contents of the prophecy ... and they are both standing in this > smelly, spidery broom shed." A spider is crawling on DD's hat. I > believe this is SS, and this is what Jo was referring to when she > said telling us Snape's patronus would give too much away. RepliCarter: This is my first post here, so I hope I'm doing this right. If I'm not please give me a heads up so I know how to correct my mistakes. If I'm understanding the spider theory correctly, you are saying that Snape heard the entire prophecy. However according to Order of the Phoenix, Page 843 (Scholastic Edition) "My - our - one stroke of good fortune was that the eavesdropper was detected only a short way into the prophecy and thrown from the building." "So he only heard...?" "He heard only the first part, the part foretelling the birth of a boy in July..." It continues on from there, but that's the important bit. Snape didn't hear the whole prophecy, so could not be one of the two people. From barefootpuppets at yahoo.com Wed Jun 7 12:14:42 2006 From: barefootpuppets at yahoo.com (barefootpuppets) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 12:14:42 -0000 Subject: RAB revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153493 Tonks: > 4. Regulus was Sirius' younger brother. If Sirius was in his early > 20's when James and Lily were killed that would make his brother in > his late teens or maybe a year younger than Sirius. (Lexicon has > his death at age 18.) > > This leads one to wonder how a man so young, graduating from a > school where the Dark Arts were not taught, would even know what a > Horcrux was, let alone how to destroy one. Harry only knows because > DD told him. And Tom learned about them from Slughorn, but not how > to make one and presumably would not have been told how to destroy > one either. It took Tom many years to gather this imformation. Heidi R.: Hmmmm...There is something that has always tugged at the back of my brain (not that I disagree with any of your theory at all!)...At the end of HBP, when Dumbledore is speaking to Draco Malfoy, Dumbledore tells Draco that he and his family can be hidden -- that they can be tucked away where no one will find them or know they are alive. What if Regulus (RAB) was still alive, but hidden? (Or perhaps, alive longer than the rumored age 18?) Perhaps Regulus had gone on his own little personal vendetta after being in hiding for a while? I'm not sure exactly what form of "hiding" Dumbledore was speaking about (Secret-Keeper sort of thing like the Fidelus Charm or something different?), but could it be that Regulus or, perhaps, others presumed dead...are really in hiding? Not that I am proposing that Harry's parents are secretly alive (they're not) or anything...but perhaps there is someone (someones?) in hiding... Just a thought, Heidi R. From iam.kemper at gmail.com Wed Jun 7 14:14:55 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 07:14:55 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Nature of a Patronus / Snape's Patronus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40606070714r6567cedfsd034effe83c9c958@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153494 > Sue earlier: > This leads us to a realy interesting point to ponder. In HBP, > > > chapter 4 we see Harry and DD standng in the Weasley's broom shed. > > DD says, "There are only two people in the whole world who know the > > full contents of the prophecy ... and they are both standing in this > > smelly, spidery broom shed." A spider is crawling on DD's hat. I > > believe this is SS, and this is what Jo was referring to when she > > > said telling us Snape's patronus would give too much away. > > RepliCarter replied: > > This is my first post here, so I hope I'm doing this right. If I'm not please give me a heads > up so I know how to correct my mistakes. > > If I'm understanding the spider theory correctly, you are saying that Snape heard the entire > prophecy. However according to Order of the Phoenix, Page 843 (Scholastic Edition) > > "My - our - one stroke of good fortune was that the eavesdropper was detected only a > short way into the prophecy and thrown from the building." > > "So he only heard...?" > > "He heard only the first part, the part foretelling the birth of a boy in July..." > > It continues on from there, but that's the important bit. > > Snape didn't hear the whole prophecy, so could not be one of the two people. Kemper now: I have not bought into the idea of Snape being an animagus, but I think what Sue is suggesting is that Snape's patronus is a spider and is assuming naturally but without canon support that a person's corporeal patronus is also the form of the that person's animagus (should they become one). So what I'm inferring from what Sue is saying is that Snape is in the shed with Harry and Dumbledore as a spider animagus and that Dumbledore has told Snape about the prophecy. It's Tricky!Dumbledore who tells the truth without giving all the information (which, to me, is still lying by omission). Again, I haven't bought into this idea, but I'm window shopping. As I started typing this, I began wondering about Dumbledore's patronus, a phoenix, and wondering if he's an animagus. Hermione only read who became legal animagus within the twentieth century. What if Dumbledore became one prior to the turn of the last century? He's old enough. What would this mean? Would he have the magical abilities of phoenix? I would guess not based on his use of Fawkes to take him out of the Headmaster's Office when he's confronted about the DA. Also, if a wizard's patronus can change shape due to heartache, can his animagus form as well (assuming he is an animagus already)? -Kemper [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jun 7 14:35:40 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 14:35:40 -0000 Subject: DD and Draco's murder attempts WAS: Draco and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153495 > > >>Pippin: > > ::boggles:: You want the Order to set up its own little relocation > > camp? > > Betsy Hp: > Doesn't the Order already have such a thing? Dumbledore says as > much on the Tower to Draco when he's offering the Order's > protection. They have the means to make Draco and his mother > effectively disappear, thereby protecting them both from Voldemort. > I'm not suggesting Dumbledore do something he'd find abhorent, > merely do sooner what he offers to do at the end of the school year. Pippin: What Dumbledore would find abhorrent, IMO, is disappearing Draco against his will without sufficient evidence that Draco is guilty of something worse than breaking school rules or imagining that he could kill Dumbledore. Of course if Draco accepted protection, that would be different. But what if Draco refused? Even on the Tower, he still dreamed of riding the storm. Draco could have denied everything and refused Dumbledore's protection just as he did with Snape. Then what? Dumbledore can hardly risk that Voldemort's legilimency will extract this precious secret from Draco. It would not be good for Voldemort to learn that the Order has been faking deaths. But once Draco assaulted Dumbledore and threatened to kill him in front of a witness, not to mention confessing his attacks on Katie and Ron, Dumbledore had both the moral right and the legal means to make Draco pay for his crimes. That was why his mercy mattered now. > > > >>Pippin: > > Oh dear. I think JKR dealt rather extensively with the problems > > of 'protective custody' in OOP... > > Betsy Hp: > Does she? Is it definitively stated that Dumbledore was *wrong* to > keep Sirius protected? Is it even stated that Dumbledore was doing > so against Sirius's will? Pippin: Whether it was wrong or not, it was problematic. Even if it was right of Dumbledore and Sirius was there of his own will (as I believe he was) it was still very hard on Sirius. It would have been hard on Draco and Narcissa, too. They would need all their courage, not just to accept Dumbledore's offer, but to live with it. We shouldn't think of it as an easy way out. > > Betsy Hp: > Dumbledore is perfectly willing to risk the lives of children (and > other innocents) to further his own goals. He'll (apparently, per > text) allow a child to enter an arena beyond his skill level that > could lead to that child's death. As a test of character. I'm > fairly sure Amnesty International would not approve. Neither do I > think it'd approve of Dumbledore feeding a suspect truth serum > without benefit of counsel. > Pippin: Movie contamination! In the books, Dumbledore had no choice but to allow Harry to compete -- remember, he asks for alternative ideas but despite their evident dislike of the situation, neither Maxime nor Karkaroff could think of a way to let Harry withdraw. Barty Jr. was not a suspect. He was a convicted fugitive who had already been sentenced to life imprisonment. Four witnesses saw and heard him attacking Harry. Dumbledore, Head of the Wizengamot, authorized the use of veritaserum not to get evidence, which would not have been admissable in any case per JKR's website, but in an emergency in order to discover how Barty had escaped, what he had done, and whether there were any other victims who needed help. Crouch Sr had disappeared and was possibly still alive. Dumbledore carefully did not seek evidence against Crouch's accomplice(s), even to identify Wormtail as Pettigrew. He left that to Fudge, and was furious when Fudge let Crouch be demented. > > >>Pippin: > > Trusting Snape would be arbitrary, because though Dumbledore > > trusts Snape to be honest with him, he does *not* trust Snape > > to interpret evidence correctly. > > > > Betsy Hp: > Was Draco's role as Dumbledore's assassin supposed to be a mystery > to Dumbledore? I never got that sense. The text seems to support > Dumbledore knowing that Draco had been given the mission by > Voldemort and why. I never got the sense that Dumbledore was > confused about who sent the cursed necklace, or that he questioned > what Snape told him. Pippin: Snape's report from Spinner's End only established that Draco had a motive. If Snape asserted anything further, Snape fashion, "Draco did it, I KNOW HE DID!" it would be arbitrary of Dumbledore to accept Snape's assertions as proof when he has discounted them so many times. In the absence of proof that Harry *meant* to endanger other students, (as Snape has many times asserted that he did) Dumbledore allowed Harry to endanger other students and yet remain at Hogwarts, because Harry needed the protection of Hogwarts to survive. The *only* thing that makes that fair is that Dumbledore would grant the same degree of protection to the other students if they needed it. As Draco did. > > > >>Pippin: > > Even as a practical matter, putting Draco in custody wouldn't have > > protected the students. It was Dumbledore's location, not Draco's, > > that made Hogwarts a target. Draco could have continued his > > mission, or rather his feeble but dangerous attempts at it, > > from anywhere. > > Betsy Hp: > I don't think I understand what you're saying here. If Draco was > removed from Hogwarts, the students of Hogwarts would still be in > danger from him? How? > Pippin: Draco, by means of the enchanted coins, ordered Rosmerta to give Katie the package (for Dumbledore, I suppose) and poison Slughorn's mead, which she thought was intended for Dumbledore. Draco could have carried out these plans from the Malfoy manor just as easily, or even from Grimmauld Place, provided the coins were not discovered. Indeed he would have more incentive to do so, since fixing the vanishing cabinet would no longer be an option. The attacks did not take place at Hogwarts because Draco was there. They took place at Hogwarts because *Dumbledore* was there. And *that* my friends, is why Dumbledore was planning to fake his death. Though the whole wizarding world regarded him as the talisman whose presence kept Hogwarts safe, Dumbledore knew that this was no longer true. Voldemort was not afraid to face him any more. The Draco plot was just a feint, but Dumbledore knew that sooner or later Voldemort would move against him in earnest. Dumbledore needed to give up his post, but how could he, without seeming to desert it? Pippin From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Wed Jun 7 15:04:19 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 15:04:19 -0000 Subject: RAB revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153496 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "barefootpuppets" wrote: > I'm not sure exactly what form of "hiding" Dumbledore was speaking > about (Secret-Keeper sort of thing like the Fidelus Charm or something > different?), but could it be that Regulus or, perhaps, others presumed > dead...are really in hiding? Not that I am proposing that Harry's > parents are secretly alive (they're not) or anything...but perhaps > there is someone (someones?) in hiding... > > Just a thought, > Heidi R. > Not Regulus, because that would mean Grimmault place and Kreacher could not have been inherited by Harry as there would be male Black. DD's fear was that Bellatrix would be the inheritor, because Regulus is dead. I would love to have a dead person come back. My bet is on Emmaline Vance. Gerry From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jun 7 15:30:01 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 15:30:01 -0000 Subject: Karma, Umbridge, etc. (Re: Snape and the "Chosen One") In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153497 Lupinlore: > > So far so good, but the part about them having "abused other people to > a far worse extent" than Harry seems kind of problematic, at least > with regard to Umbridge. With the Dursleys we have Dudley and JKR's > statement, although I'm not so sure that statement is as clear as you > imply (i.e. I recall that she said Dudley had been abused "in some > ways as badly" as Harry, not that he had clearly been abused much > worse). Pippin: "The best that can be said is that at least he has escaped the appalling damage you have inflicted on the unfortunate boy sitting between you." Dudley was frowning slightly, as though he was still trying to work out whether he had ever been mistreated. -HBP ch 3 That has the feel of another shoe waiting to drop. What could be worse for Vernon and Petunia than to be rejected at long last by Dudley? It would be far more painful than anything that Dumbledore or Harry could do. Lupinlore: In the case of Snape, I'm also not at all sure that's true. > Snape has committed crimes and evil acts (treachery and murder) but > I'm not sure that he's abused anyone worse than he's abused Harry, > unless you want to say that murder is a form of abuse, in which case > under that definition you would be right. Pippin: If you are right about Snape, then he has taken advantage of Dumbledore's doting trust to steal his secrets, betraying and finally murdering him just as Tom Riddle did with Hepzibah -- that's elder abuse, right? But as you know I disagree with you about Snape. Maybe what happens is that Snape and Harry realize that while they were tossing insults and curses at one another, Dumbledore was dying only yards away, and if only they had ever come to trust one another, as Dumbledore never lost hope they would do, they might have saved him. If Snape is DDM! he will feel as bad about that as anyone could hope. It is not Harry's fault that Snape took against him. But Harry has inherited his father's wealth and good name. I am certain that if James had lived, he would have used those resources to make amends to Snape, and that Harry will feel that he has some obligation there for Dumbledore's sake. Lupinlore: > But when we get to Umbridge, we have a big problem with canon being > clear about her "abusing other people to a much greater extent" than > she abuses Harry. Who would that be, exactly? Who has she abused > worse than she abused Harry, and what exactly did she do to them? > What has she done that is clearly worse and more deserving of > punishment than what she did to Harry? Pippin: The anti-werewolf legislation has resulted in werewolves, and we know there are child werewolves, being pushed to the margins of wizarding society, where they are forced to steal, and sometimes kill, to eat. Let's see, character assassination plus the quill, versus character assassination plus exile and starvation. I'll take the quill, thank you. But you don't have to take my word for it. Harry considers running away from Hogwarts, and decides he'll stay even with Dolores in charge. Dear Dolores is referred to as a 'hag' at least six times in OOP. If she escapes being torn apart by werewolves, perhaps she'll be outed as what she would call a half-breed and forced to live under her own laws. Pippin From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Jun 7 15:38:53 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 15:38:53 -0000 Subject: Nature of a Patronus / Snape's Patronus In-Reply-To: <700201d40606070714r6567cedfsd034effe83c9c958@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153498 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kemper wrote: > > As I started typing this, I began wondering about Dumbledore's patronus, a phoenix, and wondering if he's an animagus. Hermione only read who became legal animagus within the twentieth century. What if Dumbledore became one prior to the turn of the last century? He's old enough. What would this mean? Would he have the magical abilities of phoenix? I would guess not based on his use of Fawkes to take him out of the Headmaster's Office when he's confronted about the DA. > Tonks: I am sure that DD is an animagus or some higher form of such. After all he is the greatest wizard of `modern' times, and the greatest that Harry will ever meet. And DD taught transfiguration. As we can see from Snape, a gifted master of the subject is usually the one that teaches the subject. It would only follow that, of course, DD is an animagus. "I don't need an invisibility cloak to be invisible." The question is not `if', but what. It is not necessary for the animagus to be the same as the patronus. Give JKR's talent I am sure that she can come up with something else for DD. I don't think his patronus and animagus are the same. Tonks_op From fairwynn at hotmail.com Wed Jun 7 13:24:56 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (fair wynn) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 08:24:56 -0500 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153499 Back in 1999, Rowling said that she wouldn't comment on the book's religious content until after the conclusion of book 7. That's rather interesting, since it implies not that there *was* no religious aspect, or that she didn't *intend* a religious aspect, but more that there is such an aspect and she wanted to get all of the books completed and published before she would comment on it. More recently, in 2005, she said regarding the religious or secular nature of the books, "Um. I don't think they're that secular," she says, choosing her words slowly. "But, obviously, Dumbledore is not Jesus." I tend to think that she *does* intend the books to have something of a religious message. Perhaps it will be solely in themes of good and evil. Or she may use the spiritual journey aspects of alchemy. But her very few comments on the subject sound to me like she has a religious intent, but won't talk about it until she's completed all of the books. When she has the Wizarding World observe the Christian holidays of Christmas and Easter, and has James and Lily get Harry christened, I think she is intentionally keeping her characters within the general broad umbrella of Christianity. If she means a great deal more by it, I expect she'll do more with it in Book 7, as she has said that she wants book 7 complete before talking about any religious aspects. wynnleaf From leslie41 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 7 16:19:19 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 16:19:19 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153500 > Gerry: > First let me state that I have nothing against christianity or > christian symbolism. But as much as I don't like looking for paganism > in Harry Potter (which is not there) I don't like this kind of > reasoning either. Harry's scar is where the ak bounced. That's canon. > Harry survived because his mother died for him. That's canon. There is > nowhere in canon that Harry's mom's sacrifice was not good enough and > that his christening somehow gave him something extra. Lots of people > where baptised, obviously it did not help them. Leslie41: Oh, of course! Being baptized is absolutely no guarantee that evil will not befall one. It's not some sort of "shield". But Harry is not just anyone, really, at least not in the Wizarding World. And if we're talking about the sacrifice of his mom, whom as you cite gave her life for him, isn't it logical that we also think there could be a larger Christian significance in terms of Jesus' sacrifice, who died for Harry as well? (I am speaking not necessarily of my own beliefs, but of the professed beliefs of his parents and his godfather). When you add that to the fact that the place on Harry's body that repelled the scar is the very place where he received the waters of baptism, and possibily unction as well, it becomes hard for me to think that (at least subliminally) Rowling was making a point, and tying together his mother's sacrifice with Christ's, and with Harry's acceptance into Christ's kingdom. Not the only way to look at things, obviously. One need not read the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and see Christ in Aslan, either. But as with Harry's scar, it is more interesting and meaningful for me that way. From saberbunny at yahoo.ca Wed Jun 7 16:44:31 2006 From: saberbunny at yahoo.ca (catherine higgins) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 12:44:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Prophecy timeline (was Re: My Theory On The Prophecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060607164431.80763.qmail@web37211.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153501 Potioncat: What does this mean? It means Snape and DD hear the prophecy before the boys are conceived. Neither one knows who the parents will be, but I would think there would be a great pool of couples to choose from. Catherine now: I pretty much agree with everything in your post, except the above quote. How many couples of child-bearing years have defied Voldemort 3 times? It doesn't seem to be an easy thing to do, quite a feat, in fact, to escape the most powerful evil-wizard of the day, not once, but three times! And I don't think the Order was very big in the first war against Voldemort. Weren't they outnumbered 10 to 1 by DE's? Also (IIRC) from Moody's picture of the order, the only 2 couple were the Potters and the Longbottoms. Please correct me if I'm remembering wrong! catherine (who is SOOOOOOO behind in reading, every time I try, I still have over 100 posts to read!!!) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From fairwynn at hotmail.com Wed Jun 7 12:03:56 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 12:03:56 -0000 Subject: Understanding Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153502 Nora wrote > IF Snape is playing two sides against the middle--and thus has both > the ability and occasionally the motivation to work for either side-- > THEN there is nothing to contradict the idea that he's generally > being a good type in OotP but isn't acting for the good in HBP. In > fact, that did seem the premise of the OP, and an argument which > can't either be proven or conclusively refuted at this point, given > the lack of information. Just prior to reading this post I was considering this option while watching the POA film. I don't feel the actions of Snape at the end of POA (not the film alterations, but the actual book), are indicative of someone who is playing both sides and basically working for himself. At the end of POA, when Snape runs from Lupin's office to the Whomping Willow, he knew that he was going alone to face Sirius -- thought to be a possibly insane murderer of 13 -- and Lupin who hadn't taken his Wolfsbane potion and was about to transform. Yet Snape goes anyway. Of course, a "good" Snape might be going to help the children. A "bad" Snape might be going to take advantage of an opportunity to do away with both Sirius and Lupin. And a "playing both sides" Snape might be doing the same, since he hated Sirius. But actually, it makes almost no sense for Snape to put his life at such great risk from both Sirius and especially Lupin, solely to take an opportunity to capture or kill a hated school-time rival. The degree of risk that Snape willingly takes on can only be explained by his seeing that the "benefit" of his action was equal to or outweighed the risk of his own life. And what could be worth the substantial risk to his life? I can't see a "for self only" Snape considering that the capture of Sirius was worth the risk of his own life at the teeth and claws of a werewolf. Nor can I see why a "working for Voldemort" Snape would consider it worth that risk either. The only thing that I can see that could be considered worth the risk Snape took, would be if Snape was on the good side and was attempting to save the lives of three others (the children). I suppose that one might feel that Snape hated Sirius to such a degree that he'd risk his own life at the teeth of a werewolf in order to get Sirius, but I just don't think that's the sort of action a self-serving person would take. After all, Snape knew for certain that Lupin was about to change. The risk was huge that he'd be dealing with a werewolf. I can't see a self-serving person taking such a risk solely to get at Sirius. wynnleaf (who hopes I got the posting format correct this time!) From imasuperhero7 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 7 14:46:13 2006 From: imasuperhero7 at yahoo.com (imasuperhero7) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 14:46:13 -0000 Subject: Worth it??? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153503 Hello peoples, Really now, I am very curious. Some of you seem to have based your lives around Harry Potter. I am sure I am not meaning to be rude or trying to bash anyone, just curious, what is it about these books that have enthralled you? Granted, they're well written, and fun, but are they really that worth while??? I mean, contemplating the personalities of each character and their motives and all that, worth it? I am an intelligent person and a very good reader [one of the only things I'm really good at], but I just don't think they're that amazing. I read the first, second, and latest one that came out, and quite frankly, lost interest. Am I the only one out there? Thanks and all the best! Janie From saberbunny at yahoo.ca Wed Jun 7 16:54:14 2006 From: saberbunny at yahoo.ca (catherine higgins) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 12:54:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Individual issues and JKR (was Re: Snape and the "Chosen One" ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060607165414.55786.qmail@web37207.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153504 > Ginger: > My personal soapbox, about which I posted here before HBP was JKR's > treatment of "inbred" people. I *do* hate that term. Hasn't someone > come up with a politically correct term for that yet? Catherine now: How about "genetically homogenous?" (Apologizing to the list elves for the one-liner....but sometimes, it's just stronger than me!) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From inspirit at ptd.net Wed Jun 7 17:38:05 2006 From: inspirit at ptd.net (Kim) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 13:38:05 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Worth it??? References: Message-ID: <006a01c68a59$22787580$6501a8c0@your27e1513d96> No: HPFGUIDX 153505 Janie writes: Really now, I am very curious. Some of you seem to have based your lives around Harry Potter. I am sure I am not meaning to be rude or trying to bash anyone, just curious, what is it about these books that have enthralled you? Granted, they're well written, and fun, but are they really that worth while??? I mean, contemplating the personalities of each character and their motives and all that, worth it? I am an intelligent person and a very good reader [one of the only things I'm really good at], but I just don't think they're that amazing. I read the first, second, and latest one that came out, and quite frankly, lost interest. Am I the only one out there? Thanks and all the best! Janie Kim: Hi Janie. I think maybe the books make a big impression on most people who read them for a variety of reasons. They seem to have something for most everyone. For me it's the magical world, the secrets tucked into seemingly unimportant passages, and the friendships. I don't get involved in or even read the character analysis posts because they don't interest me and I wonder if JKR meant to give her characters all the shades of personality that some of us like to attribute to them. However, I think it's great that the characters are so diverse that those who enjoy that can really get into it. There's so much more to the books and characters than books written about real life situations because we can really let our imaginations soar. I would guess that something about these books intrigues you or you wouldn't have joined this group. Try reading some of the posts. I'm a die hard HP fan and have plenty of the memorabilia. But I found myself rereading the books twice since joining this group last year and I appreciate them so much more because I NEVER thought to look for hidden meanings, hints, etc. that the people in the group are so good at finding. For instance, I took all the names of the characters and places for granted without investigating their meanings. Try looking up some posts on the names in the books. You'll start to see just how much more there is to the books than you're maybe seeing. Also, try reading the books you haven't read yet. They're the best ones, in my opinion. 3, 4 and 5 were the books with already well developed characters becoming even more real and developed. Something brought you here. Give it a chance. HP isn't for everyone but it really enriches my life on drowsy boring days when I want to escape into fantasy. Welcome! Kim From gromm at cards.lanck.net Wed Jun 7 17:54:28 2006 From: gromm at cards.lanck.net (Maria Gromova) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 21:54:28 +0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Worth it??? References: Message-ID: <003401c68a5b$6d01f660$841d1154@maria> No: HPFGUIDX 153506 Well, as a saying of my native country goes, someone likes the parson, someone likes the parson's wife, and someone likes the parson's daughter. If you didn't like them, it doesn't mean they are bad. Each person finds a book after his or her own heart, and that's why people like different books. I really like the world she created, and most people in it - well, except Voldemort and Umbridge and such. That's all I can say. It's like love - your boyfriend can seem ghastly to another person. If you don't think they are amazing - well, read other books, there are plenty of them. Maria. ----- Original Message ----- From: "imasuperhero7" To: Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 6:46 PM Subject: [HPforGrownups] Worth it??? Hello peoples, Really now, I am very curious. Some of you seem to have based your lives around Harry Potter. I am sure I am not meaning to be rude or trying to bash anyone, just curious, what is it about these books that have enthralled you? Granted, they're well written, and fun, but are they really that worth while??? I mean, contemplating the personalities of each character and their motives and all that, worth it? I am an intelligent person and a very good reader [one of the only things I'm really good at], but I just don't think they're that amazing. I read the first, second, and latest one that came out, and quite frankly, lost interest. Am I the only one out there? Thanks and all the best! Janie 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 manawydan at ntlworld.com Wed Jun 7 18:01:28 2006 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (Ffred Clegg) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 19:01:28 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Birthday Surprises References: <1149699300.2931.95545.m24@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <002701c68a5c$67cbed80$da096bd5@Billie> No: HPFGUIDX 153507 Elfundeb wrote: >5. JKR frequently makes a point of describing the weather when she shifts >to a new scene or section of narrative; for example, February brought "cold >dreary wetness." Do you think JKR is using the weather to set a mood here >or is it just transition? I think it's just the ukanian tendency to talk about the weather a lot! Though it's interesting to note how much more likely the Hogwarts weather is to be the way it's "supposed" to be (white Christmases, etc) than the general pattern of weather over here... hwyl Ffred From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Jun 7 18:13:33 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 18:13:33 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 18, Birthday Surprises In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0606070329u331aa949t9392e8bebdff2657@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153508 Deb wrote: > QUESTIONS > > 1. What do you think of Golpalott's Third Law? Was it included as an > example of magical principles? Do you think it will be applied in Book 7, > either actually or metaphorically? And is there any significance to the > name Golpalott, other than its resemblance to gulp-a-lot? Potionacat: I didn't get gulp-a-lot until I read it out loud when reading to my son. It's a lovely pun. Aside from that it sounds like a mathematical or scientific rule. I honestly think it's had its day. > > 2. Harry and Ron appear incapable of anything in Potions class without > Hermione's assistance. They can't even manage to consult Advanced Potion > Making to figure out what to do (although Harry does look in the margins for > advice from the Prince). How did they do so well on their Potions OWLs? > And is this joke getting old now that the Trio are 16? Potioncat: I think lots of kids are like Ron and Harry. The joke may be old, but it makes sense that they wouldn't have changed. Keep in mind, this topic is difficult for many of the other students in this class. Slughorn doesn't explain the rule at all. He gives the defintion and that's it! I'd be frustrated in that class! Most of the students (all imho) are O level to Ron's and Harry's E level. Hermione seems to have the best grasp of the situation and look how hard she's working! How did Harry and Ron do so well on the Potions OWL? Very simple. Their Potions Master did a fine job of preparing them for the exam. > > 3. How do you think Lily acquired her reputation as having an "intuitive > grasp of potion-making"? Potioncat: Answer One: She was a good Potions student, but Slughorn is building up her reputation to greater levels to get on Harry's good side. Answer Two: She was indeed that good. That class or group of contemporaries seems to have produced a number of gifted folk. You have James and Sirius who are known to be the brightest of their age according to McGonagall. Lily who was particularly tallented according to Slughron. Snape who was skilled even by Sirius's opinion. There's what's his name who invented the self stirring cauldron. Barty Crouch was no slouch either. It's no wonder Snape considers Harry to be mediocre to the last degree. > > 4. Why is it so important to Hermione to outshine Harry in Potions? Is it > a need for recognition? Fear of failure? Concern about Harry's reliance on > an unknown author? Annoyance that Harry is taking credit for the Prince's > work? Something else? And why do you think she put her own hair into her > potion? Potioncat: Hermione has a need for recognition? I'm shocked, shocked! Yes, I think there was a little of that. She works for her recognition and I think she's annoyed that Harry is coming by his marks without fully understanding what he's doing. Also, it was OK for Slughorn to praise Harry's cheek, but he should have also recognised the student who did the best at Golpalott's law. I think she has reason to question the use of the book. We've been told and shown that books can be enchanted to dark purposes. Hermione used one of her own hairs because one of the known required ingredients was a "hair of a virgin." Or so I think. > > 5. JKR frequently makes a point of describing the weather when she shifts > to a new scene or section of narrative; for example, February brought "cold > dreary wetness." Do you think JKR is using the weather to set a mood here > or is it just transition? Potioncat: I think you've made a great catch! > > 6. Wilkie Twycross tells the students that the restrictions on Apparition > have been lifted in the Great Hall for the duration of the lesson. If it's > that simple, couldn't anyone undo the restriction? Why, then, is Draco > spending an entire term trying to create an entrance through the Vanishing > Cabinets? Shouldn't the DEs have tried to undo the restriction long before > now? Potioncat: Because it was only a well defined space within the castle and it was DD who performed the magic. I don't think anyone else could have. > > 7. Is the watch Ron received for his coming of age birthday significant in > any way? Potioncat: I think the unusual time-pieces that the Weasleys own and the ones DD owns is a clue that they are related. We know that Molly isn't clear how the grandfather clock works and has never seen another. I think it's supposed to be clear it's a Weasley family heirloom. So I think we'll see that DD and Arthur have a common ancestor. > > 8. JKR uses Ron to portray the effects of Love Potions in a very humorous > way (I thought Ron's deadpan comments about Romilda Vane were the most > laugh-out-loud funny in the entire book). Does this scene help to envision > the effect of Merope's love potion on Tom Riddle Sr.? How do you > think Riddle's family and friends reacted to lovelorn Tom? Is JKR > lampooning the effect of crushes on us Muggles? Potioncat: JKR sends a lot of messages about love, or improper love, or misdirected love. After showing us how horrible the Riddle outcome was, she shows us this very funny event. We see both Merope and Tonks losing powers because of love, yet neither Ginny nor Hermione lose powers. Love seems to be very powerful, very confusing, and very dangerous. > 9. Why is Ron horrified when Slughorn administers the antidote? Is he > feeling the disappointment of the crush wearing off, or is he just > embarrassed at having acted the way he did? And why does JKR always select > Ron as a victim of forms of magic with sophomorically humorous effects? Potioncat: Slughorn says it's due to "pangs of disappointed love". So was it love or not? > > 10. There is so much Slughorn in this chapter it could have been named for > him. Slughorn's actions include (i) invoking Lily, (ii) reacting badly to > Harry's inquiry about horcruxes, (iii) calling Ron "Ralph", (iv) opening a > bottle of mead intended for Dumbledore, and (v) failing to recognize Ron's > symptoms or take responsive action, even though the bezoar was in his bag. > How do these actions affect our prior perception of his character? Is > Slughorn a sympathetic character despite his faults? What do you think of > his ethics? His potion-making skills? Potioncat: I think he comes over even more sleazy than before. He bought a gift for his "friend" but forgot to give it? Did he buy it to impress DD? Was he waiting for a gift from DD before he gave one? Even at Christmas he's opporating on "what's in it for me?" It's March and he doesn't know Ron's name? Ron's in a class of 12 students! When I read this chapter before, I thought this revealed Slughorn as a poor Potion Maker. But really, it shows he's not good in an emergency. And if you think of it, would a potion maker be expected to be on the front line of treatment? We should compare him to a pharmacist, not to an ER doctor. So I think he knows how to make potions. We compare him to Snape who always had an antidote ready and who has shown up in emergencies to perform healing magic. But when he's had the antidote, it was because he was teaching that particular potion that day. However, I think Snape is the better potion maker and the better potion master. One line that jumped out at me was Slughorn starting the class with "Settle down, settle down." That's what Snape usually says. I assume he learned it from Slughorn. > > Bonus Question. Despite the fact that ch. 18 is infused with > potions, former potions master Snape is barely mentioned. If Snape had > still been potions master, how do you think he would he have handled Ron's > predicament? Potioncat: Harry explains to Slughorn that he didn't go to Pomfrey becasue he wanted to avoid "awkward questions." How funny is that!! I didn't catch it the first time. I think Harry would prefer Pomfrey's awkward questions to Snape's any day. But, let's say Snape came upon the boys and Harry explained that Ron had been given a love potion. I think he'd assign detention to someone, make note that the Twins were able to get past the security measures and send the boys to Ponfrey. However, if a Slytherin girl had given the potion I think it would have gone something like this: "It's perfectly understandable that Mr. Weasley would have such strong feelings for Miss Parkinson. I see no sign of a love potion. Of course he has no chance at all that a Slytherin of her caliber would return his affection. To save her any embarrassment, I'll give him a hate potion." Deb, this was a great job. Nice grouping of questions! > From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Jun 7 18:29:00 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 18:29:00 -0000 Subject: Prophecy timeline (was Re: My Theory On The Prophecy In-Reply-To: <20060607164431.80763.qmail@web37211.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153509 > Catherine now: > > I pretty much agree with everything in your post, Potioncat: Oh good! At last someone does. (I think that makes 2 or maybe 1 1/2) Catherine: except the above quote. How many couples of child-bearing years have defied Voldemort 3 times? It doesn't seem to be an easy thing to do, quite a feat, in fact, to escape the most powerful evil-wizard of the day, not once, but three times! And I don't think the Order was very big in the first war against Voldemort. Weren't they outnumbered 10 to 1 by DE's? Also (IIRC) from Moody's picture of the order, the only 2 couple were the Potters and the Longbottoms. Potioncat: The prophecy doesn't say members of the OoP. So anyone who was standing up against LV would be in the pool. Also, it says the boy will be born to someone who has defied him three times. So some of the couples may not have reached the third time for several more months. It isn't clear what "defied" means. I would think since James and Lily were in the Order, they would have confronted the LV gang more than three times. But OK, maybe it's not a big pool, but it would be more than just the Longbottoms and the Potters. So, maybe it could have been the Bones family, or the Prewetts,(if either of the brothers were married) or any number of others. Maybe LV began counting out the expected date when he found out the Malfoys were expecting. He may have been looking at his own Dark Wizard followers. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Jun 7 18:31:09 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 18:31:09 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 18, Birthday Surprises In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0606070329u331aa949t9392e8bebdff2657@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153510 Debbie: > QUESTIONS > 1. What do you think of Golpalott's Third Law? Was it included as an example of magical principles? Do you think it will be applied in Book 7, either actually or metaphorically? And is there any significance to the name Golpalott, other than its resemblance to gulp-a-lot? Ceridwen: I think Golpalott's Third Law is intended to show the difficulty of N.E.W.T.-level Potions. It may or may not appear in book 7, but if it does, then it will be Hermione who applies it, IMO. > 2. Harry and Ron appear incapable of anything in Potions class without Hermione's assistance. They can't even manage to consult Advanced Potion Making to figure out what to do (although Harry does look in the margins for advice from the Prince). How did they do so well on their Potions OWLs? And is this joke getting old now that the Trio are 16? Ceridwen: I hadn't even noticed this aspect of it. Both Harry and Ron got Es on their Potions owls, maybe this, along with Galpalott's Third Law, is meant to establish why Snape only accepted O students to his classes. > 3. How do you think Lily acquired her reputation as having an "intuitive grasp of potion-making"? Ceridwen: Maybe she was good at Potions. My mother is still a whiz at math, even though I barely passed last semester with a D and was glad for it. Just because a parent is good at something doesn't mean the child will be. Also, I think Slughorn has a soft spot for Lily, for her personality and her accomplishments in class both. He may be enhancing her abilities because he liked her so well. He seems that type. > 4. Why is it so important to Hermione to outshine Harry in Potions? Is it a need for recognition? Fear of failure? Concern about Harry's reliance on an unknown author? Annoyance that Harry is taking credit for the Prince's work? Something else? And why do you think she put her own hair into her potion? Ceridwen: I think it's annoyance that Harry is taking credit for the Prince's work, coupled with the amount of effort she is expending herself without the assistance. The point was to use Galpalott's Third Law, not to use an alternative, which could have been a footnote instead. The hair was probably a remedy for one of the poisonous ingredients. > 5. JKR frequently makes a point of describing the weather when she shifts to a new scene or section of narrative; for example, February brought "cold dreary wetness." Do you think JKR is using the weather to set a mood here or is it just transition? Ceridwen: The changing weather seems to be an aid to transition. Various times of the year are characterized by certain types of weather. > 6. Wilkie Twycross tells the students that the restrictions on Apparition have been lifted in the Great Hall for the duration of the lesson. If it's that simple, couldn't anyone undo the restriction? Why, then, is Draco spending an entire term trying to create an entrance through the Vanishing Cabinets? Shouldn't the DEs have tried to undo the restriction long before now? Ceridwen: Maybe the restrictions are 'password protected' - only the headmaster can undo them? > 7. Is the watch Ron received for his coming of age birthday significant in any way? Ceridwen: I don't know. It seems like a special present, the sort a young man might receive at a coming-of-age, like a special birthday or a graduation. Maybe it's just being used to show that Ron is now a man. Though, it is described in great detail just to be a prop for that idea. > 8. JKR uses Ron to portray the effects of Love Potions in a very humorous way (I thought Ron's deadpan comments about Romilda Vane were the most laugh-out-loud funny in the entire book). Does this scene help to envision the effect of Merope's love potion on Tom Riddle Sr.? How do you think Riddle's family and friends reacted to lovelorn Tom? Is JKR lampooning the effect of crushes on us Muggles? Ceridwen: I think JKR used all of the ships and near-ships in HBP to lampoon crushes. I do think the love potion in the chocolates echoes the love potion Dumbledore supposed to have been hidden in a glass of water. I think TR's family would have reacted in surprise and almost horror at his sudden infatuation with Merope, if they knew about it, just like Harry reacts to Ron's sudden declaration of love. Being Muggles, they wouldn't have known to suspect a love potion, so they were probably tearing their hair out over it. They were certainly unable to counter the effects! I think the funniest part of this scene is the contrast between Ron's fervent 'love' against Harry's growing alarm. Humor is often used to show serious ideas. Love potions, while not banned, are not exactly fluffy-bunny goodness and light. I think the humor was used to underline the seriousness of depriving someone of their will. > 9. Why is Ron horrified when Slughorn administers the antidote? Is he feeling the disappointment of the crush wearing off, or is he just embarrassed at having acted the way he did? And why does JKR always select Ron as a victim of forms of magic with sophomorically humorous effects? Ceridwen: I think Ron is embarrassed at having acted the way he did. And, I think JKR uses Ron in the humorous effects more because his personality lends itself to OTT characterizations. > 10. There is so much Slughorn in this chapter it could have been named for him. Slughorn's actions include (i) invoking Lily, (ii) reacting badly to Harry's inquiry about horcruxes, (iii) calling Ron "Ralph", (iv)opening a bottle of mead intended for Dumbledore, and (v) failing to recognize Ron's symptoms or take responsive action, even though the bezoar was in his bag. How do these actions affect our prior perception of his character? Is Slughorn a sympathetic character despite his faults? What do you think of his ethics? His potion-making skills? Ceridwen: i. Slughorn's invocation of Lily, I think, is meant to get him into Harry's good graces: he still wants to 'collect' Harry. ii. Slughorn has already given Dumbledore an altered memory about horcruxes. This has probably brought the subject back to his mind. Harry asking is an echo of TR asking, and given Harry's link to TR/LV, I think this is what set Slughorn to sweating. TR's reason for asking was revealed to Slughorn when he died withuot dying at GH. Now, here is Harry, who lived through LV's AK, asking the same thing. iii. Slughorn isn't trying to collect Ron, he isn't impressed with him, so he mistakes his name. It's insulting - I had someone merely misspell my name constantly, even after being corrected. It's a contemptuous practice, and shows that the misuser doesn't give a hoot about the recipient, in this case, Ron. iv. Slughorn has accidentally forgotten to give Dumbledore his present (accidentally on purpose?). He sees an opportunity to impress Harry, and to have some of the mead himself. v. Slughorn panicks. He's apparently good at theory and practice, but doesn't operate well under stress. We saw that with his reaction to Harry's questioning him about Horcruxes. From all of this, I think Slughorn is a good Potions maker but no good in an emergency; he uses favoritism so heavily that he insults the people he does not favor (Molly's reaction to the way he treated Arthur); he is agreeable to accidentally keeping something marked for someone else as his own. He is weak, nice, but weak. > Bonus Question. Despite the fact that ch. 18 is infused with potions, former potions master Snape is barely mentioned. If Snape had still been potions master, how do you think he would he have handled Ron's predicament? Ceridwen: I think Snape would have stuck a bezoar down Ron's throat. > Debbie with many thanks to Petra Pan and SSSusan for their comments on the summary (and especially for pointing out all my mistakes) Ceridwen, who didn't notice any mistakes, but who did see some things she hadn't considered before. Thanks, Debbie! From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Jun 7 19:00:57 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 19:00:57 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153511 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" wrote: > > When you add that to the fact that the place on Harry's body that > repelled the scar is the very place where he received the waters of baptism, and possibily unction as well, it becomes hard for me to > think that (at least subliminally) Rowling was making a point, and > tying together his mother's sacrifice with Christ's > Tonks: This is what I saw when I read the first book and what compelled me to keep reading the series. I could see that she was doing something, but was not sure what or where she was going with it. (This is the first and only books of fiction that I have read in over 20 years. I read a lot, but non-fiction.) wynnleaf said: > I tend to think that she *does* intend the books to have something of a religious message. Perhaps it will be solely in themes of good > and evil. Or she may use the spiritual journey aspects of alchemy. But her very few comments on the subject sound to me like she has a >religious intent, but > won't talk about it until she's completed >all of the books. Tonks: I agree. For those who have not read it or are new to the group I invite you to read my post titled The Trial of JKR for CX Symbols in HP here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/151730 This is also posted on Han's website Harry Potter for Seekers. There is a very interesting article of the scars on Harry and the Jewish tradition of Markings which is on Leaky Cauldron. See link here: http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/#scribbulus:essay:161 Tonks_op From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Jun 7 19:04:01 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 19:04:01 -0000 Subject: Understanding Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153512 Against Snape wrote: >>> 1) Snape was a Death-Eater until he knew that Voldemort was going to murder the Potters. At this point, I believe, as a result of his life debt to James, he either decided he had to warn DD, or else the life debt forced him to. <<< Julie responded: >> I don't think we have any indication a life debt forces someone to act on it. In PS/SS Dumbledore told Harry he suspected Snape saved Harry because he owed Harry's father (James) a life debt. Unlike an Unbreakable Vow, a life debt seems to be more of a psychological burden that a physical one. << Alla added: > There are PLENTY of hints in canon that IMO can be interpreted that > Life Debt ( waves at Neri) indeed acts as very physical burden. > Besides, we have DD's insistence that life debt between Harry and > Pettigrew is magic at its deepest ( paraphrase), sounds like > pretty "physical" burden to me. SSSusan: But this raises a major question for me. If it's true that a Life Debt includes a *physical* burden as well as or instead of a psychological one, if it's true that Life Debts can "force" people to take action, then why DIDN'T Wormtail save or at least help Harry in the graveyard at the end of GoF? The Life Debt he presumably owes Harry dates from the end of PoA, so it would've been in effect at the end of GoF. I know, I know, Pippin ;-), you're going to argue that it was a *different* Wormtail [ESE!Lupin] in the graveyard, but as I don't buy that, as I'm assuming it was really Peter Pettigrew/Wormtail who was there, then how's come he wasn't "forced" into helping Harry in the graveyard? I know that Voldy didn't manage to kill Harry, but it certainly wasn't because of anything Pettigrew did to interfere or to specifically assist Harry. Nope, to me, that scene speaks to more of a psychological Life Debt burden, to one which tends to "eat away" at people, rather than one which "forces" them to act upon it. Siriusly Snapey Susan From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Wed Jun 7 19:34:01 2006 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (Jazmyn Concolor) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 12:34:01 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Homosexuality: Was: Snape as the lover of Regulus Black In-Reply-To: <20060607114931.50162.qmail@web80611.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060607114931.50162.qmail@web80611.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <44872A29.1030605@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153513 No, he is not gay. Why? Because its a mainstream CHILDRENS book and the publisher will not allow a gay character no matter how much some of the fans want it. Sorry, just will not happen. Would do nothing for the plot anyways. Friends with Regulus, a longshot.. a very slim maybe, but not lovers. Though its hinted that Snape had no friends at all when younger, maybe really has no friends now that DD is gone? Its not like he goes out of his way to be social. While he might look good in black leather buttless chaps.. we are not going to see him in the Wizards Gay Pride parade anytime soon. Bad enough there are shippers who have him as a pedophile, chasing Harry! Come on guys, its just not happening in a children's book and I doubt JK will be writing romance novels for that universe no matter how much money she's offered. Jazmyn Len Jaffe wrote: > > Regarding a Snape/Regulus Black realtionship, > > "nowheregirrrl" wrote: > It's an interesting idea, but ... > [ len edited ] > > The len saiys: > I was, a few weeks back, going tosomewhat flippantly > suggest a Snape/Filch relationship. Their always up > late, and it is always Snape and/or Filch catching > Harry out of bed, etc. > > But then a discussion of a Filch as papa snape > developed and I just didn't have the heart to turn the > conversation from family to lovers. > > I have a few thoughts to support the idea, but no > matter how I try to phrase them, I can't find word > that don't make me look like a jackass for developing > the idea, and with gay marriage heating up again due > to the election year, I'm just going to let it go at > this. > > I find it interesting that there is a segment of HP > readers who have decided that SNape might be gay, that > we'd even care, and that we think we might see signs > in the literature - by snapes actions inactions, and I > wonder what makes us think we could judge, and why we > might care. > > L. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Jun 7 19:58:56 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 19:58:56 -0000 Subject: Homosexuality: Was: Snape as the lover of Regulus Black In-Reply-To: <44872A29.1030605@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153514 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Jazmyn Concolor wrote: > > No, he is not gay. Why? Because its a mainstream CHILDRENS book and the > publisher will not allow a gay character no matter how much some of the > fans want it. ... While he might look good in black > leather buttless chaps.. we are not going to see him in the Wizards Gay > Pride parade anytime soon. Bad enough there are shippers who have him > as a pedophile, chasing Harry! Come on guys, its just not happening in > a children's book and I doubt JK will be writing romance novels for that > universe no matter how much money she's offered. Magpie: I agree that there's no evidence in canon that Snape and Regulus even knew each other well much less were lovers, but mainstream children's books--more importantly mainstream YA books, which is what HP has definitely become by this point in the series--are fine with featuring gay characters, and they're hardly the next step down from the "bad enough" case of someone being a pedophile. (PThough if Snape became attracted to Harry in Book 7 it would not make him a pedophile, since Harry is not a child.) Gay adults, gay parents, gay teenagers all appear in Juvenile Lit. -m From leslie41 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 7 20:06:24 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 20:06:24 -0000 Subject: Homosexuality: Was: Snape as the lover of Regulus Black In-Reply-To: <44872A29.1030605@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153515 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Jazmyn Concolor wrote: > No, he is not gay. Why? Because its a mainstream CHILDRENS book > and the publisher will not allow a gay character no matter how > much some of the fans want it. Leslie41: Well, no doubt that's true about what the publisher wants, but that doesn't mean that Snape doesn't have the potential to be gay. It just may be a facet of his existence that isn't explored. Adult sexuality is not something that children want to contemplate anyway, especially the adult sexuality of a teacher, whether gay or straight. > Jazmyn: > While he might look good in black leather buttless chaps. Leslie41: Prolly not. He's awful skinny. He likely doesn't have much of a butt to show off! > Jazmyn: > are not going to see him in the Wizards Gay Pride parade anytime > soon. Leslie41: Again, prolly not. His status as a double agent has kept him pretty busy. > Jazmyn: > Bad enough there are shippers who have him as a pedophile, chasing > Harry! Leslie41: Are you suggesting that pedophelia and the sexual abuse of children (whether same or different sex abuse) is of the same order as consensual adult homosexuality? Just trying to be clear here. > Jazmyn: > Come on guys, its just not happening in a children's book and I > doubt JK will be writing romance novels for that universe no > matter how much money she's offered. Leslie41: "That universe"? What do you mean? The "universe" I inhabit contains a lot of gay people, some of whom do march in Gay pride parades (as I have myself, despite being straight). The gay people I know are, alternately, sexually promiscuous and very prim, single and coupled, very "out" and open about their sexuality and also more restrained. Just like the straight people I know. From donnawonna at worldnet.att.net Wed Jun 7 16:44:07 2006 From: donnawonna at worldnet.att.net (Donna) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 12:44:07 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: Dementors and Polyjuice Potion was Regulus and Kreatcher Message-ID: <44870257.000003.02112@D33LDD51> No: HPFGUIDX 153516 According to Chapter 35, page 684, of Goblet of Fire (US Edition), Dementors are blind. When Barty Crouch changed places with is Mother, all the dementors could sense was "one healthy, one dying person entering Azkaban. The sensed one healthy, one dying person leaving it." The polyjuice was to prevent any watching prisoners from seeing who was leaving. Also, according to the book, if a polyjuiced person dies, that person retains the polyjuiced appearance after death. Donna [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Wed Jun 7 21:00:20 2006 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 17:00:20 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Repetitive discussion: Was Looking for God in Harry Potter Message-ID: <4a5.17c0028.31b89864@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153517 In a message dated 6/6/06 7:05:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, leslie41 at yahoo.com writes: > > > Thanks for the tip-- > > But as has been pointed out, much of what we discuss here has been > gone over in great detail in the past. My guess is, after nearly a > year, you won't be able to find anything on HBP that hasn't been > mused over. Or the series in general. Snape, the identity of RAB, > Dumbledore's death, the horcruxes, etc. > > The reason this group exists is because for us issues related to the > books never get old, or settled conclusively. People often change > their minds or come up with new things to say, or just want to > express their opinions again to people who haven't read them before, > especially after two years (the date of the post you cite). I'm > sure the threads on God and Harry Potter from two years ago are > interesting, and I will go back and read them. But doubtless > they're not conclusive, especially after HBP. My guess is they > won't ever be conclusive, because no discussion of the books will > be "conclusive" except with regard to canon, and what is "canonical". > > Sandy now: It also needs to be remembered that new members join the group every day. I am relatively new, having only been a member for about 2 1/2 months now, so everything posted so far is new to me. Yes, there is the archives, but there can be many reasons for not referring to it. Speaking only for myself, I am on an old dinosaur of a computer (Windows 95) that isn't capable of much so what functions many of you take for granted I don't have. It is often difficult just making a post to the list. Then there is the matter of time. This list generates so many posts that I am often running two to three days behind and trying to catch up. Who has time to go searching in the archives? I don't. When I first joined I was determined to read every post from the very first one to the current ones. After about two weeks and about 250 posts I gave it up for a lost cause. It will have to wait until I retire in 2 1/2 years. As far as I'm concerned the topics can repeat themselves as much as they want because someone is always going to have something new to add. Every one of us has the option to delete any post, unread, that we find repetitive, tiresome or not to our liking. There are two current threads I am doing that with at the moment/ > > > I would venture that if we were going to stop talking about what > we've talked about before, the board would cease to exist until the > seventh book came out. > > > Sandy again: How true. I can't begin to tell you how excited I was to find this list. Intelligent ADULT Harry Potter conversation. I belong to at least five other HP Yahoo groups and they have all been dead in the water since a month after HBP was released. One of them is still quasi-active if airhead and way off-topic conversation is your thing. It isn't mine. This group (HPfGU) is exciting and intellectually stimulating, and fun. All of this right between two books is wonderful. So keep the topics coming, even if they sometimes tend to be repetitive. I don't want this party to end or this group to die in the water like the others have. Sandy, who was in the ESE!Snape camp until I joined this list and was converted to DDM!Snape, mostly by Carol, who is one of my favorite posters. > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 7 21:15:11 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 21:15:11 -0000 Subject: Worth it??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153518 > >>Janie: > Hello peoples, > Really now, I am very curious. Some of you seem to have based your > lives around Harry Potter. I am sure I am not meaning to be rude > or trying to bash anyone, just curious, what is it about these > books that have enthralled you? > Granted, they're well written, and fun, but are they really that > worth while??? Betsy Hp: I suppose this would fall under the "different strokes for different folks" heading. There are people who've devoted their lives to reenacting the US Civil War. There are people who've devoted their lives to football (pick your definition ). There are people who've devoted their lives to quilting. So, is quilting worth while? Are the Harry Potter books worth while? If you enjoy it, I think then, yeah, it's worth while. > >>Janie: > I mean, contemplating the personalities of each character and > their motives and all that, worth it? Betsy Hp: I love, love, love, *love* analyzing characters. It's a great deal of fun for me. So yeah, taking the time to chat with other folks with the same obsession, about characters with the depth to stand-up to the indepth analysis, is *definitely* worth it. For me. Others on this list love analyzing other things, like the world rules, how the magic works, etc. Which doesn't interest me a bit. But the discussions are fun for them, so I'd say they find the time they spend on those discussions to be worth while. > >>Janie: > I am an intelligent person and a very good reader [one of the only > things I'm really good at], but I just don't think they're that > amazing. I read the first, second, and latest one that came out, > and quite frankly, lost interest. > Am I the only one out there? > Betsy Hp: Well, you're probably not going to find them on this list, but I have heard rumors about people not interested in the Harry Potter books. Granted, they are only rumors. Seriously, I obviously enjoy the books, otherwise I wouldn't be on this list (and posting as much as I do). But yeah, I do recognize that they're not the end all, be all. Heck, they aren't even my favorite books. But, the fact that the books are popular enough to generate a group of this size and diversity was a chance not to be missed for me. If there were as many folks discussing "Peter Pan and Wendy" or the writings of Mary Renault, or Dorothy Dunnett's Lymond chronicles, or "Ender's Game", I'd be there with bells on. The fact that this is an on-going series is, I suspect, the reason these books have generated so much discussion. Sadly, I fear that after book 7 the chatter will slowly peter out. So there's a bit of serendipity involved. But while the chatting is on going, I find it worth my time to be a part of it. Betsy Hp (sadly contemplates a life without Snape threads) From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Jun 7 21:21:13 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 21:21:13 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153519 > Leslie41: > Oh, of course! Being baptized is absolutely no guarantee that evil > will not befall one. It's not some sort of "shield". a_svirn: Question is *what* sort of a shield? Obviously not an effective one against AK. (I presume all the Riddles were baptised). > Leslie41: > And if we're talking about the sacrifice of his mom, whom as you cite > gave her life for him, isn't it logical that we also think there > could be a larger Christian significance in terms of Jesus' > sacrifice, who died for Harry as well? (I am speaking not necessarily > of my own beliefs, but of the professed beliefs of his parents and > his godfather). a_svirn: Why is it logical? Are you saying that Lilly's sacrifice is of the same kind than that of Christ? That would mean that either Lilly was somewhat presumptuous, or that Christ made His ultimate sacrifice so that Harry would be able to kill Voldemort one of these days. From leslie41 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 7 21:45:46 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 21:45:46 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153520 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > Leslie41: > > And if we're talking about the sacrifice of his mom, whom as you > > cite gave her life for him, isn't it logical that we also think > > there could be a larger Christian significance in terms of > > Jesus' sacrifice, who died for Harry as well? (I am speaking not > > necessarily of my own beliefs, but of the professed beliefs of > > his parents and his godfather). > > > a_svirn: > Why is it logical? Are you saying that Lilly's sacrifice is of the > same kind than that of Christ? Leslie41: Yes, in a way. In that we all have the opportunity to be Christ for another person, and see Christ in others. Jesus said that the way his followers would be known as Christians was because of their love for one another, and there was no greater good than someone die for their friend. The parental nature of god--as "god the father"--is also part of God's triune nature. > A_svirn: > That would mean that either Lilly was somewhat presumptuous, or > that Christ made His ultimate sacrifice so that Harry would be > able to kill Voldemort one of these days. Leslie41: Well, I don't see how it follows that Lily was presumptuous. But as for Christ's "ultimate sacrifice," well if one is a Christian, one believes that he made that sacrifice out of love. And it is love as well that will eventually allow Harry to defeat Voldemort. It's not that Harry can kill Voldemort because of Christ's sacrifice, but perhaps more that Christ's sacrifice and teachings in part provide a kind of paradigm for Harry's behavior, whether known to Harry or not. Harry will not succeed, for example, by killing Snape. Harry will succeed through love. It seems to me that's always been plain, or at least Dumbledore has harped on it enough. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 7 22:04:24 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 22:04:24 -0000 Subject: DD and Draco's murder attempts WAS: Draco and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153521 > >>Betsy Hp: > > So yeah, Dumbledore's actions are often foolish and inexcusable > > (or cold-hearted and manipulative) in real life. But in this > > sort of book, they're par the course. Unfortunately, I think > > JKR tries to have her cake and eat it too, and the logic of > > Dumbledore's character suffers for it. > >>Lupinlore: > Okay, I'll bite. In what way do you see JKR as trying to have her > cake and eat it too with DD? Myself, I think most of the problem > comes from the "epitome of goodness" comment. That creates an > immense tension which fuels much of the DD argument. I wonder if, > given the chance to give that interview again, JKR would phrase > things the same way? Betsy Hp: Oh yes, JKR can *really* stick her foot in her mouth with her interviews. And this comment is one of the doozies. A Dumbledore that seems to willingly decide which student is worthy of his protection (at the cost of the other students) is hard to squeeze into the "epitome of goodness" mode. Unless, you allow Dumbledore to hit a level so far above the rest of the Potterverse characters he can see Ron's death being a lesser evil than Draco becoming bad. Which, I *can* see Dumbledore deciding. It's the same Dumbledore who decides to entice Harry into the gauntlet in PS/SS. And the same Dumbledore who sends baby!Harry to live with the Dursleys. But that Dumbledore seems to clash with the man keeping the prophecy a secret from Harry merely to allow Harry his boyhood, no matter that it screws with all of his well laid plans. Why would the same man who nearly killed Harry at age 11 so he could check out his character, *cry* because Harry's got a big burden on his shoulders? > >>Pippin: > What Dumbledore would find abhorrent, IMO, is disappearing Draco > against his will without sufficient evidence that Draco is guilty > of something worse than breaking school rules or imagining that > he could kill Dumbledore. Betsy Hp: I still don't see that Dumbledore had any question about who was behind the cursed necklace finding its way into Katie Bell's hands. The harsh part *would* be the fact that by merely questioning Draco, Dumbledore would have broken Draco's cover. For which Voldemort would have killed him. So Draco wouldn't have had much of a choice. Which *is* abhorrent to Dumbledore, yes. Even more abhorrent than putting his student's lives at risk. Dumbledore would risk almost *anything* to allow Draco the room to choose. But I don't think it's the sort of freedom most headmasters would allow their students. Physical safety over existential crisis. > >>Pippin: > > Whether it was wrong or not, it was problematic. Even if it was > right of Dumbledore and Sirius was there of his own will (as I > believe he was) it was still very hard on Sirius. It would have > been hard on Draco and Narcissa, too. They would need all their > courage, not just to accept Dumbledore's offer, but to live with > it. We shouldn't think of it as an easy way out. Betsy Hp: I'm not. I recognize that taking such an action against Draco would have severely harmed him. But, it was the easier option for the rest of the student body. Which is why, I think, most headmasters would have gone in that direction. The needs of the many, etc., etc. > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > He'll (apparently, per text) allow a child to enter an arena > > beyond his skill level that could lead to that child's death. As > > a test of character. > > > >>Pippin: > Movie contamination! In the books, Dumbledore had no choice but > to allow Harry to compete... Betsy Hp: Oops! Sorry, I was unclear. I was talking about Dumbledore allowing Harry to drop down into the gauntlet in PS/SS. If Harry had been alone he'd have died at the first challenge. Ron nearly did die, and Harry ended the adventure with a three day (IIRC, multi day, anyway) coma. For a very long time I've had a brilliant and thoroughly logical theory about PS/SS that Explained It All (tm). However, the fact that Dumbledore has never corrected Harry's belief that Dumbledore sent him on that "little adventure", the fact that this was a conversation that could have easily taken place in OotP, and the fact that Dumbledore is dead (or mostly dead, depending on theories), suggests that my own theory, brilliant though it may have been, is not the real deal. So, I've been forced to reexamine the character of Dumbledore with the realization that he will allow students to die if it furthers the cause of good. Not a fun exercise. (Though, hey, if someone wants to sell me a "Bestest Healer Ever!" Snape to counteract the "I'll Let Students Die to Save a Soul!" Dumbledore, you'll find me a wide-eyed and easily swayed buyer. Anyone? ) Betsy Hp From fairwynn at hotmail.com Wed Jun 7 20:51:10 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (fair wynn) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 15:51:10 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Worth it??? In-Reply-To: <006a01c68a59$22787580$6501a8c0@your27e1513d96> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153522 >Janie writes: > >Really now, I am very curious. Some of you seem to have based your >lives around Harry Potter. I am sure I am not meaning to be rude or >trying to bash anyone, just curious, what is it about these books that >have enthralled you? >Granted, they're well written, and fun, but are they really that worth >while??? I mean, contemplating the personalities of each character and >their motives and all that, worth it? >I am an intelligent person and a very good reader [one of the only >things I'm really good at], but I just don't think they're that >amazing. I read the first, second, and latest one that came out, and >quite frankly, lost interest. >Am I the only one out there? >Thanks and all the best! >Janie > I just joined this group, but have been an HP fan for quite awhile and post a lot on the Lexicon. While I have definitely read books that were better written (especially many classics), the HP books offer more than simply great plots and characters. They also have offered a number of years of mystery and suspense as we all try to figure out what's going on, what will happen next, what this or that point in the books meant. I have a pretty high-stress life. Before getting into HP fandom, I spent most nights waking up with a mental rolidex of "important things to remember" going over and over in my head. HP gives me a relaxing, low-stress, interesting topic to relax with. But because it's also very, very intriguing, it holds my attention and keeps it away from that high-stress real life stuff -- much more than my other interests such as history, or gardening, or music. In that sense, spending a lot of attention on HP *is* worth it. wynnleaf _________________________________________________________________ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 7 22:33:13 2006 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 22:33:13 -0000 Subject: Homosexuality: Was: Snape as the lover of Regulus Black In-Reply-To: <44872A29.1030605@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153523 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Jazmyn Concolor wrote: > > No, he is not gay. Why? Because its a mainstream CHILDRENS book and the > publisher will not allow a gay character no matter how much some of the > fans want it. Lanval: Look around amazon.com. There are picture books for very young children that deal with gay characters. There are a number of YA novels that have gay characters. Do you truly believe that any sane publisher will tell JKR she can't have gay people in her books? Naturally certain folks would throw hissy fits, but something tells me they'd be the kind already merrily burning and banning anything HP. As for the those who might feel the appearance of *gasp* gayness would force them to abandon the series... Tough. Gay people aren't going anywhere. IMO, the sooner kids learn about it, the better. Jazmyn: Sorry, just will not happen. Would do nothing for the > plot anyways. Friends with Regulus, a longshot.. a very slim maybe, but > not lovers. Though its hinted that Snape had no friends at all when > younger, maybe really has no friends now that DD is gone? Its not like > he goes out of his way to be social. Lanval: While I see Snape as rather asexual, a possible connection/friendship between him and Regulus would be intriguing. Regulus wasn't that much younger; they must have known each other. Come on -- Black's younger brother, a Slytherin... oh, the possibilities! *g* And hasn't Rowling hinted somewhere at there being more to Snape's and Sirius's mutual loathing than what we know? I could be wrong, though. It would be hard to explain why Sirius never mentioned any of it, though. Jazmyn: While he might look good in black > leather buttless chaps.. we are not going to see him in the Wizards Gay > Pride parade anytime soon. Bad enough there are shippers who have him > as a pedophile, chasing Harry! Lanval: Er..while few things make me hit the back button faster than any mention of 'Snarry' in fanfic, I would hope you're not suggesting that gay = pedophile? Jazmyn: Come on guys, its just not happening in > a children's book and I doubt JK will be writing romance novels for that > universe no matter how much money she's offered. > Lanval: I would have loved to see Remus and Sirius as a couple. Could have been done with a few very simple sentences, too, without ever getting graphic, or coming anywhere near 'gay romance'. 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... From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Wed Jun 7 19:41:47 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 19:41:47 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: <002301c689bf$38482990$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153524 Marion wrote: > >Of course, the cultural values of an author will be reflected in his/her writings, but is it really necessary of proclaiming everything a christian author writes as 'inherently christian'? > Why? > What would be the point? > Can a story only be relevant if it carries some christian 'message' in the christian mind? > Ken: Of course not. I do not require Rowling to write overtly Christian material whether she be a very devout Christian like Tolkien or only nominally Christian. I see very little in the books that is overtly Christian and that is perfectly fine. I also do not see any of the evil, subversive, anti-Christian material that so many of my conservative Christian brothers and sisters apparently believe is in there. But then few of them have actually read the books, I suspect. I read the books because I enjoy them. While childless I see a lot in these books that is excellent for children to read and if I had any I would encourage my children to read them. They can get their religious instruction from Sunday School. In Tolkien's case, if you read The Silmarilion it is impossible to miss the Bible-like creation story even if we didn't have his comments on the Christian nature of his created world. It is obviously a very theistic universe. Even so none of that is overt in The Hobbit or LOTR, his best known works. And all of the action takes place well before Christ, or Noah, or Abraham. He certainly did have a deep love of northern European mythology and the languages it was first recorded in. His writing is obviously an attempt to meld that with the Jewish and Christian creation stories from the early part of Genesis. It wasn't intended as a religious instruction manual any more than Harry Potter is. Most of my fiction reading is science fiction. SF ranges from religiously neutral to rabidly anti-religious, for the most part. That does not stop me from enjoying it. I may not agree much with David Brin on matters of religion or philosophy but I love reading the stories from his Uplift Universe. I'd love to live in it and to be able to hear Dolphins taunt each other in Trinary haiku. We don't have to see our personal beliefs reflected in the fiction we read to be delighted and inspired by it. Ken From grich277080 at aol.com Wed Jun 7 18:14:45 2006 From: grich277080 at aol.com (grich277080 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 14:14:45 EDT Subject: Worth it??? Message-ID: <489.27cf7d4.31b87195@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153525 Janie writes: >> Really now, I am very curious. Some of you seem to have based your lives around Harry Potter. I am sure I am not meaning to be rude or trying to bash anyone, just curious, what is it about these books that have enthralled you? << Kim: >> Hi Janie. I think maybe the books make a big impression on most people who read them for a variety of reasons. They seem to have something for most everyone. << Hi Janie and Kim, Janie, I can understand how you feel about the books. I had them on my bookshelf for a year before I read the first four. (They were a Christmas present). My daughter who is a teacher raved about them. She told me about the characters and basic story line of Harry's life. Once I started to read them I could not put them down. I was angry about Harry's abuse and I hated Snape for his cruelty to not only Harry but all of the students. I loved the magical world and the way JKR took our English language and made it very funny ie Grimmauld Place - grim old place! I read the four books in four weeks. I then read them again. Now I am reading Phoenix for the fourth time only this time I am looking for clues in the canon. I read all the posts as well and feed off the arguments put forward by its members. Neville is my favourite character because I think he is going to come into his own in the last book. Also the books become more adult from book 3 onward as Harry find out more about who he really is. I could go on for ever. AnnR From blink_883 at hotmail.com Wed Jun 7 22:44:31 2006 From: blink_883 at hotmail.com (whirledgirl) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 22:44:31 -0000 Subject: Worth it??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153526 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "imasuperhero7" wrote: > > Hello peoples, > > Really now, I am very curious. Some of you seem to have based your > lives around Harry Potter. I am sure I am not meaning to be rude or > trying to bash anyone, just curious, what is it about these books that > have enthralled you? > Granted, they're well written, and fun, but are they really that worth > while??? I mean, contemplating the personalities of each character and > their motives and all that, worth it? > I am an intelligent person and a very good reader [one of the only > things I'm really good at], but I just don't think they're that > amazing. I read the first, second, and latest one that came out, and > quite frankly, lost interest. > Am I the only one out there? > Thanks and all the best! > Janie > I enjoy reading books that tie together or connect the 'real world' with a fantasy world, precisely like what JKR does in Harry Potter. When you enjoy something like that anyway, and then find something like the HP books which 'ticks the boxes'..it's easy, and something I consider fun, to theorise about possible outcomes/reasonings behind what's been written. I haven't personally based my life around Harry Potter (yet...there are so many who base their lives around much less...), but there are many things at the core of these books which allows them to be deeply relevant to a great many people in different situations. The subjects of free will, choice, love, and friendship are ones that are raised time and again, subjects that are close to people's hearts (aaaand children's!!). For me, it is the intrinsic understanding of _people_ that JKR seems to have which makes the HP books worthwhile - to read, and to think about. In short, I find them stimulating. Partly because, like in any fantasy-type book, it allows the imagination freedom, and partly because actually, here is a magical world ready made for me to enjoy! It's not that the HP books are all I read, but they have inspired me much more than many other books have done recently. As for finding somebody who thinks HP is uninteresting _here_ ...well... :-) good luck with that! Heheh! smiles and good things to you, WG* From ktct1984 at gmail.com Wed Jun 7 07:06:10 2006 From: ktct1984 at gmail.com (Keith Tan) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 00:06:10 -0700 Subject: Question About Weasley Twins In-Reply-To: <20060606171545.8766.qmail@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <4c4.442d60.31b58e3f@aol.com> <20060606171545.8766.qmail@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153527 Sarah Barthell wrote: > Mr. Weasley didn't exactly decline, he bet a Galleon on > Ireland to win and Ludo made it seem like he was being > too cautious. Keith: The twins just bet the Ireland will win, even though Krum catches the snitch! Mr. Weasley tells the boys not to tell their mother! From chonpschonps at hotmail.com Wed Jun 7 19:51:22 2006 From: chonpschonps at hotmail.com (xuxunette) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 19:51:22 -0000 Subject: RAB revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153528 > Heidi R.: > > I'm not sure exactly what form of "hiding" Dumbledore was speaking > > about but could it be that Regulus or, perhaps, others > > presumed dead...are really in hiding? > Gerry: > Not Regulus, because that would mean Grimmauld place and Kreacher > could not have been inherited by Harry as there would be male Black. > DD's fear was that Bellatrix would be the inheritor, because Regulus > is dead. xuxu: Quote from Book day chat 2004 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. From chonpschonps at hotmail.com Wed Jun 7 20:32:47 2006 From: chonpschonps at hotmail.com (xuxunette) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 20:32:47 -0000 Subject: Individual issues and JKR (was Re: Snape and the "Chosen One" ) In-Reply-To: <20060607165414.55786.qmail@web37207.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153529 > Ginger: My personal soapbox, about which I posted here before HBP was JKR's treatment of "inbred" people. I *do* hate that term. Hasn't someone come up with a politically correct term for that yet? < xuxu: I think 'inbred' is fine. It's a derogatory term, but then it's meant to since I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) it is aimed at the pure-bloods who shy from exogamy because they are actually xenophobes. It's like calling racists 'racist', it is also derogatory, but then what? From bjk5377 at verizon.net Wed Jun 7 21:54:52 2006 From: bjk5377 at verizon.net (Barbara Kraus) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 16:54:52 -0500 Subject: Worth it??? In-Reply-To: <003401c68a5b$6d01f660$841d1154@maria> Message-ID: <001001c68a7d$01f24ec0$6400a8c0@BarbaraComputer> No: HPFGUIDX 153530 Maria: > Each person finds a book after his or her own heart, and that's why people like different books. I really like the world she created, and most people in it - well, except Voldemort and Umbridge and such. That's all I can say. < Barbara: Like you, I also really like the world she created...when I read the books, I really feel like I'm part of them, that I have entered that world. It's a rare book that makes me feel that way... And...wouldn't you love to be able to do magic? :-) From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jun 7 23:32:21 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 23:32:21 -0000 Subject: DD and Draco's murder attempts WAS: Draco and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153531 > > >>Pippin: > > What Dumbledore would find abhorrent, IMO, is disappearing Draco > > against his will without sufficient evidence that Draco is guilty > > of something worse than breaking school rules or imagining that > > he could kill Dumbledore. > > Betsy Hp: > I still don't see that Dumbledore had any question about who was > behind the cursed necklace finding its way into Katie Bell's hands. > The harsh part *would* be the fact that by merely questioning Draco, > Dumbledore would have broken Draco's cover. For which Voldemort > would have killed him. So Draco wouldn't have had much of a choice. Pippin: Look at it this way. It's clear to me that Lupin killed Sirius. I don't have any question. But I wouldn't want anyone to be convicted or disappeared on such evidence as I have, because it's based on hearsay and subjective factors such as my reading of Lupin's character. I trust my reading, but it could be wrong. My refusal to have Lupin deprived of his freedom on those grounds, were we sharing the same universe, would protect *me*, and those I care about. Not from death but from the far worse evil of despotism. There are some things worth dying for. Draco is not nearly the danger to the other students that Dumbledore would become if Dumbledore voted himself the powers of a despot. It's not Draco's existential right to choose that Dumbledore is protecting, but every student's right to be judged objectively instead of on the whims of an individual, even one as wise and steady as Dumbledore. Despotic power would change Dumbledore, IMO, would set him on the path to becoming another Crouch. And that would place the students in far more physical danger than Draco. Yes, Dumbledore will allow students to die if the only way to protect them is to deprive individuals of their rights without some *objective* proof that they are threatening the rights of others. Barty Crouch wouldn't. Which one would you rather have in charge? > Betsy Hp: > Oops! Sorry, I was unclear. I was talking about Dumbledore > allowing Harry to drop down into the gauntlet in PS/SS. If Harry > had been alone he'd have died at the first challenge. Ron nearly > did die, and Harry ended the adventure with a three day (IIRC, multi > day, anyway) coma. Pippin: I once thought that theory was laid to rest when Dumbledore said in OOP that "sooner--much sooner --than I had anticipated, you found yourself face-to-face with Voldemort." Apparently, like the Mirror itself, the theory has got far too much hold on the imagination. I don't see how one can say that the ease of the course shows that Dumbledore meant 11 year old Harry to get through it, while at the same time arguing that its difficulty showed that Dumbledore ruthlessly planned it as a near lethal test. It is possible, surely, that Dumbledore allowed Harry to find the mirror because he was curious about Harry's character, and explained its use because *someday* he thought Harry and Voldemort would battle one another for the Stone, without anticipating that it would happen that very same year? That Harry has never fully admitted that to himself, because that would require him to face the fact that he had led his friends into needless danger, and JKR is not ready for that, just as she's not quite ready to let Harry face his guilt over Sirius? Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 7 23:46:19 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 23:46:19 -0000 Subject: DD and Draco's murder attempts WAS: Draco and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153532 Pippin: > Look at it this way. It's clear to me that Lupin killed Sirius. I don't > have any question. But I wouldn't want anyone to be convicted or > disappeared on such evidence as I have, because it's based on > hearsay and subjective factors such as my reading of Lupin's character. > I trust my reading, but it could be wrong. > > My refusal to have Lupin deprived of his freedom on those grounds, > were we sharing the same universe, would protect *me*, and those > I care about. Not from death but from the far worse evil of despotism. > There are some things worth dying for. Alla: Can I just briefly comment that I find your analogy to be flawed? Cannon IS clear that Draco almost killed Katie and Ron, clear as in NOBODY can object to that and as I said previously IF DD had enough knowledge, NOT suspicions, in my book he was obligated to act. Cannon is NOT clear that Lupin killed Sirius, I mean it is clear to you, I am sure, but to me ( and I will go out on a limb and speculate that not just to me) this is just one of the possibilities and very unlikely to happen. So, yes if anybody wanted Lupin detained based on your interpretation, I would absolutely say that such arrest has no grounds whatsoever - as in no EVIDENCE to detain Lupin. Situation with Draco IMO is very very different. JMO, Alla From enlil65 at gmail.com Wed Jun 7 23:46:48 2006 From: enlil65 at gmail.com (Peggy Wilkins) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 18:46:48 -0500 Subject: Was Myrtle murdered? (was: Re: Harry a Horcrux?) Message-ID: <1789c2360606071646v3d0d1d64n6d713f746f6a0657@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153533 On 6/7/06, Kathryn Jones wrote: > KJ: > While I agree whole-heartedly with your timing, I have a hard time > recognizing the death of Myrtle as a murder. I don't think that Tom > released the basilisk with the specific intention of killing people, > that is just what basilisks do apparently. I don't suppose that Tom > concerned himself about it, but I don't think that it would cause a > split in his soul unless it was malicious and meant. I also don't think > that he would find Myrtle of sufficient importance to use that murder as > the basis for a horcrux... Peggy W: I can't so easily attribute that level of innocence to young Tom Riddle. He had to be aware of the entire Chamber of Secrets legend, and if he knew the story he would have known that the purpose of the Chamber was to house the basilisk for the specific purpose of "cleansing" the school of those who were less worthy. I put "cleanse" in quotes because of course it is a euphemism for murdering those deemed unworthy. He had to be fully aware that the basilisk would go about "cleansing" the school and yet he sought the Chamber for years until he found and opened it, and then he went on to command the basilisk: as we see when he is in the Chamber with Harry, Tom had to actually call it forth. At least that was my interpretation. Tom was not an innocent youth who just opened a door to prove he could do it and to see what was behind it. I think he had to be aware of the consequences, and yet he deliberately opened it and summoned the basilisk. Since there was deliberation, I consider Tom guilty on this one. > KJ, especially appreciative of posts that agree with me, there being > so few of them I at least agreed with the earlier part of your post, about Horcruxes not requiring their maker to drag an enchanted object along to their designated murder before the fact... :) -- Peggy Wilkins enlil65 at gmail.com From saberbunny at yahoo.ca Thu Jun 8 00:06:17 2006 From: saberbunny at yahoo.ca (catherine higgins) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 20:06:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and the "Chosen One" Was: Nice vs. Good - Compassion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060608000617.48589.qmail@web37210.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153534 lupinlore wrote: But how do you expect things to end? What do you think would be appropriate? Surely you don't think that the Dursleys, Umbridge, and Snape can go unpunished for their reprehensible crimes against Harry and the series will still have a moral leg to stand on? Catherine: I expect Umbridge to get sort of just desserts, but I don't think it will include any moment of cathartic revelation on her part. Somehing bad will happen to her, and she'll probably think "why me?". Something will also happen to the Dursley's, I expect, as Dudley's dementor vision is revealed. I also think that Petunia will be a lot more important to the plot than she has been. I get the feeling that she has been receiving and stashing letters from DD to give to Harry on his 17th birthday. She *personally* has received "letters" from DD (because of the "Remember my last" howler in OotP). And the fact that she knew about Dementors and all....she's way more in the loop then she lets on. As for Snape, well, who really knows. That could go so many ways. I really believe Snape is a nasty and horible person. I think, no matter who's side he's playing for in the end, that he is a deeply disturbed person. However, I feel that his treatment of Harry is far less reprehensible than the Dursley's or Umbridge's. I see it through "Harry-glasses". Harry feels ashamed of the quill detentions. He doesn't even mention them to Ron or Hermione at first. That shame, in my eyes, makes me feel that Harry is being abused, and that *Harry* thinks he's being abused. Harry is always *angry* after any exchange with Snape. He feels that Snape is "unfair", but he never feels shame following a Snape detention. Snape, in my eyes, is more of an instigator. He tries to get under people's skin, tries to provoke them, because he can. It does give him the feeling of power ofver someone to be able to provoke them. But I don't see it as abusive. More childish, as if he never really grew up. This brings me a bit to "Snape's Worst Memory" and the prank. It seems to me that both Sirius and Snape never really grew up following those moments in time. They never matured. Sirius because he was in prison for all of his early adult life, so how can one possibly mature normally? Snape just never got over something (the memory, the prank) and he's in an emotional rut. Snape is still *emotionally* around 16-18. You can feel any which way about Snape you want, but I think you're setting yourself up for dissappointment and a huge waste of time and money if the only thing that would please you is for Snape to say "Harry (and Neville), I am deeply sorry for all the emotional termoil that I have caused you! I totally renounce my abusive ways. Please forgive me!" Because that's just never going to happen. Catherine __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Jun 8 00:52:38 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 00:52:38 -0000 Subject: Understanding Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153535 Nora: > I think there's a third option here, actually implied > by the original post, which is being missed: > IF Snape is playing two sides against the middle--and > thus has both the ability and occasionally the motivation > to work for either side- houyhnhnm: But if Snape is playing both ends against the middle, then he is not a loyal Death Eater. There are three basic Snape theories, as I understand the discussions that have taken place on this board. One is that Snape joined the Death Eaters but "returned to our side" some time before the events at Godric's Hollow and has been loyal to Dumbledore ever since. (DDM!Snape) Another is that he only pretended to return to "our side", was loyal to Voldemort until LV's destruction, remained true to the beliefs of the Dark Order during the Vapor!Mort years, and returned to Voldemort as a loyal Death Eater when LV regained his body. (ESE!Snape or maybe a better description would be Voldemort's Man!Snape) A third is that Snape has his own agenda, may be working for the overthrow of LV, but not out of loyalty either to Dumbledore or to the Order of the Phoenix.(OFH!Snape and variations) The third theory is the one you appear to be espousing. Obviously Snape cannot be Dumbledore's man in OotP and Voldemort's in HBP. That makes no sense. If he was working for the Order in OotP and against it in HBP, then he would have to have been out for himself all along. I'm not sure that *that* theory can be falsified (though I think wynnleaf makes a good case, based on Snape's actions the night of Wormtail's escape). However I think the Voldemort's Man!Snape theory can be falsified by Snape's actions in OotP. If so, then his statements to Bellatrix at Spinner's End, to Draco the night of the Christmas party, and to the DEs during the Flight of the Prince, have to be interpreted in that light. For instance, the fact that Snape spared Harry on the Dark Lord's orders cannot be used to refute DDM!Snape. Snape may have had his own reasons for sparing Harry, reasons that had nothing to do with loyalty to Dumbledore, but he was not acting on the Dark Lord's orders. That was my point. From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Jun 8 00:55:22 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 20:55:22 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Baptism/Christianity in HP/Worth it? References: Message-ID: <005401c68a96$39533640$f3b4400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 153536 >> a_svirn: >> Why is it logical? Are you saying that Lilly's sacrifice is of the >> same kind than that of Christ? > > Leslie41: > Yes, in a way. In that we all have the opportunity to be Christ for > another person, and see Christ in others. Jesus said that the way > his followers would be known as Christians was because of their love > for one another, and there was no greater good than someone die for > their friend. Magpie: That's a perfectly okay connection to make but I think it makes it so general as to have nothing specifically relating to Jesus unless a reader personally just thinks of things in context of Jesus. Lily is Harry's mother and her sacrifice is a mother's sacrifice for her child, which is not what the sacrifice at the center of Christianity is about. Sacrifice and love certainly come into the Christian religion and there's nothing wrong with thinking of them in those terms personally but Lily being like Jesus for throwing herself in front of her child? Makes me think more of all the mothers in the world who would do the same--Mrs. Crouch, for instance. It's just when you start talking about the baptism with the scar as an extra sheild you're adding magic, imo. It turns into Harry being sprinkled with magical water that's a potion that repels the curse, but I don't see that kind of magic in the series. It's the same thing for me with things like the pheonix. The pheonix has understandably been used as a Christian symbol since it was originally, I believe, an Egyptian myth of a bird who was reborn like the sun. But since Fawkes lives in a world where actual centaurs and werewolves exist and he himself is literally a bird who immolates himself periodically I think he works more as just a pheonix (though he also symbolizes healing with his tears etc.). Even his name connects him with gunpowder rather a symbolic death and rebirth. I pretty much assume that when JKR says that her Christian beliefs will be manifest in the text she means that Harry will defeat Voldemort through love, which is more Christian in her eyes than a battle. Some Christians would prefer the flaming sword, of course. Depends on the Christian. imasuperhero7" Some of you seem to have based your >> lives around Harry Potter. I am sure I am not meaning to be rude or >> trying to bash anyone, just curious, what is it about these books > that have enthralled you? >> Granted, they're well written, and fun, but are they really that worth >> while??? I mean, contemplating the personalities of each character and >> their motives and all that, worth it? I am an intelligent person and a >> very good reader [one of the only things I'm really good at], but I just >> don't think they're that amazing. I read the first, second, and latest >> one that came out, > and quite frankly, lost interest.Am I the only one out there? Magpie: Err...well, that's an odd question. It reminds me of one of my favorite lines from The Golden Girls: "I'm sitting here, having a cup of tea, talking. You're looking at me like you paid sixty dollars to see Phantom of the Opera." I don't know how one would base their life on Harry Potter, though I know I haven't. They are just books that spark interesting conversations in my experience-sometimes critical conversation. I got online because I wanted to talk about them--ironically having not liked them all that much. I didn't hate them or anything, but they made me want to discuss some things about them rather than say how great they were. It's a vibrant, creative fandom that creates more stuff to talk about. So when you say that you're very intelligent and a good reader are you saying that the books aren't good enough to discuss? Because in my experience sometimes the best books kill discussion because they're too perfect, really. The book says all it needs to say. HP doesn't do that so I talk about it. Is it worth it? Sure. Just as any interesting conversation is worth it. It's fun. I guess I'm equally interested in why you'd come to a fandom list and ask if there's anybody out there who finds the books uninteresting, you know? Are you just puzzled by the phenomonen? Because I can understand that definitely, but it might be a different question. As for people who really just love the books like they're their favorites that just mean a lot to them and they like to read them over and over I can't answer because I have a different relationship with them--but I've been there with other books, so I understand the feeling. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 8 00:57:18 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 00:57:18 -0000 Subject: Understanding Snape/Snape and the "Chosen one"/Umbridge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153537 wynnleaf: > But actually, it makes almost no sense for Snape to put his life at > such great risk from both Sirius and especially Lupin, solely to take > an opportunity to capture or kill a hated school-time rival. The > degree of risk that Snape willingly takes on can only be explained by > his seeing that the "benefit" of his action was equal to or outweighed > the risk of his own life. And what could be worth the substantial > risk to his life? I can't see a "for self only" Snape considering > that the capture of Sirius was worth the risk of his own life at the > teeth and claws of a werewolf. Nor can I see why a "working for > Voldemort" Snape would consider it worth that risk either. The only > thing that I can see that could be considered worth the risk Snape > took, would be if Snape was on the good side and was attempting to > save the lives of three others (the children). > > I suppose that one might feel that Snape hated Sirius to such a degree > that he'd risk his own life at the teeth of a werewolf in order to get > Sirius, but I just don't think that's the sort of action a > self-serving person would take. After all, Snape knew for certain > that Lupin was about to change. The risk was huge that he'd be > dealing with a werewolf. I can't see a self-serving person taking > such a risk solely to get at Sirius. Alla: I can totally see "out for himself" Snape to go out there to deal with Sirius. SNape is not just ANY self-serving person IMO ( that is if he is one of course, but my position is that I can see him as such) Just think about it - the joy of getting hated school rival killed and not just killed but killed by the worst way imaginable - having his soul destroyed. See, if you see Snape as someone who enjoys seeing people he hates in pain, who enjoys causing pain ( and I do see Snape as sadist), it makes a great deal of sense for him to try and capture Sirius and Lupin. I mean, yes, I would say that it is totally in character for Snape. I am just saying that "out for himself" Snape WILL go to deal with Lupin and Sirius if for nothing else then to get his revenge and to get Order of Merlin. Not getting into whether he had a right to do so or not, whether he WAS right, etc, just saying that to me it fits if Snape is OFH!too, That of course works if Snape is DD!M too, but I don't see any contradictions for OFH!Snape. I guess I AM saying that Snape hated Sirius that much ( and as JKR said the hatred was entirely mutual of course) to go and try to have a go at him. > Catherine: > I expect Umbridge to get sort of just desserts, but I don't think it will include any moment of cathartic revelation on her part. Somehing bad will happen to her, and she'll probably think "why me?". Alla: Well, absolutely, I don't expect any catharfic revelation on her part either, but I am always puzzled (saying in general, not to your argument) why people bring up Umbridge as an example that bad guys do not get punished in "potterverse" JKR said that Umbridge is still around because it is fun to torture her, no? I personally have no doubt that in book 7 Umbridge will get her punishment and it will not be something minor, IMO. And of course I would like to see Snape suffer too :) I really would. I will not be dissapointed in books if it would not happen ( My only dissapointment will be Harry dying), but for some reason I think that Snape will get something too. Unfortunately it will be Harry's mercy, BUT I doubt that JKR will not give us at least one scene of major confrontation between those two and if it is well written, I will be happy too. From witherwing at sbcglobal.net Thu Jun 8 03:12:40 2006 From: witherwing at sbcglobal.net (Rebecca Scalf) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 20:12:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Worth it??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060608031240.84612.qmail@web81212.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153538 wynnleaf wrote: > I have a pretty high-stress life. Before getting > into HP fandom, I spent > most nights waking up with a mental rolidex of > "important things to > remember" going over and over in my head. HP gives > me a relaxing, > low-stress, interesting topic to relax with. But > because it's also very, > very intriguing, it holds my attention and keeps it > away from that > high-stress real life stuff -- much more than my > other interests such as > history, or gardening, or music. In that sense, > spending a lot of > attention on HP *is* worth it. Witherwing: I completely identify with this. I have stacks of reading, for professional development, recommendations from friends, etc., but sometimes I tiptoe to my daughters' room where we keep the HP books, and pull down my favorites. I find rereading HP books like visiting old friends, or taking a relaxing vacation, or sneaking an extra cookie from the cookie jar. I could say I read them because I'm a mom, or because I'm a teacher, but the truth is I just enjoy it. Immensely. And isn't it like listening to your favorite CD over and over again? Worth it. Witherwing From puduhepa98 at aol.com Thu Jun 8 03:12:06 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 23:12:06 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: DD and Draco's murder attempts WAS: Draco and Harry Message-ID: <47c.2e928fc.31b8ef86@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153539 > > Betsy Hp: >Dumbledore is perfectly willing to risk the lives of children (and other innocents) to further his own goals. He'll (apparently, per text) allow a child to enter an arena beyond his skill level that could lead to that child's death. As a test of character. I'm fairly sure Amnesty International would not approve. Neither do I think it'd approve of Dumbledore feeding a suspect truth serum without benefit of counsel Nikkalmati: I assume in regard to "entering an arena" you mean the Triwizard Tournament?I thought it was clear that DD had no choice but to allow Harry to participate per magical contract. I certainly don't think it was a test of character. DD saw it as an assassination attempt, which it more or less was. I think he would have stopped it if he could have. Interestingly, there apparently are no lawyers in the WW. One can take that as good or bad :>) JKR does not protray bureaucrats favorably; she does not like journalists either. I wonder what she would say or how she would portray lawyers! I suspect Percy is the type she would choose, if not something worse. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu Jun 8 03:21:57 2006 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 03:21:57 -0000 Subject: A Bizarre Theory on a Grand Scale Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153540 This theory has been stewing within me for some time and has little, if any, canon support. What it does is explain a possible scenario that would put the entire Harry Potter series in a cocked hat and in some way put those who had not thought of this possibility on the alert for it (assuming it does unravel JKR's little secret). Some facts: Lord Voldemort has been an active threat to the wider wizarding world since around the mid 1960s. This is based on Fudge's statement that the Ministry had been trying to track him down for thirty years. Even if the time is pushed back to 1957 when Lord Voldemort turned up at Hogwarts seeking employment or moved forward to 1970 (per Dumbledore's statement that Lord Voldemort had been terrorising the WW since 11 years before his initial downfall at Godric's Hollow) it would make no significant difference to this theory. Dumbledore, in whatever capacity (take your pick from Grand Sorceror, Chief Warlock, Supreme Mugwump or Headmaster of Hogwarts), has known of the threat posed by Lord Voldemort from the time he became a problem. Here as a small aside I say that it is often overlooked that Dumbledore is a Grand Sorceror, a title that he has never lost and one that Lord Voldemort may covet himself, hence his outburst at the end of Chamber of Secrets. When Lord Voldemort first became a threat the generation of the Marauders were toddlers or certainly not much more and had definitely yet to start at Hogwarts. In fact, of the Death Eaters introduced so far in canon very few would have yet finished, or even started, school at the time Lord Voldemort was becoming problematic. Extrapolating from the above stated facts it seems reasonable to propose that Dumbledore had been looking for a way to neutralise Lord Voldemort since before the Marauder generation entered his thinking, probably for several years before he came to know them at all. There is a strong likelihood that he succeeded in keeping some of Lord Voldemort's worst excesses at bay but had no clear view of just how he would end his "reign of terror" until certain matters to be listed in the next section of this piece happened in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The Late `70s / Early 80s: As a preliminary point it does not affect the overall hypothesis when any of these matters took place to the exact date. That they took place in the timeframe as per the sub-heading cannot be denied. The Marauders themselves and Severus Snape took part in the Werewolf Caper (as named by Red Hen on her invaluable site). None of them left school as a result and from what we can safely surmise all went on to complete their NEWTs. James Potter marries Lily Evans, who conceives and gives birth to Harry Potter. No further details have been given, but it is my view that we will learn more of wizarding marriages in the course of book 7 from Fleur and Bill's matrimonies. Sybil Trelawney makes a prophecy at the Hog's Head in Hogsmeade concerning a child yet to be born and the Dark Lord (who has to be Lord Voldemort for the Prophecy's central importance to be valid ? or perhaps the Prophecy is a rather large red herring ? perish the thought!). The implications of this are central to the whole series and to this theory. The Order of the Phoenix as constituted in the photo Moody shows Harry is brought together. A further small aside ? I am of the opinion that the Order of the Phoenix existed in some form, although not by the same name, from the time of Lord Voldemort's rise (or even perhaps earlier if Grindelwald was a significant threat) and was not formed only as a result of the prophecy but rather as a consequence of Dumbledore's overall plan. The recently disclosed Black Family tapestry indicates that both Regulus Black and his father Orion died in 1979, making Regulus approximately two years younger than Sirius. Peter Pettigrew becomes Secret Keeper for the Potters leading to their deaths at the hands of Lord Voldemort on 31st October 1981. This date leads neatly on to the next portion. Where were they then? As at 1st November 1981 the main protagonists of the currently unfolding story were, with the exception of certain of those who may or may not now be dead, in no particular order: - (i) Albus Dumbledore ? Headmaster of Hogwarts, at the school. (ii) Tom Riddle ? Disembodied vapour entity. (iii) Harry Potter ? With the Dursleys. (iv)The Weasleys ? At the Burrow (All of them, as Bill would have started Hogwarts the following school year, although this is not important and would not be addressed if criticism is forthcoming upon it). (v) Sirius Black ? In Azkaban (or shortly to be). (vi) Severus Snape, Rubeus Hagrid, Minerva McGonagall ? At Hogwarts. (vii) Peter Pettigrew ? In hiding. (viii) Death Eaters ? Mostly worried at various locations. (ix) Members of Order of the Phoenix ? Mostly elated at various locations. Any others were not at that point relevant to the story (including Hermione Granger whose existence would have been irrelevant to Dumbledore's purpose). The Problem: Simply stated, and to repeat, the problem was, and is, how to get rid of Lord Voldemort. Dumbledore finally discovered a way, the difficulty was that it would involve the deaths of several close associates and the potential exposure of the wizarding world. That it would take almost twenty years to come to fruition was a minor consideration if the world (and not just the wizarding community) was to be rid of perhaps the most evil genius (and yes Lord Voldemort is a genius) ever to threaten its existence. This man, Lord Voldemort, would gladly see all humans destroyed and use any means to achieve his goal. That was the choice he made in the absence of any normal controlling morals, which we have now been shown that Tom Riddle lacked practically from the moment he was born. Dumbledore's choice, as I will postulate, is the central driving force of the current position in the wizarding world. His choice, which he considered right, was to neutralise / destroy Lord Voldemort by whatever means necessary. If I am any where near to being correct then Albus would not have mentioned his plan to anyone else, with the possible exception of Aberforth ? and this is the reason Aberforth will be important in book 7. The Theory: Dumbledore's choice was to manufacture the situation whereby Lord Voldemort would initiate his own downfall. What Albus discovered about Lord Voldemort during the course of his research was that he took prophecies seriously. For this reason the prophecy was devised by Dumbledore to be espoused by Sybil Trelawney. Dumbledore would have some knowledge at the time immediately prior to the prophecy that two of his close associates' families were expecting children around the end of July. My partner knew she was pregnant within days both times so far and it is not unreasonable to project that both Lily Potter and Alice Longbottom knew they were pregnant by the time the prophecy was made. The additional feature of the prophecy that Dumbledore carefully manufactured was that Lord Voldemort would mark the child as his equal and thereby give him the tools to neutralise our Tom. The only factor Dumbledore could not control was which child Lord Voldemort would go after, but even this could have been quite easily worked out due to Lord Voldemort's background (half-blood), so it could be said with some certainty that he would go after the Potter's child. This would also eliminate the need to tell the Longbottoms of their hypothetical danger. The only people who would need to be aware of their parts in the initial stages of the set up would be the Potters and Peter. It would account for why the Potters only went into hiding a week before Lord Voldemort came after them because Dumbledore had some way of ascertaining when the time would come for Lord Voldemort's search and destroy mission. Dumbledore had to offer to be Secret Keeper to the Potters, but this was really just a cover story for Sirius's benefit. As part of the plot his agent (yes Peter Pettigrew) would be made Secret Keeper. Remember this is about choices between what is right and what is easy if we are to believe Ms. Rowling's interviews and what Dumbledore himself told us in Goblet. If Albus were Secret Keeper it would not be realistic to others that he had betrayed them, and they had to be betrayed for the plan to succeed. This last is what I have a hunch one of the biggest surprises of the books will be, that is that Peter Pettigrew has always been working for Dumbledore. Wasn't he the man who killed a dozen Muggles and Cedric Diggory and did many other unspeakable crimes, including betraying the Potters you ask? Yes, he was. Did he do this from his own choice you further inquire? Yes, he did. Was it right or was it easy? Certainly not easy, but possibly right in the interest of the wider wizarding world. In fact for the plan to work Pettigrew had to betray the Potters and do all those others things because otherwise Lord Voldemort would not have fallen into Albus's carefully contrived trap. Add to this that he owes a known life debt to Harry and it is not hard to conclude that Peter will be of great assistance in finally neutralising Lord Voldemort, perhaps when he is on the point of killing Harry, even though he has actually played his part in the scheme already by notifying Lord Voldemort of the Potter's whereabouts and later resurrecting Lord Voldemort. He may well also give Harry crucial information regarding the remaining Horcruxes. It was important for the plan to work that nobody other than Albus knew Peter was still working for him. So the prophecy is projected into Sybil by Albus and it is arranged that part, but not all, of it is overheard by someone who would then report this back to Voldemort. It does not alter the basic theory whether or not Snape is on Dumbledore or Lord Voldemort's side. There is a compelling argument out there that Snape must be Dumbledore's man due to his having reported only half the prophecy when he must have heard the whole thing (a judicious Muffliato from Aberforth all but puts the kibosh on that one). I agree that Snape is Dumbledore's man. This is not so far supported in canon, despite myriad attempts to do so, but as I say makes no real difference to this theory. The only important aspect is that Snape would report back to Lord Voldemort and he did. The fact is the only independent and unaware witness to the events at the Hog's Head was Sybil herself whose pay off was lifetime protection at Hogwarts on Dumbledore's instruction (and because he was not prepared to sacrifice absolutely everyone in order for his plan to succeed). She would give authenticity to the genuineness of the contrived prophecy should anyone care to check, and of course Harry duly did. The first half of the prophecy is this: "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal" I do not think the report went further, otherwise Lord Voldemort would also be aware that the child possesses a power he does not know. Knowing what we know of Lord Voldemort if he had known this portion he would have made some inquiries ? the man who is so afraid of death that he would go to any lengths to avoid it. This is the part Albus needs Lord Voldemort to be aware of for his plot to work. It is pivotal that Lord Voldemort mark the child as his equal and it is my view that Lord Voldemort would be aware of what this means (Dark Arts?). Albus would have contrived the magic that saved Harry and protects him yet with Lily and James's full acquiescence well before Lord Voldemort's attack at Godric's Hollow. This was James and Lily's part in the grand design; they willingly sacrificed themselves for the greater good. Why would Albus state that death is but the next great adventure to the well organised mind otherwise? All those who would die as a result of Albus's plan to rid the world of Lord Voldemort would have been chosen by him specifically for being well organised minds ready for the next adventure. Indeed taking this to its logical conclusion Peter would have been alerted to inform Lord Voldemort of the Potter's whereabouts only at the point where all preparations were in place The blood protection being in place the tricky part of the plan kicks in. Persuading the Dursleys to accept their nephew as a surrogate child. This was managed and Harry was left for the next almost ten years to grow up. During the time Albus would have ample opportunity to keep tabs on Harry, but would not want to interfere for fear of derailing the overall plan. Albus would have been confident that Lord Voldemort would not come back for many years as the only person with the necessary knowledge and skill to perform the only ritual to reconstitute a body was Peter, whose instructions were to do just that at the appointed time. Dumbledore does not seem particularly surprised that Lord Voldemort returned to a body when he did and this may also have something to do with the notorious gleam (because the final phase of the plan could then be initiated and duly was). For the next six years from the time Harry enters the wizarding world Dumbledore prepares him for his final showdown with Lord Voldemort, which is slated for a year later. Dumbledore has given Harry all he can by this stage in order to succeed including his embedded agent / agents. A small interjection for clarification ? I believe Dumbledore is well aware of what has been happening with Lord Voldemort in whatever guise since the time Harry arrived at Hogwarts and probably well before. He did tell us that he had reports of Lord Voldemort being in Albania and he appears to know what Lord Voldemort is up to at every turn. This makes me suspect that we have not yet met all the spies and JKR has all but admitted this (about the multiplicity of spies) in interviews. His whole thing is to prepare Harry for what only he can do ? which is to neutralise Lord Voldemort with the tools Lord Voldemort himself has given to Harry. Conclusion: If, as many theorists expect, there is to be a parallel between book 3 and book 7 then I propose the major revelation will be that all the time Peter has been working for Dumbledore. It certainly would give an extraordinarily good reason as to why Peter was and remains a Gryffindor. And some of you thought Dumbledore was sloppy. It certainly would explain an awful lot of incongruities. Goddlefrood From dontask2much at yahoo.com Thu Jun 8 03:26:51 2006 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 23:26:51 -0400 Subject: The Gleam, The Blood, and TM Riddle (Long) Message-ID: <007a01c68aab$62d0f560$6a01a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 153541 I started this effort researching the whole "Harry's got Lily's eyes and what does THAT mean?" question, but I keep getting drawn back to the gleam in Dumbledore's eye at His Dark Lordshipness taking and using Harry's blood for his rebirthing in GoF. Note to all who read: this is only what I think is the case. Feel more than free to have your own view and share, will you, please? I'm asking myself "how thick could you get?" in relation to why Voldemort would do what he did after reading all that I could about ancient blood rituals. Ancient beliefs about blood were remarkably similiar to what Voldemort did in taking Harry's blood for his rebirthing - the practice of using the strength of your enemy's blood to sustain and empower yourself is rampant through ancient times. It is believed the same substance can cleanse or defile, drive men to fury and murder or appease anger and restore life. IMO, Voldemort's got a problem and a big one: if any of the above is true, he's now got some, well..... shall we say, "issues." Let's discuss... In ancient times, it was believed that you had to extremely careful about taking enemy blood for yourself , because the following could be true: - The enemy's soul, life experiences, personality or a combination of all three were in the blood - You acquired not only the strengths, but could acquire the weaknesses of your opponent, too - Drinking or using your enemy's blood constitued a "bond" between you and the person from whom you took the blood. - Just because you killed your opponent and bested him doesn't mean that if you take his blood for your own purposes, that your enemy couldn't best you in the end from *within you.* Now, on to the guesswork. Trays in the upright position......exits to the left and right.... First, as Dumbledore says, Voldemort's use of Harry's blood now allows him to overcome the "particular hurdle" of touching Harry without harm to himself. Protection there nullified, however isn't there more to Harry's blood than just the bond of blood protection by his mother's sacrifice? (Note: Dumbledore says "particular hurdle" which can mean he's implying there's more than one for Voldemort associated with Harry's blood.) If Harry really has a piece of T.M. Riddle in his head, then Voldemort's use of Harry's blood might just even that score, too. How? Seatbelts tightened, please. Harry is repeatedly told, by Dumbledore, how unusual and unique he is with all he's endured, specifically that Harry's soul is "untarnished and whole" whereas Voldemort's is not: "You are protected, in short, by your ability to love!" said Dumbledore loudly. "The only protection that can possibly work against the lure of power like Voldemort's! In spite of all the temptation you have endured, all the suffering, you remain pure of heart, just as pure as you were at the age of eleven, when you stared into a mirror that reflected your heart's desire, and it showed you only the way to thwart Lord Voldemort, and not immortality or riches." (HBP) Note this from SS/PS about the blood protection: "Not a scar, no visible sign... to have been loved so deeply, even though the person who loved us is gone, will give us some protection forever. It is in your very skin." And this from Dumbledore in the Ministry of Magic (OoP) during his battle with Voldemort: 'We both know that there are other ways of destroying a man, Tom." What better way to destroy a man than from within his very self? IMO, the blood Voldemort took from Harry now acts as a permanent medium to introduce all those "weaknesses" Lord Voldemort perceives Harry as having: love, friendship, trust, a complete and untarnished soul along with the protection of a mother, which we know the Dark Lord never had. Maybe Voldemort can deploy Occulmency against Harry all day long to avoid Harry having access to his thoughts, but it may be another story for the Dark Lord when he's being peppered with doubts, emotion or confusion from within and perhaps he can't control it as much as he'd like to. Remember, Harry is described by Dumbledore as being "pure of heart' which one can infer means that his blood is pure in this way, too. Those "feelings" or thoughts might not be blocked by Occlumency (which Dumbledore believes that Voldemort is using against Harry at the beginning of HBP) because perhaps they come from *Voldemort's skin*, just as Harry's protection is in his skin. And look out, time might make that worse and take the edge off Voldemort's somewhat considerable power. He certainly didn't risk a second turn at Dumbledore himself after OoP, preferring instead to plot, plan and scheme and keep his Dark Butt out of the fray. What was the rebirthing other than a potion/spell combination? And who do we know who is proficient at potions and spells? I think someone is going to give Harry the "clue" about using Voldemort's mistake to his advantage (and I think it was a HUGE error on Voldemort's part - one Wormtail tried inadvertently to avoid for him.) . By using Harry's blood for his restoration, Voldemort left the door open for several situations to occur, however one I am specifically drawn to is putting into play what's perhaps in Harry, allowing it to spring into action. You know, that mysterious piece of one T.M. Riddle which Harry thought he couldn't possibly have known as a friend as a younger child, even though the name was familiar to him in that manner. T.M Riddle might help Harry through Book 7 and the Horcux hunt; here's what I perceive as T.M Riddle's influencing Harry to understand innately how to destroy the diary horcrux: "Then, without thinking, without considering, as though he had meant to do it all along, Harry seized the basilisk fang on the floor next to him and plunged it straight into the heart of the book." And this interesting description of how Harry reacted after destroying the diary: "Shaking all over, Harry pulled himself up. His head was spinning as though he'd just traveled miles by Floo powder." There's also the mention of Harry's ability to throw off the Imperius curse in GoF - who is the little voice in Harry's head? The same voice also appears to encourage Harry in PoA to kill Sirius when he has the chance. Now, let's travel to the emotion Harry feels at an Easter egg Ginny gives him from Mrs. Weasley in OoP: "She handed him a handsome chocolate egg decorated with small, iced Snitches and, according to the packaging, containing a bag of Fizzing Whizzbees. Harry looked at it for a moment, then, to his horror, felt a lump rise in his throat. 'Are you OK, Harry?' Ginny asked quietly. 'Yeah, I'm fine,' said Harry gruffly. The lump in his throat was painful. He did not understand why an Easter egg should have made him feel like this" I suspect that T.M. Riddle, if he's there in Harry, knows now concepts like love, sacrifice, friendship, honor, trust, tolerance, and kindness really *do* exist. He's had Harry's untarnished and complete soul as an example. Give that part back to Voldemort while he's in a skin which was partly produced and perhaps influenced by Harry's blood - well, there may be a result astonishing to behold. For Voldemort, such an event may result in knowledge, which begets truth, and with truth, self realization and reality. A life well lived is truly better than a life not lived to the fullest at all and that, my friends, is not something I think any of us want to have at the point of death. Rebecca, who is glad to get this out of *her* head, thank you very much From puduhepa98 at aol.com Thu Jun 8 03:40:05 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 23:40:05 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] RE: Understanding Snape; Message-ID: <32f.5678500.31b8f615@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153542 >Ali >This is a kid that clearly acts before thinking and clearly acts on the option that isn't necessarily the most sensible one. Therefore, if I were in Snape's shoes, my first thought would be that Harry is going to find *some* way to get out of Hogwarts and to the Department of Mystery, and in fact, I think this thought should have occurred to any of Harry's teachers, especially given that Hermione is with him. >Moreover, the evidence citing that Umbridge not coming back [from the forest] equates with Harry & Hermione coming still being there and with her doesn't quite work in my mind. After all, we know the forest is huge, and amidst a large grouping of trees and fantastical creatures, it can't be too hard to purposely lose track of someone, as Harry would be wont to do since he would be trying his best to get out of Hogwarts and get to Sirius. Nikkalmati: The reasoning you give about Harry is no doubt pretty much the line of thinking Snape would have followed. It explains why he did alert the Order. However, he could certainly have gotten away with pretending that he didn't understand Harrry's cryptic message and that he never thought Harry could ever get to the MOM. Who could disprove it? In any case, Harry would certainly be dead and LV's victory assured if Snape played dumb and kept his mouth shut. BTW didn't DD say to Harry that Snape went into the forest looking for them before he contacted the Order? Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Thu Jun 8 03:49:34 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 03:49:34 -0000 Subject: Salazar Slytherin via Grindelwald to Draco Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153543 I have a MAJOR theory about things stem back through Grindelwald to Salazar Slythern and how it influences Lord Voldemort and his desire for Draco as the ONLY one to AK Dumbledore. BUT - If we correctly guess major suprises to JKR's story, do you think she would change what she was going to say just to keep control of the story - as I have when telling bed time stories. Minor examples were the rumours about Mark Evans, the 10 year old in OOTP and the possibility he was related to Lilly Evans and would get an Owl Post the next year to attend Hogwarts. Or Arabella Figg with all her cats and taking care of Harry every so often. Rumours went around she was a witch there to protect Harry. Did these story lines get watered down to say "NAH! You thought you guess what I was thinking, but you're wrong." Should I or Shouldn't I? .... I will post the theory in 3 days unless you think it will damage JKR's writing inspiration. From puduhepa98 at aol.com Thu Jun 8 04:06:41 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 00:06:41 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Worth it??? Message-ID: <4c5.a696f6.31b8fc51@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153544 >Janie Really now, I am very curious. Some of you seem to have based your lives around Harry Potter. I am sure I am not meaning to be rude or trying to bash anyone, just curious, what is it about these books that have enthralled you? >Granted, they're well written, and fun, but are they really that worth while??? I mean, contemplating the personalities of each character and their motives and all that, worth it? Nikkalmati: Of course no one here is basing his or her life around Harry Potter .... unless you are neglecting your daily obligations ("oops, where are my kids now?") :>) or spending way too much time on this list ("oh no, is it really that late?" ) :.0 Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Jun 8 06:32:25 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 06:32:25 -0000 Subject: Worth it??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153545 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "imasuperhero7" wrote: > > Hello peoples, > > Really now, I am very curious. Some of you seem to have > based your lives around Harry Potter. ..., just curious, > what is it about these books that have enthralled you? > Granted, they're well written, and fun, but are they really > that worth while??? I mean, contemplating the personalities > of each character and their motives and all that, worth it? > ...edited,,, > Am I the only one out there? > Thanks and all the best! > Janie > bboyminn: Well, I could be out selling Crack, I could be out stealing cars, I could be out getting stinking drunk every night, I could waste my life away starring in mind numbing silence at the TV, but instead, I choose to concetrate my time on a series of books that I enjoy very much. Further, discussions in this group and others helps keep my mind sharp; use it or lose it, as the saying goes. Instead of being in a drunken stupor, or a TV induced near coma, I chose to use my brain to think and analyse, discuss and debate, and occassionally write an essay or two, and perhaps some fan fiction. Given all the miserable and destructive vices available in the world, I hardly think there is a problem with being a Harry Potter fan. In terms of you losing interest; well, if you did then you did, and that is that, and that is you. However, this one single Discussion Group (HP for Grownups) has nearly 22,000 members. Further, at one single all-genre fan fiction website, Harry Potter has 250,000 fan fictions written. That is SIX times more than the genre that occupies the number TWO spot. That should tell you something about how alive, inspiring, and how vividly drawn these HP characters are. They DO stimulate and inspire the mind in a way no other fiction every has or probably ever will. JKR has created a publishing phenomenon that is unprecidented in history, and I don't think it was just a fluke. She writes with a very compact style that stimulates the imagination. So, while JKR may not be the technically best writer, her work does have technical aspects that lend themselves very well to creating vivid captivating stories. Further, while she may not be a master writer, she is certainly a master storyteller. Being a good storyteller is not necessarily about technique and precise form, it is far more about holding your audience competely enthralled. Next, this is a seven part series that develops, in a sense, in realtime. The characters and the story grow and change. Perhaps some people want the ageless characters of Nancy Drew or the Hardy Boys who remained age 16 for many decades, but that is not how JKR wrote this story. The characters change and grow over time. You can't expect the same type of story when the characters age from 11 to 17. So, I do what I do because it is far more productive and rewarding that all the other more miserable vices life has to offer me. You do and have made your own choices; more power to you. Steve/bboyminn From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Thu Jun 8 06:51:38 2006 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 23:51:38 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: HBP 18, Birthday Surprises In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0606070329u331aa949t9392e8bebdff2657@mail.gmail.com> References: <80f25c3a0606070329u331aa949t9392e8bebdff2657@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1415885436.20060607235138@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153546 Wednesday, June 7, 2006, 3:29:19 AM, elfundeb wrote: e> 4. Why is it so important to Hermione to outshine Harry in Potions? Is it e> a need for recognition? Fear of failure? Concern about Harry's reliance on e> an unknown author? Annoyance that Harry is taking credit for the Prince's e> work? Something else? And why do you think she put her own hair into her e> potion? Specifically in this scene, I think she's especially resentful because Harry, although producing a technically correct answer, evaded the assignment and not only got away with it, but received the highest praise. It was as if they were being tested on long division, but Harry used his calculator to get the answer, and Slughorn gave him an "A" rather than a "Please show your work". More generally I think Hermione has a strong drive to excel. I have known many Hermione-like students who were determined to academic supremacy, whether from their own drive, or from parental pressure. In this sense, I was more like Harry in school. Seeking love and acceptance and fighting my "Voldemorts" occupied my mind much more than making the Honor Roll. e> 5. JKR frequently makes a point of describing the weather when she shifts e> to a new scene or section of narrative; for example, February brought "cold e> dreary wetness." I think these passages are excellent mood-setters. e> 6. Wilkie Twycross tells the students that the restrictions on Apparition e> have been lifted in the Great Hall for the duration of the lesson. If it's e> that simple, couldn't anyone undo the restriction? I agree with those who've already said that it *isn't* that simple because it's DD's spells. My question/worry is: Are these protections gone now that DD is dead? e> Is JKR lampooning the effect of crushes on us Muggles? Probably -- I know what an idiot *I've* often behaved like over certain girls... This scene with Ron ranks up there with "Someday You'll Find Her, Charlie Brown", in which Chuck obsesses over a girl he saw on TV for two seconds. e> 9. Why is Ron horrified when Slughorn administers the antidote? I assumed he was instinctively fearing the damage he may have done to his relationship with Lavender. -- Dave From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 8 07:01:33 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 07:01:33 -0000 Subject: Moaning Myrtle's murder (Was: Harry a Horcrux?) In-Reply-To: <44868610.4070704@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153547 KJ wrote: > While I agree whole-heartedly with your timing, I have a hard time recognizing the death of Myrtle as a murder. I don't think that Tom released the basilisk with the specific intention of killing people, that is just what basilisks do apparently. I don't suppose that Tom concerned himself about it, but I don't think that it would cause a split in his soul unless it was malicious and meant. I also don't think that he would find Myrtle of sufficient importance to use that murder as the basis for a horcrux. I have seen a few hardy posters attempt to come up with sufficiently important people to match to the horcruxes, but I find either too many murders or not enough significant murders. Carol responds: At a guess, I'd say that the important murders are Moaning Myrtle (I'll get back to her in a minute) as his first, all three Riddles (ending the Riddle line and getting revenge), and Hepzibah Smith (for her Hufflepuff heritage). That would cover the diary (Myrtle), the ring (Tom Sr.), the cup (Hepzibah), and two more (the locket and the Ravenclaw Horcrux for the other two Riddles?). I think that Nagini is a Horcrux, but that she was made one before Godric's Hollow, which would account for Voldemort's snakelike appearance even before his return (see the description of his features when his head sticks out the back of Quirrell's) and for his ability to possess her without killing her. To return to Moaning Myrtle: Diary!Tom says that he opened the Chamber of Secrets and released the Basilisk to continue "Salazar Slytherin's noble work"--that is, to rid Hogwarts of Muggleborns. As the Basilisk slides through the pipes, it says things like "Kill! Kill! Kill!" That is its purpose; it's the reason that Tom released it both in his fifth year at Hogwarts and via the diary in CoS. He understands and speaks Parseltongue, as does the snake; the snake obeys his orders, given in its own language. Myrtle hears him talking to the snake before she comes out of the stall. It seems to me likely that he ordered the Basilisk to kill the girl when she came out. Tom may well have known Myrtle's habit of crying in the bathroom or recognized her voice. And he would certainly have known that she was a "Mudblood," such things being important to him. (It's also possible that the snake could recognize a Muggleborn by the smell, which could be why only Muggleborns were attacked.) Since he had the Basilisk with him for one reason only, to kill Muggleborns, why question that that's exactly what he was doing in this instance? If, say, Draco were to release a venomous snake into a classroom and it bit a student and the student died, wouldn't he be guilty of murder? Everyone seem to think that he would have been guilty of murder if Ron or Katie had died even though neither was his intended victim. Why, then, wouldn't Tom be guilty of murder when Myrtle died--even if he didn't set the snake on her, as I think he did? A Basilisk is even more deadly than a cursed necklace or poisoned mead. There is no countercurse or antidote for its deadly gaze. I don't understand why people see the snake as guilty of murder (yes, it's an evil beast but it lacks human intelligence or a conscience) and Tom as merely its innocent handler. He released the Basilisk for the specific purpose of killing Muggleborns; it responded to his orders. ("It only obeys me," he tells Harry in CoS, quoted from memory.) I see the snake as a deadly weapon that he had every intention of using on the first Muggleborn he encountered. And that Muggleborn happened to be Myrtle. Harry could have been expelled or worse for using Sectumsempra on Draco. He might even have been sent to Azkaban if Draco had died (given the WW's "justice" system). Surely Tom, who knew exactly what a Basilisk was capable of doing, was guilty of a much worse crime than Harry's, even if Harry's victim had also died? I can cite quotes to show that Tom knew exactly what he was doing--ridding Hogwarts of "Mudbloods" as Salazar Slytherin intended-- if that's what's keeping people from viewing Myrtle's death as murder. Carol, who thinks that having killed Myrtle made it much, much easier for Tom to kill his own family From iam.kemper at gmail.com Thu Jun 8 07:11:32 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 00:11:32 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Worth it??? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40606080011o1be06128oa0ab107435f5d4ba@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153548 On 6/7/06, imasuperhero7 wrote: > > > > > > > > Hello peoples, > > Really now, I am very curious. Some of you seem to have based your > lives around Harry Potter. I am sure I am not meaning to be rude or > trying to bash anyone, just curious, what is it about these books that > have enthralled you? > Granted, they're well written, and fun, but are they really that worth > while??? I mean, contemplating the personalities of each character and > their motives and all that, worth it? > I am an intelligent person and a very good reader [one of the only > things I'm really good at], but I just don't think they're that > amazing. I read the first, second, and latest one that came out, and > quite frankly, lost interest. > Am I the only one out there? > Thanks and all the best! Kemper now: Hello Janie! Wow, you lost interest after only reading 3 out of the 6 books, and one of the books had a three book gap between the other? That is really weird. I am sure I am not meaning to be rude or trying to bash you, too, but are you aware you can unsubscribe to receiving email posts? Or that you can do one of the only things you're really good at and read something else? I am sure I am sorry for being such a problem solver. Thanks and all the best! Kemper [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Thu Jun 8 09:23:08 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 09:23:08 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153550 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" wrote: > > When you add that to the fact that the place on Harry's body that > repelled the scar is the very place where he received the waters of > baptism, and possibily unction as well, it becomes hard for me to > think that (at least subliminally) Rowling was making a point, and > tying together his mother's sacrifice with Christ's, and with Harry's > acceptance into Christ's kingdom. Well, that very place was presumably on Cedric's body, and on lots of other bodies.... So what does that mean? Some people are more baptised than others? > > Not the only way to look at things, obviously. One need not read the > Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and see Christ in Aslan, either. > But as with Harry's scar, it is more interesting and meaningful for > me that way. > Lewis was always rather open abput that. And Aslan was someone special ,with special powers instead of an ordinary talking animal. Harry is an ordinary boy, a normal human being. Not a substitute for Jezus Gerry From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Jun 8 09:25:25 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 09:25:25 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153551 > > a_svirn: > > Why is it logical? Are you saying that Lilly's sacrifice is of the > > same kind than that of Christ? > > Leslie41: > Yes, in a way. In that we all have the opportunity to be Christ for > another person, and see Christ in others. Jesus said that the way > his followers would be known as Christians was because of their love > for one another, and there was no greater good than someone die for > their friend. a_svirn: This is not what Christ's sacrifice was about. It was about spiritual salvation of mankind, not about physical survival of a friend. > Leslie41: > The parental nature of god--as "god the father"--is also part of > God's triune nature. a_svirn: It is, isn't it? And in Christian tradition we have Father sacrificing his beloved Son, whereas in the HP story Lilly sacrificed herself so that her son would live. I'd say there are more differences than similarities here. > > > A_svirn: > > That would mean that either Lilly was somewhat presumptuous, or > > that Christ made His ultimate sacrifice so that Harry would be > > able to kill Voldemort one of these days. > > Leslie41: > Well, I don't see how it follows that Lily was presumptuous. a_svirn: It follows if she saw herself as a second Christ or something. > Leslie41: >But as > for Christ's "ultimate sacrifice," well if one is a Christian, one > believes that he made that sacrifice out of love. And it is love as > well that will eventually allow Harry to defeat Voldemort. It's not > that Harry can kill Voldemort because of Christ's sacrifice, but > perhaps more that Christ's sacrifice and teachings in part provide a > kind of paradigm for Harry's behavior, whether known to Harry or not. a_svirn: I hope you are not saying that love is something only Christians are capable of. From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 8 03:07:41 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 03:07:41 -0000 Subject: DD and Draco's murder attempts WAS: Draco and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153552 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > But that Dumbledore seems to clash with the man keeping the prophecy > a secret from Harry merely to allow Harry his boyhood, no matter > that it screws with all of his well laid plans. Why would the same > man who nearly killed Harry at age 11 so he could check out his > character, *cry* because Harry's got a big burden on his shoulders? > Yes, that is a problem. But if I was forced to put ten dollars on the answer, I suspect JKR would skew heavily away from a Machiavellian Dumbledore. I doubt, when push comes to shove, that JKR would say that DD deliberately enticed Harry into the gauntlet or that he meant it as a test of Harry's character. I suspect that she would say that DD had protected the stone without meaning for it to be an enticement to anybody; that DD was pleased about what Harry did but not because he meant to trick or train or test or entice Harry in any way but because he liked the way Harry's own decisions had turned out; and that DD had given the cloak to Harry in the spirit of "let's see what the young man can find out," never intending or imagining that Harry and his friends would come anywhere close to the gauntlet. She might also claim that DD's intentions are always to keep Harry alive and well, and that he "unwillingly allows" Harry to face some situations in an effort to achieve that end, as he "suspects what Harry might be facing" in that Voldemort "will not rest" until Harry is dead, and that any utilitarian motives or anti-Voldemort strategy he has would be distinctly secondary. Indeed, I suspect she would say that Dumbledore's "plan" as far as it relates to Harry specifically consists merely of a determination to keep Harry alive and well. Now, I grant you that such statements don't come anywhere near solving all of the problems. But, if I had to put ten dollars on what she would say if asked point blank, I rather suspect that she would come out with something like that -- i.e. emphasizing that DD "unwillingly allows" Harry to face some situations, not that he ever deliberately tricks, cajoles, or entices Harry into such, and HEAVILY emphasizing (as she has done in her interviews and to a lesser extent in canon) that DD's main and overriding goal is Harry's life and well-being. And there we are into the situation, I agree, of JKR trying to be mealy-mouthed and squirm out of the implications of plot points she may well not have thought through very well. And yes, I think JKR *DOES* sometimes put her foot in her mouth not only in her interviews but in canon as well -- such as the infamous speech at the end of OOTP. > > For a very long time I've had a brilliant and thoroughly logical > theory about PS/SS that Explained It All (tm). However, the fact > that Dumbledore has never corrected Harry's belief that Dumbledore > sent him on that "little adventure", the fact that this was a > conversation that could have easily taken place in OotP, and the > fact that Dumbledore is dead (or mostly dead, depending on > theories), suggests that my own theory, brilliant though it may have > been, is not the real deal. > Oh, don't give up yet. For one thing, I rather suspect that JKR was not fully aware of the problems with DD until the aftermath of OOTP, and is still working to correct them. The confrontation with the Dursleys was one such, the fatherly DD of HBP was another example (teary moments and all). And she has said we will be learning more about DD, his mistakes, and his attitudes. Also, conversations with DD (or at least information from him) are by no means out of the question in a world of pensieves and talking paintings. Lupinlore From quigonginger at yahoo.com Thu Jun 8 13:21:55 2006 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 13:21:55 -0000 Subject: Individual issues and JKR (was Re: Snape and the "Chosen One" ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153553 > > Ginger(previously): > My personal soapbox, about which I posted here before HBP was JKR's > treatment of "inbred" people. I *do* hate that term. Hasn't > someone come up with a politically correct term for that yet? < > > xuxu: > I think 'inbred' is fine. It's a derogatory term, but then it's meant > to since I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) it is aimed at the > pure-bloods who shy from exogamy because they are actually xenophobes. > It's like calling racists 'racist', it is also derogatory, but then > what? > Ginger now: Inbred is fine. It is a derogatory term. It's what they are. Hmm. So by that line of reasoning. Mudblood is fine. It's a derogatory term, but that's what they are. Just ask Draco. The difference in calling a racist a racist and calling someone inbred is that the racist chooses to be racist and can change, should they decide to do so. Someone who is genetically homogenous (thank you, Catherine!) doesn't choose to be that way any more than someone chooses to be white or black or short or tall. There are many derogatory terms for various races and physical disabilities (one can't choose one's race or abilities), religions (one does choose, but believing as one wishes ought to be a basic right), sexual orientation (one could fake it, but they shouldn't have to). There are also derogatory terms for the choices we make. Some can be very harsh. Slut, bitch, drunk, mooch, pedaphile. All nasty terms, which may or may not be earned. I would put inbred in with the former as one can't choose one's heritage. Back to canon, as this is wandering far off. JKR has made the WW virtually free from gender bias and racial bias. One can't choose one's race or gender. All are equal. Draco has no problem with Blaise, who is black, nor does he dispute MM's authority when she catches him out of bounds. He does, on the other hand, have a huge problem with Muggles and "Mudbloods". Even the term he uses announces his disdain. JKR is pretty clear that she doesn't agree with this. What I wonder is why she will champion Hermione (Muggle-born), Hagrid (halfbreed) and Lupin (disabled), but allow the inbred issue to go unchallenged. But as I said before, my soapbox isn't her soapbox. Perhaps she only has so many causes she can speak for and still get out good books. Maybe she needs a stereotype that is still acceptable so she has someone to look down on. It's only human nature that we want to think that there's someone out there who is inferior to ourselves. No one likes to be low man on the totem pole, so to speak. Or maybe she thinks us genetically homogenous folks are too dumb to read the books. (kidding) At any rate, one of her main themes is about choices, and how one's actions and character are more important than the circumstances of one's birth. That's why I was disappointed. It seems to go against what she has previously said so clearly. Ginger, who didn't choose her family, but is awfully fond of them and wouldn't trade them for the world. From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Thu Jun 8 13:28:12 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 13:28:12 -0000 Subject: Slughorn, Hagrid, Binns (Ghosts), Myrtle and Prince Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153554 Now that DD is not a source of personal information about Tom Riddle as a student, who is there that Harry can find any information from? If Harry is to find any clues from that time of LV's life, who are his resources? Slughorn was his teacher of Potions, apart from having Tom as a regular in his Slug Club. Slughorn is also the new Head of *Slytherin House. Hagrid was at Hogwarts when Tom was there - and victomised because of it. Hagrid also know the scariest area around Hogwarts if Tom like scary places to go with **Horcrux hiding places. Hagrid knows the forrest, the first place we met LV in PS/SS. The ghosts know a few things about Hogwarts and the more notable students. Prof Binns, the ghost that teaches history and Nearly Headless Nick are on good speaking terms with Harry. But it's the Bloody Baron I think is hiding the most secrets - but how to get him to speak? Moaning Myrtle is a ghost that deserves her own mention. She has been on good terms with Harry for some time. She owes her demise to Tom Riddle that was a few years ahead of her. She even lent Draco a shoulder to cry on as he prepared for DD's demise. She should know a few things .... if Harry can flatter her. Another source of information JKR hid until the last book was Snape's mother, Prince. Huh, you ask? Lupin got Harry to look up the publishing date of the potions book and it shows that Prince was at Hogwarts at the same time as Tom Riddle. I am wondering how many of those darker spells may have been borrowed from Tom Riddle himself. If this young girl showed such promise in potions, she would stand out in the Slytherin Common Room. Did Snapes mother know Tom? Harry need only open the potions book again to find more valuable information. FOOTNOTE: (*The Slytherin Common Room may be very handy since Hogwarts shaped Tom so much. I was wondering how he "happened" to find the enterance to the COS in an active girls bathroom unless a clue was found in a place such as the Slytherin Common Room. Slughorn may allow Harry to look around and gather more clues.) **The other Horcruxes were in places Tom had life changing experiences. The Cave complete with the thing he was most scared of - dead bodys, where he terrorised 2 other orphans. His Grandfather's house, where he schemed his first murder and framed another innocent (as he framed Hagrid). Could the Chamber of Secrets hold more secrets, like a Horcrux? From pebbles104 at sbcglobal.net Thu Jun 8 04:38:08 2006 From: pebbles104 at sbcglobal.net (Kellie and Lady J) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 00:38:08 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Worth it??? References: Message-ID: <01bf01c68ab5$584bbcb0$6500a8c0@shannonn2zgd3u> No: HPFGUIDX 153555 Janie snip Hello peoples, Really now, I am very curious. Some of you seem to have based your lives around Harry Potter. I am sure I am not meaning to be rude or trying to bash anyone, just curious, what is it about these books that have enthralled you? Granted, they're well written, and fun, but are they really that worth while??? I mean, contemplating the personalities of each character and their motives and all that, worth it? I am an intelligent person and a very good reader [one of the only things I'm really good at], but I just don't think they're that amazing. I read the first, second, and latest one that came out, and quite frankly, lost interest. Am I the only one out there? Thanks and all the best! end snip Kellie here Well, first I will say that not everyone is going to like a book. I have friend's who don't understand why I love the Harry Potter books. It is a matter of personal preference. Some enjoy the Potter books and others don't. It is all if it catches your interest or not. Some try it, and decide it just isn't for them and others come to it, reluctantly truly expecting to hate it and they can't put it down. (I have friends like this) As for me, I find the world that J. K. creates interesting. I think that she is an excellent writer and clever too. She is able to hold my attention and completely throw me off when I think I understand something. I love her play on words and how names are often derived from something. I enjoy the hidden meanings in the books, many of which I didn't think about until seeing them on this list. I am now going through and rereading the books now, so that I can read them from a different perspective. And as for speculating about a characters personality and the reason for certain things they have done. I can only speak for myself, but I get so wrapped up in a story that I feel like I am there. I am part of the story that J. K. has written down on the pages. They aren't words for me anymore. I listen to audio books, and I hear the words, but they are in a way half heard. It is hard to explain. I hear them but it goes above that with me. It turns into pictures in my mind and I am transported to their world. A world where magic exists, where you can wave a wand to clean the dishes, apperate to get somewhere quickly, turn into a cat, and where dragons and hippogriphs fly. Though, I know that it is all a book, it is fun to get so wrapped up that you wonder, why is a person like this? , what would they do and speculate what a person is going to do in the next book. Fictional characters they might be, but they still have a personality unique to them. Snape is just a sarcastic person, the twins love to play tricks, Hermione (sorry on the spelling, I haven't seen it spelled out so am not sure how it is spelled smiles* is smart and the one who tries to think before acting rashly. And because of that, we can wonder or think about how they would act and why. Or, knowing each personality, wonder why they made the decision they did. On another site I was on, Harry Potter came up and some individuals couldn't understand how a person could get so wrapped up and get upset when a particular character died or whatever. Their attitude was that it was just a book. I explained that when you are an avid reader of a series, you really get into the books. When a character in the book, that you liked or could identify with, dies it can make you frustrated and mad. I cried in book 6 and I am finally going to reread HBP for the second time. I have reread the previous books many times already, but I haven't been able to bring myself to go at book 6 again. smiles I am truly captivated by her books and think she is an awesome writer. I love fantasy books, but not usually ones that are an alternate of our reality, but this one I love. It is one of my favorite series, though it still doesn't top Terry Goodkind for me. smiles I am eagerly awaiting book seven, and it is hard to wait. smiles Kellie who says it is unusual for her to write such a long post. From leslie41 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 8 13:38:49 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 13:38:49 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153556 > > > a_svirn: > > > Why is it logical? Are you saying that Lilly's sacrifice is of > > > the same kind than that of Christ? > > > > Leslie41: > > Yes, in a way. In that we all have the opportunity to be Christ > > for another person, and see Christ in others. Jesus said that > > the way his followers would be known as Christians was because > > of their love for one another, and there was no greater good > > than someone die for their friend. > > a_svirn: > This is not what Christ's sacrifice was about. It was about > spiritual salvation of mankind, not about physical survival of a > friend. Leslie41: >From a Christian perspective, I would say that's rather short- sighted. > > Leslie41: > > The parental nature of god--as "god the father"--is also part of > > God's triune nature. > a_svirn: > It is, isn't it? And in Christian tradition we have Father > sacrificing his beloved Son, whereas in the HP story Lilly > sacrificed herself so that her son would live. I'd say there are > more differences than similarities here. Leslie41: Yes, if you are hung up on the essentially "masculine" nature of Christ. Many people, including some of the most famous Christians of all time, see Christ as both mother and father. Julian of Norwich, for one. Christ's sacrifice transcends gender, is what I'm saying. > > > A_svirn: > > > That would mean that either Lilly was somewhat presumptuous, or > > > that Christ made His ultimate sacrifice so that Harry would be > > > able to kill Voldemort one of these days. > > > > Leslie41: > > Well, I don't see how it follows that Lily was presumptuous. > > a_svirn: > It follows if she saw herself as a second Christ or something. Leslie: Wha? I don't see how that follows at all. > > > Leslie41: > > But as for Christ's "ultimate sacrifice," well if one is a > > Christian, one believes that he made that sacrifice out of > > love. And it is love as well that will eventually allow Harry > > to defeat Voldemort. It's not that Harry can kill Voldemort > > because of Christ's sacrifice, but perhaps more that Christ's > > sacrifice and teachings in part provide a kind of paradigm for > > Harry's behavior, whether known to Harry or not. > > a_svirn: > I hope you are not saying that love is something only Christians > are capable of. Leslie41: No. But taken in combination with the other Christian symbols/occurances, I believe it's part of a pattern. From falkel at macs.biu.ac.il Thu Jun 8 13:32:23 2006 From: falkel at macs.biu.ac.il (againstsnape) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 13:32:23 -0000 Subject: Individual issues and JKR (was Re: Snape and the "Chosen One" ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153557 quigonginger: What I wonder is why she will champion Hermione (Muggle-born), Hagrid (halfbreed) and Lupin (disabled), but allow the inbred issue to go unchallenged. Against Snape: I think it's because inbred describes the result of what she believes to be a bad practice. Muggle-borns represent people from foreign areas trying to get into a new society, and the disabled are frequently such through no-one's fault. inbred, on the other hand, only exist because of families which consider themselves worth more than others. Against Snape From chrissilein at yahoo.com Thu Jun 8 06:53:43 2006 From: chrissilein at yahoo.com (chrissilein) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 06:53:43 -0000 Subject: Salazar Slytherin via Grindelwald to Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153558 "Hagrid" wrote: > I have a MAJOR theory about things stem back through Grindelwald > to Salazar Slythern and how it influences Lord Voldemort and his > desire for Draco as the ONLY one to AK Dumbledore. > > Should I or Shouldn't I? .... I will post the theory in 3 days > unless you think it will damage JKR's writing inspiration. Please Hagrid, write down for us your theory. Every new idea could be interesting, so don?t hesiate. Have a nice day. "chrissilein" From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 8 03:33:57 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 03:33:57 -0000 Subject: Karma, Umbridge, etc. (Re: Snape and the "Chosen One") In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153559 > Pippin: > If you are right about Snape, then he has taken advantage of > Dumbledore's doting trust to steal his secrets, betraying and > finally murdering him just as Tom Riddle did with Hepzibah -- > that's elder abuse, right? Actually, I meant Snape's activities as a DE (i.e. treachery and murder of the Potters -- at the very least accomplice thereto). But Dumbledore works as well, I suppose. > But as you know I disagree with you about Snape. Maybe what happens > is that Snape and Harry realize that while they were tossing > insults and curses at one another, Dumbledore was dying only yards > away, and if only they had ever come to trust one another, as > Dumbledore never lost hope they would do, they might have saved > him. If Snape is DDM! he will feel as bad about that as anyone > could hope. I'm afraid I can't agree with you there. Without a sincere and humble apology to Harry and Neville for his abuse of them, I think Snape can never be redeemed, regardless of his actions or his feelings about Dumbledore -- up to and including sacrificing himself to bring down Voldemort. > It is not Harry's fault that Snape took against him. But Harry has > inherited his father's wealth and good name. I am certain that if > James had lived, he would have used those resources to make amends > to Snape, and that Harry will feel that he has some obligation > there for Dumbledore's sake. Barring a sincere and humble apology from Snape for his child abuse, that would be, I think, reprehensible. But I don't think the situation is likely to arise, as Snapey-poo will probably be among the dead. Lupinlore From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 8 03:48:46 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 03:48:46 -0000 Subject: Snape and the "Chosen One" Was: Nice vs. Good - Compassion In-Reply-To: <20060608000617.48589.qmail@web37210.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153560 Catherine wrote: >> You can feel any which way about Snape you want, but I think you're setting yourself up for dissappointment and a huge waste of time and money if the only thing that would please you is for Snape to say "Harry (and Neville), I am deeply sorry for all the emotional termoil that I have caused you! I totally renounce my abusive ways. Please forgive me!" Because that's just never going to happen. << Yes, I do think that is exactly the ONLY appropriate way to bring about the redemption of Severus Snape. Nothing else, IMO, will be sufficient, even Snape sacrificing himself to bring down Voldemort. And nothing else, IMO, will let JKR avoid the reprehensible failure of speaking approvingly of the abuse of children. But actually, I won't be disappointed if it doesn't happen, because I think you are right that it won't. The best we are likely to get is something like "Potter, I'm sorry for everything..." followed by a death rattle. Which will in no way be sufficient, as it is not the sincere and humble and specific apology that will be the only way, I think, for Snape to achieve redemption. But it is the most I think we'll get. Lupinlore From leslie41 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 8 13:47:16 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 13:47:16 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153561 > > Leslie41: > > When you add that to the fact that the place on Harry's body > > that repelled the scar is the very place where he received the > > waters of baptism, and possibily unction as well, it becomes > > hard for me to think that (at least subliminally) Rowling was > > making a point, and tying together his mother's sacrifice with > > Christ's, and with Harry's acceptance into Christ's kingdom. > Gerry: > Well, that very place was presumably on Cedric's body, and on lots > of other bodies.... So what does that mean? Some people are more > baptised than others? Leslie41: Don't know about Cedric, but Dumbledore is hit "square in the chest," not in the forehead. > > Leslie41 > > Not the only way to look at things, obviously. One need not > > read the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and see Christ in > > Aslan, either. But as with Harry's scar, it is more interesting > > and meaningful for me that way. > Gerry > Lewis was always rather open abput that. And Aslan was someone > special with special powers instead of an ordinary talking animal. > Harry is an ordinary boy, a normal human being. Not a substitute > for Jezus. Leslie41: I hardly think that Harry qualifies as an "ordinary boy," considering. He's the "chosen one." And he most definitely has "special powers", aside from being a wizard. And I don't think he's a substitute for Jesus at all. I'm just talking about Christian motifs. From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Thu Jun 8 14:03:41 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 14:03:41 -0000 Subject: If Regulus lives ... Re: The Veil and The Mirror In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153562 --- "carolinayerbe" wrote: > > Also, what's the nature of the small mirror Sirius gave Harry? Is it > going to play an important role in book 7? It must be there for a > reason, what it is? aussie: There was a lot of talk about DD's comment about "not able to find you if they think you are dead" and that someone like Regulus Black may still be alive. If he is, he isn't at Hogwarts disguised as someone else, otherwise Harry (or Lupin) would have noticed the name on the M Map. But one way Harry can discover a very alive Regulus may be through using the mirror. that is how Sirius and Regulus communicated before, wasn't it? Harry has only called for Sirius on it so far. what if he muses over RAB while holding the mirror? Doors may open for him yet if another Horcrux hunter helps him. From penhaligon at gmail.com Thu Jun 8 14:21:25 2006 From: penhaligon at gmail.com (penhaligon at gmail.com) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 07:21:25 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] If Regulus lives ... Re: The Veil and The Mirror In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001901c68b06$d4b78760$bd5a1618@the248437c0a60> No: HPFGUIDX 153563 Sorry, but I believe it's how Sirius and James communicated. Panhandle aussie: But one way Harry can discover a very alive Regulus may be through using the mirror. that is how Sirius and Regulus communicated before, wasn't it? From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Jun 8 15:14:16 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 15:14:16 -0000 Subject: Worth it??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153564 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "imasuperhero7" wrote: > Janie wrote: > Really now, I am very curious. Some of you seem to have based your > lives around Harry Potter. I am sure I am not meaning to be rude or trying to bash anyone, just curious, what is it about these books that have enthralled you? > Granted, they're well written, and fun, but are they really that worth while??? I mean, contemplating the personalities of each character and their motives and all that, worth it? > Tonks: I think that Kelly said it well and said it for all of us. The Harry Potter books have a magic all of their own. Somewhat like the enchanted book that was mentioned in the series where when a person picked it up they could never stop reading it. I think that there are many reasons for this. First the books take the reader to another world outside of our own. A world in which those things we might want to happen actually do. Who wouldn't want a House Elf? Or to cook with a wave of a wand? Second, this other world is also a world that exists inside of each of us through what Carl Jung called the collective unconscious. That is a part of every human being where the wisdom of the ages is stored. All of the ancient stories of humankind are within each of us at some very primitive level. Some people are more in touch with this part of themselves, but the vast majority of people are not. Even so, the collective unconscious works in them just the same, as it pulls one toward the story that conveys deep truth of the nature and history of humankind. The Potter series is also a spiritual classic. It touches each person at a very deep spiritual level, again without most of them being consciously aware of it. It is a very deep magic indeed. Rowling uses the classic myths, folk tales, etc., of a variety of cultures, to touch that part deep within us. We respond like a person lost in the desert (of our modern world), to the site of water. We long for that which with we have lost touch. We long (perhaps as LV does) to find that part of our soul that has been cut off, and hidden away. We long to be made whole again. And in some way reading the HP series reunites us with that lost part of ourselves. For a brief moment in time, we are what we know we were meant to be. A part of us remember the time when magic was real. When we explore the thought, feelings and actions of the characters we are also exploring the human psychic. We try to understand the other, and in so doing, to understand ourselves a little more. We look at the evil in the WW and because it seems a bit distant from our own we can touch it, look at it up close, even try it on, all in a safe way. Many of the discussions here are the same sort of questions that people ask in real life, but here in Harry's world they are safer to explore. This is even truer of spiritual questions. Reading the list over time you will see the same questions are asked about the person and behavior of DD that are asked in RL about God. Why would he allow this or that to happen, and so on. Those of us living in the modern world of political correctness, and technology have lost the ability to explore truth in our own life, but we can pick up our brooms and fly after the golden snitch as a seeker in and through the eyes of Harry. Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Jun 8 15:49:58 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 15:49:58 -0000 Subject: Who is the Fourth DE? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153565 (Listening to the HBP CD over and over. It is time to take it back to the library late fees going up by the day . Did someone ask if we were addicted??) There are 4 DE on the tower. 3 are named (Amycus and his sister Alecto and Greyback) and the fourth is not. I do not see this man named anywhere. Did I miss it? I suspect that if his name was never mentioned, not even with Scrimgeour tells Harry that the ministry knows that he was on the tower because they found the DE stupefied, there is probably a reason. One of those sneaky reasons that JKR loves to pull on us. Does anyone remember this DE or his description anywhere else in the series? He is described as the "brutal faced man" and he prevents Greyback from attacking DD. So whoever this man is the Ministry knows about him now since they know that he was stupefied. How did they know? Did they investigate and find him? Or does he work for the Ministry? Who is the fourth DE? Tonks_op From enlil65 at gmail.com Thu Jun 8 16:15:35 2006 From: enlil65 at gmail.com (Peggy Wilkins) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 11:15:35 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Mortality question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1789c2360606080915o28dffa7ap79276e0f80cfd61a@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153566 On 6/6/06, zanooda2 wrote: zanooda: > One of my questions concerns GoF. In the cemetery scene, in his speech > to DEs, LV describes his return to a human body and says:"But I was > willing to embrace mortal life again, before chasing immortality. I > set my sights lower...I would settle for my old body back again, and > my old strength." (GoF,p.656 US ed. or p.569 UK ed.) > > This is very frustrating, but I can't figure out why he is talking > about mortality here. He still has his Horcruxes, hasn't he? Until > they are destroyed, he is immortal, right? Please, please give me some > general idea of where to find the answer(off-list, if you think it's > too boring for others to read). Thanks in advance! Peggy W: I think this is an excellent question, and your asking it led me to think about it enough to (I hope) have something interesting to say about it... Here goes... We have seen two ways to attempt immortality, both of which have flaws. First, there is the Philosopher's Stone which makes the Elixir of Life. The flaw in this method is that you have to keep drinking the Elixir to keep from dying; and indeed, we see that Flamel and his wife both die once the Stone is destroyed. Voldemort reports this in GOF, so we know that he is aware of this. Second, there are Horcruxes which can keep one from being killed. The flaw in this method is that if the Horcrux is destroyed, one becomes mortal again. We haven't seen this directly, though it seems likely that Grindelwald had a Horcrux, and Voldemort knows full well what happened to Grindelwald. This suggests that Voldemort would not be happy with merely having a Horcrux: it's not good enough. So now we come to what Voldemort is trying to achieve. We know from Slughorn's memory that he wants to make a 7-part soul, and he has chosen 7 because it is "the most powerfully magical number". That is all he ever says about it, since Slughorn becomes alarmed and cuts him off. My interpretation of this is that Voldemort expects something "big" to happen if he achieves a 7-part soul, something magical; and it would be something that has never happened before. Voldemort talks about his "experiments" and says that he has gone "further along the road to immortality" than anyone else. So it would seem that his 7-part soul is a big goal for him for a reason. We can only guess what the reason is... and my guess is, he expects to achieve true invulnerability once he has achieved it. Voldemort went to Godric's Hollow expecting to kill Harry and to use that murder to make his final Horcrux, achieving his 7-part soul. He expected that killing Harry would make him invulnerable. That failed because of Lily's sacrifice, but Voldemort didn't give up the plan. Surely he again expected to kill Harry at the GOF graveyard, and use his murder to finally achieve his 7-part soul. That also didn't work out. So where does that leave us now? Voldemort knows that the Diary/Horcrux was destroyed; Dumbledore believes that Voldemort used the death of Frank Bryce to make Nagini into a Horcrux. He would have done that to replace the Diary. Since Voldemort doesn't know the ring Horcrux was also destroyed, this still leaves him by his own belief one Horcrux short of achieving his 7-part soul. The implications of this should be pretty obvious now. The reason Harry is being "saved" for the Dark Lord (as various Death Eaters remark in the HBP tower scene and as Snape says while fleeing) is so that Voldemort can kill Harry and use him to complete his 7-part soul. The death eaters perhaps don't know about the 7-part soul plan, but that has to be why Voldemort wants Harry saved for him only to kill. He will then use Harry's death to make himself invincible--or so he believes. So ultimately the idea is that Voldemort must expect something tremendously magical to happen at the precise moment he achieves a 7-part soul; and he probably expects this to be "true" (infallible) immortality, an order of acheivement better than the fallible Elixir of Life or the random Horcrux. -- Peggy Wilkins enlil65 at gmail.com From chonpschonps at hotmail.com Thu Jun 8 16:15:49 2006 From: chonpschonps at hotmail.com (xuxunette) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 16:15:49 -0000 Subject: Individual issues and JKR (was Re: Snape and the "Chosen One" ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153567 Ginger: > At any rate, one of her main themes is about choices, and how one's > actions and character are more important than the circumstances of > one's birth. > > That's why I was disappointed. It seems to go against what she has > previously said so clearly. xuxu: I just realised that I may have been a quite harsh in my wording in the previous reply, it was not intended to hurt anyone's feelings, and I would like to present my apologies if it is the case. You are absolutely right about the difference between words reflecting the choices we makes and those qualifying the lot we have been born with. In fact, what I intended to mean is that the term in question is a bit more than one of the latter and may actually fit better in the former category. For me, it is a word that is more evoking of the practices of stricly endogamous marriages conforming to beliefs of blood/race purity, rather than a mere adjective adressing the childs resulting of said unions. That's why I don't think that when JKR used said term she meant to stygmatize the pure-blood childs, but rather was set to criticize the xenophobic beliefs common amongst pure-bloods. And then sometimes, in disregard of conventions, people just fall in love with each others, and that is a different matter altogether. I don't think JKR has said anything against that. In any case I wouldn't. The problem with PCness is that we end up using words meaning nothing at all. Is 'genetically homogenous' even a scientific truth? What about 'born of two persons who love each other'? From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Jun 8 19:47:45 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 19:47:45 -0000 Subject: Mortality question In-Reply-To: <1789c2360606080915o28dffa7ap79276e0f80cfd61a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153568 Peggy W: *(snip)* > The implications of this should be pretty obvious now. The reason > Harry is being "saved" for the Dark Lord (as various Death Eaters > remark in the HBP tower scene and as Snape says while fleeing) is so > that Voldemort can kill Harry and use him to complete his 7-part soul. *(snip)* > So ultimately the idea is that Voldemort must expect something > tremendously magical to happen at the precise moment he achieves a > 7-part soul; and he probably expects this to be "true" (infallible) > immortality, an order of acheivement better than the fallible Elixir > of Life or the random Horcrux. Ceridwen: Your post got me thinking, too. Dumbledore said that LV wants to use significant deaths to create his horcruxes. He may expext the 'something tremendously magical' that he may be expecting to happen once the final horcrux is created, to be enhanced by the victim's importance: H. Smith, as Hufflepuff's descendant; Riddle Sr. as LV's direct ancestor; HP as The Boy Who Lived; Myrtle as his first kill; his grandparents as his ancestors. Bryce may just have been a 'filler', not really that significant except, perhaps, as LV's first kill after being disembodied. Ceridwen, mulling over the magic of importance. From jdwilkes45 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 8 16:49:29 2006 From: jdwilkes45 at yahoo.com (JULIA WILKES) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 09:49:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Slughorn, Hagrid, Binns (Ghosts), Myrtle and Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060608164929.31328.qmail@web37906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153569 Hagrid wrote: > Now that DD is not a source of personal information about Tom Riddle > as a student, who is there that Harry can find any information from? > If Harry is to find any clues from that time of LV's life, who are his > resources? Julia: Even though DD is "dead", he will still be able to talk to him. Remember he was head master and his picture now hangs in the head masters office. Remember in HBP they mention towards the end of the book that Harry looks at the wall to see a now sleeping DD. Once he wakes up he'll be able to converse and get the rest of the information that is needed for Harry to find the Horcruxes. This is how DD communicated with the other Head Masters when he was worried over Harry. From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Thu Jun 8 20:09:08 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 20:09:08 -0000 Subject: Harry Special Powers? was Re: Baptism/Christianity in HP: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153570 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" wrote: > Leslie41: > Don't know about Cedric, but Dumbledore is hit "square in the > chest," not in the forehead. Gerry True, but there must have been more people hit in the forehead during the time the ak exists. What you are actually saying is that Lily's sacrifice is not what made Harry survive the AK. And that is against canon. > > Leslie41: > I hardly think that Harry qualifies as an "ordinary boy," > considering. He's the "chosen one." And he most definitely > has "special powers", aside from being a wizard. And I don't think > he's a substitute for Jesus at all. I'm just talking about > Christian motifs. > Hm, he has not. He has the power of love, which though LV has it not does not make him special. He is only the chosen one bevause LV acts on the prophecy. don't disagree there are religious motives in HP. I doubt they are specifically christian, and I think there is no clue whatsoever to make something special of baptism unless you want to make less of Lily's sacrifice. Gerry From owenbuddenbaum at yahoo.com Thu Jun 8 17:33:36 2006 From: owenbuddenbaum at yahoo.com (Owen) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 17:33:36 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153571 Leslie41 wrote: > > > When you add that to the fact that the place on Harry's body > > > that repelled the scar is the very place where he received the > > > waters of baptism, and possibily unction as well, it becomes > > > hard for me to think that (at least subliminally) Rowling was > > > making a point, and tying together his mother's sacrifice with > > > Christ's, and with Harry's acceptance into Christ's kingdom. Owen: A couple of other things to think about: Harry's scar is on his forehead, where the sella tursica is found in the skull. It was the location of what people used to call the "Third Eye" and was responsible for intuition, or clairvoyance in the gifted. The forehead is a powerful location on the human body and has been illustrated as such long before Christianity. Also, are we discounting that JK simply put a scar on her reluctant hero in a place where it would be seen the most? Harry was marked for a reason. From leslie41 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 8 21:10:31 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 21:10:31 -0000 Subject: Harry Special Powers? was Re: Baptism/Christianity in HP: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153572 > > Leslie41: > > Don't know about Cedric, but Dumbledore is hit "square in the > > chest," not in the forehead. > > Gerry > True, but there must have been more people hit in the forehead > during the time the ak exists. What you are actually saying is > that Lily's sacrifice is not what made Harry survive the AK. And > that is against canon. > > Leslie41: Don't know about the "more people," because I haven't looked into it. And I'm not at all saying that Lily's sacrifice is not what made Harry survive the A.K. But that fact does not *preclude* a Christian undertone as well. Both can in fact be operating at the same time. > > Leslie41: > > I hardly think that Harry qualifies as an "ordinary boy," > > considering. He's the "chosen one." And he most definitely > > has "special powers", aside from being a wizard. And I don't > > think he's a substitute for Jesus at all. I'm just talking > > about Christian motifs. > > > Gerry: > Hm, he has not. He has the power of love, which though LV has it > not does not make him special. He is only the chosen one bevause > LV acts on the prophecy. Leslie41: Well, Harry is also a parselmouth. Something extremely rare in the wizarding world. And he seems to have an exceptional facility with certain powerful spells at an early age (the patronus charm). When you add to that that he's now got a blood tie with LV, and has in the past been psychically connected to him, I would say that yes that makes him "special" and not an ordinary boy. > Gerry: > don't disagree there are religious motives in HP. I doubt they are > specifically christian, and I think there is no clue whatsoever to > make something special of baptism unless you want to make less of > Lily's sacrifice. Leslie41: As I said, I don't think the situation is either/or. You are free to do so if you wish. From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Jun 8 22:07:56 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 22:07:56 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 18, Birthday Surprises In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0606070329u331aa949t9392e8bebdff2657@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153573 1. What do you think of Golpalott's Third Law? Was it included as an example of magical principles? Do you think it will be applied in Book 7, either actually or metaphorically? And is there any significance to the name Golpalott, other than its resemblance to gulp-a-lot? I saw it primarily as a parody of the kind of laws one learns in RL chemistry classes. (Of Dalton's Law perhaps, except that the antidote is equal to *more* than the sum of the antidotes to individual poisons .) It would be interesting if the wording has a significance in book 7, either actual or metaphorical, but I thought its main purpose was to intoduce us to the fact that there are such things as blended potions. I think the potion Dumbledore drank in the cave was probably a blended potion. His is the only example of someone who gulped a lot. Most potions seem to act in very small quantities--three drops of veritaserum for example. The other purpose of including the Golpalott's Law lesson was to reacquaint Harry with the use of a bezoar. He remembered Snape's first lesson, but is more willing to accept what he learns from the Prince. And Harry's use of the bezoar in class results in its transfer to Slughorn's possession. Otherwise it would have remained in the back of the cupboard and Ron might have died. From saberbunny at yahoo.ca Thu Jun 8 22:43:27 2006 From: saberbunny at yahoo.ca (saberbunny) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 22:43:27 -0000 Subject: Snape and the "Chosen One" Was: Nice vs. Good - Compassion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153574 "lupinlore" wrote: > And nothing else, IMO, will let JKR avoid the reprehensible failure > of speaking approvingly of the abuse of children. > Catherine now: I might not agree with your views of Snape being abusive, but I can certainly understand why someone might see it as you do. What I don't understand is how you figure that JKR is speaking approvingly of the abuse of children. Unfortunately, the abuse of children, to many varying degrees, happens in the real world. Just as unfortunately, not all of the abuse goes noticed and the abusers many times go unpunished, or mearly get a slap on the wrist. This happens, and writing about it, IMO, doesn't speak of approving of it. The fact that both Harry, and, IMO, more so Neville, have overcome, (or are overcoming) their fear of Snape, shows that overcoming difficulties is possible. Healing must be done from the inside, and not because the wrong-doer goes punished. This is a story about self-discovery, but self-discovery of the youth. I don't know if the story of Snape's self-discovery will be done, which would then, if JKR so wishes, could include a sincere apology and real change. Like you, I don;t think it will happen that way. But I see JKR focussing more on the personal growth and forgiveness from within, despite the fact that the abuse goes unapologized for; rather than having the apology first. Because in RL, you don't always get the apology, and yet you must learn to forgive, or forever be haunted by the memories.... Catherine From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 8 22:44:37 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 22:44:37 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 18, Birthday Surprises In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0606070329u331aa949t9392e8bebdff2657@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153575 CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 18, Birthday Surprises > QUESTIONS > > 1. What do you think of Golpalott's Third Law? Carol: I think it's a parody of the ancient formula, "a whole is more than the sum of its parts." It's also intended to illustrate the theoretical aspect of potions to show that NEWT Potions is harder than the classes we've seen, which are essentially labs, with theory confined to essay assignments. It's important that Hermione and the HBP instinctively understand the theory and Harry doesn't, but that's about it. "Golpalott" is just another play on words like "Grimmauld Place" and the names of the textbook authors (e.g. Arsenius Jigger), which always relate in some way to their subjects. I don't think that we'll see Golpalott's Law again. > 2. Harry and Ron appear incapable of anything in Potions class without Hermione's assistance. They can't even manage to consult Advanced Potion Making to figure out what to do (although Harry does look in the margins for advice from the Prince). How did they do so well on their Potions OWLs? And is this joke getting old now that the Trio are 16? Carol: The problem here is that they're supposed to apply a theory rather than following instuctions on the board. The book doesn't tell them what to do; it only gives them the theory (and Teen!Severus's cheeky little bezoar comment doesn't help them to apply the concept. Neither does Slughorn. As for their Potions OWLs, they clearly did learn what Snape taught, (which was primaruly how to follow instructions exactly without skipping a step or putting in a wrong ingredient) and whatever he assigned in their essays (the uses of moonstone in potion making, for example). They would also know the uses of the particular potions and possibly the antidotes to certain poisons. IOW, despite having help with their homework and despite not paying attention in class some of the time, they learned what they were supposed to learn. And we know that Snape's classes were more advanced than the Ministry expected them to be, which must have helped, as did having a teacher who followed a gradually more complex curriculum for each level (as did Flitwick, McGonagall, and sprout), as opposed to a succession of DADA teachers (half of them inept) with no foundation to build on from one year to the next. As for Hermione's help, it isn't really help. It's more like feeding their dependency. (In OoP, regarding History of Magic, Ron says something like, "Are you going to stop nagging Harry, or do I have to take notes myself?" Well, duh, Ron. You should have been doing that all along.) I don't approve of Hermione's letting the boys copy her homework or correcting their essays. Fortunately, she can't cast their spells for them or make their potions for them. Somehow they learned enough to do well in most of their classes, including Snape's, but the credit must go to the teachers, not to Hermione. > > 3. How do you think Lily acquired her reputation as having an "intuitive grasp of potion-making"? Carol: I wouldn't say that Lily had a *reputation* as an intuitive potion maker. It's only Slughorn who credits her with that gift. I think she was a good Potions student but not a brilliant one like Severus Snape. She could have gotten into NEWT Potions with only an E, whereas he would certainly have earned an O (he's smarter than the textbook author). I think that Slughorn simply liked her because of her cheek, but he's also magnifying her potion-making abilities either through guilt (the Horcrux memory and his failure to recognize the evil nature of Tom Riddle) or a desire to butter up Harry. (I don't think it's intentional; he simply remembers her as more brilliant than she was, just as Lupin remembers James as more brilliant than he really was. If James was the best in the class in every subject, why doesn't Slughorn talk about him? IMO, Severus Snape was better than either of them not only in Potions but in DADA, given his detailed OWL answers and invented spells, but his brilliance went unrecognized because he was surly and unpopular.) > > 4. Why is it so important to Hermione to outshine Harry in Potions? And why do you think she put her own hair into her potion? Carol: I think it's because she really *is* better than he is at Potions. She understands and applies Golpalott's Law and works hard to apply it (52 ingredients!) and yet he gets credit for doing no work and using someone else's idea. I don't blame her for being angry. Harry doesn't deserve his mark and her hard work goes unrecognized. But IMO, it's partly her own fault since to some extent, she's been doing Harry's work for him all along. As for her hair, maybe it was the catalyst, the ingredient that was more than the combined antidotes. Either that or it was an ingredient in one of the antidotes. > 5. JKR frequently makes a point of describing the weather when she shifts to a new scene or section of narrative; for example, February brought "cold dreary wetness." Do you think JKR is using the weather to set a mood here or is it just transition? Carol: I think it's just the setting. February *is* cold, wet, and dreary, at least in the UK. > > 6. Wilkie Twycross tells the students that the restrictions on Apparition have been lifted in the Great Hall for the duration of the lesson. If it's that simple, couldn't anyone undo the restriction? Carol: Are we told that *Twycross* lifts the restriction or does DD do it? I doubt it's that simple. I think it's one of the ancient protections on the castle and grounds that Snape mentions in the first Occlumency lesson in OoP. And since it's mentioned in "Hogwarts: A History," I'm pretty sure that it predates DD's appointment as headmaster. So either DD, as headmaster, is the only person with the power and authority to partially and temporarily lift the restriction, or he temporarily granted that power to Twycross. But if anyone could do it, Voldemort would have invaded Hogwarts long before. > > 7. Is the watch Ron received for his coming of age birthday significant in any way? Carol: Possibly. But I thought that DD's pocketwatch and the Weasleys' clock would play more prominent roles. (What good is a clock that tells you you're in mortal peril when you're eating dinner? Bill really *was* in mortal peril, but there was no difference between his clock hand and anyone else's.) > > 8. JKR uses Ron to portray the effects of Love Potions in a very humorous way (I thought Ron's deadpan comments about Romilda Vane were the most laugh-out-loud funny in the entire book). Does this scene help to envision the effect of Merope's love potion on Tom Riddle Sr.? How do you think Riddle's family and friends reacted to lovelorn Tom? Is JKR lampooning the effect of crushes on us Muggles? Carol: Although the line between tragedy and comedy is a fine one and JKR knows it, I don't think she takes love potions as seriously as some people on this list do. Being absurdly and abjectly infatuated with an unsuitable partner can be played for laughs (think Titania and Bottom with his ass's ears in "Midsummer Night's Dream") and I think that's what JKR is doing with Ron. I don't find it particularly funny, but I also don't find the hexing scenes on the Hogwarts Express funny, either. I think that Romilda (who was trying for Harry's attention, not Ron's) might have learned an embarrassing lesson if Ron had made a fool of himself in front of her, but the memory of the incident would have been too painful for Ron, so she didn't do it. But on another level, it shows the superficial level of teenage crushes, as do the snogging scenes with Lavender. At any rate, we're not talking about adult lust here. Romilda merely wanted a date with "famous Harry Potter," and poor Merope wanted to *be loved* and was under the delusion that a love potion would magically create that emotion, with tragic consequences. 'Nough said. > 9. Why is Ron horrified when Slughorn administers the antidote? Is he feeling the disappointment of the crush wearing off, or is he just > embarrassed at having acted the way he did? And why does JKR always select Ron as a victim of forms of magic with sophomorically humorous effects? Carol: I think he's mortified by his own behavior, just as he is when he realizes why the Longbottoms are hospitalized in OoP. Why choose Ron for "sophomorically humorous effects"? Because he's sophomoric! Okay, he's in his sixth year, not his fifth (which is equivalent to the sophomore year in a U.S. high school), but he's at that "wise fool" stage in life, thinking that he knows more than he does and unable to recognize or come to grips with his own feelings. We see Harry struggling with similar feelings, but not so comically and not quite so cluelessly. But of course, we see Ron from the outside and Harry from the inside, so it's easier to use Ron for the comic scenes. (I think that Ron is growing up, and we may see fewer scenes of this type in Book 7. I just hope that JKR still gives him funny lines!) > > 10. There is so much Slughorn in this chapter it could have been named for him. How do these actions affect our prior perception of his character? Is Slughorn a sympathetic character despite his faults? What do you think of his ethics? His potion-making skills? Carol: I think that Slughorn is an excellent potion-maker, but not a creative genius like Snape. He's lazy, using the same textbook, and presumably the same lesson plans, that he used fifty years before (in Eileen Prince's day), and he does almost nothing to help his students learn, unless bribing them with Felix Felicis counts. His blatant favoritism, which usually involves treating Ron as if he doesn't exist, shows up again here when he gets Ron's name wrong (twice), five months into the school year. He cares more about his own creature comforts than about his friends (keeping the bottle of mead intended for Dumbledore), and he's completely inept and at a loss in a real emergency. I didn't care for Slughorn before this chapter, and I felt the same way after reading it. Ethics? What ethics? I much prefer snarky, brilliant, highly competent Snape. > Bonus Question. Despite the fact that ch. 18 is infused with potions, former potions master Snape is barely mentioned. If Snape had still been potions master, how do you think he would he have handled Ron's predicament? Carol: And yet Snape's presence is felt. If it weren't for his first lesson on bezoars and his marginal comment on bezoars in the HBP's Potions book, Ron would be dead. If Snape had still been Potions master, Harry probably would not have gone to him for help. He'd have gone to Madam Pomfrey instead. But on the off chance that he did do so, Snape would have made a snarky comment about "Weasley" and love potions, perhaps have asked for background information and circumstances to determine the culprit (detention for Romilda and stronger measures to detect Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes products in future?) and then promptly summoned a previously made love potion antidote that he kept in stock for emergencies. Ron would not have been poisoned because there would have been no bottle of poisoned mead and because, whatever Snape's faults, he is never careless. Had Snape been present in Slughorn's office when the poisoning occurred, he would have taken immediate action, either taking a bezoar out of his pocket or summoning one and stuffing it down Ron's throat. Carol, wishing that Snape could have remained the Potions master and that Slughorn, not Snape, had been the victim of the DADA curse From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Thu Jun 8 23:54:26 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 23:54:26 -0000 Subject: Slughorn, Hagrid, Binns (Ghosts), Myrtle and Prince In-Reply-To: <20060608164929.31328.qmail@web37906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153576 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, JULIA WILKES wrote: > > Hagrid wrote: > > > Now that DD is not a source of personal information about Tom Riddle > > as a student, who is there that Harry can find any information from? > > > If Harry is to find any clues from that time of LV's life, who are his > > resources? > > > Julia: > > Even though DD is "dead", he will still be able to talk to him. > Remember he was head master and his picture now hangs in the head masters office. Remember in HBP they mention towards the end of the book that Harry looks at the wall to see a now sleeping DD. Once he wakes up he'll be able to converse and get the rest of the information that is needed for Harry to find the Horcruxes. This is how DD communicated with the other Head Masters when he was worried over Harry. > aussie: Don't you just hate it when kids take your HP book. They seem to think it's a children's book or something. Anyway, I think near the end of OOTP after Harry looses his godfather, he asks about pictures or photos and is told that even paintings only hold part of the essence of someone from that time. A bit of personality rather than their logical thought processes. The painting of DD may offer little more than the encouragement he'd always offered without specific directions - like the way he had Harry go to Slughorn for the memory without saying too much of WHY Harry had to do it or how. From dontask2much at yahoo.com Fri Jun 9 00:02:26 2006 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 20:02:26 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and the "Chosen One" Was: Nice vs. Good - Compassion References: Message-ID: <00c201c68b57$fe329020$6a01a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 153577 > "lupinlore": >> And nothing else, IMO, will let JKR avoid the reprehensible failure >> of speaking approvingly of the abuse of children. >> > > Catherine now: > > > Like you, I don;t think it will happen that way. But I see JKR > focussing more on the personal growth and forgiveness from within, > despite the fact that the abuse goes unapologized for; rather than > having the apology first. Because in RL, you don't always get the > apology, and yet you must learn to forgive, or forever be haunted by > the memories.... > rebecca, now: Catherine, your last line of your post is spot on, IMO. Lupinlore, while I understand what you're trying to say and what you want and believe should happen to make this "right", I have a different view. Please let me explain why, then proceed to word-whip me as necessary :) A sincere, humble apology is nothing more than a bunch of words to me, not actions indicative of sorrow or remorse. A character like the one we're discussing perhaps sacrificing himself for Harry would be one of the most compelling actions of redemption - to lay down your life for someone else is probably one of the more noble acts in any religion or creed. Death is not an event that can be "undone". It's final, and self sacrifice is a choice the person actively makes to protect someone else. It's loud, and translates to "I love you" or "I believe in you" regardless of what words and deeds have been in the past. And if one is going to point out other adults who have been mean or mistreated Harry, I believe that Harry suffered just as much abuse at the hands of the Dursleys and Aunt Marge - outright neglect can be just as damaging as physical abuse. (None of the aforementioned in that sentence I can ever see sacrificing a damn thing for Harry or apologizing to him. But I could be wrong....) Why do I say this? Because I do think Snape is positioned as a prime candidate for redemption - how else can his part in the story end other than redeeming himself with Harry the way I postulate, or just simply being killed outright by Voldemort? Harry's going to kill him? I think not - I believe Harry's focus will have to be Voldemort in Book 7 if he is *truly* the antagonist in this series. Alas, there's always the chance that JKR could trip us up by killing off Voldemort early and stick Snape in that anti-hero-and-main-antagonist role, but I just can't envision how that might take place. Either way to me plotwise, Snape is in the sooo dead category. D-e-a-d. My perception is Harry can't kill too many people, he's "pure of heart" as Dumbledore states in HBP. IMO, he needs to remain so to be Voldemort's opposite and vanquish him. Dumbledore specifically reminds Harry how unusual he is - in effect, how the suffering he has endured through the years have not made him bitter or unfeeling and allegorically, he is not a product of his environment as so many are in his situation. Unlike Voldemort, Harry will have to be sincere about his forgiveness of others regardless of who wronged him or those he loves to remain "pure", if that's what JKR intends for us to believe him to be as a key to Voldemort's defeat. rebecca, From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 8 23:29:27 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 23:29:27 -0000 Subject: Worth it? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153578 > Janie wrote: > Some of you seem to have based your > lives around Harry Potter. I am sure I am not meaning to be rude or > trying to bash anyone, just curious, what is it about these books that > have enthralled you? zanooda: I wouldn't say that my life revolves around HP. My family is most definitely the center of my life, and I'm also interested in many things happening in the world. HP books are more like a hobby of mine, but a hobby that has a rather firm grip on me, I must admit. I wouldn't even try to explain why millions of people around the world are enthralled by HP books, I can only say what they mean to me personally. I'm not very interested in magic, it's fun of course, but for me, the most important thing in a book or a movie are the characters. A book might have an absolutely thrilling plot, with lots of action and mysteries, but if there are no realistic, likable characters in it, I will never feel a desire to read it again. Now, JKR may not be a Leo Tolstoi, but I've never in my life read a book where almost all of so many characters are so vividly written that you have this strange feeling that they are real people. Some of them I love, some of them I hate, but almost none of them leaves me indifferent. > Janie: > I am an intelligent person and a very good reader [one of the only > things I'm really good at], but I just don't think they're that > amazing. I read the first, second, and latest one that came out, and > quite frankly, lost interest. zanooda: Maybe I didn't understand you right, but it sounds like you read the first 3 books, and then jumped directly to the 6th. This won't work with HP. There are book series where every book has independent plot, only the main character(s) remain the same. Here every next book starts right where the previous one ended, you can't jump through them like this! I can't say myself that I got hooked up on HP from the very first book. I started reading them when the first 3 books were out. I wanted my son to read more in English and was looking for something that might interest him. I liked the first book, but it was just a good children's book for me. I liked the second one better, but I thought that the plot (memories jumping out of diaries etc.) was a little too much even for the wizarding world (I know better after HBP, of course). It was PoA that finally got me, loved every word of it! As for GoF, I thought it was uneven, in some places very interesting, but sometimes not so much, and not very logical. The last 2 books made a real HP fan out of me. They are both so well written, that when I read my favorite passages, I feel a real sensual pleasure, you know, like Slughorn, when he sits in his soft chair, eating his crystallized pineapple and drinking his favorite wine :-). > Janie: > Am I the only one out there? zanooda: Of course, you are not the only one. My whole family is not so much into it, that's why I'm here! From aida_costa at hotmail.com Thu Jun 8 23:48:31 2006 From: aida_costa at hotmail.com (nowheregirrrl) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 23:48:31 -0000 Subject: RAB revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153579 Gerry: > Not Regulus, because that would mean Grimmault place and Kreacher > could not have been inherited by Harry as there would be male Black. > DD's fear was that Bellatrix would be the inheritor, because Regulus > is dead. I would love to have a dead person come back. My bet is on > Emmaline Vance. I agree - I've been suspicious about Vance's 'murder' since I first read it. Since i believe Snape is DDM, I think her 'murder' was a set up to make Snape look like a loyal and useful DE. And I forgot about that inheritance detail, it would've been really interesting if Regulus was in hiding. nowheregirrrl From aida_costa at hotmail.com Thu Jun 8 23:32:17 2006 From: aida_costa at hotmail.com (nowheregirrrl) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 23:32:17 -0000 Subject: Snape as the lover of Regulus Black In-Reply-To: <41b.2cebf94.31b66da0@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153580 Leslie41: >I agree that Rowling wouldn't touch homosexuality with a ten-foot >pole, but I think it's because it would take attention away from the >main story. >And the fact that she's a member of the Church of Scotland (as >opposed to the Catholic Church or Southern Baptist, for example) >actually means she's a member of a church that is quite open minded >when it comes to homosexuals and homosexual behavior, and even >homosexual marriages and clergy. >But I would be extremely surprised to find that Rowling >thinks homosexuality is wrong. I may be extremely incorrect about >this, but my sense is that she would not only have no problem with >homosexuality, but would also support the idea of homosexuals >marrying. Lanval: >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... nowheregirrrl: Leslie 41, You're absolutely right - thank you for the information on the Church of Scotland, as I didn't know that. I agree that JRK probably has no problem with homosexuality as she does preach tolerance in her books and her personal life. I did not mean to imply in my post that I think otherwise about her. What I meant is that I don't think she'd bring up the subject of homosexuality precisely because that would be a huge bombshell and would detract from the story, especially to spring it in the final book! Why invite more criticism and eclipse such a wonderful story? Lanval, I'm going to have to go back and re-read the passages with Dudley and Uncle Vernon, I think i missed something... Len Jaffe: > I find it interesting that there is a segment of HP > readers who have decided that SNape might be gay, that > we'd even care, and that we think we might see signs > in the literature - by snapes actions inactions, and I > wonder what makes us think we could judge, and why we > might care. nowheregirrrl: I also find it intersting that some people think Snape's gay. Am I in the minority seeing him as someone who is celibate? The militant loyalty to DD (yes, I believe he's DDM), the plain black robes, the greasy hair - to me I've always viewed his character almost like a monk, doing penance. All he needs is a hairshirt under those robes. As a double agent, and as someone who KNEW Voldemort would return, how could he form relationships? JKR has said that some Hogwarts professors are married but we don't know who yet for a reason. Originally I thought it might be Snape, married to Bellatrix. But then we find out she's married, so there goes that idea. I would now be shocked if JKR reveals Snape is married or otherwise involved with someone! From friartuck97 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 8 15:58:58 2006 From: friartuck97 at yahoo.com (FriarTuck97) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 08:58:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Who is the Fourth DE? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060608155858.56898.qmail@web61019.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153581 Ginny mentions the Death Eater that died, was "the big blond one" Wasn't this the same one being chased from the tower? And, no, this Death Eater wasn't named either. -FT From dontask2much at yahoo.com Fri Jun 9 00:46:03 2006 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 20:46:03 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter References: Message-ID: <011a01c68b5e$16693c60$6a01a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 153582 > Leslie41 wrote: > >> > > When you add that to the fact that the place on Harry's body >> > > that repelled the scar is the very place where he received the >> > > waters of baptism, and possibily unction as well, it becomes >> > > hard for me to think that (at least subliminally) Rowling was >> > > making a point, and tying together his mother's sacrifice with >> > > Christ's, and with Harry's acceptance into Christ's kingdom. > > Owen: > > A couple of other things to think about: > > Harry's scar is on his forehead, where the sella tursica is found in > the skull. It was the location of what people used to call > the "Third Eye" and was responsible for intuition, or clairvoyance > in the gifted. The forehead is a powerful location on the human body > and has been illustrated as such long before Christianity. > > Also, are we discounting that JK simply put a scar on her reluctant > hero in a place where it would be seen the most? Harry was marked > for a reason. Rebecca: Great point, Owen. I hadn't nearly come to the "third eye" question yet, but you are correct, IMO, that's just as plausible as the baptism question. To your point about JKR putting a mark on Harry, here you go from her interview with the Houston Chronicle in 2001: "There are some things I can tell you about it and some things I can't. I wanted him to be physically marked by what he has been through. It was an outward expression of what he has been through inside.I gave him a scar and in a prominent place so other people would recognize him. It is almost like being the chosen one, or the cursed one, in a sense. Someone tried to kill him; that's how he got it. I chose the lightning bolt because it was the most plausible shape for a distinctive scar. As you know, the scar has certain powers, and it gives Harry warnings. I can't say more than that, but there is more to say." Recall that statement is from 2001 - we didn't know then that the "scar" was also a magical window into Voldemort's mind, as she says on her website FAQ's, from I believe last year, in response to the significance of Neville being the other boy to whom the propechy could possibly have referred: "In effect, the prophecy gave Voldemort the choice of two candidates for his possible nemesis. In choosing which boy to murder, he was also (without realising it) choosing which boy to anoint as the Chosen One - to give him tools no other wizard possessed - the scar and the ability it conferred, a magical window into Voldemort's mind." (snipped for brevity) "....however, the killing curse would have rebounded just as it did in Harry's case, and Neville would have been the one who survived with the lightning scar. What would this have meant? Would a Neville bearing the lightning scar have been as successful at evading Voldemort as Harry has been? Would Neville have had the qualities that have enabled Harry to remain strong and sane throughout all of his many ordeals? Although Dumbledore does not say as much, he does not believe so: he believes Voldemort did indeed choose the boy most likely to be able to topple him, for Harry's survival has not depended wholly or even mainly upon his scar." Rebecca From mandorino222 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 9 00:51:33 2006 From: mandorino222 at yahoo.com (mandorino222) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 00:51:33 -0000 Subject: RAB revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153583 Tonks: 3. The name Regulus is associated with a star, as are most of the Black family names. Regulus is a `double' star according to one of our informants. Nick: Allow me to add that the star Regulus is literally the heart of the Leo constellation. Leo is Harry's (and Rowling's) sign and, as a fire sign, is generally associated with Gryffindor house. Perhaps Regulus has the heart of a Gryffindor? Nick From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 9 01:34:08 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 01:34:08 -0000 Subject: Snape and the "Chosen One" Was: Nice vs. Good - Compassion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153584 > > > > Catherine now: > > I might not agree with your views of Snape being abusive, but I can > certainly understand why someone might see it as you do. What I don't > understand is how you figure that JKR is speaking approvingly of the > abuse of children. > And here is where we get into JKR putting her foot into her mouth. Like so much else, this goes back to statements about Dumbledore. Dumbledore is the headmaster, who is the "epitome of goodness" who "knows everything that goes on at Hogwarts." Now, if an "epitome of goodness" knows something and takes no action, either that "epitome of goodness" is restrained or, else, the "epitome of goodness" approves tacitly of what is going on. If an "epitome of goodness" approves then the action is approved of, as what else can one make of soemthing of which the "epitome of goodness" approves? Now, frankly I don't much care whether Snape is redeemed or not. Nothing Snape does can be perceived as sending a message. What Dumbledore, "the epitome of goodness" who knows "everything that goes on at Hogwarts" does VERY MUCH sends a message. And if DD tacitly approves of Snape's treatment of Harry then child abuse has been approved of. So, actually I surprise many and withdraw my oft-stated message about Snape's apology and JKR's reprehensible failure. I do think that is the only way Snape can be redeemed and I most certainly DO NOT think that his sacrificing of himself without a sincere and humble apology for his abuse of Harry and Neville would constitute redemption constitute redemption in any way. However I do see another way out -- which would be to withdraw the imprimatur of the "epitome of goodness." I.E. if she were to make very clear that DD did not approve of Snape and was for some reason restrained from putting a stop to his abuse of Harry and Neville, then she would have dodged that particular fatal moral bullet. There is of course precedent for this with regard to the Dursleys. However, sadly, the time for that is past. DD is gone and it will be difficult if not impossible to clear all that up. So I'm afraid I'm now going to go back on what I just said and say that, although JKR might dodge the bullet by withdrawing DD's imprimatur, that isn't in the cards, so an apology is her only way out. I don't see that happening either, but there you go. Lupinlore From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Jun 9 02:01:51 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 22:01:51 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: RAB revisited References: Message-ID: <007801c68b68$ad901b40$d3b4400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 153585 Nick: > > Allow me to add that the star Regulus is literally the heart of the > Leo constellation. Leo is Harry's (and Rowling's) sign and, as a fire > sign, is generally associated with Gryffindor house. Perhaps Regulus > has the heart of a Gryffindor? Magpie: In a jar perhaps?:-) I think he has the heart of his own house, Slytherin. It would be a little churlish if his heart was marked for a different house, presumably just because he did something brave and good. Perhaps that Slytherin heart scored a super point off the Dark Lord--Slytherin boys represent! -m From kjones at telus.net Fri Jun 9 02:01:00 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 19:01:00 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Moaning Myrtle's murder (Was: Harry a Horcrux?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4488D65C.6050904@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 153586 justcarol67 wrote: > Carol responds: > At a guess, I'd say that the important murders are Moaning Myrtle > (I'll get back to her in a minute) as his first, all three Riddles > (ending the Riddle line and getting revenge), and Hepzibah Smith (for > her Hufflepuff heritage). That would cover the diary (Myrtle), the > ring (Tom Sr.), the cup (Hepzibah), and two more (the locket and the > Ravenclaw Horcrux for the other two Riddles?). I think that Nagini is > a Horcrux, but that she was made one before Godric's Hollow, which > would account for Voldemort's snakelike appearance even before his > return (see the description of his features when his head sticks out > the back of Quirrell's) and for his ability to possess her without > killing her. KJ: I like: Grindlewald for the locket because he taught him how to make horcruxes Grandpa for the diary because he was only slightly significant and he needed to try it out Dad for the ring because he owed him one and there was contact with the Gaunt family Hepzibah for the cup because she was a descendant of Helga I'm thinking Dorcas Meadows for the Ravenclaw item because her name was tossed out there for a reason but we don't know why. We just know that he killed her himself. Harry was destined to be number 6 and would have been associated to the Gryffindor item. Spares: Brice, Grandma. Lilly, James, Amelia Bones, Quirrel, > To return to Moaning Myrtle: Diary!Tom says that he opened the Chamber > of Secrets and released the Basilisk to continue "Salazar Slytherin's > noble work"--that is, to rid Hogwarts of Muggleborns. As the Basilisk > slides through the pipes, it says things like "Kill! Kill! Kill!" That > is its purpose; it's the reason that Tom released it both in his fifth > year at Hogwarts and via the diary in CoS. He understands and speaks > Parseltongue, as does the snake; the snake obeys his orders, given in > its own language. Myrtle hears him talking to the snake before she > comes out of the stall. It seems to me likely that he ordered the > Basilisk to kill the girl when she came out. Tom may well have known > Myrtle's habit of crying in the bathroom or recognized her voice. And > he would certainly have known that she was a "Mudblood," such things > being important to him. (It's also possible that the snake could > recognize a Muggleborn by the smell, which could be why only > Muggleborns were attacked.) Since he had the Basilisk with him for one > reason only, to kill Muggleborns, why question that that's exactly > what he was doing in this instance? KJ: I think that this is part of the reason that I am not convinced that Myrtle was a planned murder, as described in canon, as the ultimate act of evil. Keep in mind that this is a sixteen year old boy, and it is, unless I am mistaken, prior to the knowledge of horcruxes and the desire for immortality. It is easy to become enthralled with famous ancestors, or idealistic ideas and want to carry them out, but the realism, even to a skunk like Riddle, causes a certain amount of disorientation. I'm thinking that while he may have let the basilisk loose, he may not have understood what the results would be, especially when it must have happened right before his eyes. I am wondering if this is what set him on his path for immortality when he saw how quickly life can be lost. Once he selfishly decided that this was never going to happen to him, everything after that point was done to preserve his own life. The memory of Tom Riddle is deceptive as well, in that we are hearing him speak of memories from the past, like Hagrid and the spider,but also he is speaking of memories of how a baby could have defeated him. That whole seen is like a bad case of mixed up tenses. So the person we saw as the Riddle memory was also contaminated by Voldemort memory. We do suspect that he committed his first true murders between sixth and seventh year, when he acquired the ring. Carol: > If, say, Draco were to release a venomous snake into a classroom and > it bit a student and the student died, wouldn't he be guilty of > murder? Everyone seem to think that he would have been guilty of > murder if Ron or Katie had died even though neither was his intended > victim. Why, then, wouldn't Tom be guilty of murder when Myrtle > died--even if he didn't set the snake on her, as I think he did? A > Basilisk is even more deadly than a cursed necklace or poisoned mead. > There is no countercurse or antidote for its deadly gaze. KJ: I think that a soul splitting murder has to be at closer quarters that what we see with this scenario. Draco would definitely be taking the chance of killing someone with a poisonous snake, but it is much more at arms length than a killing curse. I think that there has to be some personal investment in the act of killing to make a person truly evil. > Carol, who thinks that having killed Myrtle made it much, much easier > for Tom to kill his own family KJ: I can't argue with that. That is perhaps Myrtle's true purpose. Tom just moved on from there and built on past experience. I think it certainly taught him a disrespect for "normal" people who could lose their lives so easily. KJ, thanking Carol for an enjoyable discussion :) From kellymolinari at yahoo.com Fri Jun 9 01:47:14 2006 From: kellymolinari at yahoo.com (Kelly Molinari) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 01:47:14 -0000 Subject: A Bizarre Theory on a Grand Scale In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153587 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" wrote: > > This theory has been stewing within me for some time and has little, > if any, canon support. What it does is explain a possible scenario > that would put the entire Harry Potter series in a cocked hat and in > some way put those who had not thought of this possibility on the > alert for it (assuming it does unravel JKR's little secret). > > Dumbledore's choice, as I will postulate, is the central driving > force of the current position in the wizarding world. His choice, > which he considered right, was to neutralise / destroy Lord Voldemort > by whatever means necessary. If I am any where near to being correct > then Albus would not have mentioned his plan to anyone else, with the > possible exception of Aberforth ? and this is the reason Aberforth > will be important in book 7. > > The Theory: > > Dumbledore's choice was to manufacture the situation whereby Lord > Voldemort would initiate his own downfall. What Albus discovered > about Lord Voldemort during the course of his research was that he > took prophecies seriously. Kelly now: I also believe that DD *manufactured* the plan in which Lord Voldemort would be defeated. back to Goddlefrood: > For this reason the prophecy was devised by Dumbledore to be espoused > by Sybil Trelawney. Kelly now: However, I don't believe that DD devised the Prophesy. I guess that anything is possible but I just don't get the impression that DD, or any wizard, has the power to cause someone to predict the future. I believe that hearing the prophecy was DD's lucky break. It was then and only then that he was able to set his *plan* into motion. The prophecy does not seem to have a time limit, meaning that the chosen one could come at the end of any seventh month. It was DD who chose that it would happen the next year by insuring that Voldemort heard the prophecy and act upon it. I believe he set Voldemort up. < large snip> Goddlefrood: > and it is arranged that part, but not all, of it is overheard by someone who would then report this back to Voldemort. It does not alter the basic theory > whether or not Snape is on Dumbledore or Lord Voldemort's side. >The only important aspect is that Snape would report back to Lord > Voldemort and he did. Kelly now: As I stated above I don't think DD knew he would hear a prophecy that night, so I dont think Snape was a plant either. Yet I think it is important to recognize Snape's role in this. I don't believe that Dumbledore could do this alone and so when Snape was caught he enlisted Snape to help. You can read more on my opinion of this in post #151662. Maybe later on DD needed to use Pettigrew also. Goddlefrood: > This was James and Lily's part in the grand design; they willingly > sacrificed themselves for the greater good. Kelly now: I believe that Dumbledore needed to know that Lily would sacrifice herself to save Harry, and ultimately the Wizarding World. Otherwise the Ancient Magic wouldn't work. So yes, I think she was in on the plan too. I'm not quite sure about James. Goddlefrood: >snip> Dumbledore does not seem particularly > surprised that Lord Voldemort returned to a body when he did and this > may also have something to do with the notorious gleam (because the > final phase of the plan could then be initiated and duly was). > > For the next six years from the time Harry enters the wizarding world > Dumbledore prepares him for his final showdown with Lord Voldemort, > which is slated for a year later. Dumbledore has given Harry all he > can by this stage in order to succeed including his embedded agent / > agents. Kelly now: Dumbledore does not seem to be surprised by anything. Some examples: Sirius' innocence, Pettigrew living at Hogwarts disguised as Ron's rat, Hagrid's innocence, Voldemort possessing Quirrel, the trio discovering the Philosopher's Stone (as well as saving it from Voldemort), Crouch Jr as Moody, I can go on and on. It seems to me that unless there was some underlying plan in the works that Dumbledore would have noticed at least some of these unsettling occurances and done something about them while they were happening. > snip> > His whole thing is to prepare Harry for what only he > can do ? which is to neutralise Lord Voldemort with the tools Lord > Voldemort himself has given to Harry. Kelly now: IMO Dumbledore NEEDS Harry Potter to vanquish the Dark Lord. It was foretold by the prophecy, helped along by the *choices* of Dumbledore, Voldemort, and possibly Lily, Pettigrew, and Snape. It is the only hope of saving the Wizarding World. > Goddlefrood: > If, as many theorists expect, there is to be a parallel between book > 3 and book 7 then I propose the major revelation will be that all the > time Peter has been working for Dumbledore. It certainly would give > an extraordinarily good reason as to why Peter was and remains a > Gryffindor. And some of you thought Dumbledore was sloppy. > > It certainly would explain an awful lot of incongruities. Kelly now: Including how a mediocre wizard was able to blow up a street, kill all those muggles, frame Sirius Black and remain hidden for 13 years. Kelly, who thinks Dumbledore might be a lot of things, but certainly is not sloppy. From dontask2much at yahoo.com Fri Jun 9 03:00:49 2006 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 23:00:49 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Moaning Myrtle's murder (Was: Harry a Horcrux?) References: <4488D65C.6050904@telus.net> Message-ID: <02b501c68b70$e9b7e960$6a01a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 153588 > > KJ: > I like: Grindlewald for the locket because he taught him how > to > make horcruxes > > Grandpa for the diary because he was only slightly > significant and he needed to try it out > > Dad for the ring because he owed him one and there was > contact with the Gaunt family > > Hepzibah for the cup because she was a descendant of > Helga > > I'm thinking Dorcas Meadows for the Ravenclaw item because her name > was tossed out there for a reason but we don't know > why. We just know that he killed her himself. > > Harry was destined to be number 6 and would have been > associated to the Gryffindor item. > > Spares: Brice, Grandma. Lilly, James, Amelia Bones, Quirrel, > Rebecca: I'm of the mind that the deaths of some were significant not because of who these people were but what they had that he wanted. It's a sticky wicket I have in my mind that some of the people killed were killed only for possession of the object, and that later Voldemort decided a different personally important person to him should die for a Horcrux creation. Since Grindlewald seems, from the Chocolate Frog cards anyway, to have been defeated by Dumbledore- methinks he's out of the equasion. Myrtle died because of the Basilisk, not because Riddle turned his wand on her. Hepzibah died by Hokey's hand for Riddle to obtain the cup and the locket, so I don't think those ways of killing carries as much uhmph in the Horcrux making department. So in form, Horcrux creation could be beginning with the diary, which I think Tom Riddle has first before the ring? The diary would be a Muggle object tied to an important Muggle death to Voldemort - the death of Riddle, Sr in cold blood by his son, as well as the fact the diary contains what he prides himself as true ancestory with Slytherin. We almost need a timeline of deaths to match this, as Voldemort might have acquired the "famous" objects and only started making them in earnest after leaving B&B's and experimenting. I wonder if the Horcrux has to be created at the time when you actually cause directly kill a person yourself, or if it can be created much later - my bet is in JKR's world, that might be the case. Rebecca From sarah at eskimo.com Fri Jun 9 03:03:08 2006 From: sarah at eskimo.com (Sarah E. Schreffler) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 20:03:08 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Individual issues and JKR (was Re: Snape and the "Chosen One" ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c68b71$3fb32c30$6401a8c0@Sandbox> No: HPFGUIDX 153589 xuxu: >And then sometimes, in disregard of conventions, people just fall in >love with each others, and that is a different matter altogether. I >don't think JKR has said anything against that. In any case I wouldn't. >The problem with PCness is that we end up using words meaning nothing >at all. Is 'genetically homogenous' even a scientific truth? What >about 'born of two persons who love each other'? Sarah says: For a great deal of human history, love had little or nothing to do with marriage. "They told us we'd learn to love each other" "For twenty-five years I've washed your clothes Cooked your meals, cleaned your house Given you children, milked the cow After twenty-five years, why talk about love right now?" The problem in Harry Potter was not the love (or lack of love) behind the parents. (Narcissa and Lucius really DO seem to love each other, as do Dudley's parents. The problem with Merope and Tom seems to be not a lack of love but forced "love" -- and quite a bit of self-deception on Merope's part. She thought the real was true, and she wanted the real, not the fake. To the point where when he left her after she stopped giving him the potion, she didn't want to live anymore.) It is the attitude toward outsiders. Or, to point a finer point on it, an attitude toward the different. Despite the fact that she says just about all the wizard are related to each other. (Order of the Phoenix, Chapter 6, p.113 in my book) "The pure-blood families are all interrelated," said Sirius. "If you're only going to let your sons and daughters marry purebloods your choice is very limitd, there are hardly any of us left. Molly and I are cousins by marriage and Arthur's something like my second cousin once removed..." But JKR only once says anything about physical problems in the children of these unions -- in the piece about the Gaunts. Over and over what she seems to decry is the pure-blood attitude. Molly and Arthur, as they say, are also pureblood, but don't come in for the same kind of treatment because they are more willing to accept outsiders. Book 2 covered these differences between those who did and didn't accept outsiders quite a bit with a beastie who was killing "Mudbloods" (and in the end, it even turned out that the mind behind it didn't care about the muggle-ness of the people at all. He was more interested in Harry Potter, even willing to kill pureblood Ginny to get there.) At the end of book 4, (Goblet of Fire, chapter 36, p. 708 in my book) (Dumbledore) "You place too much importance, and you always have done, on the so-called purity of blood! You fail to recognize that it matters not what someone I born, but what they grow to be! Your dementor has just destroyed the last remaining member of a pure-blood family as old as any-- and see what that man chose to make of his life! I tell you now-- ..." --Sarah Schreffler Newcastle, WA From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 9 03:27:07 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 03:27:07 -0000 Subject: Who is the Fourth DE? In-Reply-To: <20060608155858.56898.qmail@web61019.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153590 > Ginny mentions the Death Eater that died, was "the big blond one" Wasn't this the same one being chased from the tower? > > And, no, this Death Eater wasn't named either. > > > -FT > Carol responds: The dead DE is Gibbon, who is killed (accidentally) by the big blond DE. They are not the same person. The big blond DE (possibly Crabbe, who was not present at the MoM and must still be at large at the end of HBP) is also different from the "brutal-faced Death Eater," the fourth DE that Tonks was referring to upthread, who is apparently petrified by Harry as they start down the stairs from the tower. That person, oddly referred to by Scrimgeour as having been "Stupefied," is apparently in custody after the events on the tower. IMO, the brutal-faced Death Eater is Yaxley, mentioned by Snape along with Avery, Lucius (Malfoy), and "the Carrows" (whom I take to be Amycus and Alecto) in "Spinner's End" (HBP Am. ed. 27). Fenrir Greyback is also mentioned for the first time in that speech. Why give these names if the characters aren't going to appear in the book? Carol, noting that the name Yaxley also appears on the Black Family Tree, which suggests that the Yaxleys are purebloods From djklaugh at comcast.net Fri Jun 9 03:43:14 2006 From: djklaugh at comcast.net (Deb) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 03:43:14 -0000 Subject: Who is the Fourth DE? In-Reply-To: <20060608155858.56898.qmail@web61019.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153591 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, FriarTuck97 wrote: > > Ginny mentions the Death Eater that died, was "the big blond one" Wasn't this the same one being chased from the tower? > > And, no, this Death Eater wasn't named either. > > > -FT I don't think the "big blond one" was up on the tower. After Fenir's icky discourse on eating children the fourth DE says: "No," said the fourth Death Eater sharply. He had a heavy, brutal- looking face. "We've got orders. Draco's got to do it. Now, Draco, and quickly". And a bit later he blasts Fenir out of the way and again was described as "brutal-faced". He is the last to leave the tower and Harry blasts him with "Petrificus Totalus!" before he can start down the stairs. When Harry arrives at the fighting down below he finds "Tonks fighting an enormous blond wizard who was sending curses flying in all directions..." And it is the "big blond one" who's flying curses actually killed one of the DEs(Gibbon apparently ... the one who set off the Dark Mark). Plus Lupin describes, when they are all in the hospital wing with Bill after the fighting, how the 4 DEs followed Draco up the stairs while the big blond was throwing curses around. So "brutal face" and "big blond" are two different DEs deb (aka djklaugh) From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 9 02:14:31 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 02:14:31 -0000 Subject: Snape and the "Chosen One" Was: Nice vs. Good - Compassion In-Reply-To: <4482BB60.27401.C7FE14@drednort.alphalink.com.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153592 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" wrote: > > These books are not books about the abuse of Harry Potter. While abuse is present in the > books, it's not at the core of the story, it's not the major issue of the books. The nastiness of > Vernon Dursley pales in comparison to the sheer evil of Lord Voldemort. It's the defeat of > Voldemort that I expect to be the primary issue addressed in book 7 - although even that is > just a guess. I hope some more minor issues are addressed, but I don't expect them all to be > addressed. > But that is where I emphatically disagree, I think the books are VERY MUCH about the abuse of Harry Potter. Voldemort? He is really an incredibly boring character. Of course he's evil and of course he's going to die. Where on earth is the interest in that? The repeated abuse Harry has suffered while the "epitome of goodness" and greatest wizard in the world (and every other adult in the story) stood by and let it happen -- that is an important issue. Particular since, being the "epitome of goodness" his tacit approval of the abuse of Harry Potter does amount to an approval of the abuse of children. Lupinlore From mathias_forseti at yahoo.com Fri Jun 9 03:00:51 2006 From: mathias_forseti at yahoo.com (Mathias Forseti) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 20:00:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Peeves In-Reply-To: <039e01c6802b$e9236d80$6402a8c0@self6e4d6e0c5b> Message-ID: <20060609030051.26748.qmail@web39107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153593 Tiffany: says: >> I don't believe there is anything in the books, but here's what I found on J.K. Rowling's site in the FAQ section. The link is http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=67 Peeves chews gum, how can he when he is a ghost? (Nearly Headless Nick can't eat). Peeves isn't a ghost; he was never a living person. He is an indestructible spirit of chaos, and solid enough to unscrew chandeliers, throw walking sticks and, yes, chew gum. << Mathias: I just started re-reading Book 1 (US) and I came across this: Chapter 7, page 115 (soft-back) "My dear Friar, haven't we given Peeves all the chances he deserves? He gives us all a bad name and you know, he's not really even a ghost - I say, what are you all doing here??" ---- Then another question: Chapter 7, page 124 (soft-back) Harry looked over at the Slytherin table and saw a horrible ghost sitting there, with blank staring eyes, a gaunt face, and robes stained with silver blood. He was right next to Malfoy who, Harry was pleased to see, didn't look too pleased with the seating arrangement. Now is the Bloody Baron covered with silver blood or blood that looks silver because he is a ghost? Why would Rowling put silver in the book, she already put that they were pearly white. Or was she putting a hidden clue?? We know unicorn blood is silver. I don't have any thought on why the BB would have done something with Unicorn blood, We know LV used it to sustain life while in Quirrell. Could this also be related to Peeves? Just thought I'd share. Later. Mathias From richter at ridgenet.net Fri Jun 9 04:41:55 2006 From: richter at ridgenet.net (Peggy Richter) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 04:41:55 -0000 Subject: Individual issues and JKR (was Re: Snape and the "Chosen One" ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153594 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "quigonginger" > My personal soapbox, about which I posted here before HBP was JKR's treatment of "inbred" people. The difference in calling a racist a racist and calling someone inbred is that the racist chooses to be racist and can change, should they decide to do so. Someone who is genetically homogenous (thank you, Catherine!) esn't > choose to be that way any more than someone chooses to be white or > black or short or tall. > There are also derogatory terms for the choices we make. Some can be very harsh. JKR has made the WW virtually free from gender bias and racial bias. One can't choose one's race or gender. All are equal. What I wonder is why she will champion Hermione (Muggle-born), Hagrid (halfbreed) and Lupin (disabled), but allow the inbred issue to go unchallenged. > PAR: Actually, I think JKR has answered this issue. The Gaunts aren't actually "in cannon" inbred. We never meet Morfin or Merope's mother. There's no information as to how closely related she was or wasn't to their father. It's only implied. On the OTHER hand, we DO have a clear case of "closely related" people in Sirius -- an individual who has his mother as a cousin (according to the Black family tapestry) and who was considered, with James (who is a probable cousin) "the brightest student" of his time at Hogwarts and who is, at least for some of us, a caring, loving and quite brilliant godfather for Harry. Even his brother, Regullus, who became a DE still is apparently smart enough and clever enough to fool LV in discovering LV's horcrux secret, defying LV and taking the locket -- something that clearly took courage and smarts well above the average. So I think JKR HAS addressed the issue, she just hasn't been obvious about it. It's our own preconceptions that make us target the Gaunts. Maybe it was practicing dark magic that made Meriope and Morfin the way they were, or even a bad curse or hex (wasn't it one of the Weasely boys who had an ear shrivel up because of a curse from a pen pal?) PAR From tifflblack at earthlink.net Fri Jun 9 07:32:56 2006 From: tifflblack at earthlink.net (tiffany black) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 00:32:56 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: HBP 18, Birthday Surprises In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0606070329u331aa949t9392e8bebdff2657@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <029701c68b96$edc3df70$6402a8c0@self6e4d6e0c5b> No: HPFGUIDX 153595 Debbie: 1. What do you think of Golpalott's Third Law? Was it included as an example of magical principles? Do you think it will be applied in Book 7, either actually or metaphorically? And is there any significance to the name Golpalott, other than its resemblance to gulp-a-lot? Tiffany: I'm with Harry. The law made no sense at all. Of course, it probably might if we could read further in the advanced potion making book. I wonder why Harry didn't look up the revelio spell? Debbie: 5. JKR frequently makes a point of describing the weather when she shifts to a new scene or section of narrative; for example, February brought "cold dreary wetness." Do you think JKR is using the weather to set a mood here or is it just transition? Tiffany: I think it's just transition, helps to mark the passage of time and the change of seasons. Debbie: 9. Why is Ron horrified when Slughorn administers the antidote? Is he feeling the disappointment of the crush wearing off, or is he just embarrassed at having acted the way he did? Rest snipped Tiffany: If I were Ron, I think I'd be feeling really embarrassed right then. Debbie: Bonus Question. Despite the fact that ch. 18 is infused with potions, former potions master Snape is barely mentioned. If Snape had still been potions master, how do you think he would he have handled Ron's predicament? Tiffany: For starters I doubt that Harry would have taken Ron to Professor Snape, but if Snape had somehow found out, I have no doubt that both Harry and Ron would be in detention and Gryffindor would have lost 50 points. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Fri Jun 9 13:42:23 2006 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 06:42:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Mortality question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060609134223.66241.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153596 > One of my questions concerns GoF. In the cemetery scene, in his > speech > to DEs, LV describes his return to a human body and says:"But I was > willing to embrace mortal life again, before chasing immortality. I > set my sights lower...I would settle for my old body back again, > and my old strength." (GoF,p.656 US ed. or p.569 UK ed.) > > This is very frustrating, but I can't figure out why he is talking > about mortality here. He still has his Horcruxes, hasn't he? Until > they are destroyed, he is immortal, right? > > zanooda Welcome Zanooda. We should keep in mind that VOldemort has a certain image to maintain in the eyes of his followers - especially in the cemetary scene in GOF when he's reappeared in front of them after more than a dozen years - especially when he (and they) are aware that they didn't lift a finger to find him or help him when he needed it. So I'm assuming that when he was powerful he didn't tell them about the horcruxes but let them assume that he was immortal because he was such a great wizard and they were useless bits of walking compost who could never come close to emulating his powers. After all, anyone with sufficient ruthlessness and knowledge of the spell could make horcruxes and that's not exactly awe-inspiring, is it? (And fwiw, I think Voldemort did spend a lot of time looking for the equivalent of the Philosophers Stone to attain true immortality and that the horcruxes were more of a guarantee against extinction rather than his sole option. As well as a bizarre method of memorializing his trophies.) So the short answer for me is that he's trying to re-establish his bona fides as a great wizard and remind them that they're sheep, not leaders, regardless of what they might presume. (Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, eh Lucius?) He's telling enough of the truth so that we get an insight into his character, Harry gets some idea of the past and the DE's get good and scared again. But he's very conscious of the image he's projecting the whole time, so he's not about to tell the truth. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From KLMF at aol.com Fri Jun 9 14:37:44 2006 From: KLMF at aol.com (klmf1) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 14:37:44 -0000 Subject: Worth it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153597 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" wrote: >Snip > > > Janie: > > > I am an intelligent person and a very good reader [one of the only > > things I'm really good at], but I just don't think they're that > > amazing. I read the first, second, and latest one that came out, and > > quite frankly, lost interest. > > > zanooda: > > Maybe I didn't understand you right, but it sounds like you read the > first 3 books, and then jumped directly to the 6th. This won't work > with HP. There are book series where every book has independent plot, > only the main character(s) remain the same. Here every next book > starts right where the previous one ended, you can't jump through them > like this! > > I can't say myself that I got hooked up on HP from the very first > book. I started reading them when the first 3 books were out. I wanted > my son to read more in English and was looking for something that > might interest him. > > I liked the first book, but it was just a good children's book for me. > I liked the second one better, but I thought that the plot (memories > jumping out of diaries etc.) was a little too much even for the > wizarding world (I know better after HBP, of course). > > It was PoA that finally got me, loved every word of it!..... Me: My sentiments exactly----I only started reading the books just before book 4 came out because my students were all toting copies around and the series was getting a lot of attention. Truth be told, I could not for the life of me get thru the first couple chapters-- they just did not hold my interest (me reading late at night when I was already on the verge of nodding off...), so I got the audio tapes in hopes that I could concentrate on the story a little better. I didn't get truly hooked until PoA, which is when elements from the first two books started coming back into play in a significant way...not to mention it packed a substantial emotional punch. There was no turning back after that. If you (original poster of the thread) haven't read the books in order of publication then you are missing out on a lot of the story and it's understandable that you "don't get it". This isn't the kind of series where each book is an independent story. They each layer upon the one before it. I also find the more intellectual offerings of the stories---the mythology, the use of words/language, the hidden clues, the deeper meaning, etc.---the stuff that goes over most of my students' heads---particularly stimulating. When I related some of this stuff to my students who are HP fans, it served to fuel their interest even more (not to mention giving them a little more appreciation for mythology and philology). If one takes the story at a strictly superficial level, it wouldn't have the broad appeal it has and could be labeled as "just another children's book". Granted, the series and all it encompasses is not going to interest everyone. The audios, BTW, are wonderful! I recommend them highly. I have the American version done by Jim Dale and he does a fantastic job with all the characters! I prefer the cassettes and pop them in the Walkman whenever I have some kind of mindless chore to do--- housework, weeding the garden, long drives, etc. I've been able to get thru lots of books I'd have never been able to otherwise. I love to read but just haven't a lot of time for it. Karen F, who will be sad when this great ride is finally over. From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jun 9 15:02:36 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 15:02:36 -0000 Subject: Snape and the "Chosen One" Was: Nice vs. Good - Compassion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153598 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > But that is where I emphatically disagree, I think the books are > VERY MUCH about the abuse of Harry Potter. Voldemort? He is really > an incredibly boring character. Of course he's evil and of course > he's going to die. Where on earth is the interest in that? > > The repeated abuse Harry has suffered while the "epitome of > goodness" and greatest wizard in the world (and every other adult in > the story) stood by and let it happen -- that is an important > issue. Pippin: If Dumbledore could choose good as purely as Voldemort chooses evil, he'd be just as boring as Voldemort. What makes Dumbledore interesting, IMO, is that he lives in a difficult world, in which pure goodness exists but is inaccessible. It that world it is not possible or even desirable to offer a child a life without pain and suffering. Pain and suffering may be needed as a corrective, or as a stimulus to develop resistance (no pain, no gain may be true for characters as well as bodies) but even when they are not, the ultimate evil in the Potterverse is not child abuse. It is murder, which is always deadly and always mutilates the soul. Dumbledore also believes that it is very difficult to see beyond the immediate consequences of our actions. Murder as an immediate consequence of our actions would thus be a greater evil than the possibility of murder as a remote consequence. Between unwillingly allowing child abuse and unwillingly allowing murder, then, Dumbledore would have to allow the abuse. JKR has turned the moral certainty which is normally one of the attractive things about the fantasy genre on its head. In the Potterverse there is often no safety or comfort, for oneself or for others, in following the path of good. These things can far more easily be gained by choosing evil -- until it's time to pay the price. One may of course disagree with these ethics, but I think it can or will be shown that all of Dumbledore's choices, with the exception of the ones he expressed remorse for, were consistent with them, and this is why Dumbledore is JKR's best example of goodness. Dumbledore told Harry why he thought the Dursleys were the lesser evil. We may never know why Dumbledore thought that having Snape teach Harry and Neville was the lesser evil, but Harry and Neville can certainly work it out for themselves. In any case, silence does not equal approval. Both Harry and Hermione have found that in some circumstances, speaking out or other misguided attempts at intervention have made matters worse. Pippin From puduhepa98 at aol.com Fri Jun 9 15:57:24 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 11:57:24 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: RAB case is broken - all Aurors please read! Message-ID: <4c1.de4c26.31baf464@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153599 Neri: It seems to me that the simplest RAB scenario that works with all the different sources we have would be something like this: The only problem I see with this scenario is in (2): how could Regulus, a beginner DE, discover Voldemort's secret and, furthermore, penetrate all the cave defenses? The most likely answer to that is Kreacher. Perhaps Voldemort had borrowed Kreacher when he went to hide the locket in the cave, to do all the menial work for him (it wouldn't be like Lord Voldemort to do that himself). Nikkalmati: There is a way to avoid the significant problems associated with how RAB could penetrate the cave and retrieve the locket as a young 18-year-old student. He also would have to replace the potion and I am not even sure why he would want to. As discussed in an earlier thread, I prefer to believe that Bella was given the job of placing the locket in the cave. In Spinner's End she says something like "he even trusted me with his most precious . . . " at which point she in interrupted. I think that is a clue she was in charge of the necklace. RAB found out from Bella, perhaps by accident, about the horcrux and made the switch of necklaces at Grimauld Place. Bella was carrying it in a bag or box and did not look at it before she reached the cave, at which point she did not notice the switch. I prefer this scenario because it is simpler. RAB put the necklace away and was killed before he could do anything with it or Sirius was wrong about how RAB died and he died trying to open the necklace. Grimauld Place was filled with generations of knickknacks and dark trinkets, so it is no surprise no one noticed one necklace. Nikkalmati ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free. See how. _Click Here!_ (http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/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_R EAD Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jun 9 16:25:44 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 16:25:44 -0000 Subject: Mortality question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153600 Zanooda: > This is very frustrating, but I can't figure out why he is talking > about mortality here. He still has his Horcruxes, hasn't he? Until > they are destroyed, he is immortal, right? Please, please give me some > general idea of where to find the answer(off-list, if you think it's > too boring for others to read). Thanks in advance! > Welcome, Zanooda! Voldemort wouldn't want to share the secret of how he achieved immortality with his followers, but he wouldn't want them to know that he's withholding the knowledge either. He has no doubt promised to reveal it to his faithful ones when he achieves it. So he says things like "one or more of my experiments had worked" which we now know refer to the horcruxes, but make it sound to his followers as though he does not know exactly how he managed to survive. Also, though his self is bound to earth and cannot die, his restored body is still subject to destruction by old age and disease. The Elixir of Life would protect it. Pippin From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com Fri Jun 9 16:37:03 2006 From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 16:37:03 -0000 Subject: RAB case is broken - all Aurors please read! In-Reply-To: <4c1.de4c26.31baf464@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153601 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, puduhepa98 at ... wrote: > > > > Neri: > It seems to me that the simplest RAB scenario that works with all the > different sources we have would be something like this: > > > > > The only problem I see with this scenario is in (2): how could > Regulus, a beginner DE, discover Voldemort's secret and, furthermore, > penetrate all the cave defenses? > > The most likely answer to that is Kreacher. Perhaps Voldemort had > borrowed Kreacher when he went to hide the locket in the cave, to do > all the menial work for him (it wouldn't be like Lord Voldemort to do > that himself). > > Nikkalmati: > > There is a way to avoid the significant problems associated with how RAB > could penetrate the cave and retrieve the locket as a young 18-year- old student. > He also would have to replace the potion and I am not even sure why he > would want to. As discussed in an earlier thread, I prefer to believe that Bella > was given the job of placing the locket in the cave. In Spinner's End she > says something like "he even trusted me with his most precious . . . " at > which point she in interrupted. I think that is a clue she was in charge of the > necklace. AmanitaMuscaria now - I much prefer your version of events, Nikkalmati, as it does away with the worrying abou timelines, where RAB learnt his Dark Magic, and all the corresponding problems. But I do think Kreacher had some role in this episode, whether it was helping RAB make the locket look similar to the one Bella had, or whether he was loaned to Bella to help place the locket. He's just too good a character to lose. The interruption when Bella says - @he even trusted me with his most precious..." - classic JKR important statement interrupted. It also rather fits the storyline - Lucius uses one of the horcruxes in a casual way to get at the Weasleys, Bella boasts about another and RAB does the switch - it's Voldy's henchmen/women frittering his soul pieces away because he didn't tell them what they really were, and they weren't as obedient as he'd think. I wonder who else in Voldemort's inner circle will end up helping the other side? Cheers. AmanitaMuscaria RAB found out from Bella, perhaps by accident, about the horcrux > and made the switch of necklaces at Grimauld Place. Bella was carrying it in > a bag or box and did not look at it before she reached the cave, at which > point she did not notice the switch. I prefer this scenario because it is > simpler. RAB put the necklace away and was killed before he could do anything > with it or Sirius was wrong about how RAB died and he died trying to open the > necklace. Grimauld Place was filled with generations of knickknacks and dark > trinkets, so it is no surprise no one noticed one necklace. > > Nikkalmati > > > > > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -------------------- ~--> > You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free. See how. > _Click Here!_ (http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/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_R > EAD > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Jun 9 17:04:56 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 17:04:56 -0000 Subject: Lily's potions reputation (was: CHAPDISC: HBP 18, Birthday Surprises) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153602 Elfundeb: > > 3. How do you think Lily acquired her reputation as having > > an "intuitive grasp of potion-making"? Potioncat: > Answer One: She was a good Potions student, but Slughorn is > building up her reputation to greater levels to get on Harry's good > side. > > Answer Two: She was indeed that good. That class or group of > contemporaries seems to have produced a number of gifted folk. SSSusan: Answer Three: JKR has noted the fandom's big latch onto the "excellent for charms work" [paraphrase] comment of Ollivander's concerning Lily and wants to get us AWAY from that. IOW, we're going to find out that it was Lily's potions work more than (or as much as) her charms work which played some significant role somewhere along the way, and she's laying the groundwork for that. So, I guess that's really Answer Two, with an Addendum. ;-) Siriusly Snapey Susan From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Fri Jun 9 17:10:36 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 17:10:36 -0000 Subject: Lily's potions reputation (was: CHAPDISC: HBP 18, Birthday Surprises) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153603 SSSusan wrote: > Elfundeb: > > > 3. How do you think Lily acquired her reputation as having > > > an "intuitive grasp of potion-making"? > > Potioncat: > > Answer One: She was a good Potions student, but Slughorn is > > building up her reputation to greater levels to get on Harry's good side. > > > > Answer Two: She was indeed that good. That class or group of > > contemporaries seems to have produced a number of gifted folk. > > SSSusan: > Answer Three: JKR has noted the fandom's big latch onto > the "excellent for charms work" [paraphrase] comment of Ollivander's concerning Lily and wants to get us AWAY from that. IOW, we're going to find out that it was Lily's potions work more than (or as much as) her charms work which played some significant role somewhere along the way, and she's laying the groundwork for that. > Steven1965aaa: Answer Four: She was using the HBP's potions book, just like Harry. From erikog at one.net Fri Jun 9 17:21:58 2006 From: erikog at one.net (krista7) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 17:21:58 -0000 Subject: Lily's potions reputation (was: CHAPDISC: HBP 18, Birthday Surprises) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153604 > > Elfundeb: > > > > 3. How do you think Lily acquired her reputation as having > > > > an "intuitive grasp of potion-making"? > > > > Potioncat: > > > Answer One: She was a good Potions student, but Slughorn is > > > building up her reputation to greater levels to get on Harry's > good side. > > > > > > Answer Two: She was indeed that good. That class or group of > > > contemporaries seems to have produced a number of gifted folk. > > > > SSSusan: > > Answer Three: JKR has noted the fandom's big latch onto > > the "excellent for charms work" [paraphrase] comment of > Ollivander's concerning Lily and wants to get us AWAY from that. > IOW, we're going to find out that it was Lily's potions work more > than (or as much as) her charms work which played some significant > role somewhere along the way, and she's laying the groundwork for > that. > > > Steven1965aaa: > > Answer Four: She was using the HBP's potions book, just like Harry. Answer Five: She had the assistance of her study partner, Severus Snape himself--imagine a much more naturally talented (and gender-reversed) version of the Neville/Hermione relationship. Krista From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 9 15:48:48 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 15:48:48 -0000 Subject: Snape and the "Chosen One" Was: Nice vs. Good - Compassion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153605 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > Between unwillingly allowing child abuse and unwillingly allowing > murder, then, Dumbledore would have to allow the abuse. I'm afraid you've completely lost me here. Do you mean allowing the Dursleys to abuse Harry as opposed to allowing Voldy to murder him? Okay, but I don't acknowledge that choice. The epitome of goodness and greatest wizard in the world could have easily stepped in very firmly and informed the Dursleys that their abuse of Harry would NOT be allowed, thank you very much. And no, the sin of imposing his will on the Dursleys would most definitely NOT, IMO, been equal to the sin of allowing the child abuse to happen. Would the Dursleys have said "take him?" Is that what DD was afraid of? If so, that needs to be made clear, otherwise we have an epitome of goodness who does approve, albeit tacitly, of Harry Potter being abused. > In any case, silence does not equal approval. I'm afraid it does. Silence DOES imply consent, especially when the one being silent could easily put a stop to the abuse. And therein the "epitome of goodness" once again sends a message that the abuse of Harry Potter is a good thing of which he approves at least tacitly. Lupinlore From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Fri Jun 9 15:51:43 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 15:51:43 -0000 Subject: RAB revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153606 > Tonks: 3. The name Regulus is associated with a star, as are most of > the Black family names. Regulus is a `double' star according to one > of our informants. > > Nick: > > Allow me to add that the star Regulus is literally the heart of the > Leo constellation. Leo is Harry's (and Rowling's) sign and, as a fire > sign, is generally associated with Gryffindor house. Perhaps Regulus > has the heart of a Gryffindor? > Ken: Regulus is actually a triple star according to the sources I see, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulus How much importance we should attach to details like these is unclear since the author is so shaky with "maths". I'm a little more willing to accept that she might have some familiarity with the mythological lore surrounding stars and constellations than with the techinical details of astronomy. She did after all have Harry plotting the stars of Orion during his OWL test which took place on a date and time when it would not have been visible. Oddly enough Regulus and Leo would have been visible at the start of the test. The little detail we see of Harry's astronomy course work suggests that it manages to make a fascinating subject dreadfully dull. Hogwarts really needs a new astronomy professor and the evidence I've seen says that they would be much better served with a muggle than with a wizard or witch! Ken From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Jun 9 18:23:31 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 18:23:31 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153607 > > a_svirn: > > This is not what Christ's sacrifice was about. It was about > > spiritual salvation of mankind, not about physical survival of a > > friend. > > Leslie41: > From a Christian perspective, I would say that's rather short- > sighted. > a_svirn: What is? > > > a_svirn: > > It is, isn't it? And in Christian tradition we have Father > > sacrificing his beloved Son, whereas in the HP story Lilly > > sacrificed herself so that her son would live. I'd say there are > > more differences than similarities here. > > Leslie41: > Yes, if you are hung up on the essentially "masculine" nature of > Christ. Many people, including some of the most famous Christians > of all time, see Christ as both mother and father. Julian of > Norwich, for one. Christ's sacrifice transcends gender, is what I'm > saying. a_svirn: I'll take your word for it, but I wasn't talking about gender at all. I merely pointed out that in Christian tradition a parent sacrificed his child, whereas in Rowling's story a parent gave her life so that her child would live. > > > Leslie41: > > > Well, I don't see how it follows that Lily was presumptuous. > > > > a_svirn: > > It follows if she saw herself as a second Christ or something. > > Leslie: > Wha? I don't see how that follows at all. a_svirn: You don't think that comparing the love you feel for your child and the lengths you are prepared to go in order to ensure his or her well-being to the love Christ has for all mankind is somewhat immodest? From leslie41 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 9 18:58:10 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 18:58:10 -0000 Subject: Snape and the "Chosen One" Was: Nice vs. Good - Compassion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153608 > > Pippin: > > In any case, silence does not equal approval. > Lupinlore: > I'm afraid it does. Silence DOES imply consent, especially when the > one being silent could easily put a stop to the abuse. And therein > the "epitome of goodness" once again sends a message that the abuse > of Harry Potter is a good thing of which he approves at least > tacitly. Leslie41: You seem to be the only one who thinks that silence = approval (speak up out there if I'm wrong). I won't try to convince you on the question of abuse--I think that there's certainly enough evidence in canon for people to come to the conclusion that Snape, for example, is abusive. There's also evidence in canon to support the idea that he's not. In which case, to each his own. You have your idea, and others have theirs. But as for your repeated point that silence = some sort of tacit approval, there's really nowhere you can turn to in canon, or in real life, to support that statement. People remain silent when others are abused for all sorts of reasons. Lupin remained silent, staring at his book, while Snape was abused and humiliated, and Lupin was a *prefect*. He didn't participate, and tried to stay out of it. I certainly don't interpret that as Lupin "approving." Snape's teaching strategies are old news. I don't think Dumbledore is in the dark about them at all. He simply doesn't consider them abusive. And if he doesn't consider them abusive, how can you accuse him of condoning abuse? Being wrongheaded about the nature of abuse, maybe, but condoning it? How can one condone abuse when one doesn't even believe it exists? Now if you want to state that Dumbledore is wrong about what Snape does qualifying as "abuse," that's a different story. But then we go back to the argument of whether or not it's abusive, and we all have pretty settled opinions about that. But Dumbledore cannot possibly be said to condone an "abuse" he doesn't even recognize exists. One parent, for example, may condone spanking as a form of discipline, while another may not. What you're suggesting is akin to suggesting that a mother who allows her husband to spank her offspring is condoning the abuse of their own children. She's not, because she doesn't think it's abuse. Whether or not it IS abuse is a different story. And as with Snape's treatment of his students, we all have different ideas, I'm sure, about that as well. From leslie41 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 9 19:18:26 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 19:18:26 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153609 > > > a_svirn: > > > This is not what Christ's sacrifice was about. It was about > > > spiritual salvation of mankind, not about physical survival of > > > a friend. > > > > Leslie41: > > From a Christian perspective, I would say that's rather short- > > sighted. > > > > > a_svirn: > What is? Leslie41: Your description of what Christ's sacrifice was about. I would say it is short sighted because it's not comprehensive enough. > > > a_svirn: > > > It is, isn't it? And in Christian tradition we have Father > > > sacrificing his beloved Son, whereas in the HP story Lilly > > > sacrificed herself so that her son would live. I'd say there > > > are more differences than similarities here. > > > > Leslie41: > > Yes, if you are hung up on the essentially "masculine" nature of > > Christ. Many people, including some of the most famous > > Christians of all time, see Christ as both mother and father. > > Julian of Norwich, for one. Christ's sacrifice transcends > > gender, is what I'm saying. > > a_svirn: > I'll take your word for it, but I wasn't talking about gender at > all. I merely pointed out that in Christian tradition a parent > sacrificed his child, whereas in Rowling's story a parent gave her > life so that her child would live. Leslie41: Again, too limiting. Because of the mystery of the trinity and Christ's triune nature, Christ is all-in-one. Parent and child and the holy spirit as well. And many more things of which our limited imaginations cannot even conceive. > > > > Leslie41: > > > > Well, I don't see how it follows that Lily was presumptuous. > > > > > > > a_svirn: > > > It follows if she saw herself as a second Christ or something. > > > > Leslie: > > Wha? I don't see how that follows at all. > > a_svirn: > You don't think that comparing the love you feel for your child > and the lengths you are prepared to go in order to ensure his or > her well-being to the love Christ has for all mankind is somewhat > immodest? Leslie41: I don't think it's ever immodest to compare acts of love where we sacrifice ourselves for others to Christ's sacrifice. As Christians that is precisely the type of love to which we are to aspire. When people ask "what would Jesus do?" that's essentially what they're attempting--to be Christlike. Lily's sacrifice was more feral, of course, because of her mothering instinct. But again, a Christian would interpret that instinct as a gift from God, and God's love would be interwound with a mother's love for her child. From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 9 19:32:47 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 19:32:47 -0000 Subject: JKR Listening ? (was Individual issues and JKR ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153610 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "quigonginger" wrote: > Either way, we can sit here and type paragraphs > about our pet issues, but if others are unwilling to see our side of > things, it makes no difference in the end. And I don't think JKR is > listening ;) > You know, all specific issues aside, I suspect she pays a lot more attention than she likes to let on. Certainly she trolls the boards and forums quite a bit, and as the same issues show up on pretty much all of them, not to mention in emails to her publishers and website, she'd have to be pretty dumb (which she isn't) not to know what they are. Her statements during her appearances immediately after the publication of HBP showed she was very familiar with the general controversy surrounding Sirius and his death, and she certainly has known of the shipping controversies, the speculations about Mark Evans, and the Vampire!Snape theories. Listening? Depends on what you mean be listening. I doubt she's writing by focus group, opinion poll, tarot card, or alchemical dream interpretation. But I also suspect she's being at least disingenuous when she claims that she doesn't care if she only has six readers when all is said and done. I suspect she cares a very great deal. In fact, many parts of HBP seem deliberately crafted to address the fandom in various ways. I doubt the confrontation of DD with the Dursleys was planned before she absorbed the reaction to OOTP. Hagrid's comment about Hogwarts being dangerous was a nod to numerous discussions of that topic in various places. Remus/Tonks was a popular ship that she could insert easily with minimal plot disruption and almost guaranteed pay off. Grawp, a new character she inserted in OOTP with great flourishes only to be met with a chorus of boos, faded almost entirely into the background. SPEW, a topic similarly of great controversy and much disdain in some quarters, vanished without a trace to the point that Hermione accepts Harry's dominion over Kreacher and Dobby without so much as a whimper. None of which is surprising. As I say, she isn't dumb, and an author who doesn't keep his or her ear to the ground would be even more terminally stupid than Snapey-poo. What will she do -- nobody knows, maybe not even her (I also rather doubt she has things nailed down nearly as securely as she likes to let on, see some of the issues above). But is she listening? Oh yeah, I think she's listening very carefully. Lupinlore From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Jun 9 19:41:13 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 19:41:13 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153611 > Leslie41: > Your description of what Christ's sacrifice was about. I would say > it is short sighted because it's not comprehensive enough. Magpie: It seems like you're just saying Christ made a sacrifice so any sacrifice is Christlike, which is so general I'm not sure what it's saying about the text. > Leslie41: > Again, too limiting. Because of the mystery of the trinity and > Christ's triune nature, Christ is all-in-one. Parent and child and > the holy spirit as well. And many more things of which our limited > imaginations cannot even conceive. Magpie: The fact that Christ and God are the same make Lily's protection of Harry less like Christ's sacrifice, not more. One's a mortal mother throwing herself in front of her child and dying herself so that he will live. The other is a god incarnating himself into human form and sacrificing himself to death while still being immortal and thereby repaying a debt of sin to himself that frees mankind from sin. However beyond the imagination that sacrifice is, Lily's standing in front of her baby is not. > Leslie41: > > I don't think it's ever immodest to compare acts of love where we > sacrifice ourselves for others to Christ's sacrifice. As Christians > that is precisely the type of love to which we are to aspire. When > people ask "what would Jesus do?" that's essentially what they're > attempting--to be Christlike. > > Lily's sacrifice was more feral, of course, because of her mothering > instinct. But again, a Christian would interpret that instinct as a > gift from God, and God's love would be interwound with a mother's > love for her child. Magpie: Yes, and that brings meaning to someone who's Christian and therefore connects any good act with being Christ-like, but I don't see how it brings meaning to what happened in the story. Lily's sacrifice, in that way, would be Christlike whether Harry had been baptised or not. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 9 19:51:13 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 19:51:13 -0000 Subject: JKR Listening ? (was Individual issues and JKR ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153612 Lupinlore: > Listening? Depends on what you mean be listening. I doubt she's > writing by focus group, opinion poll, tarot card, or alchemical dream > interpretation. But I also suspect she's being at least disingenuous > when she claims that she doesn't care if she only has six readers when > all is said and done. I suspect she cares a very great deal. Alla: Yes, with this I agree completely. Lupinlore: > In fact, many parts of HBP seem deliberately crafted to address the > fandom in various ways. Alla: To avoid of my post being a complete "me too", I snipped all your examples and want to add one more ? the portrayal of Molly. I said several times that in general I am rather fond of Molly, but I certainly had issues with her about which I was not shy to speak up. Isn't it FUNNY that all the issues I had with her (and from the discussions I remember that some other readers did to) were addressed? 1. Molly does NOT boss Arthur around in HBP at all IMO ( which fans criticized rather loudly). 2. Molly saying that twins are good with business ( paraphrase), and the fact that she seemed to forgot about then when praising Ron for being a prefect was also criticized and I certainly shared that criticism. 3. What else? JKR of course cannot make Molly apologize to Sirius for her incredibly rude behavior in his house (IMO of course), but I think that if Sirius would have been alive, she would have done that too. Lupinlore: > What will she do -- nobody knows, maybe not even her (I also rather > doubt she has things nailed down nearly as securely as she likes to > let on, see some of the issues above). But is she listening? Oh yeah, > I think she's listening very carefully. Alla: I think that she DOES planned major stories rather well ( I mean, Sirius was mentioned in book 1 for example ? that was SO cool), but I don't buy that details and minor stories were planned out. IMO, Alla From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Fri Jun 9 19:30:56 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 19:30:56 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153613 > > > > Leslie41: > > > > Well, I don't see how it follows that Lily was presumptuous. > > > > > > a_svirn: > > > It follows if she saw herself as a second Christ or something. > > > > Leslie: > > Wha? I don't see how that follows at all. > > a_svirn: > You don't think that comparing the love you feel for your child and > the lengths you are prepared to go in order to ensure his or her > well-being to the love Christ has for all mankind is somewhat > immodest? > Ken: I would not think it presumptuous or immodest. In Ephesians 5:25 the Apostle Paul wrote "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it;" (ASV). The comparison is continued for several more sentences. Christians are called to be like Christ. Christians should never feel that they are equal to Christ, but they should strive to be like him. Lily's sacrifice is a Christ-like sacrifice though it certainly is not one that is unusual in dire circumstances for non-Christian or even non-human mothers. Lily was faced with the choice to save her own life or to shed it with certain knowledge that her child would survive. The death of a human mother to save the mortal life of a single child is not a sacrifce of the same magnitude as the one Christ made for mankind. It is a sacrifice of the same kind and that is as much as a human can aspire to do. If the love of a husband for his wife can be a symbol of Christ's love for the church then so can the love of a mother for her child. Ken From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 9 19:47:08 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 19:47:08 -0000 Subject: Snape and the "Chosen One" Was: Nice vs. Good - Compassion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153614 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" wrote: > People remain silent when others are abused for all sorts of reasons. > Lupin remained silent, staring at his book, while Snape was abused > and humiliated, and Lupin was a *prefect*. He didn't participate, > and tried to stay out of it. I certainly don't interpret that as > Lupin "approving." I do. Lupin has, as I readily admit, many faults. I think he is in deep denial when he claims that he neither likes nor dislikes Snape. And while he may have found what happened to Snape to be displeasing in some ways, I think he did rather approve of it deep down in his furry little heart. > > Snape's teaching strategies are old news. I don't think Dumbledore > is in the dark about them at all. He simply doesn't consider them > abusive. And if he doesn't consider them abusive, how can you > accuse him of condoning abuse? Being wrongheaded about the nature > of abuse, maybe, but condoning it? How can one condone abuse when > one doesn't even believe it exists? By allowing it to happen. Sorry, not believing in abuse has nothing whatsoever to do with guilt in allowing it to happen. One might believe murder is all right. One might even believe that in all honesty and good faith that murder is all right. One is still absolutely guilty for standing back and allowing it to happen. Ignorance of the law -- whether the statute or the moral law -- is absolutely no excuse whatsoever. The same applies to Snapey-poo himself. Does he think of what he does as abuse? Of course not. Does he honestly believe he is doing the right thing? Probably. Does that in any way excuse him from his abuse or lessen his guilt? Absolutely, positively, and definitively not. Lupinlore From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jun 9 20:26:28 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 20:26:28 -0000 Subject: JKR Listening ? (was Individual issues and JKR ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153615 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > Listening? Depends on what you mean be listening. I doubt she's > writing by focus group, opinion poll, tarot card, or alchemical dream > interpretation. But I also suspect she's being at least disingenuous > when she claims that she doesn't care if she only has six readers when > all is said and done. I suspect she cares a very great deal. Pippin: JKR enjoys a shout out to the fans, but she's hardly changing her vision to accommodate them. If she did, then Sirius would be alive, Harry would have dated Hermione, Mark Evans would be someone important and there'd be an American exchange student at Hogwarts. We must be grateful. :) At best JKR seems to have hoped that her books would become a cult favorite. I don't suppose she'd be terribly disappointed if they dropped off the bestseller list because people violently disagreed with her vision. She's hinted that they might. Any author who's got more than a few million pounds and a prudent financial advisor doesn't need popularity except for its own sake, and JKR does not show great signs of Lockhartness. She's said all along that she's writing the books for herself. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jun 9 20:33:12 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 20:33:12 -0000 Subject: JKR Listening ? (was Individual issues and JKR ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153616 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > Listening? Depends on what you mean be listening. I doubt she's > writing by focus group, opinion poll, tarot card, or alchemical dream > interpretation. But I also suspect she's being at least disingenuous > when she claims that she doesn't care if she only has six readers when > all is said and done. I suspect she cares a very great deal. Pippin: JKR enjoys a shout out to the fans, but she's hardly changing her vision to accommodate them. If she did, then Sirius would be alive, Harry would have dated Hermione, Mark Evans would be someone important and there'd be an American exchange student at Hogwarts. We must be grateful. :) At best JKR seems to have hoped that her books would become a cult favorite. I don't suppose she'd be terribly disappointed if they dropped off the bestseller list because people violently disagreed with her vision. She's hinted that they might. Any author who's got more than a few million pounds and a prudent financial advisor doesn't need popularity except for its own sake, and JKR does not show great signs of Lockhartness. She's said all along that she's writing the books for herself. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 9 20:44:11 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 20:44:11 -0000 Subject: JKR Listening ? (was Individual issues and JKR ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153617 > Pippin: > JKR enjoys a shout out to the fans, but she's hardly changing her vision > to accommodate them. > > If she did, then Sirius would be alive, Harry would have dated > Hermione, Mark Evans would be someone important and there'd be > an American exchange student at Hogwarts. We must be grateful. :) Alla: IMO, and this is of course just speculation, too bad I cannot get into JKR's head. JKR changes the events where fans reaction goes in conflict with her major vision ( as I said I do believe that she planned the major story as in Harry and Voldemort story, but I am not buying that she planned everything ? too many inconsistencies, IMO). Like, Sirius character is certainly important to many fans (myself included), but is he important to JKR? I mean of course she likes him as her creation, but does he truly important to major storyline or was he just created in order for Harry to experience another loss, as someone speculated some time ago? I suspect so, that is why IMO JKR would not change anything in regard to Sirius, but Dumbledore's character for example IS truly important to JKR's vision, IMO, since she often speaks through him, etc, etc, that is why if many fans do not buying what she is trying to do with Dumbledore, I absolutely think that she will change whatever is needed and possible to get through that Dumbledore was not in any way approving what Dursleys did ( as was discussed many times ? I completely agree with LL that Dumbledore at Dursleys WAS a major change on JKR's behalf, because her message was not getting through. Again, it IS just speculation, but as again was discussed many times I do find DD at the end of OOP and DD at the beginning of HBP to be at the very least inconsistent. I am very grateful to JKR that she made DD behave like that at Dursleys, because if he would not finally CLEARLY say what he thinks of Dursleys behaviour, I would find the "epithome of goodness" to be quite revolting. I find it also funny that when last scene of OOP was discussed before HBP came out the arguments were raised that DD was clear enough about Dursleys and to do something more would be overhit and not a good writing on JKR behalf. Well, HBP comes out and it turns out that JKR DID feel a need to do something more, much more and with much more clarity IMO. Was it because of fans' reaction? We could only speculate, but I do think so that it at least played a role. And with Harry and Hermione, um, why would JKR accommodate the fans that wanted them together ( no offense intended to H/H shippers) if it is clearly turned out not to be important to her vision. JMO, Alla. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Jun 9 21:08:05 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 21:08:05 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153618 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > Leslie41: > Well, I don't see how it follows that Lily was presumptuous. > a_svirn: > It follows if she saw herself as a second Christ or something. > > Leslie: > > Wha? I don't see how that follows at all. > a_svirn: > You don't think that comparing the love you feel for your child and the lengths you are prepared to go in order to ensure his or her > well-being to the love Christ has for all mankind is somewhat > immodest? Tonks: Like great authors before her JKR writes on several levels at the same time. You can read the story and stay only in the story if you wish, or you can look deep within the story for `the rest of the story'. On the surface we have just a mother who only happens to have the name of Lily die a sacrificial death for her son. If you look deeper you will see that perhaps there is a reason the JKR chose the name Lily for Harry's mother. And a reason that she tied this to a sacrificial death. And a reason that in interviews she has said that Harry represents `every boy'. If you take those items and put them together, then you have Lily (Easter Lily: the symbol of Christ) who did not have to die, out of Love for Harry (the symbol of Everyman) die to save him. Lily in our story is not `presuming to be Christ' she is only a mother loving her son. She is not `presuming anything'. We are looking behind the surface to see the story within a story that the author is telling. As others here have said, Christians are to strive to become as Christ. We do so through self discipline of many types and with the aid of the Holy Spirit. We could never become `as Christ' without the help of the Holy Spirit. That is why Jesus came into the world to be the one that could bridge the gap between God and man, that man, because of his fallen nature, was unable to do. After his sacrifice, death, resurrection and ascension, Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to be with his followers to lead and guide them. In the books Lily is a symbol of the sacrificial love of Christ for the human race. But we also have another Christ symbol in the books as well. That is DD. And the Spirit, IMO, will be in the form of Fawkes. Don't you wonder why in the last chapter of HPB is written the way it is? Scrimgeour said: "but Dumbledore is gone, Harry, He's gone." "He will only be gone from the school when none here are loyal to him", said Harry, smiling in spite of himself. "My dear boy... even Dumbledore cannot return from the --" (page 648- 649 US edition) Sounds like a set up to me. Tonks_op From leslie41 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 9 21:13:50 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 21:13:50 -0000 Subject: Snape and the "Chosen One" Was: Nice vs. Good - Compassion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153619 > > Leslie41: > > People remain silent when others are abused for all sorts of > > reasons. Lupin remained silent, staring at his book, while Snape > > was abused and humiliated, and Lupin was a *prefect*. He didn't > > participate, and tried to stay out of it. I certainly don't > > interpret that as Lupin "approving." > Lupinlore: > I do. Lupin has, as I readily admit, many faults. I think he is > in deep denial when he claims that he neither likes nor dislikes > Snape. And while he may have found what happened to Snape to be > displeasing in some ways, I think he did rather approve of it deep > down in his furry little heart. Leslie41: Okay, you certainly can think that if you wish, much as I can hold the belief that Snape is gay. No support for it in canon, however. And as for Lupin disliking Snape, all the support in canon, including words from Lupin's own mouth, directly contradicts your feelings. > Lupinlore: > Sorry, not believing in abuse has nothing whatsoever to do with > guilt in allowing it to happen. One might believe murder is all > right. One might even believe that in all honesty and good faith > that murder is all right. One is still absolutely guilty for > standing back and allowing it to happen. Ignorance of the law -- > whether the statute or the moral law -- is absolutely no excuse > whatsoever. Leslie41: Ignorance of the law *is* no excuse, and on that point you are correct. But you realize that your entire argument about Dumbledore "approving" abuse rests on your rock-bound faith that what occurs in Snape's classroom *is* abuse. In other words, your entire argument rests on a "fact" that not all of us agree is fact. You predicate your judgements on an assumption that not everyone shares. You align Snape's pedagogical methods with murder, and the analogy is not apt. We can all agree murder is wrong. But we do not all agree that what Snape does is abuse. Especially Dumbledore. > Lupinlore: > The same applies to Snapey-poo himself. Does he think of what he > does as abuse? Of course not. Does he honestly believe he is > doing the right thing? Probably. Does that in any way excuse him > from his abuse or lessen his guilt? Absolutely, positively, and > definitively not. Leslie41: You're not doing your argument any good by referring to Snape derisively as "Snapey-poo." In fact, your insult actually makes it look as if you think you can only make points by name-calling, which is the last resort of people who have no case. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jun 9 21:25:55 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 21:25:55 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153620 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: a_svirn: > > You don't think that comparing the love you feel for your child and > > the lengths you are prepared to go in order to ensure his or her > > well-being to the love Christ has for all mankind is somewhat > > immodest? Ken: > I would not think it presumptuous or immodest. In Ephesians 5:25 the > Apostle Paul wrote "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also > loved the church, and gave himself up for it;" (ASV). The comparison > is continued for several more sentences. Christians are called to be > like Christ. Christians should never feel that they are equal to > Christ, but they should strive to be like him. Lily's sacrifice is a > Christ-like sacrifice though it certainly is not one that is unusual > in dire circumstances for non-Christian or even non-human mothers. > Lily was faced with the choice to save her own life or to shed it with > certain knowledge that her child would survive. The death of a human > mother to save the mortal life of a single child is not a sacrifce of > the same magnitude as the one Christ made for mankind. It is a > sacrifice of the same kind and that is as much as a human can aspire > to do. If the love of a husband for his wife can be a symbol of > Christ's love for the church then so can the love of a mother for her > child. Geoff: I would agree in this context. We have talked on many occasions about the different forms of love and I think here that we are in the realm of "agape" - self sacrificing love; not necessarily sacrifice in the sense of giving your life but of placing the other person's needs in front of yours. As far as sacrificing your life is concerned, In John 15, Jesus said: "My command is this: love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:123-13 New International version) And this, if you take Christ's words to their ultimate, covers dying for your family and also for the stranger, if that is what you felieve God requires. The way in which we deal with other people, the love we show, our desire to see them as believers should be a microcosm of that which Jesus demonstrated. Lily is just one (fictional) example of the way in which Christians have taken this to heart over the centuries. From leslie41 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 9 21:28:09 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 21:28:09 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153621 > > Leslie41: > > Your description of what Christ's sacrifice was about. I would > > say it is short sighted because it's not comprehensive enough. > > Magpie: > It seems like you're just saying Christ made a sacrifice so any > sacrifice is Christlike, which is so general I'm not sure what > it's saying about the text. Leslie41: No. What I'm saying is that saying that all Christ was about was the crucifixion and the redemption of mankind is reductive. Christ gave us a paradigm for how to live a perfect life, for example. And simplifying to just that is reductive too. > > Leslie41: > > Again, too limiting. Because of the mystery of the trinity and > > Christ's triune nature, Christ is all-in-one. Parent and child > > and the holy spirit as well. And many more things of which our > > limited imaginations cannot even conceive. > > Magpie: > The fact that Christ and God are the same make Lily's protection > of Harry less like Christ's sacrifice, not more. One's a mortal > mother throwing herself in front of her child and dying herself so > that he will live. The other is a god incarnating himself into > human form and sacrificing himself to death while still being > immortal and thereby repaying a debt of sin to himself that frees > mankind from sin. However beyond the imagination that sacrifice > is, Lily's standing in front of her baby is not. Leslie41: Christ's sacrifice is more comprehensive. That, however, does not preclude Lily's sacrifice from being Christlike, especially when we consider the other aspects at play at Godric's Hollow. It's not either/or. And as Tonks has pointed out, the name "Lily" (the plant associated with Easter) is significant as well. And I would point out that the name James can be tied to the Apostle James, who preached on the importance of doing good works. Then, of course, there's the scar. > > > Leslie41: > > > > I don't think it's ever immodest to compare acts of love where > > we sacrifice ourselves for others to Christ's sacrifice. As > > Christians that is precisely the type of love to which we are to > > aspire. When people ask "what would Jesus do?" that's > > essentially what they're attempting--to be Christlike. > > Lily's sacrifice was more feral, of course, because of her > > mothering instinct. But again, a Christian would interpret that > > instinct as a gift from God, and God's love would be interwound > > with a mother's love for her child. > > Magpie: > Yes, and that brings meaning to someone who's Christian and > therefore connects any good act with being Christ-like, but I > don't see how it brings meaning to what happened in the story. > Lily's sacrifice, in that way, would be Christlike whether Harry > had been baptised or not. Leslie41: Sure it would! But when we take together the other stuff that's going on--the scar, her name, James' name, etc., a pattern begins to appear. From minerva_523 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 9 16:46:30 2006 From: minerva_523 at yahoo.com (minerva_523) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 16:46:30 -0000 Subject: Interest from third book on and Rowling as author In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153622 >Snip > Karen F wrote: > My sentiments exactly----I only started reading the books just > before book 4 came out because my students were all toting copies > around and the series was getting a lot of attention. I > didn't get truly hooked until PoA, which is when elements from the > first two books started coming back into play in a significant > way...not to mention it packed a substantial emotional punch. > There was no turning back after that. > > I also find the more intellectual offerings of the stories---the > mythology, the use of words/language, the hidden clues, the deeper > meaning, etc.---the stuff that goes over most of my students' > heads---particularly stimulating. When I related some of this stuff > to my students who are HP fans, it served to fuel their interest > even more (not to mention giving them a little more appreciation > for mythology and philology). If one takes the story at a strictly > superficial level, it wouldn't have the broad appeal it has > and could be labeled as "just another children's book". Now Cacaia: I must also agree about the third book grasping my attention moreso than the previous two. To tell the truth, I've sort of "suffered" through the first two books, :-) but it was not until the third one that Rowling started to bewitch me. ;-) I agree that the series are replete with mythology and philosophy, not to mention the very cool parallel between the Wizarding World and our own- The series, as many scholars would say, are "loaded" with good symbolism. I find myself talking Potterism a lot to my students, using examples from the books, etc- I even have one kid who claims he's a Slytherin and speaks in Parseltongue to me. ;-) About Rowling as an author: It is my opinion that she has evolved as a writer during the series, being that by the third book, her use of language and symbolism improved superbly, and her grasp upon the Wizarding World and how it works became all the more tighter- thus almost tangible and quite enjoyable. So, yes, I must agree- from the third book on, that's where the series takes momentum. :-) Cacaia From fairwynn at hotmail.com Fri Jun 9 21:41:57 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (fair wynn) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 16:41:57 -0500 Subject: Understanding Snape; In-Reply-To: <32f.5678500.31b8f615@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153623 >Nikkalmati: > The reasoning you give about Harry is no doubt pretty much the > line of thinking Snape would have followed. It explains why he > did alert the Order. However, he could certainly have gotten > away with pretending that he didn't understand Harrry's cryptic > message and that he never thought Harry could ever get to the > MOM. Who could disprove it? In any case, Harry would certainly > be dead and LV's victory assured if Snape played dumb and kept > his mouth shut. BTW didn't DD say to Harry that Snape went into > the forest looking for them before he contacted the Order? This is my point. Not that it was amazing for Snape to think that Harry would go to the MOM, but that it would be easy for Snape to not alert the Order and claim he had no idea Harry had gone there, or even might go there. Given that, there was no reason that I can see for Snape to alert the Order -- and in particular Dumbledore -- except to thwart the plans of Voldemort and to rescue Harry. Even if he didn't care about Harry (I suppose one could argue that), he certainly must have intended to thwart Voldemort's plans. wynnleaf From BrwNeil at aol.com Fri Jun 9 23:10:16 2006 From: BrwNeil at aol.com (BrwNeil at aol.com) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 19:10:16 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR Listening ? (was Individual issues and JKR )~1Ne Message-ID: <4c1.e9e6ee.31bb59d8@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153624 In a message dated 6/9/2006 4:47:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com writes: Well, HBP comes out and it turns out that JKR DID feel a need to do something more, much more and with much more clarity IMO. Was it because of fans' reaction? We could only speculate, but I do think so that it at least played a role. And with Harry and Hermione, um, why would JKR accommodate the fans that wanted them together ( no offense intended to H/H shippers) if it is clearly turned out not to be important to her vision. JMO, Alla. Interesting that you bring up the subject of shipping. I think book seven will tell us clearly whether JKR accomodates fans or quakes to pressure. I think that from book one, Rowling intended Ron and Hermione to be a couple. Obviously this sub plot is not critical to the main story. If in book seven they do indeed become a lasting relationship than I would say that she does not quake to pressure. If on the other hand, they do not become a couple or that subplot is totally dropped than I will feel she has given into pressure either from the H/H shippers or the movie giants who don't like that pairing. I'm not saying that we will see H/H, but rather that the subject might be totally dropped and left for fanfiction to argue about for decades to come. Neil [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From BrwNeil at aol.com Fri Jun 9 23:10:25 2006 From: BrwNeil at aol.com (BrwNeil at aol.com) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 19:10:25 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR Listening ? (was Individual issues and JKR )~1Ne Message-ID: <413.3360bf0.31bb59e1@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153625 In a message dated 6/9/2006 4:47:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com writes: Well, HBP comes out and it turns out that JKR DID feel a need to do something more, much more and with much more clarity IMO. Was it because of fans' reaction? We could only speculate, but I do think so that it at least played a role. And with Harry and Hermione, um, why would JKR accommodate the fans that wanted them together ( no offense intended to H/H shippers) if it is clearly turned out not to be important to her vision. JMO, Alla. Interesting that you bring up the subject of shipping. I think book seven will tell us clearly whether JKR accomodates fans or quakes to pressure. I think that from book one, Rowling intended Ron and Hermione to be a couple. Obviously this sub plot is not critical to the main story. If in book seven they do indeed become a lasting relationship than I would say that she does not quake to pressure. If on the other hand, they do not become a couple or that subplot is totally dropped than I will feel she has given into pressure either from the H/H shippers or the movie giants who don't like that pairing. I'm not saying that we will see H/H, but rather that the subject might be totally dropped and left for fanfiction to argue about for decades to come. Neil [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jun 10 00:04:41 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 00:04:41 -0000 Subject: Snape and the "Chosen One" Was: Nice vs. Good - Compassion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153626 Lupinlore: > Would the Dursleys have said "take him?" Is that what DD was afraid of? If so, that needs to be made clear, otherwise we have an epitome of goodness who does approve, albeit tacitly, of Harry Potter being abused. > Pippin: Since Dumbledore and the Ministry have had to intervene at least three different times to make sure Harry continued to have house room at Privet Drive, I would say canon makes it abundantly clear that the Dursleys have the option of withdrawing their grudgingly offered protection and have come close to doing so more than once. Throughout the series, JKR has offered contrasting views of Dumbledore. In one he seems to be a well-meaning old duffer who is hopelessly out of touch with what is really going on. In the other he is a ruthlessly manipulative puppetmaster who has no values he will not sacrifice to overcome the Dark Side. Canon shows us one and then the other, with the contrast most visible between the end of OOP and the beginning of HBP. Is JKR vacillating, or is she well aware that neither Dumbledore could possibly have earned all the respect and admiration he receives from the wizarding world, still less the accolade "epitome of goodness" from the author? If JKR and her characters are not idiots, then Dumbledore is both in touch and principled. It's just that we don't yet know all he knew, or what his principles were. The purpose of the contrasting chapters could simply be to have the issue fresh in the reader's mind as Book Seven unfolds and Harry is forced to make the decisions that up until now Dumbledore has made for him, such as how to regard Snape and the Dursleys. Pippin From richter at ridgenet.net Sat Jun 10 01:01:17 2006 From: richter at ridgenet.net (Peggy Richter) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 01:01:17 -0000 Subject: Snape and the "Chosen One" Was: Nice vs. Good - Compassion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153627 Pippin:In any case, silence does not equal approval. Lupinlore: I'm afraid it does. Silence DOES imply consent, especially when the one being silent could easily put a stop to the abuse. And therein the "epitome of goodness" once again sends a message that the abuse of Harry Potter is a good thing of which he approves at least tacitly. > > Leslie41: You seem to be the only one who thinks that silence = approval (speak up out there if I'm wrong). PAR (speaking up): "Qui tacet consentit" (silence implies consent) is actually a legal construct. You can find a case law that actually uses that exact terminology at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.plcourt=us&vol=501&invo l=797 US Supreme court in the case of YLST v Nunnemaker t01 US 97 June 24 1991 And in fact this goes to the major problem I have with the HP series. Often the case is presented as if DD had only two options: Let Harry be killed or have him abused by the Dursleys. I don't agree. He could have done many things. He could have told the Dursely's any abuse would be reported (it is in muggle society so why not in WW); he could have provided Harry a tutor (not EVERY individual is going to be unable to teach HP because he's the "boy who lived". lots of kids are famous or important and they have tutors. He could have sent Harry out of the UK (we see no evidence of LV activities in say, Australia). For that matter, if DD doesn't believe in the prophesy, why does HE act as if he does? He needn't, just because LV does. If DD believes Draco is out to kill him, he isn't stuck with either risking the lives of children or letting it happen --he could confront LV himself. After all, if the prophesy is false or important ONLY because LV makes it so, there's nothing to stop DD from being able to reduce LV's powers or even capture and reduce LV to ineffectiveness -- neither would have made the prophesy less true. He could confront Draco early -- would that put Draco at risk? maybe. But better Draco, who IS guilty of attempted murder, than Katie Bell or Rosemerta who are innocent victims. Telling Snape to "stop" would not put Snape the spy at risk. It would simply establish Headmaster DD as an individual who draws the line at certain levels of ugliness on the part of teacher toward student. Nor is the arguement that "you have these people in real life so it's ok to have them in HP" that valid. In real life, you have abandoned kids, broken marrages, infidelity and children dying of cancer and other illnesses, none of which is in HP. We don't need "goodness" silent on bad things either. PAR From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Jun 10 01:06:40 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 21:06:40 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter References: Message-ID: <008f01c68c2a$22586010$4b98400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 153628 > Leslie41: > Christ's sacrifice is more comprehensive. That, however, does not > preclude Lily's sacrifice from being Christlike, especially when we > consider the other aspects at play at Godric's Hollow. It's not > either/or. And as Tonks has pointed out, the name "Lily" (the plant > associated with Easter) is significant as well. And I would point > out that the name James can be tied to the Apostle James, who > preached on the importance of doing good works. Then, of course, > there's the scar. Magpie: I'm not denying that Lily's sacrifice can be called Christ-like, just as many acts in the books (and many books) can be called so. But I thought this thread started because we're talking about a book about magic where Lily's sacrifice, which in the books is given its own context, created a magic spell of Easter Lily + holy water + AK that happened to land in the exact spot where the holy water was = Harry's being saved when the book's already given us its own story. Yes, the sacrifice created a deep magic and that goes along well with Christianity. Lily was given a choice to die, just as Jesus was given a choice to die. There's nothing wrong with thinking of one with regards to the other. But there's still the fact that Christianity itself exists in Harry's world and if the ending of the book is that Christ is the one magic Harry hasn't been calling on and should I think that would be very much out of left field. If you were just talking about relating the story to Christianity or that Lily's sacrifice echoes Christ's sacrifice in X way that would be fine, but it seems like you're adding a very specific magic into the story as part of the plot. >> Magpie: >> Yes, and that brings meaning to someone who's Christian and >> therefore connects any good act with being Christ-like, but I >> don't see how it brings meaning to what happened in the story. >> Lily's sacrifice, in that way, would be Christlike whether Harry >> had been baptised or not. > > Leslie41: > Sure it would! But when we take together the other stuff that's > going on--the scar, her name, James' name, etc., a pattern begins to > appear. Magpie: And I'm saying the pattern you're referring to begins to appear when you go in looking for that pattern. Happens all over the place in fandom. James is a totally common name. It's a nice English name, just like Harry is. And a lot of the girls in canon are named after flowers. Trying to relate everything to a code to the point of taking an ordinary name like James and deciding it must be an allusion to an apostle who preached about good works (which doesn't make me think of James Potter at all) just because he's in the Bible is, imo, not a reading supported by the text but more like the many other fandom readings where the text is called in to support the reading the author wants. To me it goes straight into the territory of Knight2King where a theory gets supported by just assuming it's true and then looking for anything in the text that can be said to be part of the theory. If I saw something beyond James sharing his common name with somebody in the Bible I'd certainly consider it--Rowling has been known to choose names with mythological significance and I don't think the Bible is off-limits, but I can also see that names have modern associations too and that Rowling uses them. I'm sure she chose "Lily" knowing all its associations, but Lily is also just Petunia's sister, the spunky girl flirting with James Potter as he pantses Snape. There are lots of books that have allusions to the Christian story and as I said I do assume that Harry's saving Voldemort through love will fit right in with the JKR's understanding of her faith. But there's a big step between that and looking for direct symbols and a direct coded re-telling of the Bible. But maybe I'm just not getting what you're getting at. What are you predicting? Are you just laying a claim to the story in the name of Christianity? Pointing out ways it's informed by JKR's Christian beliefs? Explaining what really happened in scenes we've seen? Because maybe I think you are meaning more than you are. I can see looking at, for instance, the stories of redemption and second chances and Dumbledore's mercy and talking about them in the context of Christianity (as well as just in themselves and in the context of other things), but it seems like you're offering it as a sort of key to everything, and that's why people are resisting the idea rather than just saying, "Neat, that illuminates that scene in a new way." -m From estesrandy at yahoo.com Sat Jun 10 01:15:16 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 01:15:16 -0000 Subject: RAB case is broken - all Aurors please read! In-Reply-To: <4c1.de4c26.31baf464@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153629 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, puduhepa98 at ... wrote: > > > > Neri: > It seems to me that the simplest RAB scenario that works with all the > different sources we have would be something like this: > > > > > The only problem I see with this scenario is in (2): how could > Regulus, a beginner DE, discover Voldemort's secret and, furthermore, > penetrate all the cave defenses? > > The most likely answer to that is Kreacher. Perhaps Voldemort had > borrowed Kreacher when he went to hide the locket in the cave, to do > all the menial work for him (it wouldn't be like Lord Voldemort to do > that himself). > > Nikkalmati: > > There is a way to avoid the significant problems associated with how RAB > could penetrate the cave and retrieve the locket as a young 18- year-old student. > He also would have to replace the potion and I am not even sure why he > would want to. As discussed in an earlier thread, I prefer to believe that Bella > was given the job of placing the locket in the cave. In Spinner's End she > says something like "he even trusted me with his most precious . . . " at > which point she in interrupted. I think that is a clue she was in charge of the > necklace. RAB found out from Bella, perhaps by accident, about the horcrux > and made the switch of necklaces at Grimauld Place. SNIP . RAB put the necklace away and was killed before he could do anything > with it SNIP > Nikkalmati Randy replies... I like this or the opposite roles for Bellatrix and RAB. Voldemort gives RAB the job to help put the locket in the bowl in the Cave. Regulus does not know what is inside, but he now knows the defenses set up to protect it. A good idea to give this job to someone who is young and probably won't ask you too many questions. However, Bellatrix gets the "most precious..." information from Voldemort who must tell someone about his horcruxes. She does not know where they are, but she knows what they are. One night on the terrace at the Black's mansion during their anniversary or something like that, Bellatrix has a few too many and blabs to Regulus about the horcruxes. After all, he is family and a DE and he is too unimportant to be a threat to her position with Voldy. Regulus puts two and two together and decides to go retrieve the horcrux in the Cave. Besides, Kreacher likes both of them and can hang out with either one to help out as needed. Bellatrix goes looking for horcruxes after the Potter incident to try to revive her master. She goes after Neville's parents who she has learned from RAB may know something (RAB is now dead). Voldy is missing, and she wants him back. Someone else had this idea and alot more elaborate connections in a link I posted at the end of May. Either way, RAB and Bellatrix make a likely connection between horcruxes and the cave. Voldy's idea was to have the left hand not know what the right hand is doing. Randy From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 10 01:29:50 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 01:29:50 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's actions again. WAS: Re: Snape and the "Chosen One" /JKR listening In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153630 > PAR (speaking up): "Qui tacet consentit" (silence implies consent) > is actually a legal construct. You can find a case law that > actually uses that exact terminology at > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.plcourt=us&vol=501&invo > l=797 > US Supreme court in the case of YLST v Nunnemaker t01 US 97 > June 24 1991 Alla: Heeee,me too, me too. :) PAR: > And in fact this goes to the major problem I have with the HP > series. Often the case is presented as if DD had only two options: > Let Harry be killed or have him abused by the Dursleys. I don't > agree. He could have done many things. He could have told the > Dursely's any abuse would be reported (it is in muggle society so > why not in WW); he could have provided Harry a tutor (not EVERY > individual is going to be unable to teach HP because he's the "boy > who lived". lots of kids are famous or important and they have > tutors. He could have sent Harry out of the UK (we see no evidence > of LV activities in say, Australia). Alla: You see, THAT's what I see as unclear. I do think that JKR's message beyond DD's actions IS that he really and truly could not have done anything else except leaving Harry with Dursleys, I really do, BUT then I don't see anywhere in the text why the options you describe could not happen. I mean, yes, we have a hint that Dursleys could have thrown him out, I guess, but is it clear? Not to me anyways, because in OOP Petunia puts her foot down and contrary to Vernon's demands lets Harry stay. Oh, and how could I forget Order threatening Dursleys at the end of OOP? Fans speculated many different theories as to why they could not do so earlier. Do I see a clear explanation in the text as to why that was not possible to be done earlier? Um, sorry but no, I don't. So, my only response to that scene was and is - where you idiots had been for those ten dark and difficult years? I mean, I would swallow if it is explained that no way, no how intervention was not possible - come close to Dursleys and Harry is on the streets. I do NOT see anything to that effect in the text, I just don't. Of course, story demanded Harry to suffer with Dursleys, I get that, but Cinderella effect dissappeared to me oh so very fast and I analyse DD actions as very "real person", not just "wise man" I think it was Magpie :), who once wisely commented that those two DD facets are just impossible to put together nicely and we are just supposed to let it go. She is probably right, but it is just so very hard for me to do, because Dumbledore, who did not do anything to help Harry IF he had the choice to do so, well does not come out as a good man in my book :) PAR: For that matter, if DD doesn't > believe in the prophesy, why does HE act as if he does? He needn't, > just because LV does. Alla: Yep, precisely. That is IMO another changing the things from OOP - Dumbledore seems oh SO very certain that Harry HAS to killed or be killed. He sings a different tune in HBP - now prophecy is important only because Voldemort believes in it. Strange, IMO. PAR: He could confront Draco early -- would that put Draco at > risk? maybe. But better Draco, who IS guilty of attempted murder, > than Katie Bell or Rosemerta who are innocent victims. Alla: YES. Alla: > And with Harry and Hermione, um, why would JKR accommodate the fans > that wanted them together ( no offense intended to H/H shippers) if > it is clearly turned out not to be important to her vision. Neil: > Interesting that you bring up the subject of shipping. I think book seven > will tell us clearly whether JKR accomodates fans or quakes to pressure. > > I think that from book one, Rowling intended Ron and Hermione to be a > couple. Obviously this sub plot is not critical to the main story. If in book > seven they do indeed become a lasting relationship than I would say that she > does not quake to pressure. > > If on the other hand, they do not become a couple or that subplot is totally > dropped than I will feel she has given into pressure either from the H/H > shippers or the movie giants who don't like that pairing. I'm not saying that > we will see H/H, but rather that the subject might be totally dropped and left > for fanfiction to argue about for decades to come. > Alla: Apologies, Neil :) The only reason I brought the shipping in is because Pippin brought it up first as the example of JKR not accomodating the fans. I was only saying that it is not important to the story, to her vision, that is why she would not. I agree with you that Ron/Hermione were intended to be together from book 1 and I do not think that JKR has any intention of changing it. Sorry! What I am trying to say in a very speculative manner that IMO JKR will cave in to pressure where she feels that the message she wants to send is not getting through. To go back to DD - IMO it is very important to JKR to get to fans that DD is a good man and that is why we get HBP scene, because in my book last scene of OOP smelled of Puppetmaster!Dumbledore way too much, which is totally fine, IF that is what author wanted to convey. But as said several times, I don't think that this is what she wanted to convey at all. JMO, Alla From estesrandy at yahoo.com Sat Jun 10 01:37:24 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 01:37:24 -0000 Subject: Interest from third book on and Rowling as author In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153631 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "minerva_523" wrote: > > >Snip > > Karen F wrote: > > My sentiments exactly----I only started reading the books just > > before book 4 came out because my students were all toting copies > > around and the series was getting a lot of attention. I > > didn't get truly hooked until PoA, which is when elements from the > > first two books started coming back into play in a significant > > way...not to mention it packed a substantial emotional punch. > > There was no turning back after that. SNIP If one takes the story at a strictly > > superficial level, it wouldn't have the broad appeal it has > > and could be labeled as "just another children's book". > > > Now Cacaia: > I must also agree about the third book grasping my attention moreso > than the previous two. To tell the truth, I've sort of "suffered" > through the first two books, :-) but it was not until the third one > that Rowling started to bewitch me. ;-) > > I agree that the series are replete with mythology and philosophy, > not to mention the very cool parallel between the Wizarding World and > our own- The series, as many scholars would say, are "loaded" with > good symbolism. I find myself talking Potterism a lot to my students, > using examples from the books, etc- I even have one kid who claims > he's a Slytherin and speaks in Parseltongue to me. ;-) > > About Rowling as an author: It is my opinion that she has evolved as > a writer during the series, being that by the third book, her use of > language and symbolism improved superbly, and her grasp upon the > Wizarding World and how it works became all the more tighter- thus > almost tangible and quite enjoyable. So, yes, I must agree- from the > third book on, that's where the series takes momentum. :-) > > Cacaia > Randy replies I think you will see an exponential increase in HP fandom between 1999 and 2000 when POA started to capture the imagination of many people. Look at the lists on the internet. POA sparked the imagination of the adults reading to the kids. GOF set the forest on fire....IMO Randy From alexisnguyen at gmail.com Sat Jun 10 01:40:11 2006 From: alexisnguyen at gmail.com (P. Alexis Nguyen) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 21:40:11 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] RE: Understanding Snape; In-Reply-To: References: <32f.5678500.31b8f615@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153632 Nikkalmati: > The reasoning you give about Harry is no doubt pretty much the > line of thinking Snape would have followed. It explains why he > did alert the Order. However, he could certainly have gotten > away with pretending that he didn't understand Harrry's cryptic > message and that he never thought Harry could ever get to the > MOM. Who could disprove it? In any case, Harry would certainly > be dead and LV's victory assured if Snape played dumb and kept > his mouth shut. BTW didn't DD say to Harry that Snape went into > the forest looking for them before he contacted the Order? wynnleaf: > This is my point. Not that it was amazing for Snape to think that > Harry would go to the MOM, but that it would be easy for Snape to > not alert the Order and claim he had no idea Harry had gone there, > or even might go there. I think we're going in two different circles, and as they say, ne'er the twain shall meet. :) My argument, as it were, is that it would not be logical for Snape [or, for that matter, any of Harry's teachers] to think that Harry would not have found a way to get to the Dept. of Mysteries. Think of it this way [or at least the way I see things]: If I were Snape and had not alerted the Order about Harry, bringing about the death of "the Chosen One," the ensuing discussion would have involved someone asking Snape about the situation. What is Snape's defense then? He didn't think of it? That no one thought of it either? They're flimsy excuses, ones that I think he would be called upon to explain further. In my opinion, it is illogical [to Snape and anyone who has interacted with Harry in the past five years] to think that Harry Potter wouldn't have found his way to the MoM, and this is the point upon which my "argument" lies. Were it someone like Neville, I would expect that the "I didn't think of it" excuse would be valid, but Harry, in his years at Hogwarts, has proven himself very much an "action before logical thought" person, and that is why I think the "I didn't think he'd find a way" excuse wouldn't work. ~Ali, who hopes she laid out her points better than before From dontask2much at yahoo.com Sat Jun 10 01:47:28 2006 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 21:47:28 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and the "Chosen One" Was: Nice vs. Good - Compassion References: Message-ID: <012f01c68c2f$d4f1dd50$6a01a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 153633 >PAR said: >Qui tacet consentit" (silence implies consent) is actually a legal >construct >Nor is the arguement that "you have these people in real life so >it's ok to have them in HP" that valid. In real life, you have >abandoned kids, broken marrages, infidelity and children dying of >cancer and other illnesses, none of which is in HP. We don't >need "goodness" silent on bad things either. >PAR Rebecca: True, PAR, it's a legal construct in the US and can be interpreted differently in any number of given situations. For example, when you're a suspect, your "silence" does not imply consent if you're being questioned. In other countries, it's also not necessarily the same statute as the US, either. The question begets itself if all people had idyllic childhoods, where would character and values come from? This isn't discounting cancer, abandoned children and your examples, it's only to serve that some people, who mistreat us, or misfortunes that befall us actually can make us stronger and more resolved in the way we live our lives. Compare Draco Malfoy and Dudley Dursley: are either of those two have such strength of character and values as Harry or Ron do? Draco and Dudley have been spoiled and pampered most of their lives, wouldn't you say - with the benefit of not one, but two parents nonetheless. I disagree that the argument about having "bad" people in real life is not a good point to this debate. In HBP, you do have death, you do have mistreatment, and you do have children dying at the hands of creatures or losing parents or other relatives to Death Eaters. Lots of murder and mayhem, hm? And I'm not so sure about broken marriages - we saw at least one person who may have been affected by a trouble marriage in Harry's view of Snape's memories while attempting to learn Occulmency in OoP. Seems to me the WW as JKR writes it is just as troubled as any other society, even our own. Rebecca From estesrandy at yahoo.com Sat Jun 10 02:19:44 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 02:19:44 -0000 Subject: Hidden Clues Water, Hands, Death Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153634 Hidden Clues (if you look for them) JKR's choice of words is very interesting when you go back and read the older books after reading Half Blood Prince. In POA (which I am reading again to my middle son this month just after we finished HBP), JKR describes Harry's encounter with the Dementors. The images kind of relate to the inferi in the lake in the cave. POA pp. 83-84 Chapter Five "The Dementor" First the description of the Dementor "There was a hand protruding from the cloak and it was glistening, grayish, slimy-looking, and scabbed, like something dead that had decayed in water ." Dead bodies decaying in water sounds like the guys in the lake in the Cave. But it gets better when you read what happens to Harry . "Harry's eyes rolled up into his head. He couldn't see. He was drowning in cold. There was a rushing in his ears as though of water. He was being dragged downward, the roaring growing louder " This sounds like the cave scene where the inferi hand tries to drag Harry into the lake. "And then, from far away, he heard screaming, terrible, terrified, pleading screams. He wanted to help whoever it was, he tried to move his arms, but couldn't " I wonder if this is a foreshadowing of another scene at the Lake in book Seven where Harry must somehow save someone while he is being dragged into the lake of death? This reminds me of another foreshadowing in this book. In Chapter Three "The Knight Bus", Harry tells Stan Shunpike that his name is Neville Longbottom. In OOP we learn that there is a prophecy which connects the identities of baby Neville and baby Harry forever. Randy From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Jun 10 03:18:36 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 03:18:36 -0000 Subject: Understanding Snape; In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153635 Ali: > My argument, as it were, is that it would not be > logical for Snape [or, for that matter, any of Harry's > teachers] to think that Harry would not have found a > way to get to the Dept. of Mysteries. Think of it this > way [or at least the way I see things]: > If I were Snape and had not alerted the Order about > Harry, bringing about the death of "the Chosen One," > the ensuing discussion would hav involved someone asking > Snape about the situation. What is Snape's defense then? > He didn't think of it? That no one thought of it either? > They're flimsy excuses, ones that I think he would be called > upon to explain further. houyhnhnm: And so what if he was? Sure there would be some who suspected him, especially those who distrusted him already like Moody and Sirius, but what could they prove? And what would it matter to DE!Snape if some in the Order suspected him of being a traitor, if he had managed to see Voldemort victorius and the Chosen One dead? Snape had it in his power to make that happen. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Jun 10 03:43:16 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 03:43:16 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: <008f01c68c2a$22586010$4b98400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153636 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" wrote: > > Magpie: > And I'm saying the pattern you're referring to begins to appear when you go in looking for that pattern. Happens all over the place in fandom. James is a totally common name. It's a nice English name, just like Harry is. > And a lot of the girls in canon are named after flowers. Trying to relate everything to a code to the point of taking an ordinary name like James and deciding it must be an allusion to an apostle who preached about good works (which doesn't make me think of James Potter at all) just because he's in the Bible is, imo, not a reading supported by the text but more like the many other fandom readings where the text is called in to support the reading the author wants. (snip) If I saw something beyond James sharing his common name with somebody in the Bible I'd certainly consider it--Rowling has been known to choose names with mythological significance and I don't think the Bible is off-limits, but I can also see that names have modern associations too and that Rowling uses them. I'm sure she chose "Lily" knowing all its associations, but Lily is also just Petunia's sister, the spunky girl flirting with James Potter as he pantses Snape. > > Tonks: Looks like rain to me... Drop: Harry has a mark on his forehead that appeared there after the sacrificial death of his mother. A death that did not need to happen. And the mother's name is Lily which leads one to think of an Easter lily. Symbolism of the Death of Christ and a reminder of (but not the same as) the (invisible) mark left on a child/adult at their Baptism. Just happens to be at the same place. Hum.. (Note: the mark put on a child at baptism is the mark of the way in which Christ died. . a cross which was an evil thing.. and Harry's mark is the mark of LV. The cross only became a positive symbol for Christians because of the Resurrection.) Drop: First year students at Hogwarts travel through the water to get into the Castle. ONLY first years go this way. Why? This is the symbol of entry into the Church through the water of Baptism. Drop: The name Sirius means Morning Star and this is a known symbol of Christ who is called the morning star. Tonks_op: "oh look it starting to rain." Others: "no it isn't." "Not a cloud in the sky." Drop: Sirius's friends are James, John and Peter. Jesus' closest disciples were Peter, James and John. He told them with him everywhere. They were the only ones he took with him when he `transfigured'. Why did JKR chose these names and the whole concept of transfiguration? She could have used other names, but why these and in this combination? Why do the 4 of them transfigure? Drop: Book title: HP and the Philosopher's Stone. Symbol of the quest for eternal life. Drop: Book title: HP and the Chamber of Secrets. Symbolism of both the death of Adam and Eve at the hand of the serpent, and the Resurrection of Jesus in the tomb. Also symbolism of the saving grace given to Adam and Eve because of the resurrection of Jesus. Because Harry represented Adam and Ginny represents Eve, it makes sense that later on JKR would pair the two. Ginny was always meant in JKR's mind to be Harry's true love because they represent Adam and Eve. Drop: Book title: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. Christ comes to set the prisoner free. Tonks_op: "it is really starting to rain hard now. Here, get under my umbrella. " Others: "We don't see any rain. You are crazy." "You only think you see rain because you are looking for rain." Drop: Book title: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. A Goblet with fire that does not consume. A non-consuming fire is a symbol of God and the Goblet a symbol of the challis used by Jesus at the last supper. Drop: Book title: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. DD formed the Order of the Phoenix (phoenix is a symbol of Resurrection). This is similar to Jesus and his disciples and the forming of the first Christian church. The Order fights LV who himself represents the powers of darkness and evil. The Christian church also fights the powers of darkness and evil. The Church on Earth is called the Church Militant. Drop: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. Of course the reference is not to Snape, but to the real Half-blood Prince who was Jesus. And in this book (as I have written in detail elsewhere in post #147906 and #151730) we have the metaphorical Crucifixion of Christ at the "place of the Skull" having been betrayed by one of his own. Drop: At the end of book 6 we are left with the words of Scrimgeour to Harry that "even Dumbledore can not return from the ----" Now why I ask you would JKR choose those words out of anything she could have said? Drop: In an interview JKR says that DD is not Jesus. Hum.. why use those words? She could have said "he is not Merlin, he is not ____. why "not Jesus" if she did not mean for us to think about the connection? She did not say "he is not Christ". Tonks: "Here is an umbrella. You are going to get soaked out there." Others (dripping wet, standing in a puddle of water): "No thanks. We still don't see or feel any rain!!" "It is NOT raining!" What can I say??? Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Jun 10 04:32:38 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 04:32:38 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's actions again. WAS: Re: Snape and the "Chosen One" /JKR listening In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153637 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Alla: > > You see, THAT's what I see as unclear. I do think that JKR's message beyond DD's actions IS that he really and truly could not have done anything else except leaving Harry with Dursleys, I really do, BUT then I don't see anywhere in the text why the options you describe could not happen. > > (snip) > Of course, story demanded Harry to suffer with Dursleys, I get that, but Cinderella effect dissappeared to me oh so very fast and I > analyse DD actions as very "real person", not just "wise man" > > I think it was Magpie :), who once wisely commented that those two > DD facets are just impossible to put together nicely and we are just supposed to let it go. > > She is probably right, but it is just so very hard for me to do, > because Dumbledore, who did not do anything to help Harry IF he had the choice to do so, well does not come out as a good man in my > book :) Tonks: Why DD did nothing to protect Harry from the Dursleys is a question that comes up here time and again. And the arguments on both sides get very heated. I think that the answer is that the author wants to point out to children that sometimes bad things happen and even the wisest and most loving of Wizards can do nothing to prevent it. Simple as that. And I suspect that the kids get it. It is the adults that don't. Tonks_op From juli17 at aol.com Sat Jun 10 04:53:38 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 04:53:38 -0000 Subject: Christianity *in* HP, revisited was Re: Baptism/Christianity in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153638 > > > > > Leslie41: > > > > > > I don't think it's ever immodest to compare acts of love where > > > we sacrifice ourselves for others to Christ's sacrifice. As > > > Christians that is precisely the type of love to which we are to > > > aspire. When people ask "what would Jesus do?" that's > > > essentially what they're attempting--to be Christlike. > > > Lily's sacrifice was more feral, of course, because of her > > > mothering instinct. But again, a Christian would interpret that > > > instinct as a gift from God, and God's love would be interwound > > > with a mother's love for her child. Julie: I think the key phrase here is that a Christian would interpret a mother's sacrificial instinct as a gift from God. We all interpret the books from our own life perspective. There are elements of the books that coincide with Christian values as well as values of many other religious and non-religious groups. It may also be that JKR is drawing deliberate parallels to Christianity in particular through her characters and events in HP, which would be fine with me. There is nothing wrong with emphasizing love, kindness, compassion, and forgiveness, whether using Christian symbolism or any other symbolism. The original debate though, initiated with the discussion of Sirius's godfather role and Harry's baptism, was if there is Christianity *in* the HP books, i.e., if Christianity plays a significant role in the books and in the WW. I don't think it does. It certainly doesn't play a significant role in any of the characters lives, beyond that some WW parents apparently do baptize their children. With Harry as our narrator, we know his daily routine down to the smallest detail, and it has never included anything at all specific to practicing a Christian faith, no church services, no Bible study or even a Bible on hand, no praying even in the most dire moments, not a single mention of God or Jesus. Nothing. That is why I don't consider the HP books Christian books at all. If Christianity as a practice does appear in Book 7, I'll have to change my view of course ;-) But at this moment the HP books are not faith-based in any religious sense (pertaining to organized religion), despite their strong spiritual elements. They are books for everyone (which is why Harry is everyman), easily compatible within any religious/spiritual framework that has a high regard for basic human ethics and dignity. (And I personally hope they stay that way.) Julie From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Jun 10 07:17:51 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 03:17:51 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter References: Message-ID: <001601c68c5e$0311f200$04b4400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 153639 > Tonks: > Looks like rain to me... Magpie: Looks like..I don't even know what to me. Could you just present a premise that can be understood and argued? Because right now all I've got is a hodge-podge of anything in the books that makes you think about anything in the Bible, some of it contradicting itself, with different characters switching roles when necessary. When something doesn't really fit you change it to make it fit, some associations I don't even think are right or better echo other, more obvious, imagery that isn't the one you want. Vividly drawn characters are completely erased to just their names (sometimes not even that if their name isn't right) with nothing added to them that I can see. Things and people in canon are turned into symbols for other things that already exist as themselves within canon. And throughout it all there's this framing device where you pre-emptively claim that if I don't find your argument convincing at all you're still right and I'm just not seeing it, which is just not cool at all. I think I could get into an interesting religious theory that went through all the books in an exciting way--it's not like I haven't seen the potential for some myself over the years. But I don't see it here. -m From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Jun 10 11:50:45 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 11:50:45 -0000 Subject: Christianity *in* HP, revisited was Re: Baptism/Christianity in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153640 Julie: > The original debate though, initiated with the discussion of Sirius's godfather role and Harry's baptism, was if there is Christianity *in* the HP books, i.e., if Christianity plays a significant role in the books and in the WW. I don't think it does. Ceridwen: I think there's a noticeable and purposeful lack of obvious Christianity in the books. As you said, there is no visual of Harry going to church, not at Hogwarts and not with the Dursleys. The Weasleys don't seem to go, but that could just be the Harry filter. But, either the WW doesn't recognize Christianity, or Harry has never been to church. In HBP, The White Tomb, US pg 643, the person I would think would be the minister gets up to officiate at Dumbledore's funeral. The only description we get is: "A little tufty-haired man in plain black robes had got to his feet and stood now in front of Dumbledore's body." Later, this person is referred to as 'the little man in black' at least twice more. Even a child who is raised outside of church knows what a preacher or minister is. They see these people on television. Their church- going friends talk about them. There are preachers, ministers, vicars and parsons in books which are required reading in school. So, I think that overt references to Christianity, or to religion in general, are not there. The time when you would expect even a die- hard Atheist to mention a minister, he is merely referred to as a little man in black. Whether James and Lily were Christians of any stripe is not a consideration for Harry, other than the need to get him a godfather for the story. If there is Christian symbolism in the books, it is molded into the story, in allegory if you see it, at least so far. The series will have some elements we see as Christian because it's a Western Culture book and a large part of Western Culture was built on Christianity. I never read 'Pilgrim's Progress'. I started it once, but put it down. Overt analogies bother me a lot. If I want to go to church, I will; if I want to read a book, don't make it something that preaches. So far, the HP series doesn't preach. Ceridwen. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jun 10 12:50:52 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 12:50:52 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's actions again. WAS: Re: Snape and the "Chosen One" /JKR listening In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153641 > Alla: > > You see, THAT's what I see as unclear. I do think that JKR's message > beyond DD's actions IS that he really and truly could not have done > anything else except leaving Harry with Dursleys, I really do, BUT > then I don't see anywhere in the text why the options you describe > could not happen. > > I mean, yes, we have a hint that Dursleys could have thrown him > out, I guess, but is it clear? Not to me anyways, because in OOP > Petunia puts her foot down and contrary to Vernon's demands lets > Harry stay. Pippin: *After* Dumbledore sent his Howler. If Petunia didn't have the option of throwing Harry out, he wouldn't have needed to send it to her. QED. Obviously there are some negative consequences for Petunia if she throws Harry out. It's equally obvious that she doesn't always consider them. Alla: > Oh, and how could I forget Order threatening Dursleys at the end of > OOP? Pippin: And that helped, did it? The Dursleys took Harry home and treated him the same way they did after their encounter with Hagrid in PS/SS and have ever since when nothing was aggravating the situation. They provided him with room and board,spoke to him as little as possible, and otherwise did their best to pretend he wasn't there. Every teenager's dream, but not so hot for a one year old. If they'd treated Harry that way from the beginning, it'd be a miracle if he even learned to talk. I'd be amazed if any meaningful change had come from those threats-- gee whiz, here we are in RL spending millions on therapy and drugs and the legal system, conducting agonizing debates on how to help when family caregivers have deep-seated psychological problems, and all we really need to do is speak firmly to them and tell them to knock it off? Right. Meanwhile in the Potterverse, those threats were empty. No one came to see how Harry was doing, no one checked to make sure he was taking his meals, and Lupin didn't even write, although he hadn't gone off on any secret mission yet, since he was over to dinner at the Weasleys on the weekends. Feh! I certainly hope they were told not to interfere...that's by far the nicest reason I can think of for their failure to follow through. Of course we can invent other options for Dumbledore. All fictional situations are contrived. Surely Achilles had other vulnerabilities besides his heel, Gwaihir could have flown Frodo and Sam to Mt Doom, and so on. Voldemort's Achilles heel is that there's something about the love/blood connection that's beyond him. The story is about that, the *gleam* is about that, and Petunia's connection to Harry is most definitely about that. In the Potterverse those other options simply don't exist. If JKR invented other options, she'd also have to invent reasons why Dumbledore couldn't use them. Ethicists are fond of inventing moral thought problems about burning buildings and runaway trains where there's no option but to let some innocent people be killed, but nobody in their right mind accuses them of advocating arson or the careless operation of railroads. :) > > PAR: > He could confront Draco early -- would that put Draco at > > risk? maybe. But better Draco, who IS guilty of attempted murder, > > than Katie Bell or Rosemerta who are innocent victims. Pippin: Draco was *alleged* to be guilty of attempted murder. Everyone knew that Al Capone was a murderer, but that wasn't enough, and yes, innocent people suffered. They suffer more when the authorities start punishing people on the basis of allegations, no matter how believable they are. It never stops with the guilty ones, does it? Even Harry knows that. Dumbledore let Lucius go in CoS for the same reason, with a warning very similar to the one which Draco received from Snape. Alla: > To go back to DD - IMO it is very important to JKR to get to fans > that DD is a good man and that is why we get HBP scene, because in > my book last scene of OOP smelled of Puppetmaster!Dumbledore way too > much, which is totally fine, IF that is what author wanted to > convey. But as said several times, I don't think that this is what > she wanted to convey at all. Pippin: But she has toyed with the idea of Puppetmaster!DD from the beginning, contrasting it with Knownothing!DD and EpitomeofGoodness!DD. The mixed message about Dumbledore has been there from the beginning, and is more evident than ever at the end of HBP, so why look at the opening chapters of HBP in isolation and say 'this is the Dumbledore JKR meant to depict all along and the others were unintentional.' Pippin From chonpschonps at hotmail.com Sat Jun 10 04:42:37 2006 From: chonpschonps at hotmail.com (xuxunette) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 04:42:37 -0000 Subject: JKR Listening ? (was Individual issues and JKR ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153642 > Lupinlore: > > Listening? Depends on what you mean be listening. I doubt she's > > writing by focus group, opinion poll, tarot card, or alchemical > dream > > interpretation. But I also suspect she's being at least > disingenuous > > when she claims that she doesn't care if she only has six readers > when > > all is said and done. I suspect she cares a very great deal. xuxu: If JKR was truly conforming her writing to the fans wishes Draco would have ended up with Hermione long ago, and Snape in HBP would have taught his DADA classes wearing only a green thong. It's true JKR seems to be attentive to her fans, but I think the influence the HP fandom may have on her writing doesn't work in such a direct way. I believe that when she concerns herself with fandom chatters her goal is not to find out how she should write her books to meet the approval of her public but to observe her fans' reactions in the interest of gauging the effectiveness of her work. And I think it's only then, while her principal purpose is to sample the impact of her writing, that amongst the very creative HP community she may come across criticism she deems justified and sources of inspirations for things which will make it eventually into the books. IMO it would be really giving very few credit to JKR the author to think that what she product is the mere result of fans pressure. JKR is not a fabulously talented writer (the kind that can take my breath away with the beauty of a single sentence), but I think she is certainly a genuine one and also a very intelligent one. That's why I believe she understands that the best she could possibly do is not to write the book her fans want, but the one she have in her guts, the only book which may surprise us. It's understandable that we fans should wish to have influence over her writing, and as I said to a certain degree I think we do; but then do we really want to read a book which is already written behind our eyelids? I think of authors as lovers, the good ones know what I like and never fail to please me, but the extraodinary ones are those who know to try and take me to places I have never imagined before. I hope and believe JKR is going to prove herself as one of the later. From estesrandy at yahoo.com Sat Jun 10 13:23:53 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 13:23:53 -0000 Subject: Christianity *in* HP, revisited was Re: Baptism/Christianity in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153643 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "juli17ptf" wrote: > > > > > > > > > Leslie41: > > > > > > > > I don't think it's ever immodest to compare acts of love where > > > > we sacrifice ourselves for others to Christ's sacrifice. As > > > > Christians that is precisely the type of love to which we are > to > > > > aspire. When people ask "what would Jesus do?" that's > > > > essentially what they're attempting--to be Christlike. SNIP SNIP > Julie: > I think the key phrase here is that a Christian would interpret > a mother's sacrificial instinct as a gift from God. We all > interpret the books from our own life perspective. There are > elements of the books that coincide with Christian values as > well as values of many other religious and non-religious > groups. It may also be that JKR is drawing deliberate parallels > to Christianity in particular through her characters and events > in HP, which would be fine with me. There is nothing wrong > with emphasizing love, kindness, compassion, and forgiveness, > whether using Christian symbolism or any other symbolism. > SNIP SNIP and it has never included anything at all specific > to practicing a Christian faith, no church services, no > Bible study or even a Bible on hand, no praying even in > the most dire moments, not a single mention of God or > Jesus. Nothing. > > That is why I don't consider the HP books Christian books > at all. If Christianity as a practice does appear in > Book 7, I'll have to change my view of course ;-) But > at this moment the HP books are not faith-based in any > religious sense (pertaining to organized religion), despite > their strong spiritual elements. They are books for everyone > (which is why Harry is everyman), easily compatible within > any religious/spiritual framework that has a high regard > for basic human ethics and dignity. (And I personally hope > they stay that way.) > > Julie > Randy ponders.... Interesting dialog to read...I think the phrases that come to mind are "strong spiritual elements" and "They are books for everyone" and not "pertaining to organized religion". I don't think JKR wants to write books to be sold in Christian Bookstores only and ignored by everyone else. It is much more interesting to discuss the real issues of life in a friendly setting without all of the trappings of any one organized religion. After all, your peers and parents are probably telling you to stay away from "those guys" in that other church. I think some of these posts reflect that thinking pattern. That person must be from the other side of the street that my mom told me to stay away from. If we take away all mention of Jesus, Christianity, and church services, we have eliminated the points of controversy. Now we can get to the real issues of 1. Loss of one's soul 2. Eternal Life 3. The consequences of betraying others 4. The positive effects of love 5. Laying down your life to save another 6. The need to love your enemies (or at least treat them with kindness to try to overcome their evil) 7. The evils of prejudice 8. The importance of seeing yourself as you are (with Humility) 9. The consequences of losing control of your patience and acting in anger 10. The importance of taking ownership of your responsibilities These are issues that I want my kids to read about. I can't get them to talk about them by handing them a manual. I might scare my neighbor by throwing a book on theology at him. I might teach the whole world if I write a series of fun magical books loaded with spiritual symbols and examples of good values and the consequences of bad behavior. Why preach to the choir? Why not talk to the people wandering around outside the church? Randy (who does not want to insult, but want to focus on the important stuff) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 10 14:15:06 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 14:15:06 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153644 > Tonks: > Drop: Sirius's friends are James, John and Peter. Jesus' closest > disciples were Peter, James and John. He told them with him > everywhere. They were the only ones he took with him when > he `transfigured'. Why did JKR chose these names and the whole > concept of transfiguration? She could have used other names, but why > these and in this combination? Why do the 4 of them transfigure? Alla: So, are you saying that Sirius is a really a metaphor for Christ? And about names, um, she does not use them in THAT combination. She NEVER uses name John in canon to the best of my recollection, except R.J. Lupin,unless I missed something. So, this metaphor does not work for me at all. The way I see it, she may have never let fans know that Remus second name is John. Why would she not use it as his first name, if you claim that those three are direct allegory for Jesus' disciples? She just mentioned it in interview to satisfy fans' curiosity. We could have never known. > Drop: Book title: HP and the Chamber of Secrets. Symbolism of both > the death of Adam and Eve at the hand of the serpent, and the > Resurrection of Jesus in the tomb. Also symbolism of the saving > grace given to Adam and Eve because of the resurrection of Jesus. > Because Harry represented Adam and Ginny represents Eve, it makes > sense that later on JKR would pair the two. Ginny was always meant > in JKR's mind to be Harry's true love because they represent Adam > and Eve. Alla: So, who is Jesus in this book? Tom Riddle? Who else is resurrected besides him? Tonks: > Drop: Book title: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. Christ > comes to set the prisoner free. Alla: ?????? I guess we have different person as Jesus in this book. Harry? > Drop: Book title: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. A Goblet > with fire that does not consume. A non-consuming fire is a symbol of > God and the Goblet a symbol of the challis used by Jesus at the last > supper. Alla: Except this Goblet only works SOMETIMES, not all the time. Sounds like stretching canon to support your argument to me. > > Tonks: > > Looks like rain to me... > > Magpie: > Looks like..I don't even know what to me. > > Could you just present a premise that can be understood and argued? Because > right now all I've got is a hodge-podge of anything in the books that makes > you think about anything in the Bible, some of it contradicting itself, with > different characters switching roles when necessary. When something doesn't > really fit you change it to make it fit, some associations I don't even > think are right or better echo other, more obvious, imagery that isn't the > one you want. Vividly drawn characters are completely erased to just their > names (sometimes not even that if their name isn't right) with nothing added > to them that I can see. Things and people in canon are turned into symbols > for other things that already exist as themselves within canon. And > throughout it all there's this framing device where you pre- emptively claim > that if I don't find your argument convincing at all you're still right and > I'm just not seeing it, which is just not cool at all. I think I could get > into an interesting religious theory that went through all the books in an > exciting way--it's not like I haven't seen the potential for some myself > over the years. But I don't see it here. Alla: Thank you, Magpie. Thank you SO much for saying it. I DO see christian THEMES, christian motives in the story, after all JKR is a christian and she is IMO obviously influenced by those motives and someone said - sacrificial love, self-sacrifice, et CERTAINLY are christian motives. But they are also human motives, they are what every good person would do or at least think she/he would do when faced with possible death of your child, with fighting against evil,etc. I do NOT see in Harry Potter direct word by word allegory to the Bible. I just don't. IMO, Alla > From leslie41 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 10 15:42:13 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 15:42:13 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: <008f01c68c2a$22586010$4b98400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153645 > Magpie: > I'm not denying that Lily's sacrifice can be called Christ-like, > just as many acts in the books (and many books) can be called so. > But I thought this thread started because we're talking about a > book about magic where Lily's sacrifice, which in the books is > given its own context, created a magic spell of Easter Lily + holy > water + AK that happened to land in the exact spot where the holy > water was = Harry's being saved when the book's already > given us its own story. Yes, the sacrifice created a deep magic > and that goes along well with Christianity. Lily was given a > choice to die, just as Jesus was given a choice to die. There's > nothing wrong with thinking of one with regards to the other. But > there's still the fact that Christianity itself exists in Harry's > world and if the ending of the book is that Christ is the one > magic Harry hasn't been calling on and should I think that would > be very much out of left field. Leslie41: So do I. I don't think Christ will ever be mentioned explicitly at all. That doesn't mean that the book doesn't contain Christian themes and elements that add another dimension to the book. Tolkien's work never mentions Christ, or baptisms, or anything of the sort, yet he said once that Christ's face was on every page. > Magpie: > If you were just talking about relating the story to Christianity > or that Lily's sacrifice echoes Christ's sacrifice in X way that > would be fine, but it seems like you're adding a very specific > magic into the story as part of the plot. Leslie41: Well, I don't think I'm adding a "specific magic" into the plot, necessarily. But as I said, when you add all the elements up, I think a pattern appears. > >> Magpie: > >> Yes, and that brings meaning to someone who's Christian and > >> therefore connects any good act with being Christ-like, but I > >> don't see how it brings meaning to what happened in the story. > >> Lily's sacrifice, in that way, would be Christlike whether Harry > >> had been baptised or not. Leslie41: It brings meaning to the story in that it adds, as I said, another dimension to it, if one chooses to see it. Again, one can read The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe and not see Aslan as Christ. I don't think the movie interpretation, for example, really wanted to focus on that at all. But it's there. > > Leslie41: > > Sure it would! But when we take together the other stuff that's > > going on--the scar, her name, James' name, etc., a pattern > > begins to appear. > > Magpie: > And I'm saying the pattern you're referring to begins to appear > when you go in looking for that pattern. Happens all over the > place in fandom. James is a totally common name. It's a nice > English name, just like Harry is. And a lot of the girls in canon > are named after flowers. Trying to relate everything to a code to > the point of taking an ordinary name like James and deciding it > must be an allusion to an apostle who preached about good works > which doesn't make me think of James Potter at all) just because > he's in the Bible is, imo, not a reading supported by the text but > more like the many other fandom readings where the text is called > in to support the reading the author wants. To me it goes > straight into the territory of Knight2King where a theory gets > supported by just assuming it's true and then looking for anything > in the text that can be said to be part of the theory. If I saw > something beyond James sharing his common name with somebody in > the Bible I'd certainly consider it--Rowling has been known to > choose names with mythological significance and I don't think the > Bible is off-limits, but I can also see that names have modern > associations too and that Rowling uses them. I'm sure she > chose "Lily" knowing all its associations, but Lily is also just > Petunia's sister, the spunky girl flirting with James Potter as he > pantses Snape. Leslie41: What shocks me is the vehemence with which readers are unwilling to see Christian elements or themes in the books, and the lengths to which they will go to disprove them. You spend a lot of time saying that James is just any other name, that Lily is just a flower name. That Rowling might have known some significance for them but they don't really have any biblical importance, etc. Firstly, it's patently obvious that names have meaning in the books. But she's very careful with the names she uses. Sirius, the dog star. Lupin, which means wolfish. Aberforth means "to wander off". Even "Harry" means "to make a destructive raid." Should I go on? So if you suggest that suddenly the names "James" and "Lily" really don't mean much with regard to the Bible, it seems to me that you're the one trying to make the text fit your interpretation. The first association that a Christian (such as Rowling) would make when hearing the name "James" would be the apostle. The first association that a Christian would make when hearing the word "Lily" is an Easter lily. I would agree with you if Rowling weren't a professed Christian, but she is, most definitely. > Magpie: > There are lots of books that have allusions to the Christian story > and as I said I do assume that Harry's saving Voldemort through > love will fit right in with the JKR's understanding of her faith. > But there's a big step between that and looking for direct symbols > and a direct coded re-telling of the Bible. But maybe I'm just > not getting what you're getting at. What are you predicting? Are > you just laying a claim to the story in the name of > Christianity? Pointing out ways it's informed by JKR's Christian > beliefs? Leslie41: I'm not at all implying that the HP books are an allegory. Not at all. What I'm saying is that the books are informed by Christianity and Christian themes. > Magpie: > it seems like you're offering it as a sort of key to everything, > and that's why people are resisting the idea rather than just > saying, "Neat, that illuminates that scene in a new way." Leslie41: I'm not offering a key at all. What I'm saying is exactly the equivalent of "neat, that illuminates that scene in a new way". But what you seem to be objecting to is even that, or at least that's what I'm getting. Seeing James/Lily with an eye towards the Bible "illuminates that scene in a new way" for me, but you object to that interpretation. So what I'm getting from your argument is that you are opposed to bringing in any biblical elements at all, because you are arguing against the very points of that interpretation. From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 10 15:32:53 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 15:32:53 -0000 Subject: JKR Listening ? (was Individual issues and JKR )~1Ne In-Reply-To: <413.3360bf0.31bb59e1@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153646 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, BrwNeil at ... wrote: > > > If on the other hand, they do not become a couple or that subplot is totally > dropped than I will feel she has given into pressure either from the H/H > shippers or the movie giants who don't like that pairing. I'm not saying that > we will see H/H, but rather that the subject might be totally dropped and left > for fanfiction to argue about for decades to come. > > Neil I think Alla has the right formula here. How important is the R/H pair to what JKR is trying to sell? Is it in any way interfering with her closing of the sale? My suspicion is that it isn't all that important but it isn't interfering very much, either. The explosion has already occurred with the coming of H/G, and nothing she does with R/H will either help or hurt the situation. So, I think we will see R/H. There would be no purpose served in avoiding it. (By the way, I do think JKR was in bind with the shipping in HBP, in that any way she went would have evoked much the same level of response). With regard to Sirius, I suspect JKR miscalculated the fan reaction, there. That is, I think she was honestly taken aback by the response. Not saying she expected to make people happy, but I don't think she counted on being "repeatedly" faced with the issue, as she mentions (wearily and rather crossly) in her interview with cub reporters. It is interesting how quickly and firmly she sweeps the issues involved with Sirius, his life and death, under the rug in HBP, rather like someone trying to dispose of nuclear waste. But once again, the damage is done and she can't undo it without altering one of her own basic rules (no coming back from the dead) so she's stuck with it. Dumbledore, now, is another question entirely. Here is something that is VERY central to the message she's trying to sell, and where issues were interfering badly with getting the message across. And in HBP she had a chance to deal with those interfering issues. Lupinlore From BrwNeil at aol.com Sat Jun 10 16:29:07 2006 From: BrwNeil at aol.com (BrwNeil at aol.com) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 12:29:07 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR Listening ? (was Individual issues and JKR )~1Ne Message-ID: <2dc.846ebeb.31bc4d53@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153647 In a message dated 6/10/2006 12:01:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, rdoliver30 at yahoo.com writes: My suspicion is that it isn't all that important but it isn't interfering very much, either. The explosion has already occurred with the coming of H/G, and nothing she does with R/H will either help or hurt the situation. So, I think we will see R/H. There would be no purpose served in avoiding it. That depends on a readers view point. I've found that most H/Hr shippers are willing to accept (well, they have no choice) that Harry and Ginny had a relationship. Actually, many readers can picture Harry being with Cho, Ginny, Hermione, Luna, and a number of other girls. :-) not at the same time :-) Harry has that type of personality that he could adapt to any of those girls. Ron/Hermione is a bigger problem. I think many people are simply anti-R/Hr. The two just seem like oil and water to even those of us who saw the anvils. I still keep asking myself why these two people would even want to be a couple. They are both guilty of doing and saying very hurtful things to the other and seem to have nothing, other than Harry, in common. I wish Rowling would explain why they are attracted to each other. It would be a copout by JKR, but I think her best solution, in what will already be a packed book, is just to forget relationships entirely. Everybody says that it isn't an important part of the story. If that be the case, then just leave everything as it ended in HBP. Just imagine if she did that. People could argue for the next century about it and HP fanfiction would never die. Neil [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tab1669 at elnet.com Sat Jun 10 16:42:31 2006 From: tab1669 at elnet.com (flyingmonkeypurple) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 16:42:31 -0000 Subject: People Harry Potter you love to hate Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153648 Just for fun I was thinking about the villains of the story that I dislike and I was trying to figure out witch people I disliked the most. Top five people I love to hate besides Voldemort. #1 being the person I dislike the most. #5 Draco Malfoy #4 Lucius Malfoy #3 Bellatrix Lestrange #2 Umbribridge and the #1 person I love to hate Snape. Because he is just really nasty. He insulted Tonk's Patronus. He said it looked weak. Her Patronus was like a ware Wolf. He said that Lupin was weak. I would have kicked him. He is just too much I love to hate him. flyingmonkeypurple From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Jun 10 16:59:34 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 12:59:34 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter References: Message-ID: <007e01c68caf$4084d390$cc78400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 153649 > Leslie41: > What shocks me is the vehemence with which readers are unwilling to > see Christian elements or themes in the books, and the lengths to > which they will go to disprove them. Magpie: Funny it doesn't shock me you would say that, though it's untrue. The arguments being made for specific parallels aren't convincing. I think that's a problem with the specific parallels or your argument, not my vehemence or unwillingness to believe that there can be Biblical parallels. I don't have to go to any lengths to point out that I don't think these names are referring to specific apostles or that Harry and Ginny in CoS don't fit the Adam and Eve story. I know the stories you're referring to and I don't see it. If Peter had denied knowing James three times before a cock crowed in the text I think I'd see that as a Biblical reference to that other Peter. It's not like this is the first time I've remained completely unconvinced by a theory or interpretation somebody has brought up on this list. Why am I suddenly more unwilling and vehement just because the Bible's involved? Leslie:> > You spend a lot of time saying that James is just any other name, > that Lily is just a flower name. Magpie: I don't spend a lot of time at all. I said that I thought Rowling probably did choose Lily because it has spiritual associations as well. I said James was just another name because your parallels to the apostles in question (what few there were) seem pretty empty. Peter does not seem to me to have anything to do with Peter the apostle, nor does James seem to me to fit the role of James the apostle or Remus John the apostle. Since all they have to do with each other are similar names I don't see why it's "going to great lengths" to point out that there are lots of other Jameses and Peters. Leslie: > Firstly, it's patently obvious that names have meaning in the > books. But she's very careful with the names she uses. Sirius, the > dog star. Lupin, which means wolfish. Aberforth means "to wander > off". Even "Harry" means "to make a destructive raid." Should I go > on? Magpie: Yes, many of the names have meanings. Harry, I believe, is simply JKR's favorite and not picked because it means "to make a destructive raid." Not to mention there are lots of other Harry's throughout history. Similarly, although King Arthur is obviously the most famous Arthur I don't think Arthur Weasley is symbolizing him to a very great extent. Remus is a fairly uncommon name that I absolutely link to the most famous person to carry it. However, my main reason for doing so is that Remus is also called Lupin and--most importantly--is a werewolf. The text and the name work together, as they do with many of other names. I do not think that Michael Corner is symbolizing the archangel because they share a name. If the MWPP story more closely paralleled the story of the apostles I think I might be able to see it. I think if you could come up with evidence of that you wouldn't have to suggest that the problem is ad hominem, an accusation that can be easily turned around on anyone. Leslie: > > So if you suggest that suddenly the names "James" and "Lily" really > don't mean much with regard to the Bible, it seems to me that you're > the one trying to make the text fit your interpretation. Magpie: I did not make the claim that the name James means nothing with regards to the Bible or that lilies are not associated with Easter and I'm kind of shocked you'd think you can turn it around that way. YOU are the one making a claim here about the meaning of something within Harry Potter. YOU are the one who has to support it with evidence from HP. That means evidence that James Potter is somehow a reference to this other James in the Bible. As you've not provided any evidence at all besides the fact that they share a name I don't have to change the text to say you haven't provided any evidence. As for Lily being associated with Easter I actually have said that Lily's character and story can support spiritual associations with Lily the flower--because I see it in HP. I have not changed the text at all. Leslie:> > The first association that a Christian (such as Rowling) would make > when hearing the name "James" would be the apostle. Magpie: You do not actually have the authority to say what a Christian's first association to the name James would be. JKR is also British and it's equally possible her first association with the name James would be the kings by that name. Or perhaps any number of people she's known who are named James. If his name was Judas then yes, I'd say that a Christian's association would be the one in the Bible. Job as well. James does not have the same exclusive associations. Leslie: The first > association that a Christian would make when hearing the word "Lily" > is an Easter lily. Magpie: Again, you are actually not the psychic interpreter of the thoughts of every Christian. I have already said that I see enough associations between lilies and their spiritual associations and Lily Potter's role in the story to believe that Rowling chose that particular flower name for Harry's mother for that reason. But I'm seeing those associations within the story. Not because I think that as a Christian Rowling couldn't name any character Lily without meaning something else. Leslie:> > I would agree with you if Rowling weren't a professed Christian, but > she is, most definitely. Magpie: And as I've said, I think you've gone beyond what you can safely assume about her because she's a professed Christian. > Leslie41: > I'm not at all implying that the HP books are an allegory. Not at > all. What I'm saying is that the books are informed by Christianity > and Christian themes. Magpie: And I've agreed with some and rejected others because they don't hold up. > Leslie41: > I'm not offering a key at all. What I'm saying is exactly the > equivalent of "neat, that illuminates that scene in a new way". > But what you seem to be objecting to is even that, or at least > that's what I'm getting. Magpie: No, I'm not objecting to even that. I'm objecting to parallels that are being drawn and references that I don't think work. Leslie: Seeing James/Lily with an eye towards the > Bible "illuminates that scene in a new way" for me, but you object > to that interpretation. Magpie: I object when I think you make a claim that doesn't work. You're perfectly welcome to find personal illumination in connecting James and Lily towards certain people in the Bible and to share it with others, but when one claims that the author meant to be referring to a specific Biblical thing or claim that one thing in canon is symbolizing something, something I am familiar with but don't think works as a parallel, I say so. Even if James was Rowling's favorite apostle and she named him after him it still might not see much in the name besides that if it wasn't there. I can compare the two books as easily as you can. If I claimed the mark on Harry's forehead was the Mark of the Beast from revelation and that Harry was therefore damned I think somebody could argue against that interpretation without it meaning they just refuse to accept any Biblical ideas. Leslie: > So what I'm getting from your argument is that you are opposed to > bringing in any biblical elements at all, because you are arguing > against the very points of that interpretation. Magpie: No, you can bring the Bible in as much as you want. But if you say that something in the story is a reference to a Biblical story that I know and don't think applies, or I think something else applies better, I say so. -m From iam.kemper at gmail.com Sat Jun 10 17:02:01 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 10:02:01 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Christianity *in* HP, revisited was Re: Baptism/Christianity in HP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40606101002r5dc9f74jf3bc7f49f813ad25@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153650 > Randy ponders.... > > ...snip... > > It is much more interesting to discuss the real issues of life in a > friendly setting without all of the trappings of any one organized > religion. After all, your peers and parents are probably telling > you to stay away from "those guys" in that other church. I think > some of these posts reflect that thinking pattern. That person must > be from the other side of the street that my mom told me to stay > away from. > > If we take away all mention of Jesus, Christianity, and church > services, we have eliminated the points of controversy. Now we can > get to the real issues of > > 1. Loss of one's soul > 2. Eternal Life > 3. The consequences of betraying others > 4. The positive effects of love > 5. Laying down your life to save another > 6. The need to love your enemies (or at least treat them with > kindness to try to overcome their evil) > 7. The evils of prejudice > 8. The importance of seeing yourself as you are (with Humility) > 9. The consequences of losing control of your patience and acting > in anger > 10. The importance of taking ownership of your responsibilities > > These are issues that I want my kids to read about. I can't get > them to talk about them by handing them a manual. I might scare my > neighbor by throwing a book on theology at him. > > ...snip... > > Why preach to the choir? Why not talk to the people wandering > around outside the church? Kemper now: First, I agree. It's healthy to dialog with the people wandering around the outside of the church, but just as importantly, I think the unlost wanders on the outside of the church should start a conversation with the church choir. Second. JKR, through DD, promotes the idea that we are shaped by our choices and not by a god's predestined fate for us let alone some prophecy. No Calvinist, she. So, I would like to add to your list another 'Christian' concept, free will. God bless the Tree of Knowledge. -Kemper [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Sat Jun 10 17:16:59 2006 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (PJ) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 17:16:59 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153651 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" wrote: > Leslie41: > Again, one can read The > Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe and not see Aslan as Christ. PJ: I don't see how it can be missed. He hits us over the head with it on almost every page. It's far from being subtle. :) > Leslie41: > What shocks me is the vehemence with which readers are unwilling to > see Christian elements or themes in the books, and the lengths to > which they will go to disprove them. PJ: I don't think anyone is *unwilling* but if we don't see something we can't just stand around nodding and say "oh yes, of course... there it is!" I can see the fight between good and evil, love and hate, fear of death vs. death as the "next great adventure", but that's not just a Christian theme in my opinion. It's more an ongoing *human* struggle. >Leslie41 > So if you suggest that suddenly the names "James" and "Lily" really > don't mean much with regard to the Bible, it seems to me that you're > the one trying to make the text fit your interpretation. > > The first association that a Christian (such as Rowling) would make > when hearing the name "James" would be the apostle. The first > association that a Christian would make when hearing the word "Lily" > is an Easter lily. PJ: I'm christian and I'm sorry but I don't see it either. My oldest son's name is James. Not because of the apostle but because I liked the sound of the name. My aunt's name was Lilly because it was my Grandmother's favorite flower... Sometimes things just are and don't have a deeper biblical meaning. As you know, not all Christians are the same. Most of us approach organized religion as "1 from column A, 2 from column B". We don't all base our lives on the bible. I suspect JKR has her "columns" as well. > Leslie41: > So what I'm getting from your argument is that you are opposed to > bringing in any biblical elements at all, because you are arguing > against the very points of that interpretation. PJ: Sorry but from what I've read she's already said she's not *opposed* to it but that she doesn't *see* it - and honestly neither do I. The arguements put forth for the story being biblical rather than spiritual are all over the map and don't have flow. It's, as stated, a hodge-podge. You're having to work too hard to make the case which makes me think it's just not there to make. IMO, JKR hasn't hidden a thing. She's shown the very core of her belief system through the love, compassion, and choice themes she's based her story around. It's all sitting right out there in canon. PJ From penhaligon at gmail.com Sat Jun 10 18:56:20 2006 From: penhaligon at gmail.com (penhaligon at gmail.com) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 11:56:20 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c68cbf$91776140$bd5a1618@the248437c0a60> No: HPFGUIDX 153652 PJ said: I'm christian and I'm sorry but I don't see it either. My oldest son's name is James. Not because of the apostle but because I liked the sound of the name. My aunt's name was Lilly because it was my Grandmother's favorite flower... Sometimes things just are and don't have a deeper biblical meaning. Or, as Dumbledore said in HBP, "Very astute, Harry, but the mouth organ only ever a mouth organ." Panhandle From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Jun 10 19:41:39 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 19:41:39 -0000 Subject: JKR Listening ? R/Hr - Strangers in the Night In-Reply-To: <2dc.846ebeb.31bc4d53@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153653 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, BrwNeil at ... wrote: > > > > In a message dated 6/10/2006 12:01:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, > rdoliver30 at ... writes: > > My suspicion is that it isn't all that important but it isn't > interfering very much, either. The explosion has already occurred > with the coming of H/G, and nothing she does with R/H will either > help or hurt the situation. So, I think we will see R/H. There > would be no purpose served in avoiding it. > > > Neil: > > That depends on a readers view point. ... > > Ron/Hermione is a bigger problem. I think many people > are simply anti-R/Hr. The two just seem like oil and > water to even those of us who saw the anvils. I still > keep asking myself why these two people would even want > to be a couple. bboyminn: But you are seeking logic in love, and there is no logic. Think about entering a crowded room, say a bar, you walk in, look around, and one or two faces stand out from the dull gray mass of people. Face and people that you are drawn to. Certainly, there are more attractive people there who don't catch your eye. Plus, you are attracted to these particular individuals based on nothing; you've never spoken a word to them, you don't know anything about them beyond the fact that you are drawn to them. That is frequently the beginning of a life long loving relationship. Just a glance across a crowded room; 'Strangers in the Night'. > Neil continues: > > They are both guilty of doing and saying very hurtful things > to the other and seem to have nothing, other than Harry, in > common. ... > bboyminn: But that is the beauty of true and deep friendship, you don't need to stand on formality. You can express yourself freely to your dearest friends, and even when it is hurtfull, you understand. If you can't vent occassional around your true friends, then most like they are not really your true friends. Certainly, any formality is lost on most married couples. If your going to live with someone, you have to be able to vent on occassion or the unresolved feeling fester until the question at hand can never be resolved. Better to vent and passionately make up, then to burn with unresolved anger. Finally, let me quote Frank Sinatra and say - "Strangers in the Night" Strangers in the night exchanging glances Wondring in the night What were the chances we'd be sharing love Before the night was through. Something in your eyes was so inviting, Something in you smile was so exciting, Something in my heart, Told me I must have you. Strangers in the night, two lonely people We were strangers in the night Up to the moment When we said our first hello. Little did we know Love was just a glance away, A warm embracing dance away and - Ever since that night weve been together. Lovers at first sight, in love forever. It turned out so right, For strangers in the night. I always loved that song. Steve/bboyminn From leslie41 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 10 20:30:44 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 20:30:44 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: <007e01c68caf$4084d390$cc78400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153654 > Magpie: > Yes, many of the names have meanings. Harry, I believe, is simply > JKR's favorite and not picked because it means "to make a > destructive raid." Leslie41: Most if not all of Rowling's names have a secondary meaning, from Remus Lupin to Dolores Umbridge to Lucius Malfoy to Voldemort. All of them, *all* of them, have secondary meanings. Arthur means "noble and courageous" Remus Lupin is a double play on the wolf motif. Dolores Umbridge means "deceitful shadow" (plus other interpretations) Lucius Malfoy is a play on Lucifer and the French "bad faith". Voldemort means "flee from death" I would go on, but it would take too long. As for whether or not our first association with James would be a Christian one, I cannot guarantee that's the case, but I think it would be. Perhaps a King is likely as well. For Lily, I don't see any other meaning that would spring to mind sooner. > Magpie: > I object when I think you make a claim that doesn't work. You're > perfectly welcome to find personal illumination in connecting > James and Lily towards certain people in the Bible and to share it > with others, but when one claims that the author meant to be > referring to a specific Biblical thing or claim that one thing in > canon is symbolizing something, something I am familiar with but > don't think works as a parallel, I say so. Even if James was > Rowling's favorite apostle and she named him after him it still > might not see much in the name besides that if it wasn't there. I > can compare the two books as easily as you can. Leslie41: I don't wish to make categorical claims about authorial intent, though I think it's relevant at times. Most often, though, intent is irrelevant. What's *there* is what matters, not what the author *intended* to be there. Authors are notoriously bad readers of their own work. But as to the naming of her characters, I cannot help but see some sort of purpose there. That's often the easiest place (as it is with Tolkien) to see what the author actually intends. So, when Voldemort (flee from death) attacks James (apostle associated with good deeds) and Lily (the symbol of the risen Christ), and is foiled by Harry (power, destruction), right on the place on his body where he was baptized (symbol of being welcomed into the Kingdom of Christ), yeah, I think there's an underlying meaning there. Just can't help it, considering all the evidence. Is Harry's baptism some sort of protection for him? Not really. But I think the place of his scar is supposed to remind us of his baptism and remind us that it is only through Christ's principles that he will vanquish Voldemort. Not through power or destructive raids. But through love. Your milage may vary, of course, but I think I've shown that there is AMPLE evidence in canon to at least CONSIDER a deeply Christian interpretation. See it or don't. It doesn't mean it's not there. From wdcaroline at yahoo.ca Sat Jun 10 19:23:15 2006 From: wdcaroline at yahoo.ca (Wade Caroline) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 15:23:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: People Harry Potter you love to hate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060610192315.32076.qmail@web61224.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153655 flyingmonkeypurple wrote: Just for fun I was thinking about the villains of the story that I dislike and I was trying to figure out witch people I disliked the most. Wade: At the risk of repeating myself, it has been a long time since I have become as angry at a character's behaviour as that of Umbridge. Perhaps because her evilness is so evident (cild abuse of Harry the most abhorent) whereas Voldemort's in comparison is more ephemeral. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Jun 10 22:50:13 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 22:50:13 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153656 > Leslie41: > I don't wish to make categorical claims about authorial intent, > though I think it's relevant at times. Most often, though, intent > is irrelevant. What's *there* is what matters, not what the author > *intended* to be there. Authors are notoriously bad readers of > their own work. a_svirn: If you say so. > Leslie41: > But as to the naming of her characters, I cannot help but see some > sort of purpose there. That's often the easiest place (as it is > with Tolkien) to see what the author actually intends. > > So, when Voldemort (flee from death) attacks James (apostle > associated with good deeds) and Lily (the symbol of the risen > Christ), and is foiled by Harry (power, destruction), right on the > place on his body where he was baptized (symbol of being welcomed > into the Kingdom of Christ), yeah, I think there's an underlying > meaning there. a_svirn: Yes, but what IS that much-vaunted underlying meaning? It is all very well to depress pretensions by saying that the meaning of Christ's sacrifice is too enormous for mere mortals to comprehend and all who disagree with you are deliberately short-sighted, but thing is, it's not enough. Now that you identified all that parallels with the Bible would you mind disclosing their significance? Why someone who represents the risen Christ happen to be married to someone who represents an apostle? What is so Christian about "power and destruction?" And what with all those other people that were baptised but failed to repel AKs? Were they not welcome to the Kingdom of Christ, after all? > Leslie41: > Just can't help it, considering all the evidence. Is Harry's > baptism some sort of protection for him? Not really. But I think > the place of his scar is supposed to remind us of his baptism and > remind us that it is only through Christ's principles that he will > vanquish Voldemort. Not through power or destructive raids. But > through love. a_svirn: Yet he was christened Harry, which ? as you yourself said ? means "power and destruction"! From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Jun 10 23:14:40 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 23:14:40 -0000 Subject: Christianity *in* HP, revisited was Re: Baptism/Christianity in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153657 > Ceridwen: > I think there's a noticeable and purposeful lack of obvious > Christianity in the books. As you said, there is no visual of Harry > going to church, not at Hogwarts and not with the Dursleys. The > Weasleys don't seem to go, but that could just be the Harry filter. > But, either the WW doesn't recognize Christianity, or Harry has never > been to church. In HBP, The White Tomb, US pg 643, the person I > would think would be the minister gets up to officiate at > Dumbledore's funeral. The only description we get is: "A little > tufty-haired man in plain black robes had got to his feet and stood > now in front of Dumbledore's body." Later, this person is referred > to as 'the little man in black' at least twice more. a_svirn: I agree. In fact it's really bizarre the way attributes of Christianity in the books are conspicuous for their absence. There is no chapel in the millennium old Hogwarts Castle. Hogsmead, the only wizarding village in England, doesn't boast of any church, even an abandoned one. No reference to any services of any description has been made. And last but by no means the least, Dumbledore's funeral is a thoroughly secular affair. The figure of "tufty-haired man in plain black robes" is deliberately ambiguous. We don't know for sure whether he's a priest or not. Certainly such scrapes of his speech as "nobility of spirit" and "intellectual contribution" do not elucidate us on the point. And in any event, it's not what really matters for Harry. On a more profound level, there is nothing Christian about Horcruxes. It seems that Rowling's special brand of spiritualism draws on syncretic folklore rather than on Christian beliefs. Also there is a little matter of ghosts. What is the significance of the VIP purgatory for wizards? Does it mean that they are spiritually superior to muggles? From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 10 23:48:35 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 23:48:35 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 18, Birthday Surprises In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0606070329u331aa949t9392e8bebdff2657@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153658 > >>Debbie: > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, > Chapter 18, Birthday Surprises > > QUESTIONS > 1. What do you think of Golpalott's Third Law? Was it included > as an example of magical principles? Do you think it will be > applied in Book 7, either actually or metaphorically? And is > there any significance to the name Golpalott, other than its > resemblance to gulp-a-lot? Betsy Hp: I think the Third Law makes a sort of sense, and I'm impressed that JKR came up with it (mainly because it took me a bit to figure out what the heck it meant ). I'm sure there is some sort of thematic meaning to the Law that can be applied to the rest of the book, but I'm not sure that the Law itself will come up again. And I tip a hat, again, to JKR's cleverness with names and titles. > 2. Harry and Ron appear incapable of anything in Potions class > without Hermione's assistance. They can't even manage to consult > Advanced Potion Making to figure out what to do (although Harry > does look in the margins for advice from the Prince). How did > they do so well on their Potions OWLs? Betsy Hp: Really, really good question. Obviously both Ron and Harry are able to do things without Hermione there to hold their hands. They both manage to snag a few OWLs all by themselves. But if they *know* she'll be there, they lean on her totally. One gets the sense that neither boy has read the textbook as they should. Ron depends on Hermione to interpert it for him, and Harry relies on the Prince. > And is this joke getting old now that the Trio are 16? Betsy HP: Yes, I do think the joke is getting a bit old. Especially when it comes to Ron. Harry, thankfully, is starting to strike out on his own, without a constant dependence on an increasingly annoying Hermione, but Ron seems stuck in "needs help from Mother" mode. It'd be nice to see him succeeding at something, accomplishing something, all on his own. I think Hermione's overwhelming need to *always* be the one called on in class, to *always* be seen as the smartest person in the room is getting old too. It was charming and idiosyncratic for an eleven year old in a totally foreign environment. It's a bit disturbing in a well established sixteen year old. Speaks to Hermione having some issues, IMO. > 3. How do you think Lily acquired her reputation as having > an "intuitive grasp of potion-making"? Betsy Hp: That it's "intuitive" suggests to me that Lily benefited from Snape's research as Harry is benefitting now. Not that Lily was *bad* at Potions, but I suspect that she and Snape were study partners and that he shared his findings with her. I think that if Lily experimented with the textbook formulas as young!Snape did, than there'd be times that her potions would go completely wrong. And Slughorn would have described her poition ability differently. It's going out on a limb, I'll admit, but I like it. > 4. Why is it so important to Hermione to outshine Harry in > Potions? Is it a need for recognition? Fear of failure? Concern > about Harry's reliance on an unknown author? Annoyance that Harry > is taking credit for the Prince's work? Something else? Betsy Hp: All of the above, I think. Plus, Hermione defines herself within the Trio as the "smart one". *She's* supposed to be the one Harry turns to for academic help, and now there's this usurper to her place. The half-blood Prince is as bad as Lavender, and poor Hermione is losing her grip on her boys. (I feel like I've read this theory somewhere rather than forming it myself, but I can't think of where.) > And why do you think she put her own hair into her potion? Betsy Hp: Part of it could be an illustration of "putting your all" into an effort. Part of it might be to demonstrate that Hermione is really losing it, she's literally "pulling out her hair" in her need to win. > 5. JKR frequently makes a point of describing the weather when > she shifts to a new scene or section of narrative; for example, > February brought "cold dreary wetness." Do you think JKR is using > the weather to set a mood here or is it just transition? Betsy Hp: I've never thought about this before! It'd be really neat if the weather did comment on the action, but I'd have to re-read the series with that in mind to see if it actually does. Huh... Not a bad idea actually. > 6. Wilkie Twycross tells the students that the restrictions on > Apparition have been lifted in the Great Hall for the duration of > the lesson. If it's that simple, couldn't anyone undo the > restriction? Why, then, is Draco spending an entire term trying > to create an entrance through the Vanishing Cabinets? Shouldn't > the DEs have tried to undo the restriction long before now? Betsy Hp: Because it's one of those things that is simple *only* if you're the right person. It's very simple for Dumbledore *as Headmaster of Hogwarts* to adjust the various shields and protections on Hogwarts, he does it all the time (generally in the "strengthening" direction). But it's not so simple for an outsider to gain that kind of control over Hogwarts. Just like it's very simple for a prison guard to freely leave a prison, but a bit more complicated for the prisoners. I think that Voldemort, by applying for a teaching position at Hogwarts, was trying to do that very thing. Once he'd gained the position of Headmaster (and I'd be surprised if he wasn't gunning for that position, probably literally) than controlling Hogwarts would have been simple. > 7. Is the watch Ron received for his coming of age birthday > significant in any way? Betsy Hp: Lord, I *hope* so! I really want to see Ron come into his own and stop being merely the silly side-kick, good for a laugh but little else, by series end. > 8. JKR uses Ron to portray the effects of Love Potions in a very > humorous way (I thought Ron's deadpan comments about Romilda Vane > were the most laugh-out-loud funny in the entire book). Does this > scene help to envision the effect of Merope's love potion on Tom > Riddle Sr.? How do you think Riddle's family and friends reacted > to lovelorn Tom? Is JKR lampooning the effect of crushes on us > Muggles? Betsy Hp: For me it showed that Tom had absolutely *no* control over his actions once the potion took effect. That Ron would actually *hit* Harry was pretty eye-opening for me. I can totally see Tom turning on his friends and family if they dared question his new found "love". So, for me the lampooning of school-crushes was more with Ron and Lavender, where I think JKR captured the phenomena perfectly (especially with Harry's confusion that Ron was actually falling in love with Lavender in that scene). The love potion stuff was a bit darker, I think. > 9. Why is Ron horrified when Slughorn administers the antidote? > Is he feeling the disappointment of the crush wearing off, or is > he just embarrassed at having acted the way he did? Betsy Hp: I think it has to do with the horror of realizing how completely he was under the drug's control. Harry, fortunately, kept Ron from embarrassing himself in front of witnesses, but I can imagine that Ron was perfectly able to imagine what he may have done. (Hitting Harry as he did was probably not a great thing for Ron to remember.) > And why does JKR always select Ron as a victim of forms of magic > with sophomorically humorous effects? Betsy Hp: For the same reason Lucille Ball (Lucy Ricardo) specified that Vivian Vance (Ethel Mertz) be chubbier than her in "I Love Lucy". Ron is the comedic side-kick and he can't over-shadow Harry. So when Ron suffers he generally does so in an amusing or slightly off- putting way. He either makes himself a bit of a fool, or he throws up. Just as Neville is still getting his underwear set on fire by Peeves. I feel like Harry doesn't need that sort of boost anymore, though. So hopefully Ron will be allowed to stand on his own a little bit. Still Harry's loyal friend, but with strength and ability of his own. (Willow to Buffy rather than Ethel to Lucy, IOWs.) > 10. There is so much Slughorn in this chapter it could have been > named for him. Slughorn's actions include (i) invoking Lily, (ii) > reacting badly to Harry's inquiry about horcruxes, (iii) calling > Ron "Ralph", (iv)opening a bottle of mead intended for Dumbledore, > and (v) failing to recognize Ron's symptoms or take responsive > action, even though the bezoar was in his bag. > How do these actions affect our prior perception of his > character? Is Slughorn a sympathetic character despite his > faults? What do you think of his ethics? His potion-making > skills? Betsy Hp: I think Slughorn's actions in this chapter fit in well with the Slughorn we met at the beginning of HBP. He's still mostly about living a comfortable life and getting as much enjoyment out of it that he can. And he's not afraid for anyone to know it. For that reason, that honesty, I still like Slughorn. However, he does present an interesting counter to Snape. Which leads us to... > Bonus Question. Despite the fact that ch. 18 is infused with > potions, former potions master Snape is barely mentioned. If > Snape had still been potions master, how do you think he would he > have handled Ron's predicament? Betsy Hp: With the Love Potion: He'd have sent Ron to the infirmary. It's Pomfrey's job to handle such things, and Ron wasn't in danger for his life. Also, Snape would have reported to Dumbledore that there was a breach in Hogwart's security. He's not the type to sweep rule- breaking under the rug, especially if Gryffindor's are involved. With the poisoning: Snape would have realized something was wrong as soon as Harry did. And he would have reacted instantly, just as he did in PS/SS when Harry was being cursed by Quirrell. And in the classroom (just cause I want to ): As Harry realized, he wouldn't have let Harry get away with the bezoar trick, and he wouldn't have let Hermione get away with merely quoting the text verbatim, and he would have set a particularly nasty essay for homework on Golpalott's Third Law. Ron and Harry would have complained miserably while they learned the Law, and the class's second attempt at the procedure would have gone a lot more smoothly. :) Betsy Hp, who realizes she's a bit late with this but didn't want to let another chapter discussion pass her by. From leslie41 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 11 01:52:12 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 01:52:12 -0000 Subject: Horcrux: was Baptism/Christianity in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153659 > > Leslie41: > > I don't wish to make categorical claims about authorial intent, > > though I think it's relevant at times. Most often, though, > > intent is irrelevant. What's *there* is what matters, not what > > the author *intended* to be there. Authors are notoriously bad > > readers of their own work. > > a_svirn: > If you say so. Leslie41: I do. And if I didn't think so I'd be completely out of step with the vast majority of literary critics and scholars. It's pretty much a universal opinion. > > Leslie41: > > But as to the naming of her characters, I cannot help but see > > some sort of purpose there. That's often the easiest place (as > > it is with Tolkien) to see what the author actually intends. > > So, when Voldemort (flee from death) attacks James (apostle > > associated with good deeds) and Lily (the symbol of the risen > > Christ), and is foiled by Harry (power, destruction), right on > > the place on his body where he was baptized (symbol of being > > welcomed into the Kingdom of Christ), yeah, I think there's an > > underlying meaning there. > > a_svirn: > Yes, but what IS that much-vaunted underlying meaning? It is all > very well to depress pretensions by saying that the meaning of > Christ's sacrifice is too enormous for mere mortals to comprehend > and all who disagree with you are deliberately short-sighted, but > thing is, it's not enough. Now that you identified all that > parallels with the Bible would you mind disclosing their > significance? Why someone who represents the risen Christ happen > to be married to someone who represents an apostle? What is so > Christian about "power and destruction?" And what with all those > other people that were baptised but failed to repel AKs? Were they > not welcome to the Kingdom of Christ, after all? Leslie41: Again, I'm not talking about a direct allegory here. I don't particularly like allegory. If you do, read Spenser. What I'm pointing out is firstly that names are important, and that many of those names have biblical significance, as well as the placement of the scar, etc. There are Christian overtones to the situation at Godric's Hollow. And as I've said, I don't think that baptism is some sort of a ward. What I believe is that Harry's scar makes us think of baptism. > > Leslie41: > > Just can't help it, considering all the evidence. Is Harry's > > baptism some sort of protection for him? Not really. But I > > think the place of his scar is supposed to remind us of his > > baptism and remind us that it is only through Christ's > > principles that he will vanquish Voldemort. Not through power > > or destructive raids. But through love. > > a_svirn: > Yet he was christened Harry, which ? as you yourself said ? > means "power and destruction"! Leslie41: Christened as such, yes! But he has to evolve out of that. That's his task in the seventh book. > a_svirn: > In fact it's really bizarre the way attributes of > Christianity in the books are conspicuous for their absence. There > is no chapel in the millennium old Hogwarts Castle. Hogsmead, the > only wizarding village in England, doesn't boast of any church, > even an abandoned one. No reference to any services of any > description has been made. And last but by no means the least, > Dumbledore's funeral is a thoroughly secular affair. The figure > of "tufty-haired man in plain black robes" is deliberately > ambiguous. We don't know for sure whether he's a priest or not. > Certainly such scrapes of his speech as "nobility of spirit" > and "intellectual contribution" do not elucidate us on the point. > And in any event, it's not what really matters for Harry. Leslie41: I more look at the places in which Christianity is conspicuous for its presence. You can cite all the places where it isn't, but you can't ignore the places where it is, in Harry's baptism and the underlying truth that his parents and Sirius were baptized Christians. > a_svirn: > On a more profound level, there is nothing Christian about > Horcruxes. It seems that Rowling's special brand of spiritualism > draws on syncretic folklore rather than on Christian beliefs. Leslie41: Do you know what a "crux" is? It means "cross." The word "hore" in middle/old english means "whore". Whorecrosses. Makes sense. In the bible whores are associated with idolatry and faithlessness to god. Even if we don't bring the bible into it, the word is associated with immorality and compromised principles. Thanks for bringing up horcruxes, though, because I never thought of them with regard to Christian symbols in the books until now. From catlady at wicca.net Sun Jun 11 02:22:48 2006 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 02:22:48 -0000 Subject: Dudley / Ghosts / Grand Sorceror / Mrs Figg / Hors de crux Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153660 Corey wrote in : << I think you guys are missing some thugs. Dudley and his crew of friends. Or more accurately, his gang. I mean come on, if ever there was a gang of thugs, it's Dudley and his gang. I mean, look what they did to the play park, to other children, and their bodies - they smoked, remember? >> I remember being shocked when I first read of their pathetically inadequate efforts to be juvenile delinquents (much less gangstas!). These are FIFTEEN-YEAR-OLD boys we're talking about, and they beat up ten-year-olds and throw rocks at cars instead of shooting people in drive-bys, vandalize the play park instead of committing armed robberies of convenience stores, and smoke cigarettes instead of crack or crystal. Julie juli17 wrote in : << Besides spirits, there are souls--and what exactly is the difference between the two? Do spirits like Nearly Headless Nick still have their souls intact? >> Do we know that Potterverse ghosts are spirits? Snape, teaching his first DADA lesson in HBP, said: "A ghost, as I trust that you are all aware by now, is the imprint of a departed soul left upon the earth, and of course, as Potter so wisely tells us, transparent." As I don't know what an imprint of a soul is, I don't know whether the imprint of a departed soul would be a spirit. Anyway, if the person-who-became-a-ghost's soul has departed, did it go to the next great adventure, through the Veil, wherever it was that the person was so scared (or otherwise resistant) to go to? Laura Walsh wrote in : << How did The Bloody Baron get bloody? He is described as being covered with silver blood. The only source I have read about for silver blood is a unicorn. Since he was covered with it as a ghost, I would assume that something happened to him at the time of his death that would have covered him with unicorn's blood. Is there anything else we know about him? >> The blood might be silvery just because the ghosts are entirely silvery, as other posts have mentioned. I suppose they are some kind of faint black&White double-exposure. I'm inclined to think that he's covered with his own formerly-red blood, altho' molten lead has been suggested (poured from a tower onto besiegers of a castle). I want to know what it is about the Bloody Baron that makes Peeves be scared of him; Peeves is not scared of anyone else, but he's so scared of the Baron that he obeys him. I made up the theory it is that the Bloody Baron is the only ghost who can still do magic as when alive (why?) but Peeves doesn't seem to be scared of live people's magic... Goodlefrood wrote in : << Here as a small aside I say that it is often overlooked that Dumbledore is a Grand Sorceror, a title that he has never lost and one that Lord Voldemort may covet himself, hence his outburst at the end of Chamber of Secrets. >> I thought 'Order of Merlin, first class, Grand Sorceror' was the very highest level honor awarded by the British Ministry of Magic (above O.M., first class, Sorceror, which is above O.M., first class). You're invited to try to persuade me to your view. (I view Chief Warlock as head of the Wizengamot and Grand Mugwump as head or head emeritus of the International [Con]federation of [Wizards/Warlocks].) Hagrid aussie_lol wrote in : << If we correctly guess major suprises to JKR's story, do you think she would change what she was going to say just to keep control of the story - (snip) Or Arabella Figg with all her cats and taking care of Harry every so often. Rumours went around she was a witch there to protect Harry. >> Rowling gave a reading at the Toronto SkyDome in 2000. No transcript of her Q&A has been posted on-line, but some people who were there posted their accounts of the event. Those accounts said that when asked if Arabella Figg, member of 'the old crowd' mentioned toward the end of GoF when Dumbledore sent Sirius on his errand, was related to Mrs Figg the babysitter, she said: "Good catch!" and agreed they were related. (Well, identity is a relationship.) Because she also said that Mrs Figg is a Squib, many fans thought that Arabella was her neice. When she revealed that the next title would be HP & the Order of the Phoenix, many fans believed that 'the old crowd' is the Order of the Phoenix. We eventually turned out to be right, despite all the people who told us we were jumping to a conclusion and an Order of the People could be a lot of other things. My point ('and I do have one') is she wrote Mrs Figg in OoP the same way she had spoken of Mrs Figg in 2000, which doesn't seem like she changed her plan. Leslie14 wrote of Horcruces in : << Do you know what a "crux" is? It means "cross." The word "hore" in middle/old english means "whore". Whorecrosses. >> Crux is cross, also suffering (ecruciating, Cruciatis), also the main part of the matter ('the crux of the issue'). I think Hor is 'hors', meaning 'outside', like hors d'oeuvres and hors de combat. Thus a Horcrux contains a soul fragment which has been removed from the suffering of life and been removed from the main business of life. From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun Jun 11 03:06:35 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 23:06:35 EDT Subject: DD's actions again Message-ID: <32c.5ba7871.31bce2bb@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153661 > Alla: > > You see, THAT's what I see as unclear. I do think that JKR's message > beyond DD's actions IS that he really and truly could not have done > anything else except leaving Harry with Dursleys, I really do, BUT > then I don't see anywhere in the text why the options you describe > could not happen. > > > PAR: > He could confront Draco early -- would that put Draco at > > risk? maybe. But better Draco, who IS guilty of attempted murder, > > than Katie Bell or Rosemerta who are innocent victims. >Pippin: >But she has toyed with the idea of Puppetmaster!But she has toyed with >contrasting it with Knownothing!contrasting it with Knocontras >mixed message about Dumbledore has been there from the beginning, >and is more evident than ever at the end of HBP, so why look at the >opening chapters of HBP in isolation and say 'this is the Dumbledore >JKR meant to depict all along and the others were unintentional.J Nikkalmati: I think many of the problems in interpreting DD's behavior stem from the view that he knows everything that is going on. JKR has assured us that he is a good character (I think that her comment that he is the epitome of goodness was a bit over the top), but I don't think he is all-knowing and I don't see that stated in canon anywhere. Certainly, he knows a lot about what is going on in Hogwarts, but he is not God-like. I don't think he knew what was happening to Harry at the Dursely's. That pretty much resolves that problem right there. I also believe he did not know LV was inhabiting Quirrel, thus, he could not have intended for Harry to meet LV face to face in PS/SS. He probably did not know why Harry quit Occulumancy and he possibly doesn't know everything about the Prank, either. We have the benefit of hindsight and we have to judge DD by what he knew at the time, not by how things turned out. As for Draco in HBP all choices for DD were beset with problems. I am still puzzled as to why Draco would try to send an opal necklace to DD and DD may also have wondered whether this was an attempt on his life. DD may also have believed that Snape could stop Draco from doing anything else dangerous to the students. (But, there is no clear reason why DD does not pay more attention to Harry when he tries to tell DD that Draco has been working in the ROR and is celebrating and I am still trying to work that question out.) On the Tower DD makes clear that he did not know what Draco was doing, so I think that we have to give up on any theory which assumes DD to be all knowing . In any case, I will give JKR the benefit of the doubt and assume that DD is a consistent rational character with clear-cut motives and not one which transforms with every book. Nikkalmati __Nikkal._,_.___ . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun Jun 11 03:26:25 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 23:26:25 EDT Subject: Understanding Snape Message-ID: <430.3257819.31bce761@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153662 >Ali If I were Snape and had not alerted the Order about Harry, bringing about the death of "the Chosen One," the ensuing discussion would have involved someone asking Snape about the situation. What is Snape's defense then? He didn't think of it? That no one thought of it either? They're flimsy excuses, ones that I think he would be called upon to explain further. In my opinion, it is illogical [to Snape and anyone who has interacted with Harry in the past five years] to think that Harry Potter wouldn't have found his way to the MoM, and this is the point upon which my "argument" lies. Were it someone like Neville, I would expect that the "I didn't think of it" excuse would be valid, but Harry, in his years at Hogwarts, has proven himself very much an "action before logical thought" person, and that is why I think the "I didn't think he'd find a way" excuse wouldn't work. >houyhnhnm >And so what if he was? Sure there would be some who suspected him, especially those who distrusted him already like Moody and Sirius, but what could they prove? And what would it matter to DE!Snape if some in the Order suspected him of being a traitor, if he had managed to see Voldemort victorius and the Chosen One dead? Snape had it in his power to make that happen. Nikkalmati: If Snape had walked out of Umbridge's office and gone down to his office and graded papers or had gone to bed, Harry and his friends would have died or been captured by DEs and who would have known Harry had tried to alert him? Was Umbridge going to tell anyone (even if she was up to it after her stay in the hospital)? Were Draco and friends going to tell the Order - hey, Harry tried to tell Snape something, but he ignored it? I don't think so. Snape would have been perfectly safe, LV would have the prophecy, and Harry would no longer be a problem for anyone. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From fairwynn at hotmail.com Sat Jun 10 23:54:52 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (fair wynn) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 18:54:52 -0500 Subject: Understanding Snape; In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153663 Ali >If I were Snape and had not alerted the Order about Harry, bringing >about the death of "the Chosen One," the ensuing discussion would have >involved someone asking Snape about the situation. What is Snape's >defense then? He didn't think of it? That no one thought of it >either? They're flimsy excuses, ones that I think he would be called >upon to explain further. In my opinion, it is illogical [to Snape and >anyone who has interacted with Harry in the past five years] to think >that Harry Potter wouldn't have found his way to the MoM, and this is >the point upon which my "argument" lies. Were it someone like >Neville, I would expect that the "I didn't think of it" excuse would >be valid, but Harry, in his years at Hogwarts, has proven himself very >much an "action before logical thought" person, and that is why I >think the "I didn't think he'd find a way" excuse wouldn't work. If I understand you correctly, it should have so blatantly obvious to anyone other than someone rather slow (like Neville), that after Harry disappeared with Hermione and Umbridge (at Umbridge's wand point) into the forest, that he would have naturally overpowered Umbridge, and made his way to the MOM despite having no broom, no floo available, no train, no ability to apparate, no bus, etc. And even though no one other than Snape and Harry (and the children that went to the MOM), knew that Harry had "seen" a vision of Sirius at the MOM? And even though no one but Harry and Snape knew that Harry had told Snape? So anyone questioning Snape later, if he had not alerted the Order and Harry would have been killed, would have assumed that 1. Snape knew Harry had a vision and 2. what that vision was about and 3. that in spite of going into the forest with Umbridge at wandpoint, Harry had instead overpowered her and tried to get to the Ministry and 4. In spite of Umbridge's not returning from the forest to say that Harry and Hermione had escaped, that they had escaped anyway and left Umbridge dead, injured, or otherwise indesposed in the forest and 5. that in spite of having no apparent means of getting there, Harry had gone to London to the MOM. And Snape would be in trouble because this would all be obvious to anyone questioning him. Maybe. Perhaps..... Certainly we, the readers, know that Harry is going to get there. We have the privilege of seeing all of Harry's actions in the 4 previous books, his thought processes, etc. And of course, we know JKR means him to get there! But even knowing what Harry's done in the past, without also knowing he had blood on his clothes and that he could see thestrals, how would we the readers have imagined him getting there? But Snape, nor really any other adult characters, knows anywhere nearly as much about Harry's previous activities as the readers. So I suppose, although I think I understand what you're saying, in my opinion it's not plausible to believe anyone would have expected Snape to figure all of that out. wynnleaf From juli17 at aol.com Sun Jun 11 04:58:25 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 04:58:25 -0000 Subject: People Harry Potter you love to hate In-Reply-To: <20060610192315.32076.qmail@web61224.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153664 > > > flyingmonkeypurple wrote: Just for fun I was thinking about the villains of the story that I > dislike and I was trying to figure out witch people I disliked the > most. > > Wade: > > At the risk of repeating myself, it has been a long time since I have become as angry at a character's behaviour as that of Umbridge. Perhaps because her evilness is so evident (cild abuse of Harry the most abhorent) whereas Voldemort's in comparison is more ephemeral. > Julie: I feel the same way about Umbridge. With Voldemort it's more like a distant, intellectual hatred of his actions, because he's so removed from the action (most of the time). With Snape, I often thought "You're such a jerk sometimes" but I never had a visceral feeling of hatred for him, and I never cringed at his scenes. He can be mean and petty, but he isn't systematically sadistic or abusive. But Umbridge, she certainly caused a visceral reaction in me. I wanted to scratch her eyes out, repeatedly. No other character in HP has affected me so negatively in a purely emotional sense. When I reread the first 5 books right before HBP came out, the only part I dreaded rereading was her scenes with Harry. Umbridge I hate. (Fenrir is deserving of such hatred too, but then I didn't have to put up with his repulsive presence throughout an entire book!) Julie From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Jun 11 06:00:31 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 06:00:31 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153665 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" wrote: >> > See it or don't. It doesn't mean it's not there. Tonks: I agree with Leslie. First let me say that I have no investment in JKR being a Christian. She could be anything, I don't care. I also have no investment in finding Christian symbols in the HP books. I really don't care if they are there or are not there. It makes no difference to me. Honesty it doesn't. I did not start reading the books looking for them. They just jumped out at me. I tripped over then right and left. I know that we as a group argue over this issue every time it comes up. I think what the problem is here is that some of us see symbols that we recognize as explicitly Christian. Now that can occur as a coincidence in a work of this size, but when it occurs over and over one has to stop and ask "why?, What is the author doing?" And I don't think any of us has an answer to that. But we see *something* going on beneath the surface. Like any other clue we try to report it here. I agree with Leslie that it doesn't seem to be taken well when we do. I tend to think that this is because people don't want to think that JKR is pulling something over on them in some subliminal way. But that is JMO. Others say that the association is not there because they are looking for something within the story that fits the symbols. Well sometimes there is a direct relationship and sometimes there is not. In fact most of the time there is not a direct relationship such as the fact that James does not acts like James the apostle. I don't think that is what JKR is doing. Problem is we don't know what she is doing, but she is doing something with these symbols. They are not just hanging there for no reason. They are pointing to something. They are leading to something. It drives me crazy because I see the symbols all over the place, knowing that JKR must have some reason to put them in there, but it is like a puzzle with a few pieces missing. (It is like the framework of a house, you don't *see* it when you look at the house because it is deep within. It is in the blueprints.) The problem is we see the symbols just like others knew that Lupin meant wolf. I was not one of those. I never knew Lupin meant wolf even after I found out that he was a werewolf. Whereas my friend who had not read the book yet, said right off the minute she heard the name "oh that means wolf". All I am trying to say is that like all the other clues in the books there are these clues as well that many people would overlook or not understand. I don't know *why* they are there. But I can not deny the fact that they *are* there. I see them just as clearly as my friend saw Lupin=wolf. Tonks_op From juli17 at aol.com Sun Jun 11 05:38:36 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 05:38:36 -0000 Subject: Horcrux: was Baptism/Christianity in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153666 > > > > Leslie41: > > > Just can't help it, considering all the evidence. Is Harry's > > > baptism some sort of protection for him? Not really. But I > > > think the place of his scar is supposed to remind us of his > > > baptism and remind us that it is only through Christ's > > > principles that he will vanquish Voldemort. Not through power > > > or destructive raids. But through love. Julie: I think you can read it that way, but that's not what it's *supposed* to mean, not according to JKR. In an interview she said she wanted Harry to be visibly marked, in a way that everyone could see and immediately identify him, so that's why she chose to put the scar on his forehead. No mention of baptism associations, unless she's deilberately hiding it and plans to drop it on us in Book 7. I don't expect that to happen though. > > a_svirn: > > In fact it's really bizarre the way attributes of > > Christianity in the books are conspicuous for their absence. There > > is no chapel in the millennium old Hogwarts Castle. Hogsmead, the > > only wizarding village in England, doesn't boast of any church, > > even an abandoned one. No reference to any services of any > > description has been made. And last but by no means the least, > > Dumbledore's funeral is a thoroughly secular affair. The figure > > of "tufty-haired man in plain black robes" is deliberately > > ambiguous. We don't know for sure whether he's a priest or not. > > Certainly such scrapes of his speech as "nobility of spirit" > > and "intellectual contribution" do not elucidate us on the point. > > And in any event, it's not what really matters for Harry. > > Leslie41: > I more look at the places in which Christianity is conspicuous for > its presence. You can cite all the places where it isn't, but you > can't ignore the places where it is, in Harry's baptism and the > underlying truth that his parents and Sirius were baptized > Christians. Julie: There is one single place where it is, in Sirius being named Harry's godfather, with JKR saying later that Harry was christened at this time. So, yes, they were baptized Christians, but they don't actively practice Christianity in any way. Nor does any other person in the WW that we've heard mentioned, so Christianity clearly has very little relevance in their lives. and none whatsoever in Harry's life. Really, if JKR wanted to have Christianity a present and spiritual force within the story, even in an unobtrusive way, it would have been easy enough to have a chapel at Hogwarts (it has to be the ONLY ancient castle in the UK without one), to have a minister officiating Dumbledore's funeral, to mention a Bible laying around somewhere, to mention God on occasion, etc. Also, while the afterlife is very relevant in the books, it's all about going "beyond the veil" or to the "next great adventure," or being too afraid to go forward and becoming a ghost. Then there are the soul-sucking dementors and the living-dead inferi. Nothing about heaven, hell, reuniting with God or Jesus, etc. Christian rituals may exist in the books to some extent, but devotion to specifically Christian beliefs clearly does not. Julie From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Sun Jun 11 08:32:16 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (R A) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 18:32:16 +1000 (EST) Subject: Transferable Human Horcruxes was: SSlyth via DWG to DM Message-ID: <20060611083216.69726.qmail@web51907.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153667 The Greater Evil - transferable human Horcruxes aussie: For this theory to work, it has to be possible for:- A) a Human to be used as a Horcrux. B) That a Horcrux can be transferred to another person after a generation to keep the original Horcrux maker ?alive? Canon support:- DD thought Nagini (snake) could be a Horcrux so living things could hold pieces of someone else's soul. So can humans be a Horcrux? Quirrell is a human example (PS/SS), as is Ginny (COS) in a way. Their experience was possessive and dominating too. However, they were UNWILLING to become the Horcrux. How different if a Dark Wizard was willing to be the host to a famous Dark Wizard that person respected. With humans as a Horcrux, there needs to be a way to transfer the soul out of them and on to another to keep the original Horcrux maker live on. Flamel lived over 600 years using the P/S Stone So a very Dark Wizard from even before then may still have part of his soul safeguarded somewhere. MAIN THEORY: The Darkest Wizard who disappeared (COS chap 9) may have created a Horcrux that infected or possessed Dark Wizards and be passed on from generation to generation. The one that would awaken JKR's readers' imagination is: SALAZAR SLYTHERIN Known Dark Wizards for Slytherin's Horcrux A) Past - Dark Wizard Grindelwald (defeated, but not destroyed) B) Present - Lord Voldemort (who changed from Tom Riddle about the time Grindelwald disappeared) C) Future - Draco Malfoy (or would have been if he tore his soul while AK-ing DD) THREAD OF CLUES: PS/SS: I thought Grindelwald being ?Defeated? around the time Tom Riddle changed to Lord Voldemort was a clue. Also Flamel was an example of someone living over 600 years. The mind doesn?t have to stretch too much more to accept 1000 years for the Darkest Wizard. In the 2nd book (COS), Prof Binns said Salazar Slytherin left Hogwarts, and was resentful enough to keep a Basalisk under the school. Slytherin didn?t doubt someone would come in the future that could release the terror on the school. An ?heir? doesn?t need to be family, just someone that inherited something from him. Ginny?s soul was almost drained by the Diary Horcrux (Riddle: ?I've always been able to charm the people I needed. So Ginny poured out her soul to me, and her soul happened to be exactly what I wanted .... I grew stronger and stronger . Powerful enough to start feeding Miss Weasley a few of my secrets, to start pouring a little of my soul back into her.?) Inside the chamber, Tom Riddle called ?Speak to me, Slytherin, greatest of the Hogwarts Four.? for the statue to open to release the Basalisk. POA gave DD got clues that Horcuxes were involved after understanding Harry?s dreams and the control LV had over Nagini. That set DD on the quest for memories from those that knew the pre-LV Tom Riddle and the destruction of the ring Horcrux by the time HBP came on. The basalisk was controlled similar to Nagini making me think it was a Horcrux too. However, it was not sitting there to become Tom?s Horcrux for about 1000 years. I think one of Salazar?s Horcuxes was in the basalisk. Another Horcrux was transferred into Tom Riddle in his transformation to Voldemort, passed onto him from Gridelwald. That would help him control the Basalisk holding Slytherin?s Horcrux o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o I discussed this with another HPforGP member to bounce some ideas back and forth. this is an excert of that chat used with permission. Delete it for brevity when replying. aussie_lol: in War situation, hard to get a person in the right spot .... Draco was picked by LV ... but WHY? (snip) horridporrid03: Yeah, so Voldemort has a reason to say Draco had to die aussie_lol: when someone AKs another, it tears their soul ... horridporrid03: I'm guessing Lucius is important to Voldemort aussie_lol: ... so why did LV want Draco's soul torn? aussie_lol: i think there may be a specific purpose for a fresh blooded DE horridporrid03: Hmm aussie_lol: ... did LV need Draco's soul to be torn ... aussie_lol: .... if anything like that, then that's why DEs would stand back and let Draco AK, not them horridporrid03: I think it depends on how "dark" JKR wants them to be. aussie_lol: but Snape stepping in would stop Voldy's plan for a torn souled Draco horridporrid03: Exactly. Snape saved both Draco's life and his soul or innocence aussie_lol: too true horridporrid03: I think Dumbledore would see that something worth dying for aussie_lol: not that I like the greesy haired git horridporrid03: Hee! And I, of course, love him. aussie_lol: lol horridporrid03: Major Snape fan, me aussie_lol: I know this thought would be embraced by Snape fans to show DD wanted Snape to prevent Draco doing the AK-ing horridporrid03: Snape was very protective of Draco all year, it seemed. aussie_lol: ok ... I am wondering if the Greater Evil is bigger than Voldermolt ... horridporrid03: I think so, yes. Doesn't Dumbledore say something about how destroying Voldemort won't destroy "Evil"? aussie_lol: Grindelwald was about the time that Tom changed to LV ... horridporrid03: Yes, exactly. I think it's a sort of eternal battle aussie_lol: .... and the choc card said DD DEFEATED Grindy .... not KILLED him horridporrid03: Harry's got this one, but after this, there's be another villain and another hero horridporrid03: Ooh, yes that "defeated" is very interesting aussie_lol: hmmm ... but I wonder if it comes back to can a Horcrux be in a person .... horridporrid03: It sounds like a clue... but what does it mean? lol aussie_lol: ... and since that person is not eternal, the Horcrux should be transferable to maintain it aussie_lol: ... what if LV is a Horcrux for Grindelwald ... horridporrid03: Huh... Never thought of that... aussie_lol: .... and now he wants a torn soul to passs that Horcrox onto horridporrid03: I think there were theories of Grindy tutoring Voldy... aussie_lol: .... enter Draco horridporrid03: Nooo! Not Draco!! aussie_lol: ... new Grindy Horcrux vessel horridporrid03: You know, that's not a bad theory. You should post it to the list. I think folks would be interested in tossing that idea around aussie_lol: DD at the end of PS/SS said there were other ways to live longer ....i am wondering how far that human Horcrux transferring goes back ... could it go back to Slytherin who disappeared from Hogwarts ? horridporrid03: Very interesting... aussie_lol: Flamel lasted 600 years + horridporrid03: Of course, Flamel had the Stone horridporrid03: And I think you have to be rather pure to create a Stone - Which could be the "good" side to the "evil" horcrux, maybe? aussie_lol: why not Slytherin still infect Dark Wizards with his Transferable Horcrux horridporrid03: Seriously, you should put this on the list. I'm not that good at the horcrux stuff, but there are people on the list who eat this sort of stuff up with a spoon. aussie_lol: ok ... mind if i cut and paste some things from this talk? horridporrid03: I think they'd be interested in this idea of, I guess, evil wizards passing on their life via the horcux for centuries. horridporrid03: Yeah, that'll be fine. aussie_lol: ty. good to bounce some ideas around. take care Betsy horridporrid03: You too, thanks for the chat Parent:"Have you hugged your kid today?" Child:"Have you pinned down your dad and tickled him today?" Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Jun 11 11:34:39 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 11:34:39 -0000 Subject: Horcrux: was Baptism/Christianity in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153668 > > a_svirn: > > Yes, but what IS that much-vaunted underlying meaning? It is all > > very well to depress pretensions by saying that the meaning of > > Christ's sacrifice is too enormous for mere mortals to comprehend > > and all who disagree with you are deliberately short-sighted, but > > thing is, it's not enough. Now that you identified all that > > parallels with the Bible would you mind disclosing their > > significance? Why someone who represents the risen Christ happen > > to be married to someone who represents an apostle? What is so > > Christian about "power and destruction?" And what with all those > > other people that were baptised but failed to repel AKs? Were they > > not welcome to the Kingdom of Christ, after all? > > Leslie41: > Again, I'm not talking about a direct allegory here. I don't > particularly like allegory. If you do, read Spenser. What I'm > pointing out is firstly that names are important, and that many of > those names have biblical significance, as well as the placement of > the scar, etc. There are Christian overtones to the situation at > Godric's Hollow. > > And as I've said, I don't think that baptism is some sort of a > ward. What I believe is that Harry's scar makes us think of baptism. a_svirn: You know, I think I object to your name-dropping even more than I object to being called short-sighted. First Julian of Norwich, now Spenser. Would you mind explaining what you mean without hiding behind noted authorities? If you say that names are important don't stop there, explain in what way they are important. A mere assertion of their importance does not explain anything at all. If you say that Harry's baptism is significant for the story, again, don't stop there explain in what way it's significant. You first said that baptism provided Harry with a shield of a sort. Then you were obliged to admit that it's no shield at all, because it does not provide any real protection against Voldemort. Very well, what is its significance then? Not in the context of Christian culture, but in the context of this story? > > a_svirn: > > Yet he was christened Harry, which ? as you yourself said ? > > means "power and destruction"! > > Leslie41: > Christened as such, yes! But he has to evolve out of that. That's > his task in the seventh book. a_svirn: Then his Christian name provided him with all the wrong values, didn't it? So much for being baptised. > a_svirn: > > On a more profound level, there is nothing Christian about > > Horcruxes. It seems that Rowling's special brand of spiritualism > > draws on syncretic folklore rather than on Christian beliefs. > > Leslie41: > Do you know what a "crux" is? It means "cross." > > The word "hore" in middle/old english means "whore". Whorecrosses. > Makes sense. a_svirn: Does it? Sounds like utter nonsense to me. > Leslie41: >In the bible whores are associated with idolatry and > faithlessness to god. a_svirn: Or really? And what about that female sinner that anointed Christ's feet? And even if the Whore of Babylon can be said to have been faithless to God I still don't see what whores in the Bible an out of it have to do with immortality. From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Sun Jun 11 12:00:25 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 12:00:25 -0000 Subject: DD's actions again In-Reply-To: <32c.5ba7871.31bce2bb@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153670 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, puduhepa98 at ... wrote: > >>But, there is no clear reason why DD does not pay more > attention to Harry when he tries to tell DD that Draco has been working in the ROR and is celebrating and I am still trying to work that question out.) Steven1964aaa: I think Dumbledore gives us a pretty good clue about this in the cave, when he tells Harry (IMR) age errs when it underestimates youth. He was talking about Voldemort not anticipating a 16 yr old being in the boat but, as we find out after the tower scene, he could also have been talking about himself. Steven1965aaa From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sun Jun 11 12:36:35 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 12:36:35 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's actions again. WAS: Re: Snape and the "Chosen One" /JKR listening In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153671 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > I mean, yes, we have a hint that Dursleys could have thrown him > out, I guess, but is it clear? Not to me anyways, because in OOP > Petunia puts her foot down and contrary to Vernon's demands lets > Harry stay. > Only after a Howler from DD. And DD must know that you can only push people that far. Petunia changed her mind. But it could easily have gone the other way. That is a huge risk to take with the only truly safe place a child has in the world. As for other options: DE' can travel to Australia DE' can kill a boy wit a private tutor I think one of the reasons Neville's parents were tortured into madness after LV's vaporisation was to make it clear that Harry had made a lot of enemies when he survived and that there still are quite a number of people who happily would have taken action if they could. > Yep, precisely. That is IMO another changing the things from OOP - > Dumbledore seems oh SO very certain that Harry HAS to killed or be > killed. He sings a different tune in HBP - now prophecy is important > only because Voldemort believes in it. Strange, IMO. > Well, to me that was completely logical. Voldy believes in the prophecy so Voldy will go on until one of them is dead, preferably Harry. So Harry's only way to get a life is to make sure LV is disposed of. From the past, the MoM is not up to the job. DD could not do it, because of the horcruxes, though he did his utmost to make sure LV can be killed. And now DD is dead, so the only one who can protect Harry is Harry himself. Gerry From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sun Jun 11 14:25:00 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 14:25:00 -0000 Subject: Understanding Snape In-Reply-To: <430.3257819.31bce761@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153672 puduhepa98 at ... wrote: > If Snape had walked out of Umbridge's office > and gone down to his office and graded papers > or had gone to bed, Harry and his friends would > have died or been captured by DEs and who would > have known Harry had tried to alert him? Voldemort's plan was to trick Harry to go to the ministry, but when Snape showed up Harry was caught by Umbrage so Snape figured the plan had failed, it never occurred to him that Harry would manage to escape and make it all the way to the ministry. With the plan canceled anyway it couldn't hurt to tell the Order of the Phoenix what Harry said, in fact he had to if he wanted to remain a spy for Voldemort. Dozens of people heard Harry talk to Snape about padfoot (and at least 6, probably more, were not Death Eaters) and sooner or later The Order would hear about it and wonder why Snape didn't tell them immediately. Snape is evil Eggplamt From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sun Jun 11 13:56:12 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 13:56:12 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153673 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > Tonks: > Looks like rain to me... > > Drop: Harry has a mark on his forehead that appeared there after the > sacrificial death of his mother. A death that did not need to > happen. And the mother's name is Lily which leads one to think of an > Easter lily. Symbolism of the Death of Christ and a reminder of (but > not the same as) the (invisible) mark left on a child/adult at their > Baptism. Just happens to be at the same place. Hum.. (Note: the mark > put on a child at baptism is the mark of the way in which Christ > died. . a cross which was an evil thing.. and Harry's mark is the > mark of LV. The cross only became a positive symbol for Christians > because of the Resurrection.) > Gerry The death needed to happen for Harry to survive. If she had not, no symbol but a dead toddler. As already pointed out before, the symbol is exactly in the spot where the sixth chacra is, the pituitary gland which is responsible for telepathy and clairvoyance. And look: we see this come back in the story with the linked minds of LV and Harry. New Age links, pagan links, or just JKR who happens to know a lot about symbolism and Western esoteric culture. > Drop: First year students at Hogwarts travel through the water to > get into the Castle. ONLY first years go this way. Why? This is the > symbol of entry into the Church through the water of Baptism. > Gerry Ceasar crossing the Rubicon. The dead crossing the Styx, with Charon as the ferryman. Especially for Muggleborns the travel into almost literaly another world. For the rest the threshold between magic free childhood and school. > Drop: The name Sirius means Morning Star and this is a known symbol > of Christ who is called the morning star. Gerry In ancient Egypte, Sirius was called the Dog Star and it was a symbol of Osiris who had a dog head. Hm, I can make a better and better case for paganism in Harry Potter. > > Tonks_op: "oh look it starting to rain." > > Others: "no it isn't." "Not a cloud in the sky." > Gerry > Drop: Sirius's friends are James, John and Peter. Jesus' closest > disciples were Peter, James and John. He told them with him > everywhere. They were the only ones he took with him when > he `transfigured'. Why did JKR chose these names and the whole > concept of transfiguration? She could have used other names, but why > these and in this combination? Why do the 4 of them transfigure? Which John? I thought Sirius' best friend where James, Remus and Peter. > > Drop: Book title: HP and the Philosopher's Stone. Symbol of the > quest for eternal life. Gerry: Alchemy! Paganism again. Alchemy is much, much older than Christianity b.t.w. > > Drop: Book title: HP and the Chamber of Secrets. Symbolism of both > the death of Adam and Eve at the hand of the serpent, and the > Resurrection of Jesus in the tomb. Also symbolism of the saving > grace given to Adam and Eve because of the resurrection of Jesus. > Because Harry represented Adam and Ginny represents Eve, it makes > sense that later on JKR would pair the two. Ginny was always meant > in JKR's mind to be Harry's true love because they represent Adam > and Eve. Gerry ???? First of all: the serpent dit not kill Adam and Eve. After they left paradise, they had at least three children and live to a ripe old age. Adam does not kill the serpent, nor does his god. Why would Harry and Ginny represent Adam and Eve? Far, far fetched. > > Drop: Book title: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. Christ > comes to set the prisoner free. > Gerry In PoA the prisoner manages to do that himself. Besides, in the Bible Christ does quite a lot, but never does he go to a prison to let people out. > Tonks_op: "it is really starting to rain hard now. Here, get under > my umbrella. " > > Others: "We don't see any rain. You are crazy." "You only think you > see rain because you are looking for rain." Gerry No rain at all. > > Drop: Book title: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. A Goblet > with fire that does not consume. A non-consuming fire is a symbol of > God and the Goblet a symbol of the challis used by Jesus at the last > supper. Gerry A non-consuming fire is also a symbol of the Zoaraster religion. The goblet of fire is not meant to be drunk at, nor does it in any way have everything to do with a sacrament. The chalice was not meant to exclude people and select only the chosen three as the goblet does. > > Drop: Book title: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. DD > formed the Order of the Phoenix (phoenix is a symbol of > Resurrection). This is similar to Jesus and his disciples and the > forming of the first Christian church. The Order fights LV who > himself represents the powers of darkness and evil. The Christian > church also fights the powers of darkness and evil. The Church on > Earth is called the Church Militant. Gerry And before Christianity the Phoenix was a sun symbol. The sun which dies every night and is reborn every day. And also before christianity people fought against the powers of darkness and evil. > > Drop: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. Of course the > reference is not to Snape, but to the real Half-blood Prince who was > Jesus. And in this book (as I have written in detail elsewhere in > post #147906 and #151730) we have the metaphorical Crucifixion of > Christ at the "place of the Skull" having been betrayed by one of > his own. Gerry Jesus as a half-blood? Only in some parts of christianity I'm sure. The more obscure ones I presume. With the rest I don't agree either. > > Drop: At the end of book 6 we are left with the words of Scrimgeour > to Harry that "even Dumbledore can not return from the ----" Now > why I ask you would JKR choose those words out of anything she could > have said? Gerry Because what Harry says can easily be taken as denial. I found that remark completely logical, and I will be sorely disappointed if he comes back after all. > > Drop: In an interview JKR says that DD is not Jesus. Hum.. why use > those words? She could have said "he is not Merlin, he is not ____. > why "not Jesus" if she did not mean for us to think about the > connection? She did not say "he is not Christ". Gerry Because lots of fans hope he is not really dead. And actually, I think that Merlin is quite a good comparison. > > Tonks: "Here is an umbrella. You are going to get soaked out there." > > Others (dripping wet, standing in a puddle of water): "No thanks. > We still don't see or feel any rain!!" "It is NOT raining!" > > What can I say??? Gerry Here's the subnilk Gerry From s_ings at yahoo.com Sun Jun 11 14:52:28 2006 From: s_ings at yahoo.com (Sheryll Townsend) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 10:52:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: Mrs Figg In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060611145228.81592.qmail@web36103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153674 > Hagrid aussie_lol wrote in > : > > << If we correctly guess major suprises to JKR's > story, do you > think she would change what she was going to say > just to keep > control of the story - > (snip) > Or Arabella Figg with all her cats and taking care > of Harry every so > often. Rumours went around she was a witch there to > protect Harry. >> > Catlady: > Rowling gave a reading at the Toronto SkyDome in > 2000. No transcript > of her Q&A has been posted on-line, but some people > who were there > posted their accounts of the event. Those accounts > said that when > asked if Arabella Figg, member of 'the old crowd' > mentioned toward the > end of GoF when Dumbledore sent Sirius on his > errand, was related to > Mrs Figg the babysitter, she said: "Good catch!" and > agreed they were > related. (Well, identity is a relationship.) > > Because she also said that Mrs Figg is a Squib, many > fans thought that > Arabella was her neice. When she revealed that the > next title would be > HP & the Order of the Phoenix, many fans believed > that 'the old crowd' > is the Order of the Phoenix. We eventually turned > out to be right, > despite all the people who told us we were jumping > to a conclusion and > an Order of the People could be a lot of other > things. > > My point ('and I do have one') is she wrote Mrs Figg > in OoP the same > way she had spoken of Mrs Figg in 2000, which > doesn't seem like she > changed her plan. > Sheryll: *raises hand* Oh, I was at the SkyDome reading. It's a misconception that there was a Q&A at that reading, as there wasn't really. What she did after reading from GoF was tell us some of the most common questions she'd been asked by the media and the answers to those questions. IIRC, none of those questions concerned the storyline, but were more general questions like whether or not she thought the books promoted witchcraft. I think, and keep in mind that my memory has dimmed with time, that I wrote up the notes I took at the event and posted them to the group. They should be in the archives somewhere, but I've got guests on their way here in 5 minutes and don't have time to look it up. But, no, sorry, no information given on Mrs. Figg at that time. Sheryll, making a rare appearance on Main :) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From estesrandy at yahoo.com Sun Jun 11 14:59:39 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 14:59:39 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153675 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" > wrote: > >> > > See it or don't. It doesn't mean it's not there. > > > Tonks: > I agree with Leslie. > > First let me say that I have no investment in JKR being a Christian. > She could be anything, I don't care. I also have no investment in > finding Christian symbols in the HP books. I really don't care if > they are there or are not there. It makes no difference to me. > Honesty it doesn't. I did not start reading the books looking for > them. They just jumped out at me. I tripped over then right and > left. > > I know that we as a group argue over this issue every time it comes > up. I think what the problem is here is that some of us see symbols > that we recognize as explicitly Christian. Now that can occur as a > coincidence in a work of this size, but when it occurs over and over > one has to stop and ask "why?, What is the author doing?" And I > don't think any of us has an answer to that. But we see *something* > going on beneath the surface. SNIP SNIP . > > Others say that the association is not there because they are > looking for something within the story that fits the symbols. Well > sometimes there is a direct relationship and sometimes there is not. > SNIP SNIP . Problem is we don't know what she > is doing, but she is doing something with these symbols. They are > not just hanging there for no reason. They are pointing to > something. They are leading to something. It drives me crazy > because I see the symbols all over the place, knowing that JKR must > have some reason to put them in there, but it is like a puzzle with > a few pieces missing. (It is like the framework of a house, you > don't *see* it when you look at the house because it is deep within. > It is in the blueprints.) > > SNIP SNIP > All I am trying to say is that like all the other clues in the books > there are these clues as well that many people would overlook or not > understand. I don't know *why* they are there. But I can not deny > the fact that they *are* there. I see them just as clearly as my > friend saw Lupin=wolf. > > Tonks_op > RANDY adds some thoughts... I never associated Christian symbolism when I first read the books because I was caught up in the excitement of the stories. Upon reading the books for a second time, I started to notice some interesting things. I once pointed out the idea of seven books dealing with the Seven Deadly Sins as themes. I think these themes are only part of the puzzle. A really interesting writer has many different themes (ideas) going on at the same time. You may see things but can't quite put your finger on it. I think most would see Harry Potter's connection to the stories of brave knights who must slay the dragons. Knights and Dragons are obviously mentioned in the stories. Knights lived by codes of ethics which derived from Christian principles. Overcoming the seven deadly sins is part of this. If you are a "nominal Christian" Knight (to use someone else's language), you might strive to overcome the 7 deadlies without completely grasping the Christian religious beliefs. Given my speculations above, here are some examples. OOP deals with Anger. If you read the book looking for anger, it hits you with every chapter. Someone is always angry at someone else. Harry gets mad at Dumbledore. Snape and Sirius argue. Everyone is mad at Umbridge. Umbridge is mad at Dumbledore. Anger is like a stupid violent Giant that destroys things in its path without realizing its own strength. Grawp is introduced in this book. The fifth task at the end of Philosopher's stone is sneaking past a sleeping troll. I think the anger within us is a sleeping troll which should not be awakened. Interestingly enough, OOP made a lot of fans very angry!;0) GOF deals with Lust(or Infatuation). The students start to see the opposite sex for the first time. The handsome strong men of Durmstrang and the beautiful women of Beaux Batons are introduced. The famous Triwizard Ball and all of its melodrama are part of this theme. Harry has feelings for Cho Chang and feels jealous of Cedric. Ron has hidden feelings for Hermione and feels jealous of Victor Krum. The Second Triwizard task forces Cedric to save Cho Chang and Victor to save Hermione from the underwater trap. This reminds me of the stories where the hero saves the fair maiden. Harry is still a little young and confused and Ron is still his most valued connection. Interestingly enough, GOF made a lot of fans start writing about relationships!;0) HBP deals with Gluttony (or overindulgence). Slughorn drinks too much and eats too much and has too many parties. Trelawney drinks too much. Harry overindulges in his use of the HBP's potion book. Ron overindulges in snogging with Lavendar. Hepzibzah Smith overindulges in knick knacks. Dumbledore is forced to drink too much from the green bowl in the Cave. We learn about Gulp-a- lots Law of Potion making. Luckily, Harry drinks only a small portion of Felix Felicis and shares the rest with his friends later. He has learned the lesson not to overindulge. I guess everyone will start drinking heavily now because we don't like the Horcrux plotline!;0) POA deals with Sloth (Wasting Time). Lupin teaches Harry to overcome his fears which prevent him from taking action. The prisoner is freed because Harry takes action to stop the Dementors. Dementors suck out souls (or you could say they drain people of their will to live). If you could only turn back time and take action, you could save the hypogriff and Sirius Black. Why you can turn back time if you have a time turner! Hermione and Harry are able to take action and save the day. Just like the third task at the end of Philosopher's stone; Harry takes flight and grabs the winged key. He unlocks the door to free the prisoner inside. He is not wasting time and he is taking action! Interestingly enough, the fans started taking action and buying lots of Harry Potter books and writing posts on the Internet! ;0) The Christian church does not have a monopoly on the Seven Deadly Sins, but they do educate their members to be aware of them and take action against them. Other religions do the same. JKR is not giving a sermon to the followers of (fill in blank). I think she is speaking subliminally to millions of children around the world about good behavior and bad behavior because she is somehow destined to do this! Maybe it is her calling in life. If everyone had an opportunity to speak to so many people, we would all be alot happier. Until the church members down the street start to call us names and protest against us! She must know how Joan of Arc felt by now. Randy gets of the soapbox and starts running before all the tomatoes start to fly! From patriciah711 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 11 15:13:05 2006 From: patriciah711 at yahoo.com (Tricia) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 15:13:05 -0000 Subject: Neville Theory Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153676 So this one is a little bit out there, but the idea came to me not that long ago and the more I think about it the more I see it as a valid possibility (but I'm not putting money on it by any means). Here it goes anyway: Neville could maybe possibly likely be a horcrux. Neville shows definite signs of having had a major memory modification charm placed on him and both his parents were attacked until they lost their minds. Maybe LV really just wanted to kill the Potters but he thought Neville the real threat and therefore made him a horcrux. This would also lead to a very beautiful heroic end. Harry is forced to kill one of his friends and Neville so long made fun of is forced to sacrifice himself and becomes a kind of ultimate hero. JKR has been grooming Neville to do something extravagant and I always thought that the books would somehow cover the loss of his life, but this makes some semblance of sense. I'm still much more swayed by the Harry as a Horcrux argument. This also has it merits. It allows me to pretend that Harry may live past the end of the series (although it would probably better suit JKR to kill him off, thus ending many please for an eighth installment). It also would make a statement to all the kids who read the books ? the loser can sometimes be the bravest of all. If anyone can gather more info in favor of or making this theory impossible, please post it. I'm kind of encouraged but unsure of this newest horcrux thought. The Underqualified, Unsure, patriciah711 From annemehr at yahoo.com Sun Jun 11 16:24:39 2006 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 16:24:39 -0000 Subject: Mrs Figg/SkyDome reading In-Reply-To: <20060611145228.81592.qmail@web36103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153677 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Sheryll Townsend wrote: > Sheryll: > > *raises hand* > > Oh, I was at the SkyDome reading. > > I think, and keep in mind that my memory has dimmed > with time, that I wrote up the notes I took at the > event and posted them to the group. They should be in > the archives somewhere, but I've got guests on their > way here in 5 minutes and don't have time to look it > up. > > But, no, sorry, no information given on Mrs. Figg at > that time. > > Sheryll, making a rare appearance on Main :) Annemehr: I played with the new search function and brought it up: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/4608 Your memory is as good as it ever was, Sheryll. :) ~A. From enlil65 at gmail.com Sun Jun 11 17:02:09 2006 From: enlil65 at gmail.com (Peggy Wilkins) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 12:02:09 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Neville Theory In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1789c2360606111002l607f0a2bl246d0f6026f47937@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153678 On 6/11/06, Tricia wrote: Tricia: [Re: Neville is a Horcrux] > I'm still much more swayed by the Harry as a Horcrux > argument. This also has it merits. It allows me to pretend that > Harry may live past the end of the series (although it would > probably better suit JKR to kill him off, thus ending many please > for an eighth installment). It also would make a statement to all > the kids who read the books ? the loser can sometimes be the bravest > of all. > > If anyone can gather more info in favor of or making this > theory impossible, please post it. I'm kind of encouraged but unsure > of this newest horcrux thought. If your desire to believe that Harry will live is deep down your real reason for wanting Neville to be a Horcrux, let me try to offer you some reassurance about Harry. The prophecy states: "...either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives." Take note that "either MUST die". That means that either Harry will die; or Voldemort will die. (Unless you believe that the prophecy refers to Neville; but Dumbledore has been very clear that the prophecy does apply to Harry, not Neville, and that Harry really is the Chosen One; and I think we would be smart to believe him.) So if Harry doesn't survive, then Voldemort lives. Nevertheless I think the prophecy suggests that if Harry chooses to fight Voldemort, he will win. He has to, because he has "power the Dark Lord knows not". He has the power, he need only use it to the best of his ability. I simply can't believe that Voldemort will be the ultimate One Who Lived. That only leaves room for Harry to live. -- Peggy Wilkins enlil65 at gmail.com From enlil65 at gmail.com Sun Jun 11 16:44:00 2006 From: enlil65 at gmail.com (Peggy Wilkins) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 11:44:00 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Transferable Human Horcruxes was: SSlyth via DWG to DM In-Reply-To: <20060611083216.69726.qmail@web51907.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060611083216.69726.qmail@web51907.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1789c2360606110944k22bdf516k6d8453f3c599278a@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153679 On 6/11/06, R A wrote: aussie: > The basalisk was controlled similar to Nagini making me think it was > a Horcrux too. However, it was not sitting there to become Tom's > Horcrux for about 1000 years. I think one of Salazar's Horcuxes was > in the basalisk. Another Horcrux was transferred into Tom Riddle in > his transformation to Voldemort, passed onto him from Gridelwald. > That would help him control the Basalisk holding Slytherin's Horcrux Peggy W: So you are positing that Slytherin could have more than one Horcrux? This is contradicted, though, by Dumbledore's statement in HBP: HBP p. 500: "...As far as I know -- as far, I am sure, as Voldemort knew -- no wizard had ever done more than tear his soul in two." One of the points about Voldemort, I think, is that he is the first one to ever attempt making more than one Horcrux. For this reason, I wouldn't be inclined to think Slytherin might have done it before. Also don't forget that when we see Diary Tom controlling the Basilisk in COS, that was a regeneration of Tom from his Horcrux; if Tom were a Horcrux for Slytherin, for your proposal to be true he would have also had to transfer a bit of Slytherin into his own Diary Horcrux. Isn't that stretching things a bit too thin? That also raises the level of improbability, in my eyes (though Dumbledore's statement I quoted above was sufficient in my judgment). aussie's excerpted chat: [snip] > aussie_lol: Grindelwald was about the time that Tom changed to LV ... > horridporrid03: Yes, exactly. I think it's a sort of eternal battle > aussie_lol: .... and the choc card said DD DEFEATED Grindy .... not KILLED him > horridporrid03: Harry's got this one, but after this, there's be another villain and another hero > horridporrid03: Ooh, yes that "defeated" is very interesting > aussie_lol: hmmm ... but I wonder if it comes back to can a Horcrux be in a person .... > horridporrid03: It sounds like a clue... but what does it mean? lol > aussie_lol: ... and since that person is not eternal, the Horcrux should be transferable to maintain it > aussie_lol: ... what if LV is a Horcrux for Grindelwald ... Peggy W: Then Grindelwald wouldn't be dead, but JKR has said that he is indeed dead: >>>http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-3.htm [Begin quote] ES: Our other "Ask Jo" question (the one about James and Lily's sacrifices), was from Maria Vlasiou, who is 25, of the Netherlands. And then the third is from Helen Poole, 18, from Thirsk, Yorkshire ? also one of the "Plot Thickens" fan book authors. It's the one about Grindelwald, which I'm sure you've been gearing up for us to ask. JKR: Uh huh. ES: Clearly - JKR: Come on then, remind me. Is he dead? ES: Yeah, is he dead? JKR: Yeah, he is. [End quote] It is clear that Grindelwald can't have a Horcrux if he is dead. I'm actually a little unclear on what you're proposing, though; isn't your propsal that it is Slytherin's soul that is being passed through Grindelwald to Voldemort, and will be passed on to someone else from Voldemort? If that's the proposal then it doesn't make sense to posit that Grindelwald had a Horcrux that is being passed on... but maybe I am misunderstanding what you were trying to say. In any case, interesting theory about Slytherin, but not one I'm inclined to believe (sorry). -- Peggy Wilkins enlil65 at gmail.com From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Jun 11 16:03:48 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 12:03:48 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter References: Message-ID: <006701c68d70$a39173f0$6d66400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 153680 Gerry: > ?????? Only if you believe that Christians, and in this case Christian > mums have the monopoly on sacrificing themselves for others. Which is > arrogant to say the least. Lily's sacrifice is a sacrifice of love and > love is something universal. I'm sorry, but I find this statement > offensive. Magpie: Sorry, it wasn't meant to be--I feel the same way as you do about it. What I meant was that if one (presumably a Christian) describes any good act as "Christ-like" then one would describe any mother sacrificing herself as Christ-like whether or not that mother was Christian herself. Christ-like is being used there just as a synonym for good behavior, and Lily would not need to be Christian to do it. As you said and I agree, Christian mothers have no monopoly on motherly instincts or any sort of good behavior. Did I make that more clear? I do completely understand the annoyance with the term, but was saying that if one describes Lily's action as Christ-like it's not because of Lily herself being Christian or not. Lily being Jewish or Hindu would not have changed her actions at all. (Heh--this reminds me of someone once telling me she helped an old woman across the sreet and the woman said she was a good Christian. She informed her she was Jewish and the woman said she was a good Christian anyway. Err...gee, thanks.) > Leslie41: > Most if not all of Rowling's names have a secondary meaning, from > Remus Lupin to Dolores Umbridge to Lucius Malfoy to Voldemort. > > All of them, *all* of them, have secondary meanings. > > Arthur means "noble and courageous" > Remus Lupin is a double play on the wolf motif. > Dolores Umbridge means "deceitful shadow" (plus other > interpretations) > Lucius Malfoy is a play on Lucifer and the French "bad faith". > Voldemort means "flee from death" > > I would go on, but it would take too long. > Magpie: It would take too long and it would really not always have any value. All names have meanings, period. If the names have an extra meaning the text makes clear it's fun to see it, but the author's also populating a world in Great Britain in the 90s where everyone has to be named something. Leslie: > Arthur means "noble and courageous" Magpie: And so could be applied to lots of characters in the HP verse. She's got eight regular boy names to find for the Weasley family. I think she's going more for the types of names they'd have. They all have nice, solid, guy names, with the nerdy one having the nerdiest name. Charlie works with dragons so might seem to fit a dragon-ish name, but Charlie (meaning man, also naming English kings) fits him more than Draco. Leslie: > Remus Lupin is a double play on the wolf motif. Magpie: Yes, and that's confirmed by Remus being a wolf in canon. Same with Fenrir Greyback. No stretching required. Leslie: > Dolores Umbridge means "deceitful shadow" (plus other > interpretations) Magpie: The other interpretations are more correct. Umbridge/Umbrage is far more connected to the meaning "offense" rather than "shadow." As in "to take umbrage at her rudeness." Umbridge causes other people to take umbrage. It also means shadow/to afford shade, but canon supports the first meaning. It's funny. Dolores means sorrows and comes from one of the titles of the Virgin Mary. Do you think she's supposed to be the Virgin Mary? Because I think JKR just thought Dolores was the right kind of name for her because it's kind a girlie feel to it. Leslie: Lucius Malfoy is a play on Lucifer and the French "bad faith". Magpie: Lucius is also a name in itself which means light, with other Luciuses appearing in history and in the world today. But let's look at the connection to Lucifer--how far does it work? Certainly Lucius Malfoy is bad, so a devilish name fits him. But associating him literally with Lucifer himself is a little problematic given the mess he seems to have made of his life by HBP, and his ties to his family. He seems quite human by now, perhaps more echoing one of the Roman Luciuses more than Lucifer. Voldemort as the bigger bad and Lucius' leader is more in the role of the devil if there is one. Malfoy is definitely bad faith, a meaning which became more clear when Draco Malfoy's story in HBP actually illustrated the meaning of the term as Sartre used it. Apparently people had suggested the Sartre meaning before, but people didn't think much of the theory because until then it didn't show much about canon. Now it does, so people see it more. Before that it seemed like it probably just meant they had faith in a bad set of ideas. Both meanings work--it's a great name. However, had Draco stuck with his original name I don't think it would have had any meaning beyond "Spungen" being an ugly name. Leslie: > Voldemort means "flee from death" Magpie: Yes, it does. And Tom means "twin" and was also the name of an apostle...so? Tom Riddle doesn't like it because, as he says, there are lots of Toms. Sometimes names are important because of their meaning, sometimes, imo, they are chosen because they just fit the character. I think sometimes you're blurring the two. Merope's name is more obviously chosen for its meaning because it's both unusual in the modern English-speaking world and her story contains connections to the name. Mark Evans name turned out to be equally unremarkable. Leslie: So, when Voldemort (flee from death) attacks James (apostle associated with good deeds) and Lily (the symbol of the risen Christ), and is foiled by Harry (power, destruction), right on the place on his body where he was baptized (symbol of being welcomed into the Kingdom of Christ), yeah, I think there's an underlying meaning there. Magpie: And I agree with a_svirn--what is that meaning, exactly? Because it's seems to add up to gobbledy gook. Voldemort's name is chosen by himself "flight from death" because he is seeking immortality. He attacks James, who shares his name with two apostles, one of whom was apparently known for good works though James Potter was not particularly that we've seen (does this make Seamus James the Lesser?). James has also been one of the most popular names in the English speaking world since James I. I think the name actually comes from Jacob, meaning "to take by the heel/one who trips up another/supplanter." James is married to Lily, a flower which is often used in Christian art to represent purity. A particularly lily is called the Easter lily (a holiday never celebrated in canon; our Lily dies on Halloween). Their son's name is Harry, which I have always heard means "home ruler" or "army ruler," has also been shared by English kings and is a very popular English name. I believe it's the author's favorite. You have found a definition about power and destruction, and say this means Harry is about power and destruction--not. Harry gets a lightning bolt on his forehead (a symbol with its own rich history, some of which includes other gods) where everyone can see it, and in a place that's got meanings in other cultures as well. I'm not seeing any coherent meaning there. Of all the Christian things you've thrown in the ones that could possibly resonate for me are a) Lily=purity in a general way and b) Harry's getting his scar could be seen as a type of baptism by fire/death because it's a general marking. Leslie: What's *there* is what matters, not what the author > *intended* to be there. Authors are notoriously bad readers of > their own work. Magpie: But it seems very few readers agree that a lot of this stuff is there either. Leslie: Just can't help it, considering all the evidence. Is Harry's baptism some sort of protection for him? Not really. But I think the place of his scar is supposed to remind us of his baptism and remind us that it is only through Christ's principles that he will vanquish Voldemort. Not through power or destructive raids. But through love. Magpie: And to me if the scar has a connection to baptism at all it's that, as I said above, Voldemort's marking him could remind me of a sort of perverted baptism. He's marking Harry as his own. Leslie: Your milage may vary, of course, but I think I've shown that there is AMPLE evidence in canon to at least CONSIDER a deeply Christian interpretation. Magpie: But having considered it I've got no reason to accept it because you haven't shown ample evidence. Nothing adds up in a way makes me see more meaning in the story. Leslie: See it or don't. It doesn't mean it's not there. Magpie: Or that it is there. Tonks: I know that we as a group argue over this issue every time it comes up. I think what the problem is here is that some of us see symbols that we recognize as explicitly Christian. Now that can occur as a coincidence in a work of this size, but when it occurs over and over one has to stop and ask "why?, What is the author doing?" And I don't think any of us has an answer to that. But we see *something* going on beneath the surface. Like any other clue we try to report it here. I agree with Leslie that it doesn't seem to be taken well when we do. I tend to think that this is because people don't want to think that JKR is pulling something over on them in some subliminal way. But that is JMO. Magpie: And I think that since neither of you have been able to come with anything coherent yourselves it's unfair to imply that people are just not taking it well due to their personal biases against the idea. Your friend's knowing that Lupin meant wolf is backed up in the text so that everyone can see it--he's even got a double wolfy name, as does Fenrir Greyback. It's there within the story. The connection to Sirius being the dog star is also there in canon--he's a dog. (Btw, Sirius is the brightest star in the night sky, not the morning star. Venus is the morning star. Jesus has been called the morning star, but so has Lucifer--Lucifer literally was the morning star in Roman astronomy. Personally, of those two, I've always heard Lucifer associated with the term far more than Jesus.) The framework of a house actually is detectable in the house itself. This stuff seems more like seeing faces in the molding. Tonks: > Drop: In an interview JKR says that DD is not Jesus. Hum.. why use > those words? She could have said "he is not Merlin, he is not ____. > why "not Jesus" if she did not mean for us to think about the > connection? She did not say "he is not Christ". Gerry Because lots of fans hope he is not really dead. And actually, I think that Merlin is quite a good comparison. Magpie: Actually, if I remember the context of that interview wasn't JKR being asked about Christian themes? It seems like when she said "Dumbledore is not Jesus" she also meant "He is not Christ" (and also, I think, that he wasn't coming back from the dead). -m From leslie41 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 11 18:02:42 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 18:02:42 -0000 Subject: Horcrux: was Baptism/Christianity in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153681 > a_svirn: > You know, I think I object to your name-dropping even more than I > object to being called short-sighted. First Julian of Norwich, now > Spenser. Would you mind explaining what you mean without hiding > behind noted authorities? If you say that names are important > don't stop there, explain in what way they are important. A mere > assertion of their importance does not explain anything at all. If > you say that Harry's baptism is significant for the story, again, > don't stop there explain in what way it's significant. You first > said that baptism provided Harry with a shield of a sort. Then you > were obliged to admit that it's no shield at all, because it does > not provide any real protection against Voldemort. Very well, what > is its significance then? Not in the context of Christian culture, > but in the context of this story? Leslie41: Well, if you're going to come up with a one-sentence description of the nature of Christ's purpose, I would say that's short sighted. And if you think you're actually capable of coming up with a one- sentence description of the nature of Christ's purpose, I would assume that you are a) not a Christian, or b) a Christian with an ego the size of Montana. As for the noted authorities, I consider the people on this board to be intelligent folks who can generally be counted on to look up authors if they want further information. The stuff I cited about Julian and Spenser is factual, not conjectural. He wrote allegory. She saw Christ as a mother. Personally, I didn't feel any further explication was needed, or wanted. As for it being a shield, I said explicitly it that baptism itself was not a shield. I spoke of it initially as "spiritual protection," but I see the sacrifice of Lily and Voldemort's failed killing curse as part and parcel of the same experience. I think in the end that the location of the scar reminds us of baptism, that Harry was himself baptized. In a metaphorical way, not necessarily in a precise "Harry is protected by baptism" kind of way, we are reminded that the evil of Voldemort will always lose, will always be repelled in the end by the ultimate good. Evil in the end harms itself. The basic fact that I keep coming back to is that his parents thought Harry's baptism extremely important. Rowling herself said that it was probably a hurried sort of affair, with just the family involved. Obviously, having their son Christened was extremely important to them. And the Christening service itself, the baptismal service, is a deeply spiritual experience in which all are required to renew their baptismal vows. The godfather must be a baptized Christian himself as well. Pardon me for thinking that yes, that's important. You are free to think it's entirely meaningless. But it's in there. Harry was baptized. Sirius was a Christian and so were his parents, or else they would not have been allowed to have their child baptized. If you want to ignore those canonical facts, that's fine. But they're there. I didn't pull them out of the air, or anywhere else. > > > a_svirn: > > > Yet he was christened Harry, which ? as you yourself said ? > > > means "power and destruction"! > > > > Leslie41: > > Christened as such, yes! But he has to evolve out of that. > > That's his task in the seventh book. > > a_svirn: > Then his Christian name provided him with all the wrong values, > didn't it? So much for being baptised. Leslie41: No. Your assertion that Harry's destiny is set in stone by his baptismal affirmation of his name shows that you misunderstand the nature of baptism. Being baptized is kind of like a promise...it's not the end but the beginning. It's no assurance that one is going to be able to share in the eternal kingdom. Harry must evolve out of that designation as destroyer and come to defeat Voldemort through love. The fact that love is Harry's greatest weapon is absolutely canonical. > > a_svirn: > > > On a more profound level, there is nothing Christian about > > > Horcruxes. It seems that Rowling's special brand of > > > spiritualism > > > draws on syncretic folklore rather than on Christian beliefs. > > > > Leslie41: > > Do you know what a "crux" is? It means "cross." > > > > The word "hore" in middle/old english means "whore". > > Whorecrosses. > > Makes sense. > > a_svirn: > Does it? Sounds like utter nonsense to me. Leslie41: Do you doubt that "crux" means "cross"? Look it up. The curse "crucio" is directly related to the crucifixion. Oh, you can blather about how "Crucio" is just the Latin word for "I torture", etc. etc. etc. But who among us, even those who aren't Christians, are going to state that the word has no relation to the crucifixion? There are other words Rowling could have chosen that mean the same thing. > > Leslie41: > >In the bible whores are associated with idolatry and > > faithlessness to god. > > a_svirn: > Or really? And what about that female sinner that anointed ? > Christ's feet? And even if the Whore of Babylon can be said to > have been faithless to God I still don't see what whores in the > Bible an out of it have to do with immortality. Leslie41: Selling one's body for money is thought by most to be immoral. "Whoring" also has another connotation, also negative (I know of no positive one). We speak of people who have "sold their souls" so to speak as "whores". It doesn't always have a sexual connotation. "Crux" means "cross". That's a fact. I think that what Voldemort (flees from death) is doing is making a perverted, whored cross for himself. And if you can't see it, I don't know what to say to that, because it seems perfectly clear to me. It's right there in the name. From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Sun Jun 11 18:34:39 2006 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 20:34:39 +0200 Subject: Weekly Chat - How to get in (2nd try) Message-ID: <013301c68d85$b3854420$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 153682 Hello, since there still isn't a permanent room for our weekly chat (any proposals for this are very welcome), we will use the conference system of Yahoo Messenger, as we did the last weeks. To join the chat, please send an IM (Instant Message) to d2dMiles04 (that's me) and I'll invite you to the conference. See you in the chat! (This message is resent, the first one seems to have been Yahoomorted) From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Jun 11 19:32:22 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 19:32:22 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153683 Leslie41: > Most if not all of Rowling's names have a secondary meaning, from > Remus Lupin to Dolores Umbridge to Lucius Malfoy to Voldemort. > > All of them, *all* of them, have secondary meanings. > > Arthur means "noble and courageous" > Remus Lupin is a double play on the wolf motif. > Dolores Umbridge means "deceitful shadow" (plus other > interpretations) > Lucius Malfoy is a play on Lucifer and the French "bad faith". > Voldemort means "flee from death" Ceridwen: I don't know where you got your definitions, but some are pretty far from their meanings Remus is from the twin founders of Rome, Romulus and Remus. They were raised by a she-wolf. This is obviously Pagan mythology. (the rest of this comes from 'What To Name Your Baby' by Maxwell Nurenberg and Morris Rosenblum) Arthur: Celtic: Noble; Welsh: Bear-Hero; Dolores: Latin via Spanish: Sorrow, Our Lady of Sorrows; Lucius: Latin: Bringing Light; Harry: See Harold and Henry - Harold: Anglo-Saxon: Army Power / Henry: Germanic: Home-Rule; Neville: French: New City; James: Latin : Jacobus, from Jacob - Jacob: Hebrew: Supplanter; Peter: Greek via Latin: Stone, Rock; Ronald: Scottish var. Reginald - Reginald: Germanic: Power-Might; Lily: See Lillian - Lillian: Latin: The Lily; Hermione: Greek, fem. form of Hermes; Minerva: Latin: Mind; Ginevra: from Guinevere - Guinevere: Welsh: White-Cheeked; Molly: pet form of Mary - Mary: form of Miriam - Miriam: Hebrew: meaning in question: pos. rebelious or obstinate I can't see our dear Peter being a rock. Certainly not the foundation for an entire religion! Unless you're only speaking about the surname, you were way off for Dolores Umbridge. Far from being a form of Lucifer, Lucius is a name in itself, though it most likely shares the same Latin root as Lucifer. Some of the Weasleys have Arthurian names. Arthur, a given; Ginny from King Arthur's queen; Percy from Percival or Parsifal. Lily joins at least four other female characters in having a flower name, which is common with girls. There are also Pansy Parkinson, Narcissa Black Malfoy, Lavender Brown, and Lily's sister, Petunia Evans Dursley. Girls also have a tradition of month names (April, May, June, Julie, Augusta) and stone names (Pearl, Opal, Ruby, Beryl). There are two obviously Pagan names in the list: Minerva (Roman Goddess of wisdom) and Hermione (from the messenger God Hermes). As for James, his name is from the OT, as were the names of both apostles named James, my late grandfather, my cousin's late husband, and several boys I went to school with. Until 1970, James was one of the top ten boys' names in both the UK and the US. Far from making some Biblical allusion with this name, JKR seems to be saying that James was just a regular guy with a regular name, even a popular name. The pureblood Potters, unlike the more pretentious Blacks with their star names, and the Malfoys with their Latin names, are presented to us, through James's name, as being more down-to- earth, like the pureblood Weasleys who have common names as well. It's nice that you can find spiritual confirmation in the books. If that makes you happy and strengthens your faith, then be happy and strong. But there are many reasons to use a name - Remus Lupin, as you said, being a clue to his alternate nature, James Potter being 'just an ordinary guy'. Your interpretation does not ring true to me at all, and I am rather hypersensitive to Christian parallels, having been raised in a church where the parable is the teaching tool of choice. Ceridwen. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jun 11 19:48:10 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 19:48:10 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153684 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" wrote: > Leslie41: > Just can't help it, considering all the evidence. Is Harry's > baptism some sort of protection for him? Not really. But I think > the place of his scar is supposed to remind us of his baptism and > remind us that it is only through Christ's principles that he will > vanquish Voldemort. Not through power or destructive raids. But > through love. Geoff: Speaking as a Christian I think that we need to be careful about how we expect people of different denominations to interpret something such as baptism. The suggestion has been made that baptising a child with holy water seems to leave some sort of "imprint" (for want of a better word). In the UK, the only denominations who are likely to use holy water in the first place are Catholics and high Anglican churches. The low (evangelical) Anglican churches and the non-Conformist churches - Methodist, Baptist, Elim, Salvation Army, Free evangelical groups etc. - do not. If the sign of the cross is made over the child, it is more likely to be made with the hand. If I might digress for a moment to look at the actual service of baptism, I often compare Christian faith to a car. For a car to work, you need wheels, an engine, a gearbox etc. and a very simple construction can fulfil this role - look at the Model T for example. Now if you want a slightly posher vehicle you can have power steering, four-wheel drive, air conditioning, sunroof and such like to satisy you but, unless the basic car underneath works, all this lot is pointless. In the Christian church, denominations have evolved their own rituals, offices and routines which members follow. but unless there is a basis of true faith in Christ, they are all pointless. Baptism merely marks the bringing of a child into the church to ask for God's blessing on that child; that he or she will be guided by those around them and that they might gain real faith as they grow. It does not make a person a Christian. I am first a Christian and second a Baptist. Within the Baptist church, we use the word "dedication" whereby a child is brought into the church - as Mary and Joseph brought the infant Christ to the Temple at Epiphany - where the parents promise to attempt to bring up the child to find faith in later life and the church acknowledges a collective responsibility to support both parents and child. Then, if the child comes to faith as he or she grows, they them can seek adult baptism if they wish, which echoes John the Baptist's ministry that he baptised only those who came expressing repentance and a wish to follow God. Now, I am personally sceptical that there will be a connection between Harry's scar and his baptism. I accept that, since Sirius is confirmed as his godfather not only by himself but by Cornelius Fudge, Harry was obviously baptised in whatever form was considered appropriate by James and Lily. However, I am inclined to think that this was a literary device used by JKR to strengthen the bond between Harry and Sirius. Had Sirius only been a friend to his parents, Harry might not have set much store by a suggestion that they live together and would not perhaps have been so devastated when Sirius was killed; it is the fact that his parents had placed this responsibility in his hands that created the closeness that made Sirius the nearest thing he had to a real, loving family member. Moving to another topic which has been a hot potato for a few days, namely whether JKR writes from a Christian perspective. I can do no better than quote something I wrote nearly eighteen months ago in message 121598: There are three major series of books which are often discussed here on this forum, either directly or indirectly: Harry Potter, the Narnia books or Lord of the Rings. All these have been written by authors who profess to be Christians. The only allegorical books here are C.S.Lewis' series and he made no secret of the fact that they were intended as such. "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" is an overt allegory of the Christian story; Aslan is the son of the great Emperor over sea and represents Christ. Both JK Rowling and Tolkien have created universes which are not overtly Christian but which, through the beliefs of their writers have echoes of Christianity in their fabric. These books are not "message" books but labours of love. They are not mass produced books written to a template; I could name authors who have turned out massive numbers of books to very similar patterns which do not reflect any sort of ethical system. I have remarked on occasions before that I do not see JKR postulating a story line in which Harry is a Christ figure because that would fly in the face of her belief. To a Christian, he cannot be such a figure because our belief accepts Christ as God in human form, sinless, perfect so as to be able to die for the sins of the world in his human form. I see Harry as an everyman figure echoing our own journeys through life. I love Harry as a character; he reminds me of the scrapes I got up to when I was his age but sinless, perfect? No way. These three authors have written books which are timeless and "thumping good stories" which will continue to enthral readers of all ages in the future; they pit goodness against evil not in a black versus white scenario where everything is a foregone conclusion but with shades of grey which cast shadows and doubts on the final success of good. This is drawn from their own perception of good and evil which I believe is rooted in their faith. From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Sun Jun 11 17:56:31 2006 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 19:56:31 +0200 Subject: Weekly Chat - how to get in Message-ID: <00b401c68d80$60323030$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 153685 Hello, since there still isn't a permanent room for our weekly chat (any proposals for this are very welcome), we will use the conference system of Yahoo Messenger, as we did the last weeks. To join the chat, please send an IM (Instant Message) to d2dMiles04 (that's me) and I'll invite you to the conference. See you in the chat! From leslie41 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 11 20:10:30 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 20:10:30 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153686 > Leslie41: > > Most if not all of Rowling's names have a secondary meaning, > > from Remus Lupin to Dolores Umbridge to Lucius Malfoy to > > Voldemort. > > > > All of them, *all* of them, have secondary meanings. > > > > Arthur means "noble and courageous" > > Remus Lupin is a double play on the wolf motif. > > Dolores Umbridge means "deceitful shadow" (plus other > > interpretations) > > Lucius Malfoy is a play on Lucifer and the French "bad faith". > > Voldemort means "flee from death" > > Ceridwen: > I don't know where you got your definitions, but some are pretty > far from their meanings Leslie41: Many of the names have a couple of meanings, or even more. "Umbra" means shadow, but "Umbridge" of course as well has a tie with "umbrage". Check out Mugglenet's long discussion of name origins. Pretty fascinating stuff. I used just the plain old online dictionaries as well. http://www.mugglenet.com/books/name_origins.shtml > Cerwiden: > Remus is from the twin founders of Rome, Romulus and Remus. They > were raised by a she-wolf. This is obviously Pagan mythology. Leslie41: Of course! I never said there weren't elements of pagan mythology in the books! There are plenty of elements of pagan mythology in Christianity itself! :^) > Cerwiden: > It's nice that you can find spiritual confirmation in the books. > If that makes you happy and strengthens your faith, then be happy > and strong. But there are many reasons to use a name - Remus > Lupin, as you said, being a clue to his alternate nature, James > Potter being 'just an ordinary guy'. Your interpretation does not > ring true to me at all, and I am rather hypersensitive to > Christian parallels, having been raised in a church where the > parable is the teaching tool of choice. Leslie41: Well, if it doesn't ring true to you, it doesn't ring true. People see different things when they interpret literature, and there are many different ways to find meaning in texts. I personally think that considering the wealth of stuff in the Potter books that contains Christian symbolism, or mention of Christianity, a Christian interpretation is definitely supportable. In many ways, more supportable than a Christian interpretation of Tolkien's works, who never mentioned Christianity but who as a devout Catholic put, as he said, "Christ's face on every page". People see Beowulf as a Christ figure, for example. I can see why and they do have a certain amount of evidence for it, but likewise that "doesn't ring true" for me personally. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 11 21:06:42 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 21:06:42 -0000 Subject: Understanding Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153687 > >>Eggplant: > Voldemort's plan was to trick Harry to go to the ministry, but when > Snape showed up Harry was caught by Umbrage so Snape figured the > plan had failed, it never occurred to him that Harry would manage > to escape and make it all the way to the ministry. With the plan > canceled anyway it couldn't hurt to tell the Order of the Phoenix > what Harry said, in fact he had to if he wanted to remain a spy > for Voldemort. Betsy Hp: Except Snape went into the forest first. He checked to make sure Sirius was actually okay, and then he waited for Harry to return. When Harry didn't come back, Snape went into the forest to look for him. It's only after Snape realizes that Harry may have well found a way to the Ministry that he informs the Order. So Snape must have realized that he was taking action *against* Voldemort at that point. > >>Eggplant: > Dozens of people heard Harry talk to Snape about padfoot (and at > least 6, probably more, were not Death Eaters) and sooner or later > The Order would hear about it and wonder why Snape didn't tell > them immediately. Betsy Hp: And Evil!Snape could equivocate. It wouldn't be that hard. "I checked on the mutt, he was okay. How was I supposed to guess that the damn fool boy would drag all of his friends off to the Ministry to get themselves slaughtered by Death Eaters?" Which would cut down on the number of children the Order could have questioned, actually. Luna, Neville, Ron, Hermione, Ginny would have died more than likely. Harry *may* have survived (blood protection) but he may have been a prisoner of Voldemort. That would leave the Slytherins, and I'd imagine they'd be pretty close-mouthed on behalf of their head of house. > >>Eggplant: > Snape is evil Betsy Hp: Substitute evil for sexy and you've got it about right. Betsy Hp From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 11 22:48:54 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 22:48:54 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP: was Looking for God in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153688 > >>Cerwiden: > > It's nice that you can find spiritual confirmation in the > > books. If that makes you happy and strengthens your faith, then > > be happy and strong. But there are many reasons to use a name - > > Remus Lupin, as you said, being a clue to his alternate nature, > > James Potter being 'just an ordinary guy'. Your interpretation > > does not ring true to me at all, and I am rather hypersensitive > > to Christian parallels, having been raised in a church where the > > parable is the teaching tool of choice. > >>Leslie41: > Well, if it doesn't ring true to you, it doesn't ring true. > People see different things when they interpret literature, and > there are many different ways to find meaning in texts. Betsy Hp: That's very, very true. The methods I was taught (a long, long time ago) ranged from Marxist to Feminist to Post-Modern, to name the few I can remember . To read the Potter books with a Christian slant is possible as well. And of course, any time you have a character sacrificing their lives for another a connection can be made to the Crucifixion. Lily, Dumbledore, even Neville (if you stretch it) lay down their lives, or offer to, for their friends, or for the greater good. Personally, I was greatly reminded of the story of Peter with the scene between Dumbledore and Draco on the Tower at the end of HBP. And it was powerful enough that I suspect JKR may have deliberately chosen to make that kind of link. However, I don't think it means that Draco is the Apostle Peter, or that Dumbledore is Christ. Just that the same theme was repeated or echoed in that one scene between the two characters. So I can see the link you're making with baptism and Lily's protection marking Harry. But, while I think it can give Lily's sacrifice a certain flavor, I don't think there's enough of a parallel to make it allegorical in nature. (Though, with Harry having been baptized already as per canon, I think it gets a bit confusing to have the moment he received his scar as a baptizing as well. Especially with all the death and destruction that went along with it.) > >>Leslie41: > I personally think that considering the wealth of stuff in the > Potter books that contains Christian symbolism, or mention of > Christianity, a Christian interpretation is definitely supportable. > In many ways, more supportable than a Christian interpretation of > Tolkien's works, who never mentioned Christianity but who as a > devout Catholic put, as he said, "Christ's face on every page". > > People see Beowulf as a Christ figure, for example. I can see why > and they do have a certain amount of evidence for it, but likewise > that "doesn't ring true" for me personally. Betsy Hp: Well, it's the mythical interpertation, isn't it? I mean, Beowulf was a hero chosen to protect his people against evil, just as Christ was. The Christian story was shaped with such myths in mind, after all. It's part of the reason the important dates were all moved around so they could comfortably fit into the old myths. But I think the Potter books are more note worthy in their *lack* of mentioned Christianity (as talked about on an off-shoot of this thread) than in the mention of it. You know the Dursleys attend church as their society dictates, and yet we never get a scene of them heading off to church. Some of the children at Hogwarts must come from church going people (of whatever religion) but there's no mention of how their needs are met. I think JKR probably has an overarching message of good triumphing over evil that can be used in Sunday schools around the world. But I don't see that her books are, in and of themselves, teaching the story of Christ. I don't see how learning about the Marauders will teach about the Apostles. I don't see how listening to Dumbledore will stand in for reading, say, the Sermon on the Mount. Of course, I'm not sure that's what you're even suggesting here. Betsy Hp From kelley_thompson at sbcglobal.net Sun Jun 11 23:22:14 2006 From: kelley_thompson at sbcglobal.net (Kelley) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 23:22:14 -0000 Subject: ADMIN (sort of): Possible new chat option? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153689 Hi, everyone-- As our only option for a Yahoo chat is to use Yahoo Messenger (which requires that someone start a conference chat and be at their computer to invite people in, not to mention requires the chatters to have Yahoo Messenger to be able to participate), I've looked around and found a service called "Chatzy" (http://www.chatzy.com/). It's free, allows us to create a room that we can use week after week, and there's nothing to download or install, plus allows for saving the chat (by copying and pasting). I suppose we'll find some sort of catch eventually, but for now it looks pretty good. 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. (May need to click this a couple times.) There are a few of us in there now, but this room is available 24/7, so you can wander in and check it out any time you like. We'd quite like to hear how people like this room, but please don't post your comments here on the main list; instead, please use OTC: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter Thanks, everyone! --Kelley Elf From inspirit at ptd.net Sun Jun 11 23:36:28 2006 From: inspirit at ptd.net (Kim) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 19:36:28 -0400 Subject: A Trelawney Thought References: Message-ID: <004f01c68daf$dce3fd00$6501a8c0@your27e1513d96> No: HPFGUIDX 153690 In "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban", Professor Trelawney joins the small group that stayed behind for the Christmas holidays. They're having dinner together and are a group of 12. Page 228 of the US paperback version says: As he did indeed draw a chair in midair with his wand, which revolved for a few seconds before falling with a thud between professors Snape and McGonagall, Professor Trelawney, however, did not sit down; her enormous eyes had been roving around the table, and she suddenly uttered a kind of soft scream. "I dare not, Headmaster!" If I join the table, we shall be thirteen! Nothing could be more unlucky! Never forget that when thirteen dine together, the first to rise will be the first to die! Then on page 230: Professor Trelawney behaved almost normally until the very end of Christmas dinner, two hours later. Full to bursting with Christmas dinner and still wearing their party hats, Harry and Ron got up first from the table and she shrieked loudly. "My dears! Which of you left his seat first? Which? "Dunno, " said Ron, looking uneasily at Harry. "I doubt it will make much difference," said Professor McGonnegal coldly, "unless a mad axe-man is waiting outside the doors to slaughter the first into the entrance hall." So in my exhaustive search for one tiny little spark of hope that Dumbledore may yet live... I submit that as he was not the first to rise from the table that fateful Christmas dinner, he will not be the first of the group to die. Um... that means either Ron or Harry will be. Do we really want to sacrifice either of them for Dumbledore? I think I need a headache draught. Kim [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Jun 11 23:43:40 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 23:43:40 -0000 Subject: Horcrux: was Baptism/Christianity in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153691 > Leslie41: > Well, if you're going to come up with a one-sentence description of > the nature of Christ's purpose, I would say that's short sighted. > And if you think you're actually capable of coming up with a one- > sentence description of the nature of Christ's purpose, I would > assume that you are a) not a Christian, or b) a Christian with an > ego the size of Montana. a_svirn: You mean I have a choice? That's magnanimous of you. > Leslie41: > As for the noted authorities, I consider the people on this board to > be intelligent folks who can generally be counted on to look up > authors if they want further information. The stuff I cited about > Julian and Spenser is factual, not conjectural. He wrote allegory. > She saw Christ as a mother. Personally, I didn't feel any further > explication was needed, or wanted. a_svirn: Would you believe it? Even after your passionate diatribe I am still in the dark where the significance of names and baptism in the Harry Potter books is concerned. I implore you show me some Christian mercy (however undeserved) and explain it to me so that even I with my less than average intelligence would understand. You said that you ? unlike Spenser ? are not into allegories. (Personally, I don't see why bring up Spenser at all, if you don't like his work and it's not conductive to the present discussion.) Very well, if the names of HP characters have no allegorical meaning, then, why you insist on the biblical parallels? > Leslie41: > As for it being a shield, I said explicitly it that baptism itself > was not a shield. I spoke of it initially as "spiritual > protection," but I see the sacrifice of Lily and Voldemort's failed > killing curse as part and parcel of the same experience. a_svirn: Let me see Lily's sacrifice and Harry's baptism are kind of complimentary? Part of the same spiritual experience? Wow! Now I know why all the others failed to repel AKs! You'd need someone to sacrifice their life for baptism to work as spiritual protection. Alternatively sacrifice without baptism wouldn't work at all, since they come in one package. According to your logic if Voldemort had managed to track the Potters down before Harry had been baptised all Lilly's love as well as her sacrifice would have been in vain. > Leslie41: > I think in the end that the location of the scar reminds us of > baptism, that Harry was himself baptized. In a metaphorical way, > not necessarily in a precise "Harry is protected by baptism" kind of > way, we are reminded that the evil of Voldemort will always lose, > will always be repelled in the end by the ultimate good. Evil in > the end harms itself. a_svirn: Then why fight it at all? Let it harm itself. Besides your "metaphorical kind of way" is too general by far. If you keep expanding meaning of any word it will cease to mean anything at all in the end. > Leslie41: > The basic fact that I keep coming back to is that his parents > thought Harry's baptism extremely important. a_svirn: We don't know it. There is no canon to support this statement. > Leslie41: Rowling herself said > that it was probably a hurried sort of affair, with just the family > involved. Obviously, having their son Christened was extremely > important to them. a_svirn: And how is that obvious? If it was so hurried an affair it may equally mean that it wasn't of the first importance. > Leslie41: And the Christening service itself, the > baptismal service, is a deeply spiritual experience in which all are > required to renew their baptismal vows. The godfather must be a > baptized Christian himself as well. > > Pardon me for thinking that yes, that's important. You are free to > think it's entirely meaningless. But it's in there. Harry was > baptized. Sirius was a Christian and so were his parents, or else > they would not have been allowed to have their child baptized. > > If you want to ignore those canonical facts, that's fine. But > they're there. I didn't pull them out of the air, or anywhere > else. > a_svirn: And that exactly what makes me wonder whether Christianity is really part of wizarding life. Mr and Mrs Black with their marked predilection for dark magic ? Christians? It boggles the mind. I would imagine they would be struck by lightening as soon as they'd cross any church's threshold. > Leslie41: > No. Your assertion that Harry's destiny is set in stone by his > baptismal affirmation of his name shows that you misunderstand the > nature of baptism. Being baptized is kind of like a promise...it's > not the end but the beginning. It's no assurance that one is going > to be able to share in the eternal kingdom. Harry must evolve out > of that designation as destroyer and come to defeat Voldemort > through love. a_svirn: Dear me. You know, I did not assert anything of the kind. Don't put words into my mouth, please. It was *you* who harped about names and their meanings. And while I naturally relieved that Harry's destiny "doesn't set in stone by his baptismal affirmation" I still don't understand why on earth he was "designated as a destroyer". > Leslie41: > Do you doubt that "crux" means "cross"? a_svirn: I don't. It was your neologism *whorecrosses* that sounds like rubbish to me, not your translation of *crux*. > > > Leslie41: > > >In the bible whores are associated with idolatry and > > > faithlessness to god. > > > > a_svirn: > > Or really? And what about that female sinner that anointed ? > > Christ's feet? And even if the Whore of Babylon can be said to > > have been faithless to God I still don't see what whores in the > > Bible an out of it have to do with immortality. > > Leslie41: > Selling one's body for money is thought by most to be > immoral. "Whoring" also has another connotation, also negative (I > know of no positive one). We speak of people who have "sold their > souls" so to speak as "whores". It doesn't always have a sexual > connotation. > > a_svirn: While I allow that *whoring* and *whoredom* in biblical use have connotation of idolatry and unfaithfulness to the true God, the interpretation of "selling one's soul" is something you made up. And since whores have nothing to do with immortality, and Voldemort isn't into idolatry I still don't think much of your interpretation. From estesrandy at yahoo.com Sun Jun 11 23:44:08 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 23:44:08 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter and the Eqyptian Symbols Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153692 Harry was born to be a Gryffindor lion. Voldemort zaps him and gives him the gift of parseltongue. The serpent combines with the lion. His mom tries to protect her son from Voldemort. Harry lives and for some reason has special protection from his mother and he has "his mother's eyes". We later learn that he is "the chosen one" who has the power to vanquish evil. Subsequently we learn the Voldemort has split his soul into seven pieces to obtain immortality. Ancient Eqyptian Temples have heiroglyphics which are religious symbols to them and basically became a written language. The eye of Horus is briefly explained in the following link: http://www.greatscott.com/hiero/eye.html The mother of Horus tries to protect him from the evil Seth. She prevents Seth from killing Horus, but Seth somehow steals one of his eyes. The eye is replaced by the magic of Thoth. This eye is now a magical eye with the powers of healing and protection. The symbols described above are apparently quite common in Eqypt. The lion-serpent image is displayed over and over in heiroglyphic form on the walls of the Temple of Horus at Edfu, forty miles south of Nag Hammadi. In the cult of Hathor celebrated there, the lion- serpent represented the "royal seed" of the pharoahs. The royal child Horus is often depicted in a finger-sucking gesture that vividly recalls the posture of the embryonic Archons. Did Egyptian priests who directed the breeding of the dynastic families have intimate knowledge of Kundalini, as well as the Archons? The Kundalini serpent is displayed in Egyptian sacred art by a standing cobra, or a pair of corbras, sometimes wound on a staff, and by the uraeus, the cobra headress of divine empowerment. The ceremonial braid on the side of Horus' head was yet another indication of the serpent power.The pharaonic braid, traditionally worn on the right side of the head, visually repeats the form of the spermatic cobras of Edfu. The sacred iconography carries explicit, but highly occult knowledge: Horus is the child who right-brain cerebral functions are heightened by the serpent power. The above paragraph comes from a very strange site that tries to interpret Eqyptian mysteries. See below if you dare.... http://www.metahistory.org/AlienDreaming.php I don't know much about Eqyptian mythology but I bet JKR does. Randy From MadameSSnape at aol.com Sun Jun 11 23:51:10 2006 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 19:51:10 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] A Trelawney Thought Message-ID: <26b.b08e163.31be066e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153693 In a message dated 6/11/2006 7:37:36 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, inspirit at ptd.net writes: So in my exhaustive search for one tiny little spark of hope that Dumbledore may yet live... I submit that as he was not the first to rise from the table that fateful Christmas dinner, he will not be the first of the group to die. Um... that means either Ron or Harry will be. Do we really want to sacrifice either of them for Dumbledore? I think I need a headache draught. ------------------------ Sherrie here: I'd spotted this too, when I first read the book. My thought is that, as Ron & Harry rose simultaneously - we're going to lose them both. I've assumed Ron's death as a given, actually, since the chess game in PS/SS, and Harry's since the beginning of the series. This little vignette indicates that their sacrifices will happen together - if not at the same moment, at least within the same brief time frame. Perhaps Ron, as in the chess game, will be the sacrifice that distracts the opposition just long enough for Harry to "check" Voldemort? Sherrie "What's got YOUR wand in a knot?" - Hermione Granger, HARRY POTTER & THE GOBLET OF FIRE [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From estesrandy at yahoo.com Mon Jun 12 00:07:23 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 00:07:23 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter and the Eqyptian Symbols In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153694 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Randy" wrote: > > Harry was born to be a Gryffindor lion. Voldemort zaps him and > gives him the gift of parseltongue. The serpent combines with the > lion. His mom tries to protect her son from Voldemort. Harry lives > and for some reason has special protection from his mother and he > has "his mother's eyes". We later learn that he is "the chosen one" > who has the power to vanquish evil. Subsequently we learn the > Voldemort has split his soul into seven pieces to obtain > immortality. > > Ancient Eqyptian Temples have heiroglyphics which are religious > symbols to them and basically became a written language. > > The eye of Horus is briefly explained in the following link: > > http://www.greatscott.com/hiero/eye.html Snip Randy adds: By the way, if you think the eye of Horus is some obscure symbol of the ancients, take out a US one dollar bill and look at the eye of Horus above the pyramid. The eye of Horus is also used to represent healing in medical symbols when placed over two serpents placed around a staff. Two serpents reminds me of the image that Dumbledore sees with his office instruments in OOP. For any of you "nominal" ancient Eqyptian religious believers, the eye of Horus is supposed to represent the eye of God. The eye is split into seven pieces. It is now believed to represent the sun during a solar eclipse. The solar eclipse is sometimes shown as a winged disk. The winged disk is like a fire bird which is sometimes called the Phoenix. The winged disk is another ancient Eqyptian symbol that appears many places. During the solar eclipse the fire of the sun is extinguished and thus the bird dies. He later rises from the ashes when the eclipse ends. I think that protective healing powers, Lily's eyes, Lions, Serpents, and the Order of the Phoenix could be related to the mythology of Horus. What do you guys think? Randy From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Mon Jun 12 00:46:04 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 00:46:04 -0000 Subject: Understanding Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153695 > > Betsy Hp: > Except Snape went into the forest first. He checked to make sure > Sirius was actually okay, and then he waited for Harry to return. > When Harry didn't come back, Snape went into the forest to look for > him. It's only after Snape realizes that Harry may have well found > a way to the Ministry that he informs the Order. > Neri: This piece of fanon seems to have acquired canon status by now. I've seen it stated several times as fact by different list members, and I'm a bit tired of correcting it. Still, the canon is quite clear at this point: ****************************************************************** OotP, Ch. 37, p.830 (Scholastic): "Kreacher told me last night," said Dumbledore. "You see, when you gave Professor Snape that cryptic warning, he realized that you had had a vision of Sirius trapped in the bowels of the Department of Mysteries. He, like you, attempted to contact Sirius at once. I should explain that members of the Order of the Phoenix have more reliable methods of communicating than the fire in Dolores Umbridge's office. Professor Snape found that Sirius was alive and safe in Grimmauld Place. "When, however, you did not return from your trip into the Forest with Dolores Umbridge, Professor Snape grew worried that you still believed Sirius to be a captive of Lord Voldemort's. He alerted certain Order members at once." Dumbledore heaved a great sigh and continued, "Alastor Moody, Nymphadora Tonks, Kingsley Shacklebolt and Remus Lupin were at Headquarters when he made contact. All agreed to go to your aid at once. Professor Snape requested that Sirius remain behind, as he needed somebody to remain at Headquarters to tell me what had happened, for I was due there at any moment. In the meantime he, Professor Snape, intended to search the Forest for you. **************************************************************** This clearly establishes that Snape "intended to search" the forest only *after* he contacted the Order the second time and they went to the Ministry. Three pages later (p. 833) Dumbledore also tells us about Snape: "It was he who deduced where you had gone when you did not return from the Forest." This means that if Snape had searched the forest at all, it was already after he himself deduced that Harry was no longer there. It strikes me like making a big deal of running to lock the stable door after the horses had already been stolen. > Betsy Hp: > So Snape must have realized that he was taking action *against* > Voldemort at that point. > Neri: "Must" seems to be too strong a word here, but it certainly appears so. I quite agree that the ESE!Snape theory has a problem explaining his actions that night, as much problem as the DDM!Snape theory has in explaining these same actions, in fact. Which strongly suggests to me that he's neither. Neri From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Jun 12 00:43:47 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 00:43:47 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter and the Eqyptian Symbols In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153696 Randy: > I think that protective healing powers, Lily's eyes, Lions, > Serpents, and the Order of the Phoenix could be related to the > mythology of Horus. > > What do you guys think? Ceridwen: The story of Horus is the story of a son avenging his father's death. There could be a parallel. But I doubt if there is any more than that, since Isis did not die, and Osiris was put back together from his scattered remains, which is why he is depicted as a green- faced mummy. The eye is used as a symbol for divination, along with the open palm of the hand. The eyes are the windows to the soul. The eye over the pyramid on the dollar bill is the All-Seeing Eye of God. People ask others to look them in the eye when they think they are being lied to. The snake was a symbol of wisdom in Greece, but a symbol for treachery in the Bible. Of course, there is also a Biblical parallel to a healing snake, the snake on the pole during the sojurn in the wilderness. Snakes are symbols of fertility in India. People are called 'snakes in the grass' when they double-cross someone. 'Viper' is used for a sharp-tongued person, or someone who lies in order to defame or worse. Kundalini is the energy in the chakras, if I recall right. It is Indian Yoga, not Egyptian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kundalini Yes, the kundalini energy is symbolized as a coiling snake, but then, does that mean that Slytherin is the house of perfect alignment and spiritual health? I think we're looking too hard for symbols which have some meaning to the story. There may be symbols in the books, but the story is its own. I can't think of any reason why Harry having Lily's eyes would be important based on what we have so far, but I seriously doubt an Egyptian connection there. I think it would have to be something more connected with the story we have in canon, rather than with something miles and millenia away. Just my own opinion. Ceridwen. From leslie41 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 12 01:11:15 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 01:11:15 -0000 Subject: Horcrux: was Baptism/Christianity in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153697 > > Leslie41: > > Well, if you're going to come up with a one-sentence description > > of the nature of Christ's purpose, I would say that's short > > sighted. And if you think you're actually capable of coming up > > with a one-sentence description of the nature of Christ's > > purpose, I would assume that you are a) not a Christian, or b) a > > Christian with an ego the size of Montana. > > a_svirn: > You mean I have a choice? That's magnanimous of you. Leslie41: Thanks! And which one of those choices would you pick? > > Leslie41: > > As for the noted authorities, I consider the people on this > > board to be intelligent folks who can generally be counted on to > > look up authors if they want further information. The stuff I > > cited about Julian and Spenser is factual, not conjectural. He > > wrote allegory. She saw Christ as a mother. Personally, I > > didn't feel any further explication was needed, or wanted. > > a_svirn: > Would you believe it? Even after your passionate diatribe I am > still in the dark where the significance of names and baptism in > the Harry Potter books is concerned. I implore you show me some > Christian mercy (however undeserved) and explain it to me so that > even I with my less than average intelligence would understand. Leslie41: Well, you said that. I didn't. Of course I could come up with an adjective for you. A few, in fact. But "unintelligent" wouldn't be one of them. > a_svirn: > You said that you ? unlike Spenser ? are not into allegories. > (Personally, I don't see why bring up Spenser at all, if you don't > like his work and it's not conductive to the present discussion.) Leslie41: I said if *you* like allegories, read Spenser. Anyone who likes allegory should read Spenser. For those of us who are not fond of allegory, Spenser makes us barf. It takes all kinds. > > Leslie41: > > As for it being a shield, I said explicitly it that baptism > > itself was not a shield. I spoke of it initially as "spiritual > > protection," but I see the sacrifice of Lily and Voldemort's > > failed killing curse as part and parcel of the same experience. > > a_svirn: > Let me see Lily's sacrifice and Harry's baptism are kind of > complimentary? Part of the same spiritual experience? Wow! Now I > know why all the others failed to repel AKs! You'd need someone to > sacrifice their life for baptism to work as spiritual protection. > Alternatively sacrifice without baptism wouldn't work at all, > since they come in one package. According to your logic if > Voldemort had managed to track the Potters down before Harry had > been baptised all Lilly's love as well as her sacrifice would have > been in vain. Leslie41: Well, Harry *didn't* track down the Potters before Harry was baptized, did he? And I don't know where you are getting the idea that Lily's love would have been "in vain" had Harry not been baptized. My logic does not lead there at all. Hrm. Let's see if I can make myself clearer by using another work as a parallel. In The Fellowship of the Ring, Frodo receives the Phail of Galadriel, and lembas. He takes these on his journey to Mordor. Do they "protect" him from death? No. It's the mithril coat that does that, really. But the lembas can be seen as similar to the eucharist, and Mary was in part the model for Galadriel. Can the eucharist save Frodo from the orcs? Can the phial blot out all the darkness? No. But when Frodo uses the phial he can bring a bit of light into a corner of the darkness, and the evil (shelob) fears it. And when he eats the lembas, he's reminded of the gentle country of the elves, and their goodness, and it heartens him. One need not be a Christian to appreciate elves and lembas and Galadriel, but when one IS, it expands the meaning of the text in a significant new way. > > Leslie41: > > I think in the end that the location of the scar reminds us of > > baptism, that Harry was himself baptized. In a metaphorical > > way, not necessarily in a precise "Harry is protected by > > baptism" kind of way, we are reminded that the evil of Voldemort > > will always lose, will always be repelled in the end by the > > ultimate good. Evil in the end harms itself. > a_svirn: > Then why fight it at all? Let it harm itself. Leslie41: Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, I think. > a_svirn: > Besides your "metaphorical kind of way" is too general by far. If > you keep expanding meaning of any word it will cease to mean > anything at all in the end. Leslie41: Too general by far, for *you*. It seems perfectly plain to many others. You are entitled to not see it, or even to deny it. It's a free country. > > Leslie41: > > The basic fact that I keep coming back to is that his parents > > thought Harry's baptism extremely important. > > a_svirn: > We don't know it. There is no canon to support this statement. Leslie41: The baptism must have been awfully important to them. If it weren't important to them, they would not have done it. It's that simple. What's canon is that the Potter family were fugitives and hunted by the Dark Lord. They found a way to make the arrangements for this religious ritual anyway. It's much easier to support that it *was* important to them than it wasn't, via canon. You can argue that it wasn't important all you like. But at an impossibly difficult time for them, they found the time to do it. To me, that perforce makes it very important. Again, you're free to believe otherwise. But to say that I am unsupported by canon is just wrong. Your view of course can be supported by canon as well. But mine is just as valid. Again, all sorts of interpretations can be supported by canon. Just look at what people say about Snape. > > Leslie41: > > And the Christening service itself, the baptismal service, is a > > deeply spiritual experience in which all are required to renew > > their baptismal vows. The godfather must be a baptized > > Christian himself as well. > > > > Pardon me for thinking that yes, that's important. You are free > > to think it's entirely meaningless. But it's in there. Harry > > was baptized. Sirius was a Christian and so were his parents, > > or else they would not have been allowed to have their child > > baptized. > > > > If you want to ignore those canonical facts, that's fine. But > > they're there. I didn't pull them out of the air, or anywhere > > else. > > > > a_svirn: > And that exactly what makes me wonder whether Christianity is > really part of wizarding life. Mr and Mrs Black with their marked > predilection for dark magic ? Christians? It boggles the mind. I > would imagine they would be struck by lightening as soon as they'd > cross any church's threshold. Leslie41: Unclear pronoun, my fault. By "his parents" I meant Harry's parents, not Sirius'. But Sirius would have had to be baptized at some point in order for him to be godfather. > > Leslie41: > > Do you doubt that "crux" means "cross"? > > a_svirn: > I don't. It was your neologism *whorecrosses* that sounds like > rubbish to me, not your translation of *crux*. > > > > > > Leslie41: > > > >In the bible whores are associated with idolatry and > > > > faithlessness to god. > > > > > > a_svirn: > > > Or really? And what about that female sinner that anointed ? > > > Christ's feet? And even if the Whore of Babylon can be said to > > > have been faithless to God I still don't see what whores in > > > the Bible an out of it have to do with immortality. > > > > Leslie41: > > Selling one's body for money is thought by most to be > > immoral. "Whoring" also has another connotation, also negative > > (I know of no positive one). We speak of people who have "sold > > their souls" so to speak as "whores". It doesn't always have a > > sexual connotation. > > > a_svirn: > While I allow that *whoring* and *whoredom* in biblical use have > connotation of idolatry and unfaithfulness to the true God, the > interpretation of "selling one's soul" is something you made up. Leslie41: Au contraire, mon frere. Look it up yourself on the internet. Whore: definition. You'll find lots of interesting definitions that I most definitely did not "make up." > a_svirn > And since whores have nothing to do with immortality, and > Voldemort isn't into idolatry I still don't think much of your > interpretation. Leslie41: Whores have nothing to do with immorality...er, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. As for Voldemort and idolatry, I'd have to think on that. From patriciah711 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 12 02:11:01 2006 From: patriciah711 at yahoo.com (Patricia Hurley) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 19:11:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The power the Dark Lord knows not - was Neville Theory In-Reply-To: <1789c2360606111002l607f0a2bl246d0f6026f47937@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060612021101.75196.qmail@web52804.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153698 Peggy Wilkins wrote: >> If your desire to believe that Harry will live is deep down your real reason for wanting Neville to be a Horcrux, let me try to offer you some reassurance about Harry. The prophecy states: "...either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives." Take note that "either MUST die". That means that either Harry will die; or Voldemort will die. (Unless you believe that the prophecy refers to Neville; but Dumbledore has been very clear that the prophecy does apply to Harry, not Neville, and that Harry really is the Chosen One; and I think we would be smart to believe him.) So if Harry doesn't survive, then Voldemort lives. Nevertheless I think the prophecy suggests that if Harry chooses to fight Voldemort, he will win. He has to, because he has "power the Dark Lord knows not". He has the power, he need only use it to the best of his ability. << Patricia: I really had forgotten the bit about the power the dark lord knows not... well not forgotten, but I forgot to connect it to Harry's survival in a real way. JKR cannot reasonably kill Harry and have the power of love fail and stil have this wonderful work about good and evil and love and hate. Interesting. I still think Neville may be the horcrux and may have to be sacrificed as this would not directly conflict with the prophecy. As Peggy said Dumbledore had clearly made it known to Harry that Voldemort marked him, not Neville, it means that Neville's death is in no way protected by the prophecy. From puduhepa98 at aol.com Mon Jun 12 02:36:28 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 22:36:28 EDT Subject: Understanding Snape Message-ID: <40e.35badc7.31be2d2c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153699 >Ali >My argument, as it were, is that it would not be logical for Snape >[or, for that matter, any of Harry's teachers] to think that Harry >would not have found a way to get to the Dept. of Mysteries. Think of >it this way [or at least the way I see things >Eggplant >Voldemort's plan was to trick Harry to go to the ministry, but when >Snape showed up Harry was caught by Umbrage so Snape figured the plan >had failed, it never occurred to him that Harry would manage to escape >and make it all the way to the ministry. With the plan canceled anyway >it couldn't hurt to tell the Order of the Phoenix what Harry said, in >fact he had to if he wanted to remain a spy for Voldemort. Dozens of >people heard Harry talk to Snape about padfoot (and at least 6, >probably more, were not Death Eaters) and sooner or later The Order >would hear about it and wonder why Snape didn't tell them immediately. Nikkalmati: Ok Ali thinks it is obvious to anybody that Harry would get away from Umbridge and manage to get to the MOM within a fairly short period of time, while Eggplant thinks it never occurred to Snape that Harry would escape and get to the MOM! First, we have to assume that by now Snape knows Padfoot refers to Sirius, although I do not believe we are told this in canon. It is also assumed that Snape knows through LV or DD or by figuring it out from Harry's dreams that LV is trying to lure Harry to the MOM. He checks to be sure Sirius is at Grimauld Place, notifies the Order, and then checks the forest in case Harry and friends need rescuing.(Thanks Neri) Snape seems to be going on the assumption that Harry either could have gone to the MOM or he could be in the forest. Any interference in LV's plan would be a serious violation of his loyalty to LV, if any. In fact, if Umbridge is preventing Harry from getting to the MOM and LV's long-laid plans are about to be frustrated by a stupid little toad, I would think Snape would be obliged to get her out of the way and free Harry to get on with his trip. If he is ESE or OFH and he can't hit Umbridge over the head to get her out of the way, there is no reason to inform the Order so they can go to the MOM and arrest the DE's waiting for Harry to arrive. It would perfectly explicable to say to DD he checked with Sirius and he knew Harry was "safe" with Umbridge or at least that he would not be able to leave Hogworts. If Harry and friends managed to get to the MOM, they would be killed or captured and there was no one in that office (least of all dozens of people) who overheard Harry who would know who Padfoot was or who would be inclined to report Snape's failure to the Order anyway. He didn't need to expose himself; he just needed to keep his head down and his mouth shut. He did neither. >Neri ">Must" seems to be too strong a word here, but it certainly appears >so. I quite agree that the ESE!Snape theory has a problem explaining >his actions that night, as much problem as the DDM!Snape theory has in >explaining these same actions, in fact. Which strongly suggests to me >that he's neither. Nikkalmati: ESE!Snape or OFH!Snape both have to explain Snape's actions here in order to maintain their view of the character. I can't for the life of me see why either ESE or OFH Snape would pass up the opportunity to ensure LV's plans were fulfilled. If Harry was seized or killed that is pretty much END GAME right there. I am not sure what DDM!Snape supporters need to explain. I have seen some reference to previous discussions that it took too long for him to inform the Order and that he was trying to time it, so that the Order would get there too late, but he could easily claim he did not get any message from Harry, or he didn't understand it, or say that he had spent the time searching the forest instead. I am not seeing that any delay would be to his advantage and it would be very risky to get the timing right (and in fact he did not time it right). Pretty sloppy work on his part. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puduhepa98 at aol.com Mon Jun 12 02:56:24 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 22:56:24 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Horcrux: was Baptism/Christianity in HP Message-ID: <4ce.efb97b.31be31d8@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153700 > > Leslie41: > > Do you doubt that "crux" means "cross"? > > a_svirn: > I don't. It was your neologism *whorecrosses* that sounds like > rubbish to me, not your translation of *crux*. > Nikkalmati: Connecting words by means of sound is not an accepted etymological technique. Hor- has nothing to do with whore. I also find the image of the cross, as a religious symbol, and the concept of a whore a troubling and inappropriate juxtaposition. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Jun 12 03:07:04 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 03:07:04 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153701 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > Speaking as a Christian I think that we need to be careful about how we expect people of different denominations to interpret something such as baptism. > The suggestion has been made that baptising a child with holy water seems to leave some sort of "imprint" (for want of a better word). > In the UK, the only denominations who are likely to use holy water in the first place are Catholics and high Anglican churches. (Snip) > Baptism merely marks the bringing of a child into the church to ask for God's blessing on that child; that he or she will be guided by those around them and that they might gain real faith as they grow. It does not make a person a Christian. > Tonks: It is true that the child, once of age, has to publically affirm their faith, which is what confirmation is about. However baptism in the Anglican church, which I suspect that JKR may be have in her mind as a model, is more than a dedication of the child. The rubrics (instruction) for Baptism as found in the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer (1976) used in the Episcopal (Anglican) (both high and low) church in the U.S. says: "Holy Baptism is full initiation by water and the Holy Spirit into Christ's body the Church. The bond which God establishes in Baptism is indissoluble." As others here have pointed out a Godparent must be a baptized person themselves. At the baptism of a baby or young child, the parents and Godparent/s take a *vow* which includes denouncing evil and agreeing to help the child grow in the faith. The baptism itself is called a covenant. When the priest prepares the chrism (oil) he/she says: "Eternal Father, whose blessed Son was anointed by the Holy Spirit to be the Savior and servant of all, we pray you to consecrate this oil, that those who are sealed with it may share in the royal priesthood of Jesus Christ " After the water and chrism have been applied (in some cases the child can be total immersed in the water if the parents wish), the priest says "(name) you are sealed by the Holy Spirit of Baptism and *marked* as Christ own forever." I think that Lily and James wanted Harry baptized not only because they would have done it anyway, but because they wanted Harry to be protected. Baptism does not protect the body, it protects the soul. Remember when DD tells Harry, I think somewhere in HBP, that he is special because he has never even been tempted to the dark side? Even with his connection to LV, Harry has never been tempted to the dark side. In canon, of course, there is no evidence, yet at least, that his baptism helped him, but it could have. I think that Lily's sacrifice saved Harry's life, but IMO, it may have been his baptism that has protected his soul. But we don't know yet. ----------------------- Now back to the issue of Christian Symbolism in the books: IMO JKR is telling the Gospel story without any obvious references to Christianity in the story except to have them celebrate Christmas (which they do in a secular way) and Harry's "christening" (which she is careful not to call a Baptism). People here have pointed out the absence of any reference to Christianity in the books even in places you would expect them to be, such as a funeral. I say that sometimes the absence of something entirely, especially in places you would expect it to be, says sometime too. Especially if such absence is conspicuous. What I think JKR is doing and I applaud her for it, it needed to be done, is to take the basic teachings of Jesus and put them into a story where we see it acted out. It is not preached to us like some wacko TV minister, it is not yelled at us from a street corner and it is not filtered through the biases of different denominations. She has taken out all of the roadblocks that cause many people to be turned off by the message. It is presented in its purest form for all to hear. I think that is a good thing. I don't think that you can say that this symbol=x in the story in a straight line sort of way. She doesn't write that way. And I don't think that she means for the average man/woman/child in the street to catch her at what she is doing. She is `crafty' that way. She is, as someone here said, `not talking to the choir'. She is talking primary to children and teaching them (as the teacher she continues to be) basic moral lessons. What some of us are saying is that her lesson plan was taken from the Gospels. And before you say it, I will Yes, it is true that Christianity does not have a monopoly on morality. I am not saying that it does. If she were Buddhist she would probably be taking her ideas from the moral philosophy of Buddhism. As I said I don't think that she wants the average reader to see what she is doing. She only wants them to get the message. But she, for the sake of the choir, has inserted a few clues that there is something more here than just a nice story with some moral value. I guess you could compare her writing to the book of Revelation in the fact that Revelation was written in code. And the code was buried in the story so that anyone else reading it would not see it. (and as to Revelations that IMO also applies to us today, only the early Chrsitians knew what that coding meant, we IMO, do not.) Tonks_op From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jun 12 03:14:13 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 03:14:13 -0000 Subject: Understanding Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153702 > Neri: > "Must" seems to be too strong a word here, but it certainly appears > so. I quite agree that the ESE!Snape theory has a problem explaining > his actions that night, as much problem as the DDM!Snape theory has in > explaining these same actions, in fact. Which strongly suggests to me > that he's neither. > Pippin: In a war of good versus evil there is no room for 'neither'. To seek power for its own sake is to seek evil, as Quirrell proved. It would be helpful if we knew what Snape's orders from Dumbledore actually were. HBP illustrates the difficulty of drawing correct conclusions about them. If we had observed HBP!Harry's actions from 'outside' as it were, and had no information about his one on ones with Dumbledore, we could easily suppose that Dumbledore had asked Harry to keep an eye on Draco. Harry's apparent failure to alert DD to Draco's plans on the night of the Tower would thus raise suspicions of gross negligence or even treachery. Pippin From puduhepa98 at aol.com Mon Jun 12 03:15:02 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 23:15:02 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] A Trelawney Thought Message-ID: <4ce.f03e3f.31be3636@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153703 >KIM >So in my exhaustive search for one tiny little spark of hope that Dumbledore may yet live... I submit that as he was not the first to rise from the table that fateful Christmas dinner, he will not be the first of the group to die. >Um... that means either Ron or Harry will be. Do we really want to sacrifice either of them for Dumbledore? I think I need a headache draught. ------------------------ >Sherrie >I'd spotted this too, when I first read the book. My thought is that, as Ron & Harry rose simultaneously - we're going to lose them both. >I've assumed Ron's death as a given, actually, since the chess game in PS/SS, and Harry's since the beginning of the series. This little vignette indicates that their sacrifices will happen together - if not at the same moment, at least within the same brief time frame. Perhaps Ron, as in the chess game, will be the sacrifice that distracts the opposition just long enough for Harry to "check" Voldemort? Nikkalmati: I have been troubled by the thought for some time now that perhaps everything Trelawney says is intended to come true in one way or another and that we are being led to dismiss her utterances (except for the few that are accompanied by a trance). JKH may be playing a trick on us. Wouldn't that be a surprise! If ST is correct, then one of the boys will die, but not both. I tend to agree that the chess game is a hint that Ron will sacrifice himself for the cause in the end. Hermoine then will have to turn back and Harry will face LV alone, but will not die. Hasn't JKR said that she has already written the death of one of her characters in Book 7? I am "a DD is alive" cult member at this point. His association with Phoenixes and the Phoenix rising from the grave incline me to think in some way or form he is still with us. He may not be able to return to help Harry, but his eventual return is assured. The point to be made is that goodness is never truly defeated, but will always be able to rise again. Although JKH has said "dead is dead", that saying does not apply if DD isn't really dead, does it? Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From leslie41 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 12 03:27:01 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 03:27:01 -0000 Subject: Horcrux: was Baptism/Christianity in HP In-Reply-To: <4ce.efb97b.31be31d8@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153704 > > > Leslie41: > > > Do you doubt that "crux" means "cross"? > > > > a_svirn: > > I don't. It was your neologism *whorecrosses* that sounds like > > rubbish to me, not your translation of *crux*. > > > Nikkalmati: > Connecting words by means of sound is not an accepted > etymological technique. Hor- has nothing to do with whore. Leslie41: Yes it does. It's the etymological origin of the word, found in old and middle English. I was not tracing etymology by sound, especially considering that (at least in English) vowel sounds change so drastically. I was tracing etymology by spelling, which can also be unreliable but at least is a better gauge because it remains constant for longer. > Nikkalmati: > I also find the image of the cross, as a religious symbol, and > the concept of a whore a troubling and inappropriate > juxtaposition. Leslie41: Well it might, if Dumbledore were making horcruxes. But it doesn't surprise me at all that Voldemort might make them. He's perverting the cross. From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 12 04:19:59 2006 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 04:19:59 -0000 Subject: Werewolf Mystery Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153705 Something in HBP has been puzzling me exceedingly for some time now. Maybe it's been discussed; if so, I can't recall. p.473 Scholastic HB: "'Well, their brother was attacked by a werewolf. The rumor is that their mother refused to help the Death Eaters. Anyway, the boy was only five and he died in St. Mungo's, they couldn't save him.' 'He died?' repeated Harry, shocked. 'But surely werewolves don't kill, they just turn you into one of them?' 'They sometimes kill,' said Ron, who looked unusually grave now. 'I've heard of it happening when the werewolf gets carried away.'" In common werewolf folklore, werewolves attack to _kill_, and occasionally, if a victim manages to escape and survive the wounds, this person will then become a werewolf also. At least that's the impression I've always had. Now along comes this explanation. For a simple mistake, it's too long and detailed. It plainly raises some questions, however. If werewolves do NOT as a rule attack to kill (note that Harry is 'shocked' at the idea), then the entire story about Snape owing a life debt to James falls apart. Snape's life 'may' still have been in danger, but if most of Greyback's little victims -- unarmed, untrained, unaware and fragile-- survive, and are in fact _expected_ to survive... then surely a sixteen year old wizard, armed with a wand and an astounding knowledge of spells for his age, who quite possibly knew what he was about to face, shouldn't have much to fear? Should not 'James saved Snape's life' really be 'James saved Snape from becoming a werewolf'? Not a pleasant fate either, but preferable to death, I should think. But that's not how it is presented in PoA, or even in SS/PS. There's only a hint of werewolves not being certain killers in PoA, when Hermione chides Lupin for running around Hogsmeade and the school grounds: "...What if you'd given the others the slip, and bitten somebody?" 'Bitten', not 'killed'. (And Lupin himself mentioned that he was very young when he 'received his bite'. I always thought that a curious way of putting things). Yet in the same chapter mention is once again made of James saving Snape, at the risk of his own life. Strange. On to Fenrir Greyback. According to Lupin, he 'positions' himself near his victims; plans the attack. So far, so good. But -- 'if a werewolf gets carried away'?? Is not the whole point of turning into a werewolf to lose all control and all traces of humanity, and turn into a raging monster? How on earth does he stop himself from killing? Would not a werewolf in full attack mode's instinct be to tear its victim, especially a small child, to bits? Er, to be extremely graphic, feed on it? How does he hang on to enough sanity to tell himself 'enough -- mission accomplished'? Potterverse werewolves, it seems, have to get carried away in order to kill. Harry's reaction and Ron's explanation also seem to leave no doubt that, while Fenrir Greyback is unusual in his savagery and cunning, the bite-but-not-kill approch must be common to all werewolves, not only Greyback. Which bring me to the Wolfsbane Potion. Lupin tells us in PoA that if he takes it in the week leading up to his transformation, he 'keeps his mind' and becomes a harmless wolf. He also tells us that it is very painful to transform, and that he used to attacked himself out of bloodlust, for lack of other victims. Once his friends had become animagi, their presence seems to have had a calming effet on him; perhaps not as thorough as the Potion, but he appears to have kept his mind enough to remember their outings, and remember them as pleasant. Not an emotion one would associate with a werewolf. Then in HBP, we are told that the Potion made him suffer less when he transformed. How are we to understand this? That it is somehow less painful to turn into a tame wolf than a howling mad one? Would not the change of basic physical shape from human to wolf cause the excruciating pain, regardless of the wolf's mental state? Or does Lupin mean the lack of self-mutilation, when he speaks of less suffering? Much confusion! Did JKR change her mind? The somewhat unorthodox werewolf behavior in Potterverse alone would be less of a problem, but it does so raise doubt about the life debt, which in turn might still be of further importance in Book 7... It would also shine a different light on Snape's accusing Sirius of trying to kill him. If Sirius assumed, as Harry and Ron do, that werewolves generally do not kill their victims, not much remains of the neverending argument of the Prank being 'attempted murder'. Ideas? Anyone? Lanval From dradamsapple at yahoo.com Mon Jun 12 04:24:40 2006 From: dradamsapple at yahoo.com (dradamsapple) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 04:24:40 -0000 Subject: Love Potions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153706 Hey all! Forgive me, it's been a long, long time since I visited here, but I sort of want to get some info from some unbiased folk, and I'm hoping that there still are a few of you out there! Anyway, can anyone point me to some good theories, or discussions involving the possibility of Ginny using a Love Potion in HBP? I'm sure I can't be the only one to have thought of this! Much appreciated! :) Anna From pebbles104 at sbcglobal.net Mon Jun 12 04:42:57 2006 From: pebbles104 at sbcglobal.net (Kellie and Lady J) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 00:42:57 -0400 Subject: People in Harry Potter you love to hate References: Message-ID: <003e01c68dda$adf6afd0$6500a8c0@shannonn2zgd3u> No: HPFGUIDX 153707 snip flyingmonkeypurple: >> Just for fun I was thinking about the villains of the story that I dislike and I was trying to figure out witch people I disliked the most. << end snip Kellie now: Let's see, ones that I hate. *smiles* There are a few. LV is understood to be hated, so I am not going to include him on my list. *smiles* Draco, *though, I have to admit that in a way I feel sorry for him.* He is a bully and I can't stand him for that but look at who raised him. But, I have to say I loved it the best when he was the amazing bouncing ferret. *grin* I think he makes a good ferret. Though, the ferrets are insulted by this, I am sure, sorry, ferrets. Lockheart, I can't stand either. He is just darn right annoying. His pompous, know it all, conceited personality. He drives me crazy. Rita Skeeter for sticking her nose everywhere and just getting on my nerves. They Dursleys *sorry, I don't know how to spell their name* for what they put Harry through. They were terrible for that. And, tied for my number one most disliked are Umbridge and Snape. Umbridge, is just hatable from her abusive nature right down to her pink cardigan, toad face and hem hem. Snape, for the way he treats his students, and Harry and he is just not likable. He is a mean, nasty, bitter person. And, he killed Dumbledore. Maybe, he was told to, supposed to, I haven't decided, but even if he is still on the side of good, I hate, hate, hate him for that. I love Dumbledore and that I can't forgive. Kellie From quigonginger at yahoo.com Mon Jun 12 05:35:30 2006 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 05:35:30 -0000 Subject: Dudley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153708 > Corey wrote > << I think you guys are missing some thugs. Dudley and his crew of > friends. Or more accurately, his gang. I mean come on, if ever there > was a gang of thugs, it's Dudley and his gang. I mean, look what they > did to the play park, to other children, and their bodies - they > smoked, remember? >> Rita (Catlady): > I remember being shocked when I first read of their pathetically > inadequate efforts to be juvenile delinquents (much less gangstas!). > These are FIFTEEN-YEAR-OLD boys we're talking about, and they beat up > ten-year-olds and throw rocks at cars instead of shooting people in > drive-bys, vandalize the play park instead of committing armed > robberies of convenience stores, and smoke cigarettes instead of crack > or crystal. Ginger: Thanks for bringing this up, Rita. I thought I was the only one who thought that Dudders and friends were doing a pretty bad job of being Juvies. When I read it, I thought they just screamed "Wannabe!" (Side: For those not familiar with American slang, this means that they "wanna (want to) be" tough, but really aren't there. IOW, they think they're acting all tough, but aren't really.) I'm sure for a Los Angelean, they seem even tamer than to a hick kid like I was. When I was growing up (good kids from the wrong side of the tracks) we smoked and drank and did light drugs, but we wouldn't have done any vandelism. That would have been wrong. That was back when smoking and drinking were pretty much considered normal adult passtimes. We weren't being "bad", just "adult". Or so we thought. Nowadays, of course, we must be PC. Smoking must be portrayed as bad, or the left wing will advance in a wave of fury. Sex and profanity are allowed, even encouraged as normal and free-thinking, but the higher power of your choice, if any, forbid that anyone should smoke. So where does this leave us in determining what JKR meant for Dudley and friends? According to Harry, they are spending the evenings vandalizing tha park, smoking and throwing stones at cars and kids. We later find out that Dudley had beaten up a 10 year old. Vandalizing the park: Definately illegal. Note that it isn't mentioned that they did anything to the neighbours, who might catch them. It seems they stuck to public property. The victims were the general public whose tax monies had to repair the park. As Harry is later sitting on the only swing that Dudley hadn't managed to break, I'd say they weren't very quick about fixing things. Or possibly they had been better about it at the beginning of the summer, but had given up by the midpoint. So, under vandalism, we have a light, petty type in a place where they were unlikely to be interupted, and less likely to get caught. Scatter drills, anyone? (Ah, the memories.) It could be worse, but it is definately wrong. Smoking: The modern scourge of American civilization. Is it so in England? Are there laws forbidding it under a certain age? How common is it amongst kids? Adults? The last stats I saw for the US were that about 1 in 4 or 5 people smoke, and very slightly less for kids. What about social status? In the US it is mostly lower classes/uneducated folks who smoke. Is it this way in England? Where do the Dursleys fall in this? What would be a suburban POV on this matter? Throwing stones: Potentially dangerous. Are they aiming to hit or just scare? It does make a difference, assuming that they have the ability to hit their targets should they choose to. Are they actually causing damage or causing fear? Harry notes that they are "throwing stones at" rather than "hitting with stones". Subtle, but there. Or maybe they are just really bad shots. So what is JKR's intent here? Is she portraying them aa wannabes or as bad kids? Is she figuring that kids will see these things as really bad, but keeping it light enough that they won't get ideas? She could have had them our doing drugs and carrying weapons, but would this have been out of place in British suburbia? The Dursleys struck me as being really rich and high class, what with a 4 bedroom house, a company car and thoughts of buying a vacation home. After reading the opinions of British readers, I now see that they are more wannabes themselves. I have heard that Majorca is a very common place to buy a vacation home, and speaks of them as having lower aspirations than a truly high class person would have. Is the same true with Dudley and his friends? Are they aiming to be baddies with no idea of how to really do it, just as their parents are trying to be posh with no idea of how it should be done? Remember Petunia sticking out her pinkie when she drank coffee? I've heard that isn't really proper, just done by people who are trying to be. But then what do I know about such things? ;) So, do we have any British suburbanites out there who care to comment? Would Dudley and friends be considered bad, kind of bad, trying to be bad, or a lame attempt at being bad? How would the adults in the neighbourhood feel about them? How would the kids feel? How do you think JKR thought readers would see them? Was she writing for kids here, or adults? Or both? I can only imagine that if Dudley and friends went to London and pretended to be bad there, they'd be bug squash. Any thoughts from cultural insiders? Ginger, who thought Dudders and the guys were a bunch of sissies. From pebbles104 at sbcglobal.net Mon Jun 12 04:22:43 2006 From: pebbles104 at sbcglobal.net (Kellie and Lady J) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 00:22:43 -0400 Subject: JKR Listening ? (was Individual issues and JKR ) References: <2dc.846ebeb.31bc4d53@aol.com> Message-ID: <003601c68dd7$dacd23c0$6500a8c0@shannonn2zgd3u> No: HPFGUIDX 153709 snip Neil said: >> Ron/Hermione is a bigger problem. I think many people are simply anti-R/Hr. The two just seem like oil and water to even those of us who saw the anvils. I still keep asking myself why these two people would even want to be a couple. They are both guilty of doing and saying very hurtful things to the other and seem to have nothing, other than Harry, in common. I wish Rowling would explain why they are attracted to each other. << end snip Kellie now: See, from the beginning, I suspected that Ron and Hermione might become a couple, and part of the reason I thought so was because they fight with each other. Sometimes, when two people fight, it is to deny feelings. *smiles* Also, often they say opposites attract. And, in this case, it seems to be true. snip Neil said: >> It would be a copout by JKR, but I think her best solution, in what will already be a packed book, is just to forget relationships entirely. Everybody says that it isn't an important part of the story. If that be the case, then just leave everything as it ended in HBP. Just imagine if she did that. People could argue for the next century about it and HP fanfiction would never die. << end snip Kellie again: Relationships and all, is not the main part of the story, but in a way, it is important in its own way. It may not have anything to do with LV. I think though, you need some side stories going on in order not to have everything happen to fast. I can't explain it like I want to, but I think it adds to the story line. *smiles* JMO. Kellie From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Jun 12 06:10:22 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 06:10:22 -0000 Subject: Understanding Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153710 "horridporrid03" wrote: > Except Snape went into the forest first. > He checked to make sure Sirius was actually > okay, and then he waited for Harry to return. The book tells us: "when you gave Professor Snape that cryptic warning, he realized that you had had a vision of Sirius trapped in the bowels of the Department of Mysteries. He, like you, attempted to contact Sirius at once." That is exactly what a good Snape would do, but it is also exactly what an evil Snape would do who was trying to protect his cover, so the passage tells us nothing about Snape. > So Snape must have realized that he was taking > action *against* Voldemort at that point. I concede Snape knew he was working against Voldemort and I concede that at that point the last thing in the world Snape wanted was for Harry to die, but there is one thing I will NOT concede, Snape is evil, as evil as Voldemort himself. Eggplant From quigonginger at yahoo.com Mon Jun 12 06:13:03 2006 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 06:13:03 -0000 Subject: Werewolf Mystery In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153711 lanval: >> In common werewolf folklore, werewolves attack to _kill_, and > occasionally, if a victim manages to escape and survive > the wounds, this person will then become a werewolf also. At least > that's the impression I've always had. > > Now along comes this explanation. For a simple mistake, it's too long > and detailed. It plainly raises some questions, however. > > If werewolves do NOT as a rule attack to kill (note that Harry > is 'shocked' at the idea), then the entire story about Snape owing a > life debt to James falls apart. Snape's life 'may' still have been in > danger, but if most of Greyback's little victims -- unarmed, > untrained, unaware and fragile-- survive, and are in fact _expected_ > to survive... then surely a sixteen year old wizard, armed with a > wand and an astounding knowledge of spells for his age, who quite > possibly knew what he was about to face, shouldn't have much to fear? Ginger: I snipped a whole lot of a very good post here. This is only a guess, but I'd say there are werewolves, and there are werewolves. Lupin is a good type who really doesn't want to hurt, but is overcome by his illness. GF is the bad kind who hurts because he can. I am guessing that GF goes out and hunts for the kill when it pleases him, so he gets the urges out of his system enough to be able to plan an attack for the purpose of infecting a new victim. Lupin, OTOH, has no desire to hurt and will only do so if he actually loses control, in which case, there is no stopping him. Given his animosity towards Snape when in normal form, he might well lose control when effected by his transformation, in which case, Snape was truly in danger, and his debt to James was an actual life debt. This may be a bad analogy, but I'll try it anyway. I just finished watching a movie with my young Godson. (Madagascar, if anyone is interested.) In the movie, a lion named Alex is best friends with a zebra named Marty. When they are in the zoo and Alex is fed steak every day, they get along great, but when they are sent to the Wild, Alex has to really fight his urge to eat Marty. After several days without eating, Alex, despite his best intentions, almost kills Marty for dinner. Alex exiles himself to the other side of the island, his regret is so great. He sees himself as a monster, even though he is by nature a carnivore. I see Lupin as being like Alex. He knows what he is capable of, but doesn't want to do it. Alex loses control because of depths of his hunger and because of his nature. Lupin in werewolf form would be at that point of loss of control. No matter how good his intentions are, he is still a werewolf. Hence his exile in the SS and his potion in PoA. In the movie there are also the foosa, who are carnivores, who regularly attack the lemurs. They have no moral qualms about this. The lemurs are just dinner. The foosa are not starving, and often play with the lemurs before eating them. The lemur king tells Alex that the foosa often rip their limbs off. I would also compare this to a real life instance of a cat playing with a mouse or bug before it eats it. Now in real life, the cat isn't being sadisitic or evil, it's just its nature. GF, OTOH, has a dual nature. The human side is capable of reason and planning, and the werewolf side is out for a feed. My guess is that he uses his human side to plan the attack, and that part of the plan is that he feeds at will before any attacks he plans for infection so he is not so out of control that he eats the victim. They always say one should never go to the grocery store on an empty stomach. (This would be the supermarket version of shopping, not the daily marketing type.) I've tried it myself, and when one is full, one is not nearly as tempted by the goodies and is more in control of one's purchases. Perhaps GF has read the dieting manual and adapted it to suit his purposes. Like I said, just a guess. Ginger, duly noting that if Lupin is ESE, all points herein are moot. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Jun 12 06:28:09 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 06:28:09 -0000 Subject: Neville Theory. In-Reply-To: <1789c2360606111002l607f0a2bl246d0f6026f47937@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153712 "Peggy Wilkins" wrote: > "either MUST die". That means that > either Harry will die; or Voldemort will die. It is also perfectly consistent with both will die. > Unless you believe that the prophecy refers to Neville Of course the prophecy doesn't refer to Neville, if it did the first book would be titled "Neville Longbottom and the Philosopher's Stone". > the prophecy suggests that if Harry chooses > to fight Voldemort, he will win. I am almost certain Voldemort will fail, but I don't think Harry will win. Eggplant From ellecain at yahoo.com.au Mon Jun 12 06:30:04 2006 From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 06:30:04 -0000 Subject: R/Hr ship (was Re: JKR Listening ? ) In-Reply-To: <003601c68dd7$dacd23c0$6500a8c0@shannonn2zgd3u> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153713 > Neil said: > >> Ron/Hermione is a bigger problem. I think many people are simply > anti-R/Hr. The two just seem like oil and water to even those of us > who saw the anvils. I still keep asking myself why these two people > would even want to be a couple. They are both guilty of doing and > saying very hurtful things to the other and seem to have nothing, > other than Harry, in common. I wish Rowling would explain why they > are attracted to each other. << Elyse: Yeah, I had problems with the R/Hr myself, but my problem wasnt that I was baffled by the attraction, or why they would want to be a couple when they fight so much; it was just the way in which their courtship was portrayed... (do not lynch me for using the word courtship, please ) I mean, in HBP, all that Ron-Lavender necking was supposed to be an attempt by Ron to get back at Hermione for kissing Krum. That struck me as highly immature, and I cant say I approved of Hermione dealing with it the way she did. I felt she was just fanning the fire. And as for going out with Cormac to make Ron jealous, I was simply rolling my eyes and wondering when HP became the sort of teenage soap opera... *This* is supposed to be a courship ritual? They run around each other playing covert manipulative hurtful games? And Rowling wasted page time on this? I simply dont understand it. I'm with Neil here and I want an explanation from JKR as to why R/HR was done in such a melodramatic OC/Dawsons Creek way. They had already confessed feelings for each other, Ron, of course made it pretty obvious during the last two books, and Hermione's admission that she was going to take him to the Christmas party was enough. After they know that the feeling is mutual, why all the hurtful games? This reminds me of Magpie's essay about the books having covert games played by the girls in HP to get the guys they want. Except it seems that Ron was attempting to manipulate Hermione as well.... the link to her esay is here: http://sistermagpie.livejournal.com/100477.html I thought it was an excellent essay. > Neil said: > >> It would be a copout by JKR, but I think her best solution, in > what will already be a packed book, is just to forget relationships > entirely. Everybody says that it isn't an important part of the > story. If that be the case, then just leave everything as it ended > in HBP. Just imagine if she did that. People could argue for the > next century about it and HP fanfiction would never die. << > end snip > > Kellie: > Relationships and all, is not the main part of the story, but in a > way, it is important in its own way. It may not have anything to do > with LV. I think though, you need some side stories going on in order > not to have everything happen to fast. I can't explain it like I > want to, but I think it adds to the story line. *smiles* JMO. > > Elyse: Actually in this case, I think it detracted from the storyline. When I think of how JKR could have shown us some of Snape's lessons or a bit more of Harry grieving over Sirius, I think the book would have been more forceful. Relationships may be interesting in their own way, but I dont see any need to give melodramatic tennage romantic exploits more page time than the nuances of the plot, and characters' issues. Sorry for inflicting this on you. In JKR's words...Rant Over! Elyse From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Mon Jun 12 06:37:43 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 06:37:43 -0000 Subject: Horcrux: was Baptism/Christianity in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153714 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" wrote: > > The basic fact that I keep coming back to is that his parents > thought Harry's baptism extremely important. Rowling herself said > that it was probably a hurried sort of affair, with just the family > involved. Obviously, having their son Christened was extremely > important to them. And the Christening service itself, the > baptismal service, is a deeply spiritual experience in which all are > required to renew their baptismal vows. The godfather must be a > baptized Christian himself as well. Or they wanted to have something 'normal,' something other people did. A little celebration because they had a child. Nothing strange that people who are chiristian quite often want their child to be christian as well. They think it is important. There is no need at all to make it deeply important. When I was in a children's choir I have sung at a number of baptisms and I have been to another few. Nobody was required to renew their baptismal vows. Whether it was deeply spiritual or not depends on the persons there. To me it was not. > > Pardon me for thinking that yes, that's important. You are free to > think it's entirely meaningless. But it's in there. Harry was > baptized. Sirius was a Christian and so were his parents, or else > they would not have been allowed to have their child baptized. So is most of the UK, nominally Christian. They go to church at Christmas, and maybe at Easter. They get married in church, baptise their children and that's it for most of them. > > If you want to ignore those canonical facts, that's fine. But > they're there. I didn't pull them out of the air, or anywhere > else. No, but blow them up totally out of proportion. Nobody denies Lily and James were christian. What we do deny is that Harry being baptised has any meaning in the story and has any link to him character, protection or the AK. hrough love. > > The fact that love is Harry's greatest weapon is absolutely > canonical. Gerry So? > > Leslie41: > Do you doubt that "crux" means "cross"? Look it up. The > curse "crucio" is directly related to the crucifixion. Oh, you can > blather about how "Crucio" is just the Latin word for "I torture", > etc. etc. etc. But who among us, even those who aren't Christians, > are going to state that the word has no relation to the > crucifixion? There are other words Rowling could have chosen that > mean the same thing. Gerry When in doubt, use the dictionary: crux /kruks/ ? noun (pl. cruxes or cruces /krooseez/) (the crux) 1 the decisive or most important point at issue. 2 a particular point of difficulty. ? ORIGIN Latin, `cross'. http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/crux?view=uk Seems far more logical to me than trying to link this to the crucifixion. > Leslie41: > Selling one's body for money is thought by most to be > immoral. "Whoring" also has another connotation, also negative (I > know of no positive one). We speak of people who have "sold their > souls" so to speak as "whores". It doesn't always have a sexual > connotation. > Gerry Hm, so when your biblical reference goes out of the window, suddenly it is important what most of us think. And which was completely opposite what Jezus did in the Bible. I'm sorry, but I don't buy this. > "Crux" means "cross". That's a fact. I think that what Voldemort > (flees from death) is doing is making a perverted, whored cross for > himself. And if you can't see it, I don't know what to say to that, > because it seems perfectly clear to me. It's right there in the > name. > Well, the cross was a Roman execution instrument. Jesus died on it. Voldemort wants to stay alive forever. Completely the opposite. Gerry From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jun 12 06:57:06 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 06:57:06 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153715 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" > wrote: > > > Speaking as a Christian I think that we need to be careful about > how we expect people of different denominations to interpret > something such as baptism. > > The suggestion has been made that baptising a child with holy > water seems to leave some sort of "imprint" (for want of a better > word). > > In the UK, the only denominations who are likely to use holy water > in the first place are Catholics and high Anglican churches. (Snip) > > Baptism merely marks the bringing of a child into the church to > ask for God's blessing on that child; that he or she will be guided > by those around them and that they might gain real faith as they > grow. It does not make a person a Christian. Tonks: > It is true that the child, once of age, has to publically affirm > their faith, which is what confirmation is about. However baptism in > the Anglican church, which I suspect that JKR may be have in her > mind as a model, is more than a dedication of the child. > > The rubrics (instruction) for Baptism as found in the Episcopal Book > of Common Prayer (1976) used in the Episcopal (Anglican) (both high > and low) church in the U.S. says: > > "Holy Baptism is full initiation by water and the Holy Spirit into > Christ's body the Church. The bond which God establishes in Baptism > is indissoluble." Geoff: The BOCP almost seems to suggest that the vows made by the godparents are speaking as the child, which seems to suggest that a person can vicariously become a Christian. In fact, some of the wording implies that the ceremony of receiving the child into the Christian church is indissoluble which seems to contradict the need for the infant to later affirm their faith by Confirmation. One of the most frequently quoted sayings of Christ is "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16 New International Version). The person seeking God has to believe for themselves. Not have someone else believe for them. A believer has to be able to understand what the commitment they are making is about, and make the choice freely for themselves. The choice cannot be made irrevocably for them by someone else. In Wizarding World terms, we are back to Dumbledore's comment at the end of COS. I stand by my comment quoted above that infant baptism per se does not make a person a Christian. From kathrin.p at gmail.com Mon Jun 12 07:15:09 2006 From: kathrin.p at gmail.com (Kathrin P) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 09:15:09 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Salazar Slytherin via Grindelwald to Draco In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4e2ac800606120015l5943ed9dn83259975d551c33@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153716 On 6/8/06, Hagrid wrote: > > I have a MAJOR theory about things stem back through Grindelwald to > Salazar Slythern and how it influences Lord Voldemort and his desire > for Draco as the ONLY one to AK Dumbledore. > > BUT - If we correctly guess major suprises to JKR's story, do you > think she would change what she was going to say just to keep > control of the story - as I have when telling bed time stories. > > Minor examples were the rumours about Mark Evans, the 10 year old in > OOTP and the possibility he was related to Lilly Evans and would get > an Owl Post the next year to attend Hogwarts. > > Or Arabella Figg with all her cats and taking care of Harry every so > often. Rumours went around she was a witch there to protect Harry. > > Did these story lines get watered down to say "NAH! You thought you > guess what I was thinking, but you're wrong." > > Should I or Shouldn't I? .... I will post the theory in 3 days > unless you think it will damage JKR's writing inspiration. Kathrin: Hagrid, please! You can't let us hanging in there! I can't wait to read your theory. Write it down for us, will you? Thanks, Kathrin -- Kathrin ~~~~~ finished: Janet Evanovich - Hot Six (B+) Dave Pelzer - A Child Called It (B) current: Sophie Kinsella - The Undomestic Goddess Anne Rice - The Witching Hour Nancy Atherton - Aunt Dimity's Death next: one of the many unread books I own [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Mon Jun 12 07:04:07 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 07:04:07 -0000 Subject: Understanding Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153717 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Neri" wrote: > Neri: > "Must" seems to be too strong a word here, but it certainly appears > so. I quite agree that the ESE!Snape theory has a problem explaining > his actions that night, as much problem as the DDM!Snape theory has in > explaining these same actions, in fact. Which strongly suggests to me > that he's neither. > > Neri > DDM!Snape does not have a problem at all. Snape waits a certain amount of time, gets worried and alerts the Order. Searching the forest is of course not a viable option because a truly extensive search of the forest will take days. Anything coul have happened to Harry in the forest. He could have been taken by centaurs, eaten by spiders, and a lot more. Snape as a teacher and long time resident of Hogwarts almost certainly knows a lot more of the dangers of the forest than the children. They went in with a teacher, there is a reasanble amount of time in which he can expect them back. Yet they did not come. Gerry From lanzscot at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jun 12 06:52:00 2006 From: lanzscot at yahoo.co.uk (Lana McMillan) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 06:52:00 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Neville Theory. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060612065200.44315.qmail@web25705.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153718 Has anyone actually thought that Neville might play a part in the final battle? After all, it was Voldemort who chose Harry as his equal and not the other way around. Neville might end up having to play a part in the downfall of Voldemort. The prophecy could have and could still be meant about Voldemort and Neville; after all, it's the choices we make in our lives that change our destiny. Lana From kathrin.p at gmail.com Mon Jun 12 07:35:31 2006 From: kathrin.p at gmail.com (Kathrin P) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 09:35:31 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry Special Powers? was Re: Baptism/Christianity in HP: In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4e2ac800606120035y73d8b1fbk329aa9c39790750f@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153719 Leslie41: Well, Harry is also a parselmouth. Something extremely rare in the wizarding world. And he seems to have an exceptional facility with certain powerful spells at an early age (the patronus charm). When you add to that that he's now got a blood tie with LV, and has in the past been psychically connected to him, I would say that yes that makes him "special" and not an ordinary boy. Kathrin: I don't have my (English) books with me, but (IIRC) right in CoS it is stated, that Harry is a parselmouth *because* of Voldemort trying to kill him without success. So that is part of Harry's tie to Voldemort, isn't it? Please correct me in case I am wrong! Kathrin from Germany (witing for Tuesday afternoon to get her French HP1 on CD :-) ) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From coverton at netscape.com Mon Jun 12 06:28:15 2006 From: coverton at netscape.com (corey_over) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 06:28:15 -0000 Subject: Dudley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153720 > Rita (Catlady): > > I remember being shocked when I first read of their pathetically > > inadequate efforts to be juvenile delinquents (much less > > gangstas!). > Ginger: > Thanks for bringing this up, Rita. I thought I was the only one > who thought that Dudders and friends were doing a pretty bad job > of being Juvies. > > So what is JKR's intent here? Is she portraying them aa wannabes > or as bad kids? Corey here. I think Dudley and his gang are just a bunch of teenagers who don't have any role models and their parents don't pay much attention to them. As for them being real bad kids, no, they're not like as bad as say real gangs like the Bloods or crips. Thank god. Remember this is about Harry, let's not for get. I think Rowling just throws Dudley and his crew to give Harry something to talk about. Your fellow member, Corey From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Jun 12 09:55:48 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 09:55:48 -0000 Subject: Horcrux: was Baptism/Christianity in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153721 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" wrote: > > > > Leslie41: I would assume that you are a) not a Christian, or b) a > > > Christian with an ego the size of Montana. > > > > a_svirn: > > You mean I have a choice? That's magnanimous of you. > > Leslie41: > Thanks! And which one of those choices would you pick? a_svirn: Weell?c A Christian with an ego the size of Montana? I guess, ?enot a Christian?f would be a lesser evil. Not swell of course, but one has to make the best of one?fs choices. > Leslie41: > I said if *you* like allegories, read Spenser. Anyone who likes > allegory should read Spenser. > > For those of us who are not fond of allegory, Spenser makes us > barf. It takes all kinds. a_svirn: Yet you still haven?ft explained the significance of names in the HP books. Why don?ft you? At this point I would agree even for some noted authority to guide me. Since you clearly un-er-willing to do so. > > a_svirn: > > Let me see?? Lily's sacrifice and Harry's baptism are kind of > > complimentary? Part of the same spiritual experience? Wow! Now I > > know why all the others failed to repel AKs! You'd need someone to > > sacrifice their life for baptism to work as spiritual protection. > > Alternatively sacrifice without baptism wouldn't work at all, > > since they come in one package. According to your logic if > > Voldemort had managed to track the Potters down before Harry had > > been baptised all Lilly's love as well as her sacrifice would have > > been in vain. > > Leslie41: > > Well, Harry *didn't* track down the Potters before Harry was > baptized, did he? And I don't know where you are getting the idea > that Lily's love would have been "in vain" had Harry not been > baptized. My logic does not lead there at all. a_svirn: Yes it does. Since you say that it is ?gpart and parcel of the same experience?h, Lilly?fs sacrifice wouldn?ft have worked without baptism. > Leslie41: > Hrm. Let's see if I can make myself clearer by using another work > as a parallel. a_svirn: You know, the accepted procedure in any discussion is that you first formulate an argument and then provide an example to illustrate it. Since you skipped the former and moved straight to the latter, I don?ft know what to make of your illustration. > > > Leslie41: Evil in the end harms itself. > > > a_svirn: > > Then why fight it at all? Let it harm itself. > > Leslie41: > Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, I think. a_svirn: Bravo. A very adroit way to avoid an uncomfortable question. > > > > Leslie41: > > > The basic fact that I keep coming back to is that his parents > > > thought Harry's baptism extremely important. > > > > a_svirn: > > We don't know it. There is no canon to support this statement. > > Leslie41: > The baptism must have been awfully important to them. If it weren't > important to them, they would not have done it. It's that simple. a_svirn: It is not. Millions of people go through all the motions without thinking them really significant. > > > Leslie41: > > > Selling one's body for money is thought by most to be > > > immoral. "Whoring" also has another connotation, also negative > > > (I know of no positive one). We speak of people who have "sold > > > their souls" so to speak as "whores". It doesn't always have a > > > sexual connotation. > > > > > a_svirn: > > While I allow that *whoring* and *whoredom* in biblical use have > > connotation of idolatry and unfaithfulness to the true God, the > > interpretation of "selling one's soul" is something you made up. > > Leslie41: > Au contraire, mon frere. Look it up yourself on the internet. > Whore: definition. You'll find lots of interesting definitions that > I most definitely did not "make up." a_svirn: Why don?ft you save me the trouble? Give me a link to any on-line dictionary with a meaning for *whore* as ?esomeone who?fs sold his or her soul?f. Because right now your exercises in etymology and semantics remind me those of Mistress Quickly from the ?gMerry Wives of Windsor?h: EVANS. What is your genitive case plural, William? WILLIAM. Genitive case? EVANS. Ay. WILLIAM. Genitive: horum, harum, horum. QUICKLY. Vengeance of Jenny's case; fie on her! Never name her, child, if she be a whore. > Leslie41: > As for Voldemort and idolatry, I'd have to > think on that. a_svirn: You do that. From kathrin.p at gmail.com Mon Jun 12 09:58:46 2006 From: kathrin.p at gmail.com (Kathrin P) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 11:58:46 +0200 Subject: New Headmaster/Headmistress at Hogwarts in Book 7? new heads of the houses? Message-ID: <4e2ac800606120258m7d915486j10194e6da6062905@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153722 I checked all the messages ever since HBP was released and didn't find a discussion about the Headmaster/Headmistress in Book 7. McGonagall is Headmistress in HBP after DD died (:-( ), but is she the new Headmistress in general or only an interim headmistress? Despite the fact that she was Deputy Headmistressback when DD was Headmaster, that doesn't mean she is the new Headmistress right away. Maybe she just does the job until the MoM finds a new (more suitable - for them?) person for this job? Just a thought... After all, she is the the head of Gryffindor. Who will take over in her place? Madame Trelawney? Gosh, I hope not! She seems more like a Ravenclaw to me... Maybe Madame Hooch? She might fit in, though I am not sure about that yet. I'd rather not mention Professor Binns - he's a ghost, after all, isn't he? And I doubt he and Headless Nick would get along. And now that Snape is no longer at Hogwarts, there also has to be a new head of Slytherin, right? I just can't find anyone suitable for Slytherin, as I have the feeling the head of house has to be someone who fits in with the characteristics of each house... Any ideas? Well, maybe Professor Sinistra, after all, her name sounds a lot like the word sinister... But back to the position of Headmaster/Headmistress... I really wonder if McGonagall is the Headmistress for the next years/decades. But if not, who will take that place? Could DUMBridge come back? She is alive, after all... I so hope not :-) This woman is despicable and will never change. What about Fudge? He was Minister, but now that he has been replaced, he would be free, wouldn't he? Naw, Headmaster has to be someone with a strong will and knowledge - and Fudge doesn't seem right for the position then, huh? Maybe the Longbottom's are "cured" and back up again? Then one of them could take over the position? It would be a little like to right a wrong. Did I miss someone? Kathrin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kelley_thompson at sbcglobal.net Mon Jun 12 06:13:01 2006 From: kelley_thompson at sbcglobal.net (Kelley) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 06:13:01 -0000 Subject: Repetitive discussion: some elfly comments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153723 Leslie: >> The reason this group exists is because for us issues related to the books never get old, or settled conclusively. << Well, I'd be surprised if that's what Barbara had in mind way back when she created the club. In her own words, "Welcome--I hope that members of this club will be able to enjoy a lively discussion of the Rowlings books with other adults." And here we are. :-) However, it's certainly true that many issues have yet to be settled conclusively, and some probably never will be. > Leslie: >> I would venture that if we were going to stop talking about what we've talked about before, the board would cease to exist until the seventh book came out. << Certainly no one is suggesting we not discuss topics that have been discussed before. As Geoff has explained in his reply, his post wasn't an attempt to stifle discussion, but rather he'd recalled a thread that those following the current discussion might find of interest. As another member who makes posts like Geoff made here, I would urge others to view them in the spirit in which they're intended: to be helpful. We're well aware that searching the archives is a daunting task, so if we're able to help others out, we do so. As a courtesy, it's worth giving each other the benefit of the doubt and not automatically come to the conclusion that someone is trying to discourage discussion. --Kelley From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jun 12 13:01:18 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:01:18 -0000 Subject: Werewolf Mystery In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153724 Lanval: > In common werewolf folklore, werewolves attack to _kill_, and > occasionally, if a victim manages to escape and survive > the wounds, this person will then become a werewolf also. At least > that's the impression I've always had. > > Now along comes this explanation. For a simple mistake, it's too long > and detailed. It plainly raises some questions, however. > > If werewolves do NOT as a rule attack to kill (note that Harry > is 'shocked' at the idea), then the entire story about Snape owing a > life debt to James falls apart. Snape's life 'may' still have been in > danger, but if most of Greyback's little victims -- unarmed, > untrained, unaware and fragile-- survive, and are in fact _expected_ > to survive... then surely a sixteen year old wizard, armed with a > wand and an astounding knowledge of spells for his age, who quite > possibly knew what he was about to face, shouldn't have much to fear? Pippin: I think the werewolves are under no magical compulsion to eat people, but will eat people or anything else if they happen to be hungry. In PoA, Hagrid worries that Lupin might have attacked Buckbeak, "but Lupin says he never ate anythin' last night." (ch 22) Lupin says in HBP that his people steal, and sometimes kill, to eat. I thought he was talking about victims accidentally killed in the course of a robbery, but it's also possible that starving werewolves "get carried away" not by magic but by hunger. Since Snape believes that Lupin was in on the "joke" and its purpose was to kill him, he could assume that Lupin made sure to be hungry that night. There is another alternative. We don't know how soon the first bite takes effect. It doesn't sound as though a bitten person transforms immediately. Perhaps wizards consider the honorable thing to do if bitten by a werewolf is to fight it to the death. Dumbledore is certainly very clear that Snape was in peril of his life. Lupin suffers when transformed from the urge to bite and scratch himself if he is deprived of humans. The potion alleviates this and allows him to keep his human mind. Of course we should not forget that human minds are capable of evil to a far greater extent than any wolf :) Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jun 12 13:16:35 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:16:35 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153725 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > I stand by my comment quoted above that infant baptism per se does not > make a person a Christian. > Pippin: Not being Christian, I haven't got a dog in this fight. But if Lily's sacrifice is applicable to the sacrifice of Jesus, then could the point not be that the mystical protection of her blood works against evil even when it is transmitted through so imperfect a vessel as Petunia? Pippin From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Mon Jun 12 07:57:57 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 07:57:57 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153726 In canon, of course, there is no evidence, yet at > least, that his baptism helped him, but it could have. I think that > Lily's sacrifice saved Harry's life, but IMO, it may have been his > baptism that has protected his soul. But we don't know yet. Gerry Why would baptism have protected his soul? What about the souls of all those other wizards and witches who did succomb to evil? Lets face it: Tom Riddle was quite probably baptised as well. > ----------------------- > What I think JKR is doing and I applaud her for it, it needed to be > done, is to take the basic teachings of Jesus and put them into a > story where we see it acted out. It is not preached to us like some > wacko TV minister, it is not yelled at us from a street corner and > it is not filtered through the biases of different denominations. > She has taken out all of the roadblocks that cause many people to be > turned off by the message. It is presented in its purest form for > all to hear. I think that is a good thing. Gerry ??? I'm sorry, but I don't like Harry sacrificing himself for the WW. Now unless you see the bible as a coming of age story or a hero's journey this makes no sense to me whatsoever. > > I don't think that you can say that this symbol=x in the story in a > straight line sort of way. She doesn't write that way. And I don't > think that she means for the average man/woman/child in the street > to catch her at what she is doing. She is `crafty' that way. > She is, as someone here said, `not talking to the choir'. She is > talking primary to children and teaching them (as the teacher she > continues to be) basic moral lessons. What some of us are saying is > that her lesson plan was taken from the Gospels. And before you say > it, I will Yes, it is true that Christianity does not have a > monopoly on morality. I am not saying that it does. If she were > Buddhist she would probably be taking her ideas from the moral > philosophy of Buddhism. Gerry And the difference for the story would be? I'm sorry, but there is nothing inherently Christian about the moral values she is describing. Sure, she will probably have gotten them from Christianity, but that does not make the values in themselves belonging there. The interesting thing is that she has taken universal values, to which people of all faiths can relate. > > As I said I don't think that she wants the average reader to see > what she is doing. She only wants them to get the message. But she, > for the sake of the choir, has inserted a few clues that there is > something more here than just a nice story with some moral value. Hm, and the alchemical, pagan and mythological clues are there for? And if she truly wants to have that kind of a story, why should it be hidden? To secretly convert children to Christianity? Gerry From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Mon Jun 12 13:57:08 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:57:08 -0000 Subject: Transferable Human Horcruxes was: SSlyth via DWG to DM In-Reply-To: <1789c2360606110944k22bdf516k6d8453f3c599278a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153727 --- "Peggy Wilkins" wrote: (snip) > Peggy W: (cut and pasted from the end) > I'm actually a little unclear on what you're proposing, though; > isn't your propsal that it is Slytherin's soul that is being > passed through Grindelwald to Voldemort, and will be passed on to > someone else from Voldemort? ... In any case, interesting theory > about Slytherin, but not one I'm inclined to believe (sorry). > AUSSIE reply to Peggy: YES! My main suggestion is SALAZAR SLYTHERIN made a Horcrux with a piece of his torn soul over 1000 years ago and it is still around today. I further propose that it has helped guide Dark Wizards through the ages. This is done be passing Slytherin's torn piece of soul from Dark Wizard to Dark Wizard - transferable human Horcruxes. For a person's soul to have room to accept another's piece of a soul comfortably, it should not be whole. So I see LV direction for young Draco to tear his soul through AK-ing DD as more significant. It was to create the next generation of Salazar Slytherin's host for his Horcrux. LV wanted to pass SS's Horcrux into Draco once his soul is torn. Draco would have been about the same age Tom Riddle was when Grindelwald passed Slytherin's Horcrux onto Tom. > Peggy W: > So you are positing that Slytherin could have more than one Horcrux? > This is contradicted, though, by Dumbledore's statement in HBP: > > HBP p. 500: > "...As far as I know -- as far, I am sure, as Voldemort knew -- no > wizard had ever done more than tear his soul in two." (snip) > > Also don't forget that when we see Diary Tom controlling the > Basilisk in COS, that was a regeneration of Tom from his Horcrux; > if Tom were a Horcrux for Slytherin, for your proposal to be true > he would have also had to transfer a bit of Slytherin into his own > Diary Horcrux. Isn't that stretching things a bit too thin? AUSSIE reply to Peggy: If the Basalisk were a second Horcrux of Slytherin's is not as important. DD's "As far as I know..." statement may be true or a decoy. Nonetheless, even discounting the Basalisk as a Horcrux, it would not stop Slytherin having an active Horcrux around today. I doubt a wizard that makes a Horcrux while carrying a Horcrux within him splits the other person's soul any further. The Diary need not hold any part of Slytherin's soul. > > aussie's excerpted chat: > [snip] > > aussie_lol: Grindelwald was about the time that Tom changed to LV ... > > horridporrid03: Yes, exactly. I think it's a sort of eternal battle > > aussie_lol: .... and the choc card said DD DEFEATED Grindy .... not KILLED him > > aussie_lol: ... what if LV is a Horcrux for Grindelwald ... > > Peggy W: > Then Grindelwald wouldn't be dead, but JKR has said that he is indeed dead: > > >>>http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705- tlc_mugglenet-anelli-3.htm > [Begin quote] > > ES: Our other "Ask Jo" question ... It's the one about > Grindelwald, ... is he dead? > > JKR: Yeah, he is. > > [End quote] > > It is clear that Grindelwald can't have a Horcrux if he is dead. AUSSIE reply to Peggy: My mistake. You are right with Grindelwald. JKR is the best authority on him being dead, so no Horcrux exists of Grindelwald. I meant to say, "What if LV INHERITED a Horcrux from Grindelwald?" - not Grindelwald's, but a Horcrux Grindelwald carried and that guided him. Salazar Slytherin's Horcrux. From leslie41 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 12 14:28:03 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 14:28:03 -0000 Subject: Horcrux: was Baptism/Christianity in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153728 > > Leslie41: > > The basic fact that I keep coming back to is that his parents > > thought Harry's baptism extremely important. Rowling herself > > said that it was probably a hurried sort of affair, with just > > the family involved. Obviously, having their son Christened was > > extremely important to them. And the Christening service > > itself, the baptismal service, is a deeply spiritual experience > > in which all are required to renew their baptismal vows. The > > godfather must be a baptized Christian himself as well. > Gerry: > Or they wanted to have something 'normal,' something other people > did. A little celebration because they had a child. Nothing > strange that people who are chiristian quite often want their > child to be christian as well. They think it is important. There > is no need at all to make it deeply important. Leslie41: That's one way to look at it. Personally, I think that considering the circumstances, it's more important than you think it is. there. To me it was not. > > Leslie41: > > If you want to ignore those canonical facts, that's fine. But > > they're there. I didn't pull them out of the air, or anywhere > > else. > Gerry: > No, but blow them up totally out of proportion. Nobody denies Lily > and James were christian. What we do deny is that Harry being > baptised has any meaning in the story and has any link to him > character, protection or the AK. through love. > > Leslie41: Again, your milage may vary. I certainly think your interpretation holds water as well. > > > Leslie41: > > Do you doubt that "crux" means "cross"? Look it up. The > > curse "crucio" is directly related to the crucifixion. Oh, you > > can blather about how "Crucio" is just the Latin word for "I > > torture", etc. etc. etc. But who among us, even those who > > aren't Christians, are going to state that the word has no > > relation to the crucifixion? There are other words Rowling > > could have chosen that mean the same thing. > > Gerry > When in doubt, use the dictionary: > > crux > > /kruks/ > > ? noun (pl. cruxes or cruces /krooseez/) (the crux) 1 the > decisive > or most important point at issue. 2 a particular point of > difficulty. > > ? ORIGIN Latin, `cross'. > > http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/crux?view=uk > > Seems far more logical to me than trying to link this to the > crucifixion. Leslie41: And I don't think it's either/or. I think the word carries both meanings and it's far more interesting when we consider both. > > Leslie41: > > Selling one's body for money is thought by most to be > > immoral. "Whoring" also has another connotation, also negative > > I know of no positive one). We speak of people who have "sold > > their souls" so to speak as "whores". It doesn't always have a > > sexual connotation. > > > Gerry > Hm, so when your biblical reference goes out of the window, > suddenly it is important what most of us think. And which was > completely opposite what Jezus did in the Bible. I'm sorry, but I > don't buy this. Leslie41: I don't see how my biblical reference went "out the window." I was adding another dimension to the interpretation of the word. And you don't have to "buy" anything. > Gerry: > Well, the cross was a Roman execution instrument. Jesus died on it. > Voldemort wants to stay alive forever. Completely the opposite. Leslie41: That's fine from a non-Christian perspective, of course. But from a Christian perspective, Jesus didn't "die," at least not permanently. The cross was the instrument upon which both he and the entire world gained eternal life. I think there's a real parallel there between what Voldemort is trying to do. From iam.kemper at gmail.com Mon Jun 12 17:22:25 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 10:22:25 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The power the Dark Lord knows not - was Neville Theory In-Reply-To: <20060612021101.75196.qmail@web52804.mail.yahoo.com> References: <1789c2360606111002l607f0a2bl246d0f6026f47937@mail.gmail.com> <20060612021101.75196.qmail@web52804.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <700201d40606121022g74333cadv6b9978be179a35de@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153729 > > Patricia wrote: > I really had forgotten the bit about the power the dark lord knows > not... well not forgotten, but I forgot to connect it to Harry's > survival in a real way. JKR cannot reasonably kill Harry and have > the power of love fail and stil have this wonderful work about good > and evil and love and hate. ...snip the rest... > Kemper now: I agree with the story being about good and evil, but the story isn't about love and hate; it's about love and fear. But I don't understand what you are saying with regards to Harry's possible death. Are you saying that JKR wouldn't write Harry's death while allowing a victorious Voldemort because Love loses? I would agree with you on this. Or are you saying that JKR wouldn't write Harry's death, vanquished Dark Lord or not, because to you that means Love loses? I would disagree on this. Love doesn't fear Death. In our western mythos there's this one guy who is alleged to have died so that others could live... though it was for an eternal life rather than an ephemeral, earthly one. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From leslie41 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 12 17:19:02 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 17:19:02 -0000 Subject: Horcrux: was Baptism/Christianity in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153730 > > Leslie41: > > I said if *you* like allegories, read Spenser. Anyone who likes > > allegory should read Spenser. > > > > For those of us who are not fond of allegory, Spenser makes us > > barf. It takes all kinds. > > a_svirn: > Yet you still haven?ft explained the significance of names in the > HP books. Why don?ft you? At this point I would agree even for some > noted authority to guide me. Since you clearly un-er-willing to do > so. Leslie41: It's a huge topic--as for a "noted authority," try... http://www.mugglenet.com/books/name_origins.shtml Mugglenet's done a better job than I could do with most of the names. > > Leslie41: > > > > Well, Harry *didn't* track down the Potters before Harry was > > baptized, did he? And I don't know where you are getting the idea > > that Lily's love would have been "in vain" had Harry not been > > baptized. My logic does not lead there at all. > > a_svirn: > Yes it does. Since you say that it is ?gpart and parcel of the same > experience?h, Lilly?fs sacrifice wouldn?ft have worked without > baptism. Leslie41: I don't see how that logically follows, any more than it logically follows that without a white dress and a priest one cannot be married. Yet, in many cases, a white dress and a priest are "part and parcel of the same experience." > > Leslie41: > > Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, I think. > > a_svirn: > Bravo. A very adroit way to avoid an uncomfortable question. > Leslie41: When you asked "why fight at all if evil harms itself?" it seemed to me like you were being glib. I think one fights evil because (as Galdalf says) "oft evil will will evil mar", evil does not always harm itself to the point of its own destruction. Also, because the fight itself against evil is ennobling and beneficial to the individual who fights. For example: the Nazis did plenty of things in WWII they shouldn't have done, that "harmed" themselves. Trying to wage a war on many fronts was a monumentally bad idea. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't have fought them. Evil harms itself, but it often doesn't destroy itself, at least without help. I hope that better explains things. > > > > Leslie41: > > > > The basic fact that I keep coming back to is that his parents > > > > thought Harry's baptism extremely important. > > > > > > a_svirn: > > > We don't know it. There is no canon to support this statement. > > > > Leslie41: > > The baptism must have been awfully important to them. If it > > weren't important to them, they would not have done it. It's > > that simple. > > > a_svirn: > It is not. Millions of people go through all the motions without > thinking them really significant. Leslie41: True. But then if they're not significant, why go through them at all? To forge a tie to Sirius? Yes, of course. But why not just make Sirius Harry's guardian, all nice and legal? Hey, you don't have to think it's important. I think it's very important, because it's there in canon and Rowling could have chosen another way to make Sirius important to Harry, but *didn't*. > > > > Leslie41: > > > > Selling one's body for money is thought by most to be > > > > immoral. "Whoring" also has another connotation, also > > > > negative (I know of no positive one). We speak of people who > > > > have "sold their souls" so to speak as "whores". It doesn't > > > > always have a sexual connotation. > > > > > > > a_svirn: > > > While I allow that *whoring* and *whoredom* in biblical use > > > have connotation of idolatry and unfaithfulness to the true > > > God, the interpretation of "selling one's soul" is something > > > you made up. > > > > Leslie41: > > Au contraire, mon frere. Look it up yourself on the internet. > > Whore: definition. You'll find lots of interesting definitions > > that I most definitely did not "make up." > > a_svirn: > Why don?ft you save me the trouble? Give me a link to any on-line > dictionary with a meaning for *whore* as ?esomeone who?fs sold his > or her soul?f. Leslie41: Yes, sir! http://www.thefreedictionary.com/whore "to compromise one's principles for personal gain". http://m-w.com/dictionary/whore "a venal or unscrupulous person". http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary "to pursue a faithless, unworthy, or idolatrous desire". I think the key definition is the first one, though the others are relevant as well. If what you're asking for is a specific definition that it means "to sell one's soul," you won't find that. Because the idea of selling one's soul is a metaphor--for "compromising principles for personal gain." From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 12 13:54:18 2006 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:54:18 -0000 Subject: New Headmaster/Headmistress at Hogwarts in Book 7? new heads of the houses? In-Reply-To: <4e2ac800606120258m7d915486j10194e6da6062905@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153732 Kathrin P wrote: > McGonagall is Headmistress in HBP after DD died (:-( ), but is she > the new Headmistress in general or only an interim headmistress? > Despite the fact that she was Deputy Headmistressback when DD was > Headmaster, that doesn't mean she is the new Headmistress right > away. Maybe she just does the job until the MoM finds a new (more > suitable - for them?) person for this job? "Katie": Well, I have a couple thoughts on this. First of all, I think the MoM will be less involved in Hogwarts after what happened in the last two books. DD has been proven right time and again, and now that he's gone, I think Scrimgeour will have a hard time interfering at Hogwarts. As DD once said, he'll never have left Hogwarts as long as there are people that remain loyal to him are there. So, with that said, I think McGonagall is a logical choice to remain headmistress. I think maybe Lupin could make a return as head of Gryffindor, or maybe Hagrid... As for head of Slytherin...maybe Slughorn will resume his old position. However, I don't really think we'll see too much of Hogwarts in Book 7. Since the trio won't be there, and DD isn't there, I can see an occasional chapter on the happenings at Hogwarts that will tie in with the search for the Horcruxes, but I really wonder whether Hogwarts will even be open? After everything that's happened, would parents really be comfortable sending their children there? I mean, they were ready to close Hogwarts in CoS, and in HBP, the headmaster was murdered by a teacher on school grounds! I have a feeling Hogwarts will be shut down for the majority of Book 7. From inky_quill at hotmail.com Mon Jun 12 18:30:29 2006 From: inky_quill at hotmail.com (Julie) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 18:30:29 -0000 Subject: Understanding Snape--Pensieve scene In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153733 I've been away for a while so please forgive if this had already been discussed, but I had a thought while reading justcarol's, Kneasy's and Naama's thoughts about "Snape's Worst Memory" in the pensieve. To recap: > > > Kneasy: > > > Snape hated James...The scene we see in the pensieve *is* his worst memory, at least of the humiliated-in-school genre... > Naama: ...My opinion is that the pensieve is subjective, i.e., if you enter a memory, you can only sense what the subject of the memory sensed... > Carol:> Harry has to hurry away from Severus to hear what MWPP are saying... If he'd been listening [Snape]would have known that Remus was a werewolf, a fact he didn't learn until the Prank the next year. If the memory were subjective, Harry would be limited to Snape's POV...As it is, he can move about inside the memory, just as if he were present (but invisible). He is not inside Snape's mind and does not know his thoughts or sense his feelings. He observes Severus and MWPP from the outside, or rather from his own perspective, just as he observes the trials from his own perspective rather than Dumbledore's in the earlier Pensieve scenes.... Inky: I was thinking of JKR's device of presenting information, only to reveal how its been misinterpreted later on--Harry does this frequently and he's not the only character to do so. What if Harry has done it again with the pensieve? We talk a lot about Snape's worst memory--but from who's point of view? The scene dubbed "Snape's Worst Memory" is a horrible one--for any teenager(or anyone else for that matter). Being overcome by one's arch rivals/enemies, treated like a small naughty child (washing mouth with soap), rescued --sort of-- by a girl(regardles of SS/LE theories--Lily's still a girl,from a rival house, and if Snape did like her--even if he doesn't admit it to himself--it would make her interferance even worse), being stripped(either threat or fact). And "students all around had turned to watch" (pg. 646). A deeply humiliating experience for any 15-year old boy much less one seemingly so socially inept as Severus Snape (who isn't able to defend himself against the pack). Another humiliation: to James, Snape isn't important, not even as a lower life form to torment-- ("...said James quickly...Go out with me, and I'll never lay a wand on old Snivelly again.") The "war" against Snape wasn't of importance for James, its more of a casual recreation. Until the pensieve scene Harry has idolized his parents, especially his father. Since coming to Hogwarts, Harry has been learning about both, but especially his wizard father(I've always thought it odd we know so little about Lily when its her sacrifice that thwarted Voldemort, its been all James, James, James until HBP). James is not the freak the Dursleys claimed but someone who was brave and talented--a powerful wizard, athletic hero & expert flier, head boy, and very brave--he saved someone he didn't even like from death/werewolfism, and stood up against Voldemort, eventually giving his life to protect his wife and baby son. James is a great guy and Everyone tells Harry how much like his father he is. This is a source of self-validation and pride for Harry, compared to the negative information grudingly give by the Dursleys. Harry does not like Professor Snape--with some justification might I add. (At the same time, Harry gives Snape plenty of reasons to dislike him back) He is not upset to see 15 year-old Severus as round shouldered, twitchy, stringy, pallid, lank and greasy--its pretty much as he might have expected. What upsets Harry is the sudden discover that James, at the same age as Harry, was a popular kid--something I think Harry had always yearned to be (just not as the boy-who-lived and must face Voldemort again, and again...), and James seems as bad a bully as Harry's cousin Dudley, that James had a gang just like Dudley, and delighted in tormenting a poorly dressed, scrawny, unpopular kid (like Harry was before Hogwarts)...well to say Harry was shocked it putting it mildly. Then before he can process what he has seen, he's busted and feeling guilty because regardless of his justification that he needs the info Snape's "hiding" Harry he knows he was wrong to snoop. He's jerked out of the pensive to face an infuriated adult Professor Snape. (I know there are those who don't see any justification for Snape's fury and ejection of Harry/end of Occlumency lesson, but Harry was seriously out of line. And while we know that DD told Harry he had hoped Snape would "overcome" his past feelings, we don't know what Dumbledore said about it to Snape. But DD allowed that incident to continue as the last lesson.) Here's the point (finally). We know that Snape seemed to know that Harry had accessed a "James" memory--(Amusing man, your father, wasn't he? said Snape). We know that Harry saw Snape put three "memories" into the pensieve before the start of the interrupted and final lesson. But what is there in canon as proof that the memory Harry saw was **Snape's** memory--one of the three? Or that all three were of James' misdeeds? Surely there are other things that Snape would not want Harry to see. (although, if Snape is as some have suggested solely motivated by cruelty and self- interest, wouldn't it be perfect to only store hurtful memories of James for Harry to tapp into? But I don't think Snape thinks that much about Harry in said circumstances) And Its not Snape's pensieve, its Dumbledore's--Harry recognizes it as such (pg.529). In assuming its "Snape's Worst Memory" we readers assume that there is nothing inside Dumbledore's pensieve but...three Snape memories? What happened to all of Dumbledore's memories? For that matter, we assume--through Harry's assumptions--that Snape is removing memories that he doesn't want Harry to see. (Harry assumes Snape withholds info about the Department of Mysteries--as if Harry has a right to knowlege). Might it not be that he's removing memories to prevent Voldemort vis Harry to see? Or conversely adding memories for Dumbledore to view? Afterall, Snape has just given Harry a lot of information regarding the Voldemort's connection with Harry, the snake and the Christmas vision. My conjecture is that "Snape's worst memory" is misleading. As many have noted, Death-eater Snape & Spy Snape must have worse memories gathered over the intervening 20-some years than schoolyard humiliations--no matter how bad they were. But I think that at that point in time--Snape's worst memory was the worst one for **Harry** to find. Any evil deed of Snape's would only confirmed Harry's already negative opinion of the man he loves to dislike/disrespect. But Harry is desperate for information on his parents--although like the old adage about easedroppers, he doesn't like what he finds. And since this is Dumbledore's pensieve--its quite possible that Kneasy, JustCarol, and Naama are all correct. It is a humilating event that crystalizes Snape's hatred a James & Gang. Its a memory the Adult Snape doesn't want spread around for his students to snicker over--diminishing their respect and undermining his powerbase as an authority figure (which is probably the source of his own self-esteem). Once again, Snape's animosity towards student- Harry edges over to become entangled with his lingering-hatred for student-James. We don't know enough about pensieves. Perhaps there is some magic that acts as a general POV video recorder of an observed/heard/felt event rather than direct POV, in which case my point is irrelivant. We don't know if memories can be shared among pensieves or locked down and made inaccessible or at least compartmentized. But we've seen two instances where Harry intruded into someone else's memories- -both involving Dumbledore's pensieve. If the observer's POV is at all important to the creation of a pensieve memory, its possible that the memory was not Snape's POV but another observer--IMO most likely Dumbledore. This would explain why Harry can observe both his dad's group and Snape. As Naama said--a subjective memory focuses on the subject's POV. As Carol said, how could Snape remain ingnorant of Lupin's condition if he/Harry heard them talk openly about it? Does anyone care to comment? Inky From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 12 18:05:13 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 18:05:13 -0000 Subject: Snape and the "Chosen One" Was: Nice vs. Good - Compassion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153734 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" wrote: > > Leslie41: > You're not doing your argument any good by referring to Snape > derisively as "Snapey-poo." Well, let's see, I have heard no complaint from Snapey-poo about it. If he objects, he has only to contact me, explain his hurt feelings, and politely request that I refrain. But, I hear only silence, which most certainly DOES imply consent. Therefore, Snapey-poo it remains. > In fact, your insult actually makes it look as if you think you can > only make points by name-calling, which is the last resort of people > who have no case. Hello Pot, I'm Kettle. Yes, you are right, I do look rather ebony- colored today. Lupinlore From enlil65 at gmail.com Mon Jun 12 15:25:38 2006 From: enlil65 at gmail.com (Peggy Wilkins) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 10:25:38 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Neville Theory. In-Reply-To: References: <1789c2360606111002l607f0a2bl246d0f6026f47937@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1789c2360606120825t7ad43511h23733bfe4719f7d6@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153735 On 6/12/06, eggplant107 wrote: Eggplant: > "Peggy Wilkins" wrote: > > "either MUST die". That means that > > either Harry will die; or Voldemort will die. > > It is also perfectly consistent with both will die. Peggy W: I don't see how it's possible to interpret the word "either" to mean "both": either never means both, it can only mean one or the other. In addition, in OOTP's prophecy chapter Dumbledore confirms to Harry directly that one of them must kill the other, which doesn't leave any room for both of them dying. Of course, to pick nits, Harry will eventually die even if he kills Voldemort--but it won't be via Voldemort murdering him, and could happen many many years later if he is lucky. That's not to say he couldn't run into some trouble after Voldemort is out of the picture... Peggy W: > > the prophecy suggests that if Harry chooses > > to fight Voldemort, he will win. Eggplant: > I am almost certain Voldemort will fail, but I don't think Harry will win. Peggy W: I am almost certain that Harry will win. I'm hoping to collect his wizard card, the one that will say The Boy Who Lived is known for defeating the Dark Wizard Voldemort. :) On 6/12/06, Lana McMillan wrote: Lana: > Has anyone actually thought that Neville might play a part in the final > battle? After all, it was Voldemort who chose Harry as his equal and > not the other way around. Neville might end up having to play a part > in the downfall of Voldemort. The prophecy could have and could still > be meant about Voldemort and Neville; after all, it's the choices we > make in our lives that change our destiny. Peggy W: I think many people will potentially play a role in Voldemort's downfall, but I am expecting it to be between Harry and Voldemort alone in the end: it's their story. Harry is the one who has to make the biggest choice because of what Voldemort has done to him. Harry is the one whose powers match Voldemort's because of what happened, and we know Harry has a bit more. Neville might have that bit more, too, but the trouble is he's not the one whose "other" powers match Voldemort's. -- Peggy Wilkins enlil65 at gmail.com From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 12 18:27:22 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 18:27:22 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's actions again. WAS: Re: Snape and the "Chosen One" /JKR listening In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153736 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > The story is about that, the *gleam* is about that, and Petunia's > connection to Harry is most definitely about that. In the > Potterverse those other options simply don't exist. If JKR > invented other options, she'd also have to invent reasons why > Dumbledore couldn't use them. And so, what's your point? The idea that "It has to be this way or the story couln't work," is no excuse whatsoever. JKR is the one who has created these problems and contradictions, JKR is the one who will have to fix them or leave serious flaws in her epic. A person who finds a counterfeit bill is under no obligation to shrug and say "Things like that happen in any economy." A person who finds a serious contradiction and flaw in JKR's depiction of the "epitome of goodness" is under no obligation whatsoever to shrug and say "DD had to do it that way or the story wouldn't work." That is the worst and most monumental of copouts. > Pippin: > But she has toyed with the idea of Puppetmaster!DD from the > beginning, contrasting it with Knownothing!DD and > EpitomeofGoodness!DD. The mixed message about Dumbledore has been > there from the beginning, and is more evident than ever at the end > of HBP, so why look at the opening chapters of HBP in isolation > and say 'this is the Dumbledore JKR meant to depict all along and > the others were unintentional.' Has she toyed with those? Or has she just not been very clear about what she's trying to get across? Puppetmaster!Dumbledore is one option to resolve some of her contradictions, at the cost of shredding the "epitome of goodness" to tatters and making herself into an out and out liar. Either way, there are counterfeit bills circulating here, to continue the metaphor. No one is under any obligation at all to give her a break on that, or much less to allow her the total cop out of "Dumbledore had to do it so the story could happen." Lupinlore From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Jun 12 16:40:49 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 16:40:49 -0000 Subject: New Headmaster/Headmistress at Hogwarts in Book 7? new heads of the houses? In-Reply-To: <4e2ac800606120258m7d915486j10194e6da6062905@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153737 Kathrin P wrote: > I checked all the messages ever since HBP was released and didn't > find a discussion about the Headmaster/Headmistress in Book 7. > > McGonagall is Headmistress in HBP after DD died (:-( ), but is she > the new Headmistress in general or only an interim headmistress? SSSusan: You know, I don't think that we have had a whole lot of discussion of this topic... which now that I stop and think about it surprises me some. I guess we've... erm... tended to be a little tied up with SNAPE threads and horcrux threads 'round here. ;-) In the spirit of latching on to something that's NOT wholly Snape- related, I'm responding to this post. Kathrin P.: > Despite the fact that she was Deputy Headmistressback when DD was > Headmaster, that doesn't mean she is the new Headmistress right > away. Maybe she just does the job until the MoM finds a new (more > suitable - for them?) person for this job? SSSusan: I guess I have been going on the assumption that McGonagall would retain the position, but I think you're right that that *would* have to be affirmed/confirmed at some point for her to remain the Headmistress. My thought is that it would be the Hogwarts Board of Governors which would have the final say, though of course the MoM did get involved in Harry's 5th year. That was under Fudge, though, and I'm not sure we know what to expect from Scrimgeour in the way of getting involved/taking control of Hogwarts. My best guess is that it *will* be McGonagall, but if Scrimgeour has A Plan of any sort, it could well be someone else. Kathrin P.: > Just a thought... After all, she is the the head of Gryffindor. Who > will take over in her place? SSSusan: Well, Hagrid is a Gryffindor, of course, but I couldn't quite imagine him giving up his hut and closeness to all the animals & forest, as would be required if he became HoH. I'm not sure the Bd. of Governors would ever approve such an appointment, either, if their control reaches down to that level. Truthfully, I'm thinking bringing in one of the Weasleys. Molly, perhaps? Since all her children are there or out on their own, it'd be easier for her to do. Bill, if he's recovered enough? Charlie, except that his area of expertise would probably be CoMC, and that's still covered by Hagrid. LOL -- how 'bout Percy? Kathrin P.: > Madame Trelawney? Gosh, I hope not! She seems more like a Ravenclaw > to me... SSSusan: I definitely don't see her either as a Gryffindor or as HoH material. With her drinking issues and her tendency to rant & fall to pieces, she doesn't seem steady enough. (BTW, I imagine her a Hufflepuff more than a Ravenclaw, though that's beside the point, of course. :-)) Kathrin P.: > And now that Snape is no longer at Hogwarts, there also has to be a > new head of Slytherin, right? I just can't find anyone suitable for > Slytherin, as I have the feeling the head of house has to be > someone who fits in with the characteristics of each house... Any > ideas? Well, maybe Professor Sinistra, after all, her name sounds a > lot like the word sinister... SSSusan: Well, I suppose it depends upon whether Sluggy sticks around. If he can be convinced by Minerva or someone else to stay in the Potions position, he might be tapped to take over Slytherin once more. Kathrin P.: > But back to the position of Headmaster/Headmistress... > I really wonder if McGonagall is the Headmistress for the next > years/decades. But if not, who will take that place? > Could DUMBridge come back? What about Fudge? SSSusan: I can't imagine either Umbridge or Fudge being willing to take the position. Nope, I'm thinking McGonagall or someone new. In fact, if what JKR told us at the end of HBP is true -- that Harry WON'T be back at Hogwarts for a 7th year -- and if Ron & Hermione's comments about sticking with him mean that they might also bypass their 7th years, then I'm thinking these personnel issues (DADA, potions, Slytherin & Gryffindor HoHs) might be "handled" by some brief mention of new characters, with maybe a Weasley or two thrown into the mix, because we won't be seeing much of Hogwarts. If Ron & Hermione *are* back at Hogwarts for 7th year, then I guess I think that at least one of those positions will be taken over by a "Name Player"... but I'm still betting on McGonagall to retain the Headmistress spot. Siriusly Snapey Susan From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Jun 12 20:34:05 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 20:34:05 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153738 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > > I stand by my comment quoted above that infant baptism per se does not make a person a Christian. > Tonks: What we have here is a difference between Catholic and Protestant theology. Keep in mind that the Anglican Church considers itself to be a `bridge church' between the Catholic and Protestant branches of Christianity. And, of course, when one uses the term `Catholic' it does not mean just the Roman brand, as most people think. The practice of infant baptism originated with the idea of a person needing to be baptized in order to enter heaven. This centers on the concept of `original sin'. It used to be believed (until rather recently) that an infant, while free from *acts* of sin would need to be cleansed of `original sin' before entering heaven. And this is part of what baptism does. Following this it makes sense to me, that if Lily and James were Christian, even `nominal' Christians, they would want to have Harry baptized quickly before they went into hidden because they knew that Harry's life was in danger. They knew that there was a strong possibility that he might die and they were preparing him for the wrost. Tonks_op From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Jun 12 21:11:16 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 21:11:16 -0000 Subject: Horcrux: was Baptism/Christianity in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153740 > Leslie41: > I don't see how that logically follows, any more than it logically > follows that without a white dress and a priest one cannot be > married. Yet, in many cases, a white dress and a priest are "part > and parcel of the same experience." > a_svirn: Actually, I would say that you cannot be married without a priest at least ? if we are talking about Christian wedding. If you can, then you are reducing a priest to something superficial ? like that same white dress. If you regard Harry's baptism like something superficial as well, then yes, it can be part of the same experience together with Lilly's sacrifice the same way white dress is part of wedding experience. If, however, you attach any real significance to baptism then you face the dilemma. Either it is altogether different experience with its own deep meaning, in which case it has nothing to do with the sacrifice, or it's an integral part of it, meaning part of the same protective magic that Lilly invoked. There is a very simple logical device to verify the second supposition. Remove the baptism part out of the equation and see what happens. Could Harry's life have been saved without baptism? Everything we know from canon seems to point to the affirmative. The Lilly's sacrificial love was all that needed to do the trick. Leslie41: > > > Au contraire, mon frere. Look it up yourself on the internet. > > > Whore: definition. You'll find lots of interesting definitions > > > that I most definitely did not "make up." > > > > a_svirn: > > Why don?ft you save me the trouble? Give me a link to any on- line > > dictionary with a meaning for *whore* as ?esomeone who?fs sold his > > or her soul?f. > > Leslie41: > Yes, sir! > > http://www.thefreedictionary.com/whore > > "to compromise one's principles for personal gain". > > http://m-w.com/dictionary/whore > > "a venal or unscrupulous person". > > http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary > > "to pursue a faithless, unworthy, or idolatrous desire". > > I think the key definition is the first one, though the others are > relevant as well. If what you're asking for is a specific definition > that it means "to sell one's soul," you won't find that. Because the > idea of selling one's soul is a metaphor--for "compromising > principles for personal gain." a_svirn: Metaphor doesn't help your cause any. You'd need a very literal sense to link whores to immortality or "wrong" immortality. From jelly92784 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 12 21:21:04 2006 From: jelly92784 at yahoo.com (jelly92784) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 21:21:04 -0000 Subject: New Headmaster/Headmistress at Hogwarts in Book 7? new heads of the houses? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153741 Kathrin P wrote: McGonagall is Headmistress in HBP after DD died (:-( ), but is she the new Headmistress in general or only an interim headmistress? Despite the fact that she was Deputy Headmistressback when DD was Headmaster, that doesn't mean she is the new Headmistress right away. Maybe she just does the job until the MoM finds a new (more suitable - for them?) person for this job? Katie wrote: Well, I have a couple thoughts on this. First of all, I think the MoM will be less involved in Hogwarts after what happened in the last two books. DD has been proven right time and again, and now that he's gone, I think Scrimgeour will have a hard time interfering at Hogwarts. As DD once said, he'll never have left Hogwarts as long as there are people that remain loyal to him are there. So, with that said, I think McGonagall is a logical choice to remain headmistress. I think maybe Lupin could make a return as head of Gryffindor, or maybe Hagrid... As for head of Slytherin...maybe Slughorn will resume his old position. Janelle: I agree that McGonagall seems to be the most likely choice for headmistress, as long as the Ministry doesn't interfere. As others have brought up, this leaves the head of Gryfindor house open. What hasn't been mentioned is that this also leaves the post of transfiguration teacher open. We've assumed that McGonagall took over the job from Dumbledore when he became headmaster so it makes sense that she would not continue teaching. Hagrid seems like a logical choice for head of Gryfindor except for the fact that it will be McGonagall making that decision and she doesn't seem to have too much confidence in Hagrid. She could choose another existing teacher or else bring someone in to both teach transfiguration and become head of house, but who? I believe JKR said in an interview that no new major characters would be introduced, so this will probably be either someone that we already know or an insignificant addition. Any ideas? Also, I think it's likely that Slughorn will stay on as potions teacher and head of Slytherin. And as we've discussed before, the spot for Defense Against the Dark Arts obviously needs to be filled again. From markus.merz at lycos.de Mon Jun 12 20:20:16 2006 From: markus.merz at lycos.de (dictator_hynkel) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 20:20:16 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: ATTENTION!!! New Graphic Site is a Virus Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153742 [ELF NOTE: Our thanks to Markus for this message; I hope he doesnt mind, but I'm adding an 'elf note' here. Normally we'd ask that virus warnings not be posted on this list, but this one is particularly nasty, and I was just about to write an Admin warning about it, myself. More comments from me below Markus' message.] Acording to cashman_26250 this mail is a virus see the original post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Old_Crow/message/648?l=1 Markus Fanfiction for your PDA http://fanfiction.mine.nu Original post: Anyone who gets the "New Graphic Site" message, PLEASE DO NOPT OPEN it!!! It is a virus/worm...DELETE IT! It replicates itself by sending to everyone in your address book. It seems to be fairly new, some most antivirus scanners probably don't have a means of catching...yet. If you do have it, update your antivirus and scan immediately. At this time, I don't know what else it does...if anything. Sorry for the cross post...but this thing seems to be going around the HP groups pretty fast. It has been spotted in other groups, so it isn't an HP group only thing... Kelley Elf again here: As Markus says, this virus is different to others that are only launched when you try to open their attachment; this one opens when you open the message itself. So, if you see any messages in your inbox entitled "New Graphics Site" delete them without opening them. If you suspect you're already infected, please keep checking for updates and removal tools for your anti-virus program. Please everyone, do not reply to this message; if you want to discuss the virus, please do so on OTC or Feedback: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Feedback Thanks again, Markus. --Kelley From AllieS426 at aol.com Mon Jun 12 21:44:54 2006 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 21:44:54 -0000 Subject: Werewolf Mystery In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153743 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lanval1015" wrote: >>>>> If werewolves do NOT as a rule attack to kill (note that Harry is 'shocked' at the idea), then the entire story about Snape owing a life debt to James falls apart. Snape's life 'may' still have been in danger, but if most of Greyback's little victims -- unarmed, untrained, unaware and fragile-- survive, and are in fact _expected_ to survive... then surely a sixteen year old wizard, armed with a wand and an astounding knowledge of spells for his age, who quite possibly knew what he was about to face, shouldn't have much to fear? Should not 'James saved Snape's life' really be 'James saved Snape from becoming a werewolf'? Not a pleasant fate either, but preferable to death, I should think. >>>>>>>>>> Allie: You are absolutely right. If the common perception that werewolf bites are not fatal is correct, then Snape doesn't owe James a life- debt. I suspect that what we are dealing with is a big, HUGE... Flint. I don't think more will be made of it in book 7. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 12 21:35:38 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 21:35:38 -0000 Subject: New Headmaster/Headmistress at Hogwarts in Book 7? new heads of the houses? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153744 > >>SSSusan: > In fact, if what JKR told us at the end of HBP is true -- that > Harry WON'T be back at Hogwarts for a 7th year -- and if Ron & > Hermione's comments about sticking with him mean that they might > also bypass their 7th years, then I'm thinking these personnel > issues (DADA, potions, Slytherin & Gryffindor HoHs) might > be "handled" by some brief mention of new characters, with maybe a > Weasley or two thrown into the mix, because we won't be seeing > much of Hogwarts. > If Ron & Hermione *are* back at Hogwarts for 7th year, then I > guess I think that at least one of those positions will be taken > over by a "Name Player"... but I'm still betting on McGonagall to > retain the Headmistress spot. Betsy Hp: Hmm, you know, I think this may argue strongly to Hogwarts being closed in the next book. Even if Scrimgeour puts his own patsy in as Headmaster/mistress, an open Hogwarts calls for a brand new character or two. And I believe JKR said that wasn't going to happen? If McGonagall becomes Headmistress, the new Head of Gryffindor will need to be the new Transfiguration professor as well. That won't be Hagrid, and it won't be a Weasley (unless it *is* Percy, or possibly Bill). So I'm betting Hogwarts will remain closed, with McGonagall keeping an eye on things, and then everyone will come back in peace and brotherhood at the end of the year. And then JKR will fastforward a few years with the epilogue, where some familiar names will no doubt fill some of the vacant posts. My dream? Snape as Headmaster and Draco as Potions Master and Head of Slytherin. Up Slytherin!! Betsy Hp From leslie41 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 12 22:25:41 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 22:25:41 -0000 Subject: Horcrux: was Baptism/Christianity in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153745 > a_svirn: > Metaphor doesn't help your cause any. You'd need a very literal > sense to link whores to immortality or "wrong" immortality. Leslie41: >From Merriam-Webster: http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary The first definition cites, and I quote: "a woman who engages in sexual acts for money : PROSTITUTE; also : a promiscuous or immoral woman." It seems to me that the tie between prostitues and immorality is fairly set. At least Mr. Webster thinks so! As for the notion of baptism, I've reached the conclusion that that it's not productive to argue with you anymore about it. I'll just tell you again that I think everyone is free to think what they want about it, and your opinion carries canonical weight, as does mine. The importance of Harry's baptism, and the symbolism involved at Godric's Hollow, seem transparently clear to many here on the list. Certainly I'm not alone in my opinion. To many others, including yourself, it is not. To quote Stuart Smalley: "and that's...okay!" I don't see any number of canonically supported interpretations in Harry Potter and any number of other books. Because canon can support different interpretations all at the same time, we can all think different things at once. I hope we can at least agree on that! From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 12 22:15:04 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 22:15:04 -0000 Subject: Understanding Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153746 > >>Betsy Hp: > > Except Snape went into the forest first. > > > >>Neri: > This piece of fanon seems to have acquired canon status by now. > I've seen it stated several times as fact by different list > members, and I'm a bit tired of correcting it. Still, the canon is > quite clear at this point: > Betsy Hp: Well thank you for working through your exhaustion, Neri. I promise to do my best to not make this mistake again. (I do know how you feel, though. I have the same eye-rolling reaction whenever folks state that Dudley did something to deserve Hagrid hexing him, so I really am serious about not repeating that mistake.) I *am* glad to have had this pointed out because I think it really strengthens DDM!Snape. Snape does everything correctly. He checks to make sure Sirius is okay. He waits for Harry to return so he can tell him what he's learned. As soon as the time spent away gets suspicious he informs the Order of what *might* be going on. He makes sure someone will inform Dumbledore as soon as he returns. And *then* he goes to check the forest in case some disaster has struck there. All in all, Snape behaves exactly as an Order member and a Head of House should. > >>Neri: > Three pages later (p. 833) Dumbledore also tells us about > Snape: "It was he who deduced where you had gone when you did > not return from the Forest." This means that if Snape had searched > the forest at all, it was already after he himself deduced that > Harry was no longer there. It strikes me like making a big deal of > running to lock the stable door after the horses had already been > stolen. Betsy Hp: Really? I think it's more like telling Grandma, "Little Johnny has probably run away to your house, please keep an eye out for him." But then going to check the play park as well. After all, a deduction is an educated guess, and if Snape had sat back on his educated laurels while Harry was being treated roughly by Centaurs, that would not be a good thing. > >>Betsy Hp: > > So Snape must have realized that he was taking action *against* > > Voldemort at that point. > >>Neri: > "Must" seems to be too strong a word here, but it certainly appears > so. I quite agree that the ESE!Snape theory has a problem > explaining his actions that night, as much problem as the DDM! > Snape theory has in explaining these same actions, in fact. Which > strongly suggests to me that he's neither. Betsy Hp: I'm going to agree with Nikkalmati and Gerry; I don't see what DDM! Snape has a problem explaining here at all. > >>Eggplant: > The book tells us: > "when you gave Professor Snape that cryptic warning, he realized > that you had had a vision of Sirius trapped in the bowels of the > Department of Mysteries. He, like you, attempted to contact Sirius > at once." > That is exactly what a good Snape would do, but it is also exactly > what an evil Snape would do who was trying to protect his cover, so > the passage tells us nothing about Snape. Betsy Hp: I agree, to an extent. (There's no reason ESE!Snape should have checked on Sirius at all. He could have played stupid.) However, the next actions Snape takes, sending the Order to the MoM, making sure someone alerted Dumbledore, etc., are very hard for an evil Snape to explain. > >>Eggplant: > ...but there is one thing I will NOT concede, Snape is > evil, as evil as Voldemort himself. Betsy Hp: Did Snape strangle a rabbit to death while a young boy? Did he torture young children while still a boy? Did he kill someone by the age of sixteen? Did he kill his father? Has he murdered people with the express purpose of furthering his own life? Has he drunk the blood of a unicorn? Has he forced a schoolboy to kill someone or die himself? Because that's what it would take, I think, to make anyone as evil as Voldemort. Betsy Hp From maialaia at yahoo.com Mon Jun 12 22:05:15 2006 From: maialaia at yahoo.com (The Entwife) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 15:05:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: ADMIN MESSAGE re: "New Graphics Site" emails Message-ID: <20060612220515.68331.qmail@web51012.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153747 In the next few days you may be seeing a lot of messages coming through over yahoogroups OR through friends you know that have yahoo email addresses. According to a friend in the yahoo tech dept - it is NOT your fault. They have a hacker or a glitch which is causing this email to bounce from email to email and send to all your groups and/or address book. If you get the email entitled "New Graphics Site" from anyone, don't get mad at them - it is not their fault. Do Not Open It. It will restart the chain. (Those not using yahoo should not be "infected." Sorry for any inconvinience or crankiness this may cause. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Be Wrong. Be Strong. EAT THE DAMN PEACH. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BRIGHTGIRL PHOTOGRAPHY http://www.brightgirl.net __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From distaiyi at yahoo.com Mon Jun 12 22:49:59 2006 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 22:49:59 -0000 Subject: Neville Theory. In-Reply-To: <20060612065200.44315.qmail@web25705.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153748 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lana McMillan wrote: (snipped to save bandwidth) Of course someone has thought about Neville playing a key role. JKR has said that the Prophecy pertains to one of two boys, and it isn't Neville. However, having said that she's left herself open to using my pet theory about Neville... You see, I'm of the cloth that says Harry and LV must both die to end his scourge. Why, well because that's the way things often work. Take WW II for instance, a lot of good men died on both sides to end the reign of the Nazis and the SS. So... my theory is, by the end of book 7 Harry is trying to sneak off to face LV because he doesn't want anyone else to get hurt in this fight and he knows he MUST face LV. Fortunately for the rest of the Wizarding world, Neville has continued to increase his confidence (as we saw particularly in book 6) and shadows Harry to the battle. I predict LV kills Harry first but is so weakened that the Avenging Avatar Neville swoops in and is able to finish him off with an AK curse. Trust me, of all the people in the books right now only Harry and Neville on the good side could mean it enough and I don't think Harry has it in him. Neville, on the other hand, who has watched his parents suffer, who has had to live with his gran, who idolizes Harry and just watched him die... Neville I think could find it in himself to mean to caste AK. Distaiyi the Avenging Avatar Neville Fan! PS : Neville gets short shrift in the movies compared to the books. From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Mon Jun 12 23:12:19 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:12:19 -0000 Subject: Salazar Slytherin via Grindelwald to Draco In-Reply-To: <4e2ac800606120015l5943ed9dn83259975d551c33@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153749 > Kathrin: > > Hagrid, > please! You can't let us hanging in there! I can't wait to read your theory. > Write it down for us, will you? > Thanks, > Kathrin aussie / Hagrid / norbertsmummy / R A: When I re-named the posting, I must have made it harder to find. I posted the theory under:- "Transferable Human Horcruxes was: SSlyth via DWG to DM" (message # 153667) - long Peggy replied (message # 153679) and asked me to clarify some things. My corrections and nutshell answer (message # 153727). It deals with Salazar Slytherin having made a Horcrux that Grindelwald carried in his torn soul - passed onto LV at the time Tom Riddle changed to be the Darl Wizard - and then showing a deeper reason why LV wanted Draco to tear his soul while AK-ing DD to be the next Dark Wizard that would carry Salazar Slytherin's Horcrux inside young Draco. Could that be JKR's deep, DARK secret? From iam.kemper at gmail.com Mon Jun 12 22:25:27 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 15:25:27 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dudley In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40606121525l283f11e1u3f9d9e2d0dfe1dd8@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153750 On 6/11/06, quigonginger wrote: > > Rita (Catlady): > > I remember being shocked when I first read of their pathetically > > inadequate efforts to be juvenile delinquents (much less gangstas!). > > These are FIFTEEN-YEAR-OLD boys we're talking about, and they beat up > > ten-year-olds and throw rocks at cars instead of shooting people in > > drive-bys, vandalize the play park instead of committing armed > > robberies of convenience stores, and smoke cigarettes instead of > crack > > or crystal. > > Ginger responded: > Thanks for bringing this up, Rita. I thought I was the only one who > thought that Dudders and friends were doing a pretty bad job of being > Juvies. > > When I read it, I thought they just screamed "Wannabe!" (Side: For > those not familiar with American slang, this means that they "wanna > (want to) be" tough, but really aren't there. IOW, they think they're > acting all tough, but aren't really.) > > ... snip ... When I was growing up (good kids from the wrong side of > the tracks) we smoked and drank and did light drugs, but we wouldn't > have done any vandelism. That would have been wrong. That was back > when smoking and drinking were pretty much considered normal adult > passtimes. We weren't being "bad", just "adult". Or so we thought. > > Nowadays, of course, we must be PC. Smoking must be portrayed as bad, > or the left wing will advance in a wave of fury. Sex and profanity > are allowed, even encouraged as normal and free-thinking, but the > higher power of your choice, if any, forbid that anyone should smoke. > ... .. Kemper now speaking quickly off-topic: No doubt! Leftwingers on Colbert's eagle, Liberty, will swoop down from soaring the beautiful though Gore-ish ozone-depleted, spacious sky and, with many a flirt and flutter, snatch the anti-pc, Seussian-red fish. Damn those leftwingers! Oh wait... didn't the very red, strong rightwing US state, Colorado, pass a Smoking Ban? And wasn't the Smoking Ban originally sponsored by a republican (rightwing) legislator and supported by a number of his republican (rightwing) peers? And didn't the republican (rightwing) governor sign-off on the Smoking Ban? Wow, leftwingers, I'm really sorry. Sorry for making such a blanket comment on you guys without considering all the facts. It was really silly and divisive of me. Please accept my apology. ... Back to topic... Sex is normal not free thinking. Profanity is also not free thinking; it's free speaking. JKR has used 'hell' and 'damn' in the books. She has Mr. Dursley slyly using the 'f' word. >From OP(2), "Enough -- effing -- /owls/," emphasis JKR's. She has 14 year-old Ron, normal and profane. >From GF(13), ... from Lavender Brown -- "Oh Professor, look! I think I've got an unaspected planet! Oooh, which one's that, Professor?" "It is Uranus, my dear," said Professor Trelawney, peering down at the chart. "Can I have a look at Uranus too, Lavender?" said Ron. Most unfortunately, Professor Trelawney heard him, and it was this, perhaps, that made her give them so much homework at the end of the class. It is clear to many readers approaching, in, or out of adolescence that Ron is being intentionally lewd. >From OP(35),, (Luna) "Four of them chased us into a dark room full of planets, it was a very odd place, some of the time we were just floating in the dark --" "Harry, we saw Uranus up close!" siad Ron, still giggling feebly. "Get it, Harry? We saw Uranus --ha ha ha ---" However, Ron was having brain issues at the time and the lewd comment may have been unintentional (though this, imo, would be ooc for him), but it does seem obvious that JKR is fond of this particular innuendo. I guess JKR is pushing a leftwing (or whatever the British equivalent) agenda. > Ginger continues: > > ... big snip ... > > The Dursleys struck me as being really rich and high class, what with > a 4 bedroom house, a company car and thoughts of buying a vacation > home. After reading the opinions of British readers, I now see that > they are more wannabes themselves. I have heard that Majorca is a > very common place to buy a vacation home, and speaks of them as having > lower aspirations than a truly high class person would have. > > Is the same true with Dudley and his friends? Are they aiming to be > baddies with no idea of how to really do it, just as their parents are > trying to be posh with no idea of how it should be done? Remember > Petunia sticking out her pinkie when she drank coffee? I've heard > that isn't really proper, just done by people who are trying to be. > But then what do I know about such things? ;) > > So, do we have any British suburbanites out there who care to > comment? Would Dudley and friends be considered bad, kind of bad, > trying to be bad, or a lame attempt at being bad? How would the > adults in the neighbourhood feel about them? How would the kids > feel? How do you think JKR thought readers would see them? Was she > writing for kids here, or adults? Or both? > > ... > Any thoughts from cultural insiders? > > Ginger, who thought Dudders and the guys were a bunch of sissies. > Kemper now: You're right. Dudley and his folks are pathetic. The Dursley's remind me of the Loman's from Death of a Salesman: where Willy is Vernon, Linda is Petunia and Happy is Dudley (though, maybe he can become Biff in the end... maybe). I don't recall Vernon expressing a desire for a vacation home, but if so, then he doesn't want it for the right reason. He would want it to fulfill a dream of bragging rights, "Look what I have! I'm successful!" His dream is not to get away with his family, to spend time with them walking the beach hand-in-hand with his wife or flying a kite with his son. Dudley's entitlement is encouraged by Vernon. From PS/SS(2): ...Dudley, meanwhile, was counting his presents. His face fell. "Thirty-six" ... "That's two less than last year." "Darling, you haven't counted Auntie Marge's present, see, it's here under this big one from Mommy and Daddy." "All right, thirty-seven then," said Dudley.... Aunt Petunia obviously scented danger, too, because she said quickly, " And we'll buy you another /two/ presents while we're out today. How's that, Popkin? /Two/ more presents. Is that all right?" .... "Oh." Dudley sat down heavily and grabbed the nearest parcel. " All right then." Uncle Vernon chuckled. "Little tyke wants his money's worth, just like his father. 'Atta boy, Dudley!" He ruffled Dudley's hair. Dudley dreams of a birthday of plenty. But what we see later is that plenty of his presents (gifts) are discarded and forgotten in a separate room. To take a line from Biff, the Dursleys have "the wrong dreams. All, all wrong." How will their storyline end? I fear tragically, whether by the Death Eaters or by stale old age. Kemper, who also thinks that smoking/smokers are demonized, but would think it odd, yet slightly cool, to have Dumbledore lite up a Dunhill upon his definite pseudo-resurrection [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue Jun 13 00:11:53 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 00:11:53 -0000 Subject: Understanding Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153751 > > Neri: > > "Must" seems to be too strong a word here, but it certainly appears > > so. I quite agree that the ESE!Snape theory has a problem explaining > > his actions that night, as much problem as the DDM!Snape theory has in > > explaining these same actions, in fact. Which strongly suggests to me > > that he's neither. > > > > Pippin: > In a war of good versus evil there is no room for 'neither'. To seek > power for its own sake is to seek evil, as Quirrell proved. > Neri: I meant ESE as in Voldemort's Man. Snape's actions suggest he's neither Voldemort's man nor Dumbledore's man. Are you saying this isn't a possibility? I'd say it's the most straightforward possibility. > Pippin: > It would be helpful if we knew what Snape's orders from Dumbledore > actually were. HBP illustrates the difficulty of drawing correct conclusions > about them. If we had observed HBP!Harry's actions from > 'outside' as it were, and had no information about his one on ones with > Dumbledore, we could easily suppose that Dumbledore had asked Harry > to keep an eye on Draco. Harry's apparent failure to alert DD to > Draco's plans on the night of the Tower would thus raise suspicions > of gross negligence or even treachery. > Neri: Well, suppose we would have seen all the Order members throughout HBP tracking Draco in shifts, trying to discover what is he up to and stop him, and then we would have seen them taken away from Hogwarts one by one (including Dumbledore himself) until only Harry (now an experienced agent and official Order member) remained, and then Harry would have failed in stopping Draco, and then Dumbledore would have explained that indeed, stopping Draco was the Order's main objective throughout HBP, then yes, we would have probably concluded that Harry was expected to stop Draco, and his incompetence in doing so would have appeared very suspicious from the outside. Especially if we were also told that Harry was a DE and a double agent that both Voldemort and Dumbledore believed to be on their side. > Gerry: > DDM!Snape does not have a problem at all. Snape waits a certain amount > of time, gets worried and alerts the Order. Neri: The only problem with this is the sheer irresponsibility and stupidity of this non-action. He obviously shouldn't have waited any amount of time at all, and certainly not several hours. Now, after OotP we could have (as I did) just ascribed this to Snape still being offended by the pensieve memory incident and letting his emotions get the better of him (unprofessional, but Snape was known to act unprofessionally where Harry was involved). However, after HBP the accumulating record of Snape's "unprofessional" actions (making the UV, failing to stop Draco, killing Dumbledore) makes him a very viable contender for the title of The Worst Secret Agent Ever, assuming he's DDM. I'd say this constitutes a problem with the DDM!Snape theory. > Gerry: > Searching the forest is of > course not a viable option because a truly extensive search of the > forest will take days. Neri: All the more reason to start immediately. And Snape "intending to search" shows that this at least was a viable option. > Gerry: > Anything coul have happened to Harry in the > forest. He could have been taken by centaurs, eaten by spiders, and a > lot more. Snape as a teacher and long time resident of Hogwarts almost > certainly knows a lot more of the dangers of the forest than the > children. Neri: Do you mean that because of the great dangers in the forest they *shouldn't* have searched for Harry? The obvious thing for Snape to do was to call the Order for help. There were at least two Order members in 12GP (Sirius and Lupin) who knew the Forbidden Forest very well, and also the secret passages into the grounds. > Gerry: > They went in with a teacher, there is a reasanble amount of > time in which he can expect them back. Yet they did not come. > Neri: That `teacher" was not very capable of handling the dangers in the forest. OTOH she constituted one of the great dangers herself. Just the day before she had led Aurors to attack both Hagrid and McGonagall, and Snape knew she was trying to get sensitive Order information out of Harry using dubious means. And all this while Snape knew that Harry is under a mind attack from Voldemort. No amount of time waiting was "reasonable" in that situation, certainly not several hours. > Eggplant: > I concede Snape knew he was working against Voldemort and I concede > that at that point the last thing in the world Snape wanted was for > Harry to die Neri: Actually, a pretty good case *can* be made that Snape warning the Order (too late, of course) was part of Voldemort's plan all along. >From Voldemort's point of view there would be two obvious advantages for that: 1. Snape would not be revealed as Voldemort's man, but only as an Order member who took too long to respond. He would have been able to continue as Voldemort's agent in Hogwarts and in the Order. This very argument is used by Snape himself in Spinner's End to explain why Voldemort gave the mission of assassinating Dumbledore to Draco first rather than to Snape. This shows that JKR is well aware of this consideration. 2. Dumbledore and the Order rushing to the Ministry and arriving too late would have been the ideal scenario from Voldemort's point of view. It would have taken just an anonymous call to the Aurors and Dumbledore would be caught breaking into a secret Ministry department together with an escaped murderer, and with a little luck framed for kidnapping Harry and stealing the prophecy while the Ministry can continue denying Voldemort's return to power. For Voldemort that would have been taking down all the birds with a single shot. So a case can be made that Snape did exactly what Voldemort's original plan had called for him to do, and the blame was mainly with Lucius, who was delayed too long in taking the prophecy from Harry's hands. I won't be surprised at all if something like this indeed had happened, but it would still require a very unprofessional act from Snape (not verifying that Lucius had cleared the place before warning the Order). The only scenario I see in which Snape *wasn't* acting unprofessionally here would be if he was torn between two of his own prime objectives: Maintaining his double agent game as long as possible and not being responsible for Harry's death. Neri From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Mon Jun 12 23:38:58 2006 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 19:38:58 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: People Harry Potter you love to hate Message-ID: <37f.4c689ff.31bf5512@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153752 In a message dated 6/11/06 1:18:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, juli17 at aol.com writes: > But Umbridge, she certainly caused a visceral reaction in me. I > wanted to scratch her eyes out, repeatedly. No other character in HP > has affected me so negatively in a purely emotional sense. When I > reread the first 5 books right before HBP came out, the only part I > dreaded rereading was her scenes with Harry. Umbridge I hate. (Fenrir > is deserving of such hatred too, but then I didn't have to put up > with his repulsive presence throughout an entire book!) > > Julie > > > > > Sandy now: I would say "me too" but I know that is not allowed, so I will elaborate. I hate the book OoP. It is the one book I just can't stand. Like you, I reread all the books in preparation for the release of HBP and I had to *force* myself to read OoP. I actually considered not doing so, but that would have been foolish and defeated the purpose of what I was doing. Most people mistake my dislike for OoP thinking it is because the book is "dark" or because of capslock Harry. Neither of those is true, and I actually *like* capslock Harry. It's because I can't stand Umbridge. She is the only character in the series I capslock HATE. There is not a sentence involving her, except her reaction to what Ron does in the hospital wing, that does not make me grit my teeth and hyper-ventilate, but the part with the quill makes me want to throw up. She is the most vile, loathsome creature in the entire series. I was so disappointed when DD rescued her from the centaurs. Being an adult I allowed myself the luxury of hoping they violated her in the most personal of ways, and it still wouldn't be enough punishment for all she did. What really galls me is that she is on the good side. How can that be? I hope she resurfaces in book 7 and that what she put out comes back around to her. I agree that Fenrir is right there in her league, but we were not force fed a diet of him for an entire book, and he is on the side of evil so you expect him to be loathsome. Sandy, shuddering just at the mention of the name Umbridge. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From minerva_523 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 12 21:32:19 2006 From: minerva_523 at yahoo.com (minerva_523) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 21:32:19 -0000 Subject: Nature of a Patronus / Snape's Patronus In-Reply-To: <700201d40606070714r6567cedfsd034effe83c9c958@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153753 > Kemper said: > I have not bought into the idea of Snape being an animagus, but I think what > Sue is suggesting is that Snape's patronus is a spider and is assuming > naturally but without canon support that a person's corporeal patronus is > also the form of the that person's animagus (should they become one). > > So what I'm inferring from what Sue is saying is that Snape is in the shed > with Harry and Dumbledore as a spider animagus and that Dumbledore has told > Snape about the prophecy. It's Tricky!Dumbledore who tells the truth > without giving all the information (which, to me, is still lying by > omission). > > Again, I haven't bought into this idea, but I'm window shopping. Now Cacaia- There are two mentions of Snape as an "overgrown bat"- I believe both in Sorcerer's Stone and HBP, so I always kind of assumed Snape's Patronus was a bat. However- these are good points about his patronus possibly being a spider (like Kemper, I'm not quite sure that he's an animagus-and wouldn't he, if he was, be an illegal animagus?). Now that I think about it, there are quite a few references that link him with spiders (one that immediately comes to mind is the description of how he walked as a teenager, twitchy, kind of like a spider)-Hmmm. interesting...Oh, and, what about his inherited dwelling, at Spinner's End? That sort of links him to spiders too, since spiders spin webs, and are, according to some myths, spinners of the web of life and death... Cacaia > From kfreimu at gmail.com Mon Jun 12 23:43:20 2006 From: kfreimu at gmail.com (kristaf0726) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:43:20 -0000 Subject: HP & Family Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153754 Hi, I just finished reading OOTP and am starting HBP. One thing that has been bothering me is why isn't Lupin more involved with Harry. If he was one of the 3 marauders, shouldn't he have also been like an uncle to Harry? All it seems is that JKR is just concentrating on that Sirius died and Harry has no family. I would have expected Lupin to step in or even Mr & Mrs Weasley to tell him that he is part of their family now. Is it because of the lone hero theme??? Just thoughts I had... Krista From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Jun 13 01:07:59 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 01:07:59 -0000 Subject: Horcrux: was Baptism/Christianity in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153755 > Leslie41: > > It's a huge topic--as for a "noted authority," try... > http://www.mugglenet.com/books/name_origins.shtml > > Mugglenet's done a better job than I could do with most of the > names. Magpie: But we've been through all this. a_svirn isn't asking for a name dictionary, but for you to explain why the names that also appear in the Bible are significant because the Biblical character somehow relates to or sheds light on the HP character. We've already on the list said that James comes from the name that means usurper, and that there is an apostle named James. The question is what do either of those bits of name trivia have to do with James Potter? Example: Remus was one of a set of twins suckled by a she-wolf. Lupin is a word meaning wolf. These two wolf-related names have meaning because Remus Lupin is revealed to be a werewolf. Fred means "peaceful ruler." Fred Weasley is not peaceful nor is he a ruler. It really doesn't shed any light on the character. Probably the name was chosen for the kind of name it is, simple, unpretentious, kind of funny. Weasley was probably chosen because JKR likes mustelids and it's funny-sounding. > Leslie41: > I don't see how that logically follows, any more than it logically > follows that without a white dress and a priest one cannot be > married. Yet, in many cases, a white dress and a priest are "part > and parcel of the same experience." Magpie: If a person is married by a priest than the priest is part of his/her wedding. If she wore a white dress at her wedding that was part of her wedding too. But you are taking two completely different things and putting them together. Harry maybe got water dripped on his forehead at his baptism, which we assume happened off-page because he has a godfather. Some time later Harry had an AK thrown at him while his mother stood in front of him and sacrificed herself--that's canon. How are those two things part of the same experience? And once we know that, where is the canonical evidence of it? If Voldemort had interupted the christening and zapped Harry then I'd say yeah, JKR is drawing a parallel and either baptizing Harry twice (once with love by his family, once with hate via Voldemort). But everything I read in canon indicates that the christening was important to illustrate the bond between Sirius and James, and so Sirius and Harry. Sirius' role as godfather really defines him in his adult life, because of his relationship with James. > Leslie41: > True. But then if they're not significant, why go through them at > all? To forge a tie to Sirius? Yes, of course. But why not just > make Sirius Harry's guardian, all nice and legal? Magpie: Because dramatically what is needed is a title with warmth, and godfather works perfectly. Hearing that Sirius was a friend of his parents is one thing, hearing he was the kind of friend that they asked to stand godfather really says how they felt about Sirius, and also is the perfect title to explain what his relationship with Harry can be. Not something dry and legal--the Dursleys are his legal guardians. (Fairy tale stories very often have cold legal guardians and fairy godmothers.) Godfather is exactly the word I would use to describe Sirius' relationship, and Harry uses it too...only without either of them ever meaning anything too religious by it. Sirius takes his role of godfather very seriously, but we've never seen him take an interest in Harry's religious instruction. He considers himself an adult who promised to take a special interest in this boy when he was asked by his parents. It's the association I've always grown up with, myself, and seen reflected in lots of fiction, movies and tv. Leslie: > Hey, you don't have to think it's important. I think it's very > important, because it's there in canon and Rowling could have chosen > another way to make Sirius important to Harry, but *didn't*. Magpie: But it's not like there's any other title that fits better, nor is it unusual to use it this way. And if there is an important religious significance to it's not yet been hinted at in canon. That, to me, seems to be the reason that people are reading the godfather question as something other than religious, because it's the way the characters all seem to relate to it. > Leslie41: > Yes, sir! > > http://www.thefreedictionary.com/whore > > "to compromise one's principles for personal gain". > > http://m-w.com/dictionary/whore > > "a venal or unscrupulous person". > > http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary > > "to pursue a faithless, unworthy, or idolatrous desire". > > I think the key definition is the first one, though the others are > relevant as well. If what you're asking for is a specific definition > that it means "to sell one's soul," you won't find that. Because the > idea of selling one's soul is a metaphor--for "compromising > principles for personal gain." Magpie: The metaphorical meaning doesn't apply. If Voldemort is "selling his soul" with his horcruxes he is doing it literally, not in a metaphorical sense (though the way it's explained in canon is something else, not Voldemort selling his soul to an entity like the devil but Voldemort splitting his soul and keeping it outside his body so that he can not be killed--another motif). He's not compromising his principles for it. These are his principles. Whatever else Voldemort may be, he's not a sell-out. -m From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 12 19:30:12 2006 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 12:30:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The power the Dark Lord knows not - was Neville Theory In-Reply-To: <700201d40606121022g74333cadv6b9978be179a35de@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060612193013.99773.qmail@web52701.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153756 Patricia wrote: > I really had forgotten the bit about the power the dark lord knows > not... well not forgotten, but I forgot to connect it to Harry's > survival in a real way. JKR cannot reasonably kill Harry and have > the power of love fail and stil have this wonderful work about good > and evil and love and hate. ...snip the rest... anigrrrl2: Ok - I agree that Harry can't die in the end, but I think my reasoning is a little different, and less philosophical. It simply wouldn't make a good story if Harry died. The whole trajectory of these books has been the maturation of Harry, the education of Harry. So far, at least 4 people have died directly to save Harry - Lily, James, Sirius, and Dumbledore. It would render the literary deaths of these characters insignificant and worthless if Harry did not survive and thrive. That's point number one...point number two is that without the success of Harry in the end, the entire connective tissue of the books would also be rendered silly. Training this young wizard for seven years, who is obviously gifted, especially in Defense Against the Dark Arts, has been the point of the books. Now, some will say that it has all been leading up to Voldemort's defeat, and that once LV is defeated, Harry's purpose is also defeated, but I disagree. I think that once Harry defeats LV,, while the books may be over, Harry's story is just beginning. He has essentially been preparing to be an Auror for seven years. I don't think Harry can die, because it wouldn't serve any literary purpose. anigrrrl2 From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Tue Jun 13 01:16:47 2006 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 01:16:47 -0000 Subject: Nature of a Patronus / Snape's Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153757 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "minerva_523" There are two mentions of Snape as an "overgrown bat"- I believe >both in Sorcerer's Stone and HBP, so I always kind of assumed >Snape's >Patronus was a bat. snip >...wouldn't he, if he was, be an illegal animagus?). snip >Now that I think about it, there are quite a few references that >link him with spiders (one that immediately comes to mind is the >description of how he walked as a teenager, twitchy, kind of like a >spider) "K": Snape and bats are mentioned at least four times. Snape and spiders, at least twice, a rabbit and dragon at least once. As for Snape being an illegal animagus, what's that compared to a murderer? ;-) BATS (1)Sorcerer's Stone Chapter 17 The Man with Two Faces "Severus?" Quirrell laughed, and it wasn't his usual quivering treble, either, but cold and sharp. "Yes, Severus does seem the type, doesn't he? So useful to have him swooping around like an over- grown bat. Next to him, who would suspect p-p-poor, st-stuttering P- Professor Quirrell?" pg 288 (2)Chamber of Secrets Chapter 11 The Dueling Club "A bad idea, Professor Lockhart," said Snape, gliding over like a large and malevolent bat. pg 193 (3)Goblet of Fire Chapter 29 The Dream "If Snape hadn't held me up," Harry said bitterly, "we might've got there in time. 'The headmaster is busy. Potter... what's this rubbish, Potter?' Why couldn't he have just got out of the way?" "Maybe he didn't want you to get there!" said Ron quickly. "Maybe --- hang on --- how fast d'you reckon he could've gotten down to the forest? D'you reckon he could've beaten you and Dumbledore there?" "Not unless he can turn himself into a bat or something," said Harry. "Wouldn't put it past him," Ron muttered. pg 566 (4)Half-Blood Prince Chapter 9 The Half-Blood Prince Typically, ten minutes into the lesson Hermione managed to repel Nevilli's muttered Jelly-Legs Jinx without uttering a single word, a feat that would surely have earned her twenty points for Gryffindor from any reasonable teacher, thought Harry bitterly, but which Snape ignored. He swept between them as they practiced, looking just as much like an overgrown bat as ever, lingering to watch Harry and Ron struggling with the task. pg 179 ---------- SPIDERS (1)Goblet of Fire Chapter 18 The Weighing of the Wands Harry sat there staring at Snape as the lesson began, picturing horrific things happening to him... If only he knew how to do the Cruciatus Curse... he'd have Snape flat on his back like that spider, jerking and twitching.... pg 300 (2)Order of the Phoenix Chapter 28 Snape's Worst Memory Harry looked around and glimpsed Snape a short way away, moving between the tables toward the doors into the entrance hall, still absorbed in his own examination paper. Round-shouldered yet angular, he walked in a twitchy manner that recalled a spider, his oily hair swinging about his face. pg 643 ---------- RABBIT Chapter 28 Snape's Worst Memory "This'll liven you up, Padfoot," said James quietly. "Look who it is..." Sirius's head turned. He had become quite still, like a dog that has scented a rabbit. "Excellent," he (Sirius) said softly. "Snivellus." pg 645 ---------- DRAGON Chamber of Secrets Chapter 11 The Dueling Club Harry smiled feebly. Deliberately causing mayhem in Snape's Potions class was about as safe as poking a sleeping dragon in the eye. pg 186 From Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com Tue Jun 13 00:10:03 2006 From: Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com (kibakianakaya) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 00:10:03 -0000 Subject: New Headmaster/Headmistress at Hogwarts in Book 7? new heads of the houses? In-Reply-To: <4e2ac800606120258m7d915486j10194e6da6062905@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153758 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kathrin P" wrote: > > I checked all the messages ever since HBP was released and didn't find a > discussion about the Headmaster/Headmistress in Book 7. > > McGonagall is Headmistress in HBP after DD died (:-( ), but is she the new > Headmistress in general or only an interim headmistress? Despite the fact > that she was Deputy Headmistressback when DD was Headmaster, that doesn't > mean she is the new Headmistress right away. Maybe she just does the job > until the MoM finds a new (more suitable - for them?) person for this job? > SNIP > And now that Snape is no longer at Hogwarts, there also has to be a new head > of Slytherin, right? I just can't find anyone suitable for Slytherin, as I > have the feeling the head of house has to be someone who fits in with the > characteristics of each house... Any ideas? SNIP Lilygale here: I think McGonagall has the experience to helm Hogwarts through difficult times. I don't think the Ministry will object because at this stage they don't seem to have politcal reasons to be at loggerheads with McGonagall. They are likely to welcome her experience, and a known entity is probably comforting to the MOM beaurocrats. I wonder if transfiguration is a family talent? Maybe Aberforth Dumbledore might make an appearance as transfiguration teacher. This might be the device to introduce Aberforth to Harry. Whether or not Harry is at Hogwarts as a student for any time (and I personally think he will make an appearance at the beginning of the year), he certainly will be in touch with Hogwarts. He would no doubt need to use the library resources (or more accurately, Hermione would need them.) Harry would also want to stay in touch with loyal friends (Neville, Luna, perhaps Ginny) who would not accompany him on his quest. So Harry would have access to Aberforth's presumed skills, as well as any information Aberforth might have about the Locket. As importantly, we and Harry might find out what is important about Dumbledore's history. Do the Dumbledores have access to any other relics that might be Horcruxes, or might have powers that could aid Harry? We might find out whether Dumbledore's House was indeed Gryffindor, as Hermione had heard in PS/SS. And as houses tend to run in families, perhaps Aberforth might become Head of Gryffindor house. So Aberforth is my guess for transfiguration teacher and head of Gryffindor House. I can't wait to meet him. Lilygale From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 12 22:43:24 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 22:43:24 -0000 Subject: Mortality question Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153759 Hi, I didn't have an access to my computer for a few days, and maybe it's a little late to answer, but I really want to thank people who gave me some ideas, otherwise my head was completely empty when I thought about this "mortality" thing. > Pippin wrote: > Voldemort wouldn't want to share the secret > of how he achieved immortality with his followers, but he wouldn't > want them to know that he's withholding the knowledge either. > > Also, though his self is bound to earth > and cannot die, his restored body is still subject to destruction by > old age and disease. The Elixir of Life would protect it. >> Magda wrote: >> I'm assuming that when he was powerful he didn't tell them about >> the horcruxes but let them assume that he was immortal because he >> was such a great wizard zanooda: It is strange that I didn't think about it myself. I do know that LV keeps his DEs in the dark about Horcruxes, although I had my doubts where Bellatrix is concerned. When she said that LV " entrusted (her) with his most precious", I thought she meant a Horcrux. Bellatrix is not Lucius Malfoy, she is fanatically devoted to LV. But you are probably right, LV won't share his big secret even with his most loyal follower, this would be too much of exposure. Even if she had something to do with one or more Horcruxes, she would't know exactly what they are. LV might have just told her that it was something precious to him (My Precious!!), and this alone would be enough for her. >>> Peggy wrote: >>> ultimately the idea is that Voldemort must expect something >>> tremendously magical to happen at the precise moment he achieves a >>> 7-part soul; and he probably expects this to be "true" >>>(infallible)immortality, an order of acheivement better than the >>> fallible Elixir of Life or the random Horcrux. zanooda: It's a great idea! Somehow I always thought that this 7 number has only a symbolic meaning to LV, and I never imagined that he might expect some physical effect when his 7-Horcruxes goal is achieved. So you think he hopes for an immortal body, or maybe his Horcruxes will become indestructible when there are 7, or something else of the sort? Lets hope it won't come to this! From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Jun 13 02:16:21 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 02:16:21 -0000 Subject: New Headmaster/Headmistress at Hogwarts in Book 7? new heads of the houses? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153761 > SSSusan: > I guess I have been going on the assumption that McGonagall would > retain the position, but I think you're right that that *would* have > to be affirmed/confirmed at some point for her to remain the > Headmistress. Potioncat: Dilys Derwent was Headmistress in the 1700s. She had been a healer at St. Mungos for around 20 years prior to taking the position. So it is not a given that the Deputy Headmistress moves into the Headmistress job. This reminds me of the end of OoP. We all knew Harry needed an O to get into NEWT Potions and very few of us thought he could do it. So we spent how many years working out possible scenarios that allowed Harry to take Potions. Some came very close. Now we have to work out if Harry really will be back at Hogwarts. How JKR plans to plot it out may determine how the staffing problem will be settled. Most of us think Harry will not return as a student, but will come to the castle from time to time. But, here's my best guess: McGonagall and Slughorn will hold the two main administrative jobs. I'm not sure who will be Deputy and who will be Head. I think, given that Slughorn prefers to be the broker behind the power, he will be Deputy. He actually has more experience than she does, but I don't think that's too important in the WW. I wonder if he was Deputy for DD for a while? Percy Weasley will be the Transfiguration teacher and Head of Gryffindor. If Harry is back in class, or if we see things from a new PoV, Percy will be the new Snape. I'm almost certain he'll consider most of his students to be Dunderheads. Bill Weasley will be the new DADA teacher. This could make for a fun rivalry between Percy and Bill. Except I don't know how it would have the opportunity to play out. I'd bet a few Wizarding coins that at least one of these two will be on staff. > SSSusan: > Truthfully, I'm thinking bringing in one of the Weasleys. Molly, > perhaps? Potioncat: I nominated her for DADA before. I think she did a bit of DADA in OoP at 12 GP, but most people thought she was just the housekeeper. Now that we know the DADA Jinx is real, I'd rather she didn't take the job. Bill can handle it. He's a curse breaker. From puduhepa98 at aol.com Tue Jun 13 02:22:18 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 22:22:18 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Baptism/Christianity in HP Message-ID: <406.452017a.31bf7b5a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153762 Tonks: > It is true that the child, once of age, has to publically affirm > their faith, which is what confirmation is about. However baptism in > the Anglican church, which I suspect that JKR may be have in her > mind as a model, is more than a dedication of the child. > > The rubrics (instruction) for Baptism as found in the Episcopal Book > of Common Prayer (1976) used in the Episcopal (Anglican) (both high > and low) church in the U.S. says: > > "Holy Baptism is full initiation by water and the Holy Spirit into > Christ's body the Church. The bond which God establishes in Baptism > is indissoluble. >Geoff: >The BOCP almost seems to suggest that the vows made by the godparents are speaking as the child, which seems to suggest that a person can vicariously become a Christian. In fact, some of the wording implies that the ceremony of receiving the child into the Christian church is indissoluble which seems to contradict the need for the infant to later affirm their faith by Confirmation. >I stand by my comment quoted above that infant baptism per se does not make a person a Christian. Nikkalmati: In the Roman Catholic Church baptism irrevocably marks the soul as a Christian for all etemity.At that moment the soul is purified of original sin. That is why parents are so anxious to have their children baptized ASAP. Yes, it is done through proxy by the parents and godparents and the child is stuck with it. Whatever the child may choose to do later, the mark is indelible. (In the Church's view). Part of the whole split of Christendom was over baptism, when and how it should be done and its meaning, so I doubt we can solve it here.. Re Harry Potter, if we assume Lily and James were High Church, the mark on Harry's forehead could be a reminder of his baptism and the purity of his soul. I wouldn't go further than that. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From celizwh at intergate.com Tue Jun 13 03:31:44 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 03:31:44 -0000 Subject: Understanding Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153763 Neri: > I meant ESE as in Voldemort's Man. Snape's actions suggest he's > neither Voldemort's man nor Dumbledore's man. Are you saying this > isn't a possibility? I'd say it's the most straightforward possibility. houyhnhnm: Granting that your interpretation of Snape is correct (I don't agree, but that's about a hundred other arguments), how does his procrastination in alerting the Order advance that interpretation? If Harry has found a way to get to the Ministry, there are only two possible outcomes--Voldemort's success or failure. Regardless of his reasons, Snape must want either one or the other because those are the only two possibilities. What would he gain by having the Order show up too late? With the both the prophecy and the prophecy boy in Voldemort's hands, and five other Hogwarts students dead, the game would be as good as over. He wouldn't need his *cover* for much longer. So if that's what Snape wants, why alert the Order at all? And if he's working for Voldemort's defeat why procrastinate? I don't see how it gains him anything. What possible reason can there be for Snape to dally around about saving Harry from Voldemort be he ever so evilly out for himself? That's the relevant question. Not how long it takes to send and receive a patronus, or to search a forest, or what time the sun rises in northern Scotland. The Dumbledore's office scenes nearly always have a description of the sky outside (I've been meaning to go through and tally them up to look for a pattern.) Personally, I think Rowling just liked the idea of a green streak in the sky because dawn symbolizes beginning and green hints at evil. It is the day, after all, when Harry's life is going to change forever, because he will learn about his part in the prophecy. From iam.kemper at gmail.com Tue Jun 13 02:51:54 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 19:51:54 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The power the Dark Lord knows not - was Neville Theory In-Reply-To: <20060612193013.99773.qmail@web52701.mail.yahoo.com> References: <700201d40606121022g74333cadv6b9978be179a35de@mail.gmail.com> <20060612193013.99773.qmail@web52701.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <700201d40606121951r27f57816t22ccd358d87f3efe@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153764 > Patricia wrote: > > > I really had forgotten the bit about the power the dark lord knows > > not... well not forgotten, but I forgot to connect it to Harry's > > survival in a real way. JKR cannot reasonably kill Harry and have > > the power of love fail and stil have this wonderful work about good > > and evil and love and hate. ...snip the rest... > > > anigrrrl2 responded: > > Ok - I agree that Harry can't die in the end, but I think my reasoning is a little different, and less philosophical. It simply wouldn't make a good story if Harry died. The whole trajectory of these books has been the maturation of Harry, the education of Harry. So far, at least 4 people have died directly to save Harry - Lily, James, Sirius, and Dumbledore. It would render the literary deaths of these characters insignificant and worthless if Harry did not survive and thrive. That's point number one...point number two is that without the success of Harry in the end, the entire connective tissue of the books would also be rendered silly. Training this young wizard for seven years, who is obviously gifted, especially in Defense Against the Dark Arts, has been the point of the books. Now, some will say that it has all been leading up to Voldemort's defeat, and that once LV is defeated, Harry's purpose is also defeated, but I disagree. I think that once Harry defeats LV,, > while the books may be over, Harry's story is just beginning. He has essentially been preparing to be an Auror for seven years. I don't think Harry can die, because it wouldn't serve any literary purpose. > .. . Kemper now: More accurately, imo, James and Lily died for Harry's life while Sirius died and Dumbledore --though I'll be the first one to say his death is debatable-- died for the way of the Light. Those two believe that Harry is the great Light hope. And for all his talk of choice and anti-prophecy talk, Dumbledore believes that Harry is the only one that can vanquish the Dark Lord otherwise why wouldn't he have face and fought the Dark Lord earlier? If Harry does die while obviously vanquishing the Dark Lord, it will serve the literary purpose of showing the power of sacrificial love. Or do you mean something different by 'literary purpose'? -Kemper [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From coverton at netscape.com Mon Jun 12 06:37:20 2006 From: coverton at netscape.com (corey_over) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 06:37:20 -0000 Subject: People in Harry Potter you love to hate In-Reply-To: <003e01c68dda$adf6afd0$6500a8c0@shannonn2zgd3u> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153765 > Kellie now: > > They Dursleys *sorry, I don't know how to spell their name* for > what they put Harry through. They were terrible for that. > > And, tied for my number one most disliked are Umbridge and Snape. > Umbridge, is just hatable from her abusive nature right down to her > pink cardigan, toad face and hem hem. Hi Kelly, it's Corey; I couldn't agree with you more. The moment I heard about Umbridge I just didn't like. Never the cardigan and all the rest of it. That qwill was bad enough. The Dursleys is how I wrote it. Your fellow member, Corey From alexisnguyen at gmail.com Tue Jun 13 03:06:54 2006 From: alexisnguyen at gmail.com (P. Alexis Nguyen) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:06:54 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Love Potions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153766 Anna: > Anyway, can anyone point me to some good theories, or discussions > involving the possibility of Ginny using a Love Potion in HBP? I'm > sure I can't be the only one to have thought of this! You're right; there have been much [heated] discussion in the past, but then, any conversations about SHIPs tend to get heated. :) Anyway, I did a quick search of my email. You want the "SHIP: Pirate Ginny" and the "SHIP: Ginny Unknowingly Wearing Love Potion" threads. Those directly pertain to Ginny & love potion usage. For something related, you might also want to check out the "Dallas Theory" (and "Dallas Theory Two"). ~Ali From siskiou at vcem.com Mon Jun 12 18:11:26 2006 From: siskiou at vcem.com (Susanne) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 11:11:26 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] R/Hr ship (was Re: JKR Listening ? ) In-Reply-To: References: <003601c68dd7$dacd23c0$6500a8c0@shannonn2zgd3u> Message-ID: <1143651098.20060612111126@vcem.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153767 Hi, Sunday, June 11, 2006, 11:30:04 PM, ellecain wrote: > I mean, in HBP, all that Ron-Lavender necking was supposed to be an > attempt by Ron to get back at Hermione for kissing Krum. > That struck me as highly immature, and I cant say I approved of > Hermione dealing with it the way she did. I felt Ron getting together with Lavender was a lot more complicated than just wanting to get back at Hermione. Keep in mind the big blowup Ron and his sister Ginny had, when Ron found her kissing Dean in the hallway. Apart from being told that Hermione kissed Krum, Ginny also told Ron that he was a weirdo for not having had any personal snogging experience apart from his aunt (or some other relative). Here are a few of the reasons that I feel prompted Ron to try a relationship with Lavender: 1. his sister called him weird and immature for not having kissed anyone besides his aunt (or great aunt?) 2. because he found out the girl he was hoping to have his first kiss with had "betrayed" him by kissing someone else first (not that *I* think she betrayed him, but I think Ron felt that way), and even worse, she had never admitted that the someone else was anything more than a penpal/friend. He may also have started to think he misjudged her feelings and Hermione didn't like him as more than a friend, because of the way she treated him (apart from a few occasions). 3.Hermione had not treated Ron very well, and given very unclear answers to his advances, plus she didn't believe in his abilities, so he probably felt he had misunderstood and she didn't like him as more as a friend after all (poor Hermione, who had just taken steps to have her first real date with him and had no idea why Ron acted cold toward her all of a sudden!) 4. Lavender had made advances toward him for a while, and it felt good to have someone who acts consistently nice and isn't all complicated and is happy to have you as a boyfriend 5. to show Ginny (and Hermione?) he wasn't a loser who couldn't find a girlfriend if he really wanted to. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at vcem.com From leslie41 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 13 05:25:20 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 05:25:20 -0000 Subject: Horcrux: was Baptism/Christianity in HP Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153768 > Magpie: > But we've been through all this. a_svirn isn't asking for a name > dictionary, but for you to explain why the names that also appear > in the Bible are significant because the Biblical character > somehow relates to or sheds light on the HP character. Leslie41: Funny, I thought we'd been all through this already too! But I'll try to make things clearer. First, let's recap the names involved at Godric's Hollow. I'm actually including more definitions than I did before, because as I keep thinking about it more keeps occurring to me. Mugglenet offers a bunch of great definitions, upon which I am expanding. Godric: This name means "kingdom of god", or perhaps "good kingdom". Mugglenet cites "ric" as meaning "power," but it can also mean "kingdom, nation, or diocese" (as can be found in words today like "bishopric"). Several interpretations of this word can be found, ranging from "power of good" to "God's kingdom", etc. See Clark/Hall's Anglo-Saxon dictionary--it's online. According to Mugglenet, Voldemort cannot be so quickly ascribed. It means "flee from death," but it can also mean other things. "Mort" seems to mean death, but it can also mean "evil". Thus, "violent of death" or "violent of evil". Now, if the one "violent of evil" comes to "the kingdom of god", I start to think about how the story of Harry's salvation from Voldemort relates to the Bible. That's ME. Your mileage may vary. Lily: Again, according to Mugglenet: "A flower symbolizing purity and innocence. It is the flower commonly used during the Easter holiday and symbolizes immortality." The Easter Holiday celebrates Christ's rising from the dead. And his immortality. And ours, if we are Christians. James: Again, according to Mugglenet, James means "usurper," but it also can be a reference to the apostle. The apostle James was the apostle associated with good deeds as being the route to salvation. So, again, what I'm seeing here is the one "violent of evil" coming to "the kingdom of god." He is met by "good deeds" and the symbol associated with the risen Christ. Christ who sacrificed himself for his "children," as Lily does for her child. He kills both good deeds and the symbol of the resurrection, and it appears that he will be victorious. He meets Harry and his own hate is reflected back upon him. It is important that Harry doesn't actually do anything but really serve as a reflector at this point. Lily's sacrifice reflects the sacrifice of Christ for his people, for his "kingdom of God," so to me when we speak of Lily's sacrifice being "all that's needed," what we're talking about in a greater sense IS Christ's sacrifice. And to reinforce the idea of the importance and resonance of "God's Kingdom," (and back on Godric's Hollow), the place on Harry's body that reflects the "killing curse" (as opposed to the grace of the eternal life provided by Christ) is the point at which he was baptized and himself brought into God's Kingdom. (And, this is looking more like allegory, which I generally don't like, but the allegory is subtle and doesn't hit you over the head, so I can deal with it.) As for the Horcruxes, I will defer to Mugglenet's first definition listed, which "and I quote "when broken down in many languages means "outside the cross." As in not of the cross, or opposed to the cross, or as I believe follows logically, "against Christ." From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Jun 12 16:57:57 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 16:57:57 -0000 Subject: Blood Protection - was Re: Baptism/Christianity in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153770 Pippin: > Not being Christian, I haven't got a dog in this fight. But if Lily's sacrifice is > applicable to the sacrifice of Jesus, then could the point not be that the mystical > protection of her blood works against evil even when it is transmitted through so > imperfect a vessel as Petunia? Ceridwen: Dumbledore sure set store by the same blood running through Lily's and Petunia's veins. McGonagall watched the Dursley house all day and was not impressed, to say the least, with them. We know now that McGonagall is a well-thought, well-spoken witch. Dumbledore must have had a very good reason to place Harry there with her censure ringing in his ears. The entire WW is aware of blood. Who is your ancestor? All of that. I keep returning to the idea that there is some mystical thing through relation, through blood. Not genetic, we've been over WW genetics, and that just makes my head hurt. But at the same time, real connections - the Malfoys and the Weasleys are related, but they don't get along - don't show anything of the sort. So, Lily's sacrifice, plus Petunia's having Lily's blood, equals protection. I've read that Dumbledore must have done some spellwork during that missing day to ensure Harry's protection with the Dursleys, but I've often wondered if these spells if any are amplified by the relationship. It seems so to me, but then, you know how things that seem so obvious to one reader are completely absent for another. Going against the idea of blood mattering is the fact that wizards who are related, Weasleys and Malfoys for instance, simply don't get along. And, of course, the Dursleys don't seem to like Harry very much, either, though they aren't WW people. (Could Petunia, because of having a witch for a sister, be more bound than another Muggle who has no such relationship with the WW?) So I think it has to be some very deep, arcane sort of magic, a natural magic that doesn't manifest in everyday interactions. This is how I'm taking it. Does anyone else have ideas? Ceridwen. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jun 13 09:57:51 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 09:57:51 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153771 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: Leslie41: > > True. But then if they're not significant, why go through them at > > all? To forge a tie to Sirius? Yes, of course. But why not just > > make Sirius Harry's guardian, all nice and legal? > Magpie: > Because dramatically what is needed is a title with warmth, and > godfather works perfectly. Hearing that Sirius was a friend of his > parents is one thing, hearing he was the kind of friend that they > asked to stand godfather really says how they felt about Sirius, and > also is the perfect title to explain what his relationship with Harry > can be. Not something dry and legal--the Dursleys are his legal > guardians. (Fairy tale stories very often have cold legal guardians > and fairy godmothers.) Godfather is exactly the word I would use to > describe Sirius' relationship, and Harry uses it too...only without > either of them ever meaning anything too religious by it. Sirius > takes his role of godfather very seriously, but we've never seen him > take an interest in Harry's religious instruction. He considers > himself an adult who promised to take a special interest in this boy > when he was asked by his parents. It's the association I've always > grown up with, myself, and seen reflected in lots of fiction, movies > and tv. Geoff: This is the point I made in message 153684: Now, I am personally sceptical that there will be a connection between Harry's scar and his baptism. I accept that, since Sirius is confirmed as his godfather not only by himself but by Cornelius Fudge, Harry was obviously baptised in whatever form was considered appropriate by James and Lily. However, I am inclined to think that this was a literary device used by JKR to strengthen the bond between Harry and Sirius. Had Sirius only been a friend to his parents, Harry might not have set much store by a suggestion that they live together and would not perhaps have been so devastated when Sirius was killed; it is the fact that his parents had placed this responsibility in his hands that created the closeness that made Sirius the nearest thing he had to a real, loving family member. >From message 153768: Leslie41: > According to Mugglenet, Voldemort cannot be so quickly ascribed. It > means "flee from death," but it can also mean other things. "Mort" > seems to mean death, but it can also mean "evil". Thus, "violent of > death" or "violent of evil". Geoff: Interesting that one translation has not emerged which did when this topic was discussed a couple of years ago. Voldemort could be rendered in English as "theft of death". From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Jun 13 09:56:44 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 09:56:44 -0000 Subject: Horcrux: was Baptism/Christianity in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153772 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" wrote: > > > a_svirn: > > Metaphor doesn't help your cause any. You'd need a very literal > > sense to link whores to immortality or "wrong" immortality. > > Leslie41: > > From Merriam-Webster: > > http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary > > The first definition cites, and I quote: "a woman who engages in > sexual acts for money : PROSTITUTE; also : a promiscuous or immoral > woman." a_svirn: Oh dear... Check in Webster the difference between *immortality* and *immorality*. From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Tue Jun 13 10:20:02 2006 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:20:02 -0000 Subject: Horcrux: was Baptism/Christianity in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153773 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" wrote: > > > a_svirn: > > Metaphor doesn't help your cause any. You'd need a very literal > > sense to link whores to immortality or "wrong" immortality. > > Leslie41: > > From Merriam-Webster: > > http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary > > The first definition cites, and I quote: "a woman who engages in > sexual acts for money : PROSTITUTE; also : a promiscuous or immoral > woman." > > It seems to me that the tie between prostitues and immorality is > fairly set. At least Mr. Webster thinks so! Renee: Well, immortality and immorality resemble each other but for a T, I'd say... > > As for the notion of baptism, I've reached the conclusion that that > it's not productive to argue with you anymore about it. > > I'll just tell you again that I think everyone is free to think what > they want about it, and your opinion carries canonical weight, as > does mine. The importance of Harry's baptism, and the symbolism > involved at Godric's Hollow, seem transparently clear to many here > on the list. Certainly I'm not alone in my opinion. To many others, > including yourself, it is not. > > To quote Stuart Smalley: "and that's...okay!" > > I don't see any number of canonically supported interpretations in > Harry Potter and any number of other books. Because canon can > support different interpretations all at the same time, we can all > think different things at once. > > I hope we can at least agree on that! Renee: This begs the question, whether statements made in interviews and information found on JKR's website are canon in the same way the books are. The books don't give any information whatsoever about Harry's christening. Shouldn't readers be able to interpret the Harry Potter series based on the text of the books alone, without tracking down every utterance the author makes in whatever other medium there is? And the books tell us nothing about Harry's christening or baptism. >From which I deduce it is of very minor importance to the story. So no. I, for one, can't agree with you until JKR declares every last bit of information found outside the books to be required reading for everyone trying to interpret the series. Renee From penhaligon at gmail.com Mon Jun 12 12:43:54 2006 From: penhaligon at gmail.com (Jane Penhaligon) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 05:43:54 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] New Headmaster/Headmistress at Hogwarts in Book 7? new heads of the houses? In-Reply-To: <4e2ac800606120258m7d915486j10194e6da6062905@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <005401c68e1d$deb88bf0$bd5a1618@the248437c0a60> No: HPFGUIDX 153774 Kathrin P said (concerning who may replace McGonagall as head of Gryffindor): > Madame Trelawney? Gosh, I hope not! She seems more like a > Ravenclaw to me... > Trelawney? Ravenclaw? I cannot think of any single character who would be less a Ravenclaw than Trelawney! Ravenclaw is known for intellectual rigor, while Trelawnes is engaged in a field completely lacking in any intellectual component whatsoever. Panhandle From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Tue Jun 13 11:18:37 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 11:18:37 -0000 Subject: Horcrux: was Baptism/Christianity in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153775 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > > Leslie41: > > True. But then if they're not significant, why go through them at > > all? To forge a tie to Sirius? Yes, of course. But why not just > > make Sirius Harry's guardian, all nice and legal? > > Magpie: > Because dramatically what is needed is a title with warmth, and > godfather works perfectly. Hearing that Sirius was a friend of his > parents is one thing, hearing he was the kind of friend that they > asked to stand godfather really says how they felt about Sirius, and > also is the perfect title to explain what his relationship with Harry > can be. Not something dry and legal--the Dursleys are his legal > guardians. Gerry I don't remember who pointed this out to me, but at the end of PoA Sirius tells Harry that the Potters made him his guardian. So they did both. Of course him being in prison invalidated that, so it was next of kin, i.e. the Dursleys. Godfather is indeed that little extra, which makes him family. Of course it has the word father in it. Much nicer to think about your godfather than about your guardian. > Leslie: > > Hey, you don't have to think it's important. I think it's very > > important, because it's there in canon and Rowling could have > chosen > > another way to make Sirius important to Harry, but *didn't*. >From what I remember from childhood, godparents were very important. Not because of a religious significance but because of the extra attention I got, the extra nice present at birthdays etc. Special kind of aunt and uncle. From what I see in the Harry-Sirius relationship it is exactly the same thing. In this case, also a way to make an unrelated person a kind of family. Gerry > From honeykissed246 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 13 03:27:10 2006 From: honeykissed246 at yahoo.com (Darlene Carroll) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 20:27:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Understanding Snape--Pensieve scene In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060613032710.75164.qmail@web33209.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153776 Julie: Snip> "We know that Harry saw Snape put three "memories" into the pensieve before the start of the interrupted and final lesson. But what is there in canon as proof that the memory Harry saw was **Snape's** memory--one of the three? Or that all three were of James' misdeeds? Surely there are other things that Snape would not want Harry to see." Honeykissed: You know, I wondered about that as well. I believe that there was "something" between Lilly and Snape. Now I am not saying a "relationship" per se, but there is something. I would think that whatever it is or was, Snape would not want Harry to know about it. I think this may have been one of the three that he removed. Also, I am inclined to think that Dumbledore may leave the pensieve to Harry (we have yet to see). Since Dumbledore died, Snape left (abruptly :)) maybe Harry will find some "bottled up" memories that he can use. I am definitely curious to see what the other two memories consisted of. But I defintely agree with you....its very interesting. I hope I posted this correctly so the powers that be will not chose to delete it. From fairwynn at hotmail.com Tue Jun 13 11:56:24 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (fair wynn) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 06:56:24 -0500 Subject: Understanding Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153777 > >Neri: >The only problem with this is the sheer irresponsibility and stupidity >of this non-action. He obviously shouldn't have waited any amount of >time at all, and certainly not several hours. wynnleaf Consider. If Snape had alerted the Order to go to the MOM prior to waiting some time to see if Harry, Hermione and Umbridge came back from the forest, then the Order would have gone to the MOM far too early, found nothing and no one there, and left with another "false alarm" report, the same as happened when Snape contacted 12 Grimmauld Place the first time and found Sirius there. > > Gerry: > > Searching the forest is of > > course not a viable option because a truly extensive search of the > > forest will take days. > >Neri: >All the more reason to start immediately. And Snape "intending to >search" shows that this at least was a viable option. Why would he have searched immediately? Just to track down Harry, Hermione and Umbridge and tell them what? "Don't go any further. I, Severus Snape, have come to rescue you Prof. Umbridge. Surely you know that these students are about to overpower you!" Which, of course, they didn't. The centaurs did. And the centaurs could have overpowered Snape, too. And Grawp had no particular reason that we know to rescue Snape. My point is that an initial search would, if he found them at all, have turned up exactly what he at first thought was happening -- Harry, Hermione and Umbridge in the forest. They were with her until they came across the centaurs, had the altercation with them, were rescued by Grawp, left Umbridge in the forest, found the other kids, were approached by the thestrals, and flew to London -- all of which obviously took quite a bit of time ----- until that all happened, they were Not at the MOM. All of this argument assumes that Snape should have *assumed* that Harry would overpower Umbridge. But Harry did *not* overpower Umbridge. The centaurs did. And even after the centaurs overpowered her, Harry and Hermione would not have escaped the centaurs and the forest were it not for Grawp. As far as we know, Snape may have had no idea whatsoever that Grawp was in the forest, much less that he'd have any interest in rescuing Harry and Hermione. Harry and Hermione got out of the forest and ultimately to London through a series of events which had absolutely nothing to do with their abilities, and everything to do with dumb luck (Grawp rescuing them, blood on their clothes attracting thestrals). Basically, your argument says that Snape should have *assumed* that Harry would have enough dumb luck to get to London. Because he did *not* get to the London using his own personal abilities. > > > Gerry: > > They went in with a teacher, there is a reasanble amount of > > time in which he can expect them back. Yet they did not come. > > > >Neri: >That `teacher" was not very capable of handling the dangers in the >forest. OTOH she constituted one of the great dangers herself. Just >the day before she had led Aurors to attack both Hagrid and >McGonagall, and Snape knew she was trying to get sensitive Order >information out of Harry using dubious means. And all this while Snape >knew that Harry is under a mind attack from Voldemort. No amount of >time waiting was "reasonable" in that situation, certainly not several >hours. Dumbledore has allowed Harry to enter into so many far more dangerous situations! If Snape is culpable for allowing Harry to go into the forest with Umbridge, then we must say the same for Dumbledore for allowing Harry to enter into so much danger again and again. And we don't even know how soon Snape learned that the three had gone to the forest, as opposed to some other part of the castle. Neri >1. Snape would not be revealed as Voldemort's man, but only as an >Order member who took too long to respond. He would have been able to >continue as Voldemort's agent in Hogwarts and in the Order. This very >argument is used by Snape himself in Spinner's End to explain why >Voldemort gave the mission of assassinating Dumbledore to Draco first >rather than to Snape. This shows that JKR is well aware of this >consideration. Snape's explanations at Spinner End add evidence that Voldemort knew nothing about Snape's involvement with sending the Order to the MOM. Snape taunted Bella with the fiasco at the MOM and with the Death Eaters inability to overpower students. She replied that it wasn't just students -- that the Order had shown up. But he never once mentioned his own part in sending the Order. In spite of all the explanations and excuses he offered her for his actions over the years, he never once mentioned his actions in alerting the Order that night. Neri >2. Dumbledore and the Order rushing to the Ministry and arriving too >late would have been the ideal scenario from Voldemort's point of >view. It would have taken just an anonymous call to the Aurors and >Dumbledore would be caught breaking into a secret Ministry department >together with an escaped murderer, and with a little luck framed for >kidnapping Harry and stealing the prophecy while the Ministry can >continue denying Voldemort's return to power. For Voldemort that would >have been taking down all the birds with a single shot. Since it's clear that the Death Eaters had no guarauntee of winning in a fight against the Order and Dumbledore, I doubt that this would have been their plan. Without any Order around, but with Harry, they had a strong chance of getting the prophecy. Why would they have made the situation fraught with risk by inviting the Order to come along? wynnleaf From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 12 16:14:37 2006 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 16:14:37 -0000 Subject: Werewolf Mystery In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153778 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "quigonginger" wrote: been > Ginger: > This is only a guess, but I'd say there are werewolves, and there are > werewolves. > > Lupin is a good type who really doesn't want to hurt, but is overcome > by his illness. GF is the bad kind who hurts because he can. Lanval: Agreed. Lupin's description of the other werewolves also supports the theory of some measure of choice for werewolves. By distancing themselves from LV or Greyback, by insisting on, and arranging for, safety precautions for themselves, werewolves can choose to remain members of Wizarding society (or Muggle society! Another problem. How many werewolves are Muggles?) Which would of course fit the overall theme of the series -- choice being of the essence. > Ginger: > I am guessing that GF goes out and hunts for the kill when it pleases > him, so he gets the urges out of his system enough to be able to plan > an attack for the purpose of infecting a new victim. > > Lupin, OTOH, has no desire to hurt and will only do so if he actually > loses control, in which case, there is no stopping him. Given his > animosity towards Snape when in normal form, he might well lose > control when effected by his transformation, in which case, Snape was > truly in danger, and his debt to James was an actual life debt. Lanval: Interesting point. Some would argue, however, that Lupin never felt any great animosity toward Snape as a teenager. Your theory would also mean that a werewolf is capable of recognizing people, and might, for instance, choose to attack or not. I suppose it all comes down to how much rational thought remains in a werewolf's mind. > > Ginger: > I see Lupin as being like Alex. He knows what he is capable of, but > doesn't want to do it. Alex loses control because of depths of his > hunger and because of his nature. Lupin in werewolf form would be at > that point of loss of control. No matter how good his intentions > are, he is still a werewolf. Hence his exile in the SS and his > potion in PoA. Lanval: True. But in Alex's case, it would be a slower and gradually worsening process, fueled by hunger, which brings out his true nature. In a HP werewolf, the change would be immediate and extreme, as we witness in PoA. The nature brings on the hunger, as it were. Since we haven't witnessed too many werewolves in action, I wonder if a werewolf's hunger/aggression is diminished after the first victim, or would he go for seconds, if available? > Ginger: > I would also compare this to a real life instance of a cat playing > with a mouse or bug before it eats it. Now in real life, the cat > isn't being sadisitic or evil, it's just its nature. Lanval: Indeed. I love my cats to death, and I fancy them to be mildly attached to me, but nonetheless I'm always very grateful that I'm not three inches tall... > Ginger: > GF, OTOH, has a dual nature. The human side is capable of reason and > planning, and the werewolf side is out for a feed. My guess is that > he uses his human side to plan the attack, and that part of the plan > is that he feeds at will before any attacks he plans for infection so > he is not so out of control that he eats the victim. Lanval: What do you suggest he eats, though -- not people, certainly? Meat? Would a belly-full of 'normal' food make his werewolf form less likely to attack? It's a possibility. > Pippin: > I think the werewolves are under no magical compulsion to eat people, > but will eat people or anything else if they happen to be hungry. In PoA, > Hagrid worries that Lupin might have attacked Buckbeak, "but Lupin > says he never ate anythin' last night." (ch 22) Lanval: I'd forgotten about that. It adds another difficulty, though: Lupin states in PoA that werewolves are a danger _only_ to humans. Which is supported fully in canon. Wormtail especially, and even Prongs, would never have had peace of mind while roaming with Wolf!Lupin, much less had any fun, if there had been reason for them to fear the wolf's teeth and claws. Shouldn't Hagrid know this??? I've come to take his remarks with several grains of salt, especially when the Gryffindor/Slytherin rivalry creeps into play, but Magical Beasts is sort of his field of expertise, no? > Pippin: > Lupin says in HBP that his people steal, and sometimes kill, to eat. I > thought he was talking about victims accidentally killed in the course > of a robbery, but it's also possible that starving werewolves "get > carried away" not by magic but by hunger. Lanval: True. But I think we need to differentiate between Wolf!Hunger and Human!Hunger. Like you, I took Lupin's comment to mean that these outlaw werewolves, who have no way of supporting themselves, have to resort to stealing, and perhaps killing, in _human_ form to survive. As in armed robbery. Which of course again brings up the question of how many Muggles are among these werewolves. Not that it appears to matter much, if Wizard werewolves are never magically trained. Still, with some self-training and varying degrees of natural talent, they might be able to secure food in relatively harmless (if still illegal) ways. There is naturally the possibility, as you suggest, that killing & gorging once a month might just keep them alive from one full moon to the next...and that killing and feeding takes priority over the 'real' aim of creating more werewoves. Greyback seems to be able to do both very well. *shudders with distaste* > Pippin: > Since Snape believes that Lupin was in on the "joke" and its purpose > was to kill him, he could assume that Lupin made sure to be > hungry that night. Lanval: It only accounts for Snape's view, though. But DD seems equally convinced that Snape's life was in great danger, and he neither believes that Lupin was 'in on the joke', (which is really just a figment of Snape's imagination), nor does he believe that it was a plot by the Marauders to kill Snape. So malice/planning on Lupin's part makes little sense to me. > Pippin: > There is another alternative. We don't know how soon the first bite > takes effect. It doesn't sound as though a bitten person transforms > immediately. Perhaps wizards consider the honorable thing to do if > bitten by a werewolf is to fight it to the death. Dumbledore is > certainly very clear that Snape was in peril of his life. > Lanval: No, I don't think that newly attacked people transform immediately either. My guess is it happens at the next full moon. The "death before becoming a werewolf" being an honorable thing is a fascinating idea, though. I would, however, have expected Ron or Hermione to mention this, once the subject of how people become victims comes up. Greyback's proclivity for children is known, so is the age of one his victims -- this would have been a perfect time to bring up the fact that an adult would be expected to fight to the death. But what, again, of Muggles being attacked? And even if HP werewolves only attack fellow Wizards, we have a problem... what if the adult victim indeed fights to the death, and kills the werewolf, but does not entirely escape injury (a mere scratch would do)? Is the victim then expected to do take the honorable thing to the logical next level, and commit suicide? Pippin: > Lupin suffers when transformed from the urge to bite and scratch > himself if he is deprived of humans. The potion alleviates this > and allows him to keep his human mind. Of course we should > not forget that human minds are capable of evil to a far greater > extent than any wolf :) > Lanval: You don't think the transformation itself is painful then? This would also go against what I've seen and read about werewolves in films and books... which is admittedly not a whole lot. :) Lanval, who's intrigued by the responses so far, but still hasn't found an answer as to whether we're dealing with a contradiction within the text, or whether the two different viewpoints of a) Werewolves as Killers, and b) Werewolves as Occasionally Lethal Werewolf-Makers can be reconciled From mros at xs4all.nl Tue Jun 13 12:43:38 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:43:38 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:the whole Christian/Baptism debate that's been going on References: Message-ID: <001301c68ee6$fe2b9850$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 153779 > > Leslie41: > > True. But then if they're not significant, why go through them at > > all? To forge a tie to Sirius? Yes, of course. But why not just > > make Sirius Harry's guardian, all nice and legal? > > Magpie: > Because dramatically what is needed is a title with warmth, and > godfather works perfectly. Hearing that Sirius was a friend of his > parents is one thing, hearing he was the kind of friend that they > asked to stand godfather really says how they felt about Sirius, and > also is the perfect title to explain what his relationship with Harry > can be. Not something dry and legal--the Dursleys are his legal > guardians. The term 'godfather' or 'godmother' is not exclusive to christian faith or church. Remember the 'fairy godmother' from fairy tales? Do you really think fairy godmothers were present in a *church* in the presence of a *priest*? Do you remember the uproar the Harry Potter books caused amongst (American) Christians? They wanted to burn the books because they were supposed to be satanic. Why? Because it "taught children how to become *witches*" and doesn't the bible say something about 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live'? Muggles hunted down witches because the bible and the priests told them to. The Church sent the Inquisition and the Christian State sent its Witchfinders Generals. The Wizarding World separated itself from the Muggle World because of this. And you think, Leslie, that Wizards would give their children a *Christian* baptism? So they could be indoctrinated by the priests and their books? The books that told them (the baptised wizard children) that they were intrisically *evil* and must be *burned*? Or *drowned*? There probable was a naming ceremony, in which Sirius played a big role. (the Christians took the whole notion of 'godfathering' from those pre-christian ceremonies. I can't remember anything in the Old or New Testament that vaguely resembles the 'godfather' or 'godmother' role) But the Wizarding World being Christian? After centuries of persecution? And wasn't one of the reasons that Wizards were supposedly satanic because they did not worship Jehovah or Christ? (one of the quirks of monotheism: "if you're not with us, your against us. Either you're a cardcarrying Christian, or you're one of Satan's own Satanic herd! Burn! Burn!!!") A problem I could see arising in this: the Muggleborns. They might well be baptised and raised as a Christian. Very probably in fact. Which might explain *some* of the aversion the 'purebloods' might have against Muggleborns. 'Polluting' their culture with their weird religion which says that if you're a witch you should die or at least *repent* and *feel guilty*... But luckily, Muggleborns get snatched from their motherculture from age eleven and thoroughly immersed in Wizard Culture. After graduating, they will continue to live in the Wizarding World and very rarely make excursions to the Muggle world with its churches and priests. If they ever were thoroughly indoctrinated by religion, a few years of spells, potions, ghosts and Quidditch would cure them of that. And if not, there is always Oblivation... But what if the parents of the Muggleborn witch or wizard were Christian (probable) and they, after finding their offspring doing 'wild magic' before age eleven? A trip to the local priest for an exorcism? Holy water? 'Beating the devil out of him/her'? Children have been killed by their parents for less. I think that in this case the Wizarding World would sent a special Auror squad to take the child away and into Wizarding Care. All those old stories about elves stealing children and leaving 'changelings' must be based on *something*, right? In any case, I think we could rightly assume that an old pureblood family like the Potters (or the Blacks) would know nothing of Christian baptism. best, marion From leslie41 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 13 13:23:47 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:23:47 -0000 Subject: Horcrux: was Baptism/Christianity in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153780 > > > a_svirn: > > > Metaphor doesn't help your cause any. You'd need a very > > > literal sense to link whores to immortality or "wrong" > > > immortality. > > > > Leslie41: > > > > From Merriam-Webster: > > > > http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary > > > > The first definition cites, and I quote: "a woman who engages in > > sexual acts for money : PROSTITUTE; also : a promiscuous or > > immoral woman." > > a_svirn: > Oh dear... Check in Webster the difference between *immortality* > and *immorality*. > Leslie41: Check my first post where I clearly cite that I am talking about "immorality" and not "immortality": http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/153659?l=1 "Leslie41: The word "hore" in middle/old english means "whore". Whorecrosses. Makes sense. In the bible whores are associated with idolatry and faithlessness to god. Even if we don't bring the bible into it, the word is associated with immorality and compromised principles." It's your following post that completely misreads the word as "immortality." As I originally spoke of immorality and not "immortality," I never noticed the misreading. But I would admit and agree with you, certainly, that whores have absolutely nothing to do with immortality! From Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com Tue Jun 13 02:13:43 2006 From: Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com (kibakianakaya) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 02:13:43 -0000 Subject: HP & Family In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153781 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kristaf0726" wrote: > > Hi, > I just finished reading OOTP and am starting HBP. One thing that has > been bothering me is why isn't Lupin more involved with Harry. If he > was one of the 3 marauders, shouldn't he have also been like an uncle > to Harry? All it seems is that JKR is just concentrating on that > Sirius died and Harry has no family. I would have expected Lupin to > step in or even Mr & Mrs Weasley to tell him that he is part of their > family now. Is it because of the lone hero theme??? > Just thoughts I had... Lilygale here: Certainly Lupin's emotional and physical absence works as a plot device. Dumbledore's role as Harry's mentor is more easily accomplished without a substitute 'godfather' in the picture. But Lupin's absence from Harry's life originates from and underscores Lupin's character. Lupin strikes me as a good man who has trouble connecting emotionally with others. I imagine that becoming a werewolf at a young age might affect his ability to trust, rely on others and sustain close relationships. A young child (3 years old? 5, 7?)who has to undergo horrible transoformations monthly might learn that he can't rely on his parents or anyone else to keep him safe and from pain. When he gets to Hogwarts, Remus suddenly finds he has friends. But he is not an equal partner in the James/Sirius Show, he's somewhat on the outside of that tight dyad. And I bet he's just fine with that. Friends, but not *too* close friends. And the "close but not too close" pattern continued during Harry's third year. I'm going from memory, but I think there was only the one time (where Snape brought in the Wolfsbane potion) where Remus went out of his way to talk to Harry. Sure, Harry didn't seek out information about his parents, but Remus didn't go out of his way to offer any either. IIRC, it was Harry who asked Remus to teach him to defend himself from the Dementors. The Tonks/Remus thing seems to be an example of Remus shunning intimacy. All those excuses - if he really wanted to be with her, he would find a way. Notice I didn't say "If he really loved her." He might. But acting on that love - that comes hard to our werewolf. I love Remus and in many ways identify with him. But I haven't spent a lot of time in close reading of his character, so I'd love to hear what others think. Lilygale From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Jun 13 14:07:02 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:07:02 -0000 Subject: Horcrux: was Baptism/Christianity in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153782 > "Leslie41: > > The word "hore" in middle/old english means "whore". Whorecrosses. > Makes sense. In the bible whores are associated with idolatry and > faithlessness to god. Even if we don't bring the bible into it, the > word is associated with immorality and compromised principles." > > > It's your following post that completely misreads the word > as "immortality." As I originally spoke of immorality and > not "immortality," I never noticed the misreading. > > But I would admit and agree with you, certainly, that whores have > absolutely nothing to do with immortality! a_svirn: Funnily enough I didn't "misread" your post at all. You proposed a highly questionable etymology of horcruxes deriving their meaning from *whore*. Said it makes sense. Obviously you have changed your mind since ? now you say you defer to Mugglenet interpretation ? "outside the cross". I saw your initial interpretation as nonsensical from the start and said so. Because whores have nothing to do with immortality (which is what horcruxes are about) whichever way you look at. From leslie41 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 13 14:00:42 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:00:42 -0000 Subject: the whole Christian/Baptism debate that's been going on In-Reply-To: <001301c68ee6$fe2b9850$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153783 > Marion: > And you think, Leslie, that Wizards would give their children a > *Christian* baptism? So they could be indoctrinated by the priests > and their books? The books that told them (the baptised wizard > children) that they were intrisically *evil* and must be *burned*? > Or *drowned*? Leslie41: As Rowling specifically refers to it in an interview as a "Christening", yes I assume that it was a baptism. As the Wizarding World as well is rife with other places where we can find Christian symbols/overtones, yes I assume it was a baptism. They celebrate Christmas and Easter, there are friars and monks roaming around (as ghosts), and the suits of armor don't just sing ecumenical carols. I assume thus that the Wizarding World is nominally Christian, and that Harry's parents were even moreso for baptizing him. > Marion: > There probable was a naming ceremony, in which Sirius played a big > role. (the Christians took the whole notion of 'godfathering' from > those pre-christian ceremonies. I can't remember anything in the > Old or New Testament that vaguely resembles the 'godfather' > or 'godmother' role) But the Wizarding World being Christian? > After centuries of persecution? Leslie41: Throughout history Christians have also persecuted other Christians. It didn't stop those persecuted from staying believers. English history especially is rife with that sort of thing, but we don't find Catholics/Anglicans/Puritans abandoning their faith. So why suspect that of wizards? > Marion: > But luckily, Muggleborns get snatched from their motherculture > from age eleven and thoroughly immersed in Wizard Culture. After > graduating, they will continue to live in the Wizarding World and > very rarely make excursions to the Muggle world with its churches > and priests. If they ever were thoroughly indoctrinated by > religion, a few years of spells, potions, ghosts and Quidditch > would cure them of that. And if not, there is always Oblivation... > > But what if the parents of the Muggleborn witch or wizard were > Christian (probable) and they, after finding their offspring > doing 'wild magic' before age eleven? A trip to the local priest > for an exorcism? Holy water? 'Beating the devil out of him/her'? > Children have been killed by their parents for less. Leslie41: Most Christian parents don't beat the devil out of their children, or kill them because they think they're Satanic, and if a Christian saw a child doing something magical, it is just as likely that they might think the power comes from god. > Marion: > I think that in this case the Wizarding World would sent a special > Auror squad to take the child away and into Wizarding Care. All > those old stories about elves stealing children and > leaving 'changelings' must be based on *something*, right? Leslie41: Interesting, but where's the canon support? Certainly we don't get any stories like that about the Muggleborn wizards. > Marion: > In any case, I think we could rightly assume that an old > pureblood ?family like the Potters (or the Blacks) would know > nothing of Christian baptism. Leslie41: That could well be true. But Sirius would have had to have been baptized in order to have served as godfather. Doesn't mean he wasn't baptized as an adult, of course! From leslie41 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 13 14:35:43 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:35:43 -0000 Subject: Horcrux: was Baptism/Christianity in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153784 > a_svirn: > Funnily enough I didn't "misread" your post at all. You proposed a > highly questionable etymology of horcruxes deriving their meaning > from *whore*. Said it makes sense. Obviously you have changed your > mind since ? now you say you defer to Mugglenet interpretation ? > "outside the cross". I saw your initial interpretation as > nonsensical from the start and said so. Because whores have nothing > to do with immortality (which is what horcruxes are about) > whichever way you look at. Leslie41: Hrm. I see how we both got confused! So I will backtrack a bit. The "immortality" part with regard to Horcruxes isn't the "whore" part of the word, but rather the "cross" part. Whores don't have anything to do with immortality. The cross, however, does. As for my deference to Mugglenet, I haven't changed my mind at all. The Mugglenet definition is complementary to mine. The word means both "whorecross" and "outside of Christ" (or against Christ). It's not either/or. It's both/and. From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 12 13:39:04 2006 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:39:04 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End Clues Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153785 I am rereading HBP for the fifth time now, and I just noticed some new (to me) clues in Chapter 2. I am also new to this group, so forgive me if I repeat a topic that has already been brought up. One major thing that stuck out to me on this reading was the repeated mention of the drinks that Wormtail brought on Snape's request. On page 24, Snape specifically calls for the "elf-made wine", and all three (Narcissa, Belltrix, Snape) "drain" their glasses.On page 25, both Snape and Bellatrix "slam" down their glasses on separate occasions. Page 26, "He picked up his drink again, sipped it, and continued." On page 35, Snape "forced" Narcissa to drink more wine. And on page 28, "Bellatrix's mouth twisted as if she had taken an unpleasant dose of medicine." Now, it has come to my attention that JK rarely mentions anything for no reason. As way of example: Way back in SS, there was a mention of Arabella Figg, a passing comment that barely registered on my monitor screen, but there she was in OOTP, playing a pretty significant part. So, I feel like the repeated, but subtle, mention of the drinks could potentially mean something. Here's my guess: I think that there was something in the drinks that would render the Unbreakable Vow useless...or some kind of potion that would otherwise change what would normally be a totally binding magical promise. Snape was the potions master, the Half-Blood Prince, the whiz kid of potions...the presence of drinks seems significant. It would be so easy for Snape to whip up an undetectable potion and slip it into everyone's drinks.... Maybe this is old news...but I think it's interesting, especially since the jury is still out on Snape...and I desperately want to believe that he's on Harry's side! What do you all think? anigrrrl From estesrandy at yahoo.com Tue Jun 13 15:02:00 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:02:00 -0000 Subject: Why Snape is so interesting Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153786 Some people discount the symbols in these books. Others see the symbols in the light of their religious beliefs which are very strongly held. Others note the literary device that symbols are used to connote hidden meanings to the unsuspecting reader. Mythology is filled with creatures that have symbolic meaning. The phoenix, gryffin, snake, lion, and raven are all tied to mythology. To discount the possible hidden meaning behind the use of these symbols by JKR is a bit presumptuous. Symbols speak to the subconscious mind. I understand why the discussion of these symbols leads to heated debate. Perhaps the need to win the argument should be abandonned and replaced by a polite discussion of alternatives. The image of two warriors fighting throughout eternity comes to mind when I read some of these posts. I think the reason Snape is so interesting to the readers is due to his hidden motives. We see the good side and the bad side. He is described in images of bats, spiders, and dragons as someone else posted earlier. I find it interesting that he is described by these images, and he is the focus of so many debates about his evil or goodness. Bats, spiders and dragons are sometimes represented as evil in mythology. Other times these creatures are represented as givers of life, knowledge, and protection. The study of these symbols in mythology leaves you in a quandary about the hidden meaning as it applies to Snape. How ingenious! Snape is perhaps the most important character in this series, and his actions determine the final outcome in book seven (my opinion based on his importance in book six). JKR has used symbolic imagery to describe him which is ambiguous. Eastern religions value Dragons are protectors who are benevolent. Western religions see Dragons as evil adversaries who must be destroyed to save the day. American Indian mythology sees the spider as the giver of life and knowledge to man. Some gothic stories have painted spiders as evil. Bats are also seen as both good and evil by different groups. Check the internet and you will see this is true. I am convinced that Snape has been given ambiguous symbolic meaning on purpose. You may disagree, but I think she understands how to use symbols and imagery to affect our subconscious mind as well as our conscious mind. We somehow know something is not quite right about some character, but we can't put our finger on it. That is the subconscious mind picking up the clues before the conscious mind sees the clues. Randy who wishes to see others interpretations of the symbols rather than get into a violent argument about who is correct. ;0) From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jun 13 15:02:37 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:02:37 -0000 Subject: Werewolf Mystery In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153787 > > Lanval, who's intrigued by the responses so far, but still hasn't > found an answer as to whether we're dealing with a contradiction > within the text, or whether the two different viewpoints of a) > Werewolves as Killers, and b) Werewolves as Occasionally Lethal > Werewolf-Makers can be reconciled > Pippin: There is similar confusion about real life wolves. Maybe JKR did not know that when she began and decided to work it into the story, or maybe she did know when she began and decided to work it into the story :) Wolves don't generally deserve their reputation as killers. Still, hopping into the wolf enclosure at your local zoo is not safe, and tricking someone into entering it might well be murderous. Captive wolves are much more dangerous than wild ones. Lupin well-fed and in the company of the animagi, who seemed to restrain his wolfishness, might only need to be kept away from the humans who triggered his werewolf behavior. Lupin confined in the Shrieking Shack , without the animagi, provoked by the presence of a human, in pain from the bites and scratches he'd inflicted on himself, could be very dangerous. I would be careful about classifying Lupin's involvement in the prank as a figment of Snape's imagination until Book Seven is in. We thought the DADA curse was a figment of the imagination too. Pippin From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Jun 13 15:14:44 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:14:44 -0000 Subject: Horcrux: was Baptism/Christianity in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153788 Leslie: > So, again, what I'm seeing here is the one "violent of evil" coming > to "the kingdom of god." He is met by "good deeds" and the symbol > associated with the risen Christ. Christ who sacrificed himself for > his "children," as Lily does for her child. He kills both good > deeds and the symbol of the resurrection, and it appears that he > will be victorious. > > He meets Harry and his own hate is reflected back upon him. It is > important that Harry doesn't actually do anything but really serve > as a reflector at this point. > > Lily's sacrifice reflects the sacrifice of Christ for his people, > for his "kingdom of God," so to me when we speak of Lily's sacrifice > being "all that's needed," what we're talking about in a greater > sense IS Christ's sacrifice. > > And to reinforce the idea of the importance and resonance of "God's > Kingdom," (and back on Godric's Hollow), the place on Harry's body > that reflects the "killing curse" (as opposed to the grace of the > eternal life provided by Christ) is the point at which he was > baptized and himself brought into God's Kingdom. > > (And, this is looking more like allegory, which I generally don't > like, but the allegory is subtle and doesn't hit you over the head, > so I can deal with it.) > > As for the Horcruxes, I will defer to Mugglenet's first definition > listed, which "and I quote "when broken down in many languages > means "outside the cross." > > As in not of the cross, or opposed to the cross, or as I believe > follows logically, "against Christ." > Magpie: Okay then. I guess I've nothing to really add to it. It doesn't seem to add anything to the story to me-the real characters involved seem to say what the author is trying to say rather than putting everything in terms of evil and Christ--as you said, it is turning it into an allegory, and not a particularly resonant one. I suspect you could reduce many many scenes in literature to this same sort of formula given how Christianity has been such a huge influence on western culture and western names, and that one could probably relate the scene in Godric's Hollow to more than one mythological story as well. I mean, does this scenario really seem an important, straight re- telling of important Christian truths? You've got Voldemort, meaning something to do with his trying steal himself from death or fly from it--I'm not sure what "violent of evil" even means or where "violent" came from, if I accept that "mort" can also be evil. Given what Voldemort's purpose is I think "death" is far more likely to be the origin of his name. Going for "violent of evil" seems like reaching to make it fit the analogy you want. So Flying/Theft of Death (aka The Really Bad Guy and So Representing Evil in Our Tale) comes to a house in "Good Ruler/He Who Rules With God's" Hollow (Godric means "good ruler" or "he who rules with god" and this Hollow is presumably ruled by that good/godly ruler, it's not the actual Kingdom of God), he kills good deeds and the Risen Christ but gets his killing bounced back at him by the drop of water dripped during baptism (not specifically mentioned). This still seems more honestly described by what the "other side" has acknowledged all along, that JKR's ideas about morality and good and evil are quite likely shaped by her faith. "Sacrifice," especially the sacrifice of one's life for another, is a big thing for her--it's very in your face throughout the books. At times it appears to be the way she prefers to indicate love for another. So I've no trouble seeing a general echo of a willing sacrifice leading to mysterious protective magic, though she's given that ability to a human in her story, not reserved it for Christ. The part about killing the Risen Christ and also good deeds (and that's leaving aside the other symbols that are supposed to somehow be involved, with Remus and Peter also being the apostles John and Peter, who went with Jesus everywhere just as these three go everywhere with... Sirius?) still doesn't really seem to say anything about the situation. The James connection still seems more just trying to make something out of the name we're stuck with. Trying to draw the two stories together too closely seems to make each story less clear as we try to make them comment on each other where they don't. -m From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Jun 13 15:31:54 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:31:54 -0000 Subject: New Headmaster/Headmistress at Hogwarts in Book 7? new heads of the houses? In-Reply-To: <005401c68e1d$deb88bf0$bd5a1618@the248437c0a60> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153789 > Kathrin P said (concerning who may replace McGonagall as head of > Gryffindor): > > > Madame Trelawney? Gosh, I hope not! She seems more like a > > Ravenclaw to me... > > > Panhandle: > Trelawney? Ravenclaw? I cannot think of any single character who would be > less a Ravenclaw than Trelawney! Ravenclaw is known for intellectual rigor, > while Trelawnes is engaged in a field completely lacking in any intellectual > component whatsoever. > zgirnius: I'm going to agree with Kathrin P. Trelawney appears to be familiar with a number of facts about her field. She can do a Tarot reading and knows the meanings of the cards that come up. She appears to know the contents of the books she assigns to her class. (Like, what various things mean when interpreting dreams, or when seen in tea leaves, or how to make an astrological chart, and so on). Unlike Ron and Harry, she's not making it up as she goes along (well, except for her charming habit of predicting a death in every class. She probably thinks that has some pedagogical value...) True, her biggest claim to excellence in Divination is her gift of being a Seer, which is likely inborn, but this does not obviate the rest. Also, who is the Ravenclaw we probably know best? I'd say Luna Lovegood. I see a definite similarity in the intellectual approaches of those two. (I'm also guessing Sybil considers Luna a strong student in her area, she recogizes her at Sluggie's party and wonders why she is not in one of her classes. Luna is in one of Firenze's, that year). From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Jun 13 15:58:48 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:58:48 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End Clues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153790 anigrrrl: > Now, it has come to my attention that JK rarely mentions anything > for no reason. As way of example: Way back in SS, there was a > mention of Arabella Figg, a passing comment that barely registered > on my monitor screen, but there she was in OOTP, playing a pretty > significant part. So, I feel like the repeated, but subtle, mention > of the drinks could potentially mean something. > > Here's my guess: I think that there was something in the drinks that > would render the Unbreakable Vow useless...or some kind of potion > that would otherwise change what would normally be a totally binding > magical promise. Snape was the potions master, the Half-Blood > Prince, the whiz kid of potions...the presence of drinks seems > significant. It would be so easy for Snape to whip up an > undetectable potion and slip it into everyone's drinks.... zgirnius: In order for Snape to have done this, he would have had to know in advance that the women were coming, and planned to ask him to make an Unbreakable Vow. It seem unlikely, to me. But it is still interesting. What do the drinks add to the scene? -They show Snape and Pettigrew's relationship. It gives Rowling an excuse for Snape to be shown ordering Pettigrew around. -It's a sociable gesture, it shows us a different side of Snape we don't see around Harry. -It may support Narcissa's claiom that he's an old friend of her husband's, again because of the hospitable nature of the act of offfering drinks. -It is a sly thing for Snape the spy to do. He drains the one glass, and I believe that's it. He encourages the distraught (and smaller, and female, and so presumably less alcohol-tolerant) Narcissa to have more drinks. To make sure she does in fact go through with her resolve to discuss important matters with him? -And then there are the bouncing glasses of mead Dumbledore offers the Dursleys in Chapter 3, and the Prime Minister's own whisky that Fudge offers him in his own office, in Chapter 1. Are we supposed to get something from all this alcohol consumption? I think some neat points were made about this in our chapter diuscussions... I just no longer recall them :( > anigrrrl: > Maybe this is old news...but I think it's interesting, especially > since the jury is still out on Snape...and I desperately want to > believe that he's on Harry's side! What do you all think? zgirnius: Well, I think he's on Harry's side. > From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 13 16:21:38 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:21:38 -0000 Subject: Narrative technique in HP (Was: Christianity *in* HP) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153791 Julie wrote: With Harry as our > narrator, we know his daily routine down to the smallest > detail Carol responds: Forgive me for going off on a tangent here. I agree with your basic position, but Harry is not the narrator. The third-person narrator usually but not always sees from his perspective (the third-person limited omniscient point of view), with notable exceptions including the first chapters of SS/PS and GoF and the first two chapters of HBP, and minor exceptions, such as a shift into Hermione's POV when she sets fire to Snape's robes in SS/PS and a few instances when Harry is asleep (for example, the narrator reports a dream that Harry doesn't remember). Harry is not a first-person narrator. He never tells his own story (except occasionally in dialogue, as do other characters, such as Hagrid and un-Polyjuiced Barty Jr.). The narrator is the voice that tells the story, usually in a way sympathetic to Harry and shaped by his reactions and perceptions, but he or she is not Harry. (Nor is the narrator JKR; she knows more than the narrator does, including what happened at Godric's Hollow and what the baptism involved. (Could it have occurred in a Muggle church since the WW doesn't appear to have churches?) Yes, we know Harry's daily routine (though not, perhaps, down to the smallest detail--we have only seen him take one bath and never yet seen him brush his teeth), and we also see from his POV, which is not necessarily reliable (for example, he thinks that the Thestrals are terrible and wonders if he's hallucinating since the only other person that he knows can see them is "loony" Luna). And of course, we don't know what went on before he was born or during his infancy, including what the baptism involved, because Harry doesn't remember it. (We get bits and pieces of GH through the Dementor episodes, but not the whole picture.) Since I've changed the thread title and am no longer talking about Christianity in the HP books, I could go into detail about the unreliable narrator here (which is not, BTW, an invention of the DDM!Snape faction but a legitimate literary device used by many authors who want their readers to share the POV character's limited knowledge and misconceptions), but I mainly wanted to clear up the misconception that Harry is the narrator. Regarding Lily and Harry's scar, I used to think that she had placed a protective charm on baby!Harry, marked by an Eihwaz rune (symbol of defense or protection) that she drew with her wand on his forehead, but JKR seems to have nixed that theory. I still think, however, that the cut or injury from which the scar was the result of the AK bursting *out* of Harry's forehead, not entering it, as we know that AKs don't normally leave a mark. Carol, with apologies for twisting the thread and picking up only one OT strand From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Jun 13 16:42:51 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:42:51 -0000 Subject: Horcrux: was Baptism/Christianity in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153792 I think that we are all agreed (aren't we) that crux means cross? The disagreement appears to be over the word "hor". I have been looking on the internet for such a word and have discovered the following: from www.reference.com Hor, in the Bible, unlocated mountain, on the boundary of Edom, the place of Aaron's death. It was traditionally identified with Jabal Harun, a mountain in SW Jordan, but it does not correspond with the biblical description. Hor-hagidgad (h?r-hgd gd), in the Bible, wilderness camp of the Israelites. The camping place called Gudgodah may have been the same. Dictonary.com and others say that it is an abbreviation for `horizontal" [French, from Latin horiz n, horizont-, horizon. See horizon and also: Hor, who conceives, or shows; a hill from Strong's Hebrew Dictionary: another form of 'har' (2022); mountain; Hor, the name of a peak in Idumaea and of one in Syria:--Hor also spelled hore and meaning the same as above. Strong's Greek Dictionary did not have that word exactly, it had words with hor in it and all seemed to be assoiciated with gazing: >>> from - horao 3708; something gazed at, i.e. a spectacle (especially supernatural):--sight, vision. Also here is something rather interesting including a story of someone being murdered and cut up and needing to find the pieces so that Horus could be born again. I haven't had time to read or ponder it all or sort it out so I put the link here. http://www.bookofabraham.com/boamathie/BOA_6.html whatever this is it also shows an ankh which IMO, if you add another leg and let it droop a bit, you have the number 7 on JKR's website. This is all I can do for now. But I hope other detectives here will explore the above ideas and see what you come up with when you add it to the crux = cross. Somehow I sense it might be a Hebrew word. If anyone here knows Hebrew, or Greek maybe they could help us. Thanks. (Note: The above is what I wrote and tried to post last night, but something was wrong with yahoo groups and I could not get in. I see today that Leslie mentions something on Mugglenet where they explored the term from different languages and came up with "against Christ" or something and that makes sense. But since I did all of this work I will post it anyway.) Tonks_op From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Mon Jun 12 22:56:12 2006 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 00:56:12 +0200 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP References: Message-ID: <008201c68e73$6a41acb0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 153793 Geoff Bannister wrote: > I stand by my comment quoted above that infant baptism per se does not > make a person a Christian. Miles: So this is an interesting question to discuss, but certainly it is quite OT for this list. But in some way it is important - the answer to the question whether Harry Potter is a "active" Christian is NO, the absence of any canonical evidence for the opposite is striking, as Tonks showed upthread. In my opinion, Harry's Baptism is mainly a plot device to introduce his Godfather - it was the most simple way to put Sirius into a parental role. There are at least two, maybe three layers in the discussion about Christianity in HP, and I have the impression that both are mixed in an unhealthy way, this thread becoming somewhat nasty lateley. The first layer is the faiths of the characters within the HP books. The Baptism question belongs to this layer. Not a single character made any remark about his religious beliefs. Just remember the dialogue of Nick and Harry at the end of OotP - not even in this situation one of them mentioned religion. If JKR wanted to make any character a religious person (i.e. a Christian), this would have been one among many other situations to do it. She didn't - so I think there's not much room to doubt that she simply doesn't want to do it. We read quite alot of Christian feasts and traditions, but we only see the surface of it - like a Coca Cola manager might do ;). There is a Christmas Tree and presents, but no Jesus in the crib, there are Easter holidays and eggs, but no resurrected Christ. So there is simply no reason to think that the Baptism has a deeper meaning than a) Harry getting his name and b) Sirius becoming his Godfather. It's a tradition to christen a child especially in critical situations - no doubt - but even people who do this kind of Baptisms can be "formal Christians" and nothing more. To deny that in this layer Christianity is of any importance for HP is NOT an attack on anyone's faith at all. Religion is not "unimportant", just because it is not important for the character Harry Potter or the character Albus Dumbledore. And it is not unimportant for JKR as well - she simply decided not to use any religion within the Potterverse. The second layer I'd like to identify is the one of Christian symbols in Harry Potter. I do agree that there are several symbols that can be read as Christian symbols, but these symbols are not exclusivley Christian symbols, they are adopted. For example, the concept of death and resurrection is very important for Christianity, but there were and are much religions who know it as well. JKR obviously loves to play with these symbols, but I doubt they are very important. I could write much more about this, but I haven't enough time right now ;). The third layer (it is maybe difficult to seperate it from the second) is the "message" or the "moral" of HP. I do think that JKR has a message which is connected to her Christian belief. But the result of this seems to be universal - and I doubt JKR would mind it if she read my opinion on it. Her message is not "be a Christian", it is "be a good person". Her definition of a good person is strongly influenced by her own faith, so for example forgiveness will play an important role (IMO). But I do not know any religion which would think a good person in a Christian "version" is not a good person in their own view. The values would differ slightly, other values would be more important, but the general idea of "good" is the same within all (or most) religions, and of most agnostic/atheist philosophies as well. So as a result, Harry Potter is a universal book, and the work of a Christian author putting her beliefs in it at the same time. Really, no reason to fight instead of discussing the topic... Miles From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 13 18:57:12 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 18:57:12 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153794 First, my apologies because this post doesn't link. Yahoo is acting up again and my first attempt failed because the post I'm respinding to supposedly doesn't exist. Second, a note that I'm talking to the list in general, not necessarily to Leslie41. Leslie41 wrote: > I don't wish to make categorical claims about authorial intent, though I think it's relevant at times. Most often, though, intent is irrelevant. What's *there* is what matters, not what the author *intended* to be there. Authors are notoriously bad readers of their own work. Carol responds: Essentially, I agree with you. However, what's "there" is subject to interpretation, and what you're seeing is not necessarily "there" for the rest of us, any more than the "terminally stupid" Snape of another poster is. Leslie41: But I think the place of his scar is supposed to remind us of his baptism and remind us that it is only through Christ's principles that he will vanquish Voldemort. Not through power or destructive raids. But through love. Carol responds: If JKR wanted the scar to remind us of Love, wouldn't she have had LV hit Baby!Harry in the heart (traditionally associated with love) rather than the brain? Almost everyone else who's hit by an AK or even a strong Stunning spell is hit squarely in the chest. Why not Harry, too? Instead, "the place of his scar" is the forehead (where it's conspicuous, as she has mentioned in interviews) and the frontal lobe of the brain. Why LV would aim at the head rather than the chest of a baby is impossible to know and possibly not relevant, but why JKR would want the scar to appear there is another matter. Essentially, LV's mind and Harry's are connected by the scar through a variation on Legilimency, a mental skill involving the interpretation of memories and the detection of emotions. It can be blocked by another mental skill (or could if Harry could master it), Occlumency. Note the Latin root "mens" (mind) in both these skills. Some of LV's powers, including Parseltongue and possibly possession, have entered Harry's mind/brain via the frontal lobe (through the cut caused either by the AK, or, IMO, the expulsion of the AK) when Voldemort was vaporized. So, yes, a baptized child would have been marked by the sign of the cross on the forehead (at least in a Muggle church), but that marking could simply be coincidence. So far, Harry's baptism is significant only because it gave Sirius Black the role of Harry's godfather (whose chief acts in loco parentis are to sign Harry's permission form allowing him to go to Hogsmeade and to make him his heir). And perhaps the exclusion of even Remus Lupin from the ceremony will prove an important indicator of an estrangement between the Potters and black on the one hand and Lupin on the other. But the sign of the cross on Harry's forehead has not been mentioned, and his scar does not take that shape. (It may be the shape of a rune, but surely Hermione or Luna would have noticed by now.) At any rate, just because the baptism preceded Voldemort's attack and both involve Harry's forehead does not mean that they're related or that one caused the other (post hoc, ergo propter hoc). I absolutely agree that Harry will triumph through Love, not through "power or destructive raids"--or, put another way, not by casting Dark spells to destroy a Dark enemy, using that enemies own weapons against him. One point that Snape has made clear to us via "Spinner's End" (and his first Potions lesson) is that Harry is not what Lucius Malfoy et al. suspected he might be, a nascent Dark Lord for the DEs to rally around. He is, according to Dumbledore, a pure soul who can destroy Voldemort's ruined one. I also agree that love (agape), particularly the idea of forgiving our enemies, is a Christian principle, but the concept of brotherly love predates Christianity and is not exclusive to it. JKR is perhaps universalizing Christian values, making them accessible to readers of all faiths--or none. But she need not resort to overtly Christian symbols and rituals to do so. Yes, the Christian motifs are there in the text, most notably perhaps in Harry's holly wand with its Phoenix-feather core, but the reader need not be familiar with the Christian connotations of Phoenixes and holly to see the message that Love is stronger than death, that Voldemort fears the wrong power altogether. JKR *is* a Christian. She is also a libral humanitarian. Her values show (sometimes too overtly for my taste) in her writing. But associations, allusions, connotations--all of which the reader is free to see or even create and some or all or none of which JKR may have consciously placed in the text--are not the same as allegory. Harry's baptism need not have one specific meaning (for which I see no evidence in the text). The same is true of Phoenixes, holly, yew, snakes, the color green, and any other motif that can be construed as symbolic. A symbol (as I'm sure you know, Leslie--I'm speaking to anybody who's listening here) is a concrete image that has meaning beyond the object it refers to, but that meaning is subject to interpretation and will vary to some degree from reader to reader (and be wholly invisible to readers who aren't looking for it). Allegory, in contrast, consists of a one-to-one correspondence between a person and a concept. Bunyan blatantly calls his Pilgrim "Everyman," and it's difficult to misconstrue the meaning when Faithful says to Everyman, "I will go with thee and by thy guide." Everyman will be guided through life by his Christian faith. Talk about an anvil! I don't know whether JKR, like Tolkien, has "cordially dislike[d] allegory" since she was "old and wary enough to detect its presence," but I'm pretty sure that the HP books are not an extended allegory and that JKR's symbols are not restricted to a single interpretation. They are intended, I think, to *suggest* a wide range of meanings and connotations, some of which JKR herself is probably not consciously aware of. As Shelley said of poetry (literature) in general, "Veil after veil may be may be undrawn, and the inmost naked beauty of the meaning never exposed." So all of us find meaning in the HP books, not necessarily exactly what the author intended, but "there" in the text. That is not to say that any reading is as good as another and that interpretation is wholly subjective (and again, I'm speaking to the list in general since I'm sure that Leslie, as an English teacher, knows what I'm about to say perfectly well). A reading becomes problematic when few or no other readers see the text as a particular reader sees it; when it is purely subjective and imposes the reader's values on a text that does not reflect them, or attacks the text or author for not sharing that reader's values. Similarly, it becomes problematic when it imposes a single meaning on a text or a portion of the text to the exclusion of other readings. I think that it might be well to go back to Tolkien again and consider his famous distinction between allegory and applicability: "I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author." I don't think that JKR is attempting to "dominate" readers or to force us into one interpretation over another (though she's perhaps a little too eager to generalize about her characters or take umbrage if we don't share her likes and dislikes). But even if she is, the book is greater than the author, and we are free to find archetypes and symbols and literary allusions whether or not she deliberately placed them there as long as our readings are supported by the text. (I could probably argue that Grawp is analogous to a human toddler and that Hagrid is right to try to educate him, but I hate Grawp, so I won't try.) By the same token, we're free to interpret the characters' motivations as long as our readings are supported by the text rather than shaped by our own philosophical, political, or religious leanings and preconceptions. Such readings (as Leslie implied in another thread) will never convince anyone who does not share the same values and preconceptions no matter how frequently they're repeated. At any rate, I think that the mistake being made by several posters in this thread and elsewhere is the attempt to present their ideas as the one right reading rather than a possibility for others to consider. What is "applicable" for one reader may not be "applicable" for the next, particularly if the reading is based on personal experience or narrowly defined criteria not shared by other readers or imposed by the reader onto the text. (I can imagine, for example, a Marxist or militant feminist reading of the HP books. Shudder!) By all means, let's lift veils so that others have the opportunity to see what we see (if their experience and education allow such a reading). By all means, let's try to persuade others to consider our interpretation as a valid way of looking at the text. But if we attempt to impose our interpretationss on others, either as what JKR "intended" or as the only way to read a particular scene or object or character, we will never persuade those who don't already agree with us. (And, yes, I've been guilty of this same error myself on occasion. ;-) ) Carol, apologizing for going into lecture mode and taking off her McGonagall hat now From juli17 at aol.com Tue Jun 13 20:15:27 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:15:27 -0400 Subject: The power the Dark Lord knows not - was Neville Theory In-Reply-To: <1150192293.4061.58355.m26@yahoogroups.com> References: <1150192293.4061.58355.m26@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <8C85D3D3ED9ED58-BC0-E6B@FWM-D35.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153795 Kemper now: More accurately, imo, James and Lily died for Harry's life while Sirius died and Dumbledore --though I'll be the first one to say his death is debatable-- died for the way of the Light. Those two believe that Harry is the great Light hope. And for all his talk of choice and anti-prophecy talk, Dumbledore believes that Harry is the only one that can vanquish the Dark Lord otherwise why wouldn't he have face and fought the Dark Lord earlier? If Harry does die while obviously vanquishing the Dark Lord, it will serve the literary purpose of showing the power of sacrificial love. Or do you mean something different by 'literary purpose'? Julie: But JKR has already shown us the power of sacrificial love. Harry, and thus the whole HP saga, exists because of it. Do we really need Harry to die also to make that literary purpose clear? I.e., do we really need to be hit over the head with the same hammer twice ;-) Julie, who figures Harry's survival can serve a different literary purpose, since "the power of sacrificial love" is already taken. ________________________________________________________________________ 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 hickengruendler at yahoo.de Tue Jun 13 22:11:14 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 22:11:14 -0000 Subject: New Headmaster/Headmistress at Hogwarts in Book 7? new heads of the houses? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153796 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > So I'm betting Hogwarts will remain closed, with McGonagall keeping > an eye on things, and then everyone will come back in peace and > brotherhood at the end of the year. Hickengruendler: I think this quote suggests, that Hogwarts will be open for year 7. "Cara McKenzie for Radio Forth - Every year since Harry has been to Hogwarts the defence against the dark arts teacher has left Hogwarts or died every year. Does that mean that something will stop Snape from being the defence against the dark arts in book 7? JK Rowling: Yes. I really can't say more than that. That is because one of those questions that is a very good question and everyone would like to know the answer but it gives a lot away. There must obviously be a new one." >From here: http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705- edinburgh-ITVcubreporters.htm Admittingly, she doesn't say outright that there will be a new DADA teacher for book 7, and it is dangerous to take her too literal in her interviews, but at least that's how it sounds to me. Hickengruendler, who would love to see Percy as a new teacher and his interaction with the students (particularly Ginny) From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Jun 13 22:27:45 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 22:27:45 -0000 Subject: Baptism/Christianity in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153797 > Carol: > If JKR wanted the scar to remind us of Love, wouldn't she have had LV > hit Baby!Harry in the heart (traditionally associated with love) > rather than the brain? Almost everyone else who's hit by an AK or even > a strong Stunning spell is hit squarely in the chest. Why not Harry, > too? Instead, "the place of his scar" is the forehead (where it's > conspicuous, as she has mentioned in interviews) and the frontal lobe > of the brain. a_svirn: I think it is essential for the scar to be conspicuous. She needed it where it can be seen easily. It is the scar that makes Harry special, places him apart so to speak. In the end of OOP he even describes himself as a "Marked Man". His forehead, therefore, is the most obvious solution. Marietta was cursed by the "sneak" brand on her forehead for the same reason. Easy to see where Hermione got the inspiration. From enlil65 at gmail.com Tue Jun 13 22:53:25 2006 From: enlil65 at gmail.com (Peggy Wilkins) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 17:53:25 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why Snape is so interesting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1789c2360606131553h69f941d2q90717141292d1dfb@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153798 On 6/13/06, Randy wrote: Randy: > I think the reason Snape is so interesting to the readers is due to > his hidden motives. We see the good side and the bad side. He is > described in images of bats, spiders, and dragons as someone else > posted earlier. I find it interesting that he is described by these > images, and he is the focus of so many debates about his evil or > goodness. > > Bats, spiders and dragons are sometimes represented as evil in > mythology. Other times these creatures are represented as givers of > life, knowledge, and protection. The study of these symbols in > mythology leaves you in a quandary about the hidden meaning as it > applies to Snape. Peggy W: Since you've pointed this out, I think it's interesting to also consider Snape's self-given nickname: "The Half-Blood Prince". Is there any implication of good vs. bad in that? If he's a Prince, he is a hereditary heir to a ruler of some sort. A Lord perhaps? The Dark Lord is also Half-Blood, also has a witch mother and a muggle father. Perhaps this moniker is suggestive that Snape could be the Dark Lord's heir. Perhaps it's no accident that Snape's mother is named Prince. -- Peggy Wilkins who has an interesting moniker, too: an anagram of my name, "Wise King Gylp" -- Wise is my mother's family name; King: I am a Leo; Gylp: Old English for boastful speech... From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Jun 13 23:43:19 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 23:43:19 -0000 Subject: Why Snape is so interesting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153799 Randy: > I think the reason Snape is so interesting to the readers is due to his hidden motives. We see the good side and the bad side. He is described in images of bats, spiders, and dragons as someone else posted earlier. I find it interesting that he is described by these images, and he is the focus of so many debates about his evil or goodness. > > Bats, spiders and dragons are sometimes represented as evil in > mythology. Other times these creatures are represented as givers of > life, knowledge, and protection. *(snip)* > Randy who wishes to see others interpretations of the symbols rather than get into a violent argument about who is correct. ;0) Ceridwen: Randy, I'll try to accomodate you. Bats and spiders are creepy. Everyone cringes when they think of them, the sight of a common house spider can get my second-born screaming and running from the room. No one wants bats in their hair, and that used to be something girls who ratted their hair (or just wore it down!) were warned about. Bats drink blood, spiders sting their prey and save it up for later in their web. Pretty nasty, right? I like both bats and spiders. I don't like bugs. I particularly don't like mosquitoes, and bats eat mosquitoes. Spiders eat flies, and they eat aphids if you have them in your garden. My kids, esp. the second-born (see above) want to know why I like spiders when I'm allergic to their venom, and this is a major part of the reason. I also like their webs, and I have a sympathy for them because everyone dislikes them so much. And, they're loners. Dragons in Western culture are both demon and protector. See Tolkien's 'The Hobbit' for a dragon protecting a treasure; see Shrek and the fairy tales that movie is spoofing to see Dragons guarding the beautiful princess from her rescuing knight. The dragon terrifyingly guards a treasure of some sort and is meant to scare the armored pants off the knight on his quest. So, dragons themselves are ambiguous, and the quote kindly given in another post makes the allusion to the protective dragon, if I recall right. But, I don't think Snape was actually compared to a dragon, it was just 'this is like that', using a dragon for reference, in my opinion, just because it's terrifying. I think that sticking to bats and spiders is a pretty safe bet, so I will. *g* Ceridwen. From maria8162001 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 13 10:20:39 2006 From: maria8162001 at yahoo.com (Maria Vaerewyck) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:20:39 -0000 Subject: New Headmaster/Headmistress at Hogwarts in Book 7? new heads of the houses? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153800 Janelle: > She could choose another existing teacher or else bring someone > in to both teach transfiguration and become head of house, but > who? I believe JKR said in an interview that no new major > characters would be introduced, so this will probably be either > someone that we already know or an insignificant addition. Any > ideas? maria8162001 here: I hope my posting and snipping is correct this time, if still not, I hope the elves will bear with me and help me. Hi, I have an idea on who will replace Pro. McGonagall as transfiguration teacher. I guess will not be a good transfiguration teacher as he cannot transform hisself at will, he's a werewolf and could only transform during fullmoon. I guess, Tonks will be the new transfiguration teacher, she's perfect for the job, IMO of course. I mean, we do not know any other teachers in Hogwarts who are animagus aside from Prof. McGonagall, don't we? So Tonks would be a good choice as she can transform herself at will even when she is not an animagi. For headmaster of Gryffindor, I guess it will be Hagrid. I don't think it's true that Prof. McGonagall doesn't trust Hagrid as somebody here said. If you read again the Phoenix Lament p586 UK edition, it says "Prof. Dumbledore always valued your views,' said Pro. McGonagall kindly 'and so do I." If she doesn't trust Hagrid she would not value his views, isn't it? So I go for Hagrid as headmaster of Gryffindor and Slughorn for Slytherin and potion and Lupin for DADA. From orgone9 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 14 00:07:51 2006 From: orgone9 at yahoo.com (Len Jaffe) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 17:07:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Spinner's End Clues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060614000751.97134.qmail@web80607.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153801 zgirnius wrote: But it is still interesting. What do the drinks add to the scene? [ drink drank drunk ] Are we supposed to get something from all this alcohol consumption? Now Len: The British drink. "A few before dinner" with a Brit will put the average american under the table before the nachos get served. These are natural situations, and it is socailly acceptable to offer your geusts (or your hosts) drinks. There may or may not be something interesting in the phrasing or wording, but in general, I'd say: Nothing to see here folks, move along. Len. From minerva_523 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 13 16:59:41 2006 From: minerva_523 at yahoo.com (minerva_523) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:59:41 -0000 Subject: New Headmaster/Headmistress at Hogwarts in Book 7? new heads of the houses? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153802 > Kathrin P said (concerning who may replace McGonagall as head of > Gryffindor): > > Madame Trelawney? Gosh, I hope not! She seems more like a > > Ravenclaw to me... > > Panhandle: > Trelawney? Ravenclaw? I cannot think of any single character who > would be less a Ravenclaw than Trelawney! SNIP Now Cacaia: Back to Gryffindor, for a moment- The initial question of who will replace McGonagall as the Gryffindor HoH has kind of stuck in my brain ever since I finished reading HBP- The only one I can think of is Hagrid- He was a Gryffindor, right?!!! And what about Slytherin? Who's to be HoH there? Slughorn was pulled from retirement as a mere "fill-in" for a year- Surely he won't want to continue teaching?! What do you think? Cacaia From mros at xs4all.nl Tue Jun 13 13:30:14 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:30:14 +0200 Subject: Werewolf Mystery References: Message-ID: <001d01c68eed$80c7f820$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 153803 Lanval: >> If werewolves do NOT as a rule attack to kill (note that Harry is 'shocked' at the idea), then the entire story about Snape owing a life debt to James falls apart. Snape's life 'may' still have been in danger, but if most of Greyback's little victims -- unarmed, untrained, unaware and fragile-- survive, and are in fact _expected_ to survive... then surely a sixteen year old wizard, armed with a wand and an astounding knowledge of spells for his age, who quite possibly knew what he was about to face, shouldn't have much to fear? Should not 'James saved Snape's life' really be 'James saved Snape from becoming a werewolf'? Not a pleasant fate either, but preferable to death, I should think. >>>>>>> Allie: >> You are absolutely right. If the common perception that werewolf bites are not fatal is correct, then Snape doesn't owe James a life- debt. I suspect that what we are dealing with is a big, HUGE... Flint. I don't think more will be made of it in book 7. <<<<< Marion: This is nonsense. Why would the Wizarding World have such a fear for werewolves is they were harmless? If anybody with a wand could adequately defend himself from a werewolf attack, why would it be such a no-no for young werewolves to attend Hogwarts. Young Lupin was an experiment. One that was botched by the so-called 'Prank'. Dumbledore himself thought it best if the monthly transformations took place *outside* of Hogwarts. But Hogwarts is filled with wandwaving teenagers, not to mention several experienced staff. If werewolves were really so easily stopped by anybody with a wand, if they were really not really into killing people and if they 'as a rule do not attack to kill', why should anybody worry about werewolves at all? They're just large mosquitos, right? Their bites might sting a bit, and it might turn you into a werewolf yourself (always handy for costume parties and Halloween) but one flick of a wand and any real danger can be contained. We're talking about people who let their young children practice a sport in which they fly a hundred feet high without a crash helmet. If they break their necks, there's always Skelegro potion, right? Can you just imagine? "Oh, look! Loopy Lupin is a werewolf again! Lets go bother him! Bother bother bother! Oh, he's growling! He wants to bite. Bad wolfie! I'll contain your ferociousness with my newly learned batbogie hex, or perhaps the trusty jellylegsjinx." I don't think so. We've been told that the transformation fills the werewolf with bloodlust against *humans* (they don't attack animals, hence the animagi Marauders were quite safe). This is what makes it a Dark Creature, basically. It's a magically partial deformation of body, mind and (if you belief in such things) soul. We've been told that, when deprived of suitable prey (humans) and locked up, LupinWolf would attack himself (the werewolf knows instinctively that he himself is part human perhaps?) And we've been told that the transformation *hurts*. We've also been told that Fenrir Greyback would choose to be close to a populated area in order to kill or transform as many as he can, and he chooses a populated area with many *children* by preference (he's just sick than way. He mirrors Tom Riddle that way. Tom also chose his followers when they were seventeen. Notice that older wizards and witches never fell for his charms. Not even screachin' mrs Black would have anything to do with Tom Riddle, thank you very much. But that's another story for another thread) Now, maybe a fullgrown wizard, or even a wizkid like Snape, *could* defend himself against a werewolf. He had his wand after all, didn't he? A fullgrown man with a gun could defend himself against, say, a Siberian tiger. Think of all those Great White Hunters. A bullet would get them every time. Yeah, right, but if you would step into a dark cage with a Siberian Tiger, a *rabid* Siberian Tiger, enraged, zoning in on its favourite prey, would having a gun help? You'd need *distance* for a gun. Or a wand. Within a second of noticing it (the image of snarling razorsharp teeth and claws and insane glowing eyes has barely made an imprint on your mind) the beast would be upon you. Before you could lift your wand, your arm would be ripped from your body. Before you could shout 'avada kadavra', it's teeth would be in your neck, severing your head from your shoulders. The last image your brain would process would be of the monster feasting on your intestines. They don't give delicate nips, you know. And I've got a niggling suspicion (can't remember if it's canon or not) that werewolves are somewhat resistant to magic (like giants are) Perhaps not impervious, but, really, doesn't only silver kill them? There's a *reason* the wizarding world hates, fears and loathes werewolves. If they were only a minor inconvenience, the WW would regularly send out a posse to keep the numbers down. But werewolves are just too dangerous. You'd be killed before you know it. And if you'd be 'lucky' enough to survive the attack (because for instance your friends or family chases it off) the werewolf would still be alive and *you'd* be one of them by next full moon. I don't think that calling the 'Prank' anything other than a murder attempt would fail to do the seriousness of it justice. Marion From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 14 00:33:57 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 00:33:57 -0000 Subject: Understanding Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153804 Neri wrote: > > This clearly establishes that Snape "intended to search" the forest > only *after* he contacted the Order the second time and they went to > the Ministry. Three pages later (p. 833) Dumbledore also tells us > about Snape: "It was he who deduced where you had gone when you did > not return from the Forest." This means that if Snape had searched the forest at all, it was already after he himself deduced that Harry was no longer there. It strikes me like making a big deal of running to lock the stable door after the horses had already been stolen. > > > Betsy Hp: > > So Snape must have realized that he was taking action *against* Voldemort at that point. > > > > Neri: > "Must" seems to be too strong a word here, but it certainly appears so. I quite agree that the ESE!Snape theory has a problem explaining his actions that night, as much problem as the DDM!Snape theory has in explaining these same actions, in fact. Which strongly suggests to me that he's neither. Carol responds: Snape must have done at least two other things in order to know that Harry had gone into the forest and for Dumbledore to know what Snape knew. First, he must have gone to Umbridge's office after Ron, Hermione, Neville, and Luna had left, sorted out the various hexes, and questioned the Slytherins about what had happened. Second, he must have contacted Dumbledore at least once (also necessary in order for him to know, and inform Sirius Black, that Dumbledore was coming. (He tells Black to wait for DD, which he could not have known if he hadn't first communicated with DD.) Quite possibly he felt that he could not take the time to search the forest before contacting the Order. He had to contact the Order and inform them of his deduction that Harry and his friends had found a way to get to the MoM and *then* search the forest in case he was wrong. There was no guarantee that he would find them even if they were still in there, especially since he was likely to encounter a herd of unfriendly Centaurs. He had to contact the Order first, before it was too late. IMO, Snape did everything that he could to find out what had happened to Harry and to protect him once he left. I absolutely agree that he could not have been working for Voldemort here, but to me it seems equally clear that he was working both for and *with* Dumbledore. Ironically, all six kids are alive Snape because summoned the Order and contacted Dumbledore, yet rather than acknowledging this debt, Harry blames Snape for Black's death, which occurred in part because Black failed to heed Snape's advice. Carol, noting that Dumbledore, who knows more than we do about what happened, has no difficulty explaining Snape's actions as reflecting both loyalty to himself and concern for the safety of Harry and his friends From mros at xs4all.nl Tue Jun 13 17:15:02 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 19:15:02 +0200 Subject: Horcrux: was Baptism/Christianity in HP References: Message-ID: <000901c68f0c$e8462b10$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 153805 Tonks_op: >>>This is all I can do for now. But I hope other detectives here will explore the above ideas and see what you come up with when you add it to the crux = cross. Somehow I sense it might be a Hebrew word. If anyone here knows Hebrew, or Greek maybe they could help us. Thanks.<<< The Latin dictionary tells us that 'crux' (plural 'crucis') means 'cross' as in 'torture device' and 'pole of death'. 'Hora' means 'hour' and the 'Horae' are the goddesses of the seasons. So the Latin interpretation might be that a Horcrux is a thing that stops/tortures/kills time. Which might be appropiate since that's what Voldemort tries to do: he wishes to become immortal, and mortality is a product of entrophy, the destructive nature of Time. The spells wizards use are latin deriviations as well, so Latin seems like a safe bet. I've checked my (limited) Old English dictionary as well, but that gave zero results. I'd go with the Latin myself (and it also helps that 'hor' in Latin, as in modern English, has the emotional 'charge' connected with 'horror' and 'horribilis' etc - it just *sounds* sinister to English speakers). Marion From Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com Wed Jun 14 00:30:55 2006 From: Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com (kibakianakaya) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 00:30:55 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End Clues In-Reply-To: <20060614000751.97134.qmail@web80607.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153806 > zgirnius wrote: > But it is still interesting. What do the drinks add > to the scene? > [ drink drank drunk ] > > Are we supposed to get something from all this alcohol > consumption? > > Len: > The British drink. "A few before dinner" with a Brit > will put the average american under the table before > the nachos get served. These are natural situations, > and it is socially acceptable to offer your guests (or > your hosts) drinks. > > There may or may not be something interesting in the > phrasing or wording, but in general, I'd say: > Nothing to see here folks, move along. Lilygale now: The veritable orgy of (mostly social) drinking that goes on throughout HBP cannot be a coincidence. We have Dumbledore offering the Dursleys mead, blood red elf wine at Spinner's End, Harry quaffing a bit of Felix, Hagrid and Slughorn drinking their way through Aragog's memorial, Slughorn offering mead to Harry and Ron, Trelawney over-imbibing prior to talking to Harry about Snape and the prophecy. All of which culminates in that fateful drinking scene in the cave. So what is going on with the drinking imagery. I almost hate to mention it after the looong debate over Christian imagery, but... maybe there is some meaning to all that drinking based on religious symbolism. I'm not a Christian, and so not familiar with the beliefs and symbols, so I may be way off base, but isn't there a Christian belief about drinking wine as a symbol of drinking Christ's blood? Someone once told me some Christians believe the wine actually turns into blood ? but I could be remembering wrongly. So what is the meaning of wine, drink, blood throughout HBP. Is it tied to the reason Christians drink "blood" ceremonially? Does it have something to do with redemption? Does all the drinking foreshadow (blood) sacrifice on Dumbledore's part? More sacrifice in Book 7? From enlil65 at gmail.com Wed Jun 14 00:57:46 2006 From: enlil65 at gmail.com (Peggy Wilkins) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 19:57:46 -0500 Subject: Priori Incantatum and the missing AK Message-ID: <1789c2360606131757q4d4427f5mc1671f48632742d4@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153807 I just realized today, for the first time, that in GOF when Harry forces Voldemort's wand to regurgitate its spells (Priori Incantatem), the failed AK that was directed at Harry does not show up, though we should expect it to. We see the past spells come out in reverse order: Wormtail's regenerated hand, cries of pain associated with Crucio, victims Cedric Diggory, Bertha Jorkins, Frank Bryce, Lily and James Potter--but there is no sign of the Avada Kedavra that Voldemort shot at Harry, which should have occurred immediately before Lily's regurgitated "shadow" appeared. What could this mean, if anything? Is it a Flint that it is missing? Was Voldemort's own wand not used to fire AK at Harry (seems improbable)? Or, perhaps it is evidence of something I have suggested before: that because the failed curse never completed, it is "clogged up" between Harry and Voldemort, the basis of what connects them? My tendency is to believe the last: that because the curse couldn't complete, its energy remains between Harry and Voldemort, and it may be able to complete its job after Voldemort's Horcruxes are gone. If that is true, then the absence of AK among the Priori Incantatem spells that emerge from Voldemort's wand is deliberate on JKR's part. -- Peggy Wilkins enlil65 at gmail.com From richter at ridgenet.net Wed Jun 14 01:39:52 2006 From: richter at ridgenet.net (Peggy Richter) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 01:39:52 -0000 Subject: Werewolf Mystery In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153808 "lanval1015" wrote: If werewolves do NOT as a rule attack to kill (note that Harry is 'shocked' at the idea), then the entire story about Snape owing a life debt to James falls apart. Snape's life 'may' still have been in danger, but if most of Greyback's little victims -- unarmed, untrained, unaware and fragile-- survive, and are in fact _expected_ to survive... then surely a sixteen year old wizard, armed with a wand and an astounding knowledge of spells for his age, who quite possibly knew what he was about to face, shouldn't have much to fear? Alli wrote: You are absolutely right. If the common perception that werewolf bites are not fatal is correct, then Snape doesn't owe James a life- debt. I suspect that what we are dealing with is a big, HUGE... Flint. I don't think more will be made of it in book 7. PAR: OR, Snape wasn't in danger from LUPIN. I haven't seen anywhere in cannon that it is stated that Lupin was the real threat. It's clear that Snape thinks so, but what if there were a SECOND werewolf (like greyback) there that night? Or even something else like a giant spider? A second werewolf however, might be very clever, as Snape might not recognize that Lupin wasn't the one actually attacking. In POA, Hermione actually ASKS: " What if you'd given the others the slip, and bitten somebody?". Bitten somebody. Not killed somebody. And Lupin in answer says "thre were near misses, many of them. We laughed about them afterward". Not the response one might make to "I almost killed people" And in describing the "prank" "if he'd got as far as this house, he'd have met a fully grown werewolf -- but your father, who'd heard what Sirius had done, went after Snape and pulled him back, at great risk to his life..." -- but Lupin doesn't say that the risk to James' life was from LUPIN. He doesn't say that he would have attacked James as well as Snape, which is what would have been necessary for James' life to be in danger from Lupin. And when Lupin is leaving he explains " They will not want a werewolf teaching their children, Harry. and after last night, I see their point. I could have bitten any of you..." -- again, BITTEN, not killed. So it would appear, as many have suggested, that there is more to the "Prank" than appears on the surface. My guess is that the threat to Snape AND the one to James' life were NOT from Lupin. It's quite true that Lupin might have bitten Snape (making him a werewolf) and that Snape saw Lupin as a werewolf. And this works with DD's statement that "my memory is as good as ever." when Snape brings up that Sirius tried to kill him. --- because if the "prank" wasn't intended to kill but it simply turned OUT to be a life-threatening incident, it puts a whole different spin on James, Lupin and Sirius. And it makes one wonder if the betrayal of the Potters was Peter's FIRST betrayal or if in fact, there had been something "not quite right" during Peter's school days. PAR. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 14 01:57:15 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 01:57:15 -0000 Subject: Werewolf Mystery In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153809 > PAR: OR, Snape wasn't in danger from LUPIN. I haven't seen anywhere > in cannon that it is stated that Lupin was the real threat. It's > clear that Snape thinks so, but what if there were a SECOND werewolf > (like greyback) there that night? My guess is that the threat to Snape AND the > one to James' life were NOT from Lupin. It's quite true that Lupin > might have bitten Snape (making him a werewolf) and that Snape saw > Lupin as a werewolf. And this works with DD's statement that "my > memory is as good as ever." when Snape brings up that Sirius tried to > kill him. --- because if the "prank" wasn't intended to kill but it > simply turned OUT to be a life-threatening incident, it puts a whole > different spin on James, Lupin and Sirius. And it makes one wonder if > the betrayal of the Potters was Peter's FIRST betrayal or if in fact, > there had been something "not quite right" during Peter's school days. Alla: Oh, my goodness, PAR. I certainly saw many scenarious of what ocurred that night and certainly suggested some, since I am one of those who thinks that that night has many, many mysteries, but I have not seen the presence of second werewolf suggested yet. Veeeeery interesting. Do you mind speculating why Greyback could be there? I mean, it is not that far fetched, I suppose since we know that he bitten Remus, so maybe they had some kind of the connection? Hmmm, certainly as good as any speculation. As to Peter, well, absolutely. Among many questions that I have about that night is where James and Peter were when the events in question occurred. Weren't they supposed to be with Remus when he transformed? Why that night was different? Did Peter choose not to go? What made James to not be there yet? Alla. From dontask2much at yahoo.com Wed Jun 14 02:11:12 2006 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 22:11:12 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Priori Incantatum and the missing AK References: <1789c2360606131757q4d4427f5mc1671f48632742d4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <01c701c68f57$cf8367a0$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 153810 >"Peggy Wilkins" said: > We see the past spells come out in reverse order: Wormtail's > regenerated hand, cries of pain associated with Crucio, victims Cedric > Diggory, Bertha Jorkins, Frank Bryce, Lily and James Potter--but there > is no sign of the Avada Kedavra that Voldemort shot at Harry, which > should have occurred immediately before Lily's regurgitated "shadow" > appeared. > > What could this mean, if anything? Is it a Flint that it is missing? > Was Voldemort's own wand not used to fire AK at Harry (seems > improbable)? Or, perhaps it is evidence of something I have suggested > before: that because the failed curse never completed, it is "clogged > up" between Harry and Voldemort, the basis of what connects them? > > My tendency is to believe the last: that because the curse couldn't > complete, its energy remains between Harry and Voldemort, and it may > be able to complete its job after Voldemort's Horcruxes are gone. If > that is true, then the absence of AK among the Priori Incantatem > spells that emerge from Voldemort's wand is deliberate on JKR's part. > Rebecca: IMO, the following that Dumbledore says in PS/SS to Professor McGonagall (at Pivet Drive when they arranged to leave Harry at the Dursley's) makes me wonder: "It's-it's true?" faltered Professor McGonagall. "After all he's done... all the people he's killed... he couldn't kill a little boy? It's just astounding... of all the things to stop him... but how in the name of heaven did Harry survive?" "We can only guess," said Dumbledore. "We may never know." "We can only guess", hm? Personally, I always found it odd that the *legend* of that night was so widely known. There's that old adage that comes to mind about stories becoming myths, then myths lead to legend and legend has a little truth somewhere in the mix. One alternative could be that Lily jumped in the way of the curse intended for Harry, rather than having a separate AK curse thrown at her specifically by His Dark Lordship-ness. Then again, if that's not what happened, what exactly would we see since the AK didn't work? Rebecca, pondering the possibilities From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Jun 14 02:05:23 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 02:05:23 -0000 Subject: Werewolf Mystery In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153811 lanval1015: > If werewolves do NOT as a rule attack to kill > (note that Harry is 'shocked' at the idea), then the entire story > about Snape owing a life debt to James falls apart. Alli wrote: You are absolutely right. If the common perception that > werewolf bites are not fatal is correct, then Snape doesn't owe James > a life- debt. PAR: > In POA, Hermione actually ASKS: " What if you'd given the others the slip, and bitten somebody?". Bitten somebody. Not killed somebody. Ceridwen: Werewolfs have a XXXXX rating (Highest rating - "Known wizard- killer / impossible to train or domesticate") in Fantastic Beasts & Where to Find Them. In the text, the werewolf is referred to as a 'murderous beast' and says that, almost uniquely, the werewolf actively seeks humans in preference to any other kind of prey (FB&WTFT pg 41-42). If Lupin had gotten hold of Snape (or any other human during his monthly prowls), he would have savaged him and tried to kill him. It wouldn't have been Lupin's fault (unless he was in on the Prank in his human form beforehand, in case anyone asks ;) ) but it still would have happened. Dumbledore was under the impression that this created a Life Debt between Snape and James. So, I believe that Snape was in real danger and James really saved him. Ceridwen. From celizwh at intergate.com Wed Jun 14 02:19:27 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 02:19:27 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End Clues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153812 zgirnius: > > But it is still interesting. What do the drinks add > > to the scene? > > [ drink drank drunk ] > > Are we supposed to get something from all this alcohol > > consumption? Len: > > The British drink. "A few before dinner" with a Brit > > will put the average american under the table before > > the nachos get served. Lilygale now: > The veritable orgy of (mostly social) drinking that goes on > throughout HBP cannot be a coincidence. We have Dumbledore > offering the Dursleys mead, blood red elf wine at Spinner's > End, Harry quaffing a bit of Felix, Hagrid and Slughorn > drinking their way through Aragog's memorial, Slughorn offering > mead to Harry and Ron, Trelawney over-imbibing prior to talking > to Harry about Snape and the prophecy. All of which culminates > in that fateful drinking scene in the cave. houyhnhnm: Now that you mention it they really do gulp a lot, don't they? Len's explanation makes sense. I'm just going by British books and films; I didn't notice it that much on my one visit to the UK, and most of my compatriots could drink me under the table anyway. But I think there is additional significance to all the liquids. Book 6 is the Slytherin book. Slytherin is associated with the element of water and the watery signs with all liquids. Scorpio rules all bodily liquids. Neptune, the ruler of Pisces, is also the ruler of *all* liquids. It is appropriate that the liquid state of matter would figure so prominently in HBP. As for the Christian symbolism, as a non-Christian I have stayed clear out of that. I am sure that Rowling has included Christian symbols in the books and it is natural that that aspect would be the most meaningful to Christian Harry Potter fans. I don't mean to imply that anyone who gets that kind of meaning out of the books is somehow "wrong", but I would like to point out that the bookshelf on Rowling's website holds two books of fairy tales and one book entitled _World Mythology_ (no Bibles and no works on Christian theology). I think the overall religious message, if any, of the Harry Potter series will turn out to be a universal rather than a sectarian one. From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 14 02:15:07 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 02:15:07 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's actions again. WAS: Re: Snape and the "Chosen One" /JKR listening In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153813 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > Tonks: > Why DD did nothing to protect Harry from the Dursleys is a question > that comes up here time and again. And the arguments on both sides > get very heated. I think that the answer is that the author wants > to point out to children that sometimes bad things happen and even > the wisest and most loving of Wizards can do nothing to prevent it. > > Simple as that. > Well, if that's what JKR is trying to do she's done a spectacularly bad job of it. Because there are MANY things DD could have done to prevent this particular "bad thing" from happening -- starting with making a wiser decision in the first place. And having found out that he made a bad decision, or at least one that didn't come out as he hoped, there were many actions he could have taken to correct it. To return to a metaphor I used recently, when you come across a counterfeit bill you have no obligation to just shrug and say "well, these bad things happen in any economy." When you run across a severe problem with character and action in the Potterverse, you are under no obligation to give JKR any sort of break because "the plot wouldn't work otherwise" or "she's trying to send a message." Merchants and banks should beware of counterfeit bills and authors should beware using inconsistency of character and gaping plot holes to move the story along or to send a message. Lupinlore From dontask2much at yahoo.com Wed Jun 14 02:46:12 2006 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 22:46:12 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's actions again. WAS: Re: Snape and the "Chosen One" /JKR listening References: Message-ID: <02a801c68f5c$b3420790$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 153814 >Lupinlore said: >Well, if that's what JKR is trying to do she's done a spectacularly >bad job of it. Because there are MANY things DD could have done to >prevent this particular "bad thing" from happening -- starting with >making a wiser decision in the first place. And having found out >that he made a bad decision, or at least one that didn't come out as >he hoped, there were many actions he could have taken to correct it. >To return to a metaphor I used recently, when you come across a >counterfeit bill you have no obligation to just shrug and say "well, >these bad things happen in any economy." When you run across a >severe problem with character and action in the Potterverse, you are >under no obligation to give JKR any sort of break because "the plot >wouldn't work otherwise" or "she's trying to send a message." >Merchants and banks should beware of counterfeit bills and authors >should beware using inconsistency of character and gaping plot holes >to move the story along or to send a message. Rebecca: I'm not sure it is inconsistency of character or a gaping plot hole, myself. Dumbledore, like great men our world history, makes mistakes and admits he does in both OoP and HBP. Whether the mistake is one that the reader can accept or not is purely a matter of the reader's personal preference, values, and morality. My perception is as the hero, Harry can't have a perfect life and somebody, right, wrong or different, is going to have to make those kinds of mistakes that allow him to build his character as he matures. That's the beauty of these books compared to other fictional literature in the same genre: JKR makes her characters human with human failings, not super-heros even if they are empowered by magic. If there's any message she's sending from a broader perspective, it's that magic doesn't cure all and a society with magic can have the same convoluted events happen in it, just like our real world today. I can accept that, just as I can surely not condone "standing by" in a real life like-wise situation. Rebecca 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 estesrandy at yahoo.com Wed Jun 14 02:58:39 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 02:58:39 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End Clues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153815 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kibakianakaya" wrote: > > > zgirnius wrote: > > But it is still interesting. What do the drinks add > > to the scene? > > [ drink drank drunk ] > > > > Are we supposed to get something from all this alcohol > > consumption? > > SNIP SNIP > > Lilygale now: > The veritable orgy of (mostly social) drinking that goes on > throughout HBP cannot be a coincidence. We have Dumbledore > offering the Dursleys mead, blood red elf wine at Spinner's > End, Harry quaffing a bit of Felix, Hagrid and Slughorn > drinking their way through Aragog's memorial, Slughorn offering > mead to Harry and Ron, Trelawney over-imbibing prior to talking > to Harry about Snape and the prophecy. All of which culminates > in that fateful drinking scene in the cave. > > So what is going on with the drinking imagery. I almost hate > to mention it after the looong debate over Christian imagery, > but... maybe there is some meaning to all that drinking based on > religious symbolism. SNIP SNIP Randy replies again since few choose to comment on his posts. If you think (like I do) that the seven tasks mentioned at the end of Philosopher's Stone tie together to the seven books, the sixth task is the table with all of the potions bottles. Potions are made to be drank. Also, I think this book is about overindulgence (sometimes called gluttony). As you pointed out everyone is drinking heavily, except Harry who only drinks a little of the Felix Felicis. Slughorn is a true glutton. I think his name has some connection with the horn of plenty (cornucopia) but I have lost the reference. He eats his candy and drinks his wine and has his parties. Ron overindulges in his lip locking with Lavendar. The other books have other themes too, but I will not bore you with my thoughts on these here. Randy From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Wed Jun 14 02:59:39 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 02:59:39 -0000 Subject: Priori Incantatum and the missing AK In-Reply-To: <01c701c68f57$cf8367a0$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153816 > >"Peggy Wilkins" said: > > > We see the past spells come out in reverse order: ...--but there > > is no sign of the Avada Kedavra that Voldemort shot at Harry, > > which should have occurred immediately before Lily's > > regurgitated "shadow" appeared. > > > > Rebecca: > One alternative could be that Lily jumped in the way of the > curse intended for Harry, aussie: That would leave no scar on Harry as the DD vs LV fight in MOM showed (Fawkes and statues taking hits for DD). The best reports of lily's death were Harry's memeory thanks to Dementors (after Quidditch match) and Quirrel/LV account of Lily's death. Neither show any time lapsed between Lily dying and Harry's Ak ... although I always assumed it. Another theory to store away for book 7. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Jun 14 03:42:47 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 03:42:47 -0000 Subject: Christian Symbolism in HP Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153817 Let me mention just one more little clue of some strange symbolism that JKR seems to be using. Many have noticed that when DD was killed his body was blasted into the sky and off the tower. People have pointed out that every other AK in the books has only caused the murdered person to slum to the ground. We have come up with different theories as to why DD's murder was different. Some say it wasn't really an AK. I even came up with the idea that Snape did a non-verbal to send DD's body off the tower so that Greyback would not try to take a bite or two. But I have been listening to the CD, and there is an image that comes to mind when we read/hear the event. It goes like this: "Harry's screams of horror never left him, silent and unmoving, he was forced to watch as DD was blasted into the air. For a split second he seemed to hang suspended beneath the shining skull, and then he fell slowly backward, like a great rag doll, over the battlements and out of sight. The key part of this for me is "he seemed to hang suspended beneath the shining skull". She does not say the dark mark, she does not say the skull with snake, she says simply "skull". I have said before that to me the death of DD on the tower was symbolically the crucifixion of Christ at Golgotha or "the place of the skull". I think that JKR did not just have DD slum to the floor, because she needed that extra image of the crucified Christ to stick in our mind. True not everyone would see it, and even those that might know the symbol would probably only see it through the eyes of their unconscious mind. It has been very difficult to explain to others what I intuitively feel is the framework of the books. I have tried, but do not have the words to convey what is essence an intuitive process. Perhaps it would help if I explained that I am trained in a type of hypnosis that uses stories to heal. In the context of therapy I can talk to a client, put them into a trance, do the work that needs to be done within their subconscious mind, bring them back out of trance and all the while they think that I was just telling a little story. Permission to use hypnosis in the sessions is given at the intake interview by saying "at some point in our work together I may use hypnosis, do I have your permission to do that?" And the person will say "yes". That is all the permission one needs. They may have their final session and wonder why you never did any hypnosis when that was what you were doing all along. Because of this training I am extra sensitive to seeing what might lie beneath the surface of a story, that part of the story that only your subconscious mind is suppose to hear. An Invitation: Now I would like to offer a special invitation. I am going to start a special society. The Luna Lovegood Society. We will be known far and wide as the "Loonies". Anyone who sees symbols in the HP stories that others do not see may join. Anyone persecuted for saying that they see what others say are not there may also join. I happen to be a `Christian Symbolism' Loony myself, but all Loonies of whatever persuasion are welcome to join. Heck, it might even be like having friends. Now I know that some of you are shy and would prefer to be secret Loonies, and that is OK too, just write to me off list. The day will come when the Loonies will be recognized for their true contributions to the cause. I predict that the day will indeed come with JKR will, if not *tell all*, will confess that she has used symbols from Christianity in telling her story. She might even admit to plagiarizing the bible. Our day will come fellow Loonies, our day will come!! Tonks_op From richter at ridgenet.net Wed Jun 14 04:05:23 2006 From: richter at ridgenet.net (Peggy Richter) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 04:05:23 -0000 Subject: Horcrux: was Baptism/Christianity in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153818 PAR: If James and Lily had been concerned about baptism and it's significance as implied, then Harry would have had a GODMOTHER as well as a Godfather. He doesn't, according to JKR in the same interview as the one where she mentions the Christening. I don't think one can presume that it is a significant issue. http://www.etymonline.com/ hors d'oeuvre 1714, "out of the ordinary," from Fr. hors d'oeuvre, "outside the ordinary courses (of a meal)," lit. "apart from the main work," from hors, var. of fors "outside" (from L. fortis) + de "from" + oeuvre "work," from L. opera, (see opus). Meaning "extra dish set out before a meal or between courses" attested in Eng. from 1742. hors de combat 1757, from Fr., lit. "out of combat." Crux also means "heart" or "crossroads" (as in railroad crossing) So Horcrux would mean "out of the heart" or "out of the crossing [of lives}" both of which fit FAR better to what LV is up to than any reference to a crucifixion cross. god O.E. god "supreme being, deity," from P.Gmc. *guthan (cf. Du. god, Ger. Gott, O.N. gu?, Goth. gu?), from PIE *ghut- "that which is invoked" (cf. Skt. huta- "invoked," an epithet of Indra), from root *gheu(e)- "to call, invoke." But some trace it to PIE *ghu-to- "poured," from root *gheu- "to pour, pour a libation" (source of Gk. khein "to pour," khoane "funnel" and khymos "juice;" also in the phrase khute gaia "poured earth," referring to a burial mound). "Given the Greek facts, the Germanic form may have referred in the first instance to the spirit immanent in a burial mound" [Watkins]. Not related to good. Originally neut. in Gmc., the gender shifted to masc. after the coming of Christianity. O.E. god was probably closer in sense to L. numen. A better word to translate deus might have been P.Gmc. *ansuz, but this was only used of the highest deities in the Gmc. religion, and not of foreign gods, and it was never used of the Christian God. ..... God bless you after someone sneezes is credited to St. Gregory the Great, but the pagan Romans (Absit omen) and Greeks had similar customs. -- so "godric" may refer to "god" but it isn't specific as to WHICH god. We have gnomes (see gnome --"dwarf-like earth-dwelling spirit," 1712, from Fr. gnome, from L. gnomus, used 16c. in a treatise by Paracelsus, who gave the name pigmaei or gnomi to elemental earth beings, possibly from Gk. *genomos "earth-dweller." We also have fairies, giants, dragons, phoenix, centaurs and mermaids -- but I don't think that the references to them "prove" that JKR is using the HP stories to link to Mithra or the but I don't think JKR is using HP as an allegory of non Christian beliefs. I'm certain that she is using Christian symbolisms as these are familiar to many of her readers. The phoenix is actually a pagan symbol long before it was a Christian one, dating back to Egyptians and Babylonian period http://eclipsephoenix.homestead.com/ I think JKR's themes are intended to be universal ones that are found in Hindu, Islam, Judaism, Wiccan and yes, Christian religions among others. I have yet to see anything in her books that is unique to Christianity and would be very disappointed if she put something of that sort in Book 7. PAR From honeykissed246 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 14 03:01:43 2006 From: honeykissed246 at yahoo.com (Darlene Carroll) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 20:01:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Why Snape is so interesting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060614030143.93854.qmail@web33206.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153819 Randy wrote: "I think the reason Snape is so interesting to the readers is due to his hidden motives. We see the good side and the bad side. He is described in images of bats, spiders, and dragons as someone else posted earlier. I find it interesting that he is described by these images, and he is the focus of so many debates about his evil or goodness." Honeykissed: Randy, you have made a great point here. I find it ingenious that JKR used Snape to play off of individual's preconceived ideas. I agree that Snape is not pleasant, fun and appears down right miserable and likes making everyone else miserable. I don't think JKR has said that he has actually smiled at all in any of the books, he just smirks. He also LOOKS the part, look how he is described (just like you stated)....however, I do believe he will come thru in the end. I also think its funny how she described Umbridge in "girlie" terms and she turned out to be anything but. Umbridge was evil beyond evil...from throwing poor Trelawney out on her duff, to making Harry write on his hand until he bleeds. And...let's not forget she was going to use one of the unforgivables on Harry in order to make him talk. If that's not bad enough we find out that she was the one who sent the dementors after Harry which almost resulted in his expulsion. Now anyone, including me, if we met Snape (as described by JKR) and Umbridge (ditto) without knowing anything about them would probably think that Umbridge was as sweet as cake and Snape the exact opposite based soley on looks....and we know that is not the case. Snape is a person who is immature in certain respects, can't get over what happened in his childhood and at Hogwarts when he attended and I believe he takes it out on Harry. He is a genius at "acting" (he is so good that we don't know who he is "working for") and potions (not to mention Occlummency and Legilmens) and thus will be the key to this series. I happen to think he is playing for the "good" side but you just love to "hate him" based on his behavior toward Harry (and in general) and just the way he looks. I will be surprised if he is working for Voldemort :). From kjones at telus.net Wed Jun 14 05:10:23 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 22:10:23 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Spinner's End Clues In-Reply-To: <20060614000751.97134.qmail@web80607.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060614000751.97134.qmail@web80607.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <448F9A3F.4030507@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 153820 Len Jaffe wrote: > > zgirnius wrote: > > But it is still interesting. What do the drinks add > to the scene? > [ drink drank drunk ] > > Are we supposed to > get something from all this alcohol consumption? > > Now Len: > There may or may not be something interesting in the > phrasing or wording, but in general, I'd say: > Nothing to see here folks, move along. > > Len. KJ Writes: The main thing that I found most interesting about this scene, and the one where DD conjures a bottle of mead is the dust. The wine at Spinner's End came out in a "dusty" bottle, as did the bottle of mead. It makes me wonder, if, in not living at the Dursleys', the mead provided was dusty, what does it say about Snape's living arrangements when his wine shows up dusty. When I first read the book, this caught my eye immediately, and I am sure that it is for a reason. KJ From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Wed Jun 14 05:36:58 2006 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 01:36:58 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: New Headmaster/Headmistress at Hogwarts in Book 7? ne... Message-ID: <364.61cc26c.31c0fa7a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153821 In a message dated 6/12/06 6:38:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, horridporrid03 at yahoo.com writes: > My dream? Snape as Headmaster and Draco as Potions Master and Head > of Slytherin. Up Slytherin!! for mentioning Snape.> > > And Harry as DADA Professor and head of Griffyndor. Sandy, heating the iron [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Wed Jun 14 06:20:11 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 06:20:11 -0000 Subject: Understanding Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153822 > > wynnleaf: > Consider. If Snape had alerted the Order to go to the MOM prior to waiting > some time to see if Harry, Hermione and Umbridge came back from the forest, > then the Order would have gone to the MOM far too early, found nothing and > no one there, and left with another "false alarm" report, the same as > happened when Snape contacted 12 Grimmauld Place the first time and found > Sirius there. > Neri: So? When you're in security, you expect to have 20 false alarms so you wouldn't fail to respond in a single case of a true alarm. This is why people in security often seem so paranoid. JKR clearly knows that, just look at Moody. The properly paranoid response from the Order would have been to check the DoM immediately and, after finding nothing, leave a guard or too for the rest of the night just to be on the safe side. I'm sure this is what Moody would have done, which is an obvious indication that he didn't know about Snape's first contact. > wynnleaf: > Why would he have searched immediately? Just to track down Harry, Hermione > and Umbridge and tell them what? Neri: Aren't we talking here about secret agent Snape, who is an expert in tracking people without letting them notice him? And if he wasn't up to this task himself, he could call in Sirius, who certainly was. > wynnleaf: > All of this argument assumes that Snape should have *assumed* that Harry > would overpower Umbridge. Neri: Not at all. What my argument assumes is that Snape, as the last Order member at Hogwarts, should have kept his eye on Harry, because this was the Order's main objective throughout the year. If he found that he wasn't up to it, he should have immediately called in enforcements to do it. Obviously DDM!Snape had completely failed to learn in advance about Voldemort's DoM operation, but if he's useless as a spy, one at least expects him to do his duty as a regular Order member. > wynnleaf: > Dumbledore has allowed Harry to enter into so many far more dangerous > situations! Neri: Not during the OotP year. OotP begins with Mundungus deserting his post of guarding Harry for less than an hour, and as a result Harry is nearly assassinated. There's a big commotion about it and after that the Order members never let Harry wander out of their sight in any dangerous place. In the end of OotP Dumbledore explains again that guarding Harry was one of their major objectives. > wynnleaf: >And we don't even know how > soon Snape learned that the three had gone to the forest, as opposed to some > other part of the castle. Neri: He knew that Umbridge had caught Harry in her office, that Harry was under a mind attack by Voldemort and that Umbridge was trying to get sensitive Order information out of him. He certainly should have kept his eye on such a situation and he should have kept HQ fully posted. That's elementary secret agent stuff. > wynnleaf: > Snape's explanations at Spinner End add evidence that Voldemort knew nothing > about Snape's involvement with sending the Order to the MOM. Snape taunted > Bella with the fiasco at the MOM and with the Death Eaters inability to > overpower students. She replied that it wasn't just students -- that the > Order had shown up. But he never once mentioned his own part in sending > the Order. Neri: He takes credit for helping with disposing of Sirius Black, and Bella doesn't contradict him on this. He also says that his orders were to remain behind, meaning he knew in advance that, at the very least, some operation was going on, and Bella doesn't contradict him on this either. Now, if you argue that she didn't know what his orders really were, then obviously she wouldn't know that he was ordered to warn the Order too late. So why should he tell her? It's not something that would advance his argument. > Neri > >2. Dumbledore and the Order rushing to the Ministry and arriving too > >late would have been the ideal scenario from Voldemort's point of > >view. > wynnleaf: > Since it's clear that the Death Eaters had no guarauntee of winning in a > fight against the Order and Dumbledore, I doubt that this would have been > their plan. Neri: No, I don't think this was the plan either. But a plan for the Order arriving at the DoM *after* the DEs had already left and then caught by Aurors would be, from Voldemort's point of view, just perfect. > Carol responds: > Snape must have done at least two other things in order to know that > Harry had gone into the forest and for Dumbledore to know what Snape > knew. First, he must have gone to Umbridge's office after Ron, > Hermione, Neville, and Luna had left, sorted out the various hexes, > and questioned the Slytherins about what had happened. Neri: The Slytherins couldn't tell him that Harry was in the forest even after they were questioned because they didn't know. Umbridge herself didn't know, when she left her office, that Hermione is heading for the forest. Ron & Co knew because they saw Harry, Hermione and Umbridge heading for the forest through the office window, as Ron tells Harry when they meet again. So how did Snape know that he had to search the forest? Probably because he did the most natural thing for Snape to do ? he stalked Harry and Umbridge when they left Umbridge's office. He was walking out of Umbridge office, sending a patronus to 12GP, and until the response arrives that Sirius is there he must work under the assumption that this is a true situation, and the only thing he can and must do is keep an eye on Harry. He'd wait around a corner to see where Umbridge would take Harry and he'd do what he's best at ? stalking people in the corridors. Anything less would be make him, again, completely useless as a secret agent. > Carol : >Second, he must > have contacted Dumbledore at least once (also necessary in order for > him to know, and inform Sirius Black, that Dumbledore was coming. (He > tells Black to wait for DD, which he could not have known if he hadn't > first communicated with DD.) > Neri: Dumbledore never tells us or even just suggests that Snape contacted him that evening. It's simply not in canon. Had Dumbledore knew about the situation, surely he wouldn't go incommunicado at such a time? Wouldn't he immediately arrive to resolve the problem? And if Snape had direct connection with Dumbledore, why didn't he send him directly to the DoM? Why going to 12GP first and having a talk with Kreacher while the Order members are fighting for their lives in the DoM? Snape knowing that Dumbledore was due in 12GP could be because this was scheduled the day before, or because Snape's second call was through Umbridge's fire (much more convenient than a patronus since Snape knew she's not in the castle) and the Order members simply told him that Dumbledore was due in 12GP. > houyhnhnm: > > Granting that your interpretation of Snape is correct (I don't agree, > but that's about a hundred other arguments), how does his > procrastination in alerting the Order advance that interpretation? > Neri: It suggests that Snape is torn between two contradicting objectives. > houyhnhnm: > If Harry has found a way to get to the Ministry, there are only two > possible outcomes--Voldemort's success or failure. Regardless of his > reasons, Snape must want either one or the other because those are the > only two possibilities. Neri: No. You are still stuck with DDM!Snape and Voldemort'sMan!Snape, both assuming that those are the only two possible outcomes because they are what's important for the two sides in the war. But Snape remains a paradox whatever side you try to fit him in, which exactly suggests that he's not on either side and he has his own agenda. He doesn't care much if Voldemort succeed or fails. The critical question for Snape is: does Voldemort succeeds or fail in a way that advances Snape's agenda. And Snape dallying suggests that his agenda consists of two contradicting objectives. The LID!Snape theory assumes that Snape's first objective was to continue with the double-agent game as long as possible and come out on top whichever side wins the war. But this contradicted his second objective ? he must repay his Life Debt to James's son before he can bet on Voldemort's side. Even worse for Snape ? he must save Harry's life without Voldemort learning about it, because if Voldemort learns about it the double-agent game is over and Snape is stuck on Dumbledore's side, which might end up the losing side. The LID!Snape version of the OotP climax is that Snape indeed had orders from Voldemort to "stay behind", just as he says in Spinner's End. So he knew about the ongoing operation but was afraid of warning 12GP because he was also told that Voldemort had a spy there (but not necessarily that the spy was Kreacher). If Snape warned the Order the spy might report it to Voldemort. So Snape was grateful when Umbridge took Harry to the forest ? Harry wouldn't die, Snape wouldn't have to warn the Order and it would be Umbridge's fault that Voldemort's operation failed. But once Snape realized that Harry went to the DoM after all he had no choice left but to warn the Order, or he'd fail in paying his Life Debt. Lucky for him (and for JKR's plot) Dumbledore caught Kreacher and Sirius ended up dead. So Voldemort never learned about Snape warning the Order and Dumbledore never learned what was Snape's first message to Sirius, if indeed such a message even existed. For more details of this theory see the bottom of post http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149239 There are actually several slightly different versions, mainly depending on the unknown nature of the Life Debt, but they are all basically the same and in none of them Snape acts unprofessionally. This is one advantage of LID!Snape ? he's not a completely useless secret agent working for either Dumbledore or Voldemort, he's a capable agent working for himself. > houyhnhnm: > The Dumbledore's office scenes nearly always have a description of the > sky outside (I've been meaning to go through and tally them up to look > for a pattern.) Personally, I think Rowling just liked the idea of a > green streak in the sky because dawn symbolizes beginning and green > hints at evil. It is the day, after all, when Harry's life is going > to change forever, because he will learn about his part in the > prophecy. > Neri: I'll be interested to see your tally when you finish it. Personally I could not find a single description of the sky outside Dumbledore's office (or even just a mention of the window itself) during the five books until the talk at the end of OotP. Now, interestingly once JKR mentions it in the OotP talk (several times, the first immediately after Harry arrives there, even before Dumbledore joins him) she seems to suddenly realize that Dumbledore indeed has a window in his office, and she describes the view out of it several times in HBP. Still, these descriptions aren't so much symbolic as they help us with the plot, especially with the time. For example, in "Voldemort Secret Request" the window shows snow when Dumbledore is meeting with Voldemort in the pensieve and no snow when Dumbledore and Harry are back to the present. I guess you could find symbolism in that too. The point is that time is important to JKR, even if she's not always good at it. She mentions dates, seasons, days of the week, holidays, hours and sun positions all the time. Her early plan of OotP that she's recently published in her website is arranged by months, with a table showing what happens with each of the characters and plot lines at any point in time. If she also had a similar table for the OotP climax, and it's almost inconceivable that she hadn't, then it would be arranged by hours, and it would be practically impossible for her not to notice that there's a huge hole of about five hours when Harry & Co have all these incredible adventures over several chapters while the Order is doing absolutely nothing. Neri From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 14 06:25:29 2006 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 06:25:29 -0000 Subject: Werewolf Mystery In-Reply-To: <001d01c68eed$80c7f820$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153823 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Marion Ros" wrote: > > > Lanval: > Should not 'James saved Snape's life' really be 'James saved Snape > from becoming a werewolf'? Not a pleasant fate either, but preferable > to death, I should think. >>>>>>> > > Allie: > >> You are absolutely right. If the common perception that werewolf > bites are not fatal is correct, then Snape doesn't owe James a life- > debt. I suspect that what we are dealing with is a big, HUGE... > Flint. I don't think more will be made of it in book 7. <<<<< > > > Marion: > > This is nonsense. Lanval: Forgive me. In attempting to start a discussion about a possible contradiction in the books, I must have accidentally set off your Nonsense Detector. I'll try not to do that again. > Marion: Why would the Wizarding World have such a fear for werewolves is they were harmless? Lanval: *searches her prior posts, trying to find the word 'harmless' as a description for werewolves* > Marion: If anybody with a wand could adequately defend himself from a werewolf attack, why would it be such a no-no for young werewolves to attend Hogwarts. Young Lupin was an experiment. One that was botched by the so-called 'Prank'. Lanval: Butbutbut... he was allowed to stay and finish school! No one even got expelled! Least of all Lupin himself! Maybe DD didn't think of this particular experiment as all that 'botched'? Wait... could JKR perhaps be drawing certain parallels to Real Life? About prejudice toward people with certain diseases? Nah. I'm sure it was all just to show what a crazy idea it was to accept Lupin in the first place. And the Prank serves to drive the message home, both to DD and to the readers: don't trust these contagious folks. > Marion: If werewolves were really so easily stopped by anybody with a wand, if they were really not really into killing people and if they 'as a rule do not attack to kill', why should anybody worry about werewolves at all? They're just large mosquitos, right? Their bites might sting a bit, and it might turn you into a werewolf yourself (always handy for costume parties and Halloween) but one flick of a wand and any real danger can be contained. We're talking about people who let their young children practice a sport in which they fly a hundred feet high without a crash helmet. If they break their necks, there's always Skelegro potion, right? Lanval: Is there? Is there really? Are you saying Snape may not have saved Harry's life after all in SS/PS? > Marion: > Can you just imagine? "Oh, look! Loopy Lupin is a werewolf again! Lets go bother him! Bother bother bother! Oh, he's growling! He wants to bite. Bad wolfie! I'll contain your ferociousness with my newly learned batbogie hex, or perhaps the trusty jellylegsjinx." > > I don't think so. Lanval: Neither do I. > Marion: > We've been told that the transformation fills the werewolf with bloodlust against *humans* (they don't attack animals, hence the animagi Marauders were quite safe). This is what makes it a Dark Creature, basically. It's a magically partial deformation of body, mind and (if you belief in such things) soul. > We've been told that, when deprived of suitable prey (humans) and locked up, LupinWolf would attack himself (the werewolf knows instinctively that he himself is part human perhaps?) > And we've been told that the transformation *hurts*. Lanval: Yes. I believe I wrote very much the same in my post, so your point would be...? > Marion: > We've also been told that Fenrir Greyback would choose to be close to a populated area in order to kill or transform as many as he can, and he chooses a populated area with many *children* by preference (he's just sick than way. He mirrors Tom Riddle that way. Tom also chose his followers when they were seventeen. Notice that older wizards and witches never fell for his charms. Not even screachin' mrs Black would have anything to do with Tom Riddle, thank you very much. But that's another story for another thread) > Lanval: Well, since you brought it up: Greyback's *victims* are small children. Riddle's *followers* are seventeen (or so) which means they are adults according to Wizarding Law. I'm also a bit, say, hesitant, to accept how joining a fledgling terrorist group is in ANY way comparable to falling victim to a clear stand-in for a child rapist/murderer... ??? As for ol' Tom's charms, some of the older adults in HBP seemed quite taken with him. > Marion: > Yeah, right, but if you would step into a dark cage with a Siberian Tiger, a *rabid* Siberian Tiger, enraged, zoning in on its favourite prey, would having a gun help? You'd need *distance* for a gun. Or a wand. Within a second of noticing it (the image of snarling razorsharp teeth and claws and insane glowing eyes has barely made an imprint on your mind) the beast would be upon you. Before you could lift your wand, your arm would be ripped from your body. Before you could shout 'avada kadavra', it's teeth would be in your neck, severing your head from your shoulders. The last image your brain would process would be of the monster feasting on your intestines. > > They don't give delicate nips, you know. > Lanval: I would have never known! One small nitpicky point, though. Once Greyback's little victims have had their arms ripped off, their heads severed and their intestines eaten, will they turn into armless, headless and intestine-free werewolves at the next full moon? Because, you see, the author kind of suggested in HBP that werewolves generally bite to create more werewolves, not to kill. And as to famous Headless James Potter.. oh, never mind. > Marion: > And I've got a niggling suspicion (can't remember if it's canon or not) that werewolves are somewhat resistant to magic (like giants are) Perhaps not impervious, but, really, doesn't only silver kill them? > Lanval: I don't know. I don't recall it mentioned in the books, but it's a possibility. Which is why I thought this group might be a good place to discuss it. > Marion: > There's a *reason* the wizarding world hates, fears and loathes werewolves. If they were only a minor inconvenience, the WW would regularly send out a posse to keep the numbers down. But werewolves are just too dangerous. You'd be killed before you know it. And if you'd be 'lucky' enough to survive the attack (because for instance your friends or family chases it off) the werewolf would still be alive and *you'd* be one of them by next full moon. Lanval: Hm, yes, overcoming a werewolf might pose a problem for a posse on a full moon night, when -- oh! Perhaps they could send the Aurors or Ministry officials at some point during THE REST of the month? To *keep the numbers down*. That'll look good, AK'ing little kids. As for why there's a *reason* for the WW to fear and loathe these folks who dared to become innocent victims: see above. Yes, thank God, JKR isn't one of those stupidy-stupidy people who think prejudice and intolerance are Bad Things! Wouldn't want kids to learn that sort of junk. And look at those Order members! Look how they fear and loathe Lupin. Why, Molly Weasley is clearly terrified of him. I'm surprised none of them have yet suggested that Lupin be locked up in Azkaban for the rest of his life. Or killed. To keep those numbers down. > Marion: > I don't think that calling the 'Prank' anything other than a murder attempt would fail to do the seriousness of it justice. > Lanval: I assume you're saying it WAS attempted murder? Um, no. The danger of a werewolf attack nonwithstanding (let's just assume they ARE out to kill), you would have to prove that Sirius Black intended for Snape to die, and that's not upheld in canon. By your definition (if only the level of danger counts), Hagrid attempted murder when he sent Harry and Ron after the spiders. And if I could interest you in my original question: Do you think it's a mistake/contradiction by the author that werewolves in HBP are presented as Not Necessarily Killers (and no, I didn't come up with this myself just to get Sirius off the hook; it's all in HBP)? Or is there another explanation? Lanval From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 14 06:36:17 2006 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 06:36:17 -0000 Subject: Werewolf Mystery In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153824 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > PAR: > > In POA, Hermione actually ASKS: " What if you'd given the others > the slip, and bitten somebody?". Bitten somebody. Not killed > somebody. > > Ceridwen: > Werewolfs have a XXXXX rating (Highest rating - "Known wizard- > killer / impossible to train or domesticate") in Fantastic Beasts & > Where to Find Them. In the text, the werewolf is referred to as > a 'murderous beast' and says that, almost uniquely, the werewolf > actively seeks humans in preference to any other kind of prey > (FB&WTFT pg 41-42). > Lanval: Ah, yes, the schoolbooks. Will go see if I can find 'Fantastic Beasts'.. > If Lupin had gotten hold of Snape (or any other human during his > monthly prowls), he would have savaged him and tried to kill him. It > wouldn't have been Lupin's fault (unless he was in on the Prank in > his human form beforehand, in case anyone asks ;) ) but it still > would have happened. Dumbledore was under the impression that this > created a Life Debt between Snape and James. So, I believe that > Snape was in real danger and James really saved him. > > Ceridwen. > Lanval: See, I think so, too. I'd prefer the life debt to be real (for several reasons, one of course being that I don't want to believe JKR would doom an entire plot arc by a mistake). Which is why HBP confused me so. Besides, her 'new' werewolf interpretation adds so many more problems. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jun 14 07:10:51 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 07:10:51 -0000 Subject: Priori Incantatum and the missing AK In-Reply-To: <1789c2360606131757q4d4427f5mc1671f48632742d4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153826 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Peggy Wilkins" wrote: > > I just realized today, for the first time, that in GOF when Harry > forces Voldemort's wand to regurgitate its spells (Priori Incantatem), > the failed AK that was directed at Harry does not show up, though we > should expect it to. > > We see the past spells come out in reverse order: Wormtail's > regenerated hand, cries of pain associated with Crucio, victims Cedric > Diggory, Bertha Jorkins, Frank Bryce, Lily and James Potter--but there > is no sign of the Avada Kedavra that Voldemort shot at Harry, which > should have occurred immediately before Lily's regurgitated "shadow" > appeared. > > What could this mean, if anything? Is it a Flint that it is missing? > Was Voldemort's own wand not used to fire AK at Harry (seems > improbable)? Or, perhaps it is evidence of something I have suggested > before: that because the failed curse never completed, it is "clogged > up" between Harry and Voldemort, the basis of what connects them? > > My tendency is to believe the last: that because the curse couldn't > complete, its energy remains between Harry and Voldemort, and it may > be able to complete its job after Voldemort's Horcruxes are gone. If > that is true, then the absence of AK among the Priori Incantatem > spells that emerge from Voldemort's wand is deliberate on JKR's part. Geoff: Inevitably, thie topic has been looked at before. The following is from message 112105: macfotuk > The real point of this post though is as follows: > However, LV's own wand in GoF tells us > during the priori incantatem regurgitation that it (in reverse order > and scuse me if recall doesn't get it all right) crucio'd Harry, > Pettigrew's silver hand, cricio'd Harry again, AK'd Cedric (at > Pettigrew's hands) Crucio'd Pettigrew and possibly others, AK'd the > Riddle's gardener Frank Bryce, AK'd Bertha Jorkin, and then > (resolving the 'mistakes' between early vs late editions) AK'd Lily > and James. Where is the AK sent at Harry? - It seems distinctly > MISSING!. Geoff: Priori Incantatem shows the result of a spell, i.e. Wormtail's hand, the "wraiths" of Cedric, Frank Bryce etc. Since the Avadra Kedavra directed at Harry didn't have that sort of outcome, it has nothing to show on "replay". Would it show the spellcaster disappearing into a grey mist or something similar? I have my doubts. From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Wed Jun 14 09:15:06 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 09:15:06 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Spinner's End Clues In-Reply-To: <448F9A3F.4030507@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153827 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Jones wrote: > KJ Writes: > The main thing that I found most interesting about this scene, and > the one where DD conjures a bottle of mead is the dust. The wine at > Spinner's End came out in a "dusty" bottle, as did the bottle of mead. > It makes me wonder, if, in not living at the Dursleys', the mead > provided was dusty, what does it say about Snape's living arrangements > when his wine shows up dusty. When I first read the book, this caught my > eye immediately, and I am sure that it is for a reason. > > KJ > Gerry Hm, I'd think it means that was good mead and that Snape knows his wines Gerry From kateydidnt2002 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 14 09:20:59 2006 From: kateydidnt2002 at yahoo.com (kateydidnt2002) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 09:20:59 -0000 Subject: Harry's hatred of Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153828 If this has been address already specifically I apologize and would ask if anyone would be so kind as to point me in the right direction. One of the things that bugged me most in *Half-Blood Prince* is the conversation with Lupin around Christmas ( I believe that was when it was) where in Lupin says something to the effect of "You're determined to hate Snape and you inherited it from your father." (Sorry my book is not with me at the moment.) WHAT?!?! How on earth does this line make sense at all? Harry was 15 months old when his father died. His one memory of his father was the night he died. Other than the physical genetic inheritance he got from his father, he couldn't get much else from him because he doesn't remember him! There is no such thing as a genetic predisposition to hate person X. Harry later learned of the animosity between Snape and James at the end of book one in his discussion with Dumbledore. Note this: Harry's dislike of Snape started about ten months earlier. Harry did not in any way inherit James' dislike of Snape--Snape managed to engender that all on his own. The only thing Harry inherited from his father with regards to Snape was *Snape's* hatred of anything Potter--not the other way around as Lupin seems to be saying. Added to this conundrum of why this line in particular is in the books is that one of the overarching theme of the whole series of the is the importance of choices. As Dumbledore says in book two "It is your choices, far more than your abilities that determine who you are." Even in book six Dumbledore berates Harry for putting too much faith in the prophecy--emphasizing that it is Harry's choices that make the prophecy what it is, *not vice versa*. Notice the people who are obsessed with traits, rather than choices, being the determiner of worth are Voldemort (I am Slytherin's heir, therefore I must be evil), his Death Eaters (all muggles, muggleborns, and muggle lovers are bad), and Snape (I hate all things Potter). So why was this line put in? From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Wed Jun 14 09:24:33 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 09:24:33 -0000 Subject: Werewolf Mystery In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153829 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lanval1015" wrote: > Do you think it's a mistake/contradiction by the author that > werewolves in HBP are presented as Not Necessarily Killers (and no, > I didn't come up with this myself just to get Sirius off the hook; > it's all in HBP)? Or is there another explanation? > > Lanval > I always thought it had more to do with physical circumstances. In PoA the tunnel is described as being very low through which they have to crawl and out of which they have to pull themselves. A human in the tunnel will be with is hands on te ground and if he comes out of it it will be head first. So if Snape had made it through the tunnel, the first thing Lupin would have attacked would have been his head an throat, also in the tunnel. And of course in the tunnel a human on hands and knees would have a severy disadvantage in facing a werewolf. So yes, I do think Snape was in mortal danger because of the circumstances. Gerry From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Wed Jun 14 09:33:00 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 09:33:00 -0000 Subject: the whole Christian/Baptism debate that's been going on In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153830 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "festuco" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Marion Ros" wrote: > > > Marion > > The term 'godfather' or 'godmother' is not exclusive to christian > faith or church. Remember the 'fairy godmother' from fairy tales? Do > you really think fairy godmothers were present in a *church* in the > presence of a *priest*? Do you remember the uproar the Harry Potter > books caused amongst (American) Christians? They wanted to burn the > books because they were supposed to be satanic. Why? Because it > "taught children how to become *witches*" and doesn't the bible say > something about 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live'? > Gerry > Hm, fanatical fundamentalist Christians you mean. Normal Christians > lik JKR and most Christian people buy the books, read the books, are > fanatical fans, or don't like children's books and don't get what the > fuss is about. > > Marion > > Muggles hunted down witches because the bible and the priests told > them to. The Church sent the Inquisition and the Christian State sent > its Witchfinders Generals. The Wizarding World separated itself from > the Muggle World because of this. > > And you think, Leslie, that Wizards would give their children a > *Christian* baptism? So they could be indoctrinated by the priests and > their books? The books that told them (the baptised wizard children) > that they were intrisically *evil* and must be *burned*? Or *drowned*? > Gerry > Yes, actually. Because they themselves knew they were not evil and had > nothing to do with the devil. I fully assume they interpreted that > passage as meaning evil wizard/witch and did not worry too much about > it. I think the whole 'take the bible literally' idea was abandoned > much earlier among the WW than in the rest of the Christian world. > > > Marion > > And wasn't one of the reasons that Wizards were supposedly satanic > because they did not worship Jehovah or Christ? (one of the quirks of > monotheism: "if you're not with us, your against us. Either you're a > cardcarrying Christian, or you're one of Satan's own Satanic herd! > Burn! Burn!!!") > > > Gerry > I'm sorry, but that is a circular argument. In those days Britain was > a Christian country. The magical community knew they worshipped Christ > and had nothing to do with the devil. So why would they abandon their > faith? They recognized that it had nothing to do with devil worship > but with fear of power I assume. > Marion > > A problem I could see arising in this: the Muggleborns. They might > well be baptised and raised as a Christian. Very probably in fact. > Which might explain *some* of the aversion the 'purebloods' might have > against Muggleborns. 'Polluting' their culture with their weird > religion which says that if you're a witch you should die or at least > *repent* and *feel guilty*... > Gerry > I don't know how it sounds in Enblish, but there is this famous Jezuit > remark which translated as "give them to us before they are seven and > we have them for the rest of their lives." Muggleborns - who by the > way don't get snatched, but are invited - would indeed have been a > great security risk for the WW if they would have had to abandon their > faith and start worshipping some weird pagan and therefor devilish > gods, or whatever you imagine the religon of the WW is like. There is > loads of literature about people denouncing others because they cannot > cope with being like that themselves, for example repressed > homosexuality and gay bashing. Especially when religion is concerned > this would have been a disaster waiting to happen, time and time again. > > Marion > > But luckily, Muggleborns get snatched from their motherculture from > age eleven and thoroughly immersed in Wizard Culture. After > graduating, they will continue to live in the Wizarding World and very > rarely make excursions to the Muggle world with its churches and > priests. If they ever were thoroughly indoctrinated by religion, a few > years of spells, potions, ghosts and Quidditch would cure them of > that. And if not, there is always Oblivation... > > Gerry > What a scary world you are making. Please start supporting this by > canon instead of giving your own doomsday vision. > > Gerry > From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Jun 14 10:44:32 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 10:44:32 -0000 Subject: Werewolf Mystery In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153831 Lanval: > Ah, yes, the schoolbooks. Will go see if I can find 'Fantastic > Beasts'.. Ceridwen: Ours was on the bookshelf under the window. *g* Lanval: > See, I think so, too. I'd prefer the life debt to be real (for > several reasons, one of course being that I don't want to believe > JKR would doom an entire plot arc by a mistake). Which is why HBP > confused me so. Besides, her 'new' werewolf interpretation adds so > many more problems. Ceridwen: I'm not so much into a rigid 'this *must* be this for that to be so sort of definition of most of what goes on in the books. I think Fenrir Greyback was presented as an oddity among werewolves - he has his bloodlust all month instead of just at the full moon, and he has learned to use his disability to his twisted purpose - to punish people who go against him or otherwise anger him. This is clearly stated as out of the ordinary. When Hermione asks about biting, too, I think that she is trying to be delicate. A lot of people try to shock, but some go the other direction. By asking if he bit, she's also asking if he attacked anyone, turned someone into a werewolf *or* killed them. She's talking to a friend, after all, not some stranger she's questioning. I think the books imply that a werewolf might kill, or they might 'merely' leave their victims as other werewolves. It can't be known which will happen. Dying would be the more extreme case in the short run, but most people take the extreme in a hypothetical situation. The potential end results of The Prank are hypothetical - it didn't run its course, James saved Snape. But the upshot seems to be that Snape could have been killed. Therefore, James saved his life. The WW is right to be cautious of werewolves. They have the highest rating for a reason - when they are in their transformed state, they are extremely dangerous and they tend to target humans. Even likening werewolfism to a disease, it is a contageous disease. People who come into contact with a werewolf either die or become infected for life. No parent wants their child to come down with a lifelong contageous disease, no one wants that for their spouse or friend or relation. The WW takes it a bit too far by appearing to ignore the 26 days or so that the werewolf is not a werewolf. And we have been shown that the 3 or so days that a werewolf is most dangerous can be dealt with. But, this discussion seems to be more about whether Snape was saved from death or 'merely' from becoming a werewolf. We don't know which Lupin would have done while under the extreme of his condition. We do know that potentially, he could have killed Snape. We know that wasn't a given, but it was the extreme case scenario and one of only two possible options if Snape had actually gotten into the Shack. I do not think there was a third option, that of a clean escape - that's so improbable that I wouldn't even count it any more than DD does. It's something for braggodocious kids to hypothesize about. Ceridwen. From norisch1 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 14 04:50:01 2006 From: norisch1 at yahoo.com (Norishce) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 21:50:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Werewolf Mystery In-Reply-To: <001d01c68eed$80c7f820$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: <20060614045001.75961.qmail@web33710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153832 Greetings I am new to this group and this is my first posting, hence do forgive me if my mannerisms are incorrect. I have watched and read on this subject for a few days and I wished to make a couple of comments. Since I am responding to several comments in the last few days please be patient. I would like to say that I have quite a bit of experience with real wolves; I have had several full blood wolves as well as part wolves that I have raised and cared for. While a werewolf is not exactly a wolf, it is indeed part wolf. Hence, there are a few things I would like to point out about the nature of a wolf. Wolves do not normally seek out humans, in fact they avoid human contact for the most part (in the wild that is). I believe the same is true for werewolves. I believe that most of the time a werewolf will avoid contact with humans and will only seek out humans under extreme circumstances. If a werewolf is among humans when he changes he has no choice, which is probably why most werewolves are loners and do not have the tendancy to stay in one place for too long or get into a relationship. As to the idea that a werewolf can purposely seek out humans to kill or turn. Let me say only one thing...pit bulls. A dog can be trained to be vicious and to fight a specific enemy, all it requires is the right circumstances and a wounderfully lovable puppy can turn into a vicious killer that is out of control. As to magic and its effects on werewolves. Magic does not effect a werewolf much the same way that rain does not effect a duck. Werewolves have a natural immunity to many magical spells, do to their very nature. Although just as a duck and rain, enough water can kill a duck...enough magic can kill a werewolf. If a werewolf were succeptable to magic, would it not be that most people would simply wave a wand and turn the werewolf back into the human form or simply put them to sleep until the werewolf returned to its human form naturally? A werewolf is a creature that must live its life no accepted by anyone. It is not accepted in the magical world because it can not be controlled by magic nor can it be cured by magic. It is not accepted in the non magical world because it can not be controlled by the non magical means, but it can be killed by non magical means. A werewolf learns quickly that it either has to hide its true nature or kill to defend itself and survive. A werewolf will kill a human, magical or non, when it feels threatened... and unfortunately this means that if it sees you then it knows you know about it, hence you are a threat. A werewolf does not kill a human for food, infact they eat primarily smaller game such as rabbits, fish and fowl. Rarely does a werewolf kill anything larger, due to the fact that it will only be able to finish one meal. Unlike what some have suggested that the werewolf will gorge itself so that it will have nurishment until the next cycle, the human portion of the werewolf still exhists so while it may indeed be hungry for fresh meat...it is not starving or desperate. I do appologize if my comments are a little wordy, but I have studied not only wolves but werewolves to a great extent and hope that my little bit of knowledge is useful. Norische From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 14 12:35:50 2006 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 12:35:50 -0000 Subject: Werewolf Mystery In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153833 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > Pippin: > There is similar confusion about real life wolves. Maybe JKR did not know that when she > began and decided to work it into the story, or maybe she did know when she began and > decided to work it into the story :) > Lanval: That's entirely possible. :) After all, she does make mistakes; looking at the sheer volume of ideas, plots and subplots in the books, I'm surprised she doesn't make more. Yet this one struck me as more than just a casual error, a FLINT, a wrong birth year. > Pippin: > Lupin well-fed and in the company of the animagi, who seemed to restrain his > wolfishness, might only need to be kept away from the humans who triggered his > werewolf behavior. > > Lupin confined in the Shrieking Shack , without the animagi, provoked by the presence of > a human, in pain from the bites and scratches he'd inflicted on himself, could be very > dangerous. Lanval: Good point about the real wolves. Lupin might see the Shack and the tunnel as his territory, after all, and he might be even more aggressive there. Now you bring up another strange fact: where WERE the Marauders that night? Why were they not with Lupin? How, and when did Sirius tell James, and where was Peter? With James, I can see how he would have had to wait outside the tunnel, perhaps at the edge of the forest. Prongs would be far too large to fit through the tunnel. > Pippin: > I would be careful about classifying Lupin's involvement in the prank as a figment of > Snape's imagination until Book Seven is in. We thought the DADA curse was a figment of > the imagination too. > Lanval: I know... :) Let's just hope it really does get cleared up. From cassy_ferris at yahoo.com Wed Jun 14 07:29:28 2006 From: cassy_ferris at yahoo.com (Cassy Ferris) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:29:28 +0400 (MSD) Subject: Priori Incantatum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060614072928.23666.qmail@web38315.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153834 "Peggy Wilkins" wrote: > We see the past spells come out in reverse order: Wormtail's > regenerated hand, cries of pain associated with Crucio, victims Cedric > Diggory, Bertha Jorkins, Frank Bryce, Lily and James Potter Cassy: It seems rather funny imo that only the unforgivables are shown. When Harry's wand was checked in the Quidditch World Cup sequence, even a minor spell like Morsmordre was seen, but LV's wand doesn't produce any indication that he used it for anything other than killing or torturing. What about nice everyday spells? A simple Accio? Because LV with his hatred to everything connected with muggles strikes me as a person who would have a spell for every occasion, including tying his shoe laces. Regard, Cassy From quigonginger at yahoo.com Wed Jun 14 13:26:52 2006 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 13:26:52 -0000 Subject: Werewolf Mystery In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153835 > > Ginger (previously): > > FG, OTOH, has a dual nature. The human side is capable of reason > and > > planning, and the werewolf side is out for a feed. My guess is > that > > he uses his human side to plan the attack, and that part of the > plan > > is that he feeds at will before any attacks he plans for infection > so > > he is not so out of control that he eats the victim. > > Lanval: > What do you suggest he eats, though -- not people, certainly? Meat? > Would a belly-full of 'normal' food make his werewolf form less > likely to attack? It's a possibility. Ginger now: Actually, I did mean eating people first. Let me see if I can explain. Remember on the tower FG (who I called GF-sorry) was looking forward to eating DD and any other kiddies he could get his teeth on? It wasn't a full moon. A werewolf in full-moon mode (even Lupin) would have that desire to eat humans. I would go so far as to say that it could be called an uncontrolable desire. I would also assume that most werewolves don't eat people if they can help it (during non-full- moon times). FG seems to enjoy the prospect of it. I don't think it's a stretch to think that he is a cannibal in human form. I think the times where he just bites to infect are intentional. Since he can't control himself if he goes all month without eating someone, he has a pre-full-moon snack before he postions himself to bite for the purpose of infecting. Lupin said that FG bit him on purpose as Lupin's father had offended FG. Lupin said that FG positioned himself to bite kids during the full moon. We can assume from Bill's injuries that a non-full-moon bite would not infect. FG is, in a rather perverse way, procreating. He is biting for the purpose of increasing the werewolf population, not for the dining experience. Since he wouldn't be able to stop himself from eating the whole child otherwise, I drew the conclusion that he may sate his hunger by having a human snack before the full moon. There are a lot of missing persons. What is to stop him from snacking on a transient whom no one would miss? If he does it as a human, he can dispose of what's left of the body. Dig a shallow grave in a remote area, kill, eat, bury, hit the road to stalk the next child victim to bite. So, yes, distasteful as it is, I do see him eating people in his human form. He does not strike me as one with morals or table manners, nor does it seem likely that he would be able to control the urge to kill after a filling chicken kiev and asparagus tips served with a nice side salad with a delightful raspberry vinegarette. Thousand Island maybe. Nah. He's more of a cannibal. > Lanval, who's intrigued by the responses so far, but still hasn't > found an answer as to whether we're dealing with a contradiction > within the text, or whether the two different viewpoints of a) > Werewolves as Killers, and b) Werewolves as Occasionally Lethal > Werewolf-Makers can be reconciled > Ginger: I do think they can be reconciled, as in the case of FG, but I would tend to see them more as killers. I think the just biting is a planned event. After all, what chance would a child have against a werewolf? Some may have been lucky enough to have a number of adults around with wands at the ready to somehow entrap the werewolf, but I do think FG's reputation for infecting kids is well earned. Not sure if that answers your question, but thanks for starting an interesting conversation. I, too, have been enjoying the replies in this thread. Ginger, who wonders if we taste just like chicken From chrusokomos at gmail.com Wed Jun 14 13:52:08 2006 From: chrusokomos at gmail.com (chrusotoxos) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 13:52:08 -0000 Subject: Harry's hatred of Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153836 Hi! I think that line was farmore general than you take it. The first half is factual (You're determined to hate him) and true - well, Snape has done his bit to be hated by Harry, but as we see very well in Book 6, Harry sees the world in black and white, and this is dangerous...he was right for Draco Malfoy, but even Sirius said (and Umbridge is the proof) that we can't dislike people just because they're different from us. The second part is general (You've inherited it from your father) meaning, according to me, something like this: James too rushed into things, and he loved or hated without measures and without reason. James would learn to be an Animagus to help Lupin, and believe his friend Peter when not even DD had faith in him, but he would also torment and hate Snape even two on one (like in the lake episode). So the idea is not "you have a weird genetical legacy against him", but "you're acting like your father", which, as Harry has understood, is not always the best option. As for his hate for Snape...I think it was well constructed from the start, and I'm sure that a duel with Snape must precede the final duel; and in his first duel Harry HAS to understand that hatred will take him nowhere: through this duel he'll learn to pity Snape or die at his hands, because in the end he'll have to pity Voldemort. Harry will win through love, not through hatred; remember how DD was interested after Merope's story, when he asked "Would it be possible for you to pity Tom Riddle?". That's the key, IMO. --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kateydidnt2002" wrote: > > If this has been address already specifically I apologize and would > ask if anyone would be so kind as to point me in the right direction. > > One of the things that bugged me most in *Half-Blood Prince* is the > conversation with Lupin around Christmas ( I believe that was when it > was) where in Lupin says something to the effect of "You're > determined to hate Snape and you inherited it from your father." > (Sorry my book is not with me at the moment.) > > WHAT?!?! > > How on earth does this line make sense at all? Harry was 15 months > old when his father died. His one memory of his father was the night > he died. Other than the physical genetic inheritance he got from his > father, he couldn't get much else from him because he doesn't > remember him! There is no such thing as a genetic predisposition to > hate person X. Harry later learned of the animosity between Snape and > James at the end of book one in his discussion with Dumbledore. Note > this: Harry's dislike of Snape started about ten months earlier. > > Harry did not in any way inherit James' dislike of Snape--Snape > managed to engender that all on his own. The only thing Harry > inherited from his father with regards to Snape was *Snape's* hatred > of anything Potter--not the other way around as Lupin seems to be > saying. > > Added to this conundrum of why this line in particular is in the > books is that one of the overarching theme of the whole series of the > is the importance of choices. As Dumbledore says in book two "It is > your choices, far more than your abilities that determine who you > are." Even in book six Dumbledore berates Harry for putting too much > faith in the prophecy--emphasizing that it is Harry's choices that > make the prophecy what it is, *not vice versa*. Notice the people who > are obsessed with traits, rather than choices, being the determiner > of worth are Voldemort (I am Slytherin's heir, therefore I must be > evil), his Death Eaters (all muggles, muggleborns, and muggle lovers > are bad), and Snape (I hate all things Potter). > > So why was this line put in? > From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jun 14 14:05:38 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:05:38 -0000 Subject: Understanding Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153837 > > > Gerry: > > DDM!Snape does not have a problem at all. Snape waits a certain amount > > of time, gets worried and alerts the Order. > > Neri: > The only problem with this is the sheer irresponsibility and stupidity > of this non-action. He obviously shouldn't have waited any amount of > time at all, and certainly not several hours. Pippin: As I pointed out, the fact that other members were ordered to keep an eye on Harry does not mean that Snape was. At least one Order member was keeping an eye on Draco in HBP. But Harry was let to know more than once that he was not concerned with Draco's activities, and chided for neglecting his assigned task when he let Draco-watching interfere with it. If not for that, we would think it sheer irresponsibility and stupidity that Harry neglected to tell Dumbledore that Trelawney had been attacked. *If* Snape had been told that he was not to concern himself with Harry's activities, it's perfectly reasonable, professional and faithful to Dumbledore that he would obey those orders, look after his severely injured students (who must have heard the Gryffindors telling each other where Umbridge had gone) and notify the Order only when it was clear to him that Harry had not come back from the forest within a reasonable amount of time. Pippin From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 14 14:02:54 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:02:54 -0000 Subject: Harry's hatred of Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153838 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kateydidnt2002" wrote: > > If this has been address already specifically I apologize and would > ask if anyone would be so kind as to point me in the right direction. > > One of the things that bugged me most in *Half-Blood Prince* is the > conversation with Lupin around Christmas ( I believe that was when it > was) where in Lupin says something to the effect of "You're > determined to hate Snape and you inherited it from your father." > (Sorry my book is not with me at the moment.) > > WHAT?!?! > Actually, I believe Lupin's line was something like "You are determined to hate him Harry. And I understand. As James' son, as Sirius'godson, you have inherited an old prejudice." Now, I don't think that means that Harry has literally inherited James' hatred of Snape. Rather, he has inherited the effects of all the bad blood in the Marauders' years, effects that manifest in Snape's attitude to Harry. That is, the "old prejudice" Harry has inherited is Snape's prejudice against all things even remotely connected with James and/or Sirius. This naturally leads Harry to hate Snape. Rather like a family feud passed down through generations. In other words, I think Lupin is trying to say something like: "You are determined to hate him, Harry. And I understand. As James' son, as Sirius' godson, you have inherited the results of what happened back then. He is bitter and hateful to you. You are naturally bitter and hateful toward him." Unfortunately one of Lupin's many faults is showing here -- i.e. his desire to be peaceful and reasonable, diplomatic if you will, leads him to beat the bushes and circle the problem rather than being clear. Lupinlore From chrusokomos at gmail.com Wed Jun 14 14:05:11 2006 From: chrusokomos at gmail.com (chrusotoxos) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:05:11 -0000 Subject: Minerva and Tom: 6 theories Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153839 Hi, I'm sorry if this question has been addressed before - I was wondering when Minerva McGonagall will tell us more about Tom Riddle and why she has not done so until now. We know from the timetable that she was born in 1925, he in 1926 or '27. So she must have known him for at least six years, probably personally - I'm prepared to bet that she was prefect and Head Girl, so she must have shared chappy meetings with Mr Perfect-bu- t-Overlord-of-Evil-Prefect. If Riddle was indeed quietly organizing his gang while at Hogwarts, Minerva must have noticed. As we see in the series and in real life, students often know a lot more than teachers about people and news in the school. Dumbledore insisted that it was very difficult to get people to talk, and indeed, to find people to talk to. Is he implying that Minerva McGonagall, though Deputee Headmistress, right hand and founder member of the Order is too scared to offer her memories of Riddle? It seems doubtful to me. So why doesn't she talk? I can only think that a) maybe something shocking and VM18 happened to her: Riddle raped her, say, and as this didn't add anything to our knowledge of him and would be both distressing for Minerva and embarssing for young Harry, Dumbledore didn't mention it; b) or, Minerva was a little Hermione without noisy friends, meaning that she spent 7 years in the library and didn't have useful memories of Riddle; c) or, unknown to us, she didn't attend Hogwarts fully: maybe she had a fund for Beauxbatons or something; d) or, she had her memory modified; e) or, because of the war (her schoolyears were 1936-1943) her education, or Hogwarts' lessons were disrupted; f) or, literary trick: Dumbledore is dead, nobody knows what to do and, deus ex machina, old Professor McGonagall steps forward and says: I knew Tom Riddle, and this is how you'lldestroy him. Ta-daaa! What do you think? From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jun 14 14:05:39 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:05:39 -0000 Subject: Understanding Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153840 > > > Gerry: > > DDM!Snape does not have a problem at all. Snape waits a certain amount > > of time, gets worried and alerts the Order. > > Neri: > The only problem with this is the sheer irresponsibility and stupidity > of this non-action. He obviously shouldn't have waited any amount of > time at all, and certainly not several hours. Pippin: As I pointed out, the fact that other members were ordered to keep an eye on Harry does not mean that Snape was. At least one Order member was keeping an eye on Draco in HBP. But Harry was let to know more than once that he was not concerned with Draco's activities, and chided for neglecting his assigned task when he let Draco-watching interfere with it. If not for that, we would think it sheer irresponsibility and stupidity that Harry neglected to tell Dumbledore that Trelawney had been attacked. *If* Snape had been told that he was not to concern himself with Harry's activities, it's perfectly reasonable, professional and faithful to Dumbledore that he would obey those orders, look after his severely injured students (who must have heard the Gryffindors telling each other where Umbridge had gone) and notify the Order only when it was clear to him that Harry had not come back from the forest within a reasonable amount of time. Pippin From distaiyi at yahoo.com Wed Jun 14 14:12:09 2006 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:12:09 -0000 Subject: Harry's hatred of Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153841 How does one inherit hatred from one's ancestors... That's quite easy... Just look at any feud or longterm socialogical hatred (black/white, Israeli/Palestinian). You inherit it because you're socialized into it. So your argument is Harry couldn't be socialized into hating Snape... Which is ture. BUT, Snape hated Harry's Father, and as he can't express that hatred adequately for a dead man, Harry inheritted Snape's hatred of James. Which in turn nurtured a hatred of Snape. Someone please break the cycle of hate... Can't we all just get along? Distaiyi... No pithy punch here. From chrusokomos at gmail.com Wed Jun 14 14:31:51 2006 From: chrusokomos at gmail.com (chrusotoxos) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:31:51 -0000 Subject: Why we're sure that Snape is Evil Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153842 Hi again, I'm still thinking about Snape, as are many of you it seems :D I have been convinced for ages that he was good, and still wish to, but I think I've found what it took to bring me on the Snape-is-evil side. Oh, I'm quoting the Bible a lot: just wanted to specify that I'm not a Christian, but as JKR is and speaks a lot of 'redemptive pattern', 'you'll see my faith in the books' etc it seemed right to quote it. Please consider this: 1. Harry must overcome LV through love (said again and again throughout all books) 2. Harry hates him 3. Harry next hates: Snape ("almost as much"), Draco Malfoy, Peter Pettigrew, the Dursleys and of course the DE in general - but at the end of Book 6, nothing can rival his hatred for Snape 4. If Harry must win through love, to me it means that he has to understand and pity LV, in a perfect exemple of 'praying for your enemy' Christian moral 5. Pitying LV is difficult 6. As a cunning writer, why don't give Harry a little help to feel pity and compassion for his enemy? After all, if Harry can pity Snape, he can afterwards pity and understand LV 7. Harry can do it, because he's a nice boy: he already felt sorry for Snape once (Book 5) 8. Now, if we accept all this, what good is there in forgiving a good man who made a mistake? We're all capable of that: as Jesus said, we must instead pray for our enemies, because the sick man needs the doctor, not the healthy one 9. Therefore, somewhere towards the end of Book 7, Harry meets Snape - a man evil and unrepented, and a man Harry has a billion reasons to hate - and, instead of killing him straightforward, he forgives him, and thus vanquish him 10. Snape thus a) goes to prison, b) escpaes, c) is killed by someone else, d) kills himself 11. Harry has understood the full power of love, and can now meet LV fearless Ok, so here it is. What's your opinion? From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Jun 14 14:45:14 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:45:14 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End Clues/Harry's Hatred of Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153843 zgirnius: Are we supposed to > get something from all this alcohol consumption? I think some neat > points were made about this in our chapter diuscussions... I just no > longer recall them :( Magpie: HBP, like CoS, is a Slytherin book so completely water-logged. It's not just drinking (Harry gets Slughorn and Hagrid drunk, Snape serves wine, Dumbledore drinks the potion in the cave, the Durlseys refuse mead). There's poisoned mead, a new Potions master, liquid luck, love potions galore, a boat trip, the book's awash in blood and tears, the bathroom's important again. Katydidn't: Harry did not in any way inherit James' dislike of Snape--Snape managed to engender that all on his own. The only thing Harry inherited from his father with regards to Snape was *Snape's* hatred of anything Potter--not the other way around as Lupin seems to be saying. Magpie: I don't think Remus is claiming that Harry has no reason of his own to hate Snape, or that he only hates him because his father did. He's comparing the way that Harry and James both react to Snape once provoked. And he may very well be right, having known James and now seen the way Harry thinks about Snape. -m From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Jun 14 15:15:40 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 15:15:40 -0000 Subject: Why we're sure that Snape is Evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153844 chrustoxos: > 9. Therefore, somewhere towards the end of Book 7, Harry meets Snape - a man evil and > unrepented, and a man Harry has a billion reasons to hate - and, instead of killing him > straightforward, he forgives him, and thus vanquish him > > 10. Snape thus a) goes to prison, b) escpaes, c) is killed by someone else, d) kills himself > > 11. Harry has understood the full power of love, and can now meet LV fearless zgirnius: I like it as an outline of Snape's role as a preliminary task/obstacle for Harry in Book 7 which will help to prepare him for the 'main event'. But I still think Snape is 'good'. I don't think there was a long-laid plan that Snape was to kill Dumbledore that night; instead, I think he and Dumbledore were totally taken by surprise by the success of Draco's cabinet plan. Nonetheless Snape was acting in accordance with Dumbledore's wishes. But, because there was no plan, Dumbledore has not left behind any incontrovertible evidence to clear Snape. So, Harry will have to forgive/believe Snape without 'proof', making it, for Harry, quite the difficult task. Also, even if Snape is not guilty of being a traitor/loyal Voldemort supporter, he and Harry have that poisonous personal history which would additionally complicate matters for Harry. This way we get to have our cake and eat it too: Snape does have the redemptive pattern (redemption being a Christian theme as well, like you say), and at the same time, Harry forgives him based purely on principle/faith, not reason/evidence. From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Jun 14 16:03:49 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 16:03:49 -0000 Subject: Christian Symbolism in HP/Harry's Hatred of Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153845 Tonks" > The key part of this for me is "he seemed to hang suspended beneath > the shining skull". She does not say the dark mark, she does not say > the skull with snake, she says simply "skull". I have said before > that to me the death of DD on the tower was symbolically the > crucifixion of Christ at Golgotha or "the place of the skull". I > think that JKR did not just have DD slum to the floor, because she > needed that extra image of the crucified Christ to stick in our > mind. True not everyone would see it, and even those that might know > the symbol would probably only see it through the eyes of their > unconscious mind. Magpie: I wish I knew the word for the dodgy method of arguing in this thread where by one takes a perfectly straightforward word choice that works well in context and bases arguments on the fact the author *didn't* choose some other word that's no better or worse, as if that's evidence of some other idea. It feels like putting the burden of proof on others to prove a negative. A great big honking skull is suspended in the air above the Tower where Dumbledore has just been killed as part of the story. I'd have hung Dumbledore under it (rather than the Dark Mark or the skull with the snake) as well. It's a great image. I don't have a problem linking skulls to Gogoltha generally, and I believe the two things are made out of the same common shared unconcious, but there's little evidence, imo, that the author is making a very strong reference to Golgotha. (We at least know that Dumbledore isn't Jesus.) The skull part of the Dark Mark is the part that represents death, so is understandably the part the author chose to emphasize when Dumbledore has just died. Skulls are a really common symbol of death. Tonks: Perhaps it would help if I explained that I am trained in a type of hypnosis that uses stories to heal. In the context of therapy I can talk to a client, put them into a trance, do the work that needs to be done within their subconscious mind, bring them back out of trance and all the while they think that I was just telling a little story.[...]They may have their final session and wonder why you never did any hypnosis when that was what you were doing all along. Because of this training I am extra sensitive to seeing what might lie beneath the surface of a story, that part of the story that only your subconscious mind is suppose to hear. Magpie: So you're not doing literary analysis, you're being extra sensitive to the part of the story only the subconscious mind is supposed to hear or see. That's a little...vague. Tonks: > An Invitation: > > Now I would like to offer a special invitation. I am going to start > a special society. The Luna Lovegood Society. We will be known far > and wide as the "Loonies". Anyone who sees symbols in the HP > stories that others do not see may join. Anyone persecuted for > saying that they see what others say are not there may also join. Magpie: Please tell me you didn't just suggest that you are being "persecuted" because you advanced an interpretation about a series of books we have all read relating to another book most of us have probably also read and people were not convinced. The attitude of Luna's that seems to be being celebrated is the one Hermione describes, where Luna only believes things if there's no proof for them. Me, I have a liking for objective truth where I can seek it. The case for certain specific allegorical meanings in HP has been advanced and I've taken them seriously and not been convinced. I utterly reject my being cast into the role of a persecuter because of it. Look, I've had things that I predicted or saw before other people turn out to be true, and the people who argued with me over it weren't persecuting me. As long as we stuck to defending things using canon or making a case logically it didn't have to be personal. I really want to see what's there, and would rather be "right" in terms of seeing what's really there even if someone else has to show it to me than "right" in terms of continuing to defend an argument just because I was the one who advanced it. Tonks: > > The day will come when the Loonies will be recognized for their true > contributions to the cause. I predict that the day will indeed come > with JKR will, if not *tell all*, will confess that she has used > symbols from Christianity in telling her story. She might even admit > to plagiarizing the bible. Our day will come fellow Loonies, our day > will come!! Magpie: Unfortunately, even if that happened it would not make your analysis any more honestly or convincingly done so I don't know what contributions you're referring to are. Given the way this invitation is expressed, and the way the arguments expressed change shape, I would doubt the club's ability to judge themselves and others objectively on that future judgment day when JKR speaks. I just really don't see how even JKR coming out and telling us that she's plagiarizing the Bible (that special kind of plagiarism where by you change the entire thing so a familiar story becomes unrecognizable) will make sense of Peter Pettigrew being Saint Peter, change one iconic image into another, or make werewolfism and animal shape-shifting a good metaphor for transubstantiation. Lupinlore: In other words, I think Lupin is trying to say something like: "You are determined to hate him, Harry. And I understand. As James' son, as Sirius' godson, you have inherited the results of what happened back then. He is bitter and hateful to you. You are naturally bitter and hateful toward him." Magpie: Having now read Lupinlore's interpretation of the line in context I think he's right, that is more what Lupin is saying. I think his interpretation holds up better and is more correct than mine was. -m (happily un-hypnotizable) From donnawonna at worldnet.att.net Wed Jun 14 14:11:50 2006 From: donnawonna at worldnet.att.net (Donna) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 10:11:50 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:the whole Christian/Baptism debate that's been going on References: Message-ID: <44901926.000006.03288@D33LDD51> No: HPFGUIDX 153846 Donna here: I personally think that things have gotten a bit blown out of context about the books and witchcraft. Yes, there are modern day "witches" that practice a nature based religion called Wicca. No where in the books (and I have read each and everyone several times) have I seen anywhere where the Wiccan religion is being taught. If anything, I see Christianity what with the celebration of Christmas. I'm not sure about Easter. My take on Hogwarts is it is a "specialized" school that takes children with special abilities and trains these children in the correct use of these abilities - much like music schools that train musical prodigies or young adults with scientific talents going to schools with strong science curriculum. As to why the WW stays hidden, it is my opinion, Muggles would be frightened and witch hunts would become popular again - history repeating itself. Anyway, Christ wasn't Christian - he was born, raised, and died a Jew. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 14 14:15:25 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:15:25 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's actions again. WAS: Re: Snape and the "Chosen One" /JKR listening In-Reply-To: <02a801c68f5c$b3420790$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153847 Rebecca: > I'm not sure it is inconsistency of character or a gaping plot > hole, myself. Dumbledore, like great men our world history, makes > mistakes and admits he does in both OoP and HBP. Whether the > mistake is one that the reader can accept or not is purely a matter > of the reader's personal preference, values, and morality. Well, and once again we are to the point of JKR putting her foot in her mouth. The "epitome of goodness" statement comes back to bite again and again. If JKR had said, "Dumbledore is a great man but he occasionally makes horrible mistakes for the best of reasons," then I think that would fit. If she said "Dumbledore is generally good but very manipulative and willing to cold-bloodedly sacrifice people for greater ends," that would fit. But no, she came out with "epitome of goodness," which, when matched with "greatest wizard in the world," does lead, IMO, to severe contradictions of character and gaping plot holes. I am reminded of a Howard Cosell/Don Meredith exchange from the great days of Monday Night Football. When Cosell severely criticized a receiver, Meredith defended him saying "All receivers make mistakes," to which Cosell replied "Not all receivers are constantly spoken of as potential MVPs. When somebody is talked about as MVP, I expect him to do better than that." Meredith said, "But you couldn't do better." Cosell said, "I'm not a potential MVP, never have been." Same thing. For a foolish old man without magical powers, DD's actions might be understandable. For the "epitome of goodness" who is "very wise" and "the greatest wizard in the world," they are, I think, a major contradiction of character and a gaping plot hole. And once again, I think the idea that "It had to be that way for the story to go forward/Harry to have challenges, etc." is no excuse whatsoever. Lupinlore From mi_nai_leeloo at yahoo.com Wed Jun 14 15:42:43 2006 From: mi_nai_leeloo at yahoo.com (Leeloo Volusia) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:42:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why we're sure that Snape is Evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060614154243.28964.qmail@web38512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153848 chrusotoxos wrote: > Hi again, I'm still thinking about Snape, as are many of you it > seems :D I have been convinced for ages that he was good, and > still wish to, but I think I've found what it took to bring me on > the Snape-is-evil side. > > Oh, I'm quoting the Bible a lot: just wanted to specify that I'm > not a Christian, but as JKR is and speaks a lot of 'redemptive > pattern', 'you'll see my faith in the books' etc it seemed right to > quote it. > > Please consider this: > > 1. Harry must overcome LV through love (said again and again > throughout all books) Leeloo: I was watching PoA for the billionth time and it occurred to me that perhaps what this means is that Harry's power is drawn from his love for his friends. What made me think this? The scene with the Patronus. Harry's patronus was incredibly strong and pushed back many Dementors. Why did it do this? Because of Harry's love for Sirius. This is why I believe Harry, Hermione, or Ginny will be hurt or even die to bring out Harry's strength through his love. chrusotoxos: > 2. Harry hates him > > 3. Harry next hates: Snape ("almost as much"), Draco Malfoy, Peter > Pettigrew, the Dursleys and of course the DE in general - but at > the end of Book 6, nothing can rival his hatred for Snape Leeloo: Okay, did you see how many times you reference hate? Perhaps the redemptive quality JKR refers to is really Harry's redemption. At the end of HBP, I couldn't help but remark at the level of hatred that consumed Harry. He was being driven by his hatred of LV and Snape and Malfoy and as far as I could tell, it was really getting him nowhere. I think his motivation has to change in order for him to be successful. chrusotoxos: > 4. If Harry must win through love, to me it means that he has to > understand and pity LV, in a perfect exemple of 'praying for your > enemy' Christian moral > > 5. Pitying LV is difficult Leeloo: I never thought of Harry having to "pity" LV. I always thought it would be more along the lines of Harry ultimately forgiving LV for the death of his parents. Maybe if Harry lets go of his hate and embraces the "divine" trait of forgiveness, this will render LV powerless and therefore defeated. Maybe I mean this more in the philosophical sense than in the actual way she will write the scene, but I think that will be the moral behind the story. chrusotoxos: > 6. As a cunning writer, why don't give Harry a little help to feel > pity and compassion for his enemy? After all, if Harry can pity > Snape, he can afterwards pity and understand LV Leeloo: Again, I don't think "pity" is the right word. And perhaps Harry has to forgive Snape for killing DD (or whatever it was that he did), and not being honest with his intentions, for lying to him and the Order. I believe Snape is the one who reported part of the prophecy to LV, so perhaps Harry has to forgive Snape for that act and finally realize that Snape has spent the remainder of his life trying to make up for that. chrusotoxos: > 7. Harry can do it, because he's a nice boy: he already felt sorry > for Snape once (Book 5) > > 8. Now, if we accept all this, what good is there in forgiving a > good man who made a mistake? We're all capable of that: as Jesus > said, we must instead pray for our enemies, because the sick man > needs the doctor, not the healthy one Leeloo: Well, I personally don't think Snape is the one needing forgiveness from Harry. His ultimate mission is Voldemort. So, I really don't consider Harry's feelings of Snape that huge of a factor in determining if Snape is good or bad. chrusotoxos: > 9. Therefore, somewhere towards the end of Book 7, Harry meets > Snape - a man evil and unrepented, and a man Harry has a billion > reasons to hate - and, instead of killing him straightforward, he > forgives him, and thus vanquish him Leeloo: Again, I see this as Harry's mission for LV, not Snape. chrusotoxos: > 10. Snape thus a) goes to prison, b) escpaes, c) is killed by > someone else, d) kills himself > > 11. Harry has understood the full power of love, and can now meet > LV fearless > Ok, so here it is. What's your opinion? Leeloo: I see your logic and from where you drew your conclusions, but I personally don't think Snape will play that big of a role in Harry finding his love and then moving on to defeat Voldemort. I really think Ron, Hermione or Ginny will fall into that role or roles. ~ Leeloo From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 14 17:10:52 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 17:10:52 -0000 Subject: Why we're sure that Snape is Evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153849 chrusotoxos wrote: > 8. Now, if we accept all this, what good is there in forgiving a > good man who made a mistake? We're all capable of that: as Jesus > said, we must instead pray for our enemies, because the sick man > needs the doctor, not the healthy one I think you are onto something very important here. Most versions of DDM!Snape fail at this point, because it simply doesn't play into a forgiveness and redemption theme very well. In most (but not all) versions of DDM!Snape, Snape has been on the good side all along. He has not done anything really bad, or if he did it was because he made a mistake and has been atoning for it. Therefore, the confrontation with Harry would unfold as Snape putting forth his case and Harry reluctantly accepting that "OK, you are a mean SOB but I've been wrong about you and I'm willing to work with you." Okay, but where does forgiveness come in, particularly of the Christian type being discussed? Where is the particular Christian message in admitting that you have been wrong about someone's motivations? A pagan Roman would recognize that virtue quite easily. It isn't forgiveness, it's reason and practical logic. Where is the particular Christian foregivness in saying "You were wrong to betray my parents, but I recognize that you've been atoning for it?" Once again, that is something any virtuous Greek or Roman or Egyptian or Sumerian or Celtic or Slavic or Norse or Teutonic pagan could say in exactly the same words. I guess, if you are bound and determined for Snape to be a suffering and misunderstood hero, you could argue that the forgiveness would be Snape's, in forgiving Harry for being so unfair to him and misunderstanding him. I wouldn't put two cents on it, but you could say that. Rather, the forgivness theme means the power of forgiveness for both the one who forgives and the one who is forgiven. And in order to experience the power of forgiveness, you have to be in the wrong. Not a suffering and misunderstood hero, not a double agent doing the will of good, not someone who made an honest mistake and has been atoning for it -- you have to have done something wrong from which you need to be redeemed. You need to accept forgivness from someone who has every right to despise you -- NOT put forth a coherent case that you are a good but misunderstood person who has made mistakes but been atoning for your sins and working for the cause of righteousness all along. Lupinlore From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 14 18:13:52 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 18:13:52 -0000 Subject: Werewolf Mystery In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153850 Allie wrote: > > You are absolutely right. If the common perception that werewolf > bites are not fatal is correct, then Snape doesn't owe James a life- > debt. I suspect that what we are dealing with is a big, HUGE... > Flint. I don't think more will be made of it in book 7. > Carol responds: And yet, if it matters to the plot, it won't matter to JKR that it's, shall we say, inconsistent. (Look at Lupin's transformation in that same chapter; he should have transformed when the moon rose, not when it peeped out from behind a cloud.) Both Snape and Dumbledore believe that James saved Severus's life, and even if he didn't, he saved him from a fate worse than death. Even if a Life Debt isn't a binding magical contract (and if it were, shouldn't Wormtail have been magically compelled to save Harry in the graveyard scene rather than tying him up, taking his blood, and allowing LV to cast an AK at him?), it appears to be *psychologically* binding in Snape's case. He views it, as far as I can see, as a debt of honor. And he has yet to stop trying to save Harry, even after the murder of Dumbledore. I think that he tried to save James, though he hated him, because he felt or believed that he owed him his life. He tried to save Lily for other reasons, perhaps remorse for putting her in danger by revealing the Prophecy to Voldemort. And he continues to try to save Harry in part to make up for those past failures. So while a magically compelling Life Debt does not seem to be the reason Snape acts as he does, I don't think we can rule out a psychologically compelling debt of honor as one among several, perhaps many, reasons, why Snape "returned to our side" and continued to risk his life--and now, his freedom, his reputation, and his very soul--for Dumbledore. Carol, who thinks that if it's important to the plot, it will appear in Book 7, Flint or no Flint From peckham at cyberramp.net Wed Jun 14 19:01:20 2006 From: peckham at cyberramp.net (luna_loco) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 19:01:20 -0000 Subject: Minerva and Tom: 6 theories In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153851 The simplest explanation for McGonagall not having any useful memories is that she was not close enough to have seen anything about Tom other than the image that he intentionally presented to the Hogwarts faculty and students. The type of memories that Dumbledore was looking for were the type that would help show Tom's inner thoughts. As we have been shown that Tom was careful to protect his public image during his time at Hogwarts, there would be few people outside his small circle of followers that would have had access to this type of memories. Minerva's lack of special knowledge seems to indicate nothing more than her not having been particularly close to Tom while they were both students. While I agree that it is very likely that Tom and Minerva would have met during their time as students, that does not prove that she would have the type of memories that Dumbledore was looking for. The two were in different houses, and there is no reason to believe that McGonagall hung out with the same people as Tom Riddle. The timeline's indication that the two were not in the same year at school would also make it likely that they shared few if any classes together as students. Unless we speculate about some kind of romantic affair between Tom and either Minerva or one of Minerva's close friends, (I think Tom was too self-centered as a student for this possibility) there is no reason to believe that she would have gained any type of special knowledge or insight on Tom Riddle during her years as a student. As Sigmund Freud once said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." Based on this saying, McGonagall's inability to provide special insight about Tom Riddle could be nothing more than she never learned anything special about him in the first place. Allen --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "chrusotoxos" wrote: > > > Hi, I'm sorry if this question has been addressed before - I was wondering when Minerva > McGonagall will tell us more about Tom Riddle and why she has not done so until now. > > We know from the timetable that she was born in 1925, he in 1926 or '27. So she must > have known him for at least six years, probably personally - I'm prepared to bet that she > was prefect and Head Girl, so she must have shared chappy meetings with Mr Perfect-bu- > t-Overlord-of-Evil-Prefect. If Riddle was indeed quietly organizing his gang while at > Hogwarts, Minerva must have noticed. As we see in the series and in real life, students > often know a lot more than teachers about people and news in the school. > > Dumbledore insisted that it was very difficult to get people to talk, and indeed, to find > people to talk to. Is he implying that Minerva McGonagall, though Deputee Headmistress, > right hand and founder member of the Order is too scared to offer her memories of > Riddle? It seems doubtful to me. > > So why doesn't she talk? I can only think that > >>>Various theories snipped > > What do you think? > From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Jun 14 19:42:35 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 19:42:35 -0000 Subject: Werewolf Mystery In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153852 > Ginger: > > FG seems to enjoy the prospect of it. I don't think it's a stretch > to think that he is a cannibal in human form. > > So, yes, distasteful as it is, I do see him eating people in his > human form. He does not strike me as one with morals or table > manners, nor does it seem likely that he would be able to control the > urge to kill after a filling chicken kiev and asparagus tips served > with a nice side salad with a delightful raspberry vinegarette. > Thousand Island maybe. Nah. He's more of a cannibal. > Ginger, who wonders if we taste just like chicken Greyback responds: For shame! You've got the right infernal brass To scold me for my manners and my morals, While buying frozen corpses and wilted grass, And all that junk that spoils decent molars. And as for stomachs! ? But I'll let it pass; I leave you to your grocer and you dolours, But as for me, sweet Merlin! I would rather Be a human cannibal (is there any other?) Oh, I'm a connoisseur of human flesh: I like them young and sweet and free of sinning, So tender, so delicious, and fresh, Before they'd grow fat or stiff from slimming. A dash of seasoning, a dollop of cr?me fraiche I'd better stop before my head'll go spinning. You'd be hard put to find a healthier diet ? I tell you, guys, don't knock it till you try it! a_svirn From chrusokomos at gmail.com Wed Jun 14 20:27:16 2006 From: chrusokomos at gmail.com (chrusotoxos) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 20:27:16 -0000 Subject: Minerva and Tom: 6 theories In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153853 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "luna_loco" wrote: > > The simplest explanation for McGonagall not having any useful memories > is that she was not close enough to have seen anything about Tom other > than the image that he intentionally presented to the Hogwarts faculty > and students. chrusotoxos now: I agree on one point, that Minerva probably didn't have friends in Tom's circle and was not romantically involved with him. But I also think that 1) Tom struck me as someone very popular and/or well-known in such a small school: handsome, talented, charismatic, Muggleborn yet a Slytherin...and students just seem to know a lot of things about people like this. Think about all the knowledge Hermione has on students that have never been mentioned, or about Harry following Draco Malfoy around, or bumping into him when he's crying, or breaking into another common room for a dare. Dumbledore said that Tom's new name, Voldemort, was known only to his first DE, but also that during his time at school "there were a series of funny accidents, which culminated with the death of a girl", Myrtle. Would a student know nothing about those funny accidents? Occuring in a period when she was probably HeadGirl? 2) Ok, DD needs useful memories, but I think he also wants Harry to understand the mundane aspects of Tom's personality. His reaction when he knew he was a wizard, his skill to convince or bully people...and Minerva herself, wouldn't she say soemthing to Harry? "I remember him well from school, a clever boy he was" and the like... But of course you're right: > As Sigmund Freud once said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." > Based on this saying, McGonagall's inability to provide special > insight about Tom Riddle could be nothing more than she never learned > anything special about him in the first place. > > Allen Even if old Sigmund seemed to have some trouble to stick to his own rules :D Chrustoxos From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jun 14 20:32:24 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 20:32:24 -0000 Subject: Priori Incantatum In-Reply-To: <20060614072928.23666.qmail@web38315.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153854 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Cassy Ferris wrote: > > "Peggy Wilkins" wrote: > > We see the past spells come out in reverse order: Wormtail's > > regenerated hand, cries of pain associated with Crucio, victims Cedric > > Diggory, Bertha Jorkins, Frank Bryce, Lily and James Potter > > > Cassy: > > It seems rather funny imo that only the unforgivables are shown. When Harry's wand was checked in the Quidditch World Cup sequence, even a minor spell like Morsmordre was seen, but LV's wand doesn't produce any indication that he used it for anything other than killing or torturing. What about nice everyday spells? A simple Accio? Because LV with his hatred to everything connected with muggles strikes me as a person who would have a spell for every occasion, including tying his shoe laces. Geoff: If I might be pedantic, your analysis is not quite correct. Voldemort did not use an Unforgiveable to produce Wormtail's new hand....... From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 14 20:38:23 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 20:38:23 -0000 Subject: Of LOONs and Loonies (was:Re: Christian Symbolism in HP) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153855 > >>Tonks_op: > > An Invitation: > Now I would like to offer a special invitation. I am going to > start a special society. The Luna Lovegood Society. We will be > known far and wide as the "Loonies". > Betsy Hp: Being very proud of my own L.O.O.N. badge (League Of Obsessed Nitpickers) might I suggest a different name for your society? With such similar names, things may well get confusing. Though I'd also say that probably *everyone* on this list has felt that they've seen something obvious that others just refuse to see. Hence the long battles over Snape, for example. Betsy Hp (picking a nit) From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jun 14 20:39:27 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 20:39:27 -0000 Subject: the whole Christian/Baptism debate that's been going on In-Reply-To: <44901926.000006.03288@D33LDD51> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153856 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Donna" wrote: > > Donna > Anyway, Christ wasn't Christian - he was born, raised, and died a Jew. Geoff: Well, of course he wasn't. A Christian, by definition, is a person who follows Christ. In that sense, you can't follow yourself.... From wjjett4 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 14 19:16:17 2006 From: wjjett4 at yahoo.com (Jennifer) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 19:16:17 -0000 Subject: Why we're sure that Snape is Evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153857 Lupinlore wrote: > In most (but not all) versions of DDM!Snape, Snape has been on the > good side all along. He has not done anything really bad, or if he > did it was because he made a mistake and has been atoning for it. > Therefore, the confrontation with Harry would unfold as Snape > putting forth his case and Harry reluctantly accepting that "OK, > you are a mean SOB but I've been wrong about you and I'm willing > to work with you." > > Rather, the forgivness theme means the power of forgiveness for > both the one who forgives and the one who is forgiven. And in > order to experience the power of forgiveness, you have to be in > the wrong. Not a suffering and misunderstood hero, not a double > agent doing the will of good, not someone who made an honest > mistake and has been atoning for it -- you have to have done > something wrong from which you need to be redeemed. You need to > accept forgivness from someone who has every right to despise you > -- NOT put forth a coherent case that you are a good but > misunderstood person who has made mistakes but been atoning for > your sins and working for the cause of righteousness all along. If this has been discussed before, I apologize. I agree to a certain degree about Snape being evil. However; I have read and reread books 1-6 and I have come up with a theory. In book 6 we're introduced to the "UNBREAKABLE VOW." Finding out later how the unbreakable vow works, I feel the reason DD trusted Snape so much is that in order to gain DD trust was to make an UNBREAKABLE VOW with DD to remain loyal to him or to protect Harry at any cost. Even if this meant to end DD life to save Harry's. I feel that DD and Snape prearranged a solution (ie DD death) if they were caught off guard as in the case when death eaters were at Hogwarts. In this way, Snape will have done what was asked of him from DD, still had the appearance of being evil to LV, and with all the hate Snape has for Harry, he could continue to fool LV (as Snape is an accomplished occlems). In this way Snape has NOT betrayed either side, and LV would not be able to sense any disloyalty from Snape. Jennifer From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 14 21:24:21 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 21:24:21 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter and the Eqyptian Symbols In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153858 > >>Randy: > > I think that protective healing powers, Lily's eyes, Lions, > > Serpents, and the Order of the Phoenix could be related to the > > mythology of Horus. > > What do you guys think? > >>Ceridwen: > The story of Horus is the story of a son avenging his father's > death. There could be a parallel. But I doubt if there is any > more than that, since Isis did not die, and Osiris was put back > together from his scattered remains, which is why he is depicted > as a green- faced mummy. > > I think we're looking too hard for symbols which have some meaning > to the story. There may be symbols in the books, but the story is > its own. I can't think of any reason why Harry having Lily's eyes > would be important based on what we have so far, but I seriously > doubt an Egyptian connection there. I think it would have to be > something more connected with the story we have in canon, rather > than with something miles and millenia away. > Just my own opinion. Betsy Hp: Hmm, I'm not sure if Randy was going for an exact parallel or not, but while I do agree that JKR's "story is its own", it might be a mistake to totally dismiss the books' symbols and the myths they spring from as something "miles and millenia away". If JKR has any interest in Egyption myths (and she does lightly pepper her books with Egyption stuff: Bill, the Weasleys' vaction, etc.) or just myths in general, I'd be surprised if they didn't play some part in the shaping of her story. I read a fascinating article on Snape called, "Severus Snape and the Anubis Archetype: Smoke and Mirrors" by Clunycat, posted at the Leaky Cauldron. http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/#scribbulus:essay:192 In it Clunycat uses archetypes of several mythical gods of Death to shed some light on the role Snape plays in the books. I don't think JKR wrote Snape *as* Anubis, but she may have had some of that archetype's characteristics in mind when she dreamed Snape up. I don't think JKR is writing an allegory. Her characters are too real, too multi-faceted for that, I think. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. When you have a school with houses representing the four elements it could be suggestive that mythical symbols hold some meaning. Or at least, that's my opinion. Betsy Hp (who'd meant to comment on this a couple of days ago, but Yahoo went all wonky) From dontask2much at yahoo.com Wed Jun 14 21:37:36 2006 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 17:37:36 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's actions again. WAS: Re: Snape and the "Chosen One" /JKR listening References: Message-ID: <001501c68ffa$c1908df0$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 153859 >Lupinlore: > Well, and once again we are to the point of JKR putting her foot in > her mouth. The "epitome of goodness" statement comes back to bite > again and again. > Rebecca: I understand what you're saying, Lupinlore. Philosophically to me however, one (no matter magical or not) can be the epitome of goodness and still make mistakes in fiction of this nature. In other words, one can have the best of intentions for the greater good but in advertently end up on the road to hell, which we all wish would have a roadmap and street signs so we could avoid that particular path. :) > Lupinlore: > I am reminded of a Howard Cosell/Don Meredith exchange from the > great days of Monday Night Football. When Cosell severely > criticized a receiver, Meredith defended him saying "All receivers > make mistakes," to which Cosell replied "Not all receivers are > constantly spoken of as potential MVPs. When somebody is talked > about as MVP, I expect him to do better than that." Meredith > said, "But you couldn't do better." Cosell said, "I'm not a > potential MVP, never have been." > Same thing. For a foolish old man without magical powers, DD's > actions might be understandable. For the "epitome of goodness" who > is "very wise" and "the greatest wizard in the world," they are, I > think, a major contradiction of character and a gaping plot hole. > And once again, I think the idea that "It had to be that way for the > story to go forward/Harry to have challenges, etc." is no excuse > whatsoever. Rebecca: Ah, Howard Cosell, the great one. The same man who unfortunately committed some faux paux of his own and had sharp criticisms about the very genre he was famous for reporting (sports) in the later years of his career. Even the legends among us have their own inconsistency of character, whether they are perceived as "real" or not by some of us. :) I actually, in my head, liken the Harry/Dumbledore relationship to that of Frodo/Gandalf in LoTR. While on the surface there might be the age difference between Frodo and Harry (although, Frodo is a young hobbit having come of age at 33 instead of the 17 years of age understanding within the WW), Gandalf plays somewhat of the very same role. He puts Frodo in the position of his eventual unhappiness when returning to the Shire before finally sailing off into the sunset at the end of the books to regain his happiness and salvation from the trials and tribulations as the Ringbearer. Frodo too, like Harry, makes mistakes along his journey, but learns and matures to value honesty, bravery, loyalty, truth, friendship and (not be overdramatic in any sense) love. Do I agree with Gandalf putting Frodo in those spots? Nope, but I don't have the epic I enjoy reading, either. Such is the way of this type of fiction, and by no means am I making "excuses" for JKR - I'm only giving my perception from what I believe based on enjoying similiar literary genre comparable to Harry Potter. Since we don't know the ending to the septology yet, I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree about Dumbledore's character as JKR has written him thus far. I do believe that the by the end of Book 7, this and other assorted mysteries that plague us will be answered. Rebecca From kathrin.p at gmail.com Wed Jun 14 21:38:12 2006 From: kathrin.p at gmail.com (Kathrin P) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 23:38:12 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Priori Incantatum In-Reply-To: <20060614072928.23666.qmail@web38315.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060614072928.23666.qmail@web38315.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4e2ac800606141438n40d86833g6e03f22f8c8b0cea@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153860 Cassy: It seems rather funny imo that only the unforgivables are shown. When Harry's wand was checked in the Quidditch World Cup sequence, even a minor spell like Morsmordre was seen, but LV's wand doesn't produce any indication that he used it for anything other than killing or torturing. What about nice everyday spells? A simple Accio? Because LV with his hatred to everything connected with muggles strikes me as a person who would have a spell for every occasion, including tying his shoe laces. Regard, Cassy Kathrin: Shoe laces? You really think Voldy would use something as tied to humanity as shoe laces? I never saw him as someone who uses shoe laces... Also, did Voldemort have staff? Maybe they did all the easy, boring everyday stuff for him? Just a thought... If I was a witch and had staff, I could imagine letting them do this for me. And Voldemort sure had a lot of wizards running around doing whatever he asked for, don't you think? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 14 22:06:59 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:06:59 -0000 Subject: Why we're sure that Snape is Evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153861 > >>chrusotoxos: > > > > 8. Now, if we accept all this, what good is there in forgiving a > > good man who made a mistake? > > > >>Lupinlore: > I think you are onto something very important here. Most versions > of DDM!Snape fail at this point, because it simply doesn't play > into a forgiveness and redemption theme very well. > In most (but not all) versions of DDM!Snape, Snape has been on the > good side all along. He has not done anything really bad, or if he > did it was because he made a mistake and has been atoning for it. > Therefore, the confrontation with Harry would unfold as Snape > putting forth his case and Harry reluctantly accepting that "OK, > you are a mean SOB but I've been wrong about you and I'm willing > to work with you." > Okay, but where does forgiveness come in, particularly of the > Christian type being discussed? Where is the particular Christian > message in admitting that you have been wrong about someone's > motivations? > Betsy Hp: Recognizing that there are quite a few versions of DDM!Snape, I'll just speak for myself. I really see Snape's story being more about redemption than forgiveness. Here's my version of DDM!Snape in a nutshell: I see Snape as having made the massive mistake of joining the Death Eaters. Through his actions as part of that crowd he helped bring about the death of Lily and James. I think he recognized his mistake before Lily and James died, and he tried to prevent it from happening and failed. And I think he's been seeking redemption ever since. (Though with a rather cynical notion that nothing he does will ever fully atone for his mistake.) IMO, this is perfect for a redemption theme because it stresses *actions* over *words*. It calls for Harry to finally recognize the actions Snape has taken over the years to try and achieve redemption, and (hopefully) for Harry to recognize that Snape has redeemed himself. And, most importantly for Harry, it calls for Harry to see beyond the hatred he's amassed for Snape over the years. You'll note, all of the action here is on Harry's part. But that's because this is Harry's story. It's Harry who should experience the most growth. > >>Lupinlore: > Rather, the forgivness theme means the power of forgiveness for > both the one who forgives and the one who is forgiven. And in > order to experience the power of forgiveness, you have to be in > the wrong. Not a suffering and misunderstood hero, not a double > agent doing the will of good, not someone who made an honest > mistake and has been atoning for it -- you have to have done > something wrong from which you need to be redeemed. > Betsy Hp: Enter Draco. I think that if the theme of forgiveness is played at all it will be through Harry forgiving Draco the role he played in bringing the Death Eaters into Hogwarts. And I suspect that this will take place early enough in book 7 for Draco to take some sort of action on behalf of the Order to show his change of heart to be real. The thing is, Harry has a pretty good idea of who Draco is, especially by the end of HBP. So he's in a better position to forgive Draco's actions. But he's still in the dark on Snape. His hatred blinds him there. So with Snape I think it has a lot more to do with Harry finally seeing the true character of the man, finally seeing why it is Dumbledore trusted him so deeply, than with forgiveness. Especially since Snape is such an echo or shadow of Harry. It's like Harry needs to see and understand Snape clearly so he can see and understand himself clearly. Um, I'm not entirely certain how to give that all a Christian spin... Betsy Hp From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 14 22:36:24 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:36:24 -0000 Subject: Horcrux: was Baptism/Christianity in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153862 a_svirn wrote: > Funnily enough I didn't "misread" your post at all. You proposed a > highly questionable etymology of horcruxes deriving their meaning > from *whore*. Said it makes sense. Obviously you have changed your > mind since ? now you say you defer to Mugglenet interpretation ? > "outside the cross". I saw your initial interpretation as > nonsensical from the start and said so. Because whores have nothing > to do with immortality (which is what horcruxes are about) whichever > way you look at. > Carol responds: I would say that the Mugglenet etymology (which resorts to the *French* "dehors" [outside] plus the Latin "crux" [cross]) is also questionable. The Lexicon is still struggling with the etymology and has tentatively presented "time cross" (presumably from Latin "hora" [hour] plus "crux"). At least that translation has the merit of keeping to a single language. Another possibility--my own idea, though no doubt it's been suggested by someone else on some site somewhere--is that "hor" derives from the Latin word "horror," which means exactly what it means in English and was used poetically to mean "an object of dread." Seems to me that this etymology fits "horcrux" better than anything we've seen proposed, certainly better than "whore" plus "crux." I've argued against an allegorical interpretation of the HP books since I loathe and abhor the idea that they're nothing more than cleverly disguised Christian allegory (which would mean that we're wasting out time analyzing Snape and Dumbledore and Lupin as they're nothing more than puppets in JKR's morality play). That does not mean, however, that JKR, an avowed Christian of the non-witch-burning modern Anglican variety, is not deliberately choosing a term that can be interpreted by some readers in Christian terms. The crux of the matter is the root "crux," which does mean, primarily, "cross" (and secondarily "torment," as in the Cruciatus Curse, crucifixion, excruciating, etc.). Without at all arguing that this reading is "correct," I suggest that JKR may have intended the Horcruxes (horrible objects associated with the fear of death and the desire for *earthly* immortality) as a kind of anti-cross opposed to the True Cross, symbol of eternal life (secularized to "the next great adventure" and experienced by all those who dare to pass through the Veil rather than clinging to the shadow of their former life by becoming ghosts). This same suggestion can be seen in the choice of holly (symbolizing eternal life) for Harry's wand and yew (symbolizing earthly immortality) for Voldemort's. No one *has* to read the books this way and I have no way of proving that JKR had any such etymology in mind. Nor, even if this reading is correct, do we need to read any symbolic significance into Harry's baptism. According to egodparent.com, the (Christian) responsibilities of a godparent are to 1. Pray for your godchild regularly 2. Set an example of Christian living 3. Help him/her to grow in the faith of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in which he was baptized 4. Give every encouragement to follow Christ and fight against evil 5. Help your godchild to look forward to confirmation. With the possible and partial exception of item 4, it seems to me that Sirius Black (encouraging Harry to fight against evil and helping him do it at the MoM) did an extraordinarily bad job of carrying out these responsibilities. And as someone (a_svirn?) pointed out, it's highly unlikely that Sirius Black was brought up as an Anglican (or a Christian of any variety). Christmas trees, chocolate Easter eggs, the word "God" in a Christmas carol or two, the curse words "damn," "hell," and "bloody," the expression "bless them!", the painting of monks and the existence of the Fat Friar all suggest a secularized Christian heritage similar to that of Muggle England, but we see no signs of prayer or organized worship in the WW. Apparently the baptism was done in a Muggle church (Muggleborn Lily would know of the custom even if James and Sirius didn't--as Harry does) or there's a whole hidden religious life that we never see in the HP books. (Do any scenes occur on Sunday mornings? Maybe they've all been attending religious services and we just didn't know it? That seems extremely unlikely and more than ordinarily sneaky on JKR's part.) So back to applicability vs. allegory. The root "crux" (cross) is certainly *there* in the name of the object, which we are told is created by the Darkest of dark magic and is inseparable from an act of deliberate murder. It's also associated with a violation of the soul, which, DD tells us, is supposed to remain intact. We have suggestions (the voices beyond the Veil, the fate worse than death of having your soul sucked from your body) that the soul is eternal. Voldemort, who fears death (because he doesn't understand its nature?) has violated the sanctity of the soul at least five times (not counting innumerable other murders not associated with Horcruxes). The kind of immortality obtained through a Horcrux, like the half-life attained by killing a unicorn and drinking its blood, is evil, unnatural, Dark. If I'm correct in my deductions, it's the antithesis of the true death, which paradoxically is not death but the eternal life of the soul, that DD is now experiencing. I keep thinking of John Donne's "holy sonnet," "Death Be Not Proud." (for anyone who's interested, it can be found at http://www.bartleby.com/105/72.html ). Again, symbolism is not allegory. A symbol *suggests* a meaning beyond itself rather than having a one-to-one correspondence with some concept (as in cross = salvation). The Horcruxes undoubtedly symbolize Dark magic at its darkest, the wrong kind of immortality, and our understanding of their significance is bound up with our understanding of Voldemort. But their exact meaning is not pinned down and immutable. Unlike, say, the sign of the cross made by a priest on a baby's head at baptism, it is subject to interpretation. Even if JKR *intended* it as an anti-cross, the reader is not bound by the rules of literary analysis to see it in those terms. It's only one reading; one veil that we can choose to lift in the vain hope of seeing the full meaning more clearly--or ignore because what it reveals doesn't enlighten us or perhaps even repels us. It's equally valid, and perhaps more helpful, to see it as symbolizing Voldemort's ignorance and fear (in connection with the reading of Voldemort's name as "fear of death"). In short, I don't think that Harry's baptism is significant, but I do see certain Christian implications in the etymology of the word "Horcrux" that may or may not be illuminating to other readers, just as I see Albus Dumbledore, whose first name means "white," as the antithesis of the explicitly Dark Voldemort. Carol, intending to transform out of McGonagall mode immediately so people won't start avoiding her posts From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Jun 14 22:41:56 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:41:56 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter and the Eqyptian Symbols In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153863 Betsy Hp: > If JKR has any interest in Egyption myths (and she does lightly > pepper her books with Egyption stuff: Bill, the Weasleys' vaction, > etc.) or just myths in general, I'd be surprised if they didn't play > some part in the shaping of her story. > > I read a fascinating article on Snape called, "Severus Snape and the > Anubis Archetype: Smoke and Mirrors" by Clunycat, posted at the > Leaky Cauldron. > > http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/#scribbulus:essay:192 > > In it Clunycat uses archetypes of several mythical gods of Death to > shed some light on the role Snape plays in the books. I don't think > JKR wrote Snape *as* Anubis, but she may have had some of that > archetype's characteristics in mind when she dreamed Snape up. Ceridwen: Thanks for the link! I'm reading it now, and so far, it certainly sounds like Snape. If I still think so by the end of the article, I will definitely change my mind about Egyptian archetypes possibly being used. Okay, I finished it. Snape is not an exact duplicate of the various Gods of Death, but he sure fits in among them! I guess Randy might be onto something, at least as far as archetypes of the characters is concerned, after all! Ceridwen. From celizwh at intergate.com Wed Jun 14 22:48:08 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:48:08 -0000 Subject: Images of Light and Darkness in Dumbledore's Office Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153864 CoS12 We are first introduced to Dumbledore's office in CoS, Chapter 12, when Harry is taken there after being found in the presence of the petrified Justin Finch-Fletchley and Nearly Headless Nick. With the exception of Fawkes bursting into flame there is no mention of the lighting either inside or out, but there is some lustrous imagery: The silver instuments, Fawkes' golden perch. Dumbledore describes Fawkes' normal coloring of red and gold even though it can't be seen on that day. Silver and gold appear in some fashion in every scene of Dumbledore's office: The silver instruments, DD's silver hair and beard, the silvery light from the Pensieve, Fawkes' golden plumage, his golden perch. GoF30 Harry next visits Dumbledore's office after having a vision or dream of Voldemort in divination class. The room is described as beautiful in this scene and in many of the others that come after. Fawkes' golden plumage is described as is Gryffindor's silver sword in it's glass case. Harry notices "a patch of silvery light, dancing and shimmering on the glass case". When DD pulls him from the Pensieve, he somersaults into "the dazzling light of Dumbledore's sunlit office". GoF36 Harry recounts the ordeal of witnessing Voldemort's resurrection and Cedric's death to DD and Sirius. This time there is no mention of either light or darkness, but Fawkes' golden plumage is again described. OotP22 Harry goes to DD's office with Ron and Professor McGonagall after dreaming that he has attacked Arthur Weasley in the Ministry of Magic. This time "the room was in half darkness" illuminated only by a "pool of candlelight". The silver instuments are silent. The red and gold bird is sitting on his perch. Dumbledore is wearing a dressing gown of purple and gold. OotP27 Umbridge takes Harry to Dumbledore's office after The Bust. Fire is mentioned many times in this scene, all but the last in connection with Fudge. "Understanding blazed suddenly in Fudge's face". He was "radiant with glee". It is the Ministry's light now, overseen by Marietta's mother,that fills Dumbledore's office. Dumbledore's authority reasserts itself at the end, though, as a "streak of silver light flashed around the room", and as he grasped the phoenix's long golden tail, "There was a flash of fire and the pair of them had gone". OotP37 After the fight at the MoM and Sirius' death, this is the scene in which "Harry looked through the window. There was a cool line of pale green along the horizon". When Dumbledore arrived, "The empty fireplace burst into emerald green flame." Later, "Harry felt the white-hot anger lick his insides, blazing in the terrible emptiness." Up to now Dumbledore's office has been interesting and beautiful. It is the most powerfully magical place in the Wizarding world. It has been filled with light, with silver and gold. It can become dark when Voldemort's power is waxing; it can be filled with the false light of the Ministry of Magic, but it is inviolable. The outside world has not been able to penetrate into this sanctuary of Light Magic; therefore, we have not seen it. Henceforth, we will. Green is important in this scene. It is associated with Harry because of his eyes (his mother's eyes). It is also associated with Voldemort and with Dark Magic (Avada Kadavra). It is Harry's magic which will have to defeat Voldemort's and that is what Harry has to learn and absorb this time in Dumbledore's office. HBP10 The House of Gaunt. "The sky outside was inky black and the lamps in Dumbledore's office seemed to glow more brightly than before." HBP13 The Secret Riddle. No mention of outside in this one; the "Pensieve cast silvery specks of light over the ceiling". HBP17 A Sluggtish memory. Again no mention of the outside. "The lamps in Dumbledore's office were lit." "The soft golden light in Dumbledore's office seemed to dazzle Harry's eyes after that impenetrable darkness" [of Morfin's memory]. HBP20 Lord Voldemort's Request. "The difference between the present-day office and this one was that it was snowing in the past; bluish flakes were drifting past the window in the dark and building up on the outside ledge." HBP23 Horcruxes. "There was Dumbledore's office, looking the same as ever, but with black, star-strewn skies beyond the windows." HBP25 The Seer Overheard. "Fawkes the phoenix looked around, his bright black eyes gleaming with reflected gold from the sunset beyond the windows." houyhnhnm From caspenzoe at yahoo.com Wed Jun 14 22:47:53 2006 From: caspenzoe at yahoo.com (caspenzoe) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:47:53 -0000 Subject: Minerva and Tom: 6 theories In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153865 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "chrusotoxos" wrote: > > > Hi, I'm sorry if this question has been addressed before - I was wondering when Minerva > McGonagall will tell us more about Tom Riddle and why she has not done so until now. [Snip!] > So why doesn't she talk? [Snip!] > What do you think? Caspen now: Hi chrusotoxos! You probably won't know me, since I rarely post here, but do continue to read often. I have also wondered a lot about McGonagall lately, and, unfortunately, I keep comming back to the McGonagal ESE theory I saw summarized here some time ago. I've actually been looking for the orignial post, and saw it referenced, about a month ago as being on T-bay, but I haven't found it there. I say "unfortunately" above, because I like MM as a character, but the lack of information about her Order involvement, and the obvious (from the end of Book VI) fact that Dumbledore has not taken her into his confidence with regard to the horcruxes, (indeed, he seems far closer to SS) are really to me just too glaring to ignore at this late point in the series. I can't think of any reason why JKR would spend so much space setting MM up as a major, but curiously flat presence in all of the books. I think, from a literary point of view, SS turning out to be a "white hat," while MM turns out to be a sleeper "black hat" would make for an artistically symetrical, yet emotionally shocking twist - quite a bit of bang for JKR's buck as an author. I just can't write the possibility off. Are you familiar with the ESE MM theory, and what do you think of it? Does it yeild any better answers to your question than the cigar as cigar theory? Caspen From mros at xs4all.nl Wed Jun 14 20:32:29 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:32:29 +0200 Subject: the whole Christian/Baptism debate that's been going on References: Message-ID: <003801c68ff1$a83eb510$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 153866 Festuco wrote: >>>Hm, fanatical fundamentalist Christians you mean. Normal Christians lik JKR and most Christian people buy the books, read the books, are fanatical fans, or don't like children's books and don't get what the fuss is about. <<< Marion: When did the Wizarding World separate itself from the Muggleworld? It think I saw a date somewhere which pinpointed the separation in the seventeenth century. May I remind the gentle readers that in the 17th century there were no 'normal Christians like JKR and most Christian people that buy the books'. Although the burnings in Europe had stopped by that time, in America the Salem Witchhunts had not even begun (1692 I believe) When Wizards and Witches still lived amongst Muggles they were hunted down. Burned. Not by 'normal Christians' but by Christians. Using books like the Malleus Maleficarum ('Witches Hammer') and condoned, even lead, by the (Christian) Church. And the decision to separate/hide from the Muggle world must have been a global one (although one suspects that it might've taken slightly more time in the Colonies, it being thinner populated) tying neatly with the rise of the Enlightenent period, where the idea of Magic and Superstition was scoffed in favor of Reason. festuco: >>>>In those days Britain was a Christian country. The magical community knew they worshipped Christ and had nothing to do with the devil. So why would they abandon their faith? They recognized that it had nothing to do with devil worship but with fear of power I assume. Marion: You suppose. Yet is there *one* shred of evidence that there are Christian Wizards? Except for the 'godfather' thing, which isn't a thing reserved for Christians (pagans had a concept of an 'honorary uncle that taught the young warrior what he needed to know' as well, you know) or the Christmas tree? (which is also a pagan symbol, and remember: they don't celebrate *Christmas* at Hogwarts, but they *do* celebrate Yule - a pagan feast - and Halloween - again a pagan feast) Yet the text is dotted with exclamations like "Merlin!" and "by the gods!". Not one "Mother of God!" or "Christ!" amongst them. No sign of a priest, a church or christian rituals. You assume baptism because JKR uses the term 'godfather', but, as stated, godfathers are not exclusive to christian culture. Really, I don't understand the reactions I've been seeing in this thread at all (beware: small rant ahead) If this story took place in say, Shangrilah, tucked away deep in the Himalayans, without (or mostly without) contact with the outside world for centuries, nobody would have a problem with them having different beliefs, but put the story in a tucked away corner of reality in Britain, and suddenly (some) Christian readers are convinced that the Wizarding Culture is "just like us, just with wands". But it doesn't work that way. The WW is *vastly* different from the Muggle World which they live next to, but which they have completely shut out, don't like, even look down on. But more about that later. festuco: >>>>What a scary world you are making. Please start supporting this by canon instead of giving your own doomsday vision. Marion: What? You think the WW has *christian morals*? You think that it is *nice*? This is a culture that obliviates Muggels routinely after a 'magical incident' to 'protect itself'. This is mentioned in the books. When Harry and Ron were seen flying that stupid car, several muggles were immediately obliviated. "Must not be seen at any cost" is the WW's motto. And they go a looong way to protect themself. Most parents (nowadays, in these enlightened times :-) would be proud or at least accepting of a magical son or daughter. We hope. We've been told that Lily Evans parents were proud. So, apparantly, were the Grangers. But please tell me how often in the six books we have so far Hermione visits/live with her parents? She often ops to stay at Hogwarts over Christmas. When her parents go skiing, she says she hates that and stays in the WW. Even when she does go home over the summer she will stay with the Weasleys for weeks on time. The Grangers might be supportive of their daughter's life as a witch, but even they won't see much of their daughter from age eleven. But what if they weren't? Does the WW show any compassion with the family members of a newly hatched wizard? The Dursleys are scared to death of magic (and why, I wonder? Did they see something that scared them? Did somebody do something nasty to them? This is speculation, but I wonder) Just being smallminded and bourgois doesn't add up to the overwhelming terror they display. I realize that their terror is a device to show the little readers how stupid the Dursleys are. It is supposed to be 'funny'. I don't think that dumping a magical child on the doorstep of magicphobic people is very funny. The message is clear, however. "This is a magical child. You must care for it to give it the protection it needs. You have no choice in this. And when the child is eleven, we will take it away from you again, because it belongs to *our* world, not yours. But for the time being we need some stupid Muggle broodmares to feed it and clothe it and wipe its nose." I mean, really. If you were phobic about spiders, and somebody gave you his pet tarantula to look after for ten years, what would you do? You'd throw it in a cupboard, throw it some food occasionally and scream if it wandered across your path. And you'd try to forget it existed as much as possible. But you'd know it was there, lurking. And you'd live in fear for all those years. Is this a nice thing to do to a poor defenseless Muggle couple? One could only hope that when Harry turns seventeen they will be obliviated and able to live out their boring, middleclass, mediocre lives as they want it. It would make them happy. But the WW doesn't give a hoot about what *Muggles* feel. They look down on them. Even Arthur Weasley, head of the Department of Misuse of Muggle Object and selfproclaimed Muggle-lover, doesn't even know the most basic things about Muggle everyday life. His attitude is not 'aren't Muggles interesting people' but more 'isn't it amazing that dispite the handicap of not having magic they can do such clever tricks'. As if Muggles were amusing pets, not real people with feelings. Look at the way he barges in the Dursleys home with half his family in tow. Talking loudly and condencendingly to the Dursleys the way (some of) the British do when abroad and talking to 'those amusing foreigners'. This is a culture that throws people into jail without even a proper hearing, on suspicion only. Whose jail is guarded by *soul-sucking ghouls*. This is a culture that dangles children out of windows to see if they have magic or are squibs (Neville tells us that his Uncle Alby did this, and Neville tells this as a matter of fact, not as if the people he tells it to should be shocked about it) This is a culture that practices 'squibicide'. Yes, children of old families that turn out to be squibs might have a nasty 'accident' and the government turns a blind eye. This is a world where the media is controlled by the government and the government is as corrupt as a rotten pear. This is *not* a nice world. Obliviating the Muggle parents that are unwilling to let their magical offspring go to Hogwarts, or stealing those magical children from parents who think that magic is 'sent by the devil' would be a nobrainer for the WW. They'd approve wholeheartedly. To let magical children stay in the Muggle world would be a danger to the secrecy of the WW after all (it tends to get noticed when children start to perform wild magic, and 'getting noticed' is what the WW are NOT willing to risk) I bet that if the WW had taken Harry away from the Dursleys after his first year, if they had obliviated the Dursleys to believe that Harry never existed, most of the HP readers would've cheered them on. But when I suggest that the WW would routinely uses Oblivate on religiously zealous parents (ready to 'beat the devil' out of their magical offspring) you think I'm 'making a scary world'? I did not give you 'my own doomsday vision', I just gave you what I deducted from the text. Marion . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From orgone9 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 15 00:21:29 2006 From: orgone9 at yahoo.com (Len Jaffe) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 17:21:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Spinner's End Clues In-Reply-To: <448F9A3F.4030507@telus.net> Message-ID: <20060615002129.98125.qmail@web80606.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153867 Kathryn Jones wrote: [edit ] > provided was dusty, what does it say about Snape's > living arrangements > when his wine shows up dusty. When I first read the > book, this caught my > eye immediately, and I am sure that it is for a > reason. Now Len: When one has a good bottle of wine or liquor stoppered by a cork, one lays it on its side, while it ages, to keep the cork moist. This prevents the cork from drying, shrinking, and therefore no longer stoppering the bottle, allowing the contents to oxidize and spoil. A dusty bottle is what one would expect if one were to conjure it from ones wine cellar. Len. HPfGU resident alky (apparently). From annemehr at yahoo.com Thu Jun 15 00:41:19 2006 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 00:41:19 -0000 Subject: Minerva and Tom: 6 theories ~ ESE!McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153868 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "caspenzoe" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "chrusotoxos" > wrote: > > > > > > Hi, I'm sorry if this question has been addressed before - I was > wondering when Minerva > > McGonagall will tell us more about Tom Riddle and why she has not > done so until now. [Snip!] > > > So why doesn't she talk? [Snip!] > > > What do you think? > > Caspen now: > > Hi chrusotoxos! > > You probably won't know me, since I rarely post here, but do > continue to read often. > > I have also wondered a lot about McGonagall lately, and, > unfortunately, I keep comming back to the McGonagal ESE theory I saw > summarized here some time ago. I've actually been looking for the > orignial post, and saw it referenced, about a month ago as being on > T-bay, but I haven't found it there. Annemehr: I don't know if this is the one you were thinking of, but there's a lovely old TBAY of Elkins's here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/39470 It's from 2002, but there are replies from '03 and '05 as well. From kjones at telus.net Thu Jun 15 01:14:36 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 18:14:36 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Spinner's End Clues In-Reply-To: <20060615002129.98125.qmail@web80606.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060615002129.98125.qmail@web80606.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4490B47C.90508@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 153869 Len Jaffe wrote: > > Kathryn Jones wrote: > > > [edit ] >> provided was dusty, what does it say about Snape's >> living arrangements >> when his wine shows up dusty. When I first read the >> book, this caught my >> eye immediately, and I am sure that it is for a >> reason. > > Now Len: > A dusty bottle is what one would expect if one were to > conjure it from ones wine cellar. > Len. > HPfGU resident alky (apparently). KJ writes: Perhaps if a person, like DD, conjured it, it might show up dusty. Personally, if he was showing such courtesy to the Dursleys, I would expect him to conjure a clean bottle. Can it be much harder than conjuring a bottle at all? As far as Snape's bottle is concerned, I would also expect Peter to wipe it off prior to serving it, wouldn't you? I mean, information about wine and bottles, and storage aside, JKR must have had a reason to describe both bottles in the same way. The book almost suggests that these two bottles are being opened at very nearly the same time in different places. KJ Who apparently knows bugger all about wine bottles From caspenzoe at yahoo.com Thu Jun 15 01:39:34 2006 From: caspenzoe at yahoo.com (caspenzoe) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 01:39:34 -0000 Subject: Minerva and Tom: 6 theories ~ ESE!McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153870 > > Caspen now: > > I have also wondered a lot about McGonagall lately, and, > > unfortunately, I keep comming back to the McGonagal ESE theory I > saw > > summarized here some time ago. I've actually been looking for the > > orignial post, and saw it referenced, about a month ago as being > on > > T-bay, but I haven't found it there. > > > Annemehr: > I don't know if this is the one you were thinking of, but there's a > lovely old TBAY of Elkins's here: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/39470 > > It's from 2002, but there are replies from '03 and '05 as well. > Caspen: That's the one! Thanks so much Anne. Why did I keep missing it for so long? From joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net Wed Jun 14 21:08:51 2006 From: joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net (canyoutellmehowtoget) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 21:08:51 -0000 Subject: Priori Incantatum In-Reply-To: <20060614072928.23666.qmail@web38315.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153871 > Cassy: > > It seems rather funny imo that only the unforgivables are shown. When Harry's wand was checked in the Quidditch World Cup sequence, even a minor spell like Morsmordre was seen, but LV's wand doesn't produce any indication that he used it for anything other than killing or torturing. What about nice everyday spells? A simple Accio? Because LV with his hatred to everything connected with muggles strikes me as a person who would have a spell for every occasion, including tying his shoe laces. > Joe: Perhaps having shoe strings untying themselves or a toilet seat lifting itself or lowering itself might have detracted from the theatrical effect of the scene. Just a thought. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 15 02:28:47 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 02:28:47 -0000 Subject: Rereading SS/PS question(s) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153872 Hmmm, so I started my long needed reread of the books. And realised just how much I am influenced by HPFGU now. Duh. :) I just so cannot enjoy fully Cinderella like escapism of Harry leaving Dursleys and all I can think about "you better provide good explanations for your actions Headmaster later on :)" And Snape's words on his first lesson are poetic, no question about it and all I can think about is "just shut up, you hateful bat and leave Harry alone :))" Anyways, really did not mean to talk about DD and Snape, just wanted to ask small question, since my brain is in another freeze and it should be something obvious. Take a look at this quote. "Yet sometimes he thought ( or maybe hoped) that strangers in the street seemed to know him. Very strange strangers they were, too. A tiny man in violet top hat had bowed to him once while out shopping with Aunt Petunia and Dudley. After asking Harry furiously if he knew the man, Aunt Petunia had rushed them out of the shop without buying anything. A wierd-looking old woman dressed in all green had waved merrily at him once on a bus. A bald man in a very long purple coat had actually shaken his hand in the street the other day and then walked away without a word. The wierdest thing about all these people was the way they seemed to vanish the second Harry tried to get a closer look" - PS/SS. p.30. paperback, amer.ed. So, question number 1. We learn later that tiny man in violet top is Dedalus Diggle, right? ( Harry recognises him in Leaky) Are wierd- looking woman and bald man somebody we know ( am I missing something very obvious here), or just no- name episodic characters? Question 2. I guess I do want to ask about Dumbledore. Sorry! Isn't that incredibly strange that all those people can find Harry, KNOW how to find Harry? Um , what would stops the DE from doing so then? Just approaching Harry on the streets and kidnapping him if not Aking him ( I guess they can have reservations about trying to kill him right away, knowing that he survived Avada ocne, but why not kidnap him and go through few nice torture rounds) Oh, and of course Petunia seems to be REALLY familiar with WW, doesn't she? ( just another detail not that I doubt it) Thanks, guys. Alla From dontask2much at yahoo.com Thu Jun 15 02:33:43 2006 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:33:43 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:the whole Christian/Baptism debate that's been going on References: <003801c68ff1$a83eb510$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: <005d01c69024$1f66a1c0$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 153873 >Marion said: >This is a world where the media is controlled by the government and the >government is as corrupt as a rotten >pear. >This is *not* a nice world. >Obliviating the Muggle parents that are unwilling to let their magical >offspring go to Hogwarts, or stealing those >magical children from parents >who think that magic is 'sent by the devil' would be a nobrainer for the >WW. >They'd approve wholeheartedly. To let magical children stay in the >Muggle world would be a danger to the >secrecy of the WW after all (it >tends to get noticed when children start to perform wild magic, and >'getting >noticed' is what the WW are NOT willing to risk) Rebecca: I can't thank you enough for this portion of your post. I concur with you - the WW is as damaged as any other society. IMO, often much emphasis in interpretations of the books appears to be religious in nature, rather than looking at the WW social, ethical and philosophical analysis. Personally, I feel and have experienced that arguing religious interpretations or symbols against epics like this online often leads to discord and anger: if this were a face to face forum, it probably would lend itself to a better discussion. Now, on with the show... The Death Eaters and LV don't appear to me to give one iota whether the Muggle world sees them performing magic or not (HBP first chapter convinced me of that), as they view non-magical people as subordinate to themselves. Do house elves? Vampires? Goblins? I believe that the WW society is completely and utterly fractured, with different groups of wizards and other magical species vying for their own agendas: there doesn't appear to be a common goal or belief among all of these different groups. Excepting those, of course) that have been repressed in some way by the social contract devised way back when in WW and about which we hear snippets in Professor Binns' class. JKR's own WOMBATS test is partly focused on social choices between the authority (Ministry law) and society. The way JKR has written this thus far, IMO it appears philosophically along the lines of the English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes felt that in a natural state, man is inherently anti-social , and therefore ego gets in the way of peace and order in the natural state. And in man's natural state, the threat of death supercedes all, any man will fight for self-preservation and there's a constant rights-based struggle of "all against all". According to Hobbes, this can only be avoided if strong leader with the complete power based in fear or awe to control the entire society or community is established . Does the Ministry control everything or instill fear or awe to control the community? To me, no, but that does look to be somewhat along the lines of what Lord Voldemort and his merry band of Death Eaters are doing to instill their values, albeit in a terrorist sort of way. Hobbesian, a word based on an interpretation of Hobbes' work, is described in English as an event or situation which involves "unrestrained, selfish and uncivilised competition." I can't think of a better word to describe what Lord Voldemort and the Ministry are doing to the WW society. I probably don't need to say this, but for those who don't know, JKR was Classics scholar. Typically, that line of study does include philosophy among the required credited courses. Marry this with JKR's position as a researcher with Amensty International and it's not too farfected to think some of that mindset might be present in the HP books. Rebecca, who enjoys philosophy and sociology discussions From alanna_526 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 15 00:25:54 2006 From: alanna_526 at yahoo.com (alanna_526) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 00:25:54 -0000 Subject: Were Horcruxes Banned when Riddle was at Hogwarts? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153874 The title is pretty self-explanitory. I was reading the essay "Loyalte Me Lie" over at RedHen-Publications the other day when I came across something rather interesting. She mentions in the essay that "Horcruxes were a banned subject at Hogwarts more than twelve years before Dumbledore was Headmaster." Dumbledore became Headmaster in the school year of 1970/1. (Unless my dates are messed up.) We know this because Remus Lupin mentions in Prisoner of Azkaban that Dumbledore became Headmaster the year he started at Hogwarts, which is why he started at all. Tom Riddle was born in the year of 1927, and, consequently, started Hogwarts in the year of 1938/9 and left after the year of 1944/5. (Forgive me if my dates are a bit off.) If Horcruxes were banned about twelve years before Albus Dumbledore became Headmaster, they were banned at least in the year of 1958/9, which is 14 years after Riddle graduated. More than twelve years leaves a lot of time space in between, but you have 14 years in which Horcruxes could have been banned that Riddle was already out of school. If Horcruxes were truly banned at Hogwarts when Riddle was still in school, wouldn't it have said at least fifty, or even twenty-five, years before Dumbledore became Headmaster? I'm just hazarding a guess. (Slughorn tells Tom that Horcruxes were frowned upon by Dumbledore, not that they were necessarily banned.) I'm new, and I don't know if this subject has been exhausted already, but think about it. JKR has messed up with dates before, but this is so blatantly obvious it isn't funny. So think about it; I may be wrong. alanna From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Jun 15 03:14:28 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 03:14:28 -0000 Subject: Understanding Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153875 Neri: > It suggests that Snape is torn between two contradicting objectives. houyhnhnm: You mean he delayed notifying the Order because he couldn't make up his mind? Hamlet!Snape? Neri: > No. You are still stuck with DDM!Snape and Voldemort'sMan!Snape, > both assuming that those are the only two possible outcomes > because they are what's important for the two sides in the war. houyhnhnm: No, I'm not considering Snape's motives at all at this point. I'm thinking that once Voldemort lures Harry to the Ministry, he's either going to obtain the Prophecy or fail to obtain it. What else is there? Neri: > And Snape dallying suggests that his agenda consists > of two contradicting objectives. > The LID!Snape theory assumes that Snape's first objective > was to continue with the double-agent game as long as > possible and come out on top whichever side wins the war. > But this contradicted his second objective ? he must repay > his Life Debt to James's son before he can bet on Voldemort's > side. Even worse for Snape ? he must save Harry's life > without Voldemort learning about it, because if Voldemort > learns about it the double-agent game is over and Snape > is stuck on Dumbledore's side, which might end up the losing side. houyhnhnm: Oh, now I think I understand. You are saying that Snape has no consistant agenda, that he is driven hither and yon by conflicting compulsions, always acting at cross purposes with himself. Hamlet!Snape. That's an interesting theory. I hadn't thought of it that way before. It seems to rely heavily on a very fundamentalist interpretation of the Life Debt, however, one for which I don't see much support in canon. Nor have I seen a convincing explanation for why the Life Debt affects Snape in such a concrete way, but Pettigrew not at all. Neri: > The LID!Snape version of the OotP climax is that Snape > indeed had orders from Voldemort to "stay behind", just > as he says in Spinner's End. So he knew about the ongoing > operation but was afraid of warning 12GP because he was > also told that Voldemort had a spy there (but not necessarily > that the spy was Kreacher). If Snape warned the Order the > spy might report it to Voldemort. So Snape was grateful > when Umbridge took Harry to the forest ? Harry wouldn't > die, Snape wouldn't have to warn the Order and it would > be Umbridge's fault that Voldemort's operation failed. > But once Snape realized that Harry went to the DoM after > all he had no choice left but to warn the Order, or he'd > fail in paying his Life Debt. Lucky for him (and for > JKR's plot) Dumbledore caught Kreacher and Sirius ended > up dead. So Voldemort never learned about Snape warning > the Order and Dumbledore never learned what was Snape's > first message to Sirius, if indeed such a message even existed. houyhnhnm: So you are conceeding that Snape notified the Order as soon as he realized Harry might have gone to the Ministry? ;-) I don't see how Kreacher could have been a threat to Snape on this one occasion if he wasn't when Snape was delivering information to the Order all year. Kreacher was only able to betray information no one had deemed important, like Harry's emotional ties to Sirius. If the message was delivered by Patronus, how would Kreacher know anything about its contents. And had Snape not really contacted Sirius the first time, wouldn't something have come out when DD debriefed the other Order members, even if they weren't there at the time. They were there the second time Snape made contact. Wouldn't it have seemed funny to them if Sirius acted like it was the first he'd heard, and later they found out Snape was already supposed to have contacted him? From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Jun 15 03:29:44 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 03:29:44 -0000 Subject: Minerva and Tom: 6 theories ~ ESE!McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153876 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" wrote: > > > I have also wondered a lot about McGonagall lately, and, > > unfortunately, I keep comming back to the McGonagal ESE theory I > saw summarized here some time ago. (Snip> Annemehr: > I don't know if this is the one you were thinking of, but there's a > lovely old TBAY of Elkins's here: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/39470 > > It's from 2002, but there are replies from '03 and '05 as well. Tonks: Well Elkins does make a good case. The thought of McG being on the opposite side had occurred to me briefly once, as I try to look at everything from every angle. But still I don't know. I just can't imagine that DD could be that wrong about anyone. She would have to be a better occumens than Snape to live that long in the company of DD and not have him see through her. I do wonder about all those green robes. On the other hand, can't a woman wear any color she wants? Is green, or blue banned forever just because of your house? Always red, gold or basic black can get a bit boring. It would be an interesting twist if McG was ESE. But it all comes back to DD's judgment and do you trust it. I do, so my vote is McG is just what she appears to be. Oh the other hand... Elkins does make a very convincing point and it makes you wonder, just a little. Tonks_op From puduhepa98 at aol.com Thu Jun 15 03:29:31 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 23:29:31 EDT Subject: Understanding Snape Message-ID: <24d.c3560cc.31c22e1b@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153877 >Neri >The LID!Snape theory assumes that Snape's first objective was to continue with the double-agent game as long as possible and come out on top whichever side wins the war. But this contradicted his second objective ? he must repay his Life Debt to James's son before he can bet on Voldemort's side. Even worse for Snape ? he must save Harry's life without Voldemort learning about it, because if Voldemort learns about it the double-agent game is over and Snape is stuck on Dumbledore's side, which might end up the losing side. >The LID!Snape version of the OotP climax is that Snape indeed had orders from Voldemort to "stay behind", just as he says in Spinner's End. So he knew about the ongoing operation but was afraid of warning 12GP because he was also told that Voldemort had a spy there (but not necessarily that the spy was Kreacher). If Snape warned the Order the spy might report it to Voldemort. So Snape was grateful when Umbridge took Harry to the forest ? Harry wouldn't die, Snape wouldn't have to warn the Order and it would be Umbridge's fault that Voldemort's operation failed. But once Snape realized that Harry went to the DoM after all he had no choice left but to warn the Order, or he'd fail in paying his Life Debt. Lucky for him (and for JKR's plot) Dumbledore caught Kreacher and Sirius ended up dead. So Voldemort never learned about Snape warning the Order and Dumbledore never learned what was Snape's first message to Sirius, if indeed such a message even existed. This is one advantage of LID!Snape ? he's not a completely useless secret agent working for either Dumbledore or Voldemort, he's a capable agent working for himself. Nikkalmati: This theory depends on a version of Life Debt which is contradicted in canon. If the Life Debt was in any way binding, Peter could not have acted as he did in GOF at the cemetery where he not only failed to rescue Harry, he helped LV in his attempt to kill Harry. (BTW why didn't it satisfy the Life Debt that SS saved Harry from falling off his broom in PS/SS? I never did get that argument. It should have been at least as good as pulling SS out of the tunnel under the Whomping Willow.) If SS is ESE or OFH there is no reason to send the Order to the MOM at all. Why would he want to prolong the suspense? It would be a pretty ineffective secret agent to pass up an opportunity like this. If Harry goes to the MOM and is killed or captured, the winning side is LV and SS is firmly in his favor. He doesn't even have to risk much to be sure he is on the winning side - just keep quiet. If Harry survives he can claim he didn't understand Harry"s meaning (who is Padfoot?) or that he was sure Harry could not get to the MOM as long as Umbridge was holding him in her office or in the forest at wandpoint. I know there has been much discussion about the length of time it took SS to call the Order in. We can't be sure how much time elapsed and, therefore, we cannot say he waited too long. (I suspect JKR just wanted to comment on the coming dawn in DD's office without considering the length of time the events took - i.e. a FLINT, or the flight to London by Thestral took a long time indeed). In any case, how long were the students in the MOM before the Order arrived? 15 minutes? 30 minutes? If SS had wanted to be sure the Order arrived too late, he did a pretty bad job of it. Also, there was no way SS could be sure enough Harry had gone to the MOM to require him to call the Order to fulfill his Life Debt. DDMSnape would alert the Order as a matter of course just in case Harry went to the MOM, but LIDSnape would have to be compelled by absolute certainty that Harry was in danger, which there is no way he could achieve with the information available to him. In other words, in order to believe the OTP shows SS to be evil, you have to believe the Life Debt prevents SS from acting in his own interest and Peter's behavior directly contradicts that view. As pointed out by others, DD would not have made an Unbreakable Vow with SS to protect Harry, because such a vow involves Dark Magic - something DD would not do. It would also contradict the theme of choices making you what you are. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 15 03:37:49 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 03:37:49 -0000 Subject: Understanding Snape In-Reply-To: <24d.c3560cc.31c22e1b@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153878 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, puduhepa98 at ... wrote: It would also contradict > the theme of choices making you what you are. Alla: In JKR's world choices show what we are, not make us what we are, so if Snape is not as good as he seems :), it would go in perfect accordance with his choices showing what kind of person he ALREADY is. JMO, Alla, who always thought that JKR's characters are essentialistic in very large part ( they do have some room to change IMO, but everybody in JKR's world have a huge part of them, who they are) From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jun 15 04:07:38 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 04:07:38 -0000 Subject: Werewolf Mystery In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153879 > Allie wrote: > > > > You are absolutely right. If the common perception that werewolf > > bites are not fatal is correct, then Snape doesn't owe James a life- > > debt. I suspect that what we are dealing with is a big, HUGE... > > Flint. I don't think more will be made of it in book 7. > > > Carol responds: > And yet, if it matters to the plot, it won't matter to JKR that it's, > shall we say, inconsistent. (Look at Lupin's transformation in that > same chapter; he should have transformed when the moon rose, not when > it peeped out from behind a cloud.) > Pippin: Heh heh. The text is ambiguous about when Lupin's transformation is supposed to begin, but it's perfectly clear about when it's supposed to end. "I am able to curl up in my office, a harmless wolf, and wait for the moon to wane again." Not "set" or "disappear" but "wane." Now I ask you, if the ending of the transformation is controlled by the waning of the full moon, shouldn't the beginning of it be controlled by the waxing? In which case Harry is simply misled and the unexpected manifestation of the moon had nothing to do with the timing of Lupin's transformation at all. My, those Lupin anomalies pile up. I realize that EverSoEvil!Lupin is one of those theories that seems obvious to its originator and the product of a screwball imagination to everybody else. But with so much HP speculation out there, we're bound to get some things right, if only by accident. The problem is the signal to noise ratio is hopeless. Each valid theory is surrounded by its bodyguard of fruitless speculation. But that's never stopped us before... I can think of a couple of non-Flint reasons for JKR to introduce the idea that werewolves seldom kill their victims. One, it casts more doubt on Dumbledore's understanding of Snape's position. Suppose Snape never considered he had a life debt at all? This in turn suggests a reason why Voldemort might discount Snape's life debt even if he knew about it. This is useful for ESE!Snape theories, of course, but also useful for shamming DDM!Snape. Two, if the Lupin anomalies from the earlier books are meaningful, they must be brought to mind again before they are resolved. What better way to do that than to introduce a new one? A further note on the life debt: Dumbledore says the life debt is magic at its deepest, its most impenetrable. I think that means it can't be reduced to some formula where Snape *can't* do this or Peter *must* do that. More likely, it works in very mysterious ways, and is most apparent after the fact, especially when actions which seemed hostile at the time redound to the debtee's benefit. It's not the sort of thing Voldemort would understand very well. Pippin From estesrandy at yahoo.com Thu Jun 15 04:13:54 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 04:13:54 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter and the Eqyptian Symbols In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153880 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > > >>Randy: > > > I think that protective healing powers, Lily's eyes, Lions, > > > Serpents, and the Order of the Phoenix could be related to the > > > mythology of Horus. > > > What do you guys think? > > > >>Ceridwen: > > The story of Horus is the story of a son avenging his father's > > death. There could be a parallel. But I doubt if there is any > > more than that, since Isis did not die, and Osiris was put back > > together from his scattered remains, which is why he is depicted > > as a green- faced mummy. > > > > I think we're looking too hard for symbols which have some meaning > > to the story. There may be symbols in the books, but the story is > > its own. I can't think of any reason why Harry having Lily's eyes > > would be important based on what we have so far, but I seriously > > doubt an Egyptian connection there. I think it would have to be > > something more connected with the story we have in canon, rather > > than with something miles and millenia away. > > Just my own opinion. > > Betsy Hp: > Hmm, I'm not sure if Randy was going for an exact parallel or not, > but while I do agree that JKR's "story is its own", it might be a > mistake to totally dismiss the books' symbols and the myths they > spring from as something "miles and millenia away". > > If JKR has any interest in Egyption myths (and she does lightly > pepper her books with Egyption stuff: Bill, the Weasleys' vaction, > etc.) or just myths in general, I'd be surprised if they didn't play > some part in the shaping of her story. > > I read a fascinating article on Snape called, "Severus Snape and the > Anubis Archetype: Smoke and Mirrors" by Clunycat, posted at the > Leaky Cauldron. > > http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/#scribbulus:essay:192 > > In it Clunycat uses archetypes of several mythical gods of Death to > shed some light on the role Snape plays in the books. I don't think > JKR wrote Snape *as* Anubis, but she may have had some of that > archetype's characteristics in mind when she dreamed Snape up. > > I don't think JKR is writing an allegory. Her characters are too > real, too multi-faceted for that, I think. But let's not throw the > baby out with the bathwater. When you have a school with houses > representing the four elements it could be suggestive that mythical > symbols hold some meaning. Or at least, that's my opinion. > > Betsy Hp (who'd meant to comment on this a couple of days ago, but > Yahoo went all wonky) > Randy replies... Thank you so much for this link. It tells me more about Snape than anything I have ever read before. Also, I did not intend to imply that JKR lifted Harry Potter from the story of Horus. I think the symbols in the Egyptian tombs are these important symbols being used in these books. Snakes and lions are combined to make "the royal blood" of the pharoah. Harry is the chosen one because he is marked by Voldy (Snake) and he comes from Godric's side of the fence (Lion). That is what makes Harry "the chosen one." Horus was the hero or chosen one. Also, there is something important about Harry having Lily's eyes. The eyes are a protection. Thoth gave Horus back his eye, but it was now magical with protective healing powers. Harry has his mother's protection and her eyes! The image is the same even if the story is very different. These are the archetypes that she is using which conjure up something in our subconscious. By the way, if Moses studied as the son of a pharoah, he would know the symbols of the myths. Moses is the source of the Old Testament beginnings. Do we not then have a link between these symbols and Jewish and Christian teachings? The symbols allow complex ideas to be communicated to large groups of people who may not be able to fully comprehend what is being said. If you don't believe me, why do young children know that the Golden Arches represent McDonalds before they can even read? Marketing people know how to use symbols, and so do artists and writers. Randy Randy From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu Jun 15 04:37:37 2006 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 04:37:37 -0000 Subject: Were Horcruxes Banned when Riddle was at Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153881 >Alanna: > Dumbledore became Headmaster in the school year of 1970/1. (Unless > my dates are messed up.) Goddlefrood: Your dates are certainly messed up. Dumbledore was Headmaster at least as early as 1957 (when one T. Riddle applied for a job)Remus's information on this matter was rather sketchy, or quite possible JKR performed one of her not infrequent Flints in this regard. Sorry to put the kibosh on your thoughts but there we are. Goddlefrood From juli17 at aol.com Thu Jun 15 06:22:53 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 02:22:53 EDT Subject: Why we're sure that Snape is Evil Message-ID: <383.46ed013.31c256bd@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153882 chrusotoxos wrote: > 8. Now, if we accept all this, what good is there in forgiving a > good man who made a mistake? We're all capable of that: as Jesus > said, we must instead pray for our enemies, because the sick man > needs the doctor, not the healthy one Julie: I don't think I'd classify Snape's actions as mistakes. As others have pointed out, Snape had to know Voldemort *could* use the prophecy information as a reason to kill someone(s). He no doubt also did some unsavory things as a DE, even if he stopped short of doing the actual torture or killing of Voldemort's enemies. Snape didn't make mistakes, he did bad things, all the while knowing he was doing bad things. Whatever made him regret those actions and *change* from a bad person to a good person (at least in intent, and if we assume DDM), it doesn't undo that he was once "bad" by choice, not a good man making a mistake. Lupinlore wrote: I think you are onto something very important here. Most versions of DDM!Snape fail at this point, because it simply doesn't play into a forgiveness and redemption theme very well. In most (but not all) versions of DDM!Snape, Snape has been on the good side all along. He has not done anything really bad, or if he did it was because he made a mistake and has been atoning for it. Therefore, the confrontation with Harry would unfold as Snape putting forth his case and Harry reluctantly accepting that "OK, you are a mean SOB but I've been wrong about you and I'm willing to work with you." Julie: I think he did do bad things. Perhaps even *really* bad things. If he is DDM then he regrets them, and he's had an honest change of heart. But that doesn't erase the bad things he's done, even while he's attempting to atone for them. I also think it's a fairly unpopular version of DDM!Snape where he was on the good side all along. Most DDM!Snape supporters here think Snape was on Voldemort's side intially, then saw the error of his ways and switched to DDs side. (That's my impression anyway.) Lupinlore wrote: Okay, but where does forgiveness come in, particularly of the Christian type being discussed? Where is the particular Christian message in admitting that you have been wrong about someone's motivations? A pagan Roman would recognize that virtue quite easily. It isn't forgiveness, it's reason and practical logic. Where is the particular Christian foregivness in saying "You were wrong to betray my parents, but I recognize that you've been atoning for it?" Once again, that is something any virtuous Greek or Roman or Egyptian or Sumerian or Celtic or Slavic or Norse or Teutonic pagan could say in exactly the same words. Julie: I don't see the conflict. Where in Christianity does it say acceptance of someone's regret for a previous action and forgiving that person for committing that previous bad action in the first place are mutually exclusive? Lupinlore: I guess, if you are bound and determined for Snape to be a suffering and misunderstood hero, you could argue that the forgiveness would be Snape's, in forgiving Harry for being so unfair to him and misunderstanding him. I wouldn't put two cents on it, but you could say that. Rather, the forgivness theme means the power of forgiveness for both the one who forgives and the one who is forgiven. And in order to experience the power of forgiveness, you have to be in the wrong. Not a suffering and misunderstood hero, not a double agent doing the will of good, not someone who made an honest mistake and has been atoning for it -- you have to have done something wrong from which you need to be redeemed. You need to accept forgivness from someone who has every right to despise you -- NOT put forth a coherent case that you are a good but misunderstood person who has made mistakes but been atoning for your sins and working for the cause of righteousness all along. Julie: Snape didn't make an honest mistake. He did bad things. He did something(s) wrong for which he needs to be redeemed. So your main premise is false, IMO. As for accepting forgiveness, that is NOT a necessary part of part of forgiving. Harry can forgive Snape for his own reasons, and for his own emotional health (not forgiving eats at the soul), but whether Snape accepts that forgiveness or not has no bearing on the good Harry (or anyone) receives by forgiving. To repeat, Harry needs to forgive for *himself*, for *his* own good, not for Snape's. And since the books are about Harry, not about Snape, whether Snape accepts that forgiveness is also not important to the story. (It is important to many fans, yes, but not to the story!) Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Thu Jun 15 06:31:00 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 02:31:00 EDT Subject: Dumbledore's actions again. WAS: Re: Snape and the "Chosen One" Message-ID: <2fb.69ab439.31c258a4@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153883 Lupinlore wrote: Well, and once again we are to the point of JKR putting her foot in her mouth. The "epitome of goodness" statement comes back to bite again and again. If JKR had said, "Dumbledore is a great man but he occasionally makes horrible mistakes for the best of reasons," then I think that would fit. If she said "Dumbledore is generally good but very manipulative and willing to cold-bloodedly sacrifice people for greater ends," that would fit. But no, she came out with "epitome of goodness," which, when matched with "greatest wizard in the world," does lead, IMO, to severe contradictions of character and gaping plot holes. Julie: But JKR *did* say that Dumbledore makes horrible mistakes! She said his mistakes are bigger than those of others. Dumbledore said the same thing about himself in HBP. And while JKR said Dumbledore was the "epitome of goodness" I think she meant that he always has good intentions and best interests at heart. But he *is* human, so he makes mistakes. If he was the "epitome of goodness" in the way you seem to interpret it--perfect and without sin--well, I guess he really would be a direct analogy of Christ! Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From chrusokomos at gmail.com Thu Jun 15 06:39:24 2006 From: chrusokomos at gmail.com (chrusotoxos) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 06:39:24 -0000 Subject: Minerva and Tom: 6 theories In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153884 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "caspenzoe" wrote: > I have also wondered a lot about McGonagall lately, and, > unfortunately, I keep comming back to the McGonagal ESE theory I saw > summarized here some time ago. > Are you familiar with the ESE MM theory, and what do you think of > it? Does it yeild any better answers to your question than the cigar > as cigar theory? > > Caspen > Chrusotoxos now Hi Caspen! Well, same goes for me...reading the posts and lurking in the dark most of the time :D I didn't know about MM ESE theory, I just read Anne's link and I'm stunned. I do like her as a character, but I'll try to have an open mind and actually discuss it. Ok. Let's start. No, I'm sorry. Ugh. I can't think of her as a DE. I'm sure that everything can be explained simply and properly; in a Bellatrix vs. Snape kind of speech: 1. Why didn't Dumbledore tell her about Horcruxes? Horcruxes are the key to destroy LV. Nobody knows about them, not even DE, except for one RAB who has been dead for years and a fat teacher who doesn't want to remember and has no proof. If LV knew that DD was pursuing that line of thought, he would undoubtedly protect himself in another way. I mean, the most interesting thing about Horcruxes is that you can't feel it when they are destroyed, and this is Harry's best chace of success. If I were Dumbledore, I wouldn't share this with anyone. It's a war. Anyone, especially a member of the Order, could be attacked and tortured and forced to talk; or bribed etc. Now, if, and only if, Dumbledore trusts Snape more than MM, this could be for 2 reasons: a) Snape is a fighter and knows is waiting for us 'out there'; he can be trusted to know what to do when you're in danger, he knows when a man is to be left behind and when you have to sacrifice yourself to save everyone - whereas MM is a bookish person, brilliant and clever but not so good at things and old already: she wasn't quick enough to shield Aurors' attacks on her in Book 5, and she did everything in her power to annoy Umbridge and be on her bad side...a fool wearing her heart on her sleeve; isn't it her doing, in the end, which allows Umbridge to gain more and more power in the school? PLus, b) Snape may be bound in a way MM isn't: an Unforgivable, for example, preventing him physically to talk about DD's secrets. 2.Why didn't she stop Fudge's Dementor? I see nothing dangerous in here, really, you people are twisted :D. She's nauseated because BC is disgusting, and she knew everyone personally, after all: Crouch's victims and his father. Her wand is steady because, though old and bookish, she's brave. She can't stop the Dementor because, as we see in Book 5, she weak when she's taken by surprise. And hey, could you have summoned a cheering thought after that night? 3.Why did she spend a whole day outside no.4, Privet Drive? I don't see mysteries here, neither. She heard rumors about what happened and came to the one place she was sure Dumbledore would be, a place the Order was probably watching even during the first war - we never know. She narrowed her eyes because, in those times, you couldn't be sure about anything...how many times had she seen a fake DD? She wants to press her point because she's a rational woman, and she won't believe anything until DD confirms it. Also, it seems to me the people are always forgetting one thing: we're reading a book. Characters do not live only according their own wishes. Sometimes the author needs to tell US something. For example, is this suspiciou that Harry hasn't tried to do magic, whereas Hermione, Muggleborn, has? No, because Harry's are our eyes in this world and we don't know anything about it. A clueless character is what WE need. So: is this suspicious to say "the point she was most anxious to discuss"? No; we don't know about LV yet; we don't know about the Potters; it is crucial for the writer to make us understand that this his really really important. And results are there: when DD says "yes, the good and the bad" we immediately want to know what is the good and what is the bad, and we trust his POV because MM does, and we trust MM because she's funny and can turn into a cat. If, instead of MM, Umbridge or even Emmeline Vance had been there we wouldn't be attracted by them, and therefore wouldn't want to know what THEY want to know. Ok. So it's a bit long, as usual, sorry! Chrusotoxos From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Jun 15 06:46:33 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 06:46:33 -0000 Subject: Of LOONs and Loonies (was:Re: Christian Symbolism in HP) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153885 > Betsy Hp: > Being very proud of my own L.O.O.N. badge (League Of Obsessed > Nitpickers) might I suggest a different name for your society? With > such similar names, things may well get confusing. Potioncat: I'll suggest I.C.O.N.S. Incredibly Conscious Of Nebulous Symbols There are aspects of this thread that I wouldn't touch with a ten foot wand, but I do see quite a lot of Christian symbols and parables (can't think of a better word this early in the morning) within the HP series. I'm sure they're not all coincidences or figments of my (our) imaginations. There are also a lot of historical parallels, inspiration from mythology and bits from real literature, so it's not completely clear what JKR is up to. From caspenzoe at yahoo.com Thu Jun 15 09:44:51 2006 From: caspenzoe at yahoo.com (caspenzoe) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 09:44:51 -0000 Subject: Homosexuality in HP Series: Was: Snape as the lover of Regulus Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153886 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nowheregirrrl" > > wrote: > I agree that Rowling wouldn't touch homosexuality with a ten-foot > pole, but I think it's because it would take attention away from the > main story. > > And the fact that she's a member of the Church of Scotland (as > opposed to the Catholic Church or Southern Baptist, for example) > actually means she's a member of a church that is quite open minded > when it comes to homosexuals and homosexual behavior, and even > homosexual marriages and clergy. Caspen now: Thank you for the Church of Scotland information Leslie. I'm wondering whether anyone else here is willing to explore the notion that JKR does indeed touch on the subject of homsexuality in the HP series - but, perhaps, given that the books are marketed to children, with an eleven-, rather than "ten-foot pole" (ignoring the baser implications of bringing pole lengths into this discussion for now)? I am not a Snape-RAB, Snape-Sirius, or Sirus-Remus shipper, because I do not see any strong evidence for any of these assertions, although I do think there is a good argument to be made in the case of Remus for possible bisexuality, as he's unquestionably, and purposefully, I believe, androgynous. Those I have in mind as the most likely possibly gay characters so far however, as opposed to those most often mentioned here, are Lockhart and Slughorn. This intuition may unfortunately be based upon some rather negative stereotypes of homosexuals of the more effeminate variety, what some of my gay friends would call "swishers," but, I assure you, I am not a homophobe. Nor do I mean in any way to promote homophobia. It's just that they they seem glaringly obvious as candidates to me - something to due with Lockhart's shameless preening and their shared fastidiousness. My argument for this assertion, so far, is quite broad. Namely, I think that the series is fundamentally concerned with and focused on identity and its formation and development in the individual, Harry's identity, first and foremost of course. In fact, it seems to me that Harry addresses this theme in general again and again throughout the series, sometimes more than once per book: Is he really a wizard? (Book I) Is he really a Gryffindor?(Books I and II) Is he really Tom Riddle? (Book II) Is he really his father - and does he want to be? (Books III and V) Does he have inherent strengths and, if so, what are they? (Book IV - this example is the weakest, but can be argued) Is he really Voldemort? (Book V) Has he a pre-ordained destiny, and if so, what is it? (Books V and VI) What kind of man is he? (Book VI). I expect Book VII will continue this theme, probably in the context of Harry's discovering that his scar, is indeed a horcrux. If sexual identity is an integral part of individual identity sexual identity, even if only peripherally, must be a theme of the series. JKR does address the issue of sexuality directly in an age- appropriate way by allowing Harry and his friends some intense romances. However, I'm convinced that she also does it symbolically, with her characters, Remus Lupin being the most obvious case with his dreaded monthly experiences. Just my thoughts on the subject. I'd be very interested to know if anyone here has had any parallel thoughts or intuitions. Caspen From joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net Thu Jun 15 01:58:56 2006 From: joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net (canyoutellmehowtoget) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 01:58:56 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Spinner's End Clues In-Reply-To: <448F9A3F.4030507@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153887 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Jones wrote: > > KJ Writes: > The main thing that I found most interesting about this scene, > and the one where DD conjures a bottle of mead is the dust. The wine > at Spinner's End came out in a "dusty" bottle, as did the bottle of > mead. It makes me wonder, if, in not living at the Dursleys', the > mead provided was dusty, what does it say about Snape's living > arrangements when his wine shows up dusty. When I first read the > book, this caught my eye immediately, and I am sure that it is for a > reason. Maybe DD taught Snape the conjuring charm which always leaves dust on the bottle. Or maybe it's fairy dust. Ok, I'm kidding. That is interesting that JKR included dust in both instances. It does suggest a well aged wine or mead, though. Maybe that's what she was going for. "canyoutellmehowtoget" From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Thu Jun 15 13:18:47 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:18:47 -0000 Subject: Who knows about Horcuxes? (Was: Minerva and Tom: 6 theories) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153888 Chrusotoxos now > 1. Why didn't Dumbledore tell her about Horcruxes? > Horcruxes are the key to destroy LV. Nobody knows about them, not > even DE, except for one RAB who has been dead for years and a fat > teacher who doesn't want to remember and has no proof. If LV knew > that DD was pursuing that line of thought, he would undoubtedly > protect himself in another way. Amiable Dorsai: I think this analysis is great, except that I'll bet that at least some current DEs know something about Horcruxes--specifically, I think Bellatrix knows that he's made one. She was convinced, after all, that Voldy was coming back, and she even tried to make it happen, going so far as to torture the Longbottoms in order to discover Vapormort's whereabouts. Going further out on a limb, I think the Horcrux she knows about is the locket. Trixie likes to boast. I've got a feeling she said a little too much to her cousin Regulus. How else would a low-level Death Eater like Regulus know such important info? So long as I'm multiplying assumptions, I'm going to guess that Trixie--or any other Death Eater--only knows that there is one Horcrux, not six. Why else would RAB believe that destroying one Horcrux was sufficient to make Voldemort mortal? I hear the limb I'm out on cracking behind me, but I'm going to inch out just a bit more and guess that Tommy is compartmentalizing what he tells his Toerags--that different DEs know different things. Lucius knew about the Diary, even if he didn't know it was a Horcrux, for example. I wonder what Voldy has told Snape? I wonder what Snape has deduced? Amiable Dorsai From issy at gark.net Thu Jun 15 11:35:41 2006 From: issy at gark.net (Isobel Stark) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 11:35:41 -0000 Subject: Homosexuality in HP Series: Was: Snape as the lover of Regulus Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153889 Leslie41: > > And the fact that she's a member of the Church of Scotland (as > > opposed to the Catholic Church or Southern Baptist, for example) > > actually means she's a member of a church that is quite open > > minded when it comes to homosexuals and homosexual behavior, and > > even homosexual marriages and clergy. Somebody else in this thread stated that JKR was an Anglican. The Church of Scotland is not Anglican, it is a Presbyterian church and quite separate in its theology from the Church of England. Both are the official, established churches in their own country but they are not the same church. The Church of Scotland is not part of the Anglician communion. The Anglican/Epsicopalian church in Scotland is the Scottish Episcopal Church. Admittedly there is much too-ing and fro-ing between the established churches as far as congregations are concerned (for example the Queen, heand of the Church of England and a confirmed Anglican, worships at Church of Scotland kirks when in Scotland) but there are sharp differences in practices between the two churches. The Church of Scotland's General Assembly has voted this year to allow ministers to hold services to mark same-sex civil partnerships (not the same as allowing marriage within the church) but each local Kirk has the right to vote on this as well before it becomes policy. The Church of Scotland has not, to my knowledge, said that gay ministers are acceptable whereas the Scottish Episcopal Church did in 2005. Isobel From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Jun 15 14:13:05 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 14:13:05 -0000 Subject: Baptism and JKR's views (was: Homosexuality in HP Series) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153890 Leslie41: > > And the fact that she's a member of the Church of Scotland (as > > opposed to the Catholic Church or Southern Baptist, for example) > > actually means she's a member of a church that is quite open > > minded when it comes to homosexuals and homosexual behavior, and > > even homosexual marriages and clergy. Isobel responded: > Somebody else in this thread stated that JKR was an Anglican. The > Church of Scotland is not Anglican, it is a Presbyterian church and > quite separate in its theology from the Church of England. Both are > the official, established churches in their own country but they > are not the same church. The Church of Scotland is not part of the > Anglician communion. The Anglican/Epsicopalian church in Scotland > is the Scottish Episcopal Church. > > Admittedly there is much too-ing and fro-ing between the > established churches as far as congregations are concerned (for > example the Queen, heand of the Church of England and a > confirmed Anglican, worships at Church of Scotland kirks when in > Scotland) but there are sharp differences in practices between the > two churches. SSSusan butts in: I've been meaning to get back to this issue as well, so I thank you, Isobel, for reminding me that I hadn't yet done so. You are right to point out that the Anglican/Episcopalian Church is not the same as the Church of Scotland/Presbyterian Church. The issue I was more interested in was baptism, however. Leslie wrote: > And sure, many people kind of ignore their roles as godparents, but > when you go back to the actual ceremony of baptism (in the Anglican > church), the godparent has to renounce the devil, acknowledge > Christ as savior, etc. etc. etc. > > Those who are not Christians are not asked to be godparents, no > matter how close the tie may be, because they either are not > baptized, or they cannot claim Christ as savior, or both. > but anyone who's ever been to a baptism in the Anglican > church knows that it's pretty serious stuff. > And the Christening service itself, the baptismal service, is a > deeply spiritual experience in which all are required to renew > their baptismal vows. The godfather must be a baptized Christian > himself as well. > > Pardon me for thinking that yes, that's important. You are free to > think it's entirely meaningless. But it's in there. Harry was > baptized. Sirius was a Christian and so were his parents, or else > they would not have been allowed to have their child baptized. > > Your assertion that Harry's destiny is set in stone by his > baptismal affirmation of his name shows that you misunderstand the > nature of baptism. Being baptized is kind of like a promise...it's > not the end but the beginning. It's no assurance that one is going > to be able to share in the eternal kingdom. Harry must evolve out > of that designation as destroyer and come to defeat Voldemort > through love. SSSusan: I think it is important, again, to note that JKR is a member of the Church of Scotland, not the Anglican Church. I am not saying that the baptismal covenant *is* totally different; I'm merely saying that I'm not sure we can take what baptism represents in the Anglican Church and say with certainty that this is what JKR meant. When I visited the Church of Scotland's website [http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/worship/wplife.htm ], this was what it had to say about baptism: >>> Baptism is one of the two sacraments recognised by the Church of Scotland, the other being the Sacrament of Holy Communion. In the case of infant baptism the Church expects at least one parent or other close family member either to be a member of the Church or willing to become a member. In the baptismal service those appropriate adults profess their own faith and promise to give the child a Christian upbringing. In the case of adult baptism the person himself or herself makes the appropriate promises. Baptism is normally administered at Sunday worship in front of the congregation. This emphasises the nature of the sacrament as incorporation into the body of Christ and the life of the Church. There is a little more flexibility in the case of genuine emergencies, normally in a hospital situation. <<< I am sure there are more details available to those who know where to look, as well. "Those appropriate adults" are to "profess their own faith," it does say. Does that include godparents? Probably, though it's not stated outright. So this would be the position of the *church.* Even though I agree it's important to note that the CoS and the Anglican Church are not the same thing, I also think it's very important to recognize that simply because JKR is a *member* of a particular church, it does not mean that we know with certainty what HER particular beliefs are. I'm an Episcopalian myself, but that doesn't mean I agree with every word in the Book of Common Prayer. (Is there any person who believes *every* tenet, position and word in his/her church's documents, articles of faith or cathechism? I wonder.) I've got a healthy respect for the things the Quaker Church teaches, as well, for instance. What baptism or communion or the trinity means to *me* might not perfectly match what my church's official position is. And if I were to mention a sacrament or rite, as a writer, I do not think it would be safe for the reader to assume precisely what I meant if I didn't STATE what I meant, you know? I think we need to be careful in placing too much emphasis on what JKR "must" have meant when she included information about Harry's christening (or her views on homosexuality, for that matter) if we're basing that emphasis solely on her *membership* in a particular church. What would make it definitive or *canon* to me would be JKR's direct statement on one of those issues. She did mention a christening. She also mentioned very few details about that christening. I don't know that we can extrapolate particulars about its meaning to her or to the HP story from so little information. Leslie: > I would agree with you if Rowling weren't a professed Christian, > but she is, most definitely. SSSusan: Yes, she is a professed Christian. This is on record. What we don't know is what *particular* Christian beliefs she ascribes to, because she has been very quiet about that in the many interviews I have read/listened to, and she has been TOTALLY quiet about that in the books themselves. Until/Unless JKR steps forth with some specific remarks about her views on christening or baptism, or (better yet) about Harry's christening, then I'm pretty much with Magpie & Geoff. Magpie: > The Christening is very important for plot purposes to give Harry > some tie to Sirius, which seems like the important part--but it is > a Christening, not a naming ceremony or a made-up wizarding ritual. Geoff: > I accept that, since Sirius is confirmed as his godfather not only > by himself but by Cornelius Fudge, Harry was obviously baptised in > whatever form was considered appropriate by James and Lily. > > However, I am inclined to think that this was a literary device > used by JKR to strengthen the bond between Harry and Sirius. Had > Sirius only been a friend to his parents, Harry might not have set > much store by a suggestion that they live together and would not > perhaps have been so devastated when Sirius was killed; it is the > fact that his parents had placed this responsibility in his hands > that created the closeness that made Sirius the nearest thing he > had to a real, loving family member. SSSusan: I'm inclined to think this is as far as we can go at this point. Speculating, fine. Theorizing, fine. But statements concerning the meaning of an event such as Harry's christening just can't, at this point and in my opinion, be made with certainty. Siriusly Snapey Susan From iam.kemper at gmail.com Thu Jun 15 14:18:25 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 07:18:25 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Homosexuality in HP Series: Was: Snape as the lover of Regulus Black In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40606150718q741c40p9f148a2649088107@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153891 > Caspen: > > Thank you for the Church of Scotland information Leslie. > > I'm wondering whether anyone else here is willing to explore the > notion that JKR does indeed touch on the subject of homsexuality in > the HP series - ... snip ... > > I am not a Snape-RAB, Snape-Sirius, or Sirus-Remus shipper, because > I do not see any strong evidence for any of these assertions, > although I do think there is a good argument to be made in the case > of Remus for possible bisexuality, as he's unquestionably, and > purposefully, I believe, androgynous. >... Kemper now: As far as homosexuality goes, I rule-out Snape and Sirius as they don't seem to have any signs (symbols?) of being gay. I do think that JKR would have to write in some subtle stereotype, so that the reader would 'get it' in a very popular children's (marketed anyway) book, but I think she would do so without including romance I also rule out Remus because he's a werewolf. The obvious connection to being gay here is 'coming out' to his friends about his werewolf-uality and being 'outed' to some werewolfphobe parents. But to use werewolf as metaphor for gay-guy could suggest that homosexuals recruit gays which was and probably still is how many ignorant people regarded homosexuality. So, I don't think JKR would suggest that. There's not enough info to rule in or out RAB as gay. Caspen continues: > Those I have in mind as the most likely possibly gay characters so > far however, as opposed to those most often mentioned here, are > Lockhart and Slughorn. This intuition may unfortunately be based > upon some rather negative stereotypes of homosexuals of the more > effeminate variety, what some of my gay friends would > call "swishers," but, I assure you, I am not a homophobe. Nor do I > mean in any way to promote homophobia. It's just that they they seem > glaringly obvious as candidates to me - something to due with > Lockhart's shameless preening and their shared fastidiousness. > ... Kemper now: I agree and rule out both because, again, I don't think JKR would use negative stereotypes. The woman is creative and subtle. Caspen continues: > My argument for this assertion, so far, is quite broad. Namely, I > think that the series is fundamentally concerned with and > focused on identity and its formation and development in the > individual, Harry's identity, first and foremost of course. ... snip examples of identity in the books ... I expect Book VII will continue this > theme, probably in the context of Harry's discovering that his scar, > is indeed a horcrux. > ... Kemper now: Caspen, you tricky devil! I avoid Harry!Horcrux threads as much as possible as no part of me buys into it. Good sneak. Caspen continues: > If sexual identity is an integral part of individual identity sexual > identity, even if only peripherally, must be a theme of the series. > JKR does address the issue of sexuality directly in an age- > appropriate way by allowing Harry and his friends some intense > romances. However, I'm convinced that she also does it symbolically, > with her characters, Remus Lupin being the most obvious case with > his dreaded monthly experiences. > > Kemper now: Again, I rule out Remus. One who I think is never mentioned is also the most obvious: Dumbledore. I believe it was Carol who suggested that for an argument to exist many people from both sides have to see it (see any Snape thread). My canon support are, briefly because I'm late for work, his office his opening speeches his demeanor his creativity his courage I can speak more on it later. Gotta go -Kemper [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hpfgu.elves at gmail.com Thu Jun 15 14:54:09 2006 From: hpfgu.elves at gmail.com (hpfgu_elves) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 14:54:09 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Posting Limit Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153892 Hi, everyone-- The elves have heard from some list members that the limit of 3 posts per day has been a little *too* limiting for various good reasons, so the elves have decided to give a try to raising it to 5 per day. Of course, other rules still apply -- keep on topic, be courteous and respectful of other list members, make your posts substantive and try to advance the discussion, and so on. We will keep the option of going back to 3 per day during unusually busy times, though only when it seems warranted. Thanks so much everyone for keeping to the original limit so well, and we hope the new limit helps to give you all a little more breathing room. --The List Elves From mandorino222 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 15 14:59:19 2006 From: mandorino222 at yahoo.com (mandorino222) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 14:59:19 -0000 Subject: Who knows about Horcuxes? (Was: Minerva and Tom: 6 theories) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153893 Chrusotoxos now Why didn't Dumbledore tell her about Horcruxes? Nick now: Dumbledore can't people that he knows about the horcruxes. What if Voldemort catches them and forces them through legilmency to reveal all they know? Game's up. Voldemort will be on the watch for horcrux thievery and Harry will be screwed. The only reason he tells Harry is because Harry's only one who can destroy them, i.e. he HAS to. Plus, if Voldemort is in a position to legilmens Harry, the game is up anyway. Dumbledore did tell one other person: Snape. Snape's skills as an occulmens would make him the only person that Dumbledore would be able to trust with that information. The fact that Snape knows about the Horcruxes and Voldemort hasn't acted on it would be a very good indication that Snape is 1) trustworthy and 2) capable of closing his mind to the Dark Lord. Also I don't buy the Bellatrix told Regulus theory. R.A.B. "discovered" the secret. The word choice does not jive with a blundering exchange of confidence. Nick From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Thu Jun 15 15:16:12 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 15:16:12 -0000 Subject: Who knows about Horcuxes? (Was: Minerva and Tom: 6 theories) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153894 > Chrusotoxos now > > > 1. Why didn't Dumbledore tell her (McG) about Horcruxes? > > Horcruxes are the key to destroy LV. Nobody knows about them, not > > even DE, except for one RAB and a fat teacher who > > doesn't want to remember and has no proof. If LV knew that > > DD was pursuing that line of thought, he would undoubtedly > > protect himself in another way. > > Amiable Dorsai: > > at least some current DEs know something about Horcruxes > --specifically, I think Bellatrix knows that he's made one. > > She was convinced, that Voldy was coming back, going so > far as to torture the Longbottoms in order to discover > Vapormort's whereabouts. > > Going further out on a limb, I think the Horcrux she knows about is > the locket. Trixie likes to boast. I've got a feeling she said a > little too much to her cousin Regulus. How else would a low-level > Death Eater like Regulus know such important info? > > So long as I'm multiplying assumptions, I'm going to guess that > Trixie--or any other Death Eater--only knows that there is one > Horcrux, not six. Why else would RAB believe that destroying one > Horcrux was sufficient to make Voldemort mortal? > > (I) guess that Tommy (Riddle) tells his different DEs > different things. Lucius knew about the Diary, even if he didn't > know it was a Horcrux, for example. > > I wonder what Voldy has told Snape? I wonder what Snape has deduced? > aussie: Roll call who knows about LV Horcruxes:- - LV (best authority) - DD (deceased) - Harry, Ron, Hermione - RAB (deceased?) - Bellatrix (suggested) - Slughorn (knows the target number of Horcruxes) - Snape (how much has he been told or guessed after curing DD?) - LV's Horcrux teacher (see below) Walburga? Drumstrang? Another post (153881) asks if teaching of Horcruxes was banned before or after Riddle was at Hogwarts. It says it was banned at least 12 years before DD became Headmaster. That makes it banned in 1945 or earlier. Interesting! That was about when DD defeated Grindalwald! Was the defeat brought about by destroying a Horcrux Grindalwald made? Tom was in Hogwarts at that time, but it may have been freshly banned just before Tom's course taught it. So we are still left with, who taught Tom about "How To Make It"? Again, McGonagall was 2 years ahead of Tom. Her year may have been taught Horcruxes in greater detail. Others we have heard of around McG's time were Neville's Grandma (or how would McG know she failed Charms [OOTP]). Also, Sirius and Regulus's mother, Walburga Black (1925-1985) according to Lexicon. If the future Mrs Black helped Tom, that would help explain why Bellatrix and RAB were considered inside knowledge enough for them to know about LV's Horcrux. (Alphard was her younger brother - another Riddle contempory? He was the one that was removed from the Black Family Tree for giving money to Sirius and also a suggested RAB) Of course, Tom did travel extensively to Darker Wizarding areas of Europe. He could have learned in Drumstrang or similar. (A Horcrux doesn't need to be made directly after a killing, but can wait till a suitable vessel can be found. Otherwise, the Ring on Tom's finger in Slughorn's memory would have been a waste of a good soul tearing.) > Chrusotoxos > > If LV knew that DD was pursuing that line of thought, he would > > undoubtedly protect himself in another way. aussie: And don't forget LV is the best authority on his Horcruxes. Once Harry and friends destroy another one or two. LV may travel to the resting places of the last ones to ensure they are safe. He may travel wreaklessly if he is suprised that the Cave and Ring are already gone. Then we only need to have someone know how to follow him. Is that why Snape went back to LV? From acacia145 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 15 16:10:23 2006 From: acacia145 at yahoo.com (Dave) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:10:23 -0000 Subject: Priori Incantatum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153895 Cassy: > It seems rather funny imo that only the unforgivables are shown. > When Harry's wand was checked in the Quidditch World Cup sequence, > even a minor spell like Morsmordre was seen, but LV's wand doesn't > produce any indication that he used it for anything other than > killing or torturing. What about nice everyday spells? Remember we only saw the deaths and heard the screams. If there were other spells they could have been inaudible and just got lost in the screams and in the visions of the past deaths. Dave From acacia145 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 15 16:13:58 2006 From: acacia145 at yahoo.com (Dave) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:13:58 -0000 Subject: Rereading SS/PS question(s) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153896 Alla wrote: > ...just wanted to ask small question, since my brain is in another > freeze and it should be something obvious. > > Take a look at this quote. > > > Are wierd- looking woman and bald man somebody we know ( am I > missing something very obvious here), or just no- name episodic > characters? > > Question 2. Isn't that incredibly strange that all those people can > find Harry, KNOW how to find Harry? My guess is that the people that introduced themselves to Harry were on duty, either working for the Order directly or just as a favor to Dumbledore. Dave From lunasaproject at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jun 15 16:11:28 2006 From: lunasaproject at yahoo.co.uk (Tara Tierney) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:11:28 -0000 Subject: Understanding Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153897 wynnleaf wrote: > At the end of POA, when Snape runs from Lupin's office to the > Whomping Willow, he knew that he was going alone to face Sirius -- > thought to be a possibly insane murderer of 13 -- and Lupin who > hadn't taken his Wolfsbane potion and was about to transform. Yet > Snape goes anyway. Of course, a "good" Snape might be going to help > the children. A "bad" Snape might be going to take advantage of an > opportunity to do away with both Sirius and Lupin. And a "playing > both sides" Snape might be doing the same, since he hated Sirius. > > But actually, it makes almost no sense for Snape to put his life at > such great risk from both Sirius and especially Lupin, solely to > take an opportunity to capture or kill a hated school-time rival. > The degree of risk that Snape willingly takes on can only be > explained by his seeing that the "benefit" of his action was equal > to or outweighed the risk of his own life. And what could be worth > the substantial risk to his life? I can't see a "for self only" > Snape considering that the capture of Sirius was worth the risk of > his own life at the teeth and claws of a werewolf. Nor can I see > why a "working for Voldemort" Snape would consider it worth that > risk either. The only thing that I can see that could be > considered worth the risk Snape took, would be if Snape was on the > good side and was attempting to save the lives of three others (the > children). Lunasa: Right... Okay... I could be wrong, but for some reason I've always read that scene as Lupin's sitting at his desk waiting for Snape to come with the potion, he takes out the map and gets a huge shock by seeing that Harry, Ron and Hermione are in the Shack with Black and... Dun dun! Dead of 13 years Peter Pettigrew! Lupin then gets up and heads off to the Shack. Snape then comes to Lupin's office, sets the Potion down plans on waiting for Lupin to make sure he drinks it, spots the map, looks at it, sees Potter and his gang in the Shack with Black and a dead man! And then he spots Lupin on his way to the Shack, probably looks out the window and sees Lupin on his way there! He knows it's the night of a full moon and goes after him - To stop him. And then get Black. Well, that could just be me becasue Lupin came in after Harry and Hermione and then Snape came in. But again I could be wrong. But anyway, Snape would still have seen Pettigrew's name on the map. What exactly would he thought of that? I mean, the mere fact that Pettigrew is alive proves Sirius didn't kill him! He's not going anywhere to intercept a insane murderer when he Snape has proof in front of him that Pettigrew isn't dead. And perhaps they spent longer in the Shack then seems obvious, perhaps it was quite early in the day when Lupin went, he must know it's a full moon and he wouldn't go out of his way to put the kids at risk. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 15 17:44:21 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 17:44:21 -0000 Subject: Understanding Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153898 Carol earlier: > > Snape must have done at least two other things in order to know that Harry had gone into the forest and for Dumbledore to know what Snape knew. First, he must have gone to Umbridge's office after Ron, Hermione, Neville, and Luna had left, sorted out the various hexes, and questioned the Slytherins about what had happened. > Neri responded: > The Slytherins couldn't tell him that Harry was in the forest even after they were questioned because they didn't know. Umbridge herself didn't know, when she left her office, that Hermione is heading for the forest. Ron & Co knew because they saw Harry, Hermione and Umbridge heading for the forest through the office window, as Ron tells Harry when they meet again. So how did Snape know that he had to search the forest? Probably because he did the most natural thing for Snape to do ? he stalked Harry and Umbridge when they left Umbridge's office. Carol responds: You're inventing here. Where is the canonical evidence that he "stalked" anyone? He left the office when Umbridge put him on probation, and, according to Dumbledore, immediately contacted 12 GP to make sure that Sirius Black was there. He could only have done so from his own office. If Ron and friends saw Harry, Hermione and Umbridge out the window of Umbridge's office, as we know they did, then Draco et al. would have seen them, too. I'm guessing that the sight of the three of them entering the forest was the diversion that allowed Ron and the others to grab their wands from their captors and escape (they were, after all, gagged and held firmly, yet they somehow managed to cast two Stunning spells, an Expelliarmus, an Impedimenta and a Bat Bogey hex. Certainly Ron and co. did not tell Snape about Harry, Hermione, and Umbridge going into the forest. Only Draco and his friends could have told him. No one else knew, and Snape, being Snape, would have interrogated them when he rescued and unhexed them. I don't see any other way in which he could have found out where Harry went. He certainly didn't intuit it. > Carol earlier: > >Second, he must have contacted Dumbledore at least once (also necessary in order for him to know, and inform Sirius Black, that Dumbledore was coming. (He tells Black to wait for DD, which he could not have known if he hadn't first communicated with DD.) > > > > Neri: > Dumbledore never tells us or even just suggests that Snape contacted him that evening. It's simply not in canon. > > Snape knowing that Dumbledore was due in 12GP could be because this > was scheduled the day before, or because Snape's second call was > through Umbridge's fire (much more convenient than a patronus since > Snape knew she's not in the castle) and the Order members simply told him that Dumbledore was due in 12GP. > Carol responds: Why would Dumbledore schedule a visit to 12 GP and why would he tell Snape about it if he had? Snape tells Sirius Black to wait for Dumbledore, not the other way around. He informs *them* that DD is coming. Quite possibly the Order members were present in 12 GP the second time because of Snape's first contact--just in case they were needed. Moreover, Dumbledore tells Harry what Snape has done (contacting HQ twice, going into the forest). *How would DD know that if he hadn't talked to Snape?* He (DD) goes to 12 GP to talk to Black, presumably knowing that Snape has sent the other Order members to the MoM and expecting them to keep Harry safe for fifteen minutes or so, and instead talks to Kreacher, who unwillingly informs him about the contact with the Malfoys and what he knows of the Dark Lord's plans. (I agree that it isn't really logical to go to 12 GP first, but it's necessary to JKR's plot that DD talk to Kreacher.) Then DD contacts the Aurors and Fudge (who show up a bit late) before going to the MoM himself, rounds up the DEs and battles Voldemort, sends Harry back to Hogwarts, gives Fudge half an hour of his time, and returns to Hogwarts to talk to Harry. There is no time there for him to find out what Snape had done. *Snape must have talked to DD directly, whether by Patronus or by fireplace, before DD went to 12 GP.* DD doesn't need to tell Harry that he talked to Snape. Harry would take for granted that he must have done so or he would not know what Snape did. The last thing Harry cares about at this point is details of the communication between Snape and DD. He needs to know what happened--and what Snape did to make sure that he and his friends were saved. Too bad Harry is determined not to hear it. Carol, noting that these events would fill in the supposed gaps in Snape's timeframe nicely, that they are consistent with canon, and that they are entirely in character for Snape From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Jun 15 17:45:36 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 17:45:36 -0000 Subject: Understanding Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153899 > Lunasa: ...Snape then comes to Lupin's office, sets > the Potion down plans on waiting for Lupin to make sure he drinks it, > spots the map, looks at it, sees Potter and his gang in the Shack with Black and a dead man! And then he spots Lupin on his way to the > Shack, probably looks out the window and sees Lupin on his way > there! Potioncat (using chp 19 of PoA): No, Snape saw Lupin on the map, disappearing down a passageway. The passage runs off the map. While Snape knew it went to the Shack, the Shack wasn't on the map. Nor was Black, Pettigrew or the Trio. He assumed Lupin would be meeting Black (I think) and went to see. Once he saw Harry's cloak at the Whomping Willow, Snape knew that Lupin had Harry and possibly the other two. The rest is history--or possibly interpretation. From kathrin.p at gmail.com Thu Jun 15 18:52:57 2006 From: kathrin.p at gmail.com (Kathrin P) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 20:52:57 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Moaning Myrtle's murder (Was: Harry a Horcrux?) In-Reply-To: References: <44868610.4070704@telus.net> Message-ID: <4e2ac800606151152h2e76fdc3m81a52bffe01c1ac@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153900 KJ wrote: > While I agree whole-heartedly with your timing, I have a hard time recognizing the death of Myrtle as a murder. I don't think that Tom released the basilisk with the specific intention of killing people, that is just what basilisks do apparently. I don't suppose that Tom concerned himself about it, but I don't think that it would cause a split in his soul unless it was malicious and meant. I also don't think that he would find Myrtle of sufficient importance to use that murder as the basis for a horcrux. I have seen a few hardy posters attempt to come up with sufficiently important people to match to the horcruxes, but I find either too many murders or not enough significant murders. Kathrin now: As a law student I couldn't hold myself back from taking a closer look on this 'case' ;-) Of course, since I do not have the book with me I had to work with what my memory provided me with, so tell me when I assume a wrong 'fact'. Also, please remember that I'm German, so everything I say is based on German law! I. elements of a crime (here manslaughter - note: not murder, murder includes a dangerous weapon or one of the other aspects of murder!) 1. objective elements of a crime a. success A person must be dead. Myrtle is dead. b.causation (Actually three theories, but since they all have the same result in this case I'll just use the most common theory.) The act has to be cause to the success. An act is cause to a success if it cannot be thought away without the success being dispensed with. If the basilisk was not freed Myrtle would not have died, therefore the act is cause to the success. c. objective assigning The success has to be objectively assigned. The basilisk can kill people. Killing someone is a judiciary condemned danger, therefore it is objectively assigned. 2. subjective elements of a crime Tom must have acted with intent. (We know three forms of intent in Germany.) We have a dolus eventualis, when the delinquent seriously thinks it is possible and lumps it, that his acts can make the elements of a crime happen. The delinquent must have thought about the possibility of a success and must have been conscious of a possible success. Tom knew what could happen, thought about it and was conscious about the success. We have a dolus directus - second degree, when the delinquent certainly knows or anticipates that his acts can produce a success for the elements of a crime. It is irrelevant whether the delinquent thought about the success or was conscious about it. Tom knew that his freeing the basilisk could result in the death of students at Hogwarts. We have a dolus directus - first degree, when the delinquent intends to cause the success of the elements of a crime. He has to have a goal-oriented will to succeed. It is irrelevant whether he thinks the success is sure or possible. Tom has the intention to cause other students' deaths (mudbloods) when he freed the basilisk. Therefore, Tom acts with intent in form of a dolus directus - first degree (you can't get 'above' it!). II. illegality There are no obvious reasons for Tom's act to be legal, therefore his acts are illegal. III. guilt There are no obvious reasons to diminish Tom's guilt, therefore he is guilty. IV. result Therefore Tom did commit manslaughter with freeing the basilisk who then killed Mourning Myrtle. end of case ;-) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Jun 15 18:47:38 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 18:47:38 -0000 Subject: Understanding Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153901 Lunasa: > Right... Okay... I could be wrong, but for some > reason I've always read that scene as Lupin's sitting > at his desk waiting for Snape to come with the potion, > he takes out the map and gets a huge shock by seeing > that Harry, Ron and Hermione are in the Shack with > Black and... Dun dun! Dead of 13 years Peter Pettigrew! > Lupin then gets up and heads off to the Shack. Snape > then comes to Lupin's office, sets the Potion down > plans on waiting for Lupin to make sure he drinks it, > spots the map, looks at it, sees Potter and his gang > in the Shack with Black and a dead man! And then he > spots Lupin on his way to the Shack, probably looks > out the window and sees Lupin on his way there! [snip] > But anyway, Snape would still have seen Pettigrew's > name on the map What exactly would he thought of that? houyhnhnm: Lupin says, "I was watching it carefully this evening because I had an idea that you, Ron, and Hermione might try and sneak out of the castle to visit Hagrid before his hippogriff was executed." "I watched you cross the grounds and enter Hagrid's hut. Twnety minutes later you left Hagrid, and set off back toward the castle. But you were now accompanied by somebody else...and then I saw another dot, moving fast toward you, labeled /sirius Black/ ... I saw him collide with you; I watched as he pulled two of you into the Whomping Willow--" Later Snape says, "I saw you [Lupin] running along this passageway and out of sight." So Pettigrew was already in the tunnel when Lupin was still sitting at his desk. Lupin was out of the castle and in the tunnel by the time Snape saw the map. There is no way Snape could have seen Pettigrew. It also sounds as if Lupin had spent a considerable amount of time watching the map, more than the 30 minutes or so accounted for by his statements. The Trio would have to have made their visit *before* the scheduled execution and Lupin wouldn't have had any way of knowing how long before. But, as always when I look back through the books to answer one question, I come across a passage that raises another. Lupin says, "As long as I take it in the week *preceeding* the full moon." [emphasis added] So why did he need the potion on the night of the full moon? Had he been taking it during the preceeding week? Does he have to take it every night from the week preceeding the full moon until the moon wanes? If you miss a single dose, does it fail to work at all? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 15 18:53:08 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 18:53:08 -0000 Subject: Priori Incantatem In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153902 Cassy wrote: > > It seems rather funny imo that only the unforgivables are shown. When Harry's wand was checked in the Quidditch World Cup sequence, even a minor spell like Morsmordre was seen, but LV's wand doesn't produce any indication that he used it for anything other than killing or torturing. What about nice everyday spells? > Dave responded: > Remember we only saw the deaths and heard the screams. If there were other spells they could have been inaudible and just got lost in the screams and in the visions of the past deaths. Carol adds: I've been intending to respond to Cassy's post for some time, but the three-post limit has gotten in the way. (Thanks, List Elves, for raising it to five! Raises a glass of blood-red wine--erm, a cup of cold coffee.) First, I agree with Dave that the shadows of other spells (except for the conjured silver hand) would have gotten lost in the confusion. Harry was not exactly in a position to pay attention to every little detail even if he normally did so (which he doesn't); he was holding on to his wand for dear life and exerting his will to force Voldemort's wand, not his own, to release its spells. And he was in mortal peril, with no idea what was going on and only his instincts, the dome of light, and the "echoes" of Voldemort's victims between him and death. Second, I agree with Geoff that the unsuccessful AK that hit Baby!Harry would not have shown up like the other AKs because it was deflected onto LV--there was no dead person to show up as an "echo" or spectre. And how could the Priori Incantatem (no "u") effect reveal vaporization? (It doesn't even seem to show Harry's scar, another indication, IMO, that it was caused by the curse bursting outward rather than by the curse striking Harry. Certainly, it didn't have its intended effect; it wasn't completed, so it couldn't show up like the others, again IMO.) However, we seem to be forgetting that Voldemort lost his wand immediately after Godric's Hollow and did not use it again until after he was restored to fetal form by Wormtail, which would leave a long gap during which no spells were cast, and even when Wormtail returned LV's wand to him, he seems to have used it mostly for torture (of Bertha Jorkins) and murder (of Bertha and Frank Bryce). He had no shoes to tie (to cite another post in this thread), and he had Wormtail to milk Nagini, feed him her venom, and do whatever other petty chores were necessary (change his diaper? Ugh!) to keep him alive (to use the term loosely). There would be few, if any, ordinary spells, even if such spells show up via Priori Incantatem, because Wormtail would have been acting as his lackey. (There seems to be some confusion as to whether Wormtail has his own wand or whether it was left behind along with some bloody robes and a finger when he blew up the street and killed the Muggles, but I don't want to go into that here--or why he wasn't naked when Lupin and Black forced him to return to human form if he left his bloody robes behind. Hm. Flint?) BTW, I'm not sure that Morsmordre counts as a "minor" spell. It appears to be Dark, and only DEs know how to cast it (which, again, causes a bit of confusion when Slughorn admits that he left out that "detail"). I'm guessing that any spell that causes a tangible or audible effect, whether it's an AK, a Crucio, a conjured silver hand (which, IMO, ought to evaporate like Leprechaun gold if JKR's Potterverse were consistent), or Morsmordre, but less tangible spells like Obliviate and its unknown countercurse (used to undo Bertha Jorkins' memory modification) or, for that matter, Imperio (not that LV necessarily performed it during his time as Baby!mort) probably would not show up as the result of Priori Incantem--or perhaps you'd have to be a trained Auror to recognize the shadows of such spells, and a lot more attentive to details than Harry is, even under normal circumstances. Carol, happily returning to Hermione mode after a few exhausting days as McGonagall From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Thu Jun 15 19:24:25 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 19:24:25 -0000 Subject: the whole Christian/Baptism debate that's been going on In-Reply-To: <003801c68ff1$a83eb510$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153903 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Marion Ros" wrote: > > Marion: > When Wizards and Witches still lived amongst Muggles they were hunted down. Burned. Not by 'normal Christians' but by Christians. Using books like the Malleus Maleficarum ('Witches Hammer') and condoned, even lead, by the (Christian) Church. Gerry No they were not. Read the beginning of PoA when Harry has to write an essay titled: 'Witch burning in the fourteenth century was completely pointless, discuss." They could not recoginize magic. Harry's also essay deals with what real witches and wizards did when caught: a basic flame-freezing charm. > Marion: > You suppose. Yet is there *one* shred of evidence that there are Christian Wizards? Except for the 'godfather' thing, which isn't a thing reserved for Christians (pagans had a concept of an 'honorary uncle that taught the young warrior what he needed to know' as well, you know) or the Christmas tree? (which is also a pagan symbol, and remember: they don't celebrate *Christmas* at Hogwarts, but they *do* celebrate Yule - a pagan feast - and Halloween - again a pagan feast) Gerry ROFL. Harry was christened according to JKR. The only people who do so are Christians. Harry has a godfather, a christian term, not a pagan one. That pagans also have such a concept does not mean a thing. If the Potters and Sirius were pagan they would have had a pagan word for it. They have not. They don't celebrate Yule at Hogwarts. They celebrate Christmas. That's why everybody wishes each other Merry Christmas, does Draco feel sorry for all those who celebrate Christmas at Hogwarts because they are wanted at home PS, p 143, Bloomsbury, do they have a christmas dinner at Hogwarts, p.149, does Harry spend A Very Frosty Christmas at the Burrow, chapter 16 of HBP and on and on and on. Every book is full of references to Christmas, and the only reference to Yule is the Yule ball in GoF, which will start at eight o clock on Christmas Day, as McGonnagal announces in class, p337 GOF Bloomsbury hardcover editon. Besides Yule is often used for Christmas: Yule (also Yuletide) ? noun archaic Christmas. ? ORIGIN Old English or Old Norse, originally applied to a pagan festival lasting twelve days; related to JOLLY. Halloween is not a pagan feest. The pagan word is Samhain and we don't know what the ancient Celts celebrated then, except that it was the beginning of winter. The remembrance of all Saints and all Souls is Roman Catholic. For more information see Stations of the Sun, a history of the Ritual Year in Britain and Triumph of the Moon, a history of modern pagan witchcraft, R. Hutton. Marion > Really, I don't understand the reactions I've been seeing in this thread at all (beware: small rant ahead) > If this story took place in say, Shangrilah, tucked away deep in the Himalayans, without (or mostly without) contact with the outside world for centuries, nobody would have a problem with them having different beliefs, but put the story in a tucked away corner of reality in Britain, and suddenly (some) Christian readers are convinced that the Wizarding Culture is "just like us, just with wands". Gerry Maybe if your ideas were supported in canon it would have made a difference. The Potterverse is secularly Christian just like modern day Britain itself. B.t.w. I'm pagan, so its no use to blame the Christians. Marion > But it doesn't work that way. The WW is *vastly* different from the Muggle World which they live next to, but which they have completely shut out, don't like, even look down on. But more about that later. > Actually, I dont' agree at all. It is very much the same as Muggle society, with the same values. > > Marion: > What? You think the WW has *christian morals*? You think that it is *nice*? > This is a culture that obliviates Muggels routinely after a 'magical incident' to 'protect itself'. This is mentioned in the books. When Harry and Ron were seen flying that stupid car, several muggles were immediately obliviated. > "Must not be seen at any cost" is the WW's motto. And they go a looong way to protect themself. Gerry Hm seems like any modern governement to me. The War on Terrorism springs to mind. As are countless other examples of governements lying, messing up, trying to wriggle out of mistakes, the Birmingham six, etc. etc. Besides: DD's empahsis on the Power of Love does have a Christian ring to it, to say the least. It is also a universal value, but compared to for example Islam it is obvious that in Christianity it has a much more prominent place. After all, there it is a commandment. Marion > But what if they weren't? Does the WW show any compassion with the family members of a newly hatched wizard? Gerry As we have not seen an example, we don't know. Marion > The Dursleys are scared to death of magic (and why, I wonder? Did they see something that scared them? Did somebody do something nasty to them? This is speculation, but I wonder) Just being smallminded and bourgois doesn't add up to the overwhelming terror they display. Gerry Did you ever read articles written by 'professional' sceptics on the paranormal? Very enlightening. People can be really, really scared if their worldview is threathenend. Marion I don't think that dumping a magical child on the doorstep of magicphobic people is very funny. The message is clear, however. "This is a magical child. You must care for it to give it the protection it needs. You have no choice in this. And when the child is eleven, we will take it away from you again, because it belongs to *our* world, not yours. But for the time being we need some stupid Muggle broodmares to feed it and clothe it and wipe its nose." Gerry Hm, why do I have the idea that Harry lives there because they are his legal guardians now Sirus is locked up in Azkaban? Why do I have the idea that he is left there because they are his -family-. Why do I have the idea that it is normal that an orphan is left with his -family- instead of with strangers? Marion > I mean, really. If you were phobic about spiders, and somebody gave you his pet tarantula to look after for ten years, what would you do? Because people cannot be related to spiders your argument is not valid. Gerry From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Jun 15 19:26:08 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 19:26:08 -0000 Subject: Understanding Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153904 Carol: > Why would Dumbledore schedule a visit to 12 GP and why > would he tell Snape about it if he had? Snape tells Sirius > Black to wait for Dumbledore, not the other way around. > He informs *them* that DD is coming. Quite possibly the > Order members were present in 12 GP the second time because > of Snape's first contact--just in case they were needed. houyhnhnm: It seems to me that either Snape contacted Dumbledore or Dumbledore was staying in very close communication with Snape during his disappearance, closer than with the rest of the Order. Any wild speculation about where DD may have been? He said he wasn't going to Grimmauld Place and that he wasn't going into hiding. Where did he go? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 15 19:49:52 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 19:49:52 -0000 Subject: Rereading SS/PS question(s) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153905 Alla wrote: > > ...just wanted to ask small question, since my brain is in another freeze and it should be something obvious. > > > > Take a look at this quote. > > > > > > > Are wierd- looking woman and bald man somebody we know ( am I missing something very obvious here), or just no-name episodic characters? > > > > Question 2. Isn't that incredibly strange that all those people can find Harry, KNOW how to find Harry? > > Dave responded: > My guess is that the people that introduced themselves to Harry were on duty, either working for the Order directly or just as a favor to Dumbledore. Carol adds: I agree with Dave. Although the Order seems to have disbanded as a formal organization soon after Godric's Hollow, a number of people were still working for or with Dumbledore, including Arabella Figg and presumably Dedalus Diggle (and, of course, Snape if he's DDM). If they're keeping an eye out for Harry, it's not at all surprising that he encountered them in the street or that they know how to find him. (In fact, I suspected something of the sort even before I knew there was an Order of the Phoenix.) I don't think that DD stopped using his network of spies after GH. I suspect that Snape was still keeping tabs on the Death Eaters and their children, Mundungus and Aberforth were still feeding DD information on other disreputable types, and Mrs. Figg and her cats were watching out for Harry. To return to the quote in question, as you say, the man in the violet top hat is certainly Dedalus Diggle (who also shakes hands with Vernon Dursley on "this happy, happy day," SS Am. ed. 5--no coincidence, IMO). The bald man could be a youngish Kingsley Shacklebolt, and the wild-looking old woman waving merrily could be one of the same witches who waves to DD at Harry's hearing--members of the OoP that we haven't met yet? (I was thinking that she could be Hestia Smith, who waves at Harry in "The Advance Guard," but Hestia seems too young and is not described as "wild-looking." I can't match the old up with any of the people in the photo that Moody shows Harry, either, but that doesn't mean she's not an Order member. Neither Mundungus nor Mrs. Figg is in that photo, and the person who took it obviously is not there, either.) Maybe she's Doris Crockford, who repeatedly shakes Harry's hand in the Leaky Cauldron? At any rate, I keep expecting to see more of Dedalus Diggle, who appears in all these scenes and is first mentioned by McGonagall in the first chapter of SS/PS. He's a member of the Advance Guard and is in the photo Moody shows Harry (along with Aberforth, who is similarly alluded to in apparently inconsequential scenes throughout the books). Maybe the old woman is just an old woman (witch), but Dedalus Diggle, at least, is there for a reason--as is dear Figgy. (I hope.) On a tangentially related note, since it involves the early chapters of SS/PS, I just noticed that the customers in the Leaky Cauldron say things like "Good Lord" and "bless my soul" (69)--more vestiges of Christianity or contact with Christianity, along with Christmas trees, Easter eggs, and all the rest. Carol, sorry that Alla can't appreciate the poetry of Snape's opening speech because her feelings get in the way and hoping that will change after Book 7 From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jun 15 20:30:01 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 20:30:01 -0000 Subject: JKR and the Church of Scotland (Was Homosexuality in HP Series) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153906 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Isobel Stark" wrote: > > Leslie41: > > > And the fact that she's a member of the Church of Scotland (as > > > opposed to the Catholic Church or Southern Baptist, for example) > > > actually means she's a member of a church that is quite open > > > minded when it comes to homosexuals and homosexual behavior, and > > > even homosexual marriages and clergy. Isobel: > Somebody else in this thread stated that JKR was an Anglican. The > Church of Scotland is not Anglican, it is a Presbyterian church and > quite separate in its theology from the Church of England. Both are > the official, established churches in their own country but they are > not the same church. The Church of Scotland is not part of the > Anglician communion. The Anglican/Epsicopalian church in Scotland is > the Scottish Episcopal Church. 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. 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, Since I was baptised as a baby and also as an adult, I'm OK either way. :-) From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 15 20:44:38 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 20:44:38 -0000 Subject: Choice and Essentialism (was:Re: Understanding Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153907 > >>Alla: > In JKR's world choices show what we are, not make us what we are, so > if Snape is not as good as he seems :), it would go in perfect > accordance with his choices showing what kind of person he ALREADY > is. > JMO, > Alla, who always thought that JKR's characters are essentialistic in > very large part ( they do have some room to change IMO, but > everybody in JKR's world have a huge part of them, who they are) Betsy Hp: I disagree. I don't think JKR has drawn up a largely essentialistic world. If that were the case I don't think we'd have long discussions under the Sorting Hat. There wouldn't be the option of picking a way to go. The path would already be set. Here's the text under discussion: "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." [SS paperback p.333] I don't think Dumbledore was trying to say that people are who they are, and we can merely discover their true character by looking at their choices. That would suggest that the choices weren't real. The essence of someone's personality wouldn't allow the luxury of choice. And Dumbledore does seem to feel that there were opportunities that Tom Riddle missed, bad choices made. Which suggests that Dumbledore felt Tom did have a chance to *choose* a different path. IOWs, *choice* is important. It's not merely a clue into someone's character (though it *is* that, of course). But, most importantly, it's an opportunity for a character to decide who they are. That's why we have the evil side (Voldemort) trying to take away a person's ability to choose, and it's why we have the good side (Dumbledore) giving as much opportunity as possible for a person to make a free choice. Betsy Hp (writing tired, don't try this at home... wait, I *am* at home... oh dear) From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Jun 15 20:43:21 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 20:43:21 -0000 Subject: Horcrux: was Baptism/Christianity in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153908 > Carol responds: > I would say that the Mugglenet etymology (which resorts to the > *French* "dehors" [outside] plus the Latin "crux" [cross]) is also > questionable. The Lexicon is still struggling with the etymology and > has tentatively presented "time cross" (presumably from Latin "hora" > [hour] plus "crux"). At least that translation has the merit of > keeping to a single language. > > Another possibility--my own idea, though no doubt it's been suggested > by someone else on some site somewhere--is that "hor" derives from the > Latin word "horror," which means exactly what it means in English and > was used poetically to mean "an object of dread." Seems to me that > this etymology fits "horcrux" better than anything we've seen > proposed, certainly better than "whore" plus "crux." a_svirn: I am with you on that ? when it comes to etymology it's always better to stick to one language. Not that it makes me like the word better. It still sounds very unpleasant (even somewhat indecent) and it should be horcruces in plural, rather that horcruxes. Also I am rather sceptical about Mugglenet's interpretation of Voldemort. I may be wrong of course ? my French is hopelessly rusty ? but *Vol* (from French *voler*) can certainly mean both `flight' and `theft' which makes it perfectly OK for `theft of death' and `flight OF death'. But I believe `flight FROM death' is a `false friend'. Because voler means `to fly' in the sense to `be airborne' not in the sense `to flee, to escape'. The right verb for `to flee' is probably *fuir* (or in the reflexive form *s'enfuir* ). And the corresponding noun is *fuite*. (Or maybe *fugue* from *fuguer* -- the same root as in English *fugitive*.). So `flight FROM death' would be something like Fuite-de-Mort, not Vol-de-Mort. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 15 21:25:20 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:25:20 -0000 Subject: Choice and Essentialism (was:Re: Understanding Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153909 > Betsy Hp: > I disagree. I don't think JKR has drawn up a largely > essentialist world. If that were the case I don't think we'd have > long discussions under the Sorting Hat. There wouldn't be the option > of picking a way to go. The path would already be set. Alla: I would not say that JKR completely denies choice, but yes, I do think that who person IS plays a very large part in Potterverse. Betsy Hp: > Here's the text under discussion: > "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than > our abilities." [SS paperback p.333] > > I don't think Dumbledore was trying to say that people are who they > are, and we can merely discover their true character by looking at > their choices. Alla: I think that is exactly what he says here. I mean, why would not he say then - our choices MAKE us who we are. Betsy Hp: That would suggest that the choices weren't real. The > essence of someone's personality wouldn't allow the luxury of choice. Alla: I see it as that the essence of your personality will direct your choices if that makes sense at all. Betsy Hp: > And Dumbledore does seem to feel that there were opportunities that > Tom Riddle missed, bad choices made. Which suggests that Dumbledore > felt Tom did have a chance to *choose* a different path. Alla: Where does he say that? Honestly don't remember. We see Tom Riddle who was bad since he was very young, no? What choices he missed at such young age? I mean, it is nature v nurture never ending debate, and of course I think that the fact that he did not grow up normally, hopefully played the part, but don't you think that it can be argued just as easily that Gaunts "bad genes" played the most important part in Tom's personality development? Betsy Hp: > IOWs, *choice* is important. It's not merely a clue into someone's > character (though it *is* that, of course). But, most importantly, > it's an opportunity for a character to decide who they are. Alla: Of course choice is important, it is just I think that in Potterverse it is an opportunity for character to show who they are, not exactly decide who they are. Although at the same time, I won't dispute that JKR gives her characters room for change of their personalities, but how much? And what comes first? Personality change or the choice which will force one to change? Besides Tom Riddle, we have Duddley Dursley whom JKR seems to be hinting at having a bad personality at what, year and a half? What choices did he miss making? "And they've got his son - I saw him kicking his mother all the way up the street, screaming for sweets." - PS/SS, p.13. I mean, of course we don't see Dudley dear murdering anyone here, but I also think it is a pretty safe bet that this is a foreshadowing of his personality, no? We also have Harry, I mean, yes, yes, kids who grew up with guardians like Dursleys do turn out as good kids, but even though I hate to make such generalizations, I do think it would be more typical for Harry to exhibit different personality after growing up with Dursleys, so why? I want to say that the year and a half with loving parents played important role, but choices? Betsy Hp: That's > why we have the evil side (Voldemort) trying to take away a person's > ability to choose, and it's why we have the good side (Dumbledore) > giving as much opportunity as possible for a person to make a free > choice. Alla: Are you sure though that Dumbledore's primary concern is to give characters free choices or is his mainly concern is to try to change of who they are, sort of, their beliefs, etc? I am not sure of the answer myself, but just consider . How much choice DD wants Sirius to have when he makes him sit in the House in OOP? Yes, DD wants Sirius to be alive, etc,etc, but is that what Sirius would have chosen? I doubt it personally. How much choice DD gives Remus when he sends him to spy on werewolves? Yes, Remus does it as a dutiful soldier, but doesn't he sound a bit bitter to you when he tells it to Harry. How much choice Dumbledore gives Harry when he stuck him with Dursleys? Does he give him ANY choice at all? Dumbledore does what he feels is right, what he thinks IMO other characters would also consider right and they do so, either for that reason or because they have faith in Dumbledore. But of the top of my head, I honestly don't think that Dumbledore is overly concerned with giving others free choice, more like that doing what's right over what's easy. But who decides what's right? Dumbledore himself, IMO for the most part, that is why he is JKR moral compass? > Betsy Hp (writing tired, don't try this at home... wait, I *am* at > home... oh dear) > Alla: Sorry. JMO, Alla, babbling one. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Jun 15 21:35:52 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:35:52 -0000 Subject: Choice and Essentialism (was:Re: Understanding Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153910 > Betsy Hp: > > Here's the text under discussion: > > "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more > than > > our abilities." [SS paperback p.333] > > > > I don't think Dumbledore was trying to say that people are who they > > are, and we can merely discover their true character by looking at > > their choices. > > Alla: > > I think that is exactly what he says here. I mean, why would not he > say then - our choices MAKE us who we are. > a_svirn: Because he thought that our choices are more important than our characters. Example: James might have been a bully, but he chose the Light side ? that makes him a good guy. Marietta Edgecombe is a "wonderful person" according to Cho, yet she made a "a mistake" as Cho termed it. That makes her a sneak. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 15 21:39:07 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:39:07 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys' fear of magic (Was: the whole Christian/Baptism debate . . .) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153911 Marion wrote: > > The Dursleys are scared to death of magic (and why, I wonder? Did they see something that scared them? Did somebody do something nasty to them? This is speculation, but I wonder) Just being smallminded and > bourgois doesn't add up to the overwhelming terror they display. Carol responds: I think that *Vernon's* "terror" results from his view of magic as abnormal and freakish (possibly he saw Lily performing it when he visited Petunia before their marriage). Petunia would have had to assure him that she shared this view (as she probably did, given her intense jealousy of Lily) for Vernon to continue dating and eventually to marry her. By SS/PS, she's been so convincing in her aversion to magic and her magical relatives that he's afraid to mention the owls and the people in cloaks for fear of offending her (SS Am. ed. 7). Not that her aversion isn't real--she wants Vernon to see her as different from her sister, not only sharing but reinforcing his view--but her fear of magic is based, IMO, on a closer personal acquaintance with it and with the WW than his. Certainly, both of them are worried that the neighbors will discover Harry's "abnormality." (Magic isn't normal; they don't have magical powers; their son doesn't; Marge doesn't; the neighbors don't. You and I don't. Even the narrator concedes that Harry is anything but a normal boy.) Their connection with the Potters is consequently a shameful secret, rather like having a mother-in-law who's a closet alcoholic. (My apologies to any list member in a similar situation; I'm trying not to step on anyone's toes. Maybe the madwoman in the attic in "Jane Eyre" is a better analogy.) But, I totally agree, there's more to their terror than this true but incomplete explanation. (Such explanations are common throughout the books for everything from DD's reasons for trusting Snape to what really happened to DD's hand--I could give many other examples of this tactic, which we ought to be wary of by now, but I want to stay on topic.) We see from the first book that Petunia knows more about the WW than she lets on to Vernon. Her "shock and anger" when Vernon mentions her sister are explained away by the narrator ("after all, they normally pretended she didn't have a sister," 7), but I think Petunia knows by that time that something is going on, quite possibly that her sister is in danger or dead, and that she may have to care for her sister's child against Vernon's will. ("Remember my last" suggests that DD has communicated with her more than once.) At any rate, she seems to be overreacting to Vernon's tentative references to the Potters. I'd be very surprised if she hasn't at least seen owls and cloaked strangers herself and drawn her own conclusions, rather grimmer than Vernon's fears that the neighbors will discover their relationship to the Potters. It's no accident, IMO, that JKR has chosen Vernon rather than Petunia as her POV character for this section of the chapter. And it's Petunia who finally releases her pent-up frustration to Harry when Hagrid tells him he's a wizard. Finally, she can say aloud that her sister was a witch, or rather a "freak," who carried frog spawn in her pockets and transfigured teacups and that Harry's parents weren't killed in a car accident. It's almost as if the secret has been torturing the gossipy Petunia, for whom a secret is something to be passed on, not kept--unless it concerns yourself and your family. (BTW, I wonder what would have happened if Petunia had married, say, Peter Pettigrew instead of Vernon.) At any rate, I agree that there's more to their terror, especially Petunia's, than "being small-minded and bourgeois"--i.e, worried about being looked down upon by the neighbors and losing business prospects because Petunia's relatives (and later, the nephew they've unwillingly taken into into their home) aren't "normal" or "respectable," in the sense that they would use those terms. Yes, Petunia regards Lily as a "freak," but she also knows about Voldemort and Dementors, as we discover in OoP. In SS/PS, she accidentally reveals to Harry that his parents were "blown up" (perhaps she's confused, not knowing about the AKs and thinking that they died when the house exploded). Even Vernon knows that magic can blow up a house, which is why he's afraid to leave Harry alone in the house (SS 25). And both of them have witnessed Dudley being given a pig's tail by a strange "giant" with a pink umbrella and dropped through melted glass into a cage with a giant snake. More recently, their fears have been reinforced by the "blowing up" in a different sense of Vernon's sister, strangers bursting out of their fireplace, Petunia's Howler, and the effects of the Dementors' attack on Dudley. Vernon has been forced to concede what Petunia knew all along, that magic is real, but recent events have done nothing to diminish their fear and distrust of magic and everything to increase it. I'd say that they have good reason to fear magic, increased with every book. Not that their fear in any way justifies their treatment of Harry, but it certainly explains their attempts to suppress his magical tendencies and their unwillingness to send him to Hogwarts in the first place, as well as their fear of what the neighbors will think. Carol, hoping that Petunia will finally tell Harry what she knows about GH and the WW before he leaves the Dursleys forever From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Thu Jun 15 21:45:24 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:45:24 -0000 Subject: Horcrux: was Baptism/Christianity in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153912 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > but *Vol* (from French *voler*) can certainly mean both `flight' > and `theft' which makes it perfectly OK for `theft of death' > and `flight OF death'. But I believe `flight FROM death' is a `false > friend'. Because voler means `to fly' in the sense to `be airborne' > not in the sense `to flee, to escape'. The right verb for `to flee' > is probably *fuir* (or in the reflexive form *s'enfuir* ). And the > corresponding noun is *fuite*. (Or maybe *fugue* from *fuguer* -- > the same root as in English *fugitive*.). So `flight FROM death' > would be something like Fuite-de-Mort, not Vol-de-Mort. > Besides, I cannot imagine somebody as arrogant and full of superiority as Tommy to choose a name with flee in it, describe himself as a thief. Now conquering, that would be different. Gerry From fairwynn at hotmail.com Thu Jun 15 20:47:02 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (fair wynn) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 15:47:02 -0500 Subject: Understanding Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153913 > >Lunasa: >Right... Okay... I could be wrong, but for some reason I've always >read that scene as Lupin's sitting at his desk waiting for Snape to >come with the potion, he takes out the map and gets a huge shock by >seeing that Harry, Ron and Hermione are in the Shack with Black >and... Dun dun! Dead of 13 years Peter Pettigrew! Lupin then gets up >and heads off to the Shack. Snape then comes to Lupin's office, sets >the Potion down plans on waiting for Lupin to make sure he drinks it, >spots the map, looks at it, sees Potter and his gang in the Shack with >Black and a dead man! And then he spots Lupin on his way to the >Shack, probably looks out the window and sees Lupin on his way >there! He knows it's the night of a full moon and goes after him - To >stop him. And then get Black. Well, that could just be me becasue Lupin >came in after Harry and Hermione and then Snape came in. But again I could >be wrong. > >But anyway, Snape would still have seen Pettigrew's name on the map. What >exactly would he thought of that? I mean, the mere fact that Pettigrew is >alive proves Sirius didn't kill him! He's not going anywhere to intercept a >insane murderer when he Snape has proof in front of him that Pettigrew >isn't dead. And perhaps they spent longer in the Shack then seems obvious, >perhaps it was quite early in the day when Lupin went, he must know it's a >full moon and he wouldn't go out of his way to put the kids at risk. wynnleaf I read this over again recently. Lupin could only see the beginning of the tunnel under the whomping willow. So Snape would only have seen Lupin going down the tunnel and then ran after him. Of course, he knew where the tunnel went. His suspicions all along had been that Lupin was helping Sirius, so that explains his first running to follow Lupin. After he got to the entrance to the tree, he found Harry's invisibility cloak. Then he knew that Harry (and likely friends) were also down in the tunnel. It was at that point that he knew that he was running after both a werewolf about to transform without wolfsbane, 1 or more students, and possibly (according to what he'd been suspecting) Sirius -- considered a known mass murderer. Anyway, he would not ever have been able to see Ron, Black and Pettigrew on the map, because they were already at the Shrieking Shack -- well off the map. Later, at the Shrieking Shack, he was either not there or unconscious during all mentions of Pettigrew being alive and explanations of Sirius' innocence. All he would have known was that he ran into a room with one student apparently mauled with a broken leg, and students holding Sirius (and perhaps Lupin) at bay, but listening to some long explanation by Lupin about them being animagis. This would have confirmed his belief that Lupin was withholding vital information throughout the year (which of course he was). So Lupin looked more culpable than ever to Snape. And Ron's injury certainly made it look like someone (not Harry or Hermione) had really roughed him up. The only candidates for that would have been Sirius or Lupin -- most likely Sirius, since in following Lupin down the tunnel, Snape would have known that Lupin didn't have the time to injure Ron. Hard to blame Snape for later thinking the students must have been confunded to think that Sirius was innocent. wynnleaf From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 15 21:56:40 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:56:40 -0000 Subject: Rereading SS/PS question(s) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153914 > Alla wrote: > > ...just wanted to ask small question, since my brain is in another > > freeze and it should be something obvious. > > > > Take a look at this quote. > > > > > > > Are wierd- looking woman and bald man somebody we know ( am I > > missing something very obvious here), or just no- name episodic > > characters? > > > > Question 2. Isn't that incredibly strange that all those people can > > find Harry, KNOW how to find Harry? > > Dave: > My guess is that the people that introduced themselves to Harry > were on duty, either working for the Order directly or just as a > favor to Dumbledore. Alla: Okay, but what kind of duty? Watching over Harry? If so, wouldn't it make more sense for them to NOT turn Harry's attention to them? They did what one would have done when spots the celebrity, not what security agents would have done, IMO anyways. We know that the one person who truly WAS watching Harry or was supposed to did not let Harry know about it, didn't she? Although I guess she made Harry's acquaintance too, without revealing who she is. It is just it looks like if Dumbledore hide Harry to grew up far away from all that, does not seem to be so. Besides, what about Statute of secrecy? Harry is not the only one who spotted them, no? Other muggles did to, or am I wrong here? Mass obliviation? Alla, confused one. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 15 22:10:26 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 22:10:26 -0000 Subject: Priori Incantatem Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153915 > Carol wrote: > > Voldemort lost his wand immediately after Godric's Hollow and did > not use it again until after he was restored to fetal form by >Wormtail > > even when Wormtail returned LV's wand to him, he seems to have used > it mostly for torture (of Bertha Jorkins) and murder (of Bertha > and Frank Bryce). He had no shoes to tie (to cite another post in > this thread), and he had Wormtail to milk Nagini, feed him her > venom, and do whatever other petty chores were necessary zanooda: And Wormtail probably didn't use LV's wand for the spells he had to do while caring for his master. Even if he lost his own during his escape, by that time he already had Bertha Jorkins' wand. There is one thing here though that confuses me. Wormtail met Bertha on his way to find, as you call him here, Vapormort. If LV was still without even his baby-body at this point, who then tortured and killed Bertha? The only explanation I can think of is that Wormtail Stupefied, Petrified or Imperiused her (with her own wand?)and then left her "on ice" until he could restore LV to his baby!Mort form. It seems complicated, IMO. > Carol: > less tangible spells like Obliviate and its unknown countercurse >(used to undo Bertha Jorkins' memory modification) or, for that >matter, Imperio (not that LV necessarily performed it during his time > as Baby!mort) probably would not show up as the result of Priori >Incantem- zanooda: Crouch Jr. said:" My father was placed under the Imperius Curse by my master"(GoF, ch."Veritaserum"). So it looks like LV performed Imperio, unless he didn't use his own wand for some reason. This curse doesn't have any physical manifestation though, and I don't know what Priori Incantatem would show in this case. From drgn2374 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 15 20:53:31 2006 From: drgn2374 at yahoo.com (drgn2374) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 20:53:31 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End Clues -- dusty wine bottle In-Reply-To: <4490B47C.90508@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153916 > > Kathryn Jones wrote: > > [edit] provided was dusty, what does it say about Snape's > > living arrangements when his wine shows up dusty. > > > Len: > > A dusty bottle is what one would expect if one were to > > conjure it from ones wine cellar. > > KJ writes: > As far as Snape's bottle is concerned, I would also expect > Peter to wipe it off prior to serving it, wouldn't you? It depends on where the wine is coming from. JKR nevers gives a clue where the wine is coming from. But that is besides the point. When wine is first removed from the cellar it is either prepared to be open. Which means it is cleaned up for presentation or if it is to be served ASAP than you present it in the condition it is in. But the proper way would be to clean up the bottle to show the brand and the age off to the satisfaction of the host or hostess. I could go on and on, but that is the proper way to serve wine. RB :) From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Thu Jun 15 23:12:19 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 23:12:19 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End Clues -- dusty wine bottle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153917 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "drgn2374" wrote: > > > > Kathryn Jones wrote: > > > [edit] provided was dusty, what does it say about Snape's > > > living arrangements when his wine shows up dusty. > > > Steven1965aaa: I recall also that the house itself looked unlived in. Snape's at school or elsewhere (with LV, undercover or otherwise, doing work for the Death Eaters and/or the Order) most of the time, and I got the impression that his whole house is dusty because he's rarely there. From drgn2374 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 15 20:56:18 2006 From: drgn2374 at yahoo.com (drgn2374) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 20:56:18 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End Clues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153918 "canyoutellmehowtoget": > Maybe DD taught Snape the conjuring charm which always leaves > dust on the bottle. Or maybe it's fairy dust. Ok, I'm kidding. > That is interesting that JKR included dust in both instances. > It does suggest a well aged wine or mead, though. Maybe that's > what she was going for. Addition to the previous post. Maybe due to the time essence and the people they were presenting the wine to. Were not considered proper or their firends. So that could be the reason that the wine was presented in a dusty manner. RB, just guessing From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Thu Jun 15 23:09:28 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 23:09:28 -0000 Subject: Understanding Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153919 > wynnleaf wrote: But actually, it makes almost no sense for Snape to put his life at such great risk from both Sirius and especially Lupin, solely to take an opportunity to capture or kill a hated school-time rival. Steven1965aaa: While the teenage Snape was "levicorpused" by James and Sirius and was in grave danger from exposure to werewolf Lupin during the prank, I don't see the adult Snape as even remotely afraid of either werewolf Lupin or Sirius. He badly wants the Order of Merlin credit for capturing Sirius and he is a confident, master-(spell)caster. From elfundeb at gmail.com Thu Jun 15 23:34:03 2006 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 19:34:03 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Rereading SS/PS question(s) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0606151634q67fcb5fdlcef6743ea0e19d13@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153920 > > Alla wrote: > Take a look at this quote. "Yet sometimes he thought ( or maybe hoped) that strangers in the street seemed to know him. Very strange strangers they were, too. A tiny man in violet top hat had bowed to him once while out shopping with Aunt Petunia and Dudley. After asking Harry furiously if he knew the man, Aunt Petunia had rushed them out of the shop without buying anything. A wierd-looking old woman dressed in all green had waved merrily at him once on a bus. A bald man in a very long purple coat had actually shaken his hand in the street the other day and then walked away without a word. The wierdest thing about all these people was the way they seemed to vanish the second Harry tried to get a closer look" - PS/SS. p.30. paperback, amer.ed. Oh, and of course Petunia seems to be REALLY familiar with WW, doesn't she? ( just another detail not that I doubt it) Debbie: What struck me was Petunia's question to Harry: Do you know him? I wonder if she thought Harry was in contact with wizards at, what, age 6? I have a vision of a very flustered Petunia arriving home from the shop with the intention of contacting Dumbledore to tell him to keep those freaks away from her family. Since I don't think she could have sent him an owl, the question that comes to my mind is: What did Petunia know about Mrs. Figg? She evidently had instructions not to leave Harry at anyone else's house. Did she suspect -- or assume -- that Mrs. Figg was a witch? Or did she simply believe that her house was similarly protected? Could she have known that she could contact Dumbledore through her? Inquiring minds must know. Debbie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com Fri Jun 16 00:07:55 2006 From: Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com (kibakianakaya) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 00:07:55 -0000 Subject: Rereading SS/PS question(s) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153921 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > SNIP> > Question 2. I guess I do want to ask about Dumbledore. Sorry! Isn't > that incredibly strange that all those people can find Harry, KNOW > how to find Harry? > > Um , what would stops the DE from doing so then? Just approaching > Harry on the streets and kidnapping him if not Aking him ( I guess > they can have reservations about trying to kill him right away, > knowing that he survived Avada ocne, but why not kidnap him and go > through few nice torture rounds) > > Oh, and of course Petunia seems to be REALLY familiar with WW, > doesn't she? ( just another detail not that I doubt it) > > Thanks, guys. > > Alla > Lilygale here: Harry is an unknown quantity during his pre-Hogwarts years. True, the DEs might want to kill or torture him for revenge. On the other hand, the DEs are leaderless; they would want to know if the tiny Voldemort-vanquisher is going to turn out to be a powerful Dark Wizard in his own right. And if he does, they may not want him remembering a bout of torture at their hands. So they may just leave him alone until his powers and inclinations become known as his magical education unfolds at Hogwarts. Another reason that Harry may not be approached by DEs might be Lily's blood protection. I'm still not clear exactly how the protection works (not sure if I missed something or its just not clear in general.) But it seems fairly useless to have protection while only while literally at Privet Drive, but not while in school, shopping or out playing in the neighborhood. It seems like his mother's protection might extend to other places, as long as he *lives* at Privet Drive, and therefore the DEs could not harm him. But this assumes either that 1. the DEs know about the protection. or 2. that they tried to harm Harry and failed AND Harry is oblivious to the attempt(s). So I think the first scenario (DEs waiting to see what happens) is more likely. Lilygale From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 16 01:21:38 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 01:21:38 -0000 Subject: Choice and Essentialism (was:Re: Understanding Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153922 > >>Betsy Hp: > > Here's the text under discussion: > > "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more > > than our abilities." [SS paperback p.333] > > I don't think Dumbledore was trying to say that people are who > > they are, and we can merely discover their true character by > > looking at their choices. > >>Alla: > > I think that is exactly what he says here. I mean, why would not > > he say then - our choices MAKE us who we are. > >>a_svirn: > Because he thought that our choices are more important than our > characters. Example: James might have been a bully, but he chose > the Light side ? that makes him a good guy. Marietta Edgecombe is > a "wonderful person" according to Cho, yet she made a "a mistake" > as Cho termed it. That makes her a sneak. Betsy Hp: Exactly. While the choices a character makes puts them on a certain path, those choices don't *make* the character who they are. They are who they are. As Dumbledore says, don't look at abilities, look at how those abilities are *used*. James had a lot of charm, leadership skills, magical skills and creativity. For a while he *chose* to use those skills to torment people he didn't like. But at some point he came to a cross-roads and chose to go in a different direction. His abilities remained, but he chose to use those abilities in a different way. > >>Alla: > I see it as that the essence of your personality will direct your > choices if that makes sense at all. > > I mean, it is nature v nurture never ending debate, and of course > I think that the fact that he did not grow up normally, hopefully > played the part, but don't you think that it can be argued just as > easily that Gaunts "bad genes" played the most important part in > Tom's personality development? Betsy Hp: Ah, but I think that's what Dumbledore is fighting against. This idea that you are your blood. Harry is good a Quidditch, possibly helped by his father's good genes. But how he chooses to *play* is totally Harry. At one point he played the game with a wand, and he could have thrown a Confundus, but he chose not to. Hermione is very into order. That's her personality and it's part of the reason she's very big on rules. But she chose to break the rules and lie about the troll incident in PS/SS and that's how she became friends with Harry and Ron. > >>Alla: > Of course choice is important, it is just I think that in > Potterverse it is an opportunity for character to show who they > are, not exactly decide who they are. > Betsy Hp: This is what I totally disagree with. Because if this were so, why bother? Why the long discussion between Harry and Hermione and Neville and the Sorting Hat? If you are who you are and that never changes there wouldn't be any discussion at all. In the end there wouldn't be any choice, because any suggestion of choice would be false. Which would take away responsibility. Peter didn't choose to betray his friends. That's just his personality coming out. And his friends were to blame for not realizing his weakness. > >>Alla: > Besides Tom Riddle, we have Duddley Dursley whom JKR seems to be > hinting at having a bad personality at what, year and a half? What > choices did he miss making? > Betsy Hp: Dudley is an interesting character, I think, because his parents do the best they can to shelter him from having to make choices. But when he goes away to school that shelter is broken. Personally I think his decision to take up boxing was a positive choice on his part. It showed him stepping out of his parent's very, very padded little box of safety and doing something difficult that required discipline. Of course, Dudley continues his rebellion against his parents by becoming the sort of street punk they accuse Harry of being. Which is less positive. But again, it's a choice Dudley makes. It shows us something about Dudley, but it was *Dudley's* choice. > >>Alla: > Are you sure though that Dumbledore's primary concern is to give > characters free choices or is his mainly concern is to try to > change of who they are, sort of, their beliefs, etc? > Betsy Hp: While I'm shaky on Dumbledore's character at the moment, there are too many times that JKR specifically has him give a person the space to make a choice for me to question whether or not the freedom of choice is important to him. That's the entire story line of Draco in HBP. Dumbledore does everything he can to give Draco room to make a choice. While at the same time Voldemort does everything he can to try and trap Draco into a situation where he has no choice. After the choice is made, the path isn't necessarily easy, and Dumbledore may do nothing (or possibly cannot do anything) to alleviate the difficulties. But Sirius *chose* to come back to England and volunteer his family's home for the Order. Actually, I believe all of the Order members have chosen to serve the Order. No Imperius going on there. Betsy Hp From Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com Fri Jun 16 00:30:24 2006 From: Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com (kibakianakaya) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 00:30:24 -0000 Subject: Understanding Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153923 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > >> houyhnhnm: > > It seems to me that either Snape contacted Dumbledore or > Dumbledore was staying in very close communication with Snape > during his disappearance, closer than with the rest of the Order. > > Any wild speculation about where DD may have been? > He said he wasn't going to Grimmauld Place and that > he wasn't going into hiding. Where did he go? Lilygale: Wasn't Dumbledore gathering information about Tom Riddle and Horcruxes during the time he was away from Hogwarts? When HBP opens in August, Dumbledore already has found and destroyed the Ring Horcrux. My impression is that he spent his time collecting and analyzing memories, and delving into Horcruxes, both theory (e.g. how to destroy) and practice (what would Tom choose, where might they be). Not sure if there is canon for this, but he must have spent a great deal of time getting "up to speed" for the events of HBP. Lilygale From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 16 01:44:19 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 01:44:19 -0000 Subject: Choice and Essentialism (was:Re: Understanding Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153924 >> > >>Alla: > > I see it as that the essence of your personality will direct your > > choices if that makes sense at all. > > > > I mean, it is nature v nurture never ending debate, and of course > > I think that the fact that he did not grow up normally, hopefully > > played the part, but don't you think that it can be argued just as > > easily that Gaunts "bad genes" played the most important part in > > Tom's personality development? > > Betsy Hp: > Ah, but I think that's what Dumbledore is fighting against. This > idea that you are your blood. Harry is good a Quidditch, possibly > helped by his father's good genes. But how he chooses to *play* is > totally Harry. At one point he played the game with a wand, and he > could have thrown a Confundus, but he chose not to. > > Hermione is very into order. That's her personality and it's part > of the reason she's very big on rules. But she chose to break the > rules and lie about the troll incident in PS/SS and that's how she > became friends with Harry and Ron. Alla: Um, forgive me for babbling again, because strictly philosophical debates are not my strong forte. So, I may do some back tracking, reformulate, etc. Let me just say again, I do not deny the existance of choice. The question for me is how much their choices are guided by what they are. You brought Hermione in. Yes, she is into Order, very much. BUT is that the primary characteristic of her personality or is it a big one but not the most important one? THAT's what I am trying to say. Hermione liking the rules is just the part of Hermione, but when you think of Hermione as courageous, loyal friend, someone who as we learn later on has a very similar values to Ron and Harry in the good vs evil fight, was that choice of hers so AGAINST her personality or was that her TRUE personality coming through? I am not sure myself about blood as showing of existentialism in the books. What I am saying is that who the characters are plays the huge role. I am not quite sure that who they are equals their blood, so probably genes was the wrong example, although on the other hand Gaunts behaviour, ugliness ( abuse, etc) is coming from somewhere. Not sure. Have to think on it. > > >>Alla: > > Of course choice is important, it is just I think that in > > Potterverse it is an opportunity for character to show who they > > are, not exactly decide who they are. > > > > Betsy Hp: > This is what I totally disagree with. Because if this were so, why > bother? Why the long discussion between Harry and Hermione and > Neville and the Sorting Hat? If you are who you are and that never > changes there wouldn't be any discussion at all. Alla: But how do you know that discussion between kids and Sorting Hat was kids making a choice? Could it be that again their true personality shined through? As we know Sorting Hat never offered to put Harry in Slytherin, Harry showed that he did not want to be there, BECAUSE of who he is? Although, since I find the Houses division to be very superficial, maybe those are not the best examples either. > > >>Alla: > > Besides Tom Riddle, we have Duddley Dursley whom JKR seems to be > > hinting at having a bad personality at what, year and a half? What > > choices did he miss making? > > > > Betsy Hp: > Dudley is an interesting character, I think, because his parents do > the best they can to shelter him from having to make choices. But > when he goes away to school that shelter is broken. Personally I > think his decision to take up boxing was a positive choice on his > part. It showed him stepping out of his parent's very, very padded > little box of safety and doing something difficult that required > discipline. > > Of course, Dudley continues his rebellion against his parents by > becoming the sort of street punk they accuse Harry of being. Which > is less positive. But again, it's a choice Dudley makes. It shows > us something about Dudley, but it was *Dudley's* choice. Alla: But again I am not saying that Dudley never makes any choices. What I am saying that at the very young age we see the possibility that Dudley is going to be not a good person and indeed he is NOT a good person, IMO. He has a large part of himself of who he is, that is all. It does not prevent him from making choices? Again, sorry for awkwardness of this post. :) Alla From kjones at telus.net Fri Jun 16 01:49:49 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 18:49:49 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Moaning Myrtle's murder (Was: Harry a Horcrux?) In-Reply-To: <4e2ac800606151152h2e76fdc3m81a52bffe01c1ac@mail.gmail.com> References: <44868610.4070704@telus.net> <4e2ac800606151152h2e76fdc3m81a52bffe01c1ac@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <44920E3D.3080100@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 153925 Kathrin P wrote: > Kathrin now: > > As a law student I couldn't hold myself back from taking a closer look on > this 'case' ;-) Of course, since I do not have the book with me I had to > work with what my memory provided me with, so tell me when I assume a wrong > 'fact'. Also, please remember that I'm German, so everything I say is based > on German law! KJ writes: Excellent presentation. I, however, must disagree, based on experience in Canadian law as an RCM Police constable, and canon in the books. I believe that the evidence would be presented as follows: 1. While we know that Tom did indeed release the basilisk, we are not told of his actual intentions. We have only the remark that he intended to continue Salazar's great work as a fifty-year old memory of himself. As Salazar accomplished many other things besides murdering students, this would be insufficient to prove intent. We don't know if he actually released the snake or simply opened the tunnel to bond with the thing. 2. We know that Tom was speaking to the basilisk when he opened the tunnel to the chamber, but we do not know what he said. No one else understands parseltongue. It could not be proven in court that Tom had actually issued instructions to the snake to murder Muggleborn students. He might have been offering it dinner. 3. Myrtle, herself, says that she heard a voice and opened the stall door to tell Tom to go away. All she saw when she opened the door was a pair of yellow eyes. Looking into its eyes killed her. There is nothing to prove that the snake was attacking Myrtle. If the basilisk turned to look at the sound of the door opening, the same thing would have occurred. 4. As the snake kills as a result of simply existing, and assuming that Tom knew that, he could possibly be found guilty of criminal negligence causing death. It would also be difficult to prove that he knew that, prior to the death of Myrtle because, for some reason, Tom could deal with it without being killed. He would be able to testify that as nothing untoward happened to him, he could not be expected to realize that it would happen to anyone else. I'm rather curious as to why he could look at it and associate with it and not be killed. Flint? 5. Following the whole episode, he again confined the snake so that it could not happen again. He may have had his own reasons for doing so, but we are only interested in the presentation of the bald truth and not supposition. 6. Finally, there were no living witnesses to even suggest that Tom was anywhere in the vicinity of the basilisk when it all happened. Myrtle could not identify the person in the bathroom, assuming that a ghost would be allowed to testify. Her statements would only prove that an unidentified male was talking in the bathroom. All she saw were two eyes. She could not even definitely state that she was looking at a basilisk. I would not want to prosecute this one! KJ From kjones at telus.net Fri Jun 16 02:02:04 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 19:02:04 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Spinner's End Clues In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4492111C.3050507@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 153926 drgn2374 wrote: > "canyoutellmehowtoget": >> Maybe DD taught Snape the conjuring charm which always leaves >> dust on the bottle. Or maybe it's fairy dust. Ok, I'm kidding. >> That is interesting that JKR included dust in both instances. >> It does suggest a well aged wine or mead, though. Maybe that's >> what she was going for. > > > Addition to the previous post. Maybe due to the time essence and > the people they were presenting the wine to. Were not considered > proper or their firends. So that could be the reason that the wine > was presented in a dusty manner. > > RB, just guessing KJ: I have been seeing some great answers but I am thinking that I was not clear in my interest in the dusty bottle. We are treated to a specific comparison in these two scenes. In one, Snape sends PP to *his* wine cellar for a bottle of wine. It is described as dusty. In the next scene, DD, in a house *not his own*, conjures a bottle of mead which is also described as dusty. Surely, not every bottle in Britain is dusty! I am wondering if this is a clue that this is not actually Snape's true residence but rather an address used only when stuck with Peter or contacting other DE. I can see no other reason for her description of the darn dusty bottles. KJ From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Jun 16 03:03:20 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 03:03:20 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End Clues In-Reply-To: <4492111C.3050507@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153927 > KJ: Surely, not every bottle in Britain is dusty! I > am wondering if this is a clue that this is not actually Snape's true > residence but rather an address used only when stuck with Peter or > contacting other DE. I can see no other reason for her description of > the darn dusty bottles. Potioncat: Spinner's End is full of books...who do we know who complains of having too many books? DD also comments on enjoying knitting patterns, spinning and knitting are similar occupations. Not long after DD offers the dusty mead, he's covered in spiders. Except that some of us think Spinner's End sounds the sort of place Snape may have grown up, we have no way of knowing if he ever really lives(ed) there. We know he's used it long enough that Narcissa can find her way and pay a surprise call. More and more questions.... From elfundeb at gmail.com Fri Jun 16 03:28:43 2006 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 23:28:43 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Choice and Essentialism (was:Re: Understanding Snape) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0606152028y6c850718k65bf9723cb7564f7@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153928 > > Betsy Hp: > > > Here's the text under discussion: > > > "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more > > > than our abilities." [SS paperback p.333] > > > I don't think Dumbledore was trying to say that people are who > > > they are, and we can merely discover their true character by > > > looking at their choices. > > > >>Alla: > > > I think that is exactly what he says here. I mean, why would not > > > he say then - our choices MAKE us who we are. > Debbie: I always thought the debates over predestination vs. free will were rather pointless because, from our own perspective, we always have free will. "Who we are" at age 11 is not necessarily who we are at age 18, or 50, or 150. Who we become depends on our choices. I have probably come full circle by now in the interpretation of that quote. I first placed JKR in the free-will camp, then I shifted over to Alla's view, but now I have swung back to the free-will side. And I think the strongest evidence of that is the theme of redemption. Betsy Hp provided some good examples: > James had a lot of charm, leadership skills, magical skills and > creativity. For a while he *chose* to use those skills to torment > people he didn't like. But at some point he came to a cross-roads > and chose to go in a different direction. His abilities remained, > but he chose to use those abilities in a different way. > > Debbie: > And take Snape, for example. Snape made undeniably bad choices in his youth. He hung out with the wrong crowd. He demonstrated a knowledge of too many curses. And, of course, he joined the Death Eaters. But we are made to understand that he left the Death Eaters, too. Even if Snape is not DDM!, the possibility of redemption is always present. Dumbledore treated Snape as a Good Guy, illustrating that the door to redemption is always open. Thus, our choices don't tar and feather us with permanent labels. > >>Alla: > > Of course choice is important, it is just I think that in > > Potterverse it is an opportunity for character to show who they > > are, not exactly decide who they are. > Debbie: Choice is also an opportunity for a person or character to show what they can become. JKR's characters are not unchangeable cartoon cutouts. Why would Dumbledore waste his last moments persuading Draco to change his mind if his attempts to kill him irrefutably showed Draco's character? Why would he give out those second chances that Hagrid is so grateful for? And further evidence that *choice* is important in and of itself: Imperius, which takes away the victim's freedom of choice, is an Unforgivable Curse. > > >>Alla: > > Are you sure though that Dumbledore's primary concern is to give > > characters free choices or is his mainly concern is to try to > > change of who they are, sort of, their beliefs, etc? > Debbie: There is no question that JKR sees Dumbledore as a moral center of the series (I acknowledge that some readers disagree with JKR here). Dumbledore is motivated to encourage others to join the *good* side, hence his speech to Draco on the Tower. However, any genuine conversion must be prompted by the character's own decision, i.e. free will. He does not tell Harry anything in PS/SS -- the temptation is there but it is Harry who decides to go through the trapdoor by himself. > >>a_svirn: > Because he thought that our choices are more important than our > characters. Example: James might have been a bully, but he chose > the Light side ? that makes him a good guy. Marietta Edgecombe is > a "wonderful person" according to Cho, yet she made a "a mistake" > as Cho termed it. That makes her a sneak. Debbie: Ah, Marietta. I find it very discomforting to attempt to divide people into "good" and "bad" based on a single choice. Even Sirius (not one of my favorite characters) reminded Harry that the world is not divided into good people and Death Eaters. Many good people are not in the Order. Indeed, many of these good people allowed Voldemort to triumph in the first place simply by doing nothing. While Marietta is a bad example because she's not an important enough character. Her sole role in HP was to betray the DA so she is remembered solely as a sneak. However, a person is more than the worst thing he/she has ever done. Marietta is not *just* a sneak (don't get me started on how sneaky Hermione was here). She was a good enough friend to accompany her to events that made her uncomfortable. She undoubtedly regrets what she did (especially since she can't remember it!). And we don't know if she will learn from her error. Debbie who thinks Dudley is redeemable, too, even though he plays at juvenile delinquency > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From enlil65 at gmail.com Fri Jun 16 03:55:35 2006 From: enlil65 at gmail.com (Peggy Wilkins) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 22:55:35 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Priori Incantatum In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1789c2360606152055v4162633bnb9ce5ee8e638203e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153929 On 6/15/06, Dave wrote: Dave: > Remember we only saw the deaths and heard the screams. If there were > other spells they could have been inaudible and just got lost in the > screams and in the visions of the past deaths. For the most part this seems to be the case, though Geoff already pointed out that Wormtail's newly conjured hand also comes out of the wand. I can see how some minor spells may have been overshadowed by the louder and more dramatic ones such as Crucio. However, it still seems counterintuitive that the Avada Kedavra that Voldemort fired at Harry that then backfired on him, ripping him from his body, could be overlooked or undramatic. Or maybe it could... Some have suggested that since there was no visible result (no corpse; no hand; no Dark Mark as at the QWC; etc.), that could account for the AK's absence. I could see this, perhaps, since the "Prior Incantato" effect is described as producing a shadowy, smoky "ghost of a spell". Perhaps it is just too difficult to see what would amount to a ghost of (as Voldemort terms himself in his Vapormort period) something that is less than the meanest ghost. Still, mightn't we have expected a flash of light or something? So my conclusion is, either the failed AK didn't show up at all, directly because it never completed and is still "caught" or "hung up" between Harry and Voldemort (the basis of the scar connection?); or the effect of ghosting something less than a ghost was simply too subtle to observe. Peggy W., who, if that had been my wand, would have been extremely embarrassed by what came out of it... -- Peggy Wilkins enlil65 at gmail.com From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Jun 16 04:12:18 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 04:12:18 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End Clues In-Reply-To: <4492111C.3050507@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153930 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Jones wrote: > > I have been seeing some great answers but I am thinking that I was not clear in my interest in the dusty bottle. We are treated to a specific comparison in these two scenes. In one, Snape sends PP to *his* wine cellar for a bottle of wine. It is described as dusty. In the next scene, DD, in a house *not his own*, conjures a bottle of mead which is also described as dusty. Surely, not every bottle in Britain is dusty! I am wondering if this is a clue that this is not actually Snape's true residence but rather an address used only when stuck with Peter or contacting other DE. I can see no other reason for her description of the darn dusty bottles. > Tonks: I would think that she is just saying that the wine or mead is good, old, best stock sort of thing. Dusty also implies that the person serving it does not drink much and that this is a special occassion. I never thought of the fact before that the 2 scenes where happening at the same time in different places. There might be something to that fact. Maybe we should compare what transpired in each place. Go back over both word for word and look very carefully. Are there any things there that might match up?? I don't have time to do that, but it is a suggestion for another detective to explore. Tonks_op From patriciah711 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 16 02:49:26 2006 From: patriciah711 at yahoo.com (Patricia Hurley) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 19:49:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Who knows about Horcuxes? (Was: Minerva and Tom: 6 theories) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060616024926.43996.qmail@web52805.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153931 Chrusotoxos: > Why didn't Dumbledore tell her about Horcruxes? Nick: >> Dumbledore can't people that he knows about the horcruxes. What if Voldemort catches them and forces them through legilmency to reveal all they know? Game's up. Dumbledore did tell one other person: Snape. Snape's skills as an occulmens would make him the only person that Dumbledore would be able to trust with that information. The fact that Snape knows about the Horcruxes and Voldemort hasn't acted on it would be a very good indication that Snape is 1) trustworthy and 2) capable of closing his mind to the Dark Lord. Also I don't buy the Bellatrix told Regulus theory. R.A.B. "discovered" the secret. The word choice does not jive with a blundering exchange of confidence. << Patricia: I definitely think that Dumbledore was too bright to tell every non- DE about the horcruxes. Just because MM didn't know doesn't mean that she is evil. Knowing LV's power as an Legilmency expert he would never tell anyone who would create a liability, even his close friend Minerva. I have also seen some comments about who else knows about the Horcuxes. Here's my thoughts: 1. LV told a different DE about each Horcrux except for the mysterious unknown one (perhaps Snape knows about this one?!?!) but he didn't reveal the importance of them. In this way the secrets are all protected but not exposed to a great number of people. Lucius knew about the diary (even if he didn't understand the power of it). Perhaps Bellatrix knew about the locket and told Regulus or perhaps Regulus was told by LV himself. Why would LV tell such a lowly DE? Because.... 2. Every death DE thinks he or she is the most loyal and important. We see this theme over and over again. Perhaps RAB really was in the inner circle and the other DEs didn't know or failed to realize or assumed he wasn't when he turned on them. 3. Perhaps RAB was doing a secret angent job for DD. That would explain his sudden change of loyalites. 4. How are we certain that Snape knows? I must have missed this indicator. Please share. From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Fri Jun 16 06:41:43 2006 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 02:41:43 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Dursleys' fear of magic (Was: the whole Christian/Bap... Message-ID: <229.b894203.31c3aca7@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153932 In a message dated 6/15/06 5:41:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time, justcarol67 at yahoo.com writes: > Carol, hoping that Petunia will finally tell Harry what she knows > about GH and the WW before he leaves the Dursleys forever > > > > > Sandy now: This is the number one question that I hope is finally answered in book 7. I always felt Petunia knew a lot more than we were led to believe, and that was confirmed, for me, after DD's Howler to her in OoP. When JKR said a lot of our questions were going to be answered in HBP I hoped that would be one of them. In chapter 3 "Will and Won't", upon learning that DD was to visit at Privet Drive I thought, aha, finally we will learn all about Petunia and DD, but alas, no such luck. There is definitely more to Petunia than meets the eye and I want to know what it is. Sandy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Jun 16 10:36:42 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 10:36:42 -0000 Subject: Choice and Essentialism (was:Re: Understanding Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153933 Alla: *(snip)* > What I am saying is that who the characters are plays the > huge role. I am not quite sure that who they are equals their blood, > so probably genes was the wrong example, although on the other hand > Gaunts behaviour, ugliness ( abuse, etc) is coming from somewhere. > Not sure. Have to think on it. Ceridwen: I think the Gaunts are a good example of our choices showing who we are, or at least *their* choices showing who *they* are, or even making who they are. Their attitude about being heirs of Slytherin, the idea that everyone else was beneath them (and the feud between GG and SS probably fed into that more isolationist outlook, imo) caused the inbreeding (or other more politically correct term) Dumbledore referred to, since they probably thought no one else was good enough for their status. This was a choice made by some former generation, and each time it was made, the choice did not lay with the people most affected, who would of course be the children of these increasing unions through time, and the couples if the parents made the choice for them. Slight tangent: Reading about the Gaunts, I would not be surprised if Marvolo intended Merope for Morfin. This would have been Marvolo's choice, not necessarily Merope's or Morfin's, but if things hadn't worked out the way they did, I could see it happening at a later date. And being related, they would have had more chance of passing on undesirable traits (the children would probably have been wall- eyed like the parents) as well as desirable traits (I do think Parseltongue is desirable, it's only the uses it's been put to are sometimes undesirable). Alla: > > But again I am not saying that Dudley never makes any choices. What > I am saying that at the very young age we see the possibility that > Dudley is going to be not a good person and indeed he is NOT a good > person, IMO. > He has a large part of himself of who he is, that is all. It does > not prevent him from making choices? Ceridwen: Dudley's behavior as a toddler is more Vernon's and Petunia's choices coming out, not Dudley's. As he grows older and learns more about the world, he makes more and more choices on his own which are his own culpability. Unlike the Gaunt children, who seem to have been raised in near-isolation and with apparently a strong adversarial regard for the MoM and the rest of the WW (not to mention pure contempt for the Muggle world), Dudley goes out into the world, he attends school, he has friends, he sees that there are different approaches to things than what he sees at home and so forth, so he is probably more culpable than either Gaunt child, or Marvolo if he was raised the same way as he raises his kids. When Dudley becomes an adult at, I presume, age 18, he will be fully responsible for the things he does, which of course will come from his choices. If he continues to beat people up and intimidate them, steal their money and so forth, he, and not Vernon or Petunia, will be dragged into court, tried, and possibly sentenced. Of course, he's been given the wrong idea by his parents, which is what Dumbledore meant when he said the Dursleys have harmed him. He doesn't have a balanced idea of what is right and wrong. Still, he sees the world, he watches enough TV to know, that people who behave the way he does get into trouble. At his majority, he will be responsible for his actions no matter what. I think even Marvolo Gaunt, if he was raised the same way he raised his kids, still had the ability at 17 to go out into the WW, meet people, experience life, and so forth, and so is responsible for his actions, too. He doesn't seem to be mentally diminished, just fanatical. He's had encounters with the MoM, he's been informed of the laws, he chooses to ignore them and to teach his children to ignore them. It would have been a lot more work for him to change, as it will be a lot more work for Dudley to change. But at a certain point, there is personal responsibility. At least, that's how this all plays for me, anyway. Ceridwen. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Jun 16 10:43:31 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 10:43:31 -0000 Subject: Choice and Essentialism (was:Re: Understanding Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153934 > Alla: > I am not sure myself about blood as showing of existentialism in the > books. What I am saying is that who the characters are plays the > huge role. I am not quite sure that who they are equals their blood, > so probably genes was the wrong example, although on the other hand > Gaunts behaviour, ugliness ( abuse, etc) is coming from somewhere. > Not sure. Have to think on it. > a_svirn: I think some mistake has occurred down the line in this scholarly debate. I am myself somewhat wary of philosophy, but since we have brought it up For one thing essentialism and existentialism is not one and the same thing. In fact, I'd say they are utterly opposite. For another, although I agree with Alla that Voldemort's and the Gaunt family history seems to point towards essentialism (which would certainly equate blood with "what we are", so I agree with Betsy too) it is more of an anomaly. Normally, our blood is NOT what we are, according to Dumbledore. And really don't see how we can construe Dumbledore's phrase as essentialist statement. He clearly juxtaposes abilities (and character traits) and our choices. He says that Harry has practically all the qualities that make a good Slytherin (except the purity of blood, but he let it pass), which means that his nature is very much slytherinish, but it was his choice that made him a Gryffindor. So ? choice vs nature, clearly. And we know, don't we, that what has influenced Harry's choice was not his nature but his loyalties. He wanted to be in the same house with the Weasleys, in the house of his parents and Hagrid. And he did *not* wanted to be in that horrid Slytherin. If our choices are predetermined by our natures (or blood) then Hermione is by nature a blackmailer, Sirius is by nature a murderer (what do expect from a Black?) and Harry is by nature a slave-owner. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 16 11:26:52 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:26:52 -0000 Subject: Choice and Essentialism (was:Re: Understanding Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153935 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > > Alla: > > > I am not sure myself about blood as showing of existentialism in > the > > books. a_svirn: > I think some mistake has occurred down the line in this scholarly > debate. I am myself somewhat wary of philosophy, but since we have > brought it up For one thing essentialism and existentialism is not > one and the same thing. In fact, I'd say they are utterly opposite. Alla: Wasting the post, but yes agreeing that I most definitely misspoke here. Did not mean to bring up existentialism at all, only essentialism. Sorry! Alla, rushing to work. From comtnlady at yahoo.com Fri Jun 16 06:11:52 2006 From: comtnlady at yahoo.com (CoMtnLady) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 06:11:52 -0000 Subject: Minerva and Tom: 6 theories In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153936 Two flaws in logic ~ There is a bit of a flaw in assuming that Minerva doesn't have memories or information that is important. We just haven't been made privvy to much of what she knows thus far. For example: We know for sure something traumatic happened to her when the Chamber was opened when Tom was in school. "Stiff upper lip" McGonagall sniffles (indicating crying/emotional reaction) when Harry and Ron cover their behinds about being out when they weren't supposed to be, by saying they are trying to sneak up to see petrified Hermione. This is not normal McGonagall behavior, it indicates something terrible happening to a friend is something that touches her. This hints that something happened to her then. There is also a falacy in the assumption that Dumbledore didn't know everything she knows. The two of them have had many years working together and had to share confidences. It simply hasn't been germain to show it all to the readers just yet. "CoMtnLady" From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jun 16 13:58:40 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 13:58:40 -0000 Subject: Understanding Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153937 > Steven1965aaa: > > While the teenage Snape was "levicorpused" by James and Sirius and was > in grave danger from exposure to werewolf Lupin during the prank, I > don't see the adult Snape as even remotely afraid of either werewolf > Lupin or Sirius. He badly wants the Order of Merlin credit for > capturing Sirius and he is a confident, master-(spell)caster. > Pippin: Sirius was believed to be a uniquely dangerous murderer. The Ministry sent twenty hit wizards (aurors) to take him into custody. Considering that in GoF, three wizards are enough to handle a full grown dragon, Sirius was a significant threat. Snape, who believes in backup, would hardly have gone out to the shack alone if he had believed Sirius was there. He says that he never dreamed that they would be using the shack as a hideout. I don't believe he knew that Sirius was there until he heard Sirius speaking and Lupin called him by name. Then he entered the room beneath the invisibility cloak, but remained hidden listening to Lupin's story, probably with his mind going a mile a minute trying to figure out what these two Death Eaters were after and why they hadn't killed Harry and his friends already. He must have thought, hearing Hermione's skepticism, that the Trio no more believed Lupin than he did, so their insistence on what they saw as a fair hearing could have seemed like the effects of a confundus curse. Pippin From enlil65 at gmail.com Fri Jun 16 14:47:29 2006 From: enlil65 at gmail.com (Peggy Wilkins) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 09:47:29 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Minerva and Tom: 6 theories In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1789c2360606160747i6211c8fcj839b2404220aa2c8@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153938 On 6/16/06, CoMtnLady wrote: CoMtnLady: > There is a bit of a flaw in assuming that Minerva doesn't have > memories or information that is important. > > We just haven't been made privvy to much of what she knows thus > far. > > For example: We know for sure something traumatic happened to her > when the Chamber was opened when Tom was in school. > "Stiff upper lip" McGonagall sniffles (indicating crying/emotional > reaction) when Harry and Ron cover their behinds about being out when > they weren't supposed to be, by saying they are trying to sneak up to > see petrified Hermione. This is not normal McGonagall behavior, it > indicates something terrible happening to a friend is something that > touches her. This hints that something happened to her then. Peggy W: I didn't interpret this to mean something happened to her (though I suppose something might have)... I read it as simply part of her characterization: that she is sensitive and caring at heart, something that she doesn't show under ordinary circumstances, but that comes out in difficult times. I found it endearing. I do like your assessment that "we just haven't been made privvy," though. -- Peggy Wilkins enlil65 at gmail.com From coverton at netscape.com Fri Jun 16 14:17:40 2006 From: coverton at netscape.com (corey_over) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 14:17:40 -0000 Subject: Minerva and Tom: 6 theories In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153939 "CoMtnLady" wrote: > There is a bit of a flaw in assuming that Minerva doesn't have > memories or information that is important. > > We just haven't been made privvy to much of what she knows thus > far. > There is also a falacy in the assumption that Dumbledore didn't know > everything she knows. The two of them have had many years working > together and had to share confidences. It simply hasn't been > germain to show it all to the readers just yet. Corey here. You're most likely right about Minerva knowing some key things about Voldemort. The question is will Harry get to know what she knows? After all, he said he's not going back to Hogwarts. I know Minerva can get in touch with him if need be but don't know if she will or not. Just a thought. Oh and one more thing. Do you think Madam Rosmerta is off the imperious curse? Your fellow member, Corey From puduhepa98 at aol.com Fri Jun 16 15:36:41 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:36:41 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Dursleys' fear of magic (Was: the whole Christian/Bap... Message-ID: <428.362ee21.31c42a09@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153940 >arol >I'd say that they have good reason to fear magic, increased with every book. Not that their fear in any way justifies their treatment of Harry, but it certainly explains their attempts to suppress his magical tendencies and their unwillingness to send him to Hogwarts in the first place, as well as their fear of what the neighbors will think. >Carol, hoping that Petunia will finally tell Harry what she knows about GH and the WW before he leaves the Dursleys forever Nikkalmati: I agree with Carol's discussion about why the Dursley's fear magic and the gradual revelation that Petunia knows a lot more about magic than she pretends, and that she is the one who agreed with DD to keep Harry. Possibly, DD explained originally to Petunia that her safety and the safety of her family was ensured by giving Harry a home until he was of age. Certainly, her agreement was unwilling and partly coerced (not by DD directly, but by the situation resulting from her sister's death and the possibility DE's would come looking for her). In that case, we will see some changes in Book 7, as the whole story comes out about Harry's "adoption" and DD's messages to Petunia. DD may also have left a letter with Petunia for Harry to read when he comes of age. When the protection brought by Harry is gone, will Petunia finally acknowledge the WW and turn to Harry for forgiveness and protection? Some on the list have suggested that Harry will shelter them at Grimauld Place. Harry will extend his forgiveness to the Dursley's as a first step in his own "arc of redemption" or growth toward being a better person and worthy of defeating LV through love. Nikkalmati (who still wants to know what DD meant when he says to the Dursleys in HBP (US hardback at 56) "until we meet again.") [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Fri Jun 16 16:01:02 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 16:01:02 -0000 Subject: Understanding Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153941 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > Steven1965aaa: > > > > While the teenage Snape was "levicorpused" by James and Sirius and was in grave danger from exposure to werewolf Lupin during the prank, I don't see the adult Snape as even remotely afraid of either werewolf Lupin or Sirius. He badly wants the Order of Merlin credit for capturing Sirius and he is a confident, master-(spell)caster. > > > Pippin: [snip] Snape, who believes in backup, would hardly have gone out to the shack alone if he had believed Sirius was there. He says that he never dreamed that they would be using the shack as a hideout. I don't believe he knew that Sirius was there untilhe heard Sirius speaking and Lupin called him by name. Steven1965aaa now: Yea, I agree with that (although I'm not sure from where get that Snape believes in backup?), I was only responding to the portion of an earlier post that asked why would Snape risk his life to try and capture them. Snape was distraught about not getting the Order or Merlin for capturing Sirius, he wanted that credit badly. Although Snape kept himself invisible for a while I think he was doing so to spy and obtain information, I don't think he was worried so much about his personal safety. Despite the 20 aurors, etc. I think Snape believes he can handle both Sirius and Lupin if necessary. I know that he didn't reveal himself until after Lupin gave away their wands but my point was just that I don't see Snape quivering in fear with regard to Lupin and Sirius, this is not his school days as in the pensieve anymore, I think he considers himself to be a powerful wizard. From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Jun 16 17:21:57 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:21:57 -0000 Subject: Choice and Essentialism (was:Re: Understanding Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153942 > Betsy Hp: > Exactly. While the choices a character makes puts them on a certain > path, those choices don't *make* the character who they are. They > are who they are. As Dumbledore says, don't look at abilities, look > at how those abilities are *used*. > > James had a lot of charm, leadership skills, magical skills and > creativity. For a while he *chose* to use those skills to torment > people he didn't like. But at some point he came to a cross-roads > and chose to go in a different direction. His abilities remained, > but he chose to use those abilities in a different way. Magpie: I'm just jumping in here anywhere, because I think this is something at the heart of the series, though not always in terms of philosophy. I think often it's more just about characterization and plot. The funny thing is I remember thinking it was very important what DD said, that our choices "show" who we are, not "make" us who we are-- it is an essentialist statement. Yet JKR in an interview, I believe, actually references that statement as saying that DD is saying our choices "make" us who we are, like she doesn't understand the difference or didn't see why she shouldn't say one thing when she meant the other. So I think we wind up with a rather confusing mix of JKR's basic idea that whoever your parents are you can make the right choice, her not seeing the important difference between "show" and "make" in that sentence, and the way she writes her characters. I think one of the things that is so appealing about her characters is their essential nature. The kids' natures are perhaps a little less formed with room for change, but really most of her characters have their thing that they do and they keep doing it. It's actually kind of comforting to read, I think. We see Remus making the same mistake as a teen as he makes as an adult. We see Sirius always needing to rebel because he is a rebel. Sirius implies that James *pretended* to change to Lily, but that the change wasn't really that complete. As I've said before, I don't think James did really change. He wasn't a bully who became a nice guy, he was just always a personality that sometimes came out as bully and sometimes as protector. The fun part is identifying what the essential part of the person is. We can often be tricked by focusing on the wrong things in a character--and maybe that's partly where the Sorting Hat comes in. People always wonder why Hermione is not in Ravenclaw when to me it seems obvious her character is far more Gryffindor. So as I think Alla said, is is really about choice or just the hat figuring the person out? Right before HBP came out I remember describing the way I saw the world of HP as being a lot like a chess game. Each character is important based on where s/he is on the board, how s/he is carved and how s/he can move. The carving is more detailed for characters we know more, that's just stuff like looks, personality, details about their life. Where they are on the board is about how they tie into the story--Hermione is a more important character than Neville but Neville's position on the board is more important, because Hermione is just a free agent who chooses to help Harry while Neville has ties to the DE plot etc. But then there's the move. I don't quite see the distinction between abilities/choices I think you've described. It's not, to me, that Hermione loves rules but chooses to break them and becomes friends with Harry and Ron, because Hermione's "move" is not that she follows rules, but that she relates a certain way to rules until the moment she predictably breaks them. At this point it just clearly seems like it's Hermione's nature to break rules in the kinds of situations she does, not that it's in her nature to follow rules but chooses to go against it. That's her pattern. Similarly Neville seems timid but his "move" has always been about throwing himself into very dangerous situations under certain types of circumstances. What I describe as the characters "move" is what I think of as their essential choice, the choice that defines them. Maybe choices is the wrong word there. What I mean is that the characters often seem defined by what they do in a certain intense situation. With Lupin he's a great guy, but he's more tested in situations where his desire to be liked wars with what he knows is right--if I were defining Lupin I'd say that was the most important thing. He's a great teacher etc., but the character isn't built around the idea of being a great teacher--that would be someone different. He's built around that flaw of wanting people to like him. That is what he always chooses above all else. Peter Pettigrew's is most rightly defined by what he chooses to do when his life is threatened--put to the test Sirius most probably have stayed loyal to James. (He'd probably be never more himself than when he died protecting the secret.) Peter always chooses to kill or hurt others to save himself. Rats are survivors, and that's what Peter puts over all else. JKR loves Jane Austen and the mysteries in her books are often recognition stories, the "answer" is often about the essential nature of a character. That's why I think what she often does with her antagonists is hide that nature. Snape's the most obvious example--what is his essential nature? Did he really change? I'm not sure he did. I think we may just not yet have learned about his testing moment yet, we have not yet learned what thing is most important to him. I wrote about this right before HBP, as I said, and at that time I was wondering where she was going to go with Draco, who in OotP had had his position on the board clearly defined in a key place. Yet I realized I wasn't yet sure what his "move" was. We'd seen him do plenty of things, but looking back I realized I didn't think we'd really seen his defining thing; he'd perhaps been thwarted too often or just been too superficial. HBP then went right to that, putting him in a position where he sped along to meet that moment of truth. The most I came up with then was that he'd always been a bluffer and bluffers in JKR's world always wind up pushed into the role they've lied about playing. A lot of things that *seemed* like they might have been Draco's priority, and could have been written to be, fell away. And yet again the book postpones the choice, I think. We do get more information about Malfoy's essential nature than we had before in that there are at least now things we know that he *doesn't* choose, we see certain things may be less of a priority. He doesn't share Lupin's priorities or Peter's. DD's words are all encouraging him to make the right choice, though it's sort of unclear what his choices are. I guess in a way it comes back to the whole "Mauvais Foi"/Malfoy idea, which as it was explained to me is about making the choice to live as your own true self. Draco as a character is maybe all about non-choice so far. As a character he's active, but makes choices based on "bad faith," which refers to acting as "one of them" instead of an individual, denying your own nature to identify as a label or part of a group--the DEs are practically all about that. The end of HBP is important because Draco finds himself unable to act as "one of them" by killing Dumbledore (perhaps due to parts of himself he's tried to repress or separate from), so is forced for the first time to make his own choice. It seems significant to me that what Dumbledore offers him is actually the chance to opt out of life literally, to be protected by a faked death and basically avoid choosing once again. But the plot takes that possibility away from him, perhaps because no one has the luxury of opting out. I hope that this means in the second half of the story that begins in HBP that Draco, having missed a chance to opt out, will be pushed again into having to make the more difficult choice (not to accept protection but to act against Voldemort). I have a hard time believing that Harry would accept less, or even that Draco would be able to accept protection from Harry. It would then make sense that Harry's last thoughts on the matter in HBP were to acknowledge the signs of choice he did see in the Tower, giving him something to work with, a sort of narrow end of a wedge. It's possible Draco's essential choice could always be to freeze, to not choose, to allow himself to be acted upon...but that's quite a depressing idea for a 17-year-old in a kids' series, and I think Draco's shown too much desire to act and be part of things for that to really work. I don't know if all that made sense. It just really is the way JKR's characters come across to me; change isn't their forte. (It's one of many reasons I can't accept any of the theories where Snape's had changing motivations over the course of the books--it would undermine the satisfying "click" that's sure to come when his true nature is revealed.) This does not contradict that theme of second chances, though. Because often the first chance is what leads to the discovery of that essential nature. Snape did not blow it by joining the DEs, because that wasn't his essential choice. Likewise Malfoy didn't damn himself by accepting Voldemort's assignment and joining the DEs either. I think Voldemort and Dumbledore have very different ideas about followers. Voldemort has no qualms about trapping someone as a follower when they are young, playing to their hatred or anger or thirst for glory or revenge--as you said, in HBP Voldemort keeps trying to take away Draco's choice. Voldemort wants his followers to simply share his desires and choices. Dumbledore, I think, prefers to know his team is making an informed choice. That's why his team is mostly stronger, and also why of the two Dumbledore seems more representative of free choice. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 16 17:40:14 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:40:14 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Moaning Myrtle's murder (Was: Harry a Horcrux?) In-Reply-To: <44920E3D.3080100@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153943 KJ writes: > I believe that the evidence would be presented as follows: > > 1. While we know that Tom did indeed release the basilisk, we are not told of his actual intentions. We have only the remark that he intended to continue Salazar's great work as a fifty-year old memory of himself. As Salazar accomplished many other things besides murdering students, this would be insufficient to prove intent. We don't know if he actually released the snake or simply opened the tunnel to bond with the thing. Carol: *We* do know why he opened the Chamber, as I explain below. So does Harry. > > 2. We know that Tom was speaking to the basilisk when he opened the tunnel to the chamber, but we do not know what he said. No one else understands parseltongue. It could not be proven in court that Tom had actually issued instructions to the snake to murder Muggleborn students. He might have been offering it dinner. Carol: And that would be innocent? > KJ: > 3. Myrtle, herself, says that she heard a voice and opened the stall door to tell Tom to go away. All she saw when she opened the door was a pair of yellow eyes. Looking into its eyes killed her. There is nothing to prove that the snake was attacking Myrtle. If the basilisk turned to look at the sound of the door opening, the same thing would have occurred. Carol: Nevertheless, he brought it up into the school for one reason, to kill Muggleborns. See below. > > 4. As the snake kills as a result of simply existing, and assuming that Tom knew that, he could possibly be found guilty of criminal negligence causing death. It would also be difficult to prove that he knew that, prior to the death of Myrtle because, for some reason, Tom could deal with it without being killed. He would be able to testify that as nothing untoward happened to him, he could not be expected to realize that it would happen to anyone else. I'm rather curious as to why he could look at it and associate with it and not be killed. Flint? Carol: Could be a Flint, but as it only obeyed him, he could have commanded it not to look him in the eye, or Slytherin could have commanded it not to look his heir in the eye (Diary!Tom, being a memory, could look it in the eye without harm). > > 5. Following the whole episode, he again confined the snake so that it could not happen again. He may have had his own reasons for doing so, but we are only interested in the presentation of the bald truth and not supposition. Carol: We're given those reasons by Tom himself. See below. > > 6. Finally, there were no living witnesses to even suggest that Tom was anywhere in the vicinity of the basilisk when it all happened. Myrtle could not identify the person in the bathroom, assuming that a ghost would be allowed to testify. Her statements would only prove that an unidentified male was talking in the bathroom. All she saw were two eyes. She could not even definitely state that she was looking at a basilisk. Carol responds: No doubt you're correct that it couldn't be proven in court, but what matters for the books, and for us on this list, is whether Myrtle's death would be viewed by Tom himself as a murder (using the Basilisk as a weapon) and whether he could have used her death to create a Horcrux (presumably the diary). If it *was* a murder, I would think that it's being his first would make it sufficiently important for use in making a Horcrux. Granted, the WW could not convict Tom of murder or even of criminal negligence even if they didn't have the supposed guilty party, Hagrid (who was not charged with murder, merely expelled from school and forbidden to practice magic--indicating, I suppose, that they considered him irresponsible and dangerous. Tom was both, and more). Even Dumbledore, who suspected Tom, knew he had no way of proving that Tom had released the basilisk from the Chamber of Secrets and was therefore guilty of Myrtle's murder. Here's what we, as opposed to the WW, know about Tom and the Basilisk. Tom was guilty of murder, three murders, in fact, about a month after Myrtle's death. (She died in June of his fifth year, when he was sixteen. The Riddles were murdered during summer break of the same year. He returned to school the following year wearing Marvolo Gaunt's ring but unable to create a Horcrux at that time. So Tom is capable of murder. Tom can control the Basilisk. "It won't come until it is called," he tells Harry (308). IOW, it does not roam through the pipes on its own, much less enter the school, on its own. Tom summons it by saying in Parseltongue, "Speak to me, Slytherin, greatest of the Hogwarts four" (317). Only then does it leave the statue of Slytherin. Tom views himself as the Heir of Salazar Slytherin, whose "noble work" was to free Hogwarts from Muggleborns. That was the whole reason that he kept the Basilisk in the Chamber of Secrets. He worked for "five whole years to find out everything [he] could about the Chamber of Secrets and discover the secret entrance" (312), meaning that he started this attempt as a first-year. After Tom frames Hagrid, he doesn't dare open the Chamber again (i.e., release the Basilisk) because DD is watching him, (and besides, that would reveal that the monster who killed Myrtle was not Aragog). But he doesn't want to waste "those long years [he] spent searching for it," so he preserves his memory in the diary so that he can "lead another in [his] footsteps, and finish Salazar Slytherin's noble work" (312)--i.e.,, ridding the school of "Mudbloods." That this is indeed his meaning is made clear by Harry's response: "Well, you haven't finished it. No one's died this time, not even the cat." And when he tells Tom that the Mandrake potion is almost ready and the people who have been petrified are about to be restored, Tom says, "Haven't I already told you that killing Mudbloods doesn't matter to me anymore?" (312). Killing "Mudbloods" doesn't matter now that he's found Harry, but it did matter when he set Ginny on the Muggleborns and when he was in school himself. That was the whole reason he opened the Chamber of Secrets in the first place--to commit murder using the Basilisk as his weapon. The Basilisk obeys only him (or Ginny, when he's possessing her. Ginny "set the Serpent of Slytherin on four Mudbloods and the Squib's cat" (310). The basilisk did not act on its own in these cases, by Tom's own testimony. It seems likely that the incidents that occurred when Tom was in school, including Myrtle's death, also occurred because the Basilisk was "set" on the victims. (Even Ginny writes in her diary, "I think I'm the one attacking everyone, Tom!" 311.) Diary Tom orders the Basilisk to kill Harry ("Kill him!" 318). If it had succeeded in doing so, surely Diary!Tom, though only a memory fortified by a soul bit (and Ginny's stolen soul) would have been guilty of murder, however difficult or impossible it would have been to prosecute him for it. Does Tom know that the Basilisk is capable of killing? Yes. Does he intend to use it to kill? Yes. Does it obey him? Yes. Does it act on its own without his authorization? No. He summoned it into the girls' bathroom for one purpose only, to kill Mudbloods. He spoke to it--surely an order, not conversation--before Myrtle appeared. How he knew that the person in the stall was a Muggleborn is unclear, but that he intended the Basilisk to kill her is not. Tom himself regards it as a murder "Killing Mudbloods doesn't matter to me *any more.*" Harry regards Myrtle's death as a murder, too. He isn't blaming the Basilisk for acting on its instincts. He's blaming Tom for setting it on her, for "killing Mudbloods," in Tom's own words (though, of course, Myrtle's is the only death, no thanks to Tom). Tom would not have been able to get away with using Avada Kedavra at school, but he could and did kill a Muggleborn using a Basilisk as his weapon, and IMO, her death counts as a murder that could have been used to create a Horcrux. Carol, noting that getting away with murder is very different from being innocent of murder From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Fri Jun 16 18:23:51 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 18:23:51 -0000 Subject: Moaning Myrtle's murder (Was: Harry a Horcrux?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153944 KJ: > [snip] It could not be proven in court that Tom had > actually issued instructions to the snake to murder Muggleborn > students. He might have been offering it dinner. [snip] > > Steven1965aaa: What's more interesting to me is that it certainly could not be proven that Hagrid had anything to do with opening the Chamber of Secrets, and yet he was expelled from school. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Jun 16 18:27:14 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 18:27:14 -0000 Subject: Rereading SS/PS question(s) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153945 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kibakianakaya" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" > wrote: > > > > SNIP> > > Question 2. I guess I do want to ask about Dumbledore. > > Sorry! Isn't that incredibly strange that all those > > people can find Harry, KNOW how to find Harry? > > > > Um , what would stops the DE from doing so then? Just > > approaching Harry on the streets and kidnapping him if > > not Aking him ...why not kidnap him and go through few > > nice torture rounds) > > > > Oh, and of course Petunia seems to be REALLY familiar > > with WW, doesn't she? ( just another detail not that > > I doubt it) > > > > Thanks, guys. > > > > Alla > > > Lilygale here: > > Harry is an unknown quantity during his pre-Hogwarts years. > True, the DEs might want to kill or torture him for revenge. > On the other hand, the DEs are leaderless; they would want > to know if the tiny Voldemort-vanquisher is going to turn > out to be a powerful Dark Wizard in his own right. ...snip... > > Another reason that Harry may not be approached by DEs might > be Lily's blood protection. I'm still not clear exactly how > the protection works (not sure if I missed something or its > just not clear in general.) But it seems fairly useless to > have protection while only while literally at Privet Drive, > ...edited... > > Lilygale > bboyminn: First on Harry, I don't think for wizards in the know, it would have been that hard to find Harry. I don't think they made Harry's wearabouts know to the general public, but it really wouldn't have been that hard to figure out. It is entirely possible that the people Harry did encounter were members of the Order who would have had more information. Indeed they may have actually been sent on occassion to check up on Harry for Dumbledore. Invisibly, of course, as we see in OotP. So, when they happen to run into Harry on other occassions, they knew who he was. It is also possible that they wanted to honor or acknowledge him in some way, even though they knew Dumbledore wouldn't approve. Harry is after all "The Boy Who Lived' and saved their world from a dark and dangerous evil. There are lots of benevolent reasons why people may have sought Harry out. I think more important for Death Eaters would be a general underlying subliminal fear of Harry. As an infant he survived an AK from the darkest and most powerful of Dark Wizards. That wouldn't encourage others to attempt to harm Harry. In fact, I think any wizard then and now would be extremely unlikely to want to challenge Harry in any way. Those Death Eaters who were free knew they had escaped capture by the skin of their teeth. Further they knew that they no longer had the 'biggest bully on the block' there to protect them. I think most, in that moment, preferred to count themselves luck and fade into the background. Finally, we have the protections around Harry. People seem to forget that Harry really has TWO separate but related protections. What save his life was Lily's protection from her sacrifice. That protection is always with Harry, and Dumbledore has confirmed its continued existance on more than one occassion. Voldemort being able to touch Harry only represents one aspect of Lily's protection, the bulk of Lily's sacrifice continues to protect Harry. The second level of protection is the additional spells that Dumbledore put on Harry to protect him while he is at Privet Drive. Those new protections do expand on the protections Lily gave Harry, but they are not one and the same. These additional protections are most vital to protect Harry in that very volatile time right after Voldemort's defeat when Harry as a toddler is most vulnerable. As Harry grew older and things settled down, it was much less likely that Harry would be attacked by any Death Eaters. Even though Harry's protection is reduced when he is out and about, he is not without protection. Further, it is always nice to know that Harry has one absolute place of sactuary that he can go to if there is trouble. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Jun 16 18:49:55 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 18:49:55 -0000 Subject: Choice and Essentialism (was:Re: Understanding Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153946 > Magpie: > I'm just jumping in here anywhere, because I think this is something > at the heart of the series, though not always in terms of > philosophy. I think often it's more just about characterization and > plot. > > The funny thing is I remember thinking it was very important what DD > said, that our choices "show" who we are, not "make" us who we are- - > it is an essentialist statement. Yet JKR in an interview, I > believe, actually references that statement as saying that DD is > saying our choices "make" us who we are, like she doesn't understand > the difference or didn't see why she shouldn't say one thing when > she meant the other. > > So I think we wind up with a rather confusing mix of JKR's basic > idea that whoever your parents are you can make the right choice, > her not seeing the important difference between "show" and "make" in > that sentence, and the way she writes her characters. > > I think one of the things that is so appealing about her characters > is their essential nature. The kids' natures are perhaps a little > less formed with room for change, but really most of her characters > have their thing that they do and they keep doing it. It's actually > kind of comforting to read, I think. We see Remus making the same > mistake as a teen as he makes as an adult. We see Sirius always > needing to rebel because he is a rebel. Sirius implies that James > *pretended* to change to Lily, but that the change wasn't really > that complete. As I've said before, I don't think James did really > change. He wasn't a bully who became a nice guy, he was just always > a personality that sometimes came out as bully and sometimes as > protector. a_svirn: Yes, well, I for one didn't imply that James was a bully who became a nice guy. I said that his choice of allegiance made him a good guy ? because he chose the Good side, so to speak. His propensity to bulling notwithstanding. Correspondingly Snape's ultimate choice of allegiance, for instance, would make him a "good" or "bad" guy ? depending on that choice. Basically I agree with what you are saying ? out of the context Dumbledore's phrase does have an essentialist ring to it. But within the context of his interview with Harry I think it obvious that he meant "make", not "show". What with his many Slytherin qualities Harry could have done well in Slytherin ? yet his choice (and that same choice had nothing to do with his character traits and everything to do with the circumstances) made him a Gryffindor. But as Alla said, sometimes it seems that the reality of the WW contradicts Dumbledore's dictums. Certain tendency towards being "bad, mad, and dangerous" among the scions of inbred (sorry Ginger! I don't like it myself, but Rowling does make an emphasis on it) families for instance. It's not like Bellatrix , or Mrs Black, or Morphin, or Voldemort chose to be mad and bad. They clearly couldn't help it. As for the Rowling's characters' "essential nature", I don't see what other nature they could possibly have. Nature and essence are kind of synonyms. Both refer to the core of your being. You can say that Sirius is a rebel by nature or Lupin is essentially weak. In both cases you would imply their basic character that never changes. Yet according to Dumbledore at least, your choices are not predetermined by your 'essence' or 'nature'. That's why he is a great believer in second chances. Harry could have opted for Slytherin under different circumstances. Draco wouldn't have been pitchforked into the situation when he almost became a murderer if it wasn't for his family allegiance to Voldemort. The comfort-loving Slughorn chose to be staunchly neutral, yet there was always a possibility that he would help Harry (with the right handling). Our choices depend on our circumstances probably as much as they depend on our natures. Maybe because our natures are too complex to allow only one possibility of choice. > Magpie: > > The fun part is identifying what the essential part of the person > is. We can often be tricked by focusing on the wrong things in a > character--and maybe that's partly where the Sorting Hat comes in. > People always wonder why Hermione is not in Ravenclaw when to me it > seems obvious her character is far more Gryffindor. So as I think > Alla said, is is really about choice or just the hat figuring the > person out? a_svirn: Personally, I'd say she is more of a Slytherin (if it weren't for her "low birth" that is) than Gryffindor. And yes, I'd say sorting is all about choices. She *wanted* Gryffindor and she got it. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 16 19:01:36 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 19:01:36 -0000 Subject: Choice and Essentialism (was:Re: Understanding Snape) In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0606152028y6c850718k65bf9723cb7564f7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153947 Alla wrote: > > > Of course choice is important, it is just I think that in Potterverse it is an opportunity for character to show who they are, not exactly decide who they are. > > > Debbie responded: > Choice is also an opportunity for a person or character to show what they can become. JKR's characters are not unchangeable cartoon cutouts. > And further evidence that *choice* is important in and of itself: Imperius, which takes away the victim's freedom of choice, is an Unforgivable Curse. > > Alla wrote: > > > Are you sure though that Dumbledore's primary concern is to give characters free choices or is his mainly concern is to try to change of who they are, sort of, their beliefs, etc? Carol responds to both: I agree with Debbie's excellent post, most of which I've snipped for that reason. As she indicated, second chances would be meaningless if people could not change, and choices would not be choices if they were predetermined by the "essence" of the character. Even good HP characters--DD, Harry, Ron, Sirius Black, Remus Lupin, et al.--make bad choices, i.e., mistakes (plenty of them). Otherwise, they would be mere puppets whose actions are determined by their "essence" and incapable of meaningful choice. And, of course, Snape's decisions to join the Death Eaters and reveal the Prophecy would be determined by his evil nature and the "choice" to (re)join Dumbledore's side would be impossible. His nasty nature would have compelled him to make those bad "choices," just as PP's disloyal nature would have made him betray the Potters and Bellatrix's fanatical nature would have made her torture the Longbottoms. No good (or right) or evil (or wrong or easy) choices here, no mistakes that can be regretted and atoned for, only a predetermined good or evil nature. Surely that can't be what JKR intends us to understand from Dumbledore's remark. And, setting aside Snape and the opportunity for redemption which I believe is a key them in the whole series, how do we account for Regulus Black if our so-called choices are determined by our "essence" (who we are) and that "essence" can't be changed? I like Alla's second question. Instead of reading "our choices reveal who we are" (paraphrased) as meaning "reveal who we are absolutely and inevitably," maybe we should read it as meaning "reveal who we are *now*." If that's the case, a wrong choice can indicate that we're evil or tempted by evil or deluded at that moment, but a right choice later can indicate that we regret our sins or crimes or errors, that we're no longer evil or tempted by evil or deluded--in short, that we can change, that we are not condemned by our nature to a life of evil and error. And surely, education and example influence the character's beliefs and values, and therefore their choices, at least when they're children (Draco, for example). Even Morfin might have turned out differently if he'd been in Dumbledore's care rather than Marvolo Gaunt's. Possibly we'd be better off examining the characters in terms of whether they're static (unchanging) or dynamic (changing and developing as a result of their experiences) rather than in terms of essentialism vs. existentialism. Maybe the choices in themselves don't change the character, but they reflect the character's present qualities and traits--who they are at that time, as Alla implied in her second question. Beliefs can be changed, or DD would not have attempted to persuade Draco to come over to the good side and Regulus would not have rejected the Death Eaters. The whole Snape agument is meaningless if there's no possibility that he could have felt genuine remorse and really changed sides, as DD's second chance gave him the opportunity to do. Even Hermione changes, in SS/PS, as revealed by her choice to lie about the troll to keep Harry and Ron out of trouble. That change makes her friendship with Ron and Harry possible, and (arguably) brings about further change. And Harry has changed, not only in terms of what he's learned and experienced, but in terms of how he judges people (Luna and Neville, in particular). He may be "essentially" good and brave, but he is not "essentially" wise, and he makes mistakes, which he may or may not learn from. If he learns, for example, to control his anger or to forgive those who have hurt him, his "essence" will have changed and those changes will be reflected in his choices. So choice can coincide with "essence" *if* that "essence" can change. If it can't change, choice is meaningless, and Dumbledore's words are the antithesis of wisdom. Does that make sense? Carol, who likes the idea that our choices reveal who we are now, not who we are absolutely and inevitably, and hopes that it will resolve the confusion over Dumbledore's rather troubling little speech From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 16 19:53:35 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 19:53:35 -0000 Subject: Unwelcome visitors and drinks in HBP chapters 1-4 (Was: Spinner's End Clues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153948 Tonks wrote: > I never thought of the fact before that the 2 scenes where happening > at the same time in different places. There might be something to > that fact. Maybe we should compare what transpired in each place. Go > back over both word for word and look very carefully. Are there any > things there that might match up?? I don't have time to do that, > but it is a suggestion for another detective to explore. Carol responds: I'm not sure about the elf-made wine and Dumbledore's mead (surely from Madam Rosmerta) both coming from dusty bottles has anything to do with the time element, but the toasts or the drink motif might. Note that in all these chapters, someone plays host, grudgingly or not, to one or more uninvited guests and that all of the guests are offered or offer themselves a drink. (Admittedly, in chapter 1, the drink occurs on a previous visit, but nevertheless, the motif is introduced.) Chapters 1 and 2 clearly take place on the same night, as indicated by the reference to the fog, and I think it can be argued that chapters 3 and 4 also occur between 11 p.m. and around 1 a.m. that same night. Note all the careful references to the time. (DD arrives at the Dursleys at 11:00; it's nearly midnight when they reach Slughorn's borrowed Muggle house. We're again told the time when Harry arrives at the Weasleys in chapter 5.) If Snape's toast and Dumbledore's occur at exactly the same moment, it's possible that Slughorn's acceptance of the Potions position, which would make Snape officially the DADA teacher (though I'm sure that DD already considered him in that capacity since he mentions only one open teaching position, by which he means the Potions position) occurs at the same time as the UV. If the UV, or the unanticipated third provision, occurs at exactly the moment of Slughorn's acceptance, it would seem that the DADA curse strikes swiftly and promptly, at least in Snape's case, trapping him before he even knows that he officially has the cursed position. At any rate, I think that the time frame of the first four chapters has been carefully structured and that they all take place on the same night at roughly or exactly the same time. (The events in chapter 1 seem to correspond with those in chapter 4, which begins at 11:00 rather than midnight. The drink motif occurs in all four chapters (it's possible that Snape's toast coincides with the drink reluctantly poured by Slughorn rather than DD's toast to Harry at the Dursleys). The unexpected, and not necessarily welcome, visitors motif also occurs in all four chapters: the Prime Minister and the "other" minister (Fudge/Scrimgeour); Snape and the Black sisters; the Dursleys and Dumbledore (also, briefly, Kreacher); and Slughorn and Dumbledore (accompanied by Harry). Coincidence? I don't think so. Carol, noting that Snape is the most gracious host of the four (counting the Dursleys as one person) and thinking that we should indeed explore these chapters for more parallels than dusty bottles From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Jun 16 20:10:20 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 20:10:20 -0000 Subject: Choice and Essentialism (was:Re: Understanding Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153949 > a_svirn: > Yes, well, I for one didn't imply that James was a bully who became > a nice guy. I said that his choice of allegiance made him a good > guy ? because he chose the Good side, so to speak. His propensity to > bulling notwithstanding. Correspondingly Snape's ultimate choice of > allegiance, for instance, would make him a "good" or "bad" guy ? > depending on that choice. Magpie: Oh yes, I didn't think you were saying that James changed from one to the other. And I think James' choice to be on the good side is shown to be an important part of who he was--he hated Dark Magic even as he bullied. I think that links back to Hermione as well. DD says to Harry that it's not our abilities but our choices, and my main reason for seeing Hermione as essentially Gryffindor is just as you said--she wanted it. I've always been fond of a saying I heard somewhere that you become what you admire. It seems very true to me--if you think it's admirable to act a certain way, you will make choices based on what you think is the best way to act. Hermione is smart and she can be incredibly devious, but her priorities are that she values courage and friendship over books and cleverness. When she's devious it's usually because she feels justified based on those values. She's drawn to Gryffindor before she even gets to the school. Perhaps the reason the hat takes so long with Seamus is that he himself isn't yet sure where his own priorities lie. Neville also makes sense for taking a long time since he's been shown to have a conflict between what others want him to be and what he really is, and he's happy to think of himself as not living up to other peoples' standards. a_svirn: > Yet according to Dumbledore at least, your choices are not > predetermined by your 'essence' or 'nature'. That's why he is a > great believer in second chances. Harry could have opted for > Slytherin under different circumstances. Draco wouldn't have been > pitchforked into the situation when he almost became a murderer if > it wasn't for his family allegiance to Voldemort. The comfort- loving > Slughorn chose to be staunchly neutral, yet there was always a > possibility that he would help Harry (with the right handling). Our > choices depend on our circumstances probably as much as they depend > on our natures. Maybe because our natures are too complex to allow > only one possibility of choice. Magpie: That's true. Actually, it's interesting to think of just how characters might seem if they hadn't been tested. Peter, especially, might never ever have been revealed for the great villain he is had he not gone to school the years he did and been put in a situation of trust due to being James' friend. Would he always been had that other character lurking within him? The possibility would have been there. And there are I think plenty of examples of kids being influenced by their upbringing and families, certainly. Had Draco been born a Weasley he might have been as staunchly pro-DD as he is pro- Voldemort, and the Twins might possibly have been pro-Voldemort if they were Malfoys. What would Harry have been like if raised by James and Lily? More Slytherin because his parents weren't killed by Tom Riddle? More Gryffindor because he grew up wanting to be like his dad and his friends? You can't ever discount circumstances. We're all a product of our nature *and* our experiences. What we see of the characters' personalities are really how their basic natures are effected by their experiences and their own choices. -m From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Jun 16 20:14:36 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 20:14:36 -0000 Subject: Unwelcome visitors and drinks in HBP chapters 1-4 (Was: Spinner's End Clues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153950 Tonks: > > > I never thought of the fact before that the 2 scenes where happening > > at the same time in different places. There might be something to > > that fact. Carol: > I'm not sure about the elf-made wine and Dumbledore's mead (surely > from Madam Rosmerta) both coming from dusty bottles has anything to do > with the time element, but the toasts or the drink motif might. *(snip)* > At any rate, I think that the time frame of the first four chapters > has been carefully structured and that they all take place on the same > night at roughly or exactly the same time. (The events in chapter 1 > seem to correspond with those in chapter 4, which begins at 11:00 > rather than midnight. The drink motif occurs in all four chapters > (it's possible that Snape's toast coincides with the drink reluctantly > poured by Slughorn rather than DD's toast to Harry at the Dursleys). > The unexpected, and not necessarily welcome, visitors motif also > occurs in all four chapters: the Prime Minister and the "other" > minister (Fudge/Scrimgeour); Snape and the Black sisters; the Dursleys > and Dumbledore (also, briefly, Kreacher); and Slughorn and Dumbledore > (accompanied by Harry). Coincidence? I don't think so. Ceridwen: I've thought for some time that these chapters all occur on the same night. They're too similar, though I'm not as good as Carol at picking out motifs. I even thought at one time (Carol, and I think it was Geoff, shot me down here) that maybe Slughorn was in the same town as Snape and that when Snape looked out the window, he saw Dumbledore and Harry Apparating in up the road a ways. To me, all three chapters (I'm excluding chapter four here since I wasn't looking at it in quite this way) had an air of expectancy to them. At the time I was thinking this, chapter four, though also on the same night, was a continuation of chapter three. But, putting it in the context of unwelcome visitors and drinks being served, then I do have to include chapter four's unwelcomed visit by Dumbledore and Harry to Slughorn's temporary home. I did think that the UV, and Slughorn's acceptance which is clearly in chapter four, took place at about the same time, sealing Snape's role as DADA teacher since there was now someone to take Potions, as well as instigating the third provision of the vow and activating the DADA curse. Another thing that would include chapter four is the resolution of the night, Dumbledore and Harry winding up in the Burrow's shed, job done. Tonks: > > Maybe we should compare what transpired in each place. Go > > back over both word for word and look very carefully. > Carol, noting that Snape is the most gracious host of the four > (counting the Dursleys as one person) and thinking that we should > indeed explore these chapters for more parallels than dusty bottles Ceridwen: I only noticed that same general air. Others uncovered the drinks motif and the unwelcome visitors. Maybe it *is* worth looking into it a little further, like some blended ChapDisc... Ceridwen, noting that maybe Golpalot's Third Law would work, if we could find the missing reference. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 16 20:43:45 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 20:43:45 -0000 Subject: Choice and Essentialism (was:Re: Understanding Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153951 > >>Alla: > Um, forgive me for babbling again, because strictly philosophical > debates are not my strong forte. > Betsy Hp: Mine neither. Which is why I only tackle these sort of subjects when tired, and why I'm perfectly comfortable with contradicting myself. > >>Debbie: > I always thought the debates over predestination vs. free will > were rather pointless because, from our own perspective, we always > have free will. > Betsy Hp: When it comes to Real Life I agree, so what I'm trying to do is figure out what JKR is doing within the books. Of course, I don't think JKR is writing a philisophical allegory. So I don't think perfect clarity is in the books either. > >>Magpie: > I'm just jumping in here anywhere, because I think this is > something at the heart of the series, though not always in terms > of philosophy. I think often it's more just about > characterization and plot. > Betsy Hp: And there does need to be a certain amount of essentialism for characters to maintain their structure. We can't have Snape suddenly snuggling puppies while crying about his misspent youth, or Neville suddenly beating up first years for their pocket money. > >>Magpie: > I think one of the things that is so appealing about her > characters is their essential nature. The kids' natures are > perhaps a little less formed with room for change, but really most > of her characters have their thing that they do and they keep > doing it. It's actually kind of comforting to read, I think. We > see Remus making the same mistake as a teen as he makes as an > adult. We see Sirius always needing to rebel because he is a > rebel. > Betsy Hp: But at the same time, isn't there a bit of tragedy implied in neither of those men changing? A sort of opportunity missed? Whatever you think about how JKR handled the great Remus/Tonks love affair, I thought it was implied that Remus was making a mistake in not taking a risk with Tonks. That this was a time for him to step up and choose a slightly different approach to life. Sirius is a bit different because in many ways his ability to choose was taken away from him when he got stuck in Azkaban. But even so, his falling into old patterns when he went back home played a part in his death. > >>Magpie: > > We can often be tricked by focusing on the wrong things in a > character--and maybe that's partly where the Sorting Hat comes > in. People always wonder why Hermione is not in Ravenclaw when to > me it seems obvious her character is far more Gryffindor. So as I > think Alla said, is is really about choice or just the hat > figuring the person out? > Betsy Hp: That's where the shades come in, I think. Because I'd say the Sorting Hat is doing a bit of both. With Hermione, well she obviously thinks quite highly of book learning, so there's Ravenclaw. But she's also got a desire to really *use* her book learning on the world stage, so there's Gryffindor. So that's two Houses right there to choose between. But note that Hufflepuff isn't really an option. Hermione's abilities aren't really suited to that particular house. So there's a choice that Hermione *doesn't* have. James could choose between being a nasty schoolyard bully or a strong member of the Order. But it'd have been near impossible for him to become a sedate paper pusher at the Ministry, or a sycophantic yes-man at, well, the Ministry. (I guess the Ministry is right out. ) In the part I snipped Magpie talked about Potterverse being like a chess game. To run with that analogy, it's like a knight is a knight and cannot move like a rook. But even while staying true to being a knight, the knight has a choice of what specific move to make. The options aren't limitless, but they are there. > >>Magpie: > JKR loves Jane Austen and the mysteries in her books are often > recognition stories, the "answer" is often about the essential > nature of a character. That's why I think what she often does > with her antagonists is hide that nature. Snape's the most > obvious example--what is his essential nature? Did he really > change? I'm not sure he did. I think we may just not yet have > learned about his testing moment yet, we have not yet learned what > thing is most important to him. > Betsy Hp: The genius of Jane Austen is that when the big reveal occurs the readers says "oh, of *course*!" and while the character may be seen in a new light, there isn't a sense that she's lied to us about the character. And I think JKR is trying to do the same thing. The Snape in the pensieve, the Snape in the Shack, the Snape in Potions class, the Snape singing over Draco, those are all the real Snape. Even the Snape in Spinner's End must have some essential truth to his character. I think what it boils down to is the fight between good and evil. The characters are who they are, so there's the essentialist part. But they each have a free choice in serving either good or evil. And that's where the choice comes in. Could Hermione, under a certain set of circumstances, be a Death Eater? Of course. Leaving aside the issue of blood, Hermione can be quite ruthless when she wants to be. IIRC someone actually says that they're glad she's on their side at one point. So without changing who Hermione is, she could end up on the wrong side. We see that with the Blacks. Bellatrix went firmly for Voldemort. Andromeda and Narcissa seem to be walking a middle ground, though each leaning in an opposite direction. Sirius went firmly for Dumbledore. Regulus went firmly against Voldemort. And that's all one family, one blood, and, from what we've seen, some rather familiar traits. But even under all that each of them had a choice. And I wonder if that's not something Harry needs to learn? It's interesting because in many ways Voldemort took away Harry's choice. By killing Harry's parents Voldemort pretty much guaranteed that Harry would never choose Voldemort's side (I think Dumbledore stated this at some point). But I wonder if Harry needs to learn how to see beyond a person's essential nature to see their ability to choose to serve the side of good? Not just my friends against my enemies, but those who'd fight evil against those who'd fight good. Betsy Hp From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 16 20:50:15 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 20:50:15 -0000 Subject: Understanding Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153952 Steven1965aaa wrote: > > Yea, I agree with that (although I'm not sure from where get that > Snape believes in backup?), I was only responding to the portion of > an earlier post that asked why would Snape risk his life to try and > capture them. Snape was distraught about not getting the Order or > Merlin for capturing Sirius, he wanted that credit badly. Although > Snape kept himself invisible for a while I think he was doing so to > spy and obtain information, I don't think he was worried so much > about his personal safety. Despite the 20 aurors, etc. I think > Snape believes he can handle both Sirius and Lupin if necessary. I > know that he didn't reveal himself until after Lupin gave away their > wands but my point was just that I don't see Snape quivering in fear > with regard to Lupin and Sirius, this is not his school days as in > the pensieve anymore, I think he considers himself to be a powerful > wizard. > Carol responds; I'm sure Pippin's point on backup comes from Snape's interrogation of Draco in "The Unbreakable Vow" (HBP). I agree with you that Snape would not have been afraid of taking on Lupin and Black together (the "murderer" and the werewolf about to transform)--he didn't "quiver with fear" even when Sirius and James together attacked him unprovoked, not to mention all those hexes that he already knew and others that he had invented. In a fair fight, one on one, I think he would have been a formidable opponent even as a teenager, and Sirius and James both knew it. (We also see that he has quick reflexes even taken unawares; unfortunately the other boys already had their wands drawn as far as I can tell; there's no reference to their drawing them, and Severus wouldn't have had cause to pull his if theirs weren't already pointing at him.) However, I'd be wary of assigning Snape's anger to the loss of the Order of Merlin, though I do believe that he wanted to rescue HRH once he found the Invisibility Cloak. (The conjured stretchers indicate that he wanted them alive and safe, not lying unconscious on the grounds where a werewolf was prowling.) And certainly he wanted to return Sirius Black to Fudge's custody so he would be soul-sucked. That old hatred had just been fanned by Black's lack of remorse for luring Teen!Severus into the Shrieking Shack when they were both sixteen. But Snape's anger when black escapes could just as easily be explained by the man he believed to be a murderer getting away--helped by the very boy whom, in Snape's view, Black intended to murder. That, surely, would prompt a more intense emotional reaction than the usual lack of recognition that Snape is quite used to at this point in his life. We have Snape's words and actions in this scene and elsewhere (though the quarrel with DD in HBP is presented partially and indirectly, no doubt deliberately). We are not privy to his thoughts here or anywhere else. He can hide beneath the cloak of other people's assumptions (as he does in "Spinner's End" and "The Unbreakable Vow") as easily as he can hide under an Invisibility Cloak. I don't think we can safely assume that his conduct in this scene is fully or even partially explained by the loss of the Order of Merlin. That loss could easily have been used as a cover for rage with some other cause. Carol, wishing that we could prevent our assumptions about Snape's loyalties from coloring our interpretation of him and wondering if there's anything about him that we can safely take for granted From glzie17 at sbcglobal.net Fri Jun 16 16:27:31 2006 From: glzie17 at sbcglobal.net (zandi1717) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 16:27:31 -0000 Subject: Interesting email I received.... - Theory about Dumbledore not being dead Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153953 I received this email this morning... I AM NOT the author of this theory - but, feel compelled to post it. I would love to see what the minds of this list think of this one.. Again - this is NOT my theory... (email edited for spelling mistakes and those pesky exclamation points that seemed to pop up!) As Clear as Water An original editorial by Erez R. The introduction of new potions has been a motif throughout the Harry Potter series. In Chamber of Secrets, we were first introduced to the Polyjuice Potion, and following it came the Wolfsbane Potion and Veritaserum. Following tradition, with the release of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, we were introduced to a wide variety of new potions: the love-inducing Amortentia, lucky Felix Felicis, and finally an ominous-looking, glowing, emerald green potion. Yet, unlike the rest of the potions, the latter's identity remains shrouded in mystery. Although there is no clear information about the mysterious potion in the cave, we learn the following about it after reading the book: This potion's surface had a phosphorescent green glow. This potion had something hidden beneath it, and any physical contact with it was forbidden. This potion weakened Dumbledore after he'd been forced to drink it. I deduced that this potion's purpose was to simply weaken the foe who would try to get the Horcrux. I thought that Voldemort placed the potion there as another obstacle to the intruder, a means to fiddle with his mind, so he could not steal the Horcrux. It was only recently that I understood how right I was -- and how terribly wrong. The green potion in the basin did have a green glow. The locket Horcrux was hidden beneath it, and an invisible, inflexible barrier prevented Harry and Dumbledore from touching it. Dumbledore was forced to drink it in order to get the Horcrux, and it weakened him, making him hallucinate and see things which made him want to stop drinking. But was that the green potion's real purpose? To only weaken Dumbledore, rendering him unable to take the Horcrux? Or was there more to it? What did it make him want, ultimately? "Water, " croaked Dumbledore." - HBP, British edition, pg. 536 Dumbledore asks for water. After he pleads with Harry to make it stop, after he pleads with Harry to kill him, Dumbledore asks for water. Why? A desperate Harry quickly obeys and fills the crystal goblet with water from his own wand. Alas, as the filled goblet approaches Dumbledore's mouth, the water in it persistently vanishes. Obviously, this is another defense mechanism of Voldemort's that forces the person who drinks the green potion to then drink water from the lake and wake up the Inferi. Again, is that all there is to it? Or maybe there is more to it than meets the eye? Is the awakening of the Inferi another diversion created to cover something else up? Remember what Dumbledore said in the cave: "...[Voldemort] would not want immediately to kill the person who reached this island, " Dumbledore corrected himself. "He would want to keep them alive long enough to find out how they managed to penetrate so far through his defences..." - pg. 532 So, if Dumbledore was right, and Voldemort did not want the trespasser immediately to die, then what purpose would drinking water specifically from the lake serve? Clues that may answer this question are hidden in Chapter 26. Several lines in this chapter describe a strange behavior of the water in the lake: Harry looked back at the water. The surface of the lake was once more shining black glass: the ripples had vanished unnaturally fast." - pg. 525 Harry gasped as the ghostly prow of a tiny boat broke the surface, glowing as green as the chain, and floated, with barely a ripple, towards the place on the bank where Harry and Dumbledore stood. - pg. 526 These descriptions are highly suspicious, and clearly imply that something about this water is abnormal, unnatural. But what is it? Before we ponder over this suspicious combination of facts, let us go back to an earlier part of the book, to the first lesson with Professor Slughorn. In this lesson, we learn about the Felix Felicis potion, which plays a big role later in the book. Slughorn then announces a competition, in which the students will do their best to try and concoct a mixture of asphodel and wormwood. The winner will receive a vial containing twelve hours of liquid luck. Now you must ask yourselves, what does this have to do with the water in the cave? Your guess would have been as good as mine, had I not noticed a tiny, negligible piece of information given while Harry made the mixture of asphodel and wormwood. A tiny, almost invisible, piece of information which made all the difference: His annoyance with the previous owner vanishing on the spot, Harry now squinted at the next line of instructions. According to the book, he had to stir counter-clockwise until the potion turned clear as water. - pp. 180-181 Clear as water. Why was the behavior! of the water in the cave unnatural? Because it was not water, it was a potion, clear as water, a mixture of asphodel and wormwood. And what is a mixture of asphodel and wormwood, you ask? Well, Severus Snape has done us a favor and sneeringly provided this piece of information in the first book: "For your information, Potter, asphodel and wormwood make a sleeping potion so powerful it is known as the Draught of Living Death." -PS, British edition, pg. 103 The mysterious potion in the basin, then, was nothing other than a concoction to make its drinker crave water. But its properties parallel the real culprit in the cave: It was untouchable and hid something beneath its surface. The "water" in the lake certainly hid something: Inferi, the living dead. Touching it was also forbidden, lest the intruder awaken the Inferi. Dumbledore was forced to drink "water" from the lake, inasmuch as the green potion fulfilled its real purpose and aroused Dumbledore's need to drink, thus forcing him to drink from the lake as there was no other source of water available. This potion weakened Dumbledore, made him drowsy, and slowly exhausted him until, if what Snape said was true, he would fall into a deep long sleep. All these facts seem to lead to one conclusion, and they all make sense. Furthermore, what makes my belief in this theory even stronger is that J.K. herself put clues that relate Dumbledore to sleeping and carefully chooses words that imply sleeping in the events that follow Dumbledore's and Harry's departure from the cave: Dumbledore closed his eyes again and nodded, as though he was about to fall asleep. - HBP, British edition, pg. 550 "Think your little jokes'll help you on your death bed, then?" - pg. 553 Dumbledore's eyes were closed; but for the strange angle of his arms and legs, he might have been sleeping. - pg. 568 In its place was a white marble tomb, encasing Dumbledore's body and! the table on which he had rested. - (Editor's note: The author omitted the British edition page number, but the line can be found in Chapter 30, "The White Tomb.") This also answers the question of how Voldemort will keep his victim alive long enough to find out how he got through the obstacles. After drinking the green potion, in an attempt to steal the Horcrux, the intruder would feel a dire need to drink water, and after drinking from the lake -- not water, but the Draught of Living Death -- he would fall into a long sleep until Voldemort found him. Concerning Dumbledore's death, this theory may foreshadow what will happen to Hogwarts' devoted headmaster, if he's not dead. I would not say that this theory alone proves Dumbledore did not die, as I have no explanation as to how he would have survived Snape's Avada Kedavra. However, from an author's perspective, hiding such an important piece of information so brilliantly and meticulously, just to kill Dumbledore later and have it all worth nothing, seems absolutely redundant. There is a possibility that Dumbledore is indeed dead, but the possibility that Dumbledore is in his tomb, sleeping an eternal sleep after unknowingly drinking the Draught of Living Death, without anyone we know of knowing about it, seems plausible to me all the same. In conclusion, I think that we all can be assured that the potion that ultimately weakened Dumbledore in the cave was not the green potion but the Draught of Living Death, which was so cunningly and cleverly disguised as water by the literary genius, J.K. Rowling. How this important piece of information will be woven into the plot, we shall only find out once the seventh book hits shelves. ================================================= ================================================= The one thing that this guy left out was an explanation for the Avada Kedavra curse. The below information is of my, Chris C.'s (General Chris' ), reasoning. Explanation as to how Dumbledore could have survived Snape's Avada Kedavra: I do remember in the 5th book that Bellatrix says that to use an unforgivable curse you must not only cast it correctly but truly mean it. Notice that all the other times Avada Kedavra was cast, the victim fell to the ground, Dumbldore flew back. I think Snape didn't really mean the spell and silently cast another spell instead under his Avada Kedavra. Why else focus so strongly on the fact they were learning to use silent spells? Plus notice all the references to flame? A pheonix is a magical creature who is reborn through flames and dumbledores casket burst into flame. Aslo - Dumbledore could be an unregistered animagus. It is possible. And seeing as the phoenix is a recurring thign for him, it would make sense that his form as an animagus is a phoenix. Plus Fawkes has been there when Dumbledore was in danger every time. Even at the ministry when he swooped in front of a green flash from Voldy's wand (Avada Kedavra) and swallowed it falling to the floor featherless and wrinkled. We already know that a phoenix reacts to Avada Kedavra the same way as death. It dies and bursts into flame and is reborn. so if Dumbledore was in mortal danger wouldnt he have shown up on that tower?? Look at all the references to Dumbledore sleeping after his "death". He fell back after he was hit as though falling into a deep sleep. His portrait appears and he is sleeping in the portrait. His body is carried to his tomb wrapped up. You never see his body!! And lastly for the moment, Dobby makes a comment in the HBP (May not fit in but still a little suspicious) when Harry asks him and Kreacher to tail Draco. He says, "And if Dobby does it wrong, Dobby will throw himself from the topmost tower, Harry Potter!" (HBP, 422, American version). This may or may not be connected but still something to think about. **The Unforgivable Vow: ""Will you, Severus, watch over my son, Draco, as he attempts to fullfill the Dark Lord's wishes?" "I will.""And will you, to the best of your ability, protect him from, harm?" "I will." "And should it prove necessary...if it seems Draco will fail..." "will you carry out the deed that the Dark Lord has ordered Draco to perform?" "I will." (HP & HBP, 36-37) Snape casting the spell on Dumbledore fullfills the first two-thirds of this vow. Watching over him and protecting him. HOWEVER...The last part of the vow has yet to happen. Just because Snape cast a spell on Dumbledore doesnt mean he killed him.*See above evidence.* Draco Malfoy still has the opportunity to kill Dumbledore later on in the seventh book. Someone had made the comment that Albus didn't have his wand so he couldnt have slowed himself down like he did with Harry after he fell on his broom during the Quidditch match in book 3. However, after reading/watching that part. Albus Dumbledore doesnt use his wand to do it. So therefore it is plausible that he could do it for himself when falling off the tower. At least enough to slow down the fall to not get hurt and still fake his death. OR DD was the Transfiguration Professor at Hogwarts when he taught, could he have transfigured himself into something? zandi1717 From juli17 at aol.com Fri Jun 16 21:42:35 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:42:35 -0400 Subject: Choice and Essentialism (was:Re: Understanding Snape) In-Reply-To: <1150448194.1913.67750.m19@yahoogroups.com> References: <1150448194.1913.67750.m19@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <8C85FA4EA55230E-8DC-4BAE@FWM-D30.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153954 > > Betsy Hp: > > > Here's the text under discussion: > > > "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more > > > than our abilities." [SS paperback p.333] > > > I don't think Dumbledore was trying to say that people are who > > > they are, and we can merely discover their true character by > > > looking at their choices. > > > >>Alla: > > > I think that is exactly what he says here. I mean, why would not > > > he say then - our choices MAKE us who we are. > Debbie: I always thought the debates over predestination vs. free will were rather pointless because, from our own perspective, we always have free will. "Who we are" at age 11 is not necessarily who we are at age 18, or 50, or 150. Who we become depends on our choices. Julie: I agree that we do have free will. We can and do make choices in our lives, though who we become depends not only on our choices but on our genes and our environment. Nature versus nurture doesn't really exist because it is nature and nuture that shape us. And our choices ;-) > > Debbie: > And take Snape, for example. Snape made undeniably bad choices in his youth. He hung out with the wrong crowd. He demonstrated a knowledge of too many curses. And, of course, he joined the Death Eaters. But we are made to understand that he left the Death Eaters, too. Even if Snape is not DDM!, the possibility of redemption is always present. Dumbledore treated Snape as a Good Guy, illustrating that the door to redemption is always open. Thus, our choices don't tar and feather us with permanent labels. Debbie: There is no question that JKR sees Dumbledore as a moral center of the series (I acknowledge that some readers disagree with JKR here). Dumbledore is motivated to encourage others to join the *good* side, hence his speech to Draco on the Tower. However, any genuine conversion must be prompted by the character's own decision, i.e. free will. He does not tell Harry anything in PS/SS -- the temptation is there but it is Harry who decides to go through the trapdoor by himself. Julie: Since you mention Draco, I'll diverge a bit to make my point. DD did encourage Draco to join the "good" side. Draco does have a choice. But Draco isn't the only one with a choice. For instance, Ron also has a choice whether to aid the good side or join Voldemort on the "bad" side. Yet Draco's and Ron's choices aren't really comparable, because they've been raised in totally different environments. For Ron, sticking with the good side comes just about as naturally as breathing. For Draco, it's a painful choice. He has to rethink his whole world view, one that's been drummed into him since babyhood, and he has to turn against many of his friends, not to mention his family, and basically betray his father (and perhaps his mother--I can't really tell with her). This is true of any child from a Death Eater family, or even a family with *bad* views, like the Blacks and their pureblood racism. (Sirius did make that very hard choice to abandon his family's *ideals*, which resulted in his family abandoning him as it were). Everyone has a choice, but the same choice (side with the Order against Voldemort) is no challenge at all for some, but a major act of courage for others. Julie ________________________________________________________________________ Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Jun 16 21:53:26 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 21:53:26 -0000 Subject: Interesting email I received.... - Theory about Dumbledore not being dead In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153955 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zandi1717" wrote: > > I received this email this morning... > > I AM NOT the author of this theory - but, feel compelled to post > it. I would love to see what the minds of this list think of this > one.. > >> As Clear as Water > An original editorial by Erez R. > Tonks: This idea has been around here before. Someone here said that LV would not make a whole lake into a potion. I think they are right. I applaud and encourage any and all attempts to see beyond the obvious in the books. But I don't buy this one. DD is dead. He might come back. But for that to happen he must, in fact, really, truly, be dead. There is however, a chance that the D of LD will be used in the last book. I can see that happening somehow. Maybe by Snape, or Slughorn or Hermione or even Harry since he got it right in class with the help of the HBP. But DD is dead. Tonks_op From marinacat06 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 16 18:12:08 2006 From: marinacat06 at yahoo.com (marinacat06) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 18:12:08 -0000 Subject: Book 7, Dumbledore Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153956 Does anyone know the title? Does everyone truly think that DD is dead? I have my doubts, there was no more mention of seeing DD after (his death), Fawkes' song sounds like he is really working hard at doing somthing, DD did not drop as others who were cursed did, he floated over the tower, there is a hint that DD and Snape were up to something and Snape no longer wanted to do it but DD said he had promised and so he must do it anyway. I have a lot of unanswered questions as we all do but did anyone pick up on the things I just mentioned? There are a lot more things too. Go to the DD is not dead website. (http://www.dumbledoreisnotdead.com/) "marinacat06" From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 16 22:47:35 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 22:47:35 -0000 Subject: The essence of James (Was: Choice and Essentialism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153957 Magpie wrote: > I think James' choice to be on the good side is shown to be an important part of who he was--he hated Dark Magic even as he bullied. Carol responds: Let me first say that I thoroughly enjoyed your clever essay on essentialism in the HP books even though my own view of the subject is rather different. (see upthread.) But I want to look at this statement on James, whom we don't really know. All we have is one scene in which he does not appear to advantage. We do see his teasing affection for Lupin, his attraction to Lily, and his friendship with Sirius Black, but we also see his arrogance and egotism, his tolerance for or encouragement of PP's slobbering adulation, his willingness to amuse the equally arrogant Sirius Black by attacking someone they both dislike two-on-one and without provocation, and his habit of hexing people in the hallways simply because they annoy him. In contrast to this less than attractive picture, we have his apparently daring rescue of Severus from werewof!Remus (in which he contrasts favorably to the instigator of the incident, Sirius), decision to join the Order, his marriage to Lily, and his unquestionably heroic death protecting, or trying to protect, his wife and child. At school, we have his frequent detentions contrasted with his appointment as Head Boy. The cleverness he showed in becoming an Animagus and his contributions to the Marauder's Map is balanced by his serious lack of judgment and responsibility (shared by all the Marauders) in endangering the people of Hogsmeade by running with a werewolf. After he left Hogwarts, we have his marked preference for Sirius Black over his other friends, his rejection of DD's offer to be Secret Keeper, his misplaced (and ultimately fatal) trust in PP. We have admittedly biased statements from Snape on the one hand and Lupin/Black/McGonagall on the other. Snape sees only his arrogance and bullying (and also the ultimate indignity, saving his life); the others see only James's charm and cleverness. (McGonagall as his HOH and Transfiguration teacher may exaggerate his abilities in other courses. Slughorn says nothing of his having an aptitude for Potions, as we know Severus did, and I very much doubt that James's facile answers in DADA reflected the same depth of knowledge as Severus's minutely detailed ones. James is almost entirely an off-the-page character, but I don't think we can easily sum up his "essence," and if we try, we're as likely to be wrong as both Snape and McGonagall because we'll oversimplify him. I *do* think that he changed, and that the catalyst of that change was the so-called Prank, in which he finally understood the difference between reckless adventure and placing others in mortal peril. But, and I'm finally getting to my reason for writing this post, I'm wondering why everyone seems to take for granted James's dislike for the Dark Arts. Our source, our only source, for that remark, is Sirius Black, himself a fierce opponent of the Dark Arts because of his family background. Yes, James joined the Order of the Phoenix after he left Hogwarts, but so did Peter Pettigrew, Remus Lupin, Lily, Sturgis Podmore (two years their senior), and many others whose sentiments on the Dark Arts we have not heard expressed. It appears to be possible to oppose Voldemort for other reasons than opposition to the Dark Arts in themselves, at least in the case of Regulus Black and DDM!Snape. I doubt that Mundungus Fletcher has any such agenda. Loyalty to Dumbledore may be another reason for opposing LV, or opposition to murder and terror tactics, or to his ostensible pureblood agenda. James's motive for joining the Order could be any or all of these. Sirius Black had very real reasons for opposing the Dark Arts from an early age. He hated his family and his horrible house. Visiting James's family, purebloods who weren't practitioners of the Dark Arts or advocates of pureblood supremacy, would certainly have reinforced his views. He would have wanted to be like James but, being handsome and arrogant and bred a Black (notice his resemblance to Bellatrix in both appearance and demeanor, even to the loss of good looks through Azkaban), would never have said so (IMO). But James, the indulged only son of rich older parents, arrogant and talented and egotistical, seems (in the Pensieve scene) not to have any concerns beyond getting Lily Evans to date him, tormenting Severus Snape "because he exists," and showing off for anyone who will admire his reflexes or windswept hair. The one scene in which we see him gives no indication of any particular opposition to the Dark Arts or even a predilection for DADA (unlike Severus Snape, who obviously takes the subject seriously and knows a great deal about it). He and his friends joke about the werewolf question and give PP a hard time for not knowing two of the five distinguishing points of a werewolf; they shrug off the exam as a piece of cake; but for all we know, James (and Sirius) would be just as satisfied with an A or an E as an O. An OWL is an OWL. We don't even have any indication of their career plans. Did they intend to be Aurors or live off their family fortunes? I really see no evidence anywhere other than Sirius Black's statement that James "always" hated the Dark Arts, nor does Severus's (purported) interest in the subject seem to be James's reason for hating him from their first encounter. Maybe he did, but we're just not presented with the evidence. Or maybe Black is projecting his own feelings onto James, as he projects his subjectively filtered memories of James onto Harry. James, for all his being an off-screen minor character seen through the eyes of others (and unfortunately re-idealized by Harry after Sirius Black's death because of his determination to hate Snape), turns out to be a rather complex character. Maybe someone can boil him down to his essence, but that essence does not appear, at least to me, to be his opposition to the Dark Arts. Carol, wondering why her posts always turn into tomes From joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net Fri Jun 16 22:36:43 2006 From: joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net (canyoutellmehowtoget) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 22:36:43 -0000 Subject: Interesting email I received.... - Theory about Dumbledore not being dead In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153958 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > > Tonks: > This idea has been around here before. Someone here said that LV > would not make a whole lake into a potion. I think they are right. Joe: Why not? What would stop YNW from creating a lake which was actually a potion? Of course whether DD is dead or not, LV will think he is and that will drive him, HWMNBN, into the open allowing HP to defeat him in front of the whole WW for the crescendo of action in book 7. - Joe From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Jun 16 23:11:05 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 19:11:05 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Choice and Essentialism/Understanding Snape) References: Message-ID: <00be01c6919a$258174f0$c360400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 153959 > Betsy Hp: > But at the same time, isn't there a bit of tragedy implied in > neither of those men changing? A sort of opportunity missed? > Whatever you think about how JKR handled the great Remus/Tonks love > affair, I thought it was implied that Remus was making a mistake in > not taking a risk with Tonks. That this was a time for him to step > up and choose a slightly different approach to life. Magpie: You know, it's funny because I did think that, but at the same time the way it's written Remus is being himself like always. He says no, but when the whole room's pressuring him he says okay. So he makes the decision everybody wants! But yes, I do think that the idea is that Remus is definitely doing the right thing with Tonks, and that his life might be different. Though I don't know that he's really being different--Tonks could be seen as another Marauder in that she's willing to be with him despite his being a werewolf, and we know he appreciates that. Usually I do think that the inability of the adults to change is definitely the stuff of tragedy. It's like something I think was quoted on the list recently, where the difference between adults and kids is that with the adults they have to live with the mistakes while the kids always are more hopeful. That definitely applies here, I think. Betsy: The options aren't limitless, but they are there. Magpie: Yes, that's definitely the way I see it. It's like with life, actually. "Free will" is a meaningless concept because none of us are free from being ourselves. What we have isn't "free will" but "free choice." We're always limited by our own wills, which is bound to who we are, but we can still make choices. There are choices I'm not going to make because of my personality that someone else would make. It's just part of who I am. But at the same time that doesn't mean I have *no* options. I just have my own set of choices while someone else has a different set. Hermione with the same talents who was just a little different in terms of her values or what she admired would have been different. Betsy Hp: The genius of Jane Austen is that when the big reveal occurs the readers says "oh, of *course*!" and while the character may be seen in a new light, there isn't a sense that she's lied to us about the character. And I think JKR is trying to do the same thing. The Snape in the pensieve, the Snape in the Shack, the Snape in Potions class, the Snape singing over Draco, those are all the real Snape. Even the Snape in Spinner's End must have some essential truth to his character. Magpie: Definitely. I think she always plays fair that way. What we ultimately learn about Snape will, imo, cover both his bad moments and those things that seem like something else. Julie: Sirius did make that very hard choice to abandon his family's *ideals*, which resulted in his family abandoning him as it were). Magpie: And JKR ties that clearly to his personality as well. Sirius is a rebel, rebelling is what he does. That's not meant to cast doubt on his choice, but Sirius' fights with his family in themselves were something that came out of his personality in a way it wouldn't have, say, come out of Regulus'. Sirius did choose the right side and seems to genuinely agree with the principles of the good side, but even his having the same kind of family as his brother his personality made the choice different for him than it would be for another character. Carol: James, for all his being an off-screen minor character seen through the eyes of others (and unfortunately re-idealized by Harry after Sirius Black's death because of his determination to hate Snape), turns out to be a rather complex character. Maybe someone can boil him down to his essence, but that essence does not appear, at least to me, to be his opposition to the Dark Arts. Magpie: You totally got me--I was making James up out of my head without really knowing him! The Dark Arts line really is a tricky one because not only do we only have that one line which isn't necessarily accurate, but hating the Dark Arts can easily be something one would say to give James justification. Actually, in that scene I feel like that's what it is. I mean, it seems like James hates Snape for whatever reasons he hates them according to their history and whatever the thing is about Snape himself that James hates. But then there's that handy fact that Snape is "bad" that means whatever he does to him is okay even if Snape was just sitting there at the time. So all we really have to go on about James are the actions we know about, and those definitely don't add up to whatever his essence is because two people can do the same thing for different reasons. Carol: I don't think we can safely assume that his conduct in this scene is fully or even partially explained by the loss of the Order of Merlin. That loss could easily have been used as a cover for rage with some other cause. Magpie: That's a really good point about Snape, and one that's used a lot in the books, I think. Almost everyone Harry knows who gives him information about Snape is biased against him even if they're not putting him down. Dumbledore refuses to really sit down and talk about why he trusts him, Lupin may not like or dislike him but he's still coming from the pov of a Marauder. Lupin's casual "maybe he was jealous of James being good at Quidditch" carries a lot of weight even though Lupin has no idea what's going on with Snape. The Marauders would have had their own set ideas about what made Snape tick just as Snape has his ideas about James. But Snape himself seems more complex that what he's been reduced to in their eyes. But it's a clever way of distracting us every time. Harry himself is, after all, always eager to hear the most unflattering and simple explanation for Snape there is. Witness how he makes up his own answers for what was probably the biggest mystery of Snape's life, that he just gave Dumbledore a song and dance about regret and that's why Dumbledore trusted him. -m From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Jun 17 00:02:00 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 00:02:00 -0000 Subject: Unwelcome visitors and drinks in HBP chapters 1-4 (Was: Spinner's End Clues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153960 > Carol, noting that Snape is the most gracious host of the four > (counting the Dursleys as one person) and thinking that we should > indeed explore these chapters for more parallels than dusty bottles > a_svirn: Ah, but his guests were much more agreeable! Even Bellatrix for all her hostility never tried to usurp his position as a host. Which is more that could be said of Dumbledore at the Dursleys's and Scrimgeour at the Prime Minister's office. That was a parallel that struck me as important when I first read HBP. It's really disturbing the way the Best of the Good Guys and the lax-principled Minister for Magic employ similar tactics in intimidating hapless muggles -- down to symbolic gesture of offering drinks to their hosts. I am still not sure whether Rowling really meant to cast a shadow on Dumbledore moral authority by making this connection or whether it was totally unintentional. However it might be it makes Dumbledore behaviour appear almost sinister. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Jun 17 00:29:21 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 00:29:21 -0000 Subject: Choice and Essentialism/Understanding Snape) In-Reply-To: <00be01c6919a$258174f0$c360400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153961 > Magpie: > That's a really good point about Snape, and one that's used a lot in the > books, I think. Almost everyone Harry knows who gives him information about > Snape is biased against him even if they're not putting him down. > Dumbledore refuses to really sit down and talk about why he trusts him, > Lupin may not like or dislike him but he's still coming from the pov of a > Marauder. Lupin's casual "maybe he was jealous of James being good at > Quidditch" carries a lot of weight even though Lupin has no idea what's > going on with Snape. The Marauders would have had their own set ideas about > what made Snape tick just as Snape has his ideas about James. But Snape > himself seems more complex that what he's been reduced to in their eyes. > > But it's a clever way of distracting us every time. Harry himself is, after > all, always eager to hear the most unflattering and simple explanation for > Snape there is. Witness how he makes up his own answers for what was > probably the biggest mystery of Snape's life, that he just gave Dumbledore a > song and dance about regret and that's why Dumbledore trusted him. a_svirn: By the way, I think in his eagerness for "the most unflattering and simple explanation" about Snape Harry reveals what amounts to the "wrong" attitude to the crucial problem of "choices vs nature" in the Potterverce. Remember when Hermione told him about Snape's mother she quoted from the notice in the Prophet? She said that Elaine Prince "gave birth" and Harry finished the phrase ? "to a murderer!" And that's the kind of statement that is contrary to the series' and especially HBP's most important message. Because no one is "born" a murderer. Draco is not a murderer by "nature", but he could have easily become one. Pettigrew did become one, but not because his nature is murderous. As you said, under different circumstances he might have turned out differently. Sirius quite consciously made a choice ? to kill Pettigrew and he would have done it too, if it weren't for Harry. Even Harry is not exempt ? he has accepted that he must kill Voldemort and *wants* to kill Snape ? that's also his choice, isn't it? From kjones at telus.net Sat Jun 17 01:54:50 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 18:54:50 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Moaning Myrtle's murder (Was: Harry a Horcrux?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <449360EA.9040801@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 153962 steven1965aaa wrote: > KJ: > [snip] It could not be proven in court that Tom had >> actually issued instructions to the snake to murder Muggleborn >> students. He might have been offering it dinner. [snip] >> >> Steven1965aaa: > > What's more interesting to me is that it certainly could not be proven > that Hagrid had anything to do with opening the Chamber of Secrets, > and yet he was expelled from school. > KJ writes: Unfortunately, for Hagrid, the school had the evidence of the most charming young Riddle who could testify that he actually saw the monster running away from Hagrid's hiding spot. Hagrid, not being the most comfortable, or popular student was unable to defend himself from those accusations. I wasn't on that job.:) KJ From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 17 02:04:49 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 02:04:49 -0000 Subject: James' essence WAS: Re: Choice and Essentialism In-Reply-To: <00be01c6919a$258174f0$c360400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153963 > Carol: > James, for all his being an off-screen minor character seen through the eyes > of others (and unfortunately re-idealized by Harry after Sirius Black's > death because of his determination to hate Snape), turns out to be a rather > complex character. Maybe someone can boil him down to his essence, but that > essence does not appear, at least to me, to be his opposition to the Dark > Arts. > > Magpie: > You totally got me--I was making James up out of my head without really > knowing him! The Dark Arts line really is a tricky one because not only do > we only have that one line which isn't necessarily accurate, but hating the > Dark Arts can easily be something one would say to give James justification. > Actually, in that scene I feel like that's what it is. I mean, it seems > like James hates Snape for whatever reasons he hates them according to their > history and whatever the thing is about Snape himself that James hates. But > then there's that handy fact that Snape is "bad" that means whatever he does > to him is okay even if Snape was just sitting there at the time. > > So all we really have to go on about James are the actions we know about, > and those definitely don't add up to whatever his essence is because two > people can do the same thing for different reasons. > Alla: I don't know if we can reduce the James' essense to his opposition to Dark Arts, BUT I have very little doubt that he indeed hated Dark Arts a lot. Yes, this line appears to be a justification in this scene, I won't argue that, but is it false justification? Not in a sense that it was Okay to do what they did to Snape,because James hated DA, sure it is not, but in a sense that the said fact is a lie? It can be both - the said fact could be correct, but the way Sirius uses it is a justification, which is wrong. Makes any sense? I said so in the past that I don't see Sirius as a liar in general, that even in his statements about SNape I see truth hidden besides insults and obnoxiousness, but I see absolutely no reason for Sirius to lie about his best friend. Yes, James is a minor character, yes, we don't know much about him, although I'd say that we know quite a lot by know, but PRECISELY because he is a minor character, I would say that every line about him counts and this one to me counts a lot. JMO, Alla From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Jun 17 02:46:18 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 22:46:18 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] James' essence WAS: Re: Choice and Essentialism References: Message-ID: <00e401c691b8$35f95320$c360400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 153964 > Alla: > > I don't know if we can reduce the James' essense to his opposition > to Dark Arts, BUT I have very little doubt that he indeed hated Dark > Arts a lot. > > Yes, this line appears to be a justification in this scene, I won't > argue that, but is it false justification? Magpie: Personally, I see no reason for Sirius or Remus (can't remember which one said it) to be lying and he doesn't sound like he is. I put it on the same level as Sirius reporting that Snape went around with "a gang of Slytherins who all became Death Eaters." Despite the fact that Snape happens to be alone in the Pensieve scene, I still don't think Sirius is lying--why would he, after all? And what would be the point of that kind of false information? Sirius not liking Snape doesn't mean his information is always wrong. So it's more like I'd consider Remus or Sirius as having limited understanding of Snape himself, and if asked I doubt they themselves would consider the hating the Dark Arts comment a detailed representation of what was going on with James and Snape. I don't think it's a lie, but it's intentionally simplified. They're trying to calm Harry down any way they can and they don't want to go into the whole story of five years of animosity. So yeah, I agree with just how you see it. But also Carol, because I think her point is just not to think we know about what made James tick from the limited information we have. Actually, JKR seems to play with that intentionally with James. One would think that Snape would never be accurate about James, but it turns out there was some truth in what he said about him. Likewise Sirius, while not lying about James, turns out to have made Harry feel like he'd been misled when he saw the real thing. The key, though, is that JKR isn't cheating by having characters lie, just as I don't think Sirius or Remus was lying about James' hating the Dark Arts. I should say that I think there are places where Sirius is closer to lying because of his bias. I took everything he said about his family with a big grain of salt. Again, not that I thought he was lying--his mother, at least, seemed to live down to everything he said about her. But the way he so quickly had a bad take on every person he was related to made me think there was more to their stories. And of course I think that was leading up to Regulus. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 17 03:28:07 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 03:28:07 -0000 Subject: James' essence/some Sirius and his family WAS: Re: Choice and Essentialism In-Reply-To: <00e401c691b8$35f95320$c360400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153965 > Magpie: > Personally, I see no reason for Sirius or Remus (can't remember which one > said it) to be lying and he doesn't sound like he is. I put it on the same > level as Sirius reporting that Snape went around with "a gang of Slytherins > who all became Death Eaters." Despite the fact that Snape happens to be > alone in the Pensieve scene, I still don't think Sirius is lying-- why would > he, after all? And what would be the point of that kind of false > information? Sirius not liking Snape doesn't mean his information is always > wrong. Alla: Correct, I agree with this completely, but moreover I would say that there is too little information given to us as it is about Snape v Marauders and unless one thinks that the purpose is to swip the rug from under us again in book 7, the literary purpose of Sirius lying, well, I just don't see any. Magpie: > So it's more like I'd consider Remus or Sirius as having limited > understanding of Snape himself, and if asked I doubt they themselves would > consider the hating the Dark Arts comment a detailed representation of what > was going on with James and Snape. I don't think it's a lie, but it's > intentionally simplified. They're trying to calm Harry down any way they can > and they don't want to go into the whole story of five years of animosity. Alla: Oversimplified for Harry? Quite possibly BUT I would not be surprised if Dark Arts was indeed at least ONE of the reasons of their animosity just as is. Am I making sense? JKR still withholds information , that is undisputable to me, otherwise again, why promise more about Prank in the last book, where she really really has a lot of things to cover without touching Prank at all. But she ( and in this situation by Remus and Sirius) may withhold another reason for animosity totally unrelated to Dark Arts OR she may just withold specific acts which were at the heart of their animosity but still related to Dark Arts. IMO anyways. Magpie: > So yeah, I agree with just how you see it. But also Carol, because I think > her point is just not to think we know about what made James tick from the > limited information we have. Alla: Heee, I am not sure how you can agree with both Carol and myself since I don't quite agree with Carol. If her point is simply that we don't know what made James tick, Okay, I will buy that we don't know everything that made James tick, but partial reason is given and I see no reason to doubt it, honestly. Magpie: The key, > though, is that JKR isn't cheating by having characters lie, just as I don't > think Sirius or Remus was lying about James' hating the Dark Arts. Alla: Me too. Magpie: > I should say that I think there are places where Sirius is closer to lying > because of his bias. I took everything he said about his family with a big > grain of salt. Again, not that I thought he was lying--his mother, at > least, seemed to live down to everything he said about her. But the way he > so quickly had a bad take on every person he was related to made me think > there was more to their stories. And of course I think that was leading up > to Regulus. Alla: Sure, as I said when Sirius talks about Snape, I am hunting for the truth underneath biase and prejudice ( still think it is there, but just have to dig for it), BUT not quite sure what you mean about his family. Sirius clearly has very unhappy memories about his family and as you said it yourself his mother portrait seemes to live to everybody he described. Weren't they not pureblood fanatics? As to Regulus, where did Sirius lie? I mean, he told us uncomplete information, as much as he knew, IMO. But I don't see lying here either. And personally I think Sirius loved Regulus and regretted his death, despite being a bit jealous of his parents affection of him, because when I read Sirius calling Regulus a fool, I see bitter regret of what his brother did to his life, maybe I am reading something that is not there, I don't know. What am I trying to say? Sirius testimony about his family is sure colored by his bad feelings, but I am not sure he is lying even here. I have a lot of doubt imagining Mrs. Black being kind person for example when she was alive. JMO, Alla I already adore Regulus story, I so want him to be alive. :) From lunasaproject at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jun 16 21:56:03 2006 From: lunasaproject at yahoo.co.uk (Tara Tierney) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 21:56:03 -0000 Subject: Understanding Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153966 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" > Potioncat (using chp 19 of PoA): > No, Snape saw Lupin on the map, disappearing down a passageway. The > passage runs off the map. While Snape knew it went to the Shack, the > Shack wasn't on the map. Nor was Black, Pettigrew or the Trio. > > He assumed Lupin would be meeting Black (I think) and went to see. > Once he saw Harry's cloak at the Whomping Willow, Snape knew that > Lupin had Harry and possibly the other two. > > The rest is history--or possibly interpretation. > It is right! Do you see what happens when I assume! I make an ass out of.. me, lol! lunasa From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 17 03:31:46 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 03:31:46 -0000 Subject: Interesting email I received.... - Theory about Dumbledore not being Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153967 > Zandi wrote: > > Someone had made the comment that Albus didn't have his wand so he > couldnt have slowed himself down like he did with Harry after he > fell on his broom during the Quidditch match in book 3. However, > after reading/watching that part. Albus Dumbledore doesnt use his > wand to do it. So therefore it is plausible that he could do it for > himself when falling off the tower. At least enough to slow down the > fall to not get hurt and still fake his death. zanooda: Dumbledore did use his wand to slow Harry down:"He ran onto the field as you fell, waved his wand, and you sort of slowed down before you hit the ground"(PoA, p.181 US ed. or p.136 UK ed.) As for DD falling slowly, it can be just Harry's perception. Sirius's death is also described like this:"It seemed to take Sirius an age to fall..."(p.806 US ed. or p.710 UK ed.) I believe that DD is dead, but I find it really touching that so many people do not give up hope. As for the e-mail you received I think that it would be more logical to put The Draught of Living Death into the basin, not into the lake. More direct approach, don't you think? From joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net Fri Jun 16 22:51:00 2006 From: joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net (canyoutellmehowtoget) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 22:51:00 -0000 Subject: Book 7, Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153968 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "marinacat06" wrote: > > Does anyone know the title? Does everyone truly think that DD is dead? > I have my doubts, there was no more mention of seeing DD after (his > death), Fawkes' song sounds like he is really working hard at doing > somthing, DD did not drop as others who were cursed did, he floated > over the tower, there is a hint that DD and Snape were up to something > and Snape no longer wanted to do it but DD said he had promised and so > he must do it anyway. I have a lot of unanswered questions as we all > do but did anyone pick up on the things I just mentioned? There are a > lot more things too. Go to the DD is not dead website. > (http://www.dumbledoreisnotdead.com/) Joe: JKR may know the title, but so far she's not tellin'. I toyed with the idea that DD wasn't dead when a HP site asked readers to write a proposed first chapter of book 7 in 1000 words or less. I wrote an entry (didn't win or even make the finals) which was based on DD's words in the first book, "I would trust Hagrid with my life." In my fanfict DD had cast his spirit into Hagrid's body unbeknownst to RH himself. I thought it was a cute idea but the judges didn't. I do subscribe to the DDM!Snape theory and think that DD was asking Snape to go through with it ("Please Severus."), and that Snape didn't want to but had promised DD he would. Whether or not DD is dead, both LV and HP believe he is an will behave based on that understanding which they must. HP must defeat LV on his own to fulfill the hero's journey without the crutch of his mentor to assist him. In the end the hero's quest must be his own. - Joe From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Jun 17 03:49:19 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 03:49:19 -0000 Subject: Unwelcome visitors and drinks in HBP chapters 1-4 (Was: Spinner's End Clues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153969 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > Carol: I think that the time frame of the first four chapters has been carefully structured and that they all take place on the same night at roughly or exactly the same time. ( > Ceridwen: > I've thought for some time that these chapters all occur on the same night. They're too similar, though I'm not as good as Carol at > picking out motifs. I even thought at one time (Carol, and I think it was Geoff, shot me down here) that maybe Slughorn was in the same town as Snape and that when Snape looked out the window, he saw Dumbledore and Harry Apparating in up the road a ways. To me, all three chapters (I'm excluding chapter four here since I wasn't > looking at it in quite this way) had an air of expectancy to them. At the time I was thinking this, chapter four, though also on the same night, was a continuation of chapter three. > > But, putting it in the context of unwelcome visitors and drinks being served, then I do have to include chapter four's unwelcomed visit by Dumbledore and Harry to Slughorn's temporary home.. (Snip) Maybe it *is* worth looking into it a little further, like some blended ChapDisc... > Tonks: I have been thinking about all of the drinking. Especially wine. And HRH were learning to turn vinegar into wine in potions class. Wonder if this is, among whatever else it may be, a set up for... well I really don't think it fits to have Harry do that, since he is Everyman... but you know there is a wedding coming up.... I sure hope that there are not going to be "unwelcome visitors" there. Bill and Fluer and their families deserve some peace at least for one day. Also perhaps we can do a chart of some things. Again I don't have the time to do it. But if someone charted out the people, time, place, of the drinking and see if there are any connections. Can there be any connection to DD's drinking in the cave? Example for illustration only: Lets say there were 12 people drinking and DD drank 12 cups in the cave. Were these memories connected with each person? I don't think so. It would be rather far out but just to give an idea .. you know look at everything from all angles, even those that don't seem to connect. They might connect if you chart them out. I'll bet that there are loads of things in the books that connect here and there in sly sneaky ways we know that JKR is like that. She is like a cat playing with a mouse. She loves to do that to us and then she sits back and snickers to herself. Why else would she need a complicated chart to write the books if she doesn't have to plan to plant something here, something else over there.. and so on. This will take a team of detectives. Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Jun 17 04:32:33 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 04:32:33 -0000 Subject: Book 7, Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153970 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "canyoutellmehowtoget" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "marinacat06" > wrote: > > > > Does everyone truly think that DD is > dead? I have my doubts, there was no more mention of seeing DD after (his death), Fawkes' song sounds like he is really working hard at doing somthing, (snip) > Joe: > > Whether or not DD is dead, both LV and HP believe he is an will > behave based on that understanding which they must. HP must defeat > LV on his own to fulfill the hero's journey without the crutch of > his mentor to assist him. In the end the hero's quest must be his > own. > Tonks: I think that DD is dead. I too wondered what Fawkes was doing. It was something very different, something meant for DD alone. (IMO) And it also connected to something deep in Harry the same as it did in COS. I think that there is some connection there between what happened in the chamber of secrets and what was happening to DD under the tower. (As I am typing this I do see a connection. Since I have said that the COS was the tomb of Christ, and I see DD as a symbol of Christ, to me it ties together. And I think that JKR meant to tie those two images together in that moment.) I wondered if Fawkes song were some sort of healing song. A resurrection song. Since I think that DD is a Christ figure I do think that we will see him again. Perhaps at the very end of book 7. It would be fitting that he would appear to Luna first. I also think that Fawkes will come back earlier to help Harry. As to the hero's quest. How do we know that JKR is doing the standard thing? Why does she *have* to do what someone says is the right way to do a coming of age, hero's quest sort of thing. Can't she do something different?? Harry is the hero of the story, but he is Everyman, he is every one of us. He is every child, every man, every woman. And if he is to be our role model of how to evolve (the Alchemical transformation) then doesn't it follow that maybe he will not "do it alone". Like Snape said Harry gets by with luck and help from his more talented friends. I think Snape is really telling the truth here. Harry has some talents, yes. We all do. But none of us is a super hero. How can this book be a guide for children or adults if the hero is a super hero? What if he were an ordinary mortal with talents for some things and not for others, but with the ability, unlike LV, to ask for help or accept help when it is offered. What if he does win the day because he is not a loner? LV is a loner. Harry is not. Harry can love and in loving he has friends that care for him and help him. He would die for his friends and his friends would die for him. They would not give their lives in the way that a DE would lay down his/her life for LV. Harry friends would fight beside him and die with or for him, because Harry's friends also have the ability to love. Just a thought. Tonks_op From oppen at mycns.net Sat Jun 17 06:10:21 2006 From: oppen at mycns.net (ericoppen) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 06:10:21 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Draco's plotting Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153971 I think I can propose a simple explanation for why DD didn't act against Draco, and allowed his plotting to go ahead. To put it bluntly, Draco Malfoy's been the Wile E. Coyote of Hogwarts for all his time there. No matter what Cunning Plan he comes up with, it's always "Curses, foiled again! I'd have gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling Gryffindors!" at the end. Given Draco's nonexistent track record of successes, why would Dumbledore associate the various bad things that have been happening (many of which were really rather clever) to Draco "This hasn't worked yet, so it's bound to this time!" Malfoy? Frankly, if I'd been trying to find a clever, cunning person to execute a diabolical plan in Hogwarts, Draco "Pratfall" Malfoy (with or without his Stones-that- Speak in tow) would be about the last person I'd even consider. It would be like the Three Stooges suddenly revealing that they were, in fact, cunning ninja assassins, or Wile E. Coyote actually catching and eating the Road Runner. From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sat Jun 17 09:58:27 2006 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 09:58:27 -0000 Subject: FILK: Then I Splinched Me Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153972 Then I Splinched Me. To the tune of Then He Kissed Me by the Chrystals. The Midi can be found here (under the title And Then He Kissed Me): http://www.angelfire.com/music4/themidiplayground/crock.htm First solo for Susan Bones. Dedicated to, gee, I guess it would be appropriate to dedicate it to Susan. SSSusan, CV, RB, all the Susans, Sues, Susies, and even the Suzannes, Suzettes and Suzabelles (if we have any). The Scene: The Great Hall. Apparation training. Susan sings. Well, the notice on the board said we were to congregate in the Hall. A good Hufflepuff girl will always give each challenge her all. Swallowed hard to still my fright. Concentrated with all my might. Something didn't go quite right- And then I splinched me. I let out a scream and they got me back together again. A puff of purple smoke and my leg was back the way it had been. But I was so horrified. First I sobbed and then I cried. Think I'd rather go 'long-side, Because I splinched me. I splinched me in a way that I've never been splinched before. If I'd had both my legs, I'd have surely been running for the door. I'd memorized my D's and I thought I was prepared to transport. I'm starting to think that walking is my favourite sport. Floo is starting to look good. Give me a broom of any wood. I'd try a carpet if I could- It wouldn't splinch me. Floo is starting to look good. Give me a broom of any wood. I'd try a carpet if I could- It wouldn't splinch me. It wouldn't splinch me. (repeat) Ginger, writing her first filk from this side of the hill. (I turned 40 today.) From fairwynn at hotmail.com Sat Jun 17 05:00:54 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (fair wynn) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 00:00:54 -0500 Subject: Understanding Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153973 > >Steven1965aaa now: > >Yea, I agree with that (although I'm not sure from where get that >Snape believes in backup?), I was only responding to the portion of >an earlier post that asked why would Snape risk his life to try and >capture them. Snape was distraught about not getting the Order or >Merlin for capturing Sirius, he wanted that credit badly. Although I have certainly seen it asserted numerous times that Snape wanted the Order of Merlin and was distraught over its loss, all of the evidence in the dialog points to Snape's huge disappointment being in the escape of Black. Sure, he thanked Fudge when Fudge first offered the Order of Merlin to him. But his fury is at Black's escape. Nowhere during his attempts to capture Black do we get any indication that his desire is for anything other than the capture, and perhaps death, of this person he hates. There is no indication that he's doing it for the fame and glory of the Order. It is Fudge, who is impressed with himself and the MOM, that thinks the offer of the Order of Merlin is a great thing for Snape. Naturally Snape says "thank you," but his anger later is over Sirius' escape. He never indicates that he's distressed at the loss of the Order of Merlin. wynnleaf From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jun 17 14:29:05 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 14:29:05 -0000 Subject: Choice and Essentialism/Understanding Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153974 > a_svirn: > By the way, I think in his eagerness for "the most unflattering and > simple explanation" about Snape Harry reveals what amounts to > the "wrong" attitude to the crucial problem of "choices vs nature" > in the Potterverce. Remember when Hermione told him about Snape's > mother she quoted from the notice in the Prophet? She said that > Elaine Prince "gave birth" and Harry finished the phrase ? "to a > murderer!" And that's the kind of statement that is contrary to the > series' and especially HBP's most important message. Because no one > is "born" a murderer. Draco is not a murderer by "nature", but he > could have easily become one. Pettigrew did become one, but not > because his nature is murderous. As you said, under different > circumstances he might have turned out differently. Sirius quite > consciously made a choice ? to kill Pettigrew and he would have done > it too, if it weren't for Harry. Even Harry is not exempt ? he has > accepted that he must kill Voldemort and *wants* to kill Snape ? > that's also his choice, isn't it? Pippin: Yeah, I think you're on to something here. Rowling is essentialist, but her position is that everyone is essentially good, ie that there is something uniquely and infinitely valuable in everyone. That is what makes murder the greatest evil: not because death itself is terrible, but because murder denies the existence of that essential, irreplaceable good. So while no character is essentially evil, even Voldemort, some are morally evil because they deny the goodness of others. When Rowling says that Harry, Ron and Hermione are innately good, she means, IMO, that they have always known that there is this essential goodness in others, from which all Beings derive an unconditional right to exist. They perceived it naturally, and did not have to be taught. But the lesson of canon, IMO, is that anyone can learn, at any time of life. That is what Dumbledore taught to Draco on the Tower, when he showed that he had defended Draco's right to exist despite Draco's hateful and dangerous actions. I do not think anyone had ever before treated Draco as if he were valued in his own right and not as the means to an end. No matter how much evil Draco did or tried to do, Dumbledore still perceived that there was essential goodness in him. Is moral evil intrinsic to Slytherin House? We have met a number of Slytherins who think that Muggleborn wizards have no right to exist and who treat people as means to an end. These positions deny the essential goodness in others, but are they what the hat looks for in Slytherins? Salazar eventually took the position that Muggleborn wizards had no right to exist, but that was not his position from the beginning and wouldn't be part of what the Hat looks for when it chooses Slytherins. It looks for the ability to see things as means to an end, but it is not incumbent on Slytherins to see people as means rather than ends in themselves. Though someone possessing innate goodness might not choose to become a Slytherin, yet someone who does not have it might be better off as a Slytherin rather than in Gryffindor where goodness is too often taken for granted. Are the Gryffindors morally good? Some Gryffindors may have innate ability to see the good in others and the courage to defend that good no matter what. But unfortunately, they can still choose to do otherwise. It is not by their *ability* to perceive the good in others that we must judge whether they are morally good, but by their *choice* to protect life, a choice anyone can make, Gryffindor or not. This choice, in its purest form, is love, and by making it, the characters may learn to love even if in the beginning they did not know how. Dumbledore seems to be an example of this -- he says that he never thought he would have someone like Harry in his life. It seems that it took him 150 years before he felt close to anyone. Between that and the awful contents of the green basin, I venture that he was once more like Tom Riddle than anyone would imagine, Gryffindor or no. Rowling continually shows us people who chose to risk everything defending the life of someone they seemed to treat as worthless. I believe that in the end we are to regard those people as closer to the path (though still having a very long way to go) than those who show consideration to others but treat the right to exist as conditional. Pippin *Draco was lucky not to have killed anyone -- but so were Harry with his sectum sempra and Hermione with her birds. Not to mention the Twins with their vanishing cabinet. If Dumbledore started expellling students because they were dangerous, there'd be no one left. From joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net Sat Jun 17 14:00:27 2006 From: joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net (canyoutellmehowtoget) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 14:00:27 -0000 Subject: Interesting email I received.... - Theory about Dumbledore not being In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153975 > zanooda: > > As for the e-mail you received I think > that it would be more logical to put The Draught of Living Death into > the basin, not into the lake. More direct approach, don't you think? > Joe: More direct? You bet, but when has that dictated what JKR does. Everyone expects that the green glowing liquid is the bad stuff, it would be the old switcheroo to have the water (or what appears to be water) be the more dangerous or potent of the two. Personally I was grossed out to think that he would drink water that dead bodies were floating in. Given the choice I might have gone for the green glowing stuff. Might have been one of the new Gatorade flavors who knows. ;-) From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Jun 17 14:46:35 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 10:46:35 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] James' essence/some Sirius and his family WAS: Re: Choice and Essentialism References: Message-ID: <004e01c6921c$d5823e20$7f98400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 153976 > Alla: > But she ( and in this situation by Remus and Sirius) may withhold > another reason for animosity totally unrelated to Dark Arts OR she > may just withold specific acts which were at the heart of their > animosity but still related to Dark Arts. IMO anyways. > Heee, I am not sure how you can agree with both Carol and myself > since I don't quite agree with Carol. If her point is simply that we > don't know what made James tick, Okay, I will buy that we don't know > everything that made James tick, but partial reason is given and I > see no reason to doubt it, honestly. Magpie: I do think it's part of the reason, definitely. The way I think of it is like...it's hard to explain. It's like more than one thing can be completely true at once. Like Snape tells Harry he hated his father, that James "strutted" around. Harry denies this. But when he sees James he thinks he pretty much struts too. So Snape was telling the truth--but that's not the whole story. Sirius and Remus' view is also true, including that James hated the Dark Arts. We're getting pieces of the relationship that is all true. > Alla: > > Sure, as I said when Sirius talks about Snape, I am hunting for the > truth underneath biase and prejudice ( still think it is there, but > just have to dig for it), BUT not quite sure what you mean about his > family. > > Sirius clearly has very unhappy memories about his family and as you > said it yourself his mother portrait seemes to live to everybody he > described. > > Weren't they not pureblood fanatics? > > As to Regulus, where did Sirius lie? I mean, he told us uncomplete > information, as much as he knew, IMO. But I don't see lying here > either. > And personally I think Sirius loved Regulus and regretted his death, > despite being a bit jealous of his parents affection of him, because > when I read Sirius calling Regulus a fool, I see bitter regret of > what his brother did to his life, maybe I am reading something that > is not there, I don't know. Magpie: That's what I saw too--but that's what I mean. Sirius goes through years of his family's history and has something dismissive to say about all of them. He made me think of just a teenager determined to say everything was crap. Like when they find the Order of Merlin and Sirius just says this means that the person must have bought his way into getting it, or when he said Phineas was the most hated headmaster. I thought Sirius was so biased I wouldn't take his explanation of his family members--the ones that he didn't know. Sirius' view is that there's nothing of value in anyone in his family for generations, and I just don't think that's true. It's not exactly lying since I'm sure Sirius believes it, but I do think it's probably a skewed impression. It's like with Regulus--he's not lying at all, but telling the truth as he thinks it is. But Sirius isn't in a position of that kind of authority about Regulus. He *thinks* he is in this case, but he isn't. So when I said he's getting closer to lying I didn't mean that Sirius himself was consciously lying but that the information we're getting is closer to being actually wrong. Regulus wasn't just a fool. As opposed to his views on Snape and the Marauders which so far are more accurate: James did hate the Dark Arts. Sirius is giving information on both James and Regulus, but he knows James better so his information's more accurate. -m From joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net Sat Jun 17 00:48:40 2006 From: joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net (canyoutellmehowtoget) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 00:48:40 -0000 Subject: Unwelcome visitors and drinks in HBP chapters 1-4 (Was: Spinner's End Clues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153977 > a_svirn: > Ah, but his guests were much more agreeable! Even Bellatrix for all > her hostility never tried to usurp his position as a host. Which is > more that could be said of Dumbledore at the Dursleys's and Scrimgeour > at the Prime Minister's office. That was a parallel that struck me as > important when I first read HBP. It's really disturbing the way the > Best of the Good Guys and the lax-principled Minister for Magic employ > similar tactics in intimidating hapless muggles -- down to symbolic > gesture of offering drinks to their hosts. I am still not sure whether > Rowling really meant to cast a shadow on Dumbledore moral authority by > making this connection or whether it was totally unintentional. > However it might be it makes Dumbledore behaviour appear almost > sinister. > In the case of DD with the Dursley's I think JKR was going for comedic relief with the glasses of mead bonking the Dursley's on the head so that they would take them and drink them. DD was about to upbraid the Dursley's on their behavior toward HP so a bit of knocking them upside the had may have been appropriate. I didn't find it sinister. I didn't think it was casting a shadow on Dumbledore moral authority at all. Joe. From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Sat Jun 17 15:43:26 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 15:43:26 -0000 Subject: Riddle's School Mates (was: Who knows about Horcuxes?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153978 > aussie: > Roll call who knows about LV Horcruxes:- > > - LV (best authority) > - DD (deceased) > - Harry, Ron, Hermione > - RAB (deceased?) > - Bellatrix (suggested) > - Slughorn (knows the target number of Horcruxes) > - Snape (how much has he been told or guessed after curing DD?) > - LV's Horcrux teacher (see below) Walburga? Drumstrang? > > > Again, McGonagall was 2 years ahead of Tom. Her year may have been > taught Horcruxes in greater detail. > > Others we have heard of around McG's time were Neville's Grandma > (or how would McG know she failed Charms [OOTP]). > > Also, Sirius and Regulus's mother, Walburga Black (1925-1985) > - Snape's mother, Miss Prince, was at Hogwarts about then too. (Didn't Lupin suggest to Harry at Christmas time to look at when the HBP's Potions book was published to get an idea when that student was at school and it turned out to be about 50 years ago that 6th year student was at Hogwarts? Tom may have been about 3 years ahead, but she would have shared the Slytherin common room with him. Has anyone seen a comprehensive list of students / Teaschers that were around Hogwarts when Tom Riddle was there? From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 17 16:13:38 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 16:13:38 -0000 Subject: Rereading SS/PS question(s)/Harry's protections In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153979 > bboyminn: > It is entirely possible that the people Harry did encounter were > members of the Order who would have had more information. Indeed they > may have actually been sent on occassion to check up on Harry for > Dumbledore. Invisibly, of course, as we see in OotP. So, when they > happen to run into Harry on other occassions, they knew who he was. Alla: Yes, it is possible. The only thing is they did not do it invisibly. That is strange to me. bboyminn: > I think more important for Death Eaters would be a general underlying > subliminal fear of Harry. As an infant he survived an AK from the > darkest and most powerful of Dark Wizards. That wouldn't encourage > others to attempt to harm Harry. In fact, I think any wizard then and > now would be extremely unlikely to want to challenge Harry in any way. > > Those Death Eaters who were free knew they had escaped capture by the > skin of their teeth. Further they knew that they no longer had the > 'biggest bully on the block' there to protect them. I think most, in > that moment, preferred to count themselves luck and fade into the > background. Alla: Um, doesn't this argument leads us into Dumbledore's strange choices again? If DE were SO very afraid of Harry and preferred to stick to the background, what ARE the chances that they would actually attack Harry and then of course the same question arises whether DD REALLY needed to stick Harry at Dursleys? Isn't it trying to have your cake and eat it too on Dumbledore's behalf? If it was essential for Harry's survival to stick with Dursleys, wouldn't it be logical to make SURE that nobody knew where he is? If that is OKAY that it was easy enough to find Harry and as you are saying DE or former DE were so afraid of Harry anyways, couldn't he grew up with some.... I don't know less abusive, decent folks? Especially since as you are saying Harry has two related protections. He needs protection given by Lily against Voldemort, but the additional protection on Privet Drive, the charm that Petunia sealed when she took Harry in, doesn't it look like according to your argument that Harry does not actually need it? See, I am not sure I am buying that DE will not attack Harry and that is why I HOPE that protection on Privet Drive was essential too ( would be nice if JKR confirmed it in book 7 by making DE attack it), but then I am again back to Dumbledore who could not hide Harry well enough. JMO, Alla From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Jun 17 16:54:44 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 16:54:44 -0000 Subject: James' essence WAS: Re: Choice and Essentialism In-Reply-To: <00e401c691b8$35f95320$c360400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153980 Magpie: > I should say that I think there are places where Sirius > is closer to lying because of his bias. I took everything > he said about his family with a big grain of salt. Again, > not that I thought he was lying--his mother, at least, seemed > to live down to everything he said about her.But the way he > so quickly had a bad take on every person he was related to > made me think there was more to their stories. And of course > I think that was leading up to Regulus. houyhnhnm: It's hard to discuss whether or not James and Sirius truly hated the Dark Arts when we don't know for sure what makes an Art Dark. There has been much argument and little consensus over what constitutes Dark Arts. What we see of Dark Creatures studied in DADA (grindylows, hunkypunks, red caps, and, yes, werewolves) indicates that they are dangerous to humans, but so are some of the Magical Creatures studied in CoMC. What we see of Dark Magic shows that it is also injurious to humans, but so is a lot of the magic considered acceptable by convention. So maybe part of what makes magic be considered Dark is the fact that it is outside of the norms of what is considered conventionally acceptable (and that is something that can change over time like the punishments at Hogwarts and the legalisation of Unforgiveables for Aurors during VWI). Another common element of those who follow the Dark Arts is the insistance on blood purity. So James' hatred of the Dark Arts could have been for one of these elements, or a combination, but not necessarily all of them. I have no trouble believing that James despised the cult of blood purity. I have a little more trouble believing that he had a fundamental aversion to hurting people. Maybe it was the outsider aspect of the Dark Arts that offended him. With Sirius it is also easy to believe that he truly hated the pureblood cult. (Although I wonder why I get the tiniest whiff of offensive condescension from these two rich purebloods. Maybe it is a little of my own baggage intruding. :-) But was his extrangement from his family due altogether to their Dark traditions or did a lot of it have to do with the fact that, unlike them, he was romantic rather than ambitious? I mean if all of the Blacks loved strawberry ice cream, would Sirius have hated that too? From dontask2much at yahoo.com Sat Jun 17 17:34:33 2006 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 13:34:33 -0400 Subject: Harry, Snape and Ethics ( was Choice and Essentialism/Understanding Snape) References: Message-ID: <00bb01c69234$4c7ad1b0$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 153981 >a_svirn: >By the way, I think in his eagerness for "the most unflattering and >simple explanation" about Snape Harry reveals what amounts to >the "wrong" attitude to the crucial problem of "choices vs nature" >in the Potterverce. Remember when Hermione told him about Snape's >mother she quoted from the notice in the Prophet? She said that >Elaine Prince "gave birth" and Harry finished the phrase - "to a >murderer!" And that's the kind of statement that is contrary to the >series' and especially HBP's most important message. Because no one >is "born" a murderer. Draco is not a murderer by "nature", but he >could have easily become one. Pettigrew did become one, but not >because his nature is murderous. As you said, under different >circumstances he might have turned out differently. Sirius quite >consciously made a choice - to kill Pettigrew and he would have done >it too, if it weren't for Harry. Even Harry is not exempt - he has >accepted that he must kill Voldemort and *wants* to kill Snape - >that's also his choice, isn't it? Rebecca now: Adding to this (thanks a_svirn), Harry himself wanted to kill Sirius when he had the chance in PoA: "A boiling hate erupted in Harry's chest, leaving no place for fear. For the first time in his life, he wanted his wand back in his hand, not to defend himself, but to attack... to kill." And then this: "Harry raised the wand. Now was the moment to do it. Now was the moment to avenge his mother and father. He was going to kill Black. He had to kill Black. This was his chance...." And: "Black made a startled movement that almost dislodged Crookshanks; Harry gripped his wand convulsively -- Do it now! said a voice in his head -- but the footsteps were thundering up the stairs and Harry still hadn't done it." As we know, Harry's controlling of his emotions to hear Sirius and Lupin out and have the complete story resulted in Harry having a meaningful relationship with the one whom at one point he thought betrayed his parents. "Boiling hatred" - rather what Harry feels for Snape now, isn't it? The quote from HBP would apply here: "Pushing himself to his feet again, he staggered blindly toward Snape, the man he now hated as much as he hated Voldemort himself" JKR's said it's as "personal, if not moreso, between Harry and Snape" as it is Harry and Lord Voldemort. The choice particularly regarding Snape is a crucial one, I think. It comes down to ethics - particularly since Snape says this to Draco (HBP): "It is an act that is crucial to success, Draco!" said Snape. "Where do you think I would have been all these years, if I had not known how to act? Now listen to me! You are being incautious, wandering around at night, getting yourself caught, and if you are placing your reliance in assistants like Crabbe and Goyle -" The philosophy of ethics postulates to answer how one should behave (act) in a specific situation and how to justify one's actions morally in those situations - the more complete the details, the less emotion, the better the choices a ethical person can make. Snape's line "Where do you think I would have been all these years, if I had not known how to act?" is almost fairly screaming "Snape understands ethics" to me. JKR has stated that Snape has been loved once, so that makes him more culpable than Voldemort in her words. IMO, this makes Snape's choices, whether right or wrong, even more compelling in the end - he knows what he is doing, albeit with incomplete information sometimes, when he chooses. In comparison, Harry also has been ill informed in a few situations, but he does admit when he is wrong and has the proper conscience to recognize his ill-chosen actions. IMO, Snape also wrongly states in the same passage above that Draco is upset about his father's capture and imprisonment - when Draco is really upset about the potential of his whole family and himself being killed - which is clue in my mind that Snape did *not* know the "plan" as he leads Narcissa and Bellatrix to believe in Spinner's End. If we presume this, he chose to take the Unbreakable Vow with Narcissa using the information he had *at the time that was not complete*, unlike Harry in his PoA Shack meeting with Siruis. And it's not the first time Snape's done so, as revealed in PoA where he chooses to refuse listening to Sirius, Lupin, and the Trio in the Shack, too. Snape's described as being "beyond reason" here - he allows his emotions to get the better of him in situations where a cooler head would probably result in better ethical choices. However Snape's choice AK'ing Dumbledore (who is not afraid of death, as he describes it in PS/SS as "to the well-organized mind, death is but the next great adventure", OoP to Voldemort as "there are things worse than death", and HBP to Harry "it is the unknown we fear when we look upon death and darkness, nothing more") is still ethically ambiguous - Snape saves Draco and himself. Initially one can say, "But he killed somebody! He killed Dumbledore!" While that's true, we're responding emotionally to the canon we know. We may find the complete details in Book 7 and change our judgement of this ethical and moral choice. We have clues that there's more to it, with Hagrid HBP's vague reference to Snape telling Dumbledore "he wasn't sure he wanted to do it anymore" and Snape's reaction to Harry's "Kill me like you killed him, you coward." Where does this lead Snape? Snape, who was the esteemed potions master at Hogwarts with respect for so many years, could now be an even worse outcast than he is portrayed as being in his Pensieve scene memory in OoP. His killing of Dumbledore might now make him infamous, perhaps even as much as or moreso than Lord Voldemort. Did he *really* want that notoriety after all he's worked to achieve over the last upteen years? Bellatrix is right - he's had it pretty cushy since coming to Hogwarts. The easy choice, rather than the right and more difficult one, will be if Snape decides he'll never be trusted by the Order, swear undying allegiance to the Dark Lord and act accordingly as a Death Eater (for example, revealing Lupin in his role with the werewolves.) But what if he doesn't? And what if the truth is far more complex than the events thus far? Who would believe him? Flitwick perhaps - Snape could have easily killed him rather than stunning him in HBP. Who else and why? Rebecca From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jun 17 18:34:22 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 18:34:22 -0000 Subject: Rereading SS/PS question(s)/Harry's protections In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153982 > Alla: > If that is OKAY that it was easy enough to find Harry and as you are > saying DE or former DE were so afraid of Harry anyways, couldn't he > grew up with some.... I don't know less abusive, decent folks? > > Especially since as you are saying Harry has two related > protections. He needs protection given by Lily against Voldemort, > but the additional protection on Privet Drive, the charm that > Petunia sealed when she took Harry in, doesn't it look like > according to your argument that Harry does not actually need it? > > > See, I am not sure I am buying that DE will not attack Harry and > that is why I HOPE that protection on Privet Drive was essential too > ( would be nice if JKR confirmed it in book 7 by making DE attack > it), but then I am again back to Dumbledore who could not hide Harry > well enough. Pippin: This line of thought reminds me of the foolish villagers who decided that since no one ever fell off the cliff it would be safe to take the fence down. I think considering what happened to the Longbottoms, not to mention James and Lily themselves, it would only make sense for Dumbledore to take a belt and suspenders approach to keeping Harry safe. In the first place, we can't be sure that there weren't attacks on Privet Drive that Harry doesn't remember. Petunia is afraid to leave Harry alone lest she find her house in ruins, and Harry has that out-of- sequence memory of a black dragon rearing up in front of him. We also know that the Ministry keeps a close eye on Privet Drive in light of "past events" and that they are very sure there are no other wizards in the vicinity (obviously they don't know about the Order keeping watch.) It seems to me that if there are Muggle-repelling charms then there are probably wizard-repelling charms also, (don't we have a hint of that in HBP with the boat?) which wouldn't keep out underage wizards like Fred and George but would have to be removed by Dumbledore before any other wizards could get near Privet Drive. I know it seems like all this would be enough to protect Harry without the Dursleys, but OTOH, no else that Voldemort has tried to kill personally has ever survived anywhere near as long as Harry. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 17 18:49:32 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 18:49:32 -0000 Subject: Rereading SS/PS question(s)/Harry's protections In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153983 > Pippin: > This line of thought reminds me of the foolish villagers who decided > that since no one ever fell off the cliff it would be safe to take the > fence down. I think considering what happened to the Longbottoms, > not to mention James and Lily themselves, it would only make sense > for Dumbledore to take a belt and suspenders approach to keeping > Harry safe. Alla: And if I may go back to my original question. What you just said is perfectly understandable, but for the fact that Dumbledore's "belt and suspenders approach" just does not seem to work very well, does it? I mean, if those folks are Order Members, then I have no case, it is just I am incredibly puzzled of their way of keeping watch over Harry - deliberately directing Harry's attention to them. To me those folks seem to be doing what Steve suggested as his second idea - thanking Harry, etc, basically doing celebrity hunting. And if they do THAT, Dumbledore's security measures do not seem to be worth a dime to me, since anybody can locate Harry, anybody. IMO of course. Alla From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jun 17 19:19:06 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 19:19:06 -0000 Subject: Rereading SS/PS question(s)/Harry's protections In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153984 > Alla: > > And if I may go back to my original question. What you just said is > perfectly understandable, but for the fact that Dumbledore's "belt > and suspenders approach" just does not seem to work very well, does > it? > > I mean, if those folks are Order Members, then I have no case, it is > just I am incredibly puzzled of their way of keeping watch over > Harry - deliberately directing Harry's attention to them. > > To me those folks seem to be doing what Steve suggested as his > second idea - thanking Harry, etc, basically doing celebrity > hunting. And if they do THAT, Dumbledore's security measures do not > seem to be worth a dime to me, since anybody can locate Harry, > anybody. IMO of course. > > Pippin: No one seems to have been loitering with the purpose of meeting Harry. They aren't hanging out by his school or his house and they seem to vanish within seconds of spotting him. Further we don't see anyone we know to be a DE. I'd say that Dumbledore's spells can't stop Harry from being recognized by the occasional wizard but they don't allow him to be hunted and they don't let any wizard who does recognize him linger in the area. Pippin From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Jun 17 20:57:39 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 20:57:39 -0000 Subject: Choice and Essentialism/Understanding Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153985 Pippin: > Yeah, I think you're on to something here. Rowling is > essentialist,but her position is that everyone is > essentially good, ie that there is something uniquely > and infinitely valuable in everyone. That is what makes > murder the greatest evil: not because death itself terrible, > but because murder denies the existence of that essential, > irreplaceable good. So while no character is essentially > evil, even Voldemort, some are morally evil because they > deny the goodness of others. [snip the rest because I couldn't > edit it and do it justice] houyhnhnm: I agree with nearly everything you said except for the first clause in the second sentence. In the Mugglenet/Leaky cauldron interview last July, Rowling said "... I think there's a line there between the moment in Chamber of Secrets when Dumbledore says so famously, "It's our choices that define us, not our abilities," straight through to Dumbledore sitting in his office, saying to Harry, "The prophecy is significant only because you and Voldemort choose to make it so. If you both chose to walk away, you could both live!" She goes on to say, " It's the "Macbeth" idea. I absolutely adore "Macbeth." It is possibly my favorite Shakespeare play. And that's the question isn't it? If Macbeth hadn't met the witches, would he have killed Duncan? Would any of it have happened? Is it fated or did he make it happen? I believe he made it happen." That is clearly an existentialist position. When asked about Dumbledore's admonishment that "If the time should come when you have to make a choice between what is right and what is easy ...." in a 2000 interview with the _Toronto Sun_, Rowling said that the choice between what is right and what is easy was key for her "because that, that is how tyranny is started, with people being apathetic and taking the easy route and suddenly finding themselves in deep trouble." I think this is pretty unequivocal. Sometimes Rowling is coy or evasive in interviews, but I don't think she is being so here. I think what she says is what she truly believes. And notice how she paraphrased herself--"It's our choices that *define* us". I think it is much more likely that in writing close to 900,000 words, she may have been have been guilty of selecting one imprecise word--"show" instead of "make", than that she really was making a statement that what we are is predetermined, only to be revealed by our choices. I think what she is saying, both in the interviews and in the books, is that people may be born with a certain kind of nature, but they can choose to go against that nature when it is the right thing to do. That is, by nature a person may be happy or unhappy, resentful or forgiving, impulsive or deliberative, brave or timid. For those who are forgiving by nature, to forgive may not take a very great effort. They can simply follow their nature. But the same person who is naturally forgiving may also be naturally timid and may thus be thrust into a situation in which doing the right thing requires going against his or her nature. Since no one is born with every perfection of character, everyone may expect to be faced with a choice which rquires going against one's own nature in order to do the right thing. Evil results when people refuse to make that choice and simply follow the path of least resistance. Pippin: > Dumbledore seems to be an example of this -- he says that > he never thought he would have someone like Harry in his life. It > seems that it took him 150 years before he felt close to anyone. > Between that and the awful contents of the green basin, I > venture that he was once more like Tom Riddle than anyone > would imagine, Gryffindor or no. houyhnhnm: This I don't agree with. I didn't think Dumbledore was referring to his *personal* relationship with Harry (although I do think he has an affection for Harry which is personal) I interpreted it to mean that DD never dreamed he would have a young student of Harry's caliber to guide and help mold, not that he had never had anyone like Harry "in his life". From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Jun 17 22:47:06 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 22:47:06 -0000 Subject: James' essence WAS: Re: Choice and Essentialism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153986 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > > Magpie: > > > > I should say that I think there are places where Sirius > > is closer to lying because of his bias. I took everything > > he said about his family with a big grain of salt. Again, > > not that I thought he was lying--his mother, at least, seemed > > to live down to everything he said about her.But the way he > > so quickly had a bad take on every person he was related to > > made me think there was more to their stories. And of course > > I think that was leading up to Regulus. > > houyhnhnm: > > It's hard to discuss whether or not James and Sirius truly > hated the Dark Arts when we don't know for sure what makes > an Art Dark. There has been much argument and little > consensus over what constitutes Dark Arts. a_svirn: Precisely. Also for me at least Sirius's statement rings hollow because he tries to find excuse for something inexcusable. It doesn't matter whether or not James hated the Dark Arts. His aversion to every thing Dark did not give him the licence to act as he did. The fact that Sirius brought James's hatred to the Dark Arts in such a context makes his claim less believable. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Jun 17 23:03:31 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 23:03:31 -0000 Subject: Choice and Essentialism/Understanding Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153987 > Pippin: > > > Yeah, I think you're on to something here. Rowling is > > essentialist,but her position is that everyone is > > essentially good, ie that there is something uniquely > > and infinitely valuable in everyone. That is what makes > > murder the greatest evil: not because death itself terrible, > > but because murder denies the existence of that essential, > > irreplaceable good. So while no character is essentially > > evil, even Voldemort, some are morally evil because they > > deny the goodness of others. [snip the rest because I couldn't > > edit it and do it justice] > > houyhnhnm: > > I agree with nearly everything you said except for the first clause in > the second sentence. > > In the Mugglenet/Leaky cauldron interview last July, Rowling said "... > I think there's a line there between the moment in Chamber of Secrets > when Dumbledore says so famously, "It's our choices that define us, > not our abilities," straight through to Dumbledore sitting in his > office, saying to Harry, "The prophecy is significant only because you > and Voldemort choose to make it so. If you both chose to walk away, > you could both live!" > > She goes on to say, " It's the "Macbeth" idea. I absolutely adore > "Macbeth." It is possibly my favorite Shakespeare play. And that's the > question isn't it? If Macbeth hadn't met the witches, would he have > killed Duncan? Would any of it have happened? Is it fated or did he > make it happen? I believe he made it happen." > > That is clearly an existentialist position. a_svirn: Now there we do it again. Existentialist or essentialist? Because essentialist position would have been something quite the opposite ? that Macbeth would have turned out a murderer no matter what ? because it is in his nature. Also I think that Voldemort *is* essentially evil. I mean, really, what about that phrase that he never loved anyone? Unlike Snape who did and therefore more culpable? It sort of suggests that Voldemort can't be even hold accountable for his actions. He's just inherently evil ? the bad blood of the Gaunts, no doubt. He simply can't help it. This is a kind of contrary to the main message of the series, but apparently necessary for the plot purposes. From eve.rosemary at googlemail.com Sat Jun 17 13:30:44 2006 From: eve.rosemary at googlemail.com (Rosemary Eve) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 14:30:44 +0100 Subject: Interesting email I received.... - Theory about Dumbledore not being dead In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <73c76a3f0606170630l53336c3fxd8a9c34e48abb662@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153988 > > Tonks: > > This idea has been around here before. Someone here said that LV > > would not make a whole lake into a potion. I think they are right. > > Joe: > Why not? What would stop YNW from creating a lake which was actually > a potion? But DD didn't drink the water. I thought Harry splashed his face with it... Rosemary Eve From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Jun 17 23:50:09 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 23:50:09 -0000 Subject: Unwelcome visitors and drinks in HBP chapters 1-4 (Was: Spinner's End Clues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153989 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "canyoutellmehowtoget" wrote: > > > a_svirn: > > Ah, but his guests were much more agreeable! Even Bellatrix for all her hostility never tried to usurp his position as a host. Which is more that could be said of Dumbledore at the Dursleys's and > Scrimgeour at the Prime Minister's office. That was a parallel that struck me as important when I first read HBP. It's really disturbing the way the Best of the Good Guys and the lax-principled Minister for Magic employ similar tactics in intimidating hapless muggles -- down to symbolic gesture of offering drinks to their hosts. I am still not sure whether Rowling really meant to cast a shadow on Dumbledore moral authority by making this connection or whether it was totally unintentional. However it might be it makes Dumbledore behaviour appear almost sinister. > > > Joe said: > In the case of DD with the Dursley's I think JKR was going for > comedic relief with the glasses of mead bonking the Dursley's on the head so that they would take them and drink them. DD was about to > upbraid the Dursley's on their behavior toward HP so a bit of > knocking them upside the had may have been appropriate. I didn't find it sinister. I didn't think it was casting a shadow on Dumbledore moral authority at all. > Tonks: Yes it was very humorious. But remember JKR uses humor and other emotions to take us away from what she is doing right in front of our noses at times. She will drop a clue while we are distracted. I was impressed with DD's ability to manipulate the situation with the talent of a master. It did seem a bit, well, shameless, a bit pushy. And then later DD, when Harry is assigned to get Slughorn's memory, DD encourages Harry to be cunning, and apparently thinks nothing of Harry getting someone drunk to get the information he wants from them. It borders on an unforgivable invasion of another's free will. But I guess because it doesn't go over the line it is OK. Still it is interesting that DD would be so blatantly manipulative, but dark side of me loves the fact that he is soooo good at it. I think, oh ya, I want to be able to do it that well. Smooth . and not from Snape but from DD!!!! You could say that DD is and advises Harry to be "cunning as a serpent". Also I think the reason Bella behaves as a proper guest is because Snape is more powerful that she is. Maybe this scene is suspose to show us that. Maybe that is part of why she is in it. LV right hand is really Snape. Even Bella can go only so far with him. So maybe one thing all of these scenes show is who are the most power people in this story. Tonks_op From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Jun 17 23:56:03 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 23:56:03 -0000 Subject: Interesting email I received.... - Theory about Dumbledore not being dead In-Reply-To: <73c76a3f0606170630l53336c3fxd8a9c34e48abb662@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153990 Tonks: > > > This idea has been around here before. Someone here said that LV would not make a whole lake into a potion. I think they are right. Joe: > > Why not? What would stop YNW from creating a lake which was actually a potion? Rosemary: > But DD didn't drink the water. I thought Harry splashed his face with it... Ceridwen: I had the wild idea some time back that the green goo was a potion lacking a catalyst, and that the lake water was the catalyst. The object would be to turn anyone drinking the goo into an Inferus to live in the lake with the rest of the Inferi army. (This was in relation to a failed idea that DD was slowly turning into an Inferus on the tower (weakness, face getting paler, etc.). Problems: DD didn't drink the water; Inferi are created with a spell if I recall correctly.) Not that the Inferi in the lake were created from the potion! They were created already and put there by LV, a place to hide his army until he needs it, or a part of the horcrux defenses. But anyone who got so far would need to drink, the water from the lake was the only thing which could be drunk, and there would be another body in the ranks. This would be the way that LV found out who had disturbed his horcrux - they would be the person or people he did not personally add. It's possible, of course, that a couple of drops got into DD's mouth when the water splashed on his face. But it doesn't seem like a lot would have gotten in. Ceridwen. From richter at ridgenet.net Sun Jun 18 00:30:27 2006 From: richter at ridgenet.net (Peggy Richter) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 00:30:27 -0000 Subject: Rereading SS/PS question(s)/Harry's protections In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153991 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: (snip) Dumbledore's "belt and suspenders approach" just does not seem to work very well, does it? I mean, if those folks are Order Members, then I have no case, it is just I am incredibly puzzled of their way of keeping watch over Harry - deliberately directing Harry's attention to them. PAR: what if they were Order members who DELIBERATELY let Petunia see them? We know DD has stated that he watched over Harry and that this watch was "closer than you know". We also know that there were instances where Harry had uncontrolled expressions of magic -- jumping (levitating) to the school roof, turning a teacher's hair blue. What if these brief sightings were tied to these - reminding Petunia that while the abuse might not be eliminated, abandoning Harry wouldn't be accepted and that there were wizards who were at least checking to see if he was still all in one piece and breathing? I admit that there is very little cannon evidence for this -- the descriptions of the "odd people" Harry meets are so vague and brief that they could be anyone -- except that he DOES recognize one of them later. And it would go at least a small way to showing that DD wasn't "ok" with the Dursley's abuse, and that he did go to some effort to minimize it. Petunia clearly knows a wizard when she sees one in hat and robes. Her "furiously" asking Harry if he knew one of them might well be guilt that the WW was checking on Harry when he was out of her sight. She would be afraid of what Harry might tell them or what they might tell Harry. PAR. From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sun Jun 18 10:17:11 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 10:17:11 -0000 Subject: Choice and Essentialism/Understanding Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153992 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > a_svirn: > Now there we do it again. Existentialist or essentialist? Because > essentialist position would have been something quite the opposite ? > that Macbeth would have turned out a murderer no matter what ? > because it is in his nature. Also I think that Voldemort *is* > essentially evil. I mean, really, what about that phrase that he > never loved anyone? Unlike Snape who did and therefore more > culpable? It sort of suggests that Voldemort can't be even hold > accountable for his actions. He's just inherently evil ? the bad > blood of the Gaunts, no doubt. He simply can't help it. This is a > kind of contrary to the main message of the series, but apparently > necessary for the plot purposes. > Gerry But Voldemort could help it. He is unable to love, but he does know right from wrong. He hoodwinked almost the entire school when he was a boy. He could have gone on doing that and have had a brilliant career at the MoM. He would have been hugely popular, could have married a trophy wife and had a couple of children en nobody would have known that inside he was an egocentric cold fish, only caring about himself. He had these possibilities, yet he choose differently. I think JKR means that Voldemort only understands about loving and connecting on an intellectual level. He knows these things exist but he has had no experience of it himself. Yet Snap had, and therefore his choices were -how do I say that- more profound because he does understand these things on an emotional level as well. Gerry From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jun 18 12:01:38 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 12:01:38 -0000 Subject: Choice and Essentialism/Understanding Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153993 > > a_svirn: > > Now there we do it again. Existentialist or essentialist? Because > > essentialist position would have been something quite the opposite ? > > that Macbeth would have turned out a murderer no matter what ? > > because it is in his nature. Also I think that Voldemort *is* > > essentially evil. I mean, really, what about that phrase that he > > never loved anyone? Unlike Snape who did and therefore more > > culpable? It sort of suggests that Voldemort can't be even hold > > accountable for his actions. He's just inherently evil ? the bad > > blood of the Gaunts, no doubt. He simply can't help it. This is a > > kind of contrary to the main message of the series, but apparently > > necessary for the plot purposes. > > > Gerry: > > But Voldemort could help it. He is unable to love, but he does know > right from wrong. He hoodwinked almost the entire school when he was a > boy. He could have gone on doing that and have had a brilliant career > at the MoM. He would have been hugely popular, could have married a > trophy wife and had a couple of children en nobody would have known > that inside he was an egocentric cold fish, only caring about himself. > He had these possibilities, yet he choose differently. Pippin: Exactly. And we do have a character who is just such a cold fish, who speaks of love in terms of power rather than feeling, who seems to understand the need for emotional support only intellectually, and yet is regarded as a good man, indeed the best of them. Albus Dumbledore. I think JKR makes it a little too easy for us to blame Voldemort's evil on the bad blood of the Gaunts. The Blacks are every bit as arrogant, violent and unstable, even Sirius. Yet he was still a loving godparent. Pippin From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Jun 18 14:46:58 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 10:46:58 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Choice and Essentialism/Understanding Snape) References: Message-ID: <006401c692e6$0d863370$4f92400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 153994 Gerry But Voldemort could help it. He is unable to love, but he does know right from wrong. He hoodwinked almost the entire school when he was a boy. He could have gone on doing that and have had a brilliant career at the MoM. He would have been hugely popular, could have married a trophy wife and had a couple of children en nobody would have known that inside he was an egocentric cold fish, only caring about himself. He had these possibilities, yet he choose differently. Magpie: But that gets back to the personality again. I could have chosen lots of different things and perhaps been a neurosurgeon by now and have a lot more money. I didn't choose them because, among other things, I have no desire to be a neurosurgeon. That choice really wasn't open to me the way it was other people who do become surgeons because I was naturally only going to be attracted to things I liked by nature. That's why it's hard to compare characters choices without comparing their natures and situations. The things you're saying are incentives for Voldemort to choose differently (he'd be popular and nobody would know he was an egocentric cold fish) aren't any more incentives to him than it would be an incentive to Hermione to do badly at school so people wouldn't know she cared so much about grades. I don't know if it completely comes down to blood--it seems more like a combination of things. But whatever the combination, Voldemort seems to really have no incentive to go by the rules of society. Ironically this is something encouraged plenty of times in the books. Lots of characters decide that their needs outweigh what might be considered "right" by others in a situation, or have different ideas of right and wrong than someone else. It's just that in my experience in canon every time someone holds up two characters and says they're the same but chose differently (so proving the one could have been the other) it always seems like given the characters involved we're talking about two totally different sets of choices. -m From estesrandy at yahoo.com Sun Jun 18 15:19:41 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 15:19:41 -0000 Subject: Star Gazing Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153995 BOOK SEVEN THEORY I have seen many posts which mention the names of the star constellations which correspond to the Harry Potter characters. I don't know everything that has been discussed on this list, so I may be repeating and old thread. However; I will keep typing anyway. ;0) The constellation of Draco the Dragon has an interesting mythology. Draco guarded the golden apples in the garden of the Hesperides. Hercules was tasked to steal these golden apples. This was the most difficult of Hercules' 12 tasks because he did not know where to find the apples. The apples were wedding presents to Juno which she left with the daughters of Hesperus and Draco to protect. Atlas is the father of the Hesperides and Hercules wants Atlas to find the apples and bring them to him. Hercules goes on to slay the Dragon and takes on the burden of Atlas to hold up the Heavens. Atlas gathers the apples to give them to Hercules, and reluctantly Atlas returns to his task of holding up the Heavens. Hercules is the ultimate Hero of Greek (Heracles) and Roman mythology. Harry Potter is patterned in the mold of Hercules because he has to perform heroic tasks and he is hounded by Volemort. Hercules must perform 12 heroic tasks and is hounded by the goddess Hera. Hercules had tasks involving a lion, a stag, centaurs, and the three headed dog named Cerberus. While the Harry Potter storyline will not follow this tale directly, it might use some of the elements described. Draco will help the Black daughters to hide the horcruxes. One of the horcruxes will be a wedding present at the Weasley-/Delacour marriage (perhaps the tiara mentioned in HBP). Harry will need help to find the horcruxes from someone who has been bearing the weight of the heavens on his shoulders for years. My guess is Severus Snape who has been hiding his secret for years to protect the wizard world. Snape will help Harry find the horcruxes while Harry distracts Draco and the Black sisters, or Snape will distract Draco and the Black sisters while Harry finds the horcruxes. Snape will then help Harry destroy the horcruxes. Another version could be that Harry gets help from Lupin (who seems to bear a heavy load). Perhaps Snape is the Hera type character who torments Harry in the manner that Hera torments Hercules. Hera sees Hercules as a symbol of shame due to her husband's infidelity. Snape could see Harry as a symbol of shame if he desired Lily and James stole her away from him.(at least in the mind of Severus Snape). In this case Harry must defeat Severus Snape to retrieve and destroy the Horcruxes. Lupin could redeem himself for his earlier inactions by helping Harry in this manner. Just a theory with some relation to the constellations and mythology. By the way, the Southern Cross used by sailors to navigate is also called "the CRUX". The Black sisters (Narcissa and Andromeda) names are stars in the skies. There is a wolf constellation which could be related to the myth of Fenrir in Norse mythology. Any thoughts from the experts? Randy (the troublemaker) From honeykissed246 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 18 05:18:21 2006 From: honeykissed246 at yahoo.com (Darlene Carroll) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 22:18:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Interesting email I received.... - Theory about Dumbledore not being dead In-Reply-To: <73c76a3f0606170630l53336c3fxd8a9c34e48abb662@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060618051821.28318.qmail@web33205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 153996 Joe: > Why not? What would stop YNW from creating a lake which was actually > a potion? Rosemary Eve: "But DD didn't drink the water. I thought Harry splashed his face with it..." Honeykissed: Yes it did say that Harry splashed it in his face but do you remember what Slughorn told Harry about potion when he was helping him with Ron when Ron consumed the love potion that was in the chocolates "the longer the potion sits, the stronger the effects". If you think about it, the sleepiness did not really affect Dumbledore until later on. I think this was because he did not actually drink it. I agree with Joe, I believe that is what the lake was made out of and I can't wait until the 7th book comes out so I can do the "I told you so dance (smile)". --------------------------------- Ring'em or ping'em. Make PC-to-phone calls as low as 1?/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bjk5377 at verizon.net Sat Jun 17 04:49:38 2006 From: bjk5377 at verizon.net (Barbara Kraus) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 23:49:38 -0500 Subject: Book 7, Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <01d201c691c9$711d2fb0$6400a8c0@BarbaraComputer> No: HPFGUIDX 153997 Tonks: I think that DD is dead. I too wondered what Fawkes was doing. It was something very different, something meant for DD alone. (IMO) And it also connected to something deep in Harry the same as it did in COS. I think that there is some connection there between what happened in the chamber of secrets and what was happening to DD under the tower. (As I am typing this I do see a connection. Since I have said that the COS was the tomb of Christ, and I see DD as a symbol of Christ, to me it ties together. And I think that JKR meant to tie those two images together in that moment.) I wondered if Fawkes song were some sort of healing song. A resurrection song. Since I think that DD is a Christ figure I do think that we will see him again. <<< I think this is a wonderful story and a world I would like to enter...but do you really think that J.K. Rowling was trying to write in parallels to the Bible? I think you do a disservice to her... The Harry Potter stories are so well-written - I have seldom in my life read books where I felt like I had physically entered into that world - I have felt that with the Harry Potter books - but - this is a woman who was down & out and started writing in a coffee shop (or something similar) with her young daughter at her side - from everything I have read, when I read the biblical comparisons here, I can only think...oh, please. Give me a break. Best, Barbara From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jun 18 17:00:59 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 17:00:59 -0000 Subject: Star Gazing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153998 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Randy" wrote: Randy; > Just a theory with some relation to the constellations and > mythology. By the way, the Southern Cross used by sailors to > navigate is also called "the CRUX". The Black sisters (Narcissa and > Andromeda) names are stars in the skies. There is a wolf > constellation which could be related to the myth of Fenrir in Norse > mythology. Geoff: You left out Bellatrix and the "boys". The star references are: Sirius... alpha Canis Major (Great Dog) Regulus... alpha Leo (Lion) Bellatrix... gamma Orion Andromeda seems to be the name if a constellation and not a star. The odd one out seems to be Narcissa, which I would link to Narcissus in Greek mythology. Anyone point me to a star Narcissa? From wootshanks at yahoo.com Sun Jun 18 17:01:03 2006 From: wootshanks at yahoo.com (wootshanks) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 17:01:03 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore is dead/is not dead Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 153999 I had a theory on the whole 'Dumbledore is dead/is not dead' discussion that I would like to share. I think that the biggest (and well founded) arguments for DD not being dead is that when most people get hit with the AK curse, they fall down with their eyes open and a look of terror on their faces. But when Snape alegedly hit DD with the curse, DD flew up into the air, and then later Harry noted that DD looked like he was sleeping peacefully. I think Dumbledore knew he was going to die months ago and planned for it. He had been searching for the Horcruxes, he mostly like knew that Volde had fatal traps guarding them. Draco's task was to kill him, etc etc. (whether DD knew, or suspected what draco's task was, is a whole 'nother issue!) I suspect that DD was near death while on the Astronomy Tower, then Snape hit him with a non-verbal Banishment or Repelling Charm, but said, "Avada Kadavra" out loud. Then, either the fall finally killed him or he allowd himself to die at that point, since he had accomplish what he wanted. Draco didn't become a murderer, the Malfoys would be killed because Draco didn't complete his task, and Harry, having witnessed all this, has the motivation to go after Snape...leading him the Volde. Just some thought! >(o.o)< Wootshanks From kelley_thompson at sbcglobal.net Sun Jun 18 17:29:42 2006 From: kelley_thompson at sbcglobal.net (Kelley) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 17:29:42 -0000 Subject: Sunday Chat Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154000 Hey, everyone-- I'm supposing we'll give the Chatzy room another try this week; here are the directions: 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. (May need to click this a couple times.) Chat start times: 11 am Pacific US 12 noon Mountain US 1 pm Central US 2 pm Eastern US 7 pm UK 8 pm Germany, France, Spain (not certain which countries are in this same zone) And, btw, I know some of our Aussie members would like to chat but the Sunday chat time is completely inconvenient for you; if any of y'all would like to set a new chat time, that would be great. I'd be very glad to set an announcement to go out each week, help set up a poll if y'all want to decide on a day/time, etc., so if anyone is interested, just say so. (This should all be discussed on OTC, rather than main, of course.) --Kelley From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Sun Jun 18 19:31:39 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 19:31:39 -0000 Subject: Choice and Essentialism/Understanding Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154001 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: And we do have a character who is just such a cold fish, who speaks of love in terms of power rather than feeling, who seems to understand the need for emotional support only intellectually, and yet is regarded as a good man, indeed the best of them. Albus Dumbledore. > Steven1965aaa: A cold fish? Sorry Pippin, I don't see where you get that, at all. I can think of no indication anywhere in the books that DD sees love on an intellectual level only. Just the opposite, really. That recurring gleam in his eyes, the way he "beams" at Harry. Now I admit that we don't see many examples of DD on an emotional level, but IMO that's simply because he's pretty old and we don't know his personal/family history, and because we see him when he's relating to the students. He's not the protagonist of the books, so we're not privy to whatever love/family life he had in the past. We do have at least a couple of examples of him acting on an emotional level, such as when he was teary eyed when Harry said he was DD's man through and through in HBP, when he was talking about how it was his feelings for Harry which caused him to make the mistakes he refers to at the end of OOP. From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Sun Jun 18 19:31:40 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 19:31:40 -0000 Subject: Choice and Essentialism/Understanding Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154002 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: And we do have a character who is just such a cold fish, who speaks of love in terms of power rather than feeling, who seems to understand the need for emotional support only intellectually, and yet is regarded as a good man, indeed the best of them. Albus Dumbledore. > Steven1965aaa: A cold fish? Sorry Pippin, I don't see where you get that, at all. I can think of no indication anywhere in the books that DD sees love on an intellectual level only. Just the opposite, really. That recurring gleam in his eyes, the way he "beams" at Harry. Now I admit that we don't see many examples of DD on an emotional level, but IMO that's simply because he's pretty old and we don't know his personal/family history, and because we see him when he's relating to the students. He's not the protagonist of the books, so we're not privy to whatever love/family life he had in the past. We do have at least a couple of examples of him acting on an emotional level, such as when he was teary eyed when Harry said he was DD's man through and through in HBP, when he was talking about how it was his feelings for Harry which caused him to make the mistakes he refers to at the end of OOP. From estesrandy at yahoo.com Sun Jun 18 20:04:14 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 20:04:14 -0000 Subject: Star Gazing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154003 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Randy" wrote: > > Randy; > > Just a theory with some relation to the constellations and > > mythology. By the way, the Southern Cross used by sailors to > > navigate is also called "the CRUX". The Black sisters (Narcissa and > > Andromeda) names are stars in the skies. There is a wolf > > constellation which could be related to the myth of Fenrir in Norse > > mythology. > > Geoff: > You left out Bellatrix and the "boys". > > The star references are: > Sirius... alpha Canis Major (Great Dog) > Regulus... alpha Leo (Lion) > Bellatrix... gamma Orion > > Andromeda seems to be the name if a constellation and not a star. > > The odd one out seems to be Narcissa, which I would link to Narcissus in Greek > mythology. > > Anyone point me to a star Narcissa? Randy replies... Forget about Narcissa, this star gazing just got more interesting. I just looked up Hercules and star constellations. Hercules is best known for his superhuman strength, strong emotions, quickness to act, and often poorly thought out plans. Harry is definitely quick to action with little thought ahead of time. Regarding the star pattern...Earlier views of the constellation held it to be various things, predominantly a stag. The stag represents the earlier version of Hercules, and the father of Harry is a stag animagus. The constellation of Hercules is directly above the Draco constellation. They are eternal adversaries. Hercules is holding a club in one hand and a Lion skin in his other hand and ready to strike the serpent (or Dragon) named Draco. Draco the dragon always has his eyes open and never sleeps. Draco is sometimes called Draco Insomnis (Unsleeping Dragon). After all you should never tickle a sleeping dragon! I guess many of you already knew this stuff, but I just found out and I think it is so cooool! Randy From vinkv002 at planet.nl Sun Jun 18 20:12:35 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 20:12:35 -0000 Subject: Choice and Essentialism/Understanding Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154004 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > Gerry: > > > > But Voldemort could help it. He is unable to love, but he does know > > right from wrong. He hoodwinked almost the entire school when he was a > > boy. He could have gone on doing that and have had a brilliant career > > at the MoM. He would have been hugely popular, could have married a > > trophy wife and had a couple of children en nobody would have known > > that inside he was an egocentric cold fish, only caring about himself. > > He had these possibilities, yet he choose differently. > > Pippin: > Exactly. And we do have a character who is just such a cold fish, who > speaks of love in terms of power rather than feeling, who seems to > understand the need for emotional support only intellectually, and yet > is regarded as a good man, indeed the best of them. Albus Dumbledore. Renee: If you call Dumbledore a cold fish, how do you interpret the tear he sheds in his office at the end of OotP - is it of the crocodile kind, or is it genuine? In other words, is Dumbledore a hypocrite, or does he mean what he says? Dumbledore does indeed seem to see love as a power rather than as an emotion (a force that inspires people to act instead of the proverbial warm fuzzy feeling), yet I don't see how this would automatically make him a cold fish like Voldemort is. When he says "I cared about you too much. I cared more for your happiness than your knowing the truth, more for your peace of mind than my plan, more for your life than the lives that might be lost if the plan failed. In other words, I acted exactly as Voldemort expects *we fools who love* to act," (emphasis mine) he sounds anything but cold to me. He does stay calm, yes, but that isn't the same. It looks like we're dealing with the old question again: does the absence of a big show of emotion signify the absence of emotion itself? Extravert people often take introvert people for cold, but that doesn't mean they're right. Different people just have different ways to express themselves. Renee From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Jun 18 21:10:59 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 21:10:59 -0000 Subject: Choice and Essentialism/Understanding Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154005 > > a_svirn: > > Now there we do it again. Existentialist or essentialist? Because > > essentialist position would have been something quite the opposite ? > > that Macbeth would have turned out a murderer no matter what ? > > because it is in his nature. Also I think that Voldemort *is* > > essentially evil. I mean, really, what about that phrase that he > > never loved anyone? Unlike Snape who did and therefore more > > culpable? It sort of suggests that Voldemort can't be even hold > > accountable for his actions. He's just inherently evil ? the bad > > blood of the Gaunts, no doubt. He simply can't help it. This is a > > kind of contrary to the main message of the series, but apparently > > necessary for the plot purposes. > > > Gerry > > But Voldemort could help it. He is unable to love, but he does know > right from wrong. He hoodwinked almost the entire school when he was a > boy. He could have gone on doing that and have had a brilliant career > at the MoM. He would have been hugely popular, could have married a > trophy wife and had a couple of children en nobody would have known > that inside he was an egocentric cold fish, only caring about himself. > He had these possibilities, yet he choose differently. a_svirn: I didn't mean that Voldemort had no possibilities to turn out good. On the contrary ? he had them all, but he couldn't help choosing the wrong path, because he couldn't help being "mad, bad and dangerous". What sort of person he is if he never ever loved anyone? Never even had the need for human society? Remember, after they had just watched the orphanage memory Dumbledore pointed this out for Harry? "I trust that you also noticed that Tom Riddle was already highly self-sufficient, secretive, and, apparently, friendless? He did not want help or companionship on his trip to Diagon Alley. He preferred to operate alone. The adult Voldemort is the same." So we have someone who doesn't want or need any human contact even, let along love. It kind of suggests that he has been a moral cripple from the beginning. Not surprisingly his choice was ultimately to cease being human altogether. From scarrie5 at verizon.net Sun Jun 18 21:02:56 2006 From: scarrie5 at verizon.net (Carrie) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 21:02:56 -0000 Subject: RAB case is broken - all Aurors please read! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154006 I looked up 'regulus' in dictionary.com and a secondary definition came up as "The metallic mass that sinks to the bottom of a furnace or crucible during smelting" The bottom of a furnace could be synonomous to the bottom of a boiler which is Kreacher's 'bedroom' in OOP. Maybe there is some kind of clue(s) there. The metal that I saw were silver- frame, coins, and something glinting in the corner may have been metal. "Carrie" From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Jun 18 21:49:19 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 21:49:19 -0000 Subject: Star Gazing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154007 Geoff: > You left out Bellatrix and the "boys". > Bellatrix... gamma Orion houyhnhnm: Orion the violator of one of the many Meropes in Greek mythology. But my money is on Merope of the Pleiades who married a mortal (Muggle?), Sisyphus in fact, and for that reason her star is the dimmest of the seven. She had one son, Glaucus, who grew up to be king of Corinth. He fed his horses on human flesh to make them fierce and thus brought down the wrath of the gods who caused him to be torn apart by horses. Merope, according to Wikipedia means "bee mask", but I read the meaning somewhere else as "bee killer" (can't remember where) Where are the etymologists (or entomologists, for that matter)? From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 18 22:34:52 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 22:34:52 -0000 Subject: James' essence/ a bit of Snape/Lily speculation WAS: Re: Choice and Essentialism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154008 > a_svirn: > Precisely. Also for me at least Sirius's statement rings hollow > because he tries to find excuse for something inexcusable. It > doesn't matter whether or not James hated the Dark Arts. His > aversion to every thing Dark did not give him the licence to act as > he did. The fact that Sirius brought James's hatred to the Dark Arts > in such a context makes his claim less believable. > Alla: I think I finally found a decent enough analogy to illustrate the way I think about it a bit better. I am not sure I remember where you stand on Snape/Lily from the past discussions. My position that it has a high possibility to make me very ill, but I am more and more convinced that in some shape or form it is going to come true. So, imagine for the sake of argument that somebody who likes Snape ( not that many people on the list, maybe DD's portrait) or Snape himself tells Harry that the reason he treated Harry in such way during all those years is because that he loved Lily and blamed Harry for Lily's death. This would be offered as justification for what Snape did to Harry. Do I BUY it as justification? Of course not, I will not be any less disgusted by Snape's treatment of Harry if it turns out that he was not mature enough to grasp that one year old child is NOT to blame for the fact that his mother loved him enough to die for him. BUT I would see no reason to doubt that the FACT that "Snape loved Lily" is true ( if it would be offered in the book as true). I will not buy it as justification, but I will buy it for the truth of the matter asserted. I will buy it for the reasons of literary ecomonomy too. Same here - I don't see propensity to lie as Sirius character trait. I do NOT buy it as justification, but I sure buy it as a factual assertion. JMO, Alla, who loves James character SO much more after pensieve scene than before it. From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com Sun Jun 18 22:45:17 2006 From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 22:45:17 -0000 Subject: Horcrux musings Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154009 I was pondering on Horcruxes, and how they would play out. So far, we've got: #1 The ?Slytherin? Locket - R.A.B.? #2 Riddle's Diary - Harry #3 The Peverell Ring - Dumbledore/Snape #4 ?Helga Hufflepuff's Cup? #5 ?Ravenclaw? #6 ?Gryffindor? #7 Voldemort - has to be Harry, but not neccessarily Harry alone. I'm wondering if some of the other horcruxes will be disabled by others, leaving Harry to find the evidence of their disarming, and to face Voldemort. There's nothing to indicate that Harry has to sort out the Horcruxes, and as others have pointed out, it would make for a massive book if he needs to find, and then work out how to disarm 3 or 4 horcruxes when one withered Dumbledore's arm, and another disabled him severely, possibly leading to his death. I suspect if the locket wasn't destroyed by R.A.B., it might have come into Fred & George's possession and they may have destroyed it. They are on close terms with Mundungus after all, and if he had the opportunity to remove a valuable locket, I believe he would, as he had a silver goblet with the Black crest. I'd guess the 'S' wouldn't come off the locket as easily as the crest would off the goblets. The locket may be Slytherin's, from Merope via Burke to Hepzibah and then Riddle, but that's not proven and may be a red herring. I can't help thinking the locket business is like the ball under one of 3 cups - it seems to be a classic Rowling sleight of hand. The ring, afaik, is only identified as having the Peverill coat of arms on it - it's never identified with any of the founders. So assuming neither Gryffindor nor Ravenclaw had a family name of Peverell, that would be two artefacts possibly unidentified. We may have input from Krum and Fleur, as well as Dobby and Firenze, and Bill's curse-breaking skills, so there's quite a pool of knowledge to deal with Horcruxes. I still like the idea of HRH plus Neville, Luna, and Ginny facing down Voldemort together - they've worked together in the last two books, and I can't see Harry dealing with Voldemort on his own. I know there's no new stuff here, but I was just trying to get it clear in my mind. Cheers, AmanitaMuscaria From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Jun 18 22:47:16 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 22:47:16 -0000 Subject: James' essence/ a bit of Snape/Lily speculation WAS: Re: Choice and Essentialism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154010 a_svirn: > > Precisely. Also for me at least Sirius's statement rings hollow > > because he tries to find excuse for something inexcusable. It > > doesn't matter whether or not James hated the Dark Arts. His > > aversion to every thing Dark did not give him the licence to act as > > he did. The fact that Sirius brought James's hatred to the Dark Arts > > in such a context makes his claim less believable. Alla: *(snip)* > I don't see propensity to lie as Sirius character trait. I > do NOT buy it as justification, but I sure buy it as a factual > assertion. Ceridwen: I think that it was something to say to get Harry from being so upset, and to try and repair the damaged image he had of his father after the Penseive scene. I think that was the context, something that Harry could grasp hold of, something *like Harry* that Harry could claim as good and noble about his father after something so uncomfortable. Harry is in a sad position of not knowing his parents, so he has no other context than what he is shown or told. James's hatred of the Dark Arts of course had little or nothing to do with the Penseive scene. It was deliberate misdirection by Sirius. It was probably true, just not applicable. At this point, I don't think Sirius's credibility was damaged for trying to redirect Harry and boost his esteem of his father again. Ceridwen. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Jun 19 00:34:43 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 00:34:43 -0000 Subject: James' essence/ a bit of Snape/Lily speculation WAS: Re: Choice and Essentialism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154011 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > a_svirn: > > Precisely. Also for me at least Sirius's statement rings hollow > > because he tries to find excuse for something inexcusable. It > > doesn't matter whether or not James hated the Dark Arts. His > > aversion to every thing Dark did not give him the licence to act as > > he did. The fact that Sirius brought James's hatred to the Dark Arts > > in such a context makes his claim less believable. > > > > Alla: > > I think I finally found a decent enough analogy to illustrate the way > I think about it a bit better. > > I am not sure I remember where you stand on Snape/Lily from the past > discussions. My position that it has a high possibility to make me > very ill, but I am more and more convinced that in some shape or form > it is going to come true. > > So, imagine for the sake of argument that somebody who likes Snape ( > not that many people on the list, maybe DD's portrait) or Snape > himself tells Harry that the reason he treated Harry in such way > during all those years is because that he loved Lily and blamed Harry > for Lily's death. > > This would be offered as justification for what Snape did to Harry. Do > I BUY it as justification? Of course not, I will not be any less > disgusted by Snape's treatment of Harry if it turns out that he was > not mature enough to grasp that one year old child is NOT to blame for > the fact that his mother loved him enough to die for him. > > BUT I would see no reason to doubt that the FACT that "Snape loved > Lily" is true ( if it would be offered in the book as true). > > I will not buy it as justification, but I will buy it for the truth of > the matter asserted. I will buy it for the reasons of literary > ecomonomy too. > > Same here - I don't see propensity to lie as Sirius character trait. I > do NOT buy it as justification, but I sure buy it as a factual > assertion. a_svirn: Well, you see, *facts* when it comes to such concepts as love and hate are very slippery things. If it turns out that Snape mistreated Harry because he had loved his mother I'd say it's not a "fact" but another justification. I mean, what kind of love is that? Clearly as twisted one as the logic of this explanation. Same with James's hate of the Dark Arts. You say you don't buy it as a justification of his actions. Fine, but thing is it is offered as just such a justification. Sirius wants Harry to believe that James acted as he did BECAUSE he hated the Dark Arts. But even Harry, as badly as he wants to be reassured, sees that this explanation won't wash. He acted as he did because he was a bully and he particularly despised Snape. So the truthful Sirius is really not quite straightforward here. Of course, James could have hated the Dark Arts, his bulling of Snape notwithstanding, just as Snape could have loved Lilly, his bulling of Harry notwithstanding. Yet it is really hard to believe that a sixteen-year-old James Potter gave any more thought on the subject of Dark Arts than his sixteen-year-old son ever did. (And he had much less incentive than Harry to think about such things.) And Harry, for one, does not *hate* the Dark Arts. Not least because like us he doesn't even know what they are really about. He hates persons ? Snape, Bellatrix, Umbridge, Voldemort. He is not, however, above using Unforgivables on those he really hates. We saw him fling a Crucio at Bellatrix and an AK at Snape. Of course, we don't know for sure whether Unforgivables are Dark. They are, nevertheless, unforgivable, and yet Harry uses them. Maybe towards the end of the Book 7 he will come to hate *Arts* more than he hates persons, but right now it is not the case. By the same logic I'd say that the teenage James's hatred of the Dark Arts boiled down to the hatred of one Severus Snape ? a slimy jit who knew more nasty curses than it was his fair share. Actually, I can readily believe that Sirius was the Marauder who really hated the Dark Arts. He was after all a Black who renounced his family heritage and hated with passion everything about the noble house of Black. And since his family was very much into the Dark Arts, he must have hated them with passion too. Personally, I see his explanation of the Pensive episode as a projection of his own feelings on James. Yet what does his hate of the Dark really mean? What are the Dark Arts for Sirius? I'd say it's everything to do with his parents' lifestyle, so to speak. Remember, during the purges at the Grimauld Place he destroyed all the portraits (he would have destroyed even the Pheneas's portrait if it weren't for Dumbledore) threw away everything down to some silver plate with the Black's coat of arms etc. Because for him it represented the Dark (as well as the Black). And remember how Harry almost beat Mundungus into a bloody pulp for stealing that same silver plate? Because for Harry it represented not the Dark of the Blacks, but a memento of Sirius. In other words, I'd say that just as Sirius did not hate some abstract Dark Arts ? he hated his parents and everything they stood for, James did not hate Dark Arts either ? he hated Snape. I should probably add "and everything he stood for", but thing is ? we don't know just *what* did he stood for at sixteen. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 19 01:01:35 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 01:01:35 -0000 Subject: James' essence/ a bit of Snape/Lily speculation WAS: Re: Choice and Essentialism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154012 > a_svirn: > Of course, James could have hated the Dark Arts, his bulling of > Snape notwithstanding, just as Snape could have loved Lilly, his > bulling of Harry notwithstanding. Alla: Yes, that is ALL I am saying. a-svirn: Yet it is really hard to believe > that a sixteen-year-old James Potter gave any more thought on the > subject of Dark Arts than his sixteen-year-old son ever did. (And he > had much less incentive than Harry to think about such things.) Alla: I don't think we will ever agree on this one from what I remember of the past discussions. :) It is NOT hard to believe for me at all that at sixteen James may have given a lot of thoughts about the subject of Dark Arts, especially given what was happening in the world around him. I think the Voldemort's rise may have given him a lot of incentive to do just that. IMO of course. a_svirn: By the same logic I'd say that the > teenage James's hatred of the Dark Arts boiled down to the hatred of > one Severus Snape ? a slimy jit who knew more nasty curses than it > was his fair share. Alla: Entirely possible OR it is also possible that James had other reasons to hate Dark Arts in general and people associated with them, which we just don't know about yet. a_svirn: > In other words, I'd say that just as Sirius did not hate some > abstract Dark Arts ? he hated his parents and everything they stood > for, James did not hate Dark Arts either ? he hated Snape. I should > probably add "and everything he stood for", but thing is ? we don't > know just *what* did he stood for at sixteen. Alla: Of course - often the hatred of the abstract is really the hatred of the people associated with it, but the thing is Sirius parents really don't seem to be "stood for" good things, right? And I agree, we don't know everything that Snape stood for at sixteen, but we know some things - he was not above inventing curse that could cut people and make them bleed to death and he was not above using "mudblood" word. This indeed has nothing to do with James' bullying, but it does not portray a very good picture of young Snape in my mind. JMO, Alla From catlady at wicca.net Mon Jun 19 01:33:25 2006 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 01:33:25 -0000 Subject: Names-Christianity/Hor-Crux/Spinner'sEnd/Werewolves-Prank/Basilisk Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154013 Magpie wrote in : << Dolores means sorrows and comes from one of the titles of the Virgin Mary. Do you think she's supposed to be the Virgin Mary? Because I think JKR just thought Dolores was the right kind of name for her because it's kind a girlie feel to it. >> I think JKR was thinking, consciously or not, of the word 'dolorous' meaning 'painful' because that Delores Jane sure is a pain. << Malfoy is definitely bad faith, a meaning which became more clear when Draco Malfoy's story in HBP actually illustrated the meaning of the term as Sartre used it. Apparently people had suggested the Sartre meaning before, but people didn't think much of the theory because until then it didn't show much about canon. >> You might want to explain the Sartre meaning. Before HBP, I assumed that the Malfoys had 'bad faith' as in, they lie a lot and betray people who thought they were friends. << A particularly lily is called the Easter lily (a holiday never celebrated in canon >> Except by Mrs Weasley sending candy Easter Eggs to the kids ... they also get a few days off classes. a_svirn wrote in : << Leslie41: << Sirius was a Christian and so were his parents, or else they would not have been allowed to have their child baptized. >> And that exactly what makes me wonder whether Christianity is really part of wizarding life. Mr and Mrs Black with their marked predilection for dark magic ? Christians? >> If Mr and Mrs Black despised Christianity as a Muggle (or wimp) religion, Sirius might have embraced it as part of his rebellion against them. Nikkalmati wrote in : << Connecting words by means of sound is not an accepted etymological technique. Hor- has nothing to do with whore. >> But connecting words by means of sounds is part of figuring out what the author was getting at, especially with invented words. I don't doubt that the sound similarity of 'hor' and 'whore' helped the word 'horcrux' sound evil to her ears, and those of many readers. << I also find the image of the cross, as a religious symbol, and the concept of a whore a troubling and inappropriate juxtaposition. >> The Horcrux, a means of achieving earthly immortality by commiting murder and ripping one's own soul into pieces, is *supposed* to be a troubling and inappropriate concept. It is *supposed* to feel blasphemous. Minerva523 wrote in : << what about his inherited dwelling, at Spinner's End? >> Please help me out. I don't know whether Snape inherited Spinner's End or bought it with his earnings as a professor. Please tell me what canon says. Lanval wrote in : << By distancing themselves from LV or Greyback, by insisting on, and arranging for, safety precautions for themselves, werewolves can choose to remain members of Wizarding society >> I got the idea that, unlike Mr and Mrs Lupin, who tried everything for poor baby Remus, most wizarding parents throw out their werewolf-infected children, who then are raised by the werewolf outlaws/outcasts with no education (neither literacy nor wizardry) and no connection to normal wizarding society, so it is not so easy for them to leave the werewolf gang and go to the wizards and *insist* on acceptance and safety precautions. Would they even know to go to Hogsmeade or the Leaky Cauldron to find wizards? It would be different for wizards who were infected as adults and already know how to get along in wizarding society, how to work the org chart of the Ministry of Magic to find Werewolf Supportive Services (mentioned in FB). << What do you suggest he eats, though -- not people, certainly? >> I wouldn't be surprised if Fenrir Grayback eats humans, but if he stations himself just before his transformation near the child he plans to infect, he wouldn't have time to kill and eat a human in wolf form before attacking the child. << Lupin states in PoA that werewolves are a danger _only_ to humans. >> I take that as meaning "werewolves are *infectious* only to humans", so that Padfoot wasn't infected by being nipped by Moony while both in canine form. I also take it as meaning that the scent (or presence) of humans automatically drives the werewolf into a mindless frenzy of obsessed hatred and compelled hunger, so that he can't restrain himself from attacking any human he can reach. But among non-humans, he keeps some part of his mind and can deliberately choose whether or not to attack (e.g. for hunting for food). Wormtail and Prongs weren't scared that Moony might hunt them for food because they carelessly assumed that as long as he didn't encounter a human and go berserk, um, ulfserk, he still had his ENTIRE human mind like they did. (Which is part of Animagery, as mentioned in a preface to QTTA distinguishing between an Animagus who transforms into a bat versus a regular wizard who is Transfigured into a bat and therefore has only a bat's mind and no ability to remember whence he wanted to fly.) Unfortunately, all that merely agrees with your original post . If, as I had always thought, the scent/presence of humans automatically makes the werewolf "lose all control and all traces of humanity, and turn into a raging monster", that is, ALWAYS 'get carried away', then indeed "how on earth does he stop himself from killing" when his intention is to infect? Peggy Richter wrote in : << And Lupin in answer says "thre were near misses, many of them. We laughed about them afterward". Not the response one might make to "I almost killed people" >> Speaking as someone who spent my teen years dating boys who drove very fast after a few beers: yes, it is. Lanval wrote in : << Now you bring up another strange fact: where WERE the Marauders that night? Why were they not with Lupin? How, and when did Sirius tell James, and where was Peter >> I have generally assumed that the boys sneaked out after curfew to join Moony who was already transformed. If they left tooo early, their absence might be noted. But then, I've never understood why the entrance to the tunnel to the Shrieking Shack is outside under the Whomping Willow rather than inside, maybe starting as a secret staircase from Madam Pomfrey's office. Kathryn Jones wrote in : << I'm rather curious as to why [Riddle] could look at [the basilisk] and associate with it and not be killed. Flint? >> Parselmouth. << He might have been offering it dinner. >> Dinner = Myrtle. From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Jun 19 01:52:30 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 21:52:30 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] re:Names-Christianity References: Message-ID: <01f001c69343$06badfc0$4f92400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 154014 Catlady: << Malfoy is definitely bad faith, a meaning which became more clear when Draco Malfoy's story in HBP actually illustrated the meaning of the term as Sartre used it. Apparently people had suggested the Sartre meaning before, but people didn't think much of the theory because until then it didn't show much about canon. >> You might want to explain the Sartre meaning. Before HBP, I assumed that the Malfoys had 'bad faith' as in, they lie a lot and betray people who thought they were friends. Magpie: Sorry, yes--I will try to explain it as I understand it. pre-HBP I thought the "bad faith" of the Malfoys meant that they had faith in the worst things. If you think of the Pureblood ideology like a bad religion. Okay, the Sartre "bad faith" is a form of self-deception. It is to believe you have no choice in the way you behave, to adopt a role and live your life according to it whatever your own real feelings might be. Most importantly, it is an abandonment of responsibility. You don't acknowledge your freedom to act, because you are a mere thing, a tool of fate, you are what your role in life is. The mantra of a person living in "bad faith" is "I have no choice," which is what Draco says in the Tower. As Elkins first pointed out years ago, Draco in canon even before HBP shows signs of conflict within himself. The moments he's at his most DE-ish he shows signs of problems; he's flushed, feverish, quivers. This is not to say that his "real self" is a nice guy while he pretends to be bad. In Sartre there is no "inner self" to judge a person by as opposed to what he does. We *are* and then we *act*. The way we act shows who we are (it is our choices that show who we are). The self-deception lies, often, in choosing not to decide, to pretend one is a role and is not able to choose freely. Seeing the truth is often connected with mortality--we realize that when we die we are only ourselves, not part of "them" or whatever role we have chosen. HBP, I think, really takes Draco carefully through a story that leads him to that moment of truth--to the edge of it, that is. He's confronted with mortality, his own and others, throughout the book after five books of stressing how unreal death is to him. Draco in the Tower is all about the Bad Faith--he keeps saying he's going to kill, but doesn't act. When he finally says, "I'm the one with the wand..." and all that, I think that's the dawning of understanding of free choice. It's important that his wand going down even a fraction of an inch happens after Draco recognizes that he has a choice, that he's come this far and doesn't *have* to choose one way or the other, and when Dumbledore has given him a concrete offer. It's all about what he wants to choose himself. That's as far as he gets in HBP. Catlady: Except by Mrs Weasley sending candy Easter Eggs to the kids ... they also get a few days off classes. Magpie: Sorry, I totally forgot that when I wrote that. We do have references to Easter in canon. -m From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 19 02:10:59 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (once_red56) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 02:10:59 -0000 Subject: Rereading SS/PS question(s) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154015 > bboyminn wrote: > > Finally, we have the protections around Harry. People seem to forget > that Harry really has TWO separate but related protections. What save > his life was Lily's protection from her sacrifice. That protection is > always with Harry, and Dumbledore has confirmed its continued > existance on more than one occassion. Voldemort being able to touch > Harry only represents one aspect of Lily's protection, the bulk of > Lily's sacrifice continues to protect Harry. > > The second level of protection is the additional spells that > Dumbledore put on Harry to protect him while he is at Privet Drive. > Those new protections do expand on the protections Lily gave Harry, > but they are not one and the same. > Hi Guys and Gals, I'm new here. I'm not sure Lily's protection is still around other than the blood protection Dumbledore added through Petunia. It's in Harry's blood and in Petunia's and it probably protects her from Voldy also. But there doesn't seem to be anything stopping Voldy from attacking Harry in GoF. Both the diary revenant Tom in CoS and Voldy in GoF seem to know that Harry has no protection because he has no mother to die for him anymore. And Voldy throws a couple-three spells at Harry that connect just fine. If one had been the AK would it have rebounded? I don't think so but who knows? >Alla wrote: > > > > Question 2. I guess I do want to ask about Dumbledore. > > Sorry! Isn't that incredibly strange that all those > > people can find Harry, KNOW how to find Harry? > > > > Um , what would stops the DE from doing so then? Just > > approaching Harry on the streets and kidnapping him if > > not Aking him ...why not kidnap him and go through few > > nice torture rounds) I'm with Alla here. The protection DD added seems only to work when in Petunia's company (all the time until he's 11 and over the summer after that) and only against Voldy. There isn't any 'wizard-repelling charm' on #4 Privet unless DD removed it prior to Arthur Flooing in GoF and all those OotPs showing up in OotP (not likely). There really doesn't seem to be anything preventing any wizard approaching Harry any time they like. I for one would really like to know what the "ancient magic" that DD invoked actually does? IMO it only protects Harry from Voldy, and only while in the care of Petunia. Sidelight: Since Dudley has his mother's blood and hence Lily's isn't it ironic that Harry is also protected in Dudley's companionship? I find this oxymoronic condition highly amusing! Mike/once_red56 From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Sun Jun 18 23:02:58 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 23:02:58 -0000 Subject: Star Gazing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154016 > Geoff: > You left out Bellatrix and the "boys". > > The star references are: > Sirius... alpha Canis Major (Great Dog) > Regulus... alpha Leo (Lion) > Bellatrix... gamma Orion > > Andromeda seems to be the name if a constellation and not a star. > > The odd one out seems to be Narcissa, which I would link to Narcissus in Greek > mythology. > > Anyone point me to a star Narcissa? > Alphard is a star too. I thought there were a few others but I don't have a list handy. I have never run across a reference to a star named Narcissa, I don't believe she has an astronomical name. Andromeda is indeed a constellation rather than a star. It is the home to the largest galaxy in the group that our own Milky Way belongs to. It is one of the few external galaxies that are visible to the naked eye and by far the farthest away, the others being the two clouds of Magellan and possibly the star cluster omega Centauri. You have to be close to the equator or in the southern hemisphere to see those three. Rowling often uses a heavy dose of whimsy in her place and character names. You have to wonder how she avoided the temptation to use the star name Zubenelgenubi as a character name. Ken From puduhepa98 at aol.com Mon Jun 19 02:27:21 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 22:27:21 EDT Subject: Evil-LID-OFH Snape How does that work? Message-ID: <329.5c05867.31c76589@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154017 Nikkalmati: I have been considering how some of the issues will play out if Snape is evil, out for himself or evil plus life debt, ignoring possible DDSnape. I have not seen much comment on how this story arc will work and the possibilities are endless. Regardless of his flavor, ESESnape, LIDSnape, or OFHSnape, after HBP, SS has committed himself to LV and openly chosen his side. 1. Draco is presumably lost to the Order. He will have to go permanently into hiding, he will be killed or if he is forgiven by LV, there will be no one to remind him of DD's mercy and turn him around. Snape may still be constrained by the UV to protect him, but no flavor of Snape will advise him to reject LV. 2. Snape may be in trouble with LV because he interfered with the plan to punish Lucius through Draco and because he did not capture Harry. There were 3 DEs there and Harry was alone except for Hagrid. The DEs will tell LV about Harry following them and Snape will have to have a story ready for why he could not wrap him up as a present for LV. I am assuming it is true SS could not kill Harry on orders of LV. Snape may be able to convince LV he was going back to get Harry and to bring Harry along, but Buckbeak prevented it. LV may be so delighted with Snape's getting rid of DD that he forgives him everything else - or Snape may go into hiding, but if he is not going to help LV or the Order, he has no more part in the story. 3. If Snape is going to help the Order because he is Out For Himself and wants both DD and LV out of the way, does he believe the Prophesy and support Harry as the only possible killer of LV? What does Snape hope to get at the end, if LV is killed, that he would not get if LV were killed and DD were still alive? Or does Snape want LV to succeed and he would become his right hand man or would retire to a manor in the country? Is he really stupid enough to believe LV is to be trusted not to kill him someday? 4. If Snape is not going to help the Order, but is actively helping LV now, how could the Order or the Trio possible prevail? SS is not only a powerful wizard, he has brains, a commodity in short supply on LV's team. More to the point, SS knows way too much about the Order. He knows all or most of the members, their strengths and weaknesses, their disguises, and their patronices.(sp?) He knows who is an antimagus, who is loyal to the MOM, and where they have held meetings. He knows the secret passageways into Hogwarts and probably all about the wards in use. He probably knows about the Horcruxes and DD's attempt to find them, whether DD told him explicitly or not. He knows where the Burrow is, and probably where Harry's family lives and where Hermionie's family lives (or he knows how to find out). Ditto for the other students. 5. If Snape is evil, how will he repay the Life Debt? Does Snape's failure to kill Harry in HBP free him from the Life Debt, if not why not? 6. Is there any hope of redemption or forgiveness for ESESnape, LIDSnape, or OFHSnape or will that element of JKR's message be devoted to some other character? Could it be LV? Would Snape have to have a total reversal of character to achieve redemption or be deserving of forgiveness? How big a role will he play in Book 7, after all this is Harry's story. Just a few random thoughts on the future of ESE, OFH or LID Snape. Does anyone have comments on how the evil Snape triplets would carry on in Book 7? Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 19 02:38:03 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 02:38:03 -0000 Subject: More PS/SS quotes and musings./Hermione, Snape and others Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154018 Heee, I thought it will take me one or two days to reread this book. But when one reads several books at the same time, it sure takes longer. :) "Hermione had become a bit more relaxed about breaking rules since Harry and Ron had saved her from mountail troll, and she was much nicer for it. The day before Harry's first Quidditch match the three of them were out in the freezingf contryyeard during break, and she had conjured them up a bright blue fire that could be carried around in jam jar. They were standing with their backs to it, getting warm, when Snape crossed the yard. Harry noticed at once that Snape was limping. Harry, Ron and Hermione moved closer together to block the fire from view; they were sure it wouldn't be allowed. Unfortunately, something about their guilty faces caught Snape's eye. he limped over. he hadn't seen the fire, but he seemed to be looking for a reason to tell them off anyway. "What's that you've got there, Potter?" It was Quidditch Through Ages. Harry showed him. "Library books are not to be taken outside the school." said Snape. "Give it to me. Five points from Gryffindor." "He just made that rule up," Harry muttered angrily as Snape limped away. "Wonder what's wrong with his leg?" "Dunno, but I hope it is really hurting him." said Ron bitterly - PS/SS, p.182, paperback. Alla: Okay, how talented Hermione is in case anybody did not know that yet. :) She conjured them a fire? I wonder if that is in the first year cirriculum. :) Um, why are they so sure that getting warm would not be allowed? And of course SO want to slap Snape here, SO want to slap him. He would not let Harry read a book? Just sitting outside and reading a book? Ugh, talk about finding excuses to make his life miserable. I also reread in print how much TMTMNBN robbed our Ron by giving his best lines and behaviour to Hermione. No, Hermione was NOT useful at all in troll's fight. She was FROZEN and scared and she was not teaching Ron how to perform Wingardium Levioza, Ron did it all on his own. Ugh. I mean, I remembered that, but just SO annoyed by taking Ron's best episodes from him, ALL of them. But oh my God, she is so talented, just not battle wise yet in PS/SS. "As a surprise for Harry they had planted a large banner on one of the sheets Scabbers ruined. It said Potter for President , and Dean who was good at drawing , had done a large Gryffindor lion underneath. Then Hermione had performed a tricky little charm so that the paint flashed different colours" - p.184, paperback. I wonder what that charm was. Another question. Does this quote simply foreshadow Norbert or the fact that Harry is still to meet wild dragons in book 7, here in Britain? "but there aren't wild dragons in Britan?" said Harry. "Of course there are, said Ron. "Common Welsh Green and Hebridean BBlacks. The Ministry of Magic has a job hushing them up, I can tell you. Our kind have to keep putting spells on Muggles who've spotted them, to make them forget" "So what on earth's Hagrid up to?" said Hermione - p.231. Alla From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jun 19 03:08:28 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 03:08:28 -0000 Subject: More PS/SS quotes and musings./Hermione, Snape and others In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154019 > Alla: > Um, why are they so sure that getting warm would not be allowed? > Pippin: The Trio had a guilty conscience over the Troll incident. They knew that McGonagall wouldn't have given them any points if she'd known that Ron and Harry had driven Hermione to take refuge in the bathroom and then locked her in with a troll, and that she'd lied to cover up for them. Alla: > And of course SO want to slap Snape here, SO want to slap him. He > would not let Harry read a book? Pippin: Back to the troll incident: "What on earth were you thinking of?" said Professor McGonagall, with cold fury in her voice. Harry looked at Ron, who was still standing with his wand in the air."You're lucky you weren't killed. Why aren't you in your dormitory." Snape gave Harry a swift, piercing look.--PS/SS ch 10 Snape use legilimency to find out what had really happened, and later took away five points to make up for the five points they had got under false pretences. Pippin From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Jun 19 03:10:25 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 03:10:25 -0000 Subject: RAB case is broken - all Aurors please read! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154020 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carrie" wrote: > > > I looked up 'regulus' in dictionary.com and a secondary definition > came up as "The metallic mass that sinks to the bottom of a furnace or > crucible during smelting" The bottom of a furnace could be synonomous > to the bottom of a boiler which is Kreacher's 'bedroom' in OOP. Maybe > there is some kind of clue(s) there. The metal that I saw were silver- > frame, coins, and something glinting in the corner may have been > metal. > Tonks: Hum... has sort of an Alchemical ring to it. Wonder if there is any connection to that. I don't know the process. Some people think that Alchemy is involved in the books. I see it only as far as a symbol of transformation of the human to his highest level of being. Others see much more. It may be an important clue for them. Tonks_op From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 19 03:19:50 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 03:19:50 -0000 Subject: More PS/SS quotes and musings./Hermione, Snape and others In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154021 > Alla: > > And of course SO want to slap Snape here, SO want to slap him. He > > would not let Harry read a book? > > Pippin: > Back to the troll incident: > "What on earth were you thinking of?" said Professor McGonagall, > with cold fury in her voice. Harry looked at Ron, who was still > standing with his wand in the air."You're lucky you weren't > killed. Why aren't you in your dormitory." > Snape gave Harry a swift, piercing look.--PS/SS ch 10 > > Snape use legilimency to find out what had really happened, > and later took away five points to make up for the five points > they had got under false pretences. Alla: Um, and that is of course Snape job to make sure that EVERY point Trio received during their school career is a fair one. :) Thanks for the laugh, Pippin. Troll's incident is done and over with. Another teacher awarded them points. The way I see it it is Snape's joy and pleasure in life to torment Harry and he is happy to take any posibility to do so. I speculate that he vicariously relives Pensieve scene here. James is dead, so let's make James' son life as a total misery. JMO, Alla From kjones at telus.net Mon Jun 19 03:20:33 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 20:20:33 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Moaning Myrtle's murder (Was: Harry a Horcrux?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44961801.5090607@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 154022 justcarol67 wrote: > Here's what we, as opposed to the WW, know about Tom and the Basilisk. > > Tom was guilty of murder, three murders, in fact, about a month after > Myrtle's death. (She died in June of his fifth year, when he was > sixteen. The Riddles were murdered during summer break of the same > year. He returned to school the following year wearing Marvolo Gaunt's > ring but unable to create a Horcrux at that time. So Tom is capable of > murder. > > Tom can control the Basilisk. "It won't come until it is called," he > tells Harry (308). IOW, it does not roam through the pipes on its own, > much less enter the school, on its own. Tom summons it by saying in > Parseltongue, "Speak to me, Slytherin, greatest of the Hogwarts four" > (317). Only then does it leave the statue of Slytherin. > > Tom views himself as the Heir of Salazar Slytherin, whose "noble work" > was to free Hogwarts from Muggleborns. That was the whole reason that > he kept the Basilisk in the Chamber of Secrets. He worked for "five > whole years to find out everything [he] could about the Chamber of > Secrets and discover the secret entrance" (312), meaning that he > started this attempt as a first-year. After Tom frames Hagrid, he > doesn't dare open the Chamber again (i.e., release the Basilisk) > because DD is watching him, (and besides, that would reveal that the > monster who killed Myrtle was not Aragog). But he doesn't want to > waste "those long years [he] spent searching for it," so he preserves > his memory in the diary so that he can "lead another in [his] > footsteps, and finish Salazar Slytherin's noble work" (312)--i.e.,, > ridding the school of "Mudbloods." KJ writes: Without disagreeing with you entirely, because we both know that Tom is a nasty murdering little swine, one part of this post intrigued me. At the time of the opening of the chamber the first time, Tom did not know that he was related to Slytherin. He discovered that fact after tracing his family via the information on his mother, which allowed him to find his relatives. It was not until he had spoken to Morfin, in my mind, that he developed his true hatred for Muggles. That was the moment in time that Tom found out that he had a living father who had rejected him utterly. It was that knowledge, as well as the knowledge that he had played a part in the death of Myrtle that gave him the ability to kill in rage. Those murders, which were easily accomplished for a wizard, gave him the ability to kill in cold blood. As he also had an interest in horcruxes following those killings, it gave him a reason to continue his killing, that in his mind justified his murders. All serial killers can give some kind of justification for what they have done. My feeling is that Tom had been intrigued with the legend of the chamber, had tried to find it in the hopes of finding something that would make him more than he was. This occurred when he discovered that he now had complete control of a basilisk. I'm certain that he gave not a tinker's damn about Myrtle's death, but I don't see a clear intention to kill her. It seems to me to be a way to commit mayhem, a way to give himself power as the only person who knew what was going on, and it actually prevented him from opening the chamber again, which must have driven him crazy. I think that prior to Myrtle's death he felt inferior to the children who knew their parents, knew that they were pure-bloods, and death of Myrtle must have given him an enormous feeling of superiority. I just don't see it as an end in itself. So, I just can't view it as a soul-splitting experience, unlike the killing of his father and grandparents. JMHO KJ From joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net Mon Jun 19 02:13:28 2006 From: joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net (Joe) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 02:13:28 -0000 Subject: Star Gazing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154023 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > Merope, according to Wikipedia means "bee mask", but I read the > meaning somewhere else as "bee killer" (can't remember where) > Joe: This may have been pointed out before, but Dumbledore means bee in Old English per JKR in an interview. From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jun 19 03:30:23 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 03:30:23 -0000 Subject: Choice and Essentialism/Understanding Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154024 Pippin: > And we do have a character who is just such a cold fish, who > speaks of love in terms of power rather than feeling, who seems to > understand the need for emotional support only intellectually, and yet > is regarded as a good man, indeed the best of them. Albus Dumbledore. > > > Steven1965aaa: > > A cold fish? Sorry Pippin, I don't see where you get that, at all. Pippin: I don't expect this to be a popular theory -- it takes what we would like to be a mysterious but loveable character and makes him remote and difficult. But if JKR really wants to show us that it's our choices, not our (dis)abilities that make/show what we are, then she has to show us a character with the same disability as Voldemort who made different choices. I think Dumbledore's the one. JKR certainly emphasized in her interviews that he is detached, that he has no partner or confidante. In that he is very like Voldemort. He did act for love of Harry in OOP but that was after 150 years of detachment in which, he says, he never thought he would have someone like Harry on his hands. That Dumbledore was able to feel love at last, I think, was because of Harry's extraordinary power -- a miracle, if you like. Pippin From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Mon Jun 19 03:20:23 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 03:20:23 -0000 Subject: Star Gazing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154025 > Geoff: > You left out Bellatrix and the "boys". > > The star references are: > Sirius... alpha Canis Major (Great Dog) > Regulus... alpha Leo (Lion) > Bellatrix... gamma Orion > > Andromeda seems to be the name if a constellation and not a star. > Ken: Here is the list of astronomical references I see in the Black family tapestry, plus one: STARS Sirius, the dog star in Canis Major Arcturus, brightest star in Bootes, the oxherd Regulus, brightest star in Leo, the lion Pollux, one of the Gemini twins, Castor being the other Bellatrix, a bright star in Orion Alphard, brightest star in Hydra, the water serpent (how Slytherinesque!) Merope, in Taurus, the bull, is one of the Pleiades, the seven sisters, in Japan they are known as Subaru! CONSTELLATIONS Orion, the hunter and one of the most visually stunning of the constellations Cassiopeia, the wife of Cephus, the W shaped northern constellation Draco, the dragon Andromeda, the daughter of Cassiopeia Cygnus, the swan who flies along the Milky Way, aka the northern cross Comments It is interesting that Alphard who is named after a star in the water serpent would manage to get himself blasted off the tapestry. Does the presence of the name Merope in the Gaunt family indicate a tie to the Black family? Orion is a lovely constellation to the naked eye and contains some of the great telescopic objects too. I'd hazzard a guess that it is Rowling's favorite and that is why Harry had to plot its stars during his astronomy OWL. Unfortunately it would have been below the horizon at that time and date. I guess this is an example of author as god, even the heavens must obey Her! If you drive a Subaru your hood ornament is a blue oval with six stars in it. If, as someone else has said here, Merope is the dimmest of the Pleiades it would be the missing seventh star from the Subaru ornament. Somehow it seems typical that poor Merope would be left out. Ken From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Jun 19 03:42:48 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 03:42:48 -0000 Subject: Star Gazing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154026 Randy: > The constellation of Draco the Dragon has an interesting > mythology. Draco guarded the golden apples in the garden of > the Hesperides. Hercules was tasked to steal these golden > apples. This was the most difficult of Hercules' 12 tasks > because he did not know where to find the apples. houyhnhnm: Can amateurs play? I did a little review of Greek mythology. Hercules was never my favorite character, I was more into Theseus, and I can't remember all that much of his story. But I looked up the twelve labors and found some amusing parallels. Of course Harry isn't working out a penance, so the fit isn't going to be exact. I connected the task of acquiring the apples of the Hesperides with Harry's task of obtaining Slughorn' memory. At first I thought of the first task in the TWT because of the dragon guardian, but then I thought the essence of the task in both cases was having to use cleverness to get someone to give you something they didn't want to give you. I'm not sure where Draco fit's into it, though, and I agree he ought to play a role. I have come up with a few others. Some tasks will have to be left for book 7, but if we can eliminate the tasks Harry has already performed, maybe it is a clue to how he will uncover the remaining horcruxes. They can't occur in the same order, for Harry of course, that they occur in the Hercules myths because Harry had completed the twelfth task, getting past the three headed dog in order to journey to the Underworld (even if he didn't have to wrestle it), by the end of his first year. I haven't decided about the Nemean Lion Snape's description in DADA class of the "many-headed monster" makes it sound like something Harry will have to face in book 7. I think the Hydra is Voldemort. The Hind of Ceryneia must be the unicorn killed by Wormtail, although the correspondance isn't perfect. Although the unicorn, like the Hind, is something that should have been protected from harm but wasn't, Harry didn't shoot it (but then he didn't kill his family, either). The Centaurs are unable to heal the unicorn, unlike the Hind. The Erymanthean Boar and the Augean Stables are two I'll have to give more thought to, but the task of the Stymphalian Birds definately equates with driving off the Dementors. The Cretan Bull I must give some more thought to, also, but Hippolyte's Belt must be Harry's fight with Bellatrix at the Ministry. Fighting the "Amazon Star". Except that he didn't kill her or capture anything. Maybe his showdown with Bella is yet to come, over a horcrux. The man-eating Mares of Diomedes do cause me to think of the Thestrals, except for the fact that the Thestrals never hurt anyone that we know of, and so far, no one has hurt them. Does anyone else want to play? If not I may think some more about some of the other tasks tomorrow. From winkadup at yahoo.com Mon Jun 19 04:08:37 2006 From: winkadup at yahoo.com (Wendy Dupuy) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 21:08:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Horcrux musings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060619040837.70685.qmail@web34108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154027 amanitamuscaria1 wrote: >> I was pondering on Horcruxes, and how they would play out. So far, we've got: #1 The ?Slytherin? Locket - R.A.B.? #2 Riddle's Diary - Harry #3 The Peverell Ring - Dumbledore/Snape #4 ?Helga Hufflepuff's Cup? #5 ?Ravenclaw? #6 ?Gryffindor? #7 Voldemort - has to be Harry, but not necessarily Harry alone. << Wendy: Could the Horcruxe for Gryffindor be the sword? What happened to it after Harry returned it Dumbledore? From enlil65 at gmail.com Mon Jun 19 05:44:08 2006 From: enlil65 at gmail.com (Peggy Wilkins) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 00:44:08 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Rereading SS/PS question(s) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1789c2360606182244s5a1a530bhc22971605a8bdd7f@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154028 On 6/18/06, Mike/once_red56 wrote: Mike: > I'm not sure Lily's protection is still around other than the blood > protection Dumbledore added through Petunia. It's in Harry's blood and > in Petunia's and it probably protects her from Voldy also. > > But there doesn't seem to be anything stopping Voldy from attacking > Harry in GoF. Both the diary revenant Tom in CoS and Voldy in GoF seem > to know that Harry has no protection because he has no mother to die > for him anymore. And Voldy throws a couple-three spells at Harry that > connect just fine. If one had been the AK would it have rebounded? I > don't think so but who knows? Peggy W: As Dumbledore says in GOF, "Voldemort has overcome that particular barrier". It's clear he's referring to Voldemort's newfound ability to touch Harry without suffering bodily destruction, but there may indeed be more to it. As you rightly suggest, Voldemort doesn't hesitate in the least to fire Avada Kedavra at Harry in the graveyard shortly after he touches him. This suggests that there is no doubt in Voldemort's mind that the AK won't backfire on him this time, and that he could be successful; otherwise, he wouldn't even try. Voldemort seems to understand exactly what happened to him at Godric's Hollow, and his ability to touch Harry with his new body is the proof (to himself) that he was correct. (Note that Dumbledore also knows he knows it: is this the basis of the gleam of triumph?) He also understands that he can now kill Harry with Avada Kedavra, with no one there at the graveyard to die in his place. If it hadn't been for Harry's well-timed Expelliarmus and the resulting Priori Incantatem effect between their wands, that would have been the end of Harry. Well, Voldemort and Dumbledore might understand it, but I'm not sure I do! In any case, whatever Voldemort did in using Harry's blood to reconstitute his body, it seems to have nullified Lily's lingering protection, and it now allows Harry and Voldemort to engage in "mortal combat". Is that a good thing? Perhaps it is, because now we are closer to an end... I believe you are correct in your suggestion that Dumbledore's added blood protection is still in effect, and so at least Voldemort can't sneak up on Harry while he is under 17 and living at Privet Drive. The protection Dumbledore gave at Hogwarts is probably gone now that Dumbledore is gone, so it would seem there's no longer any advantage to living there. Note the trouble Voldemort had to go to in order to get Harry at the graveyard, thus removing him from Dumbledore's protections and from the blood protections of Privet Drive. It seems he really had no other option than to get Harry out of protection, to have a chance at killing him. -- Peggy Wilkins enlil65 at gmail.com From juli17 at aol.com Mon Jun 19 05:51:40 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 01:51:40 EDT Subject: Hating Dark Arts (was re James' essence...) Message-ID: <319.5565def.31c7956c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154029 a-svirn: Yet it is really hard to believe > that a sixteen-year-old James Potter gave any more thought on the > subject of Dark Arts than his sixteen-year-old son ever did. (And he > had much less incentive than Harry to think about such things.) Alla: I don't think we will ever agree on this one from what I remember of the past discussions. :) It is NOT hard to believe for me at all that at sixteen James may have given a lot of thoughts about the subject of Dark Arts, especially given what was happening in the world around him. I think the Voldemort's rise may have given him a lot of incentive to do just that. IMO of course. Julie: This is possible, but I have to wonder if Dark Arts are directly analogous with evil and with Voldemort. After all, you can kill with plenty of non-Dark spells if that's your desire, and I'd think certain Dark Arts might be useful outside of their potential danger. So it does seem strange that James *hated* Dark Arts as a concept the way Sirius implies, rather than hating, say, Death Eaters (whose direct tie to Voldemort is irrevokable), or other particular persons he believes wronged him or his in some way using Dark Arts. a_svirn: By the same logic I'd say that the > teenage James's hatred of the Dark Arts boiled down to the hatred of > one Severus Snape ? a slimy jit who knew more nasty curses than it > was his fair share. Alla: Entirely possible OR it is also possible that James had other reasons to hate Dark Arts in general and people associated with them, which we just don't know about yet. Julie: It's still strange to me that James hated Snape so passionately for performing nasty curses (Dark Arts curses, presumably), while he was fine with hexing anyone who annoyed him. Does he really think it's fine to humiliate and hurt others as long as it's not an official "Dark" spell or hex? Does the label truly make the difference? (Yes, I know this is contradictory to my what I said above!) Now I wonder if James has a very specific reason for hating the Dark Arts, as Alla suggests. Something that happened during his childhood, perhaps, that made him hate Snape and perhaps most Slytherins (or any other kids from "Dark Arts" families) from the moment he came to Hogwarts as an eleven year old. I think it is entirely possible. That hate between James and Snape--and between Sirius and Snape--that apparently existed from that moment they all started school (and didn't yet even *know* each other, to the best of our knowledge) seems entirely too personal to be engendered by a learned and generalized distaste for a particular brand of magic. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jun 19 06:28:52 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 06:28:52 -0000 Subject: Star Gazing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154030 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: Ken: > Rowling often uses a heavy dose of whimsy in her place and character > names. You have to wonder how she avoided the temptation to use > the star name Zubenelgenubi as a character name. Geoff: She obviously had a stronger will than Douglas Adams when he created Slartibartfast in "Hitch hiker's guide to the Galaxy". :-)) From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jun 19 06:37:36 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 06:37:36 -0000 Subject: Star Gazing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154031 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Joe" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" > wrote: > > Merope, according to Wikipedia means "bee mask", but I read the > > meaning somewhere else as "bee killer" (can't remember where) > > > > Joe: > This may have been pointed out before, but Dumbledore means bee in Old > English per JKR in an interview. Geoff: Specifically the bumble bee IIRC, a connection which, as you suggest, has been pointed out before. There have been suggestions on several occasions that Dumbledore may take the Animagus form of a bee - pointing to various instances when a bee has been mentioned in canon. Perhaps OT, but in the village where I now live, there is a house called "Dumbledory" which I believe was the bee keeper's house at one time. From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Jun 19 07:05:35 2006 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 07:05:35 -0000 Subject: RAB case is broken - all Aurors please read! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154032 > R.A.B. = R=Remember A=Albus' B=Brother . at the BAR. (RAB > backwards) > > On the parchment with the note and the RAB. in the U.S. version the > letters R and B and joined together at the bottom to make a V under > the letter A. Is this also the case in the U.K. and other versions? > Is there anyone out there that has it in another language where the > first letter is the letter for the word Remember and the last letter > is not a B but the first letter of the word "Brother" in your > language? Please let us know ASAP. Finwitch: Well, Regulus Black is Regulus Musta in Finnish - the letters are, accordingly, R.A.M. As for brother, it's "veli" - quite different. And if it were to be as you suggest, Remember Albus' Brother - it ought to be M.A.V. in Finnish... And, I do know the translator contacted JKR on the issue. She gave an interview on it... However, as per all others given info on the last letter among translations, I think we can consider it given that the B *does* stand for Black. Whether R stands for Regulus is yet to be seen, but at least we know that Regulus was a DE and wanted out and is, therefore, a likely candidate. Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Jun 19 07:31:17 2006 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 07:31:17 -0000 Subject: Names-Christianity/Hor-Crux/Spinner'sEnd/Werewolves-Prank/Basilisk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154033 > > > I wouldn't be surprised if Fenrir Grayback eats humans, but if he > stations himself just before his transformation near the child he > plans to infect, he wouldn't have time to kill and eat a human in wolf > form before attacking the child. And I think that it would make more sense if *infecting* was the driving need rather than killing (contrary to what Ministry &al. might believe.) After all, breeding overdrives the need of survival on many species. Of course, since werewolf manner of breed is biting humans instead of or in addition to mating it'd make sense that they would try to bite humans... and no doubt many humans would see that as intent to kill... Besides, as Lupin told Molly, the bite didn't fully infect Bill because it wasn't Full Moon, and as the *forced* state of Wolf takes place at that same time... and it only takes a little time -- I'd say it really IS about breeding. We haven't yet seen a *Female* werewolf, and I do wonder if there is one. Also, does Fleur's Veela blood make her immune to werewolves? Or, Hagrid's *giant*-half for that matter? And doesn't Flitwick have a bit of goblin in his ancestry? > << Lupin states in PoA that werewolves are a danger _only_ to humans. >> > > I take that as meaning "werewolves are *infectious* only to humans", > so that Padfoot wasn't infected by being nipped by Moony while both in > canine form. Yes. or that they only have the irresistible need to hunt humans, but... sometimes I do wonder wherher Sirius WAS infected that night. After all, in GoF, Harry meets Sirius only occasionally. In OOP, Sirius sometimes concealed himself in a locked room... From vinkv002 at planet.nl Mon Jun 19 07:45:37 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 07:45:37 -0000 Subject: RAB case is broken - all Aurors please read! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154034 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carrie" wrote: > > > > > > I looked up 'regulus' in dictionary.com and a secondary definition > > came up as "The metallic mass that sinks to the bottom of a furnace or > > crucible during smelting" The bottom of a furnace could be synonomous > > to the bottom of a boiler which is Kreacher's 'bedroom' in OOP. Maybe > > there is some kind of clue(s) there. The metal that I saw were silver- > > frame, coins, and something glinting in the corner may have been > > metal. > > > > Tonks: > Hum... has sort of an Alchemical ring to it. Wonder if there is any > connection to that. I don't know the process. Some people think that > Alchemy is involved in the books. I see it only as far as a symbol of > transformation of the human to his highest level of being. Others see > much more. It may be an important clue for them. > Renee: Regulus has everything to do with alchemy. See f.i. this page: http://www.zompist.com/chemical.htm; regulus is at the bottom of the screen when you click. What it means? Perhaps that the true nature of Regulus Black only became apparent after he'd been thrown into the crucible and was purified. The regulus of antimony is especially interesting, as antimony is also known as the "grey wolf" in alchemy. Maybe there's a link between Regulus Black and either Remus Lupin or Fenrir Greyback. Renee From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Jun 19 07:58:27 2006 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 07:58:27 -0000 Subject: Hating Dark Arts (was re James' essence...) In-Reply-To: <319.5565def.31c7956c@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154035 > Julie: > It's still strange to me that James hated Snape so passionately > for performing nasty curses (Dark Arts curses, presumably), while > he was fine with hexing anyone who annoyed him. Does he really > think it's fine to humiliate and hurt others as long as it's not an > official "Dark" spell or hex? Does the label truly make the difference? > (Yes, I know this is contradictory to my what I said above!) > > Now I wonder if James has a very specific reason for hating the > Dark Arts, as Alla suggests. Something that happened during his > childhood, perhaps, that made him hate Snape and perhaps most > Slytherins (or any other kids from "Dark Arts" families) from the > moment he came to Hogwarts as an eleven year old. I think it is > entirely possible. That hate between James and Snape--and between > Sirius and Snape--that apparently existed from that moment they > all started school (and didn't yet even *know* each other, to the best > of our knowledge) seems entirely too personal to be engendered > by a learned and generalized distaste for a particular brand of magic. Finwitch: Now, I don't think James hated *families* associated with Dark Arts (or he'd NEVER been friend to Sirius Black) but rather people who *chose* to follow that path. Since Sirius' (almost) entire family was involved in Dark Arts, but Sirius did NOT go that way - James becomes Sirius' closest friend, close as a twin. On Other End, there's Snape, whose *father is a Muggle* and YET is up to his ears in Dark Arts!!! As to James hexing anyone who annoyed him... (Lily did agree there WAS provocation, though she didn't think it was enough of it) Maybe - thinking about Harry&Aunt Marge, Petunia worrying that 'they'd find the house in ruins' if they left Harry alone in there... I think it's possible that James used to suppress his anger (like 13- year-old Harry) and ended up having a SERIOUS magical accident. (Victim might have been Petunia, which would involve Lily and explain why Petunia hates magic and calls James a 'horrible boy' - if it was James). As result, James' father may well have *instructed* James to hex any who annoy him to avoid accidental magic coming up. Finwitch From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Mon Jun 19 08:01:41 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 08:01:41 -0000 Subject: Choice and Essentialism/Understanding Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154036 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > a_svirn: > I didn't mean that Voldemort had no possibilities to turn out good. > On the contrary ? he had them all, but he couldn't help choosing the > wrong path, because he couldn't help being "mad, bad and dangerous". > What sort of person he is if he never ever loved anyone? Never even > had the need for human society? Remember, after they had just > watched the orphanage memory Dumbledore pointed this out for Harry? I didn't make my point clear I presume. Voldemort being mad, bad and dangerous did not prevent him from making the choises I described. He could help making the choices that he did. At Hogwarts he did not steal, for example. But not because he suddenly was inherently honest. Gerry From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Jun 19 09:03:32 2006 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 09:03:32 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End Clues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154037 anigrrrl: > Here's my guess: I think that there was something in the drinks that > would render the Unbreakable Vow useless...or some kind of potion > that would otherwise change what would normally be a totally binding > magical promise. Snape was the potions master, the Half-Blood > Prince, the whiz kid of potions...the presence of drinks seems > significant. It would be so easy for Snape to whip up an > undetectable potion and slip it into everyone's drinks.... Finwitch: Well, I think there might have been *something* in those drinks. For all I know, Snape's entire storage of wine is dosed with potions. Veritaserum or similar would be my guess. Snape, as an occlumens, *can* resist it. I guess same goes for Bellatrix. (not as contained as the pure veritaserum fed to Crouch Jr. by Dumbledore though). I'm positive that Snape DID know what he was agreeing to do - if only by Legilimencing Narcissa during the vow. (he used the Serum mainly to find if either of them was Occlumens...) As for the dust... Wormtail may be forced to obey Snape but he's certainly showing resistance in his willingness to do so. As does Kreacher when it comes to Harry. So Wormtail may have decided not to wipe off the dust in his passive resistance. Finwitch From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Jun 19 09:13:16 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 09:13:16 -0000 Subject: Choice and Essentialism/Understanding Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154038 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "festuco" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > > > > a_svirn: > > I didn't mean that Voldemort had no possibilities to turn out good. > > On the contrary ?? he had them all, but he couldn't help choosing the > > wrong path, because he couldn't help being "mad, bad and dangerous". > > What sort of person he is if he never ever loved anyone? Never even > > had the need for human society? Remember, after they had just > > watched the orphanage memory Dumbledore pointed this out for Harry? > > > I didn't make my point clear I presume. Voldemort being mad, bad and > dangerous did not prevent him from making the choises I described. He > could help making the choices that he did. At Hogwarts he did not > steal, for example. But not because he suddenly was inherently honest. > > Gerry > a_svirn: I guess we are saying the same thing basically. Just starting from the two opposite ends. Voldemort did not steal at Hogwarts because it suited him not to steal, not because he chose to be honest. He??s just inherently dishonest (and bad, and mad) ?C which is exactly my point. And he is probably the only character in the HP books who was ??born?? that way. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Jun 19 09:24:53 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 09:24:53 -0000 Subject: Hating Dark Arts (was re James' essence...) In-Reply-To: <319.5565def.31c7956c@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154039 > Julie: > Now I wonder if James has a very specific reason for hating the > Dark Arts, as Alla suggests. Something that happened during his > childhood, perhaps, that made him hate Snape and perhaps most > Slytherins (or any other kids from "Dark Arts" families) from the > moment he came to Hogwarts as an eleven year old. I think it is > entirely possible. That hate between James and Snape--and between > Sirius and Snape--that apparently existed from that moment they > all started school (and didn't yet even *know* each other, to the best > of our knowledge) seems entirely too personal to be engendered > by a learned and generalized distaste for a particular brand of magic. > a_svirn: Possible, but not very probable, I'd say. If it were the case, WHY didn't Sirius said so? Here was his godson appalled and badly shaken at what he'd just witnessed, wanting badly to be reassured. He actually broke into the headmistress's office, just to talk this over with Sirius! And what had Sirius to say for himself and for James? "He was a bit of an idiot, Harry, but he hated the Dark arts!" Not surprisingly, Harry wasn't much impressed. From blink_883 at hotmail.com Mon Jun 19 09:20:14 2006 From: blink_883 at hotmail.com (whirledgirl) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 09:20:14 -0000 Subject: Hating Dark Arts (was re James' essence...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154040 > Julie: > It's still strange to me that James hated Snape so passionately > for performing nasty curses (Dark Arts curses, presumably), while > he was fine with hexing anyone who annoyed him. Does he really > think it's fine to humiliate and hurt others as long as it's not an > official "Dark" spell or hex? Does the label truly make the > difference? Finwitch: > > As to James hexing anyone who annoyed him... (Lily did agree there > WAS provocation, though she didn't think it was enough of it) > As result, James' father may well have > *instructed* James to hex any who annoy him to avoid accidental > magic coming up. WhirledGirl: I..have some ideas that might help! First about Julie's point regarding her finding it strange that James and Snape hate each other, apparently at first sight; There are a number of explanations for this, the first and simplest being that they simply did not like the look of each other and mutually decided to not bother. A bit like Harry decided he didn't like Draco in PS/SS. It does happen. Harry didn't know anything about Draco and his family either at that point. James and Snape aren't neccessarily a direct equal to Draco and Harry as enemies, there seem to be some differences, yet it could serve to explain. Also, the root of this conundrum seems to lie at how JKR has (or hasn't) really clarified what constituted 'dark' magic in those times, let alone 'now', if that's the same as the 'dark arts', and how long/much/severe dark magic a wizard or witch must use before they are considered a 'dark' wizard or witch. Aside from this lack of clarification, there is also no direct opposite. I realised the other day that actually, although there are plenty of references to light in connection to DD's office etc. (light from the pensieve and from fawkes for example), the term 'light magic' is never used. This led me to speculate that perhaps 'dark magic' is simple unrefined magic that originates from the 'dark ages',in our *muggle* history. This is relevant, because it would explain why James (and probably many others) felt it wrong to use dark magic, because it was less predictable than the more refined and controllable 'light' spells, apart from against their common enemies. Few spells are referred to as illegal within the books, namely the Unforgivables, yet there are more (as we've seen from HBP - Sectumsempra for example) that are *nearly* just as dangerous and harmful. Not only that, but Knockturn Alley is literally next to Diagon Alley, while being full of known 'dark' objects and possibly disreputable wizards and witches too. Why hasn't this place been a/closed or b/kept a closer eye on? There don't seem to be any aurors around, for instance, when Draco enters Borgin & Burkes in HBP. If there had been, everything would have been different. Ok so granted this is still a story, and certain things just *have* to be that way for the story to unfold, but i still find it odd that from what we can see Knockturn Alley and what is sold within goes totally unregulated! Now Finwitch's problem, was James instructed by his dad (or his mum, right?) to hex anyone who annoyed him?; This could be the case, but to me, it seems more like James was at school...able to do magic...and...took advantage of it. They (all the students) are there to learn, after all, and this includes learning when it is right to use magic against somebody else and when it isn't. Eventually, James must have made the right choice, because he not only, with Lily, defied Voldenaughty three times according to the prophecy, but went into hiding in order to protect his wife and son. Let's not forget also that James came from a wizarding family, and that the parents in an all magical family are responsible for regulating whether their children actually use magic out of school. And while Harry's use of magic against Aunt Marge *was* accidental, it was also reversible. This would surely be true if it happened at Hogwarts, esp. with the teachers fully grown witches and wizards. Imo, they would be able to rectify any accidental magic, so this is not valid..'reason' for James to take out his frustration/hatred of Snape in the way he does. Imo, however you dress it up, James was wrong. Just like Harry was to use Sectumpsempra against Draco. A 'stupefy' would've worked just as well, and then Harry could have gone to DD saying that Draco tried to crucio him. If nothing else, it may have meant that DD would have taken Harry more seriously about his allegations that Draco was planning something. Seems that wizards and witches - just like us muggles lol- aren't perfect. smiles and thanks for reading this far if you did! WG* From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jun 19 12:59:44 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 12:59:44 -0000 Subject: Hating Dark Arts (was re James' essence...) In-Reply-To: <319.5565def.31c7956c@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154041 > Julie: > It's still strange to me that James hated Snape so passionately > for performing nasty curses (Dark Arts curses, presumably), while > he was fine with hexing anyone who annoyed him. Does he really > think it's fine to humiliate and hurt others as long as it's not an > official "Dark" spell or hex? Does the label truly make the difference? > (Yes, I know this is contradictory to my what I said above!) > Pippin: Well, as Hermione points out in OOP, the label changes from jinx to counterjinx depending on how the spell is being used. I don't doubt that James hated the Dark Arts sincerely, but thought of his hexes as innocent fun. More than that, though, I think James used his hatred of the Dark Arts to excuse his hatred of Snape in much the same way that Harry used the murder of Sirius. I think deep down, Snape frightened James just by existing. The more fault he could find in Snape, the more James could think that Snape's disadvantages were deserved and not the turn of fortune, and the more secure James felt that his own advantages could not be taken away. Alas, he was mistaken. Pippin From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Jun 19 13:51:52 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 13:51:52 -0000 Subject: Horcrux musings In-Reply-To: <20060619040837.70685.qmail@web34108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154042 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Wendy Dupuy wrote: > > > amanitamuscaria1 wrote: > >> I was pondering on Horcruxes, and how they would play > out. > So far, we've got: > #1 The ?Slytherin? Locket - R.A.B.? > #2 Riddle's Diary - Harry > #3 The Peverell Ring - Dumbledore/Snape > #4 ?Helga Hufflepuff's Cup? > #5 ?Ravenclaw? > #6 ?Gryffindor? > #7 Voldemort - has to be Harry, but not necessarily Harry > alone. << > > Wendy: > Could the Horcruxe for Gryffindor be the sword? What > happened to it after Harry returned it Dumbledore? > Tonks: I just had a horrible thought. I had forgotten that Harry had the sword for a brief time. What if... I'm sure it is not the case... but one has to consider all possibilities what if when one horcrux is destroyed the spell is set up to transport the soul fragment into another nearby object? In other words if the sword is now a Horcrux, that would be the only way that it could have happened. DD says that the sword is safe. He forgot about the time that Harry had it. Also in that statement, DD said (of the sword) that it was the only "known" relic of Gryffindor's. Like the rest of us older folks, I think his memory was slipping a bit there. The sorting hat also belonged to Gryffindor. So I think that the word "known" was put in there for a reason. I also suspect that the wand in Ollivander's window is the wand of Godric Gryffindor and it is not a horcrux, but may play an important part in book 7. Tonks_op From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Mon Jun 19 14:00:03 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 14:00:03 -0000 Subject: Choice and Essentialism/Understanding Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154043 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > Pippin: > > And we do have a character who is just such a cold fish, who > > speaks of love in terms of power rather than feeling, who seems to understand the need for emotional support only intellectually, and yet is regarded as a good man, indeed the best of them. Albus Dumbledore. > > > > > Steven1965aaa: > > > > A cold fish? Sorry Pippin, I don't see where you get that, at all. > > Pippin: [snip] He did act for love of Harry in OOP but that was after 150 years of detachment in which, he says, he never thought he would have someone like Harry on his hands. That Dumbledore was able to feel love at last, I think, was because of Harry's extraordinary power -- a miracle, if you like. > > Pippin Steven1965aaa: I see where you're coming from in theory, but I don't see any support for the idea that Dumbledore had "150 years of detachment" or that he never felt love before. I think his comment about never expecting to have such a person on his hands just refers to the fact that he did not anticipate, when devising his plan, that he would feel this way about Harry (which led to his "mistake" in trying to protect Harry). I don't think it means he never felt love before. From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Mon Jun 19 14:20:55 2006 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 15:20:55 +0100 (BST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] More PS/SS quotes and musings./Hermione, Snape and others In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060619142055.40113.qmail@web86209.mail.ird.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154044 --- dumbledore11214 wrote: > And of course SO want to slap Snape here, SO want to > slap him. He > would not let Harry read a book? > > Just sitting outside and reading a book? Ugh, talk > about finding > excuses to make his life miserable. > Why are you so sure that Snape made up that rule? From what we've seen of Madame Pince, it would not surprise me at all if there was a genuine library rule like that. (Oh, and since when preventing Harry from reading a book added to his misery? I thought he is most miserable when forced to read something. ;-)) Irene Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 19 14:29:18 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 14:29:18 -0000 Subject: More PS/SS quotes and musings./Hermione, Snape and others In-Reply-To: <20060619142055.40113.qmail@web86209.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154045 > --- dumbledore11214 wrote: > > > And of course SO want to slap Snape here, SO want to > > slap him. He > > would not let Harry read a book? > > > > Just sitting outside and reading a book? Ugh, talk > > about finding > > excuses to make his life miserable. > > Irene: > Why are you so sure that Snape made up that rule? From > what we've seen of Madame Pince, it would not surprise > me at all if there was a genuine library rule like > that. Alla: Because I find the rule that prevent students to read to be absurd. But if you give me the canon for that happening in any other instance, I will of course bow to that. I would think Hogwarts teachers encourage their students to read NOT taking the books away from them, no matter where they read them. Irene: > (Oh, and since when preventing Harry from reading a > book added to his misery? I thought he is most > miserable when forced to read something. ;-)) Alla: Well, luckily canon disagrees with your argument in this instance. I can also bring up the fact that Harry was interested in reading his school books even before he got to Hogwarts. JMO, Alla From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Jun 19 14:32:45 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 14:32:45 -0000 Subject: Evil-LID-OFH Snape How does that work?. In-Reply-To: <329.5c05867.31c76589@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154046 puduhepa98 at ... wrote: > What does Snape hope to get at the end, > if LV is killed, that he would not get > if LV were killed and DD were still alive? Snape would still not be the most powerful wizard on earth even after Harry killed Voldemort if Dumbledore were still alive. > Does Snape's failure to kill Harry in > HBP free him from the Life Debt, > if not why not? If you save my life today and I don't kill you tomorrow we are not even; however I think this life debt business is overrated, it certainly didn't stop Wormtail from torturing Harry in GoF. > If Snape is not going to help the Order, > but is actively helping LV now, how > could the Order or the Trio possible prevail? If I already had an answer to that question I wouldn't be looking forward to book 7 so much. > How big a role will he [Snape] play in Book 7 As I said before I wouldn't be surprised if Harry kills Voldemort at the halfway point of book 7, and then Harry goes looking for Snape. Eggplant From mros at xs4all.nl Mon Jun 19 09:04:58 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 11:04:58 +0200 Subject: Hating Dark Arts (was re James' essence...) References: <319.5565def.31c7956c@aol.com> Message-ID: <000701c6937f$70a3f200$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 154047 Julie: >>>This is possible, but I have to wonder if Dark Arts are directly analogous with evil and with Voldemort. After all, you can kill with plenty of non-Dark spells if that's your desire, and I'd think certain Dark Arts might be useful outside of their potential danger. So it does seem strange that James *hated* Dark Arts as a concept the way Sirius implies, rather than hating, say, Death Eaters (whose direct tie to Voldemort is irrevokable), or other particular persons he believes wronged him or his in some way using Dark Arts. Julie: >>>It's still strange to me that James hated Snape so passionately for performing nasty curses (Dark Arts curses, presumably), while he was fine with hexing anyone who annoyed him. Does he really think it's fine to humiliate and hurt others as long as it's not an official "Dark" spell or hex? Does the label truly make the difference? (Yes, I know this is contradictory to my what I said above!) >>>Now I wonder if James has a very specific reason for hating the Dark Arts, as Alla suggests. Something that happened during his childhood, perhaps, that made him hate Snape and perhaps most Slytherins (or any other kids from "Dark Arts" families) from the moment he came to Hogwarts as an eleven year old. I think it is entirely possible. That hate between James and Snape--and between Sirius and Snape--that apparently existed from that moment they all started school (and didn't yet even *know* each other, to the best of our knowledge) seems entirely too personal to be engendered by a learned and generalized distaste for a particular brand of magic. Marion I agree. Personally, I'm with Red Hen on this (see her website for her essays at www.redhen-publications/Potterverse.html) I think that the whole James-and-Sirius against Snape thing began with Sirius and his hatred of his family. Not particularly because his family was so heinous (although they don't sound like a fun bunch) but because Sirius is one of nature's natural contrary children. It's a great way to garner attention and he *liked* attention (Gryffindors do :-) So anything his parents said was automatically wrong, anything they wanted was automatically bad. Regulus became the 'good kid' of the family as a sheer reaction and this in turn fueled Sirius desire to be contrary. This volatile homesituation was of course not helped by the fact that the family did have some very iffy characters. Enter cousin Bellatrix. Now she *was* nasty. And according to the Black familytree she was six years older. So when Sirius (and Snape) entered Hogwarts Bellatrix was a seventhyear. Remember that Sirius told Harry in the Shrieking Shack that Snape was part of a group that included the 'Lestranges' (Bellatrix Lestrange nee Black he means, but clearly disassociates from his cousin) but adult Snape and Bellatrix are fire and water. No buddies, that's for sure. Besides, what firstie was ever part of a social group of seventh years? Sirius also claims that Snape knew, upon entering Hogwarts, "more Dark curses than any seventh year". Well, I doubt that. But Snape *is* an inventive little sod. Not to say 'genius'. He invented his own hexes. I think it's safe to say that he impressed (and annoyed) a certain group of seventh years which included Bellatrix. So, Sirius enters Hogwarts. He doesn't want to be in Slytherin, because that's what the family wants for him, that's the house his cousin Bellatrix is in. He wants none of it. Not because it's an 'evil' House (nonsense!), but because he wants to be different from his family. Because he is a contrary troublemaker. "Not Slytherin, not Slytherin" he thinks at the Hat. Once in Gryffindor, he befriends James Potter. Of *course* he befriends James Potter: the Potters are probably the sort of family that his mother and father rant against. They are pureblood, but are 'against the Dark Arts'. Now, we don't know what makes the Dark Arts 'dark'. I don't think JKR's wizarding world is in a constant fight of good versus evil, Light against Dark. I think that the Dark Arts are not so much 'evil' as 'dangerous'. Dangerous to work with. Not something for a newfangled wizard to dabble in. Therefore it's mainly the Old Families that still work with the Dark Arts. They have been doing that for centuries. But put the Dark Arts in the hands of, say, a muggleborn young wizard like Tom Riddle, and it might take him to places he (and the rest of the WW) had never dreamt about. The Dark Arts are dangerous to the *wielder* as well as his surroundings. Therefor they are *regulated* by the Ministry. Which will make a pureblood family like the Blacks sniff. Who does a *ministry worker* think he is to tell a *Black* what to do?! The Blacks consider themselves 'practically royalty' and above little paperpusher rules and regulations. So Sirius befriends James, whose parents might have told him that the Dark Arts were 'bad', or 'better to be avoided' or whatever. And Sirius hates his family in general and his cousin Bellatrix in particular and therefor he hates Slytherin House. And he has no problem talking James into the same mindset. James has heard at home that the Dark Arts were no good, and he has heard from Sirius what dreadful people those 'Dark Arts families' and Slytherins are. *Harry* decided that he did *not* want to be sorted into Slytherin because Hagrid told him that 'there wasn't a bad wizard that didn't come from Slytherin', and that was enough for him to chant 'not Slytherin, not Slytherin' to the Hat. Why should James be less impressionable? Besides that, the Marauders (and the Golden Trio) have this nasty habit of being selfreferential in there moral code. "We are Good, therefore what we do is Good. They are Bad, therefor what they do is Bad. If they use the same hex as I do, there hex is Dark, but mine is Light. Because they are Dark Wizards and I am a Light Wizard". Marion [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Jun 19 16:32:40 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:32:40 -0000 Subject: Hating Dark Arts (was re James' essence...) In-Reply-To: <000701c6937f$70a3f200$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154048 Marion: > Enter cousin Bellatrix. Now she *was* nasty. And according > to the Black familytree she was six years older. So when > Sirius (and Snape)entered Hogwarts Bellatrix was a seventh year. > Remember that Sirius told Harry in the Shrieking Shack > that Snape was part of a group that included the 'Lestranges' > (Bellatrix Lestrange nee Black he means, but clearly > disassociates from his cousin) but adult Snape and Bellatrix > are fire and water. No buddies, that's for sure. Besides, > what firstie was ever part of a social group of seventh years? houyhnhnm: I am confused about this. Images of the original scanned drawing that I can find online do not show Bellatrix on the Black family Tree at all. Then there is the facsimile at the Lexicon site that gives her birth year as 1951. I don't know where they got that information, but if it is bona fide, if it can be considered "canon", then Bellatrix was at least eight, possibly nine years older than Snape, et al. Her years at Hogwarts could not have overlapped even by one with Sirius and Snape's class. Even if Snape hung around with the Lestranges after leaving Hogwarts, how would Sirius know. He hadn't seen Bellatrix since he was about 15. He didn't even know Snape had joined the Death Eaters. I'm wondering at this point if *any* information coming from Sirius is reliable. Perhaps Snape's immersion in the Dark Arts, at the time he came to Hogwarts, was nothing more than a fascination with things that official Wizarding society considered off-limits for 11-year-olds, and a determination to study them ("wizards of a certain calibre have always been drawn, etc"), rather than a budding inclination toward Evil. Then added to that was the fact that Snape was different. He didn't fit in. An outsider, a greasy little oddball. Someone who played by different rules. I kind of imagine their early confrontations would be similar to what might have occurred if respectably middle class, gangsta wannabe Dudley had run into a scholarship student at Smeltings who came from a neigborhood where there were real gangsters. Where the result of an insult was more likely to be a cutting rather than a rock throwing. Both would think that they were playing by the rules, but the other wasn't, because they were not following the same rules. From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Mon Jun 19 17:03:18 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:03:18 -0000 Subject: Hating Dark Arts (was re James' essence...) In-Reply-To: <000701c6937f$70a3f200$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154049 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Marion Ros" wrote: Besides that, the Marauders (and the Golden Trio) have this nasty habit of being selfreferential in there moral code. "We are Good, therefore what we do is Good. They are Bad, therefor what they do is Bad. If they use the same hex as I do, there hex is Dark, but mine is Light. Because they are Dark Wizards and I am a Light Wizard". Steven1965aaa: I think this is a very interesting point. Especially in HBP we see Harry (fake lucky potion, choice of words to Slughorn because felix was telling him Slughorn would not remember any of this in the morning)and Hermione (confundus (sp.) during goalkeeper tryout) exhibiting what might be described as "Slytherin qualities" in order to achieve their aims. However, I don't think Harry would consider attempting to "justify" that as being ok "because I am a good person", it's more that (with respect to Slughorn) it was for a critically important end (to obtain info. necessary to vanquish Voldemort) and with respect to Ron what he did was pretty harmless. In Hermione's case, on the other hand, it was not for an important end at all, it was really just cheating to help Ron. But I don't think she would consider that her actions were "justified" because "I am good", I think if pressed she would have to admit that it was not the right thing to do. From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Jun 19 17:17:11 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:17:11 -0000 Subject: Star Gazing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154050 Randy replies... > Forget about Narcissa, this star gazing just got more > interesting. I just looked up Hercules and star constellations. > Hercules is best known for his superhuman strength, > strong emotions, quickness to act, and often poorly thought > out plans. Harry is definitely quick to action with little > thought ahead of time. houyhnhnm: Though Harry is not nearly as stupid as Hercules, nor as violent when he lashes out in anger, nor does he show any tendencies, yet, towards dipsomania. He does come off the stronger in a youthful encounter with a snake (with Dudley standing in for Iphicles). However, instead of strangling the snake, he sets it free. He's a kinder, gentler, smarter Hercules. I have decided the task of cleaning of the Augean Stables must correspond to cleaning out Filch's old discipline records, except that Harry didn't finish it in a single day. He didn't finish it at all. Let's hope that Harry never gives Ginny any reason to doubt his fidelity. From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Mon Jun 19 17:11:21 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:11:21 -0000 Subject: Star Gazing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154051 > Ken: > > Rowling often uses a heavy dose of whimsy in her place and character > > names. You have to wonder how she avoided the temptation to use > > the star name Zubenelgenubi as a character name. > > Geoff: > She obviously had a stronger will than Douglas Adams when he created > Slartibartfast in "Hitch hiker's guide to the Galaxy". > :-)) > Ken: Yeah, I bet you can't say that five times real fast! One of Douglas Adams' principles of good SF writing was "Don't destroy the Earth in Chapter One, you're going to need it later!!", which he invented after he had violated it. Could we say the same about killing off your best wizard in Book Six? I've looked at solar system moons and asteroids and I still don't find Narcissa. I think she is one of the Blacks with non-astro names. Subaru did not treat Merope as badly as I feared. The Pleiades group includes father Atlas and mother Pleione as well as the seven sisters (Alcyone, Electra, Maia, Merope, Taygeta, Celaeno, Asterope). Merope is the fifth brightest overall and the fourth brightest sister so I guess we can assume she is one of the six stars in the Subaru logo after all. If nothing else this discussion has given me nine good choices for a vanity license plate for our Subaru Forester.... Ken From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 19 13:37:55 2006 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 06:37:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Christian themes in DD's death(was:Book 7, Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: <01d201c691c9$711d2fb0$6400a8c0@BarbaraComputer> Message-ID: <20060619133755.27783.qmail@web52715.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154052 Tonks: >>> (Since I have said that the COS was the tomb of Christ, and I see DD as a symbol of Christ, to me it ties together. And I think that JKR meant to tie those two images together in that moment.) Since I think that DD is a Christ figure I do think that we will see him again. <<< Barbara Kraus wrote: >> I think this is a wonderful story and a world I would like to enter...but do you really think that J.K. Rowling was trying to write in parallels to the Bible? I think you do a disservice to her... The Harry Potter stories are so well-written - - when I read the biblical comparisons here, I can only think...oh, please. Give me a break. << Katie: I have to agree with Barbara. I think that reducing great literature to Bible allegory fails to see the beauty of the story itself. I am not Christian, but I went to 12 years of parochial school, and I know the Bible pretty dang well. I have to say that I see no connections in HP. I feel (in my opinion) that people who try to see Christian stuff in HP are in some way assuaging some misplaced guilt about being Christian and reading about witches. It just isn't there! There is no Christian allegory in HP. Is JK even Christian? And even if she is, what would be the purpose of making the HP books some big Christian thing? No offense - please - I am not hating on Christians, I just don't understand why everything has to relate to religion! I am a pretty faithful pagan, and I don't relate everything I do, read, or see to my religion. Now, I am also a fan of the Narnia series, which is a well-known and purposeful allegory to the Bible, but the story of Narnia can also be read without looking for Christian themes, and still be a wonderful and magical story. Can't we all just read HP for what it is? - a fantastical and magical and unique work of literature that has ennervated a whole generation of people to love reading again...and not a Bible story. Please, no offense meant, just not getting the whole Christian theme. Peace, Katie From wolfxavier1975 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 19 17:34:13 2006 From: wolfxavier1975 at yahoo.com (wolfxavier1975) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:34:13 -0000 Subject: Hating Dark Arts (was re James' essence...) In-Reply-To: <319.5565def.31c7956c@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154053 > Julie: > > Now I wonder if James has a very specific reason for hating the > Dark Arts, as Alla suggests. Something that happened during his > childhood, perhaps, that made him hate Snape and perhaps most > Slytherins (or any other kids from "Dark Arts" families) from the > moment he came to Hogwarts as an eleven year old. "wolfxavier1975": James Potter's hatred of the Dark Arts may have a basis, to be sure. Or, James MAY have been the righteous sort to have taken a moral stand on principle (despite doing NASTY things with more acceptable classifications of magic). Rather like the folks that you sometimes encounter who are anti-gun but collect swords and/or knives. Hard to say as the definition of "Dark Arts" is not entirely clear (and likely will continue to be), and simply seems to be "magic only bad people would want to do". Just my two knuts. From blink_883 at hotmail.com Mon Jun 19 18:12:53 2006 From: blink_883 at hotmail.com (whirledgirl) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 18:12:53 -0000 Subject: Horcrux musings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154054 > > amanitamuscaria1 wrote: > > >> I was pondering on Horcruxes, and how they would play > > out. So far, we've got: > > #1 The ?Slytherin? Locket - R.A.B.? > > #2 Riddle's Diary - Harry > > #3 The Peverell Ring - Dumbledore/Snape > > #4 ?Helga Hufflepuff's Cup? > > #5 ?Ravenclaw? > > #6 ?Gryffindor? > > #7 Voldemort - has to be Harry, but not necessarily Harry > > alone. << > > > Wendy: > > Could the Horcruxe for Gryffindor be the sword? What > > happened to it after Harry returned it Dumbledore? > > Tonks: > Also in that statement, DD said (of the sword) that it was > the only "known" relic of Gryffindor's. The sorting hat > also belonged to Gryffindor. WG*: Well, we've asked ourselves (and each other!) if the sword is a horcrux, and where it is (last known to be residing in DD's office under a glass case - will McG move it?), but I haven't seen the question; ''where is it from?'' So a sword appeared. Out of nowhere. Through a hat. Because Harry was loyal...to...DD...("only when none here are loyal to me" etc)? Where was it before appearing through the hat? Did DD have it stowed away in some cupboard of his office but felt he couldn't display it as this would be invited theft/damage/Voldie? (This seems a bit unlikely to me..but read on please!) If so, was DD a descendant of Gryffindor? I'm sure JKR has said in an interview that _Harry_ is *not* the heir of Gryffindor...but when his parents went into hiding, they stayed, as we know, in 'Godric's Hollow'. Was this a building that belonged to DD perhaps? I see the hat, because of all the founders contributing to its 'personality' as belonging to all four of them, at least that's how I explained DD's comment about the "only known artefact" being the sword. Regarding the time and destruction of horcruxes (horcruces? it's a made up word anyway!), I somehow doubt that Harry will include all those people in his search. Either there are not as many horcruxes as we are led to believe (DD was wrong (as far as is known so far) about quite a few things in HBP, maybe this was another 'oversight'?), or Harry and Voldie will battle without Harry having found all the horcruxes yet - and the book will end on an insanely unfinished note, with us never really knowing if he got them all or not! Wouldn't ya just hate that! And love it too, in a frustrating Ron/Hermione relationship sort of way ;-) WG* From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Mon Jun 19 19:37:05 2006 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:37:05 +0200 Subject: Names-Christianity/Hor-Crux/Spinner'sEnd/Werewolves-Prank/Basilisk References: Message-ID: <00ad01c693d7$c030c070$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 154055 Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) wrote: > But connecting words by means of sounds is part of figuring out what > the author was getting at, especially with invented words. I don't > doubt that the sound similarity of 'hor' and 'whore' helped the word > 'horcrux' sound evil to her ears, and those of many readers. Miles: A whore is "evil"? In a way similar to Lord Voldemort? I doubt very much that JKR thinks that prostitutes are "evil" in that way - or in any way. Ok, this is beginning to be slightly off-topic, and I'm not sure about the mainstream in Britain. But if it is similar to the discussion in Germany, the ones to blame (if someone IS to blame) concerning prostitution are the customers, not the "whores". To connect "whores" to "Horcruxes" seems to be very dodgy not only in terms of etymology, but concerning the personality of the author as well. From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com Mon Jun 19 19:59:29 2006 From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 19:59:29 -0000 Subject: Horcrux musings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154056 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "whirledgirl" wrote: > > > > amanitamuscaria1 wrote: > > > >> I was pondering on Horcruxes, and how they would play > > > out. So far, we've got: > > > #1 The ?Slytherin? Locket - R.A.B.? > > > #2 Riddle's Diary - Harry > > > #3 The Peverell Ring - Dumbledore/Snape > > > #4 ?Helga Hufflepuff's Cup? > > > #5 ?Ravenclaw? > > > #6 ?Gryffindor? > > > #7 Voldemort - has to be Harry, but not necessarily Harry > > > alone. << > > > > > Wendy: > > > Could the Horcruxe for Gryffindor be the sword? What > > > happened to it after Harry returned it Dumbledore? > > > > Tonks: > > Also in that statement, DD said (of the sword) that it was > > the only "known" relic of Gryffindor's. The sorting hat > > also belonged to Gryffindor. > > > WG*: > > Well, we've asked ourselves (and each other!) if the sword is a > horcrux,<> but I haven't seen the > question; ''where is it from?'' >> Where was it before appearing through the hat? AmanitaMuscaria now - very interesting question! I did wonder if one of Voldemort's reasons for returning to Hogwarts was to leave a horcrux (Helga's cup?) hidden in the Trophy Room - where better, where safer than under Dumbledore's protections? But I hadn't pondered where the sword had been kept. <> > Regarding the time and destruction of horcruxes (horcruces? it's a > made up word anyway!), I somehow doubt that Harry will include all > those people in his search. AmanitaMuscaria again - What I was trying to say, not very clearly, was that Harry couldn't possibly have time in one book to find and disarm the remaining horcruxes (plural of horcrux - Chapter 23), so the people I mentioned could deal with several or all of the remaining horcruxes, and Harry be left to do the final battle with Voldemort, supported by his DA. > Either there are not as many horcruxes > as we are led to believe (DD was wrong (as far as is known so far) > about quite a few things in HBP, maybe this was another > 'oversight'?), or Harry and Voldie will battle without Harry > having found all the horcruxes yet - and the book will end on an > insanely unfinished note, with us never really knowing if he got > them all or not! Wouldn't ya just hate that! And love it too, in a > frustrating Ron/Hermione relationship sort of way ;-) > > WG* > AmanitaMuscaria again - I think the six-plus-one theory seems to resonate through a number of the books, so I'm pretty convinced there are six horcruxes, and the soul part left in Voldemort. Book 1: six trials to get to Philosopher's Stone (Fluffy, Devil's Snare, flying keys, chess game, the troll is already knocked out so I'm not counting him, potions puzzle, mirror of Erised), then QuirrelMort Book 4: Tri-Wizard Tourney (3 tasks plus the egg), Ron's and others' antagonism, Cedric's death, then Voldemort's rebirth Book 5: Others' disbelief (esp.Ron & Hermione's); Umbridge's detentions and Quidditch ban; Snape's occlumency; loss of Dumbledore, McGonagall & Hagrid; MoM battle; Loss of Sirius, then Possession by Voldemort There are 7 books, but JKR has said "So much of what happens in book six relates to book seven that I feel almost as though they are two halves of the same novel." on her website. In the UK, the last two years of school ( equivalent to Hogwarts 6 & 7 NEWT years) are known as lower and upper sixth form. Bill, Charlie, Percy, Fred, George, Ron, ... and Ginny And a bit more off-the-wall; Harry, Ron, Hermione, Neville, Luna, Ginny ... and a.n.other(Snape?) - the core of DAs plus another for the final showdown? Cheers, AmanitaMuscaria From blink_883 at hotmail.com Mon Jun 19 19:43:00 2006 From: blink_883 at hotmail.com (whirledgirl) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 19:43:00 -0000 Subject: Christian themes in DD's death(was:Book 7, Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: <20060619133755.27783.qmail@web52715.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154057 Kathryn Lambert wrote: > Katie: > I have to agree with Barbara. I think that reducing great literature > to Bible allegory fails to see the beauty of the story itself. WG*: I'd also like to add that not only that, but this may result in missing other underlying 'links' between characters etc. FOR EXAMPLE: (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubeus_(Geomancy) ) "Rubeus is the counter-figure of Albus, representing passion, fierceness, violence and vice. Pictured as a goblet turned upside- down, it can be considered an inversion; good in all that is evil, and evil in all that is good." Geomancy is the study of divination by signs in the earth, and therefore not very christian. this does not mean it's better or worse imo, just different, but if you're not open to looking for it then you're not going to find it - and that may suit you just fine anyway - but, imo, you'd be missing a little quirk that (for me) makes all the HP books a that bit more interesting! smiles! WG* From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 19 20:40:34 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 20:40:34 -0000 Subject: James' essence/some Sirius and his family WAS: Re: Choice and Essentialism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154058 Alla: > Heee, I am not sure how you can agree with both Carol and myself since I don't quite agree with Carol. If her point is simply that we don't know what made James tick, Okay, I will buy that we don't know everything that made James tick, but partial reason is given and I see no reason to doubt it, honestly. Carol responds: My point is that we can't reduce James's "essence" to an opposition to the Dark Arts. The information we have about him is contradictory and comes from biased sources (Snape on the one hand; Black/Lupin/Mcgonagall on the other). Black is the only person who speaks of James's opposition to the Dark Arts. The one scene in which we actually see him shows nothing of the sort. He seems much more complex to characterize by a single trait attributed to him by a single character, particularly one who is biased in his favor. I'm *not* saying that he wasn't opposed to the Dark Arts, nor am I applying that Black was lying (though he may be seeing James as Slughorn sees Lily, with a tendency to view him favorably and ignore his failings because he's dead). It's a human failing to wish to see people we cared about as better than they were after they're dead. Also, it doesn't seem to me that an opposition to the Dark Arts explains the childhood antagonism between Severus and James, any more than it explains the similar antagonism between Draco and Harry. Certainly James himself gives no such explanation. ("Because he exists" is all we get.) Nor do I think that what we're told about James and Sirius being the best in their at "everything they did" holds water--HBP seems to indicate that Severus was better than either of Potions and DADA, for example, though perhaps as usual his brilliance was overshadowed and underacknowledged. I see no evidence that Severus was jealous of James's Quidditch skills, either--which is not to say that he wasn't, only that all we have is Lupin's one-time speculation to that effect. We're not getting a clear and unbiased picture here of either young James or young Severus. Both are being oversimplified--in part, as Magpie says, because neither Lupin nor black understands him. And while James no doubt opposed the Dark Arts when he was older, as opposed to when he was fifteen and chiefly concerned with getting Lily's attention and hexing people who annoyed him, he never had the reasons for hating the Dark Arts from childhood onward that Sirius did, and he (James) almost certainly had other reasons for opposing Voldemort, most notably Voldemort's reign of terror, that caused him to join the Order in the first place. I'm not knocking James, though I don't like his bullying behavior in the Pensieve scene, nor am I saying that Sirius Black was a liar (though I certainly don't see him as an objective witness). As Magpie says, both Black and Lupin were trying to placate Harry when they talked to him after the Pensieve scene. Both of them wanted Harry to regard his father with something like the affection they felt for him. And I agree with Magpie that Black--who is surely not known for analytical thinking (my observation, not hers)--has a tendency to oversimplify things, including both his family background and Severus Snape. Do I dare to say that dogs, however brave and faithful, see in black and white? (I mean no offense to anyone by this remark.) Carol, simply noting that what we see of James and what we hear of him don't create a clear and coherent picture of either the boy or the man From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jun 19 20:53:26 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 20:53:26 -0000 Subject: Christian themes in DD's death(was:Book 7, Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: <20060619133755.27783.qmail@web52715.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154059 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Lambert wrote: Barbara Kraus: > >> I think this is a wonderful story and a world I would like to > enter...but do you really think that J.K. Rowling was trying to > write in parallels to the Bible? I think you do a disservice to > her... The Harry Potter stories are so well-written - - > when I read the biblical comparisons here, I can only think...oh, > please. Give me a break. << >Katie: > I have to agree with Barbara. I think that reducing great literature > to Bible allegory fails to see the beauty of the story itself. I am > not Christian, but I went to 12 years of parochial school, and I know > the Bible pretty dang well. I have to say that I see no connections > in HP. I feel (in my opinion) that people who try to see Christian > stuff in HP are in some way assuaging some misplaced guilt about > being Christian and reading about witches. It just isn't there! There > is no Christian allegory in HP. Is JK even Christian? And even if she > is, what would be the purpose of making the HP books some big > Christian thing? No offense - please - I am not hating on Christians, > I just don't understand why everything has to relate to religion! I > am a pretty faithful pagan, and I don't relate everything I do, read, > or see to my religion. > > Now, I am also a fan of the Narnia series, which is a well-known > and purposeful allegory to the Bible, but the story of Narnia can > also be read without looking for Christian themes, and still be a > wonderful and magical story. Can't we all just read HP for what it > is? - a fantastical and magical and unique work of literature that > has ennervated a whole generation of people to love reading > again...and not a Bible story. > > Please, no offense meant, just not getting the whole Christian > theme. > > Peace, Katie Geoff: Way back in September 2004, there was a thread running called (surprise, surprise!) "Christianity & HP" In message 112276, I wrote the following: Let me say to start with that, as regular members of the group may well know [to their cost :-)], I am a practising evangelical Christian. Regarding the Christian reaction to Harry Potter, I have said previously that I was silly enough at the beginning to allow myself to be influenced by some members of my church who raised their hands in horror and proclaimed "Harry Potter is a bad thing". I then saw the second film to start with and having read all the books and seen all the films, I am a convinced HP fan and have discovered many other folk in my church who share my views - so not all real Christians are anti-Potter. I have found many of the themes useful with the young people's group within my church to point up certain facets of Christ's teaching. Jo Rowling worships at a Church of Scotland church and is on record as saying she is a Christian so this is going have some influence on her approach. However, like Tolkien, who was also a Christian, her world is not overtly Christian but is you look around you, there are evidences of subliminal Christian influence. Both she and Tolkien have written books in which Christian values and ideals can be seen if you look for them in contrast to C.S.Lewis whose "The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe" is openly intended to introduce children to the ideas of Christianity. Various books have been mentioned. May I add to the list "The Gospel according to Harry Potter: Spirituality in the stories of the world's favourite Seeker" by Connie Neal. A very interesting read. We can see how many of the driving themes of the books such as "choices" can be linked to Christian teaching. As I said in that previous post, I do not believe that Tolkien or JKR try to make Middle-Earth or the Wizarding World overtly Christian. Under no circumstances would I call LOTR or HP allegory. Tolkien is on record as saying that he hated allegory in all its forms. The only person who did that consciously was C.S.Lewis. I have said in the past that JRRT and JKR, as Christians, write from their own world view and therefore you can sense the underlying feel. Neither of them preach to the reader; we are left to work things out for ourselves. To that end, I would disagree with some fellow Christians who try to tie things neatly together, such as equating Dumbledore to Christ or Harry to Christ or some other symbolic link. I have always seen Harry as an "everyman", representing us on our journey through life. If I dare mention "the medium that dare not speak its name", I am currently watching the first HP DVD (again!!) and, in an interview on the second disc, David Heyman, the series producer makes almost the same comment. In Harry, I can see myself so much when I was his age. Over-confident; nervous; brash; uncertain; learning that the blacks and whites at eleven years old come to include the dark and light greys of sixteen. I can almost match Harry in my first experience of inviting a girl to a dance ? the outcome was much the same. Of course, other matters from sources outside her faith come in; likewise with JRRT and CSL. But the overall underpinning of the series, as I see it, reveals her respect and belief in things Christian. But that, as Steve often remarks, is just one man's view. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 19 21:03:15 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:03:15 -0000 Subject: More PS/SS quotes and musings./Hermione, Snape and others In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154060 > >>Irene: > > Why are you so sure that Snape made up that rule? From > > what we've seen of Madame Pince, it would not surprise > > me at all if there was a genuine library rule like > > that. > >>Alla: > Because I find the rule that prevent students to read to be > absurd. > But if you give me the canon for that happening in any other > instance, I will of course bow to that. > Betsy Hp: Well, there's the Restricted Section. Plus, we've got Mdm Pince's over the top response to Harry's written in Potion's book. So yeah, I don't think it's such a stretch to imagine that there are rules governing the way students treat their library books. Even if it gets in the way of their reading. Honestly, since Pince is linked with Filch in HBP, and knowing the many, many rules Filch has had passed over what may or may not occur in the hallways, it follows, IMO, that Pince has made similar rules regarding her precious library books. There's also the rather large hint that Hermione doesn't back Harry up. > >>Alla: > I would think Hogwarts teachers encourage their students to read > NOT taking the books away from them, no matter where they read > them. Betsy Hp: I don't get the impression that Hogwarts worries overmuch about whether or not their students are reading. Of *course* their students are reading, otherwise they'll fail their classes. So there's not a need to coddle their students into it. Betsy Hp From G3_Princess at MailCity.com Mon Jun 19 20:53:55 2006 From: G3_Princess at MailCity.com (rowena_grunnionffitch) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 20:53:55 -0000 Subject: Hating Dark Arts (was re James' essence...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154062 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "wolfxavier1975" wrote: > > > Julie: > > > > Now I wonder if James has a very specific reason for hating the > > Dark Arts, as Alla suggests. Something that happened during his > > childhood, perhaps, that made him hate Snape and perhaps most > > Slytherins (or any other kids from "Dark Arts" families) from the > > moment he came to Hogwarts as an eleven year old. If you ask me knowing Sirius's family would be enough to make anybody 'hate' black magic. From G3_Princess at MailCity.com Mon Jun 19 21:07:15 2006 From: G3_Princess at MailCity.com (rowena_grunnionffitch) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:07:15 -0000 Subject: James' essence WAS: Re: Choice and Essentialism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154063 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > With Sirius it is also easy to believe that he truly hated the > pureblood cult. (Although I wonder why I get the tiniest whiff of > offensive condescension from these two rich purebloods. Maybe it is a little of my own baggage intruding. :-) No, I think you're right. I doubt that either James or Sirius *meant* to be condescending but when you've been told all your life you are one of the elect its bound to affect you even if you consciously reject the whole ideology. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 19 21:05:57 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:05:57 -0000 Subject: James' essence/some Sirius and his family WAS: Re: Choice and Essentialism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154064 Carol responds: > My point is that we can't reduce James's "essence" to an opposition to > the Dark Arts. Alla: I think that this is can hold water or not, we shall see in book 7, BUT my point is that there is nothing to indicate that James was NOT opposed to Dark Arts, as I don't know, part of his nature, if not an essence of it. Carol: The information we have about him is contradictory and > comes from biased sources (Snape on the one hand; > Black/Lupin/Mcgonagall on the other). Black is the only person who > speaks of James's opposition to the Dark Arts. The one scene in which > we actually see him shows nothing of the sort. He seems much more > complex to characterize by a single trait attributed to him by a > single character, particularly one who is biased in his favor. > Alla: Single trait? Probably not, but ONE of his traits, I would say yes, till I hear to the contrary. Right now, even Snape does not say anything about James not being opposed to Dark Arts. Carol: > I'm *not* saying that he wasn't opposed to the Dark Arts, nor am I > applying that Black was lying (though he may be seeing James as > Slughorn sees Lily, with a tendency to view him favorably and ignore > his failings because he's dead). It's a human failing to wish to see > people we cared about as better than they were after they're dead. Alla: So, if you are not saying that he was not opposed to Dark Arts and I don't think that we have any canon support to say that he was not, what are we arguing about? That James cannot be boiled down so to speak to his opposition to Dark Arts? Sure, I am sure that was not the only thing he cared about in life. Or is it your argument that Sirius statement is not to be believed after all? Carol: > Also, it doesn't seem to me that an opposition to the Dark Arts > explains the childhood antagonism between Severus and James, any more > than it explains the similar antagonism between Draco and Harry. Alla: And it seems to me that we don't have sufficient information to claim with certainty that opposition to the Dark Arts does not explain childhood antagonism between Severus and James. Antagonism between Draco and Harry absolutely in my opinion has some "political" base for it ? NOT Dark Arts hatred, but hatred of ideology Draco stands for. Of course that is not all of it ? it is also two kids who did not like each other on the spot, but we don't know everything that occurred between Severus and James, IMO. Carol: > Certainly James himself gives no such explanation. ("Because he > exists" is all we get.) Alla: Because we are not supposed to get such explanation in book 5 yet IMO, just as we were not supposed to know that dear Severus invented that wonderful curse called Sectusemptra in his youth. Just as we were not supposed to know that Severus was being bullied by the means of his own invention yet. I wonder what additional information we will get in book 7 to shed more light on it. Carol: Nor do I think that what we're told about > James and Sirius being the best in their at "everything they did" > holds water--HBP seems to indicate that Severus was better than either > of Potions and DADA, for example, though perhaps as usual his > brilliance was overshadowed and underacknowledged. Alla: Why is he better at DADA? Because he reads it after exam? I see it as very insufficient evidence. Maybe James and Sirius were brilliant enough that they did not need extra studying. Carol: > And while James no doubt opposed the Dark Arts when he was older, as > opposed to when he was fifteen and chiefly concerned with getting > Lily's attention and hexing people who annoyed him, he never had the > reasons for hating the Dark Arts from childhood onward that Sirius > did, and he (James) almost certainly had other reasons for opposing > Voldemort, most notably Voldemort's reign of terror, that caused him > to join the Order in the first place. Alla: James died when he was what twenty one or twenty two? He is likely to join the order right after school, IMO. You are saying that he changed THAT much in a couple years? I would say he simply did not have time to do so, IMO of course. I remember myself at fifteen ? sixteen. My "ideological" core was quite formed by that time. I of course kept growing as a person, but in politics I knew pretty clear what I was standing for. Carol: > I'm not knocking James, though I don't like his bullying behavior in > the Pensieve scene, nor am I saying that Sirius Black was a liar > (though I certainly don't see him as an objective witness). As Magpie > says, both Black and Lupin were trying to placate Harry when they > talked to him after the Pensieve scene. Both of them wanted > Harry to regard his father with something like the affection they felt > for him. And I agree with Magpie that Black--who is surely not known > for analytical thinking (my observation, not hers)--has a tendency to > oversimplify things, including both his family background and Severus > Snape. Alla: If Magpie made an observation that Sirius has a tendency to oversimplify things, then I have to disagree with her. Sorry, Magpie. Trying to justify to Harry - YES, oversimplify things in general - not really, IMO. > Carol, simply noting that what we see of James and what we hear of him > don't create a clear and coherent picture of either the boy or the man Alla, who thinks that insufficient information does not necessarily equal incoherent picture. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 19 21:11:08 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:11:08 -0000 Subject: Phoenix fire? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154065 Just a simple thought that occurred to me on a reread of "The cave" this morning: Many people have noted the absence of Fawkes from the tower scene, which seems to indicate that DD did not summon him there as he did in the MoM although surely he could have done so had he so chosen, but I'm wondering if he *does* summon Fawkes, or Fawkes's power, in the cave. He is severely weakened, perhaps already dying, yet he's able to conjure red and gold fire: "But then, through the darkness, fire erupted: crimson and gold, a fing of fire tht surrounded the rock so that the Inferi holding Harry so tightly stumbled and faltered" (HBP Am. ed. 576). Granted, DD is already planning to use fire to fend off the Inferi before he drinks the potion, but this particular fire is the same color as Fawkes's feathers, and of course, Fawkes (like Gryffindor House) is associated with fire. But DD at this point seems too weak to cast the fire unassisted; Fawkes has come to his aid before, swallowing an AK intended for him in the MoM; and the protective magic that saves Harry in GoF is also connected with Fawkes (or his feathers in the wand cores) and also encircles him protectively. Does anyone else see a possible Fawkes connection here, as if Fawkes is somehow temporarily lending DD his power to enable his greatly weakened and possibly dying master (or friend or kindred spirit) to rescue Harry one last time? Just a thought that struck me as I read the description his time around. Carol, who finds that chapter the most moving and perhaps the most disturbing in the book From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 19 21:11:47 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:11:47 -0000 Subject: More PS/SS quotes and musings./Hermione, Snape and others In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154066 > > >>Alla: > > Because I find the rule that prevent students to read to be > > absurd. > > But if you give me the canon for that happening in any other > > instance, I will of course bow to that. > > > > Betsy Hp: > Well, there's the Restricted Section. Alla: ??????. Since when Quidditch through ages belongs to restricted section? Betsy Hp: Plus, we've got Mdm Pince's > over the top response to Harry's written in Potion's book. So yeah, > I don't think it's such a stretch to imagine that there are rules > governing the way students treat their library books. Even if it > gets in the way of their reading. Alla: Written in Potions book is mistreating the book, reading outside is NOT mistreating the book. Please point me where in canon it says that the books NOT from restricted section are not allowed to be taken outside. > There's also the rather large hint that Hermione doesn't back Harry > up. Alla: Hint that such rule exists? Can you imagine Hermione saying " No, sir, please don't do it? Pretty please or something like that?" I don't. > Betsy Hp: > I don't get the impression that Hogwarts worries overmuch about > whether or not their students are reading. Of *course* their > students are reading, otherwise they'll fail their classes. So > there's not a need to coddle their students into it. Alla: Coddle - maybe not, but taking away their reading time outside? I highly doubt that. IMO of course. From G3_Princess at MailCity.com Mon Jun 19 21:27:23 2006 From: G3_Princess at MailCity.com (rowena_grunnionffitch) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:27:23 -0000 Subject: More PS/SS quotes and musings./Hermione, Snape and others In-Reply-To: <20060619142055.40113.qmail@web86209.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154067 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Irene Mikhlin wrote: > Why are you so sure that Snape made up that rule? From > what we've seen of Madame Pince, it would not surprise > me at all if there was a genuine library rule like > that. Speaking as a Library Clerk I can certainly see how the staff might not want books taken outside where they could get lost or damaged. Especially as Madame Pince doesn't seem to like checking books out at all. :D From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Jun 19 21:28:23 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:28:23 -0000 Subject: Star Gazing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154068 > Ken: > I've looked at solar system moons and asteroids and I still don't find > Narcissa. I think she is one of the Blacks with non-astro names. Potioncat: Actually, I think I once found a star named for Narcissus, but I couldn't begin to remember where or how I did it. Of more importance is this quote. I found this at Quick Quotes, from an interview in March 2004: >>>> queenmarion: I noticed in the Black Family tree that everyone is named after a constellation. Is this intentional? Does this have any bearing on the plot? JK Rowling replies -> It's just one of those family traditions, although Narcissa breaks the trend. I had always thought of her as 'Narcissa' so I decided not to change her to match the others when I came up with their names. There's been a lot of speculation that she is in some way linked to Lily and Petunia, because of the flower theme, but I can put that rumour to rest here: she isn't related to them.<<<< From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 19 21:40:55 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:40:55 -0000 Subject: Star Gazing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154069 Geoff wrote: > You left out Bellatrix and the "boys". > > The star references are: > Sirius... alpha Canis Major (Great Dog) > Regulus... alpha Leo (Lion) > Bellatrix... gamma Orion > > Andromeda seems to be the name if a constellation and not a star. > > The odd one out seems to be Narcissa, which I would link to Narcissus in Greek mythology. > > Anyone point me to a star Narcissa? Carol responds: No star or constellation, just the Narcissus myth. I think that the Blacks, seeing their pretty little blonde, blue-eyed daughter, strayed from the star/constellation connection to the tradition of flower names for female children (feminized, of course, from Narcissus to Narcissa). The Narcissus is often yellow, like a daffodil, and that may be the name that came into her mother's mind on seeing her for the first time. But of course, there's also the connotation of vanity and self-love. Maybe Draco is an extension of herself, or maybe mother love trumps self-love, even for Narcissa? And, of course, she continued the Black family tradition, giving her child the name of a constellation even though she married a Malfoy (where the tradition is less clear--Lucius is clearly Latin and related to light, but Abraxas has Gnostic and numerological connections that someone else may want to explore--note "abra" as in "abracadabra"?) Carol, noting that Bellatrix means "female warrior" or Amazon From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Mon Jun 19 21:54:36 2006 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 23:54:36 +0200 Subject: Phoenix fire? References: Message-ID: <00d601c693ea$f591c800$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 154070 justcarol67 wrote: > "But then, through the darkness, fire erupted: crimson and gold, a > fing of fire tht surrounded the rock so that the Inferi holding Harry > so tightly stumbled and faltered" (HBP Am. ed. 576). > Granted, DD is already planning to use fire to fend off the Inferi > before he drinks the potion, but this particular fire is the same > color as Fawkes's feathers, and of course, Fawkes (like Gryffindor > House) is associated with fire. But DD at this point seems too weak to > cast the fire unassisted; Fawkes has come to his aid before, > swallowing an AK intended for him in the MoM; and the protective magic > that saves Harry in GoF is also connected with Fawkes (or his feathers > in the wand cores) and also encircles him protectively. > > Does anyone else see a possible Fawkes connection here, as if Fawkes > is somehow temporarily lending DD his power to enable his greatly > weakened and possibly dying master (or friend or kindred spirit) to > rescue Harry one last time? Miles: Possible - yes. But I don't think your point is very strong, because there are more simple explanations for the quote: 1) Crimson and gold fire - this is quite normal, isn't it? Just light a candle, and you'll see it. 2) To conjure fire with your wand seems to be easy, since Hermione did it - admittedly in a less advanced way - as early as in her first year. So, there's no need to bring in Fawkes to explain that Dumbledore - even in his weak state - was able to do it. 3) Your argument is based on the parallelity of the colour of the fire Dumbledore produces, and the feathers of Fawkes or Phoenixes in general. But the explanation works better (or more simple) the other way round: The Phoenix' feathers remind of the fire it is born from and dies in again and again. So, your idea is nice, but I don't believe it is "true". From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Jun 19 22:12:31 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 22:12:31 -0000 Subject: Phoenix fire? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154071 Carol: > I'm wondering if he *does* summon Fawkes, or Fawkes's > power, in the cave. He is severely weakened, perhaps > already dying, yet he's able to conjure red and gold fire: [...] > Granted, DD is already planning to use fire to fend off > the Inferi before he drinks the potion, but this particular > fire is the same color as Fawkes's feathers, and of course, > Fawkes (like Gryffindor House) is associated with fire. > Does anyone else see a possible Fawkes connection here, houyhnhnm: I had not thought of it, but it makes sense. I am still musing on the fact that the last scene in Dumbledore's office begins with reflected gold from the sunset beyond the windows gleaming on Fawkes bright black eyes. I think he must have played a larger role than what we were permitted to see. However (and I have been thinking about this for some time; the right opportunity to post about it just hasn't come up), I'm not sure that Fawkes belongs wholly to Gryffindor in spite of his red and gold plumage and his role as Dumbledore's familiar. I think there is a Slytherin connection as well. The phoenix, in astrology, is asscociated with Scorpio, the most Slytherin-like of the water signs. There are three types of Scorpio personalities: The Scorpion, the Eagle, and the Phoenix. The Scorpion is the lowest type. Scorpions are totally self-seeking, using their own talents and others' resources to further their own ends, at any cost. The Eagle will use another person's resources for personal gain, but will do so in such a way as to bring mutual benefits. The highest and rarest type of Scorpio is the Phoenix (also called the Dove). According to Alan Oken, the Phoenix is a "healer and metaphysician who is constantly at work draining negative energies from others, repolarizing that energy through his or her own force field, and infusing into other people their newly regenerated and healing strength." From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Jun 19 22:54:59 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 22:54:59 -0000 Subject: James' essence/some Sirius and his family WAS: Re: Choice and Essentialism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154072 > Alla: > > I think that this is can hold water or not, we shall see in book 7, > BUT my point is that there is nothing to indicate that James was NOT > opposed to Dark Arts, as I don't know, part of his nature, if not an > essence of it. a_svirn: I sincerely hope that it's not "his nature or the essence of it". Since his hatred of the Dark Arts found its realisation in behaving as a garden variety bully I trust and hope that "the essence of his nature" comprise some other, more likable qualities. From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Mon Jun 19 22:57:17 2006 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 18:57:17 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Unwelcome visitors and drinks in HBP chapters 1-4 (Wa... Message-ID: <307.6614a75.31c885cd@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154073 In a message dated 6/17/06 11:34:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net writes: > In the case of DD with the Dursley's I think JKR was going for > comedic relief with the glasses of mead bonking the Dursley's on the > head so that they would take them and drink them. DD was about to > upbraid the Dursley's on their behavior toward HP so a bit of > knocking them upside the had may have been appropriate. I didn't find > it sinister. I didn't think it was casting a shadow on Dumbledore > moral authority at all. > > Joe. > > Sandy now: This is pretty much the way I read this scene too. The Dursleys had made Harry as miserable as they could while living under their roof and DD was just giving some of it back to them. They were obviously terrified of having DD there, and most certainly uncomfortable so DD used it to give them a little payback. I thought it was hilarious, so much so I laughed out loud, and I saw nothing remotely sinister about it. If he had cracked their skulls open it wouldn't have been half what they deserved. Sandy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Jun 19 22:59:28 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 22:59:28 -0000 Subject: More PS/SS quotes and musings./Hermione, Snape and others In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154074 > Alla: > Please point me where in canon it says that > the books NOT from restricted section are not allowed to be taken > outside. a_svirn: Well, it *is* stated in canon. It's just that you don't want to believe it because it was stated by Snape. From joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net Mon Jun 19 22:30:32 2006 From: joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net (Joe) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 22:30:32 -0000 Subject: More PS/SS quotes and musings./Hermione, Snape and others In-Reply-To: <20060619142055.40113.qmail@web86209.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154075 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Irene Mikhlin wrote: > > > Why are you so sure that Snape made up that rule? From > what we've seen of Madame Pince, it would not surprise > me at all if there was a genuine library rule like > that. > Joe: Hermione makes it her business to know the rules of Hogwarts and if it had been an existing rule she would have happily corrected Harry when he said, "He just made that rule up." She didn't disagree so I'm convinced Snape made it up, too. Just my $0.02. From pam_rosen at yahoo.com Mon Jun 19 23:07:14 2006 From: pam_rosen at yahoo.com (Pamela Rosen) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:07:14 -0700 Subject: New Topic: Reading HP books to chilldren Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154076 Here's something that has been on my mind lately. I wonder how many of you are (or have) read HP to children? I wonder about what sort of level younger children get from these books. Obviously there are some very adult themes in the latter two books, and explaining what we grown-ups find difficult to articulate might be tricky. I have just finished reading COS to my 7 year old boy, thinking all the while that he was pulling magic and adventure and that's about it from it. But then two extraordinary (at least to me) things happened: --As soon as he learned about the basilisk and how it attacked, he commented, "Remember back at the duel, Justin looked into a snake's eyes then? That was a clue." I was astonished that he could remember that far back, let alone pick out a piece of foreshadowing I had missed....twice. Are kids getting it at a higher level than we give them credit for? --The day after finishing COS, he had another run-in with the stock-character class bully. Before reading COS, my son reacted to bullying by punching the kid. The day after hearing Dumbledore talk about choices, the bully did the ultimate--he insulted my son's mother (me). This time my son simply walked away, even though the urge to take action was great. He later told me, "I wanted to hit him. But I could choose to be a bad guy or be a good guy. I want to be a good guy." I don't think that would have happened without Dumbledore's words fresh in his mind. So that leaves me in a quandary--if he's getting a lot more than birthday-party themes from the books, how do we approach the rest? What have been others' experiences? Pam From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 19 23:43:54 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 23:43:54 -0000 Subject: More PS/SS quotes and musings./Hermione, Snape and others In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154078 > > Alla: > > > Please point me where in canon it says that > > the books NOT from restricted section are not allowed to be taken > > outside. > > a_svirn: > Well, it *is* stated in canon. It's just that you don't want to > believe it because it was stated by Snape. > Alla: Um, Okay. Right after Snape says that, Harry says that he made that rule on the spot, so who is telling the truth here? I mean, isn't it possible that the first years are given the detailed introduction to the Hogwarts library and detailed pamphlet of what the rules are. So, I think it is very possible to speculate that Harry did not see any rule to that effect and speaks from the experience. We have two statements that contradict each other here, no? I was asking for back up of one of them. I also just realised something else - isn't Remus reading the book in the Pensieve scene, outside? > Joe: > Hermione makes it her business to know the rules of Hogwarts and if it > had been an existing rule she would have happily corrected Harry when > he said, "He just made that rule up." She didn't disagree so I'm > convinced Snape made it up, too. Just my $0.02. Alla: You know, this is a GREAT point. As I said earlier I cannot imagine Hermione fighting with Snape, especially after she just lied to the teacher probably for the first time in her life. Poor dear was probably so afraid to get expelled if she intervenes, this first year Hermione is not too trained in breaking up rules, yet, she is just started, IMO. But how many times she corrects Harry and Ron,when they get the various rules wrong ( you cannot apparate in Hogwarts, etc,etc). She does not correct Harry here. Very nice. :) JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 20 00:05:02 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 00:05:02 -0000 Subject: Rereading SS/PS question(s)/Harry's protections In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154079 Alla wrote: > I mean, if those folks are Order Members, then I have no case, it is > just I am incredibly puzzled of their way of keeping watch over > Harry - deliberately directing Harry's attention to them. > > To me those folks seem to be doing what Steve suggested as his > second idea - thanking Harry, etc, basically doing celebrity > hunting. And if they do THAT, Dumbledore's security measures do not > seem to be worth a dime to me, since anybody can locate Harry, > anybody. IMO of course. Carol responds: If they're Order members who, like Dedalus Diggle, can't resist greeting Harry, where's the harm? He's not going to grow up as a celebrity because he doesn't know who they are or why they're greeting him. (But their approaches could explain why Petunia is so insistent on her story that Harry's parents were killed in a car crash and her "Don't ask questions!" approach, as well as Vernon's "There's no such thing as magic!" if Petunia tells him about these incidents.) I don't see how Order members, who know that he lives in Little Whinging, saying hello to him indicates that "anybody" could find him. Even if the DEs wanted to, how would they know where to find him? How would they know that Lily evans Potter had a Muggle sister named Petunia Dursley who lived in Little Whinging? BTW, I don't think that the Order members (or whoever they are) showing up in droves on the day that Voldemort is vaporized is a matter of concern (breaking the Statute of Secrecy or whatever). They're not performing magic, and the Muggles would find some nomagical explanation for them (and for the owls that are reported on the Mugglee news), just as Uncle Vernon does (wearing costumes and collecting for some cause). The Muggles never notice people vanishing through the glass to enter St. Mungo's (though how the sick wizards could blend into the crowd as Moody suggests is a bit hard to explain). And they never see the Knight bus bumping through the countryside forcing trees and fire hydrants to move aside. As Stan Shunpike says, "They don't see nuffink, do they?" Maybe the explanation is simply that JKR didn't think out this particular detail from the earliest books. In any case, whoever the people are (and I do think they're former Order members or members of DD's extensive spy network), that there's any cause for concern over Dumbledore's security methods at Privet Drive. Carol, still wondering why JKR has repeatedly drawn Dedalus Diggle to our attention From witherwing at sbcglobal.net Tue Jun 20 00:20:33 2006 From: witherwing at sbcglobal.net (Rebecca Scalf) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:20:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Reading HP books to chilldren In-Reply-To: <200606192322.k5JNH3J6031344@ylpvm51.prodigy.net> Message-ID: <20060620002033.34556.qmail@web81202.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154080 --- Pamela Rosen wrote: > Here's something that has been on my mind lately. I > wonder how many of you are (or have) read HP to > children? Witherwing: I have read all six books to my seven year old, starting when she was five. I had been a fan for years, and once we made the read-aloud foray into chapter books, we tried Sorcerer's Stone, and she loved it. Like your experience with your son, my daughter remembers details, but I also made a point of stopping and checking in with her about certain characters and plotlines along the way. We went through a time when we read and reread and listened to audiobooks of HP for months on end. Now she knows many of the details by heart, but she is still making associations across books and she will ask me VERY interesting questions. When the HBP came out, I started reading it to her right away, but I read ahead. I thought about editing out some of the snogging, or the inferi, but in the end I read it word-for-word. I knew that her memory for detail is so good, I would certainly hear about it later if I left anything out. I just told her it was scary, and if she wanted me to stop, I would. I made a point of NOT reading the scariest bits at night. After I read the next-to-last chapter of HBP, the big scene on the tower, she asked me to stop reading, and we talked about it over a few days. I thought to myself, what have I done? The shock of an unhappy ending was too much. She said to me, *This one ends different,* and so we talked about how the books usually end. She finally did ask to hear the last chapter, and I was glad, because I thought it would be good for her to see how the characters mourn, and start making plans for the next step. We have not reread HBP, and we have moved on to Iva Ibbotsen and Narnia. I teach elementary age children, and every year I read one HP book aloud to the class. I have a first through third grade combination, and I only read the first three - I think the Goblet of Fire is too much for my class, mostly because I find the ending too disturbing for the average first-grader. I don't want to be responsible for nightmares, and in my experience the first three books are perfect. A lot depends on the child you are reading to. I have loved reading them all to my daughter. We stop and discuss, and wonder what will happen. She laughs aloud a lot, thanks to Fred and George and many others. In my own mind the Order of the Phoenix is a downer of a book, but my daughter laughs a lot, hearing it, reminding me that the humor is there too. My recommendation is to take the time to discuss the books if you read them with a child, so you know what level the child is tuned into. Of course many things will not make an impression the first time around. And they will probably read HP more than once in their life. In my experience when a child makes a break into reading chapter books on their own, they soon make their way to HP. Witherwing, who was deeply moved by the voice of her daughter reading HP aloud for the first time From estesrandy at yahoo.com Tue Jun 20 01:06:05 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 01:06:05 -0000 Subject: Possible connection with Greek myths, Constellations,and HP Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154081 A crazy star gazing idea sent from way out here in Alpha Centauri (literally). There have been many posts regarding Dumbledore and Snape's motives in the famous scene on the tower. Some Greek mythology and star constellations may shed a little more light onj this story (pun intended;0)) Two interesting characters from Greek mythology are also constellations and have some interesting qualities. Regarding the constellation of Centaurus, it is named in honor of Chiron the centaur who taught Hercules (possible Harry model) and was a gentle and wise teacher. He was immortal but was accidentally wounded by one of Hercules poisoned arrows during his 12 tasks. This left Chiron in great pain, and he basically asked to die in peace rather than remain immortal. He was said to have pleaded for his own death,. Dumbledore was a wise and gentle teacher and mentor to Harry. He was accidentally wounded while trying to destroy a horcrux and appears to be in some kind of pain in the Cave. He actually asks to die rather than continue while drinking from the green bowl. He has often said that there are worse things than dying. In a way, Hercules actually helps to end Chiron's suffering. Chiron is allowed to become mortal and end his suffering as he sacrifices himself by taking the place of the tormented Prometheus. It seems that Chiron had another student named Asclepius. He was said to have learned healing from Chiron, and he holds a stick with a serpent coiled around it. He was so skilled in medical arts, that he was said to have brought patients back from the dead. He was punished for doing this and placed in the heavens as the constellation of Ophiuchus. The staff of Asclepius (with the serpent wrapped around it) is the symbol of western medicine. Aclepius taught others the use of healing herbs. He taught them the herbs to apply to running wounds and the ones to apply to dry wounds. The name Ophiuchus is derived from the Greek word for "serpent handler." There is no healer or god with the name Ophiuchus, but he has always been associated with Asclepius. Eventually they both became known by Ophiuchus. Asclepius/Ophiuchus sometimes has a serpent entwined around his head and arms. Ophiuchus is one of the 13 zodiacal constellations (ones that contain the Sun during the course of the year). Ophiuchus is the only one of the 13 which is not counted as an astological sign. He was never given his full credit in a manner of speaking! Ophiuchus is represented as a man supporting a serpent. His body divides the snake into two parts, Serpens Caput and Serpens Cauda ( these are still considered one constellation). If you had two parts of the same snake, and the snake asked you to cut it in half,.would the snake ask you to "sever us"?;0) Severus Snape has never been given the credit he desires. He has magical healing powers as shown in HBP. He is head of the house of Slytherin and is surrounded by snakes. He is most talented with herbs and there use in potions. He has been quoted as saying that he has the ability to stopper death. Unfortunately, Zeus kills Asclepius with a lightning bolt for bringing back Orion from the dead. This does not bode well for Snape fans! Randy ( who sees interesting ideas hidden in the Greek star myths) From puduhepa98 at aol.com Tue Jun 20 01:43:49 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:43:49 EDT Subject: Evil Snape Message-ID: <225.5d451d8.31c8acd5@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154082 >Eggplant said Snape would still not be the most powerful wizard on earth even after Harry killed Voldemort if Dumbledore were still alive. Nikkalmati: So you envision Snape eventually trying to take over the UK- WW? If this was his ambition why did he waste so much time after LV disappeared? He didn't gather available DE's; he didn't try to kill Harry.He just sat around and waited for LV to show up, as Trelawney prophesied, stronger than ever. >Eggplant >If you save my life today and I don't kill you tomorrow we are not even; however I think this life debt business is overrated, it certainly didn't stop Wormtail from torturing Harry in GoF. Nikkalmati: Agreed about the Life Debt being overrated. What I meant about HBP is Snape kept other DEs from killing Harry or failed to take Harry to LV where he would be killed. Worth something, I hope. >Eggplant >As I said before I wouldn't be surprised if Harry kills Voldemort at the halfway point of book 7, and then Harry goes looking for Snape. Nikkalmati: I guess this is possible, but so far LV is the big Kahuna playing in the center ring. Snape is a side show. I doubt that will change. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 20 02:23:29 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 02:23:29 -0000 Subject: RAB case is broken - all Aurors please read!/Prank question. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154083 > Renee: > > Regulus has everything to do with alchemy. See f.i. this page: > http://www.zompist.com/chemical.htm; regulus is at the bottom of the > screen when you click. > > What it means? Perhaps that the true nature of Regulus Black only > became apparent after he'd been thrown into the crucible and was > purified. > > The regulus of antimony is especially interesting, as antimony is also > known as the "grey wolf" in alchemy. Maybe there's a link between > Regulus Black and either Remus Lupin or Fenrir Greyback. Alla: Hehe. Love Regulus, still think that "dead THESE days" means that he may be not dead another days, but your post made me want to go on the sort of the different tangent or maybe not so different. Anyways, the small warning here. I take as an absolute fact that we are nowhere close to knowing complete information about Prank events and what preceded them. And yes, that means that I don't buy as a fact that Sirius wanted Snape dead, since I don't see enough canon support. I also posted once the list of many many questions I have about Prank night available upon request. So, if one position is that we know everything we need to know about Prank night, then my next question will make no sense to you. We will have to learn about what happened on Prank night from somebody, right? Unless JKR will just do the "history chapter", somebody who is available to testify about mindsets, intentions, COMPLETE events of that night is needed. I just realised yesterday that nobody else is available to tell us everything, especially about Sirius intentions, but also about Peter, James role ( how did he learn, where he was, etc) Sirius and James are dead, Snape, well we know his testimony already don't we? What else? Somebody's diary? Another pensieve? Dumbledore's? My memory is as good as ever, so maybe he DOES have full memory of the event stored somewhere. If pensieve is objective, then Snape's or Sirius' will do too. Renee, the reason I am talking about all that stuff in your post about Regulus is because your idea that Regulus may have been connected with Remus or Greyback somehow made me think that IF Regulus was involved somehow and he is alive, it would be SO cool if he finally sheds light on what happened that night. He can certainly know about Sirius' intentions, estranged as they were, they must have been communicated somehow and he certainly may know about Snape. Oh, he is such a wild card. Please JKR, let one cool adult to play some role in discovering the events of the past? Alla, thanking Betsy and Ceridwen for suggestions. From iam.kemper at gmail.com Tue Jun 20 03:38:08 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 20:38:08 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Phoenix fire? In-Reply-To: <00d601c693ea$f591c800$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> References: <00d601c693ea$f591c800$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: <700201d40606192038s5503427ge584a5e64884765c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154084 > justcarol67 wrote: > > "But then, through the darkness, fire erupted: crimson and gold, a > > fing of fire tht surrounded the rock so that the Inferi holding Harry > > so tightly stumbled and faltered" (HBP Am. ed. 576). > > > Granted, DD is already planning to use fire to fend off the Inferi > > before he drinks the potion, but this particular fire is the same > > color as Fawkes's feathers, and of course, Fawkes (like Gryffindor > > House) is associated with fire. But DD at this point seems too weak to > > cast the fire unassisted; Fawkes has come to his aid before, > > swallowing an AK intended for him in the MoM; and the protective magic > > that saves Harry in GoF is also connected with Fawkes (or his feathers > > in the wand cores) and also encircles him protectively. > > > > Does anyone else see a possible Fawkes connection here, as if Fawkes > > is somehow temporarily lending DD his power to enable his greatly > > weakened and possibly dying master (or friend or kindred spirit) to > > rescue Harry one last time? > > > Miles: > Possible - yes. But I don't think your point is very strong, because there > are more simple explanations for the quote: > > 1) Crimson and gold fire - this is quite normal, isn't it? Just light a > candle, and you'll see it. > 2) To conjure fire with your wand seems to be easy, since Hermione did it - > admittedly in a less advanced way - as early as in her first year. So, > there's no need to bring in Fawkes to explain that Dumbledore - even in his > weak state - was able to do it. > 3) Your argument is based on the parallelity of the colour of the fire > Dumbledore produces, and the feathers of Fawkes or Phoenixes in general. But > the explanation works better (or more simple) the other way round: The > Phoenix' feathers remind of the fire it is born from and dies in again and > again. > > So, your idea is nice, but I don't believe it is "true". > .. . Kemper now: I don't think Carol is posing a point so much as she is posing a possibility. Red and Gold was referenced early in the series with regard to a phoenix. In Diagon Alley at Olivander's, Harry's wand chose him: "He reaised the wand above his head, brought it swishing down through the dusty air and a stream of red and gold sparks shot from the end..." (SS/PS chapt. 5) One has to wonder why JKR chose to reference the fire rope thing in the Cave as 'red and gold' instead of 'red and orange' or 'orange and gold'? It seems deliberate on JKR's part to have the reader refer to the phoenix for a reason. Nice catch, Carol! Kemper From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Jun 20 04:12:11 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 04:12:11 -0000 Subject: Christian themes in DD's death(was:Book 7, Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: <20060619133755.27783.qmail@web52715.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154085 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Lambert wrote: > > Tonks: > >>> (Since I have said that the COS was the tomb of Christ, > and I see DD as a symbol of Christ, to me it ties together. And I > think that JKR meant to tie those two images together in that > moment.) Since I think that DD is a Christ figure I do think > that we will see him again. <<< > > Barbara Kraus wrote: > >> I think this is a wonderful story and a world I would like to > enter...but do you really think that J.K. Rowling was trying to > write in parallels to the Bible? I think you do a disservice to > her... The Harry Potter stories are so well-written - - > when I read the biblical comparisons here, I can only think...oh, > please. Give me a break. << > Tonks: The HP stories are very well written indeed. And I think you do a disservice to JKR by suggesting that she is not able to write a story with depth to it that touches on the great mysteries of the human race, including human spirituality. > Katie: > I have to agree with Barbara. I think that reducing great literature to Bible allegory fails to see the beauty of the story itself. Tonk: I don't think that seeing subplots or subliminal story lines "reduces" the story. I think that it expands the story. Seeing only what is on the surface IMO is what "reduces" the story. The HP story convey deep truths about the human condition, it is not just a nice little "story" for the kiddies. > Katie: > I feel (in my opinion) that people who try to see Christian > stuff in HP are in some way assuaging some misplaced guilt about > being Christian and reading about witches. It just isn't there! There is no Christian allegory in HP. (snip)> I just don't understand why everything has to relate to religion! I > am a pretty faithful pagan, and I don't relate everything I do, read, or see to my religion. > Tonks: I take personal offense to the suggestion that I look for Christian symbols in the books to "assuage my guilt". I have no guilt. I do not read the books looking for excuses to read them as if I were some child afraid of offending "mommy". I read any book that I want to read. My Church does not banned books. (We are the ones that say `God gave you a mind and He expects you to use it'.) I read books that DD would never allow in Hogwarts, real books about real occult practices of the Dark Arts. And you think I am worried about reading a children's books about witches???? I don't "relate everything I do, read, or see to my religion" either. But when an author has hinted and implied as JKR has on numerous occasions that she is doing something in the books pertaining to her religion (She is Christian) and that she can not tell us about it until the final book is published, it is pretty hard to put blinders on and pretend that it isn't there. Katie: > Now, I am also a fan of the Narnia series, which is a well-known > and purposeful allegory to the Bible, but the story of Narnia can > also be read without looking for Christian themes, and still be a > wonderful and magical story. Can't we all just read HP for what it > is? - a fantastical and magical and unique work of literature (snip> Tonks: The Narnia series is an allegory, and why it is perfectly OK to read it as just an enjoyable story you can not just wish away the basic intent of the author, or tell others who do see the author's intent that they are just imagining it. The HP series IMO is not an allegory like Narnia. JKR has a subliminal story running under the surface and she does some unique things with symbolism. If you don't see it, that is fine. But when the final book is written and JKR tells what she has done, if she proves me wrong, no big deal. I will still love and treasure the books. On the other hand if JKR says that she has used symbols and ideas from Christianity in the constructions of her books, I suspect that some here will burn them or use them for mulch. Such is the bias that I hear voiced here against the very *idea* that there could be anything that looks like Christianity in the books. Katie: > Please, no offense meant, just not getting the whole Christian > theme. > > Peace, Katie > Tonks: And peace by with you. ;-) I wish we could all be open minded here. Everyone is IMO free to say what they see or think about the series. I think that JKR has pulled from many, many sources. Why limit our search to only a few at the exclusion of others? Just because the Christians on this list point out the Christian symbols in the series does not mean that we think that this is *all* there is to the series. One of my areas of expertise just happens to be Christian theology so naturally that is what I write about the most. Others have their own areas of expertise. Each of us has something to contribute to the understanding of this phenomenal work of art by a very talented author. All I ask is that we can explore it openly, deeply, thoroughly, and in the spirit of peace. You know, like that fountain in the MoM. But unlike the fountain which does not really portray the WW as it is, let the fountain's symbolism be our reality. Tonks_op From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 20 04:15:00 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 04:15:00 -0000 Subject: Hating Dark Arts (was re James' essence...) In-Reply-To: <319.5565def.31c7956c@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154086 > Julie: > It's still strange to me that James hated Snape so passionately > for performing nasty curses (Dark Arts curses, presumably), while > he was fine with hexing anyone who annoyed him. Does he really > think it's fine to humiliate and hurt others as long as it's not an > official "Dark" spell or hex? Does the label truly make the difference? > Carol responds: Usually I agree with you, Julie, but I'm at a loss to understand why you would assume that the hexes that an eleven-year-old knew were "presumably" Dark. For one thing, even as a teenager, the hexes and jinxes he creates (with the exception of one which is almost certainly created as retaliation against "enemies") are no darker than any other hex or jinx we see in the hallways of Hogwarts, including Levicorpus, the toenail jinx, Langlock (the tongue-locking jinx or hex), and Muffliato, which is not only useful if you don't want to be overheard but doesn't even inflict temporary damage or physical inconvenience (other than buzzing in the ears) on the person it's cast on. Hermione's Oppugno! (which I'm guessing means "attack") is much more vicious. And there's nothing dark about bezoars or the potions hints in the Teen!Snape's Potions book--or in his obvious interest in and knowledge of DADA (*Defense Against* the Dark Arts), as evidenced by his DADA OWL. And I still have no idea where James Potter (as opposed to Sirius Black) would have acquired any kind of personal hatred of the Dark Arts. If Dark equals evil, I'd be willing to bet that the spells that eleven-year-old Severus knew (and must have been casting, or know one would know that he knew them) were more ingenious than Dark--clever enough to call him to the attention of older Slytherins like Lucius Malfoy, but by no means cruel by Hogwarts standards or he'd have been kicked out of school. I am, of course, speculating, but where is the evidence on which you're basing your presumption--other than the biased statement of a known enemy that he was "a little oddball up to his ears in the dark Arts" that little Severus came to school knowing and casting Dark curses? How many really Dark curses do we know of, anyway? Only the three Unforgiveables, Sectumsempra (which Snape himself calls Dark but which he had not yet invented), and possibly Morsmordre (Dark because of what it stands for, a pledge to be the servant of an evil master)? I would call the magic that Wormtail performed to restore LV first to fetal form and then to his former body Dark, but surely eleven-year-old Severus was not performing anything remotely comparable. I would guess that the unknown spell that Dolohov used on Hermione was also Dark, but it's unlikely that little Sevvy cast anything that could kill a classmate, as Dolohov's spell could have killed Hermione if it had been spoken, or so Madam Pomfrey seems to imply. I'm guessing that Sevvy's repertoire of hexes and jinxes was a combination of the spells that most seventh years would know and a few he invented himself, but I very much doubt that he was a budding DE or practitioner of Dark magic at age eleven, whatever Sirius Black might say to the contrary twenty-odd years later of his longtime enemy, whom he had recently learned was a former Death Eater. Neither Snape nor Black had forgiven or forgotten what the other said in the Shrieking Shack in PoA. Is there any other evidence of Dark magic practiced by the first-year student Severus Snape? Is there any evidence that it was this Dark knowledge that caused James Potter to hate him? Ask James himself. When Lily asks what Severus Snape has ever done to him, James replies that he exists. A Dark and deadly sin indeed. BTW, I *do* think that the label makes a difference, but I don't think that little Severus was comparable in the knowledge and practice of Dark spells to the creator of an Inferius or a Death Eater controlling others by means of the Imperius Curse or any other adult Dark wizard (including himself in his Death Eater days if he created potions that aided Voldemort's evil agenda). I doubt very much that his spells were any Darker than James's (except that James, so far as we know, didn't invent any of his own). Carol, who absolutely agrees that James's hatred of Severus is strange when he's so fond of casting hexes himself but does not think that relative "Darkness" provides the explanation From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Jun 20 05:16:09 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 05:16:09 -0000 Subject: Phoenix fire? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154087 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > Kemper said: I don't think Carol is posing a point so much as she is posing a possibility. Red and Gold was referenced early in the series with regard to a phoenix. In Diagon Alley at Olivander's, Harry's wand chose him: "He reaised the wand above his head, brought it swishing down through the dusty air and a stream of red and gold sparks shot from the end..." (SS/PS chapt. 5) One has to wonder why JKR chose to reference the fire rope thing in the Cave as 'red and gold' instead of 'red and orange' or 'orange and gold'? It seems deliberate on JKR's part to have the reader refer to the phoenix for a reason. houyhnhnm said: The phoenix, in astrology, is asscociated with Scorpio, the most Slytherin-like of the water signs. There are three types of Scorpio personalities: The Scorpion, the Eagle, and the Phoenix. The Scorpion is the lowest type. Scorpions are totally self-seeking, using their own talents and others' resources to further their own ends, at any cost. The Eagle will use another person's resources for personal gain, but will do so in such a way as to bring mutual benefits. The highest and rarest type of Scorpio is the Phoenix (also called the Dove). According to Alan Oken, the Phoenix is a "healer and metaphysician who is constantly at work draining negative energies from others, repolarizing that energy through his or her own force field, and infusing into other people their newly regenerated and healing strength." Tonks: I think we need to take these ideas and stir them in a cauldron and strain the potion and see what comes out. I sense something in all of this, but can't quite put my finger on it. We have the Gryffindor and Slytherin symbolism both present in Fawkes -- is this some sort of ying/yang kind of thing? And what does it mean? What is DD's wand core? Do we know? If Harry's wand shot out red and gold and this is associated with fire as in the cave ? Does this mean that DD's wand core is also phoenix? Does it mean that Harry will be able to cast the same fire and have it involve Fawkes coming to his aid? What does the wand core mean when we have the brother wand effect? And why?? (as a side note. It occured to me while water my garden and producing an ark of a rainbow.. is there some connection with what happened in GOF?) And in your Slytherin idea associated with Fawkes you mention the Eagle. This is associated with Ravenclaw. What does this mean?? How does the Ravenclaw Eagle and the Phoenix combine? What about the Lion of Gryffindor. And the Badger. Are they represented in astrology any where? Firenze keeps telling us that he sees things in the sky. I suspect that he sees a lot more than just "Mars is bright tonight". Does he see anything associated with the Eagle, Lion, Badger and Snake? Like a final battle of some sort? Tell us more. Tonks_op From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Jun 20 05:42:15 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 05:42:15 -0000 Subject: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: <225.5d451d8.31c8acd5@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154088 puduhepa98 at ... wrote: > So you envision Snape eventually > trying to take over the UK- WW? Yes but not just the UK- WW, the entire world, Wizard and Muggle. > If this was his ambition why did > he waste so much time after LV disappeared? Two reasons, he knew that sooner or later Voldemort would return and Dumbledore was still alive. > he didn't try to kill Harry. Even though he hates him killing Harry was the last thing on earth Snape would want to do because he was one of only two people who knew Harry could kill Voldemort and was the only one who could. I think Snape heard the ENTIRE prophesy but just told Voldemort the first half. In fact I think the reason Dumbledore trusted Snape so much is that 17 years ago he made an unbreakable vow to protect the life of Harry Potter; Dumbledore thought Snape did this because basically he was a good guy, but Snape did it for quite different reasons. > LV is the big Kahuna playing in the > center ring. Snape is a side show. I think Snape is a bit more than a side show, just look at this group or any HP group, there is far more talk about Snape than Voldemort. Eggplant From alimcj at yahoo.com Tue Jun 20 01:11:43 2006 From: alimcj at yahoo.com (AliMcJ) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 01:11:43 -0000 Subject: Still asking about Mysterious Symbols on Pensieve Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154089 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?? Can anyone come up with a "We know he has/has not studied Greek" or "We know he has/has not studied Hebrew" to help me focus? I'm asking because I make dolls (Harry Potter and Anime both -- as well as numerous others, but use these two sources as inspiration), and I have some great 1/6 scale Pensieves that I would like to finish up. alimcj From marda.buz at juno.com Tue Jun 20 02:52:36 2006 From: marda.buz at juno.com (marda.buz at juno.com) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 02:52:36 GMT Subject: Reading HP books to chilldren Message-ID: <20060619.195256.14745.178519@webmail66.nyc.untd.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154090 --- Pamela Rosen wrote: > Here's something that has been on my mind lately. I > wonder how many of you are (or have) read HP to > children? Marda: My kids, currently 6, 8 and 10, love the HP books and audio books too. It has provided the openings for wonderful, yet sometimes difficult, conversations about friendship, fear, loyalty, trust, personal abilities and callings, death, .... Adults too often underestimate children, but JKR is the absolute exception to this. IMO, one of the major secrets of her success. Witherwing: >After I read the next-to-last chapter of HBP, the big >scene on the tower, she asked me to stop reading, and >we talked about it over a few days. I thought to >myself, what have I done? The shock of an unhappy >ending was too much. She said to me, *This one ends >different,* and so we talked about how the books >usually end. Marda's 6-yr old replies: "I'm worried about the 7th year and the little war with magic, with Voldemort and Harry. I worry about if it gets switched, and Harry doesn't win the war." Witherwing: >A lot depends on the child you are reading to. I have >loved reading them all to my daughter. We stop and >discuss, and wonder what will happen. She laughs aloud >a lot, thanks to Fred and George and many others. Marda's 10-yr this morning in the car said with a chuckle: "My favorite ghost is Nearly Headless Nick. He helped Harry out of a few scrapes." Witherwing: >Like your experience with your son, my daughter >remembers details, but I also made a point of stopping >and checking in with her about certain characters and >plotlines along the way. Marda's most moving comment from the 8-yr old: "My favorite part is that Fleur still wants to marry Bill even though he looks ugly. I can't wait until the wedding." Withering: >Witherwing, who was deeply moved by the voice of her >daughter reading HP aloud for the first time. Marda: I have experience this joy twice and am looking forward to this one more time, probably this summer. They say that having a pet is good for children because it can teach so many life lessons that are easier learned with a pet first. JKR's books are so real to the children that they also serve this purpose. The characters become their friends. They celebrate with them, share their struggles, and grieve for their losses. Reading HP with your children is great! From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Jun 20 06:39:35 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 06:39:35 -0000 Subject: Rereading SS/PS question(s) / Harry's protections In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154091 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > bboyminn: > > > It is entirely possible that the people Harry did encounter > > were members of the Order who would have had more > > information. Indeed they may have actually been sent on > > occassion to check up on Harry for Dumbledore. Invisibly, > > of course, as we see in OotP. So, when they happen to run > > into Harry on other occassions, they knew who he was. > > Alla: > > Yes, it is possible. The only thing is they did not do it > invisibly. That is strange to me. > bboyminn now: We have some time confusion here. Note I said when they happen to run into Harry on OTHER OCCASSIONS, they knew who he was. Further on those occassion when they were checking up on Harry, whether invisible or not, they were not guarding him as they were in OotP. They were simply making a reconnoissance of Harry's general well being. Regardless of whether they encountered Harry on their own or while on duty, I think they felt a deep dept as well as a certain affection that they couldn't resist acknowledging. Now you can argue whether Dumbledore should have place him there, and whether later he should have kept Harry there, but the fact remains that Dumbledore thought Privet Drive was the safest place and the protection of blood was the strongest protection. On those occassions when he received reports that Harry's life was generally unpleasant, he just reminded himself that Harry was safe, and in the moment that was the most important thing. So, my point is, not everyone is working from the same set of knowledge, and those who acknowledge Harry, may have actually known who he was, or they may have just made a lucky guess. There are probably several little dark haired boys with a scar on their face scattered about the UK who have had odd strangers wave at them, who in fact were merely mistaken for Harry. We can't assume everyone in the story is working from the knowledge we have. > bboyminn: > > > I think more important for Death Eaters would be a general > > underlying subliminal fear of Harry. As an infant he > > survived an AK from the darkest and most powerful of Dark > > Wizards. That wouldn't encourage others to attempt to harm > > Harry. ... > > > > Those Death Eaters who were free knew they had escaped > > capture by the skin of their teeth. Further they knew that > > they no longer had the 'biggest bully on the block' there > > to protect them. I think most, inthat moment, preferred to > > count themselves luck and fade into the background. > > Alla: > > Um, doesn't this argument leads us into Dumbledore's strange > choices again? > > If DE were SO very afraid of Harry and preferred to stick to > the background, what ARE the chances that they would actually > attack Harry and then of course the same question arises > whether DD REALLY needed to stick Harry at Dursleys? > bboyminn now: Again, we have time confusion. What is likely to happen months and years later, is quite different from what one might speculate could happen in the hours, days, and weeks immediately after Voldemort's disappearance. Those few days and weeks immediately after Voldemort's defeat were a very unknow period. Would Dark Wizards seek revenge? Would the bide their time or strike immediately? It was in this dark period of great uncertainty that Dumbledore was forced to make his decision. I think many DE's like Lucius did their best to recover and disassociate themselves from Voldemort. We know many suspected DE's claimed bewitchment as a way of covering their deeds. They certainly would not want to rock the boat since huge suspicions were already cast on them. Other DE's were more ruthless and could care less about public preception. The classic example is the attack on the Longbottoms which came a year after the initial attack on Harry, and was cold and heartless. So, Dumbledore was worried about both the immediate and the slightly longer term protection of Harry. So, Dumbledore's preception of the potential for trouble was very real, and I think, bad as it was, he made the right choice. > Alla continues: > > Isn't it trying to have your cake and eat it too on > Dumbledore's behalf? If it was essential for Harry's > survival to stick with Dursleys, wouldn't it be logical > to make SURE that nobody knew where he is? > bboyminn now: I once again remind people that knowledge isn't universal. I'm sure many people knew Harry was living with muggles. That seems apparent when he reaches Hogwarts; other students make comments on occassion. But, it is quite a different thing for them to know exactly where Harry lived. So, much like all the information passed on by Dumbledore, different people knew different things in proportion to their need to know as assessed by Dumbledore. Order members may have had details that the general public did not. Others may have had the most general information, and merely suspected who Harry might be based on his general appearance and his scar, and merely acknowledge him. > Alla continues: > > If that is OKAY that it was easy enough to find Harry and as > you are saying DE or former DE were so afraid of Harry anyways, > couldn't he grew up with some.... I don't know less abusive, > decent folks? > > Especially since as you are saying Harry has two related > protections. He needs protection given by Lily against > Voldemort, but the additional protection on Privet Drive,... > > ...edited... > > Alla > bboyminn concludes: Most of what I needed to say, I said above. The need and degree of Harry's protection is always changing. The need at the moment Voldemort was lost is quite different but no less real than Harry's need for protection at age 10. However, it is in the moment that Voldemort is lost that Dumbledore needs to make some decisions. As to why some wizards are able to come to Privet Drive while alleged protection are in place and we assume Dark Wizards can not, I think the key is based in intent to do harm. It's not so much that no one can find Harry at Privet Drive, but that no one can harm him there. Mr. Weasley, Ron and the Twins mean Harry no harm, and are therefore able to enter Privet Drive. The Order guards who take Harry to Grimmauld Place mean Harry no harm, so they are able to come and get Harry. Voldemort clearly knows where Harry is, but admits he can't 'touch' Harry there, and further acknowledges that Dumbledore's protections are extremely powerful. So, the question isn't whether Voldemort or the DE's can find Harry, the question is whether they can harm him while he is under the protection of blood that Dumbledore placed on Privet Drive, and apparently they can not. It is conceivable that DE's and Voldemort could actually come to Privet Drive, they may even be able to enter the house, but the minute they try to harm Harry, the protection kicks in and kicks bum. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From juli17 at aol.com Tue Jun 20 06:48:39 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 06:48:39 -0000 Subject: Hating Dark Arts (was re James' essence...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154092 > > Julie: > > It's still strange to me that James hated Snape so passionately > > for performing nasty curses (Dark Arts curses, presumably), while > > he was fine with hexing anyone who annoyed him. Does he really > > think it's fine to humiliate and hurt others as long as it's not an > > official "Dark" spell or hex? Does the label truly make the difference? > > Carol responds: > Usually I agree with you, Julie, but I'm at a loss to understand why > you would assume that the hexes that an eleven-year-old knew were > "presumably" Dark. For one thing, even as a teenager, the hexes and > jinxes he creates (with the exception of one which is almost certainly > created as retaliation against "enemies") are no darker than any other > hex or jinx we see in the hallways of Hogwarts, including Levicorpus, > the toenail jinx, Langlock (the tongue-locking jinx or hex), and > Muffliato, which is not only useful if you don't want to be overheard > but doesn't even inflict temporary damage or physical inconvenience > (other than buzzing in the ears) on the person it's cast on. > Hermione's Oppugno! (which I'm guessing means "attack") is much more > vicious. And there's nothing dark about bezoars or the potions hints > in the Teen!Snape's Potions book--or in his obvious interest in and > knowledge of DADA (*Defense Against* the Dark Arts), as evidenced by > his DADA OWL. Julie: You're right that nothing we know Snape had invented at that time or hinted at in his Potions book is Dark magic. I was in fact going by Sirius's statement that James hated the Dark Arts (and thus hated Snape) and that Snape was up to his ears in Dark Arts. This rather implies that Snape *practiced* those arts, though there is definitely a difference between spells we know he used and those that have been identified as "Dark." But it's certainly possible, maybe probable, that Sirius misspoke or even deliberately misled Harry. Carol: > BTW, I *do* think that the label makes a difference, but I don't think > that little Severus was comparable in the knowledge and practice of > Dark spells to the creator of an Inferius or a Death Eater controlling > others by means of the Imperius Curse or any other adult Dark wizard > (including himself in his Death Eater days if he created potions that > aided Voldemort's evil agenda). I doubt very much that his spells were > any Darker than James's (except that James, so far as we know, didn't > invent any of his own). > > Carol, who absolutely agrees that James's hatred of Severus is strange > when he's so fond of casting hexes himself but does not think that > relative "Darkness" provides the explanation Julie: That's why I wonder what *really* made James hate Snape so much? Because he was a Slytherin, part of a house supposedly full of Dark Arts supporters? Then why not hex all the Slytherins of that year equally? Why single out Snape? Because he was even odder and greasier than the average Slytherin? Because he *talked* about his love/knowledge of the Dark Arts (given he wasn't really old enough or experienced enough or maybe even determined enough to actually perform them)? Really, what was it between those two? (Though Lily could be part of it, that doesn't explain their earlier years at Hogwarts before she presumably came into the picture.) It's a bit of a conundrum, though maybe not one important enough for JKR to clarify. Perhaps it's only there to serve as a parallel to the animosity between Draco and Harry/his friends. Or maybe we will learn that there was another reason for the mutual animosity between Snape and James. Only Book 7 will tell :-) Julie From littleleah at handbag.com Tue Jun 20 09:50:05 2006 From: littleleah at handbag.com (littleleahstill) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:50:05 -0000 Subject: More PS/SS quotes and musings./Hermione, Snape and others In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154093 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > I also just realised something else - isn't Remus reading the book > in the Pensieve scene, outside? Leah: We don't have any idea what book Remus is reading during the Pensieve scene. It could be a text book, particularly as it's exam time, which Remus would presumably have bought himself at Flourish & Blotts. It could be Remus' own book from home. Or it could be a library book. But since these are the Marauders, and they're fairly relaxed about rules, this doesn't necessarily demonstrate that library books are actually allowed outside. We're also looking back at the past, and rules change. The library also seems to be much more a reference/study tool for the students, rather than an outlet for leisure reading. Many of the books we see are old. So it would not be unbearably surprising if the rule existed. However....: > > > Joe: > > Hermione makes it her business to know the rules of Hogwarts and > if it > > had been an existing rule she would have happily corrected Harry > when > > he said, "He just made that rule up." She didn't disagree so I'm > > convinced Snape made it up, too. Just my $0.02. > Leah: ....I am actually inclined to agree with the above. Snape just made that rule up. However, if we look at the context, the trio were huddling round a fire which Hermione had conjured up.: "Hermione had become a bit more relaxed about breaking rules since Harry and Ron had saved her..she had conjured them up a bright blue fire..Harry, Ron and Hermione moved closer together to block the fire from view;they were sure it wouldn't be allowed. Unfortunately something about their guilty faces caught Snape's eye...He hadn't seen the fire but he seemed to be looking for a reason to tell them off anyway". (PS133-4) We don't actually know the fire breaks school rules, but JKR heavily implies it by the first sentence I've quoted. Snape clearly knows something is up and deducts the points. If the fire is breaking the rules, then the points would have gone anyway. Not wholly fair, but not wholly unfair either. Leah From enlil65 at gmail.com Tue Jun 20 15:35:59 2006 From: enlil65 at gmail.com (Peggy Wilkins) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 10:35:59 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Rereading SS/PS question(s) / Harry's protections In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1789c2360606200835h2066c9e3rb6ef895f55ad58ea@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154094 On 6/20/06, Steve wrote: Steve/bboyminn: > It's not so much that no one can find Harry at Privet Drive, > but that no one can harm him there. Mr. Weasley, Ron and the > Twins mean Harry no harm, and are therefore able to enter > Privet Drive. The Order guards who take Harry to Grimmauld > Place mean Harry no harm, so they are able to come and get > Harry. Voldemort clearly knows where Harry is, but admits he > can't 'touch' Harry there, and further acknowledges that > Dumbledore's protections are extremely powerful. > > So, the question isn't whether Voldemort or the DE's can find > Harry, the question is whether they can harm him while he is > under the protection of blood that Dumbledore placed on Privet > Drive, and apparently they can not. > > It is conceivable that DE's and Voldemort could actually come > to Privet Drive, they may even be able to enter the house, but > the minute they try to harm Harry, the protection kicks in > and kicks bum. Peggy W: How does the dementor attack at the start of OOTP figure into this? I presume that if Harry hadn't defended himself, he would have been harmed even as he was residing with his relatives. Does that protection apply only when he is actually inside the house? If that's the case, why is he ever allowed to leave, whether it's to go outdoors or take a trip to the zoo for Dudley's birthday? IIRC Harry wasn't allowed to leave the house at Privet Drive one summer, but I can't recall exactly what the circumstances were. Am I remembering this correctly? I find the whole issue of Dumbledore's extended blood protection confusing. Dumbledore says he put his trust in the bond of blood, but beyond that it's never explained, just talked about indirectly. -- Peggy Wilkins enlil65 at gmail.com From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Jun 20 17:04:38 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:04:38 -0000 Subject: Rereading SS/PS question(s) In-Reply-To: <1789c2360606182244s5a1a530bhc22971605a8bdd7f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154095 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Peggy Wilkins" wrote: > > On 6/18/06, Mike/once_red56 wrote: > > Mike: > > I'm not sure Lily's protection is still around other > > than the blood protection Dumbledore added through > > Petunia. ...edited... > > Peggy W: > As Dumbledore says in GOF, "Voldemort has overcome that > particular barrier". It's clear he's referring to > Voldemort's newfound ability to touch Harry without > suffering bodily destruction, but there mayindeed be > more to it. bboyminn: While I can't find the references, I know that on more than one occassion AFTER the graveyard scene in GoF, Dumbledore has said to Harry that Harry is still protected by his mother's sacrifice. In a sense, he confirmed that Voldemort has only overcome one small aspect of Lily's protection. Yes, Voldemort can touch Harry, but that doesn't completely erase the protection. > Peggy continues: > > As you rightly suggest, Voldemort doesn't hesitate in > the least to fire Avada Kedavra at Harry in the graveyard > shortly after he touches him. This suggests that there > is no doubt in Voldemort's mind that the AK won't backfire > on him this time, and that he could be successful; > otherwise, he wouldn't even try. > bboyminn: I don't think we can say that there is NO Doubt in Voldemort's mind, only that he is so arrogant and convinced of his own superiority that he is willing to overlook any doubt. Notice that his AK curse missed Harry, so we really can't say what would have happened if it had been on target. Though, you will note that twice in his life Harry has been able to block an allegedly unblockable curse. Further, I'm sure the Death Eaters are greatful to Voldemort for telling them not to attack Harry; to leave Harry for him. I'm sure if they were forced by Voldemort to attack Harry, they would, but would do so reluctantly. Harry has escaped far too many times for it to be just blind dumb luck. Though I'm convinced none of them would ever say this out loud, that could be hazardous to your health. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Tue Jun 20 17:15:12 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:15:12 -0000 Subject: Ravenclaw artifact (Was: Horcrux musings) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154096 > I was pondering on Horcruxes, and how they would play out. > So far, we've got: > #1 The ?Slytherin? Locket - R.A.B.? > #2 Riddle's Diary - Harry > #3 The Peverell Ring - Dumbledore/Snape > #4 ?Helga Hufflepuff's Cup? > #5 ?Ravenclaw? > #6 ?Gryffindor? > #7 Voldemort - has to be Harry, but not neccessarily Harry alone. > > There's nothing to indicate that Harry has to sort out > the Horcruxes, and as others have pointed out, it would make for a > massive book if he needs to find, and then ...disarm 3 or > 4 horcruxes ... > > The ring ...is only identified as having the Peverill coat of arms > on it - it's never identified with any of the founders. > So assuming neither Gryffindor nor Ravenclaw had a family name of > Peverell, that would be two artefacts possibly unidentified. > aussie: Salazar Slytherin made the Chamber of Secrets needing a parsel tongue password. The Headmasters office is behind a Griffen's Statue guarded by a password. Now .... who made the Room of Requirements also guarded by a password of sorts? Could that be thanks to Ravenclaw? And could a relic be hiding there? I think prior to the release of OOTP, JKR said in an interview, if she had the chance to go to anwhere withing Hogwarts, it would be a room DD mentioned in GOF ball dance (GOF chap 23 talking to Krum and Karakoff ) "I took a wrong turning on the way to the bathroom and found myself in a beautifully proportioned room I have never seen before, containing a really rather magnificent collection of chamber pots. When I went back to investigate more closely, I discovered that the room had vanished." From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 20 17:50:31 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:50:31 -0000 Subject: More PS/SS quotes and musings./Hermione, Snape and others In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154097 > > >>Alla: > > Because I find the rule that prevent students to read to > > be absurd. > > But if you give me the canon for that happening in any other > > instance, I will of course bow to that. > > > >>Betsy Hp: > > Well, there's the Restricted Section. > >>Alla: > ??????. Since when Quidditch through ages belongs to restricted > section? Betsy Hp: It doesn't. But you asked for an example of a rule that restricts students reading. The Restricted Section does just that. > >>rowena_grunnionffitch: > Speaking as a Library Clerk I can certainly see how the staff might > not want books taken outside where they could get lost or damaged. > Especially as Madame Pince doesn't seem to like checking books out > at all. :D Betsy Hp: Exactly. And when you consider that Hogwarts is the *only* school in Britian, it doesn't stretch the imagination to believe that Hogwart's library is probably the best in Britian. And that they therefore have some rare books. And that Mdm. Pince, dealing with mucky children with dirty fingers and nasty habits (eating while reading, dog-earing pages, breaking spines, etc.), would become rather draconian in an effort to protect her realm. Worries about the students' reading habits need not apply. > >>Joe: > > Hermione makes it her business to know the rules of Hogwarts and > > if it had been an existing rule she would have happily corrected > > Harry when he said, "He just made that rule up." She didn't > > disagree so I'm convinced Snape made it up, too. Just my $0.02. >>Leah: >....I am actually inclined to agree with the above. Snape just made > that rule up. > Betsy Hp: But Hermione has *just* becomes friends with Harry and Ron. I think she'd be inclined to back Harry up if he's right (not to Snape, but after he leaves) to show her support, but keep her mouth shut if Harry is wrong. At least, this early in the game. However, even if Snape *did* make that rule up... Eh, it doesn't bother me. Five points won't make or break the race for the School Cup. > >>Leah: > Snape clearly knows something is up and deducts the points. If the > fire is breaking the rules, then the points would have gone > anyway. Not wholly fair, but not wholly unfair either. Betsy Hp: Exactly. Snape's being Snape-ie. Just gives us more to love. ;) Betsy Hp From oppen at mycns.net Tue Jun 20 18:21:19 2006 From: oppen at mycns.net (ericoppen) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:21:19 -0000 Subject: Sirius' motivation for breaking with his family Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154099 While I'm sure that Sirius liked attention and standing out in a crowd, that alone might not have been his motivation for breaking so completely with his family. The Wizard World operates on patronage and family influence (it's pre-Victorian, almost Regency, sometimes, at least that's how it feels to me)and turning one's back on a powerful source of influence such as the Black family would not be something done lightly. I think that we may have seen a clue to Sirius' motivation in our first minutes in his family mauso--er, his family _mansion._ What if Little Sirius had had a house elf that he really, really loved, that was his favorite playmate---and one day he comes downstairs to find out that Mama has had that elf's head cut off and mounted on a plaque? That would be the sort of thing to turn a boy against his mother forever---at least it would be for me, and for the kids I knew when I was that age myself. And it goes double and triple if that house- elf was the only source of warmth and unconditional love that Little Sirius ever got as a child. Mama Black does not, to put it mildly, strike me as a likely sort of person to be a comforting presence for a little child. (Although I may be doing her an injustice here; that portrait could date from a later period in her life when she was going 'round the bend from age; I've known some real nice people who were impossible to deal with when Alzheimer's hit) If Sirius had been forced to deal with the death of a house-elf that he loved, the trauma could have affected him in all sorts of ways, ranging from breaking with the Black family tradition of Dark Magic and begging for Gryffindor instead of Slytherin to lashing out at Kreacher when trapped in Grimmauld Place, partly because Kreacher was a horrible reminder of that other, _nice_ house-elf. Comments? Howlers? From celizwh at intergate.com Tue Jun 20 19:32:36 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 19:32:36 -0000 Subject: Phoenix fire? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154100 Tonks: > I think we need to take these ideas and stir them in > a cauldron and strain the potion and see what comes out. > I sense something in all of this, but can't quite put my > finger on it. We have the Gryffindor and Slytherin > symbolism both present in Fawkes -- is this some sort > of ying/yang kind of thing? And what does it mean? houyhnhnm: I don't know. I can't quite put my finger on it either. Except that we aready have the suggestion (from the Sorting Hat) that the healing of the Wizarding World must come from unification of the qualities of *all* the houses, not the triumph of the "good" house over the "bad" house. We have Rowling's word that Slytherin House is associated with the element of water, and the watery signs in general not just the Scorpio phoenix, are associated with healing. The phoenix, in legend, is always associated with fire and with resurrection, but I'm not sure about the healing tears (I'm no expert on mythology). The fact that Rowling chose to emphasize the healing powers of Fawkes, and that he sounds so much much like the Scorpio-Phoenix, makes me think that we are supposed to see Slytherin qualities in Fawkes as well as Gryffindorish ones. Tonks: > And in your Slytherin idea associated with Fawkes you > mention the Eagle. This is associated with Ravenclaw. > What does this me ?? How does the Ravenclaw Eagle and the > Phoenix combine? What abou the Lion of Gryffindor. And > the Badger. Are they represented in astrology any where? houyhnhnm: I don't see any connection between the Scorpio-Eagle and the Ravenclaw eagle. The eagle is a symbol in so many cultures because of its high flight, because it is the master of the skies. The Scorpio-Eagle is so-called because s/he can fly over the situations in which s/he is placed, above the petty emotions of others and be unaffected by them until choosing to swoop down for his or her own advantage. I immediately think of Horace Slughorn, not Fawkes, when contemplating the Scorpio-Eagle. Ravenclaw House is symbolized by an eagle because it is the house associated with the element of air, with the high flight of intellect. Aquarius (fixed air) is the astrological sign ruling large birds. Are there qualities asscociated with Ravenclaw in Fawkes? This is a separate question. I can't see any qualities of either Ravenclaw or Hufflepuff in Fawkes. Maybe it is because I haven't thought about it long enough or maybe it is that, both in the past and in the "present", the conflict was and is essentially between Gryffindor and Slytherin, with the other two founders/houses chiefly in the role of onlookers. From rdsilverstein at yahoo.com Tue Jun 20 19:37:58 2006 From: rdsilverstein at yahoo.com (hpfan_mom) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 19:37:58 -0000 Subject: More PS/SS quotes and musings./Hermione, Snape and others In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154101 >Alla: Please point me where in canon it says that the books NOT from restricted section are not allowed to be taken outside. > > a_svirn: Well, it *is* stated in canon. It's just that you don't want to believe it because it was stated by Snape. hpfan_mom now: Actually, IIRC even books from the Restricted Section are allowed to leave the library. I am reading COS to my older boys and last week we read the scene where Hermione gets a note from Lockhart to borrow Moste Potente Potions. I could be wrong (it was late and the boys interrupt with lots of questions) but I'm quite sure Hermione handed over the note, got the book from Madam Pince, put it in her backpack and immediately took it to Moaning Myrtle's bathroom. No comment from Pince when Hermione left the library with the book. hpfan_mom From blink_883 at hotmail.com Tue Jun 20 16:53:21 2006 From: blink_883 at hotmail.com (whirledgirl) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:53:21 -0000 Subject: Choice and Essentialism/Understanding Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154102 > a_svirn: > Now there we do it again. Existentialist or essentialist? Because > essentialist position would have been something quite the opposite ? > that Macbeth would have turned out a murderer no matter what ? > because it is in his nature. Also I think that Voldemort *is* > essentially evil. I mean, really, what about that phrase that he > never loved anyone? Unlike Snape who did and therefore more > culpable? It sort of suggests that Voldemort can't be even hold > accountable for his actions. He's just inherently evil ? the bad > blood of the Gaunts, no doubt. He simply can't help it. This is a > kind of contrary to the main message of the series, but apparently > necessary for the plot purposes. > > Gerry wrote: > I think JKR means that Voldemort only understands about loving and > connecting on an intellectual level. He knows these things exist but > he has had no experience of it himself. Yet Snape had, and therefore > his choices were -how do I say that- more profound because he does > understand these things on an emotional level as well. > WG*: I've just come from an english exam, and one of the questions i chose related to Iago, Shakespeares 'villain' or 'misguided man' according to your school of thought, in Othello. I argued that Iago, in a way that was reminiscent of Voldie (note: didn't put this in the exam, don't think i would've passed otherwise!), has not ever really known love. And Iago's married! But he doesn't treat his wife with respect. This doesn't mean that he can't choose or hasn't got a choice, but imo feels a need, a base need that isn't necessarily controllable, to destroy the happiness of those around him. Sociopath? Quite possibly. Have they got a choice? Yet...Harry hasn't become a sinister, egotistical murderer...and he didn't know anything about his parents until the age of 11, when all his knowledge was destroyed and rebuilt. IMO, J.K.R. is exploring what happens to real people when they are put in extreme situations through these characters in their extraordinary world. When in the Pensieve with DD in HBP, and DD and Harry go to the time when DD first met Tom Riddle as a boy, we're told that the place is clean, but not a nice place to grow up in. Basically, I think Voldie had about as much choice as Harry has had. Harry didn't know his parents loved him, he hoped, I'm sure. He told himself that the car accident wasn't his fault, probably (knowing Harry as he is now he would have asked himself this), but the Dursley's shunned and mistreated Harry! Tom Riddle, in some ways, was even better cared for! You could not possibly say that Harry got more love in that house where "every surface" had a photo of Dudley. Impossible. So why hasn't Harry "turned out bad" or whatever? A Shakespeare critic said of Iago that if an audience member stood up and shouted out to him "why are you doing this?", Iago would have replied "because I can." Isn't that why he hurt those two children in the cave? Isn't that why he hung that little boy's rabbit from the rafters? Because he felt wronged - and he *could*, so why couldn't Harry? He didn't know he was loved. Had he felt love? That's just my two knuts worth...although apologies if some parts are abit shakey, 3 hour exams don't agree with me heh. smiles, WG* From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 20 20:40:08 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 20:40:08 -0000 Subject: Place of Dark Arts in WW (was:Re: Hating Dark Arts (was re James' essence...) In-Reply-To: <000701c6937f$70a3f200$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154103 > >>Julie: > > This is possible, but I have to wonder if Dark Arts are directly > > analogous with evil and with Voldemort. After all, you can kill > > with plenty of non-Dark spells if that's your desire, and I'd > > think certain Dark Arts might be useful outside of their > > potential danger. > > Betsy Hp: Actually, I think we're told pretty straight up that the Dark Arts and Voldemort *do not* go hand in hand. The Black family is a family steeped in Dark Arts. For generations per Sirius. And yet one of them managed to be headmaster of Hogwarts, and the family itself eventually turned on Voldemort. (Interestingly it's the son who *doesn't* turn his back on the Dark Arts that may have given Voldermort the bigger raspberry.) We've got Durmstrang, a school comfortable enough with the Dark Arts that they teach it to their students. And the Durmstrang champion, Victor Krum, is a good enough guy to be Hermione's first ever boy- friend. Victor Krum doesn't come across as a friend of Voldemort. (Neither does the school for that matter. Karkaroff gets killed by Voldemort after all.) There's dear old Lupin, a "dark" creature. And we're not supposed to hate him (assuming he's not ESE), even though he's a carrier for a dark disease. (That those champions of "light" monthly set free upon their world, but that little act of hypocrisy is a different discussion, I think. ) Goodness, we even have that discussion in OotP with the revolting Dolores arguing the side of "some magic is bad and icky and not suitable for polite company". This is the one person you *don't* want on your side in an argument. To top it all off, apparently (per Dumbledore) the effects of the Unforgivable Imperius Curse are the same as those fun and giggly love potions. Which one is dark, again? No, JKR is not equating the Dark Arts with evil. Or if that's what she meant to do, she did a piss poor job of it. > >>Marion: > Besides that, the Marauders (and the Golden Trio) have this nasty > habit of being selfreferential in there moral code. "We are Good, > therefore what we do is Good. They are Bad, therefor what they do > is Bad. If they use the same hex as I do, there hex is Dark, but > mine is Light. Because they are Dark Wizards and I am a Light > Wizard". Betsy Hp: Amen to that! I was pretty surprised (jolted out of the story even) when Harry dropped that "He despised Malfoy still for his infactuation with Dark Arts..." [HBP scholastic p.640] comment. He *despised* Malfoy?? For his "infactuation" with the Dark Arts?!? This from Harry "I Crucio you!" Potter? Who waded through who's blood, again? Just a tiny wiff of hypocrisy there. (Plus the additional problem of the reader never being shown Draco's "infactuation" with the Dark Arts. Either JKR dropped the ball, or we're supposed to look a bit askance at Harry here.) We've got Ron running around gleefully putting people down whenever the opportunity arises. At one point screwing with Harry's detective work to get in a good jab at Moaning Myrtle. And we've got Hermione "Cross me and I'll brand your face. Forever." Granger, who still seems to think she has the right to solve any problem with a jinx or two or three. That our heroes are not praised for this behavior by the author suggests, to me, that these are young kids still figuring out how to be good. Merely avoiding the Dark Arts is obviously not enough to make a "good" person. JKR (I *think*) is not making it that easy. > >>Marion > > Now, we don't know what makes the Dark Arts 'dark'. I don't think > JKR's wizarding world is in a constant fight of good versus evil, > Light against Dark. > Betsy Hp: This is the crux of the matter, I think. After all, the Sorting Hat doesn't tell our young heroes to throw the evil Slytherins out of their blessed Hogwarts. It tells them to *embrace* the Slytherins. That seems to be the theme, doesn't it? Unity over division; balance and order over chaos and discord. Voldemort is trying to seperate; Dumbledore is trying to unify. And I suspect (especially after reading that Snape as Death article): http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/#scribbulus:essay:192 that JKR is going for the more difficult, more interesting, and more realistic, idea that there's a place at the table for the Dark Arts. And it's time to bring the poor maligned craft out of the cold. Or at least, that's my opinion. Today. Betsy Hp From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 20 20:50:20 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 20:50:20 -0000 Subject: James' essence/some Sirius and his family WAS: Re: Choice and Essentialism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154104 Alla wrote: > So, if you are not saying that he was not opposed to Dark Arts and I > don't think that we have any canon support to say that he was not, > what are we arguing about? > > That James cannot be boiled down so to speak to his opposition to > Dark Arts? Sure, I am sure that was not the only thing he cared about in life. Or is it your argument that Sirius statement is not to be believed after all? Carol responds: I'm saying that James's opposition to the Dark Arts, which perhaps existed in some form by the time he finished Hogwarts, does not necessarily date from his first year at Hogwarts, nor does it adequately explain his hatred of the equally young Severus Snape, who surely was not a Dark wizard at that age. (He *was* a "little oddball" who wasn't rich or handsome, who happened to be placed in Slytherin--a house that Sirius Black hated--and who knew a lot more hexes than kids his age normally knew. Reason enough to dislike him if he dislikes you back and if you both happen to be children.) I'm also saying that Sirius Black is 1) allowing his affection for James to color his mental picture of him, seeing the best in James and ignoring the worst in him, 2) using that "best" trait to explain James's dislike of Severus when most likely the original antagonism had some other cause, given the age of the children involved, and 3) using James's later opposition to Voldemort to explain away or excuse James's bullying of Severus in the Pensieve scene--at a point when there's no evidence other than the fact that some of his fellow Slytherins had become DEs to connect the teenage Severus to Voldemort. There is absolutely no evidence that even the teenage Severus (as opposed to the child Severus) practiced Dark magic at this point--except the single spell Sectumsempra, which apparently was invented as retaliation against "enemies," nor is there any evidence that he was a supporter of the Dark Lord when the Pensieve incident occurred. *If there had been, James would surely have mentioned it rather than cheerfully admitting to hexing Severus because he exists.* If he had any such justification for his unprovoked attack, surely he would have told the girl he wanted to admire him, a girl who considered him "a bullying toerag," that Severus was something even worse. We receive no such justification, and even the "Mudblood" insult occurs after the fact and is not used to excuse the original assault. Lily asks what Severus has done as James's whole rationale is that Severus exists. Again, I am not accusing Sirius Black of lying, unless partial truths count as lies for him as they do for Snape is "Spinner's End." Not lying is not the same as telling the complete truth. Black is making excuses for James. Yes, he *believes* what he's saying, whether it's true or not of James at fifteen (as opposed to James at twenty-two), but he also knows (IMO) that it's not the *full* truth. He knows perfectly well that he and James attacked Severus without provocation and that James acted because he, Sirius, was bored. Even if James did oppose the Dark Arts as a kid at school, even if he disliked Severus because he associated him from Day One with the Dark Arts, that was no excuse for his behavior. (Nor does it excuse his accomplice, Sirius Black.) More important to the present argument, I see no indication of any such association of Severus Snape with the Dark Arts in young *James's* mind. I do see it in young Sirius's mind. His family were Dark wizards with a tradition of being placed in Slytherin. Severus Snape at eleven was a clever little boy who knew more hexes by far than he should have known at that age. He must have seemed like the ultimate Slytherin to Sirius (something like the boy his parents wanted him to be). And it might not have been difficult to persuade James to share that view. Or Sirius may simply have been projecting his reasons for hating Severus onto James. If I had to think of a reason why both boys hated Severus (and Sirius's hatred seems stronger to me than James's), I'd say that it's probably a hatred of Slytherin House, which they project onto the most talented Slytherin in their year. We simply have no evidence that James *always* hated the Dark Arts or that Severus Snape at age eleven was practicing the type of magic that could be labeled Dark and that James hated him for this reason. As I said, I'm not saying that Sirius is lying, only that he may be mistaken, looking at young James in light of the heroically dead adult James. > Alla: > > Why is he better at DADA? Because he reads it after exam? I see it as very insufficient evidence. > Maybe James and Sirius were brilliant enough that they did not need > extra studying. Carol responds: They apparently didn't care much about the exam, given their jokes about the werewolf question and the ease with which the test, once taken, slips from their minds. (Pure speculation here: They were both rich boys who didn't need to worry about earning a living; Severus, who had to use second-hand books, apparently did.) Clearly Severus did care about the exam, which is why he was rereading the exam questions. (He reminds me of Hermione in this scene, worried that he might have missed some small detail or, heaven forefend! gotten some small detail wrong.) The evidence that he was exceptionally good at DADA is not that he rereads the exam questions, which merely indicates that he cares about the results, but his long, detailed exam answers--a foot more than anyone else--in a cramped minuscule handwriting. He obviously knew a lot about DADA, and he's making sure that the examiners realize just how much he knows--not to mention that he was inventing his own spells and counterspells at this point in his life. And all those hexes he knew at age eleven are evidence in themselves that he *came to school* knowing a lot about curses and countercurses--the very essence of DADA. And his teaching in HBP shows that he knows a lot about the subject as well. With the exception of Lupin, who knows a lot about minor Dark creatures, he's the only competent DADA teacher HRH have ever had. We see him only twice teaching in HBP, but it's clear even from the essays he assigns (on Dementors and Unforgiveable Curses) that he knows his subject and expects his students to learn what they need to know. (And note his duelling skills in "Flight of the Prince." Snape knows the subject very thoroughly. I would be very, very surprised if he got anything other than an O on either his DADA or his Potions OWL. As for Sirius and James, "brilliant enough not to need extra studying" often equates to remembering the material long enough to do well on the exam and then forgetting it (as I, unfortunately, know all too well from personal experience). We see no evidence that either Sirius or James really cared about the subject. (They got the werewolf question right, but that related to their idea of "fun.") Severus, OTOH, cared deeply, and no doubt remembered what he read. (Like Hermione, he memorizes his textbooks--and, of course, the Potions that he teaches in earlier years.) He also applied the theory of both Potions and DADA, in the one case, improving own Potions instructions, on the other, inventing his own spells and counterspells by his fifth year (Levicorpus) and perhaps earlier. I would say that the evidence that Severus Snape did extremely well on the DADA exam is right there in plain sight. Ask Harry (before he knows the Prince's identity) whether the Prince was a genius and which subjects he particularly excelled in. Not Potions alone but DADA as well. Alla: > James died when he was what twenty one or twenty two? He is likely to join the order right after school, IMO. You are saying that he > changed THAT much in a couple years? I would say he simply did not > have time to do so, IMO of course. Carol: I'm saying that heroic James was a great improvement over bullying James and that something--saving Severus, loving and marrying Lily?--brought out the best side of him, a side we don't see in the Pensieve scene. (You may like the James you see ther. I see nothing remotely admirable, even in his treatment of Remus and Peter.) There's no *evidence* except James's opposition to the word "Mudblood" to indicate that he cared about ideology in his fifth year or that his hatred for Severus--his bullying two-on-one attack on a boy who was just putting away his exam notes--had any ideological justification. (Even if it did, the attack itself was inexcusable, but the reason for the attack that we see in the book is his dear friend Sirius's boredom. Even Black admits as much--"I'm not proud of it"--in OoP.) James's reasons for joining the Order some two years later may have been partly ideological. We don't know. Black says that James hated the Dark Arts. Maybe he did. Or he may simply have objected rather strenuously to Voldemort's terror tactics, to murder and mayhem, without caring one way or the other about the ostensible pureblood agenda or sharing Sirius Black's passionate hatred of the Dark Arts. (I do see James at this point as one of the good guys, but surely opposition to Voldemort is good in itself and does not need an underlying ideological basis to make it good and right.) > Alla, who thinks that insufficient information does not necessarily > equal incoherent picture. > Carol, who thinks that "arrogant berk"/"bullying toerag" and self-sacrificing hero do not fit neatly together and finds difficulty in reconciling the Pensieve scene without giving Sirius Black's less than objective views more credit than they appear to deserve From rdsilverstein at yahoo.com Tue Jun 20 19:53:39 2006 From: rdsilverstein at yahoo.com (hpfan_mom) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 19:53:39 -0000 Subject: Star Gazing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154105 > Carol wrote: >SNIP< > And, of course, she [Narcissa] continued the Black family tradition, giving her child the name of a constellation even though she married a Malfoy (where the tradition is less clear--Lucius is clearly Latin and related to light, but Abraxas has Gnostic and numerological connections that someone else may want to explore-- note "abra" as in "abracadabra"? hpfan_mom now: Ooo, abracadabra. In Hebrew, abra k'adabra, "I will create as I speak." The interesting part is that in the Hebrew alphabet the letters B and V are almost the same. If we substitute V for B in abracadabra we've got avracadavra . . . Avada Kedavra, anyone? The intended result of which is the opposite of the Hebrew meaning. hpfan_mom, sure that this has been mentioned before but not daring to take on the search function From MadameSSnape at aol.com Tue Jun 20 21:10:22 2006 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:10:22 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Still asking about Mysterious Symbols on Pensieve Message-ID: <50b.b3730c.31c9be3e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154106 In a message dated 6/20/2006 2:13:25 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, alimcj at yahoo.com 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 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 20 21:25:20 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 21:25:20 -0000 Subject: James' essence/some Sirius and his family WAS: Re: Choice and Essentialism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154107 > Carol responds: > I'm saying that James's opposition to the Dark Arts, which perhaps > existed in some form by the time he finished Hogwarts, does not > necessarily date from his first year at Hogwarts, nor does it > adequately explain his hatred of the equally young Severus Snape, who > surely was not a Dark wizard at that age. Alla: Um, yes, it does not necessarily date from his first year of Hogwarts , but it MAY date from his first year of Hogwarts, unless you have definite proof that it does not. And, NO it does not adequately explain his hatred of Snape, but it MAY be so. CArol: > I'm also saying that Sirius Black is 1) allowing his affection for > James to color his mental picture of him, seeing the best in James and > ignoring the worst in him, 2) using that "best" trait to explain > James's dislike of Severus when most likely the original antagonism > had some other cause, given the age of the children involved, and 3) > using James's later opposition to Voldemort to explain away or excuse > James's bullying of Severus in the Pensieve scene--at a point when > there's no evidence other than the fact that some of his fellow > Slytherins had become DEs to connect the teenage Severus to Voldemort. Alla: Why are you keep coming to explaining their hatred of each other with this statement? I said it several times that it is NO excuse AT ALL, but independently of that what is the reason to doubt Sirius words? Carol: > There is absolutely no evidence that even the teenage Severus (as > opposed to the child Severus) practiced Dark magic at this > point--except the single spell Sectumsempra, which apparently was > invented as retaliation against "enemies," nor is there any evidence > that he was a supporter of the Dark Lord when the Pensieve incident > occurred. *If there had been, James would surely have mentioned it > rather than cheerfully admitting to hexing Severus because he exists.* Alla: That is NOT quite what James says. He says because he exists if you know what I mean. It is your right to interpret it as typical statement of the bully, who loathes his victim very existence, while I am interpreting it as JKR hiding something in this statement. Carol: > If he had any such justification for his unprovoked attack, surely he > would have told the girl he wanted to admire him, a girl who > considered him "a bullying toerag," that Severus was something even > worse. We receive no such justification, and even the "Mudblood" > insult occurs after the fact and is not used to excuse the original > assault. Lily asks what Severus has done as James's whole rationale is > that Severus exists. Alla: It is book 5, NOT book 7, as I said, for all my hatred of Snape, I did not expect to see him in the light of book 6 at all. Hoping here that this was not the end of the revelations. Carol: > Again, I am not accusing Sirius Black of lying, unless partial truths > count as lies for him as they do for Snape is "Spinner's End." Not > lying is not the same as telling the complete truth. Black is making > excuses for James. Yes, he *believes* what he's saying, whether it's > true or not of James at fifteen (as opposed to James at twenty-two), > but he also knows (IMO) that it's not the *full* truth. He knows > perfectly well that he and James attacked Severus without provocation > and that James acted because he, Sirius, was bored. Alla: So, Sirius says partial truths now? What part of his statement is a partial truth? James always hated Dark Arts, what is not true here? Carol: > Even if James did oppose the Dark Arts as a kid at school, even if he > disliked Severus because he associated him from Day One with the Dark > Arts, that was no excuse for his behavior. (Nor does it excuse his > accomplice, Sirius Black.) Alla: Tries VERY hard to locate the part in her post where she said that it was an excuse. Carol: More important to the present argument, I > see no indication of any such association of Severus Snape with the > Dark Arts in young *James's* mind. Alla: We don't have it one way or another, we are not privy to James' thoughts unfortunately, no do we know complete story of their relationship. Carol: Or Sirius may simply have been > projecting his reasons for hating Severus onto James. If I had to > think of a reason why both boys hated Severus (and Sirius's hatred > seems stronger to me than James's), I'd say that it's probably a > hatred of Slytherin House, which they project onto the most talented > Slytherin in their year. Alla: Does "Sirius projecting his reasons for hating Severus onto James" means that he is a liar after all? Carol: > As I said, I'm not saying that Sirius is lying, only that he may be > mistaken, looking at young James in light of the heroically dead adult > James. Alla; He maybe mistaken? That means that statement is not true, right? > > Alla: > > > > Why is he better at DADA? Because he reads it after exam? I see it > as very insufficient evidence. > > Maybe James and Sirius were brilliant enough that they did not need > > extra studying. > > Carol responds: > They apparently didn't care much about the exam, given their jokes > about the werewolf question and the ease with which the test, once > taken, slips from their minds. (Pure speculation here: They were both > rich boys who didn't need to worry about earning a living; Severus, > who had to use second-hand books, apparently did.) > > Clearly Severus did care about the exam, which is why he was rereading > the exam questions. Alla: They did not care about the exam means they knew the subject worse? You know, two students whom Mcgonagall remembers as two of the most talented kids in school? She makes this statement by the way,when she has no reason to think fondly of Sirius AT ALL, when she thinks of him as murderer, and she still acknowledges his talents. Is she mistaken too? I can make the directly opposite argument - the fact that James and Sirius joke about exam means that they are very confident about the subject, that they know it so well and the fact that Snape rereads the questions means that he is NOT sure in his answers. Carol: > As for Sirius and James, "brilliant enough not to need extra studying" > often equates to remembering the material long enough to do well on > the exam and then forgetting it (as I, unfortunately, know all too > well from personal experience). Alla: Hm, I know the exact opposite from the personal experience too. > Alla: > > James died when he was what twenty one or twenty two? He is likely > to join the order right after school, IMO. You are saying that he > > changed THAT much in a couple years? I would say he simply did not > > have time to do so, IMO of course. > > Carol: > I'm saying that heroic James was a great improvement over bullying > James and that something--saving Severus, loving and marrying > Lily?--brought out the best side of him, a side we don't see in the > Pensieve scene. (You may like the James you see ther. I see nothing > remotely admirable, even in his treatment of Remus and Peter.) Alla: James joined the Order at seventeen or eighteen, as I said it is your right to think that he changed so much, I find it HIGLY unlikely, personally. And I do like James after pensieve scene more, but not because of his actions there, but because it added complexity to his character. Carol: > James's reasons for joining the Order some two years later may have > been partly ideological. We don't know. Black says that James hated > the Dark Arts. Maybe he did. Or he may simply have objected rather > strenuously to Voldemort's terror tactics, to murder and mayhem, > without caring one way or the other about the ostensible pureblood > agenda or sharing Sirius Black's passionate hatred of the Dark Arts. > (I do see James at this point as one of the good guys, but surely > opposition to Voldemort is good in itself and does not need an > underlying ideological basis to make it good and right.) Alla: To me joining the order means opposing what Voldemort stands for and that is what I mean by ideological reasons and since Snape joined Voldemort at some point, yes, I think that James hated what Voldemort and Snape stood for ( at least at some point). JMO, Alla, who can totally see Snape joining Voldemort while still at school at least as one of his minions or helpers if not full pledged DE. Draco's situation could be a nice foreshadowing for that, me thinks. From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Tue Jun 20 12:51:50 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 12:51:50 -0000 Subject: Star Gazing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154108 > > Ken: > > I've looked at solar system moons and asteroids and I still don't > find > > Narcissa. I think she is one of the Blacks with non-astro names. > > Potioncat: > Actually, I think I once found a star named for Narcissus, but I > couldn't begin to remember where or how I did it. Of more importance > is this quote. I found this at Quick Quotes, from an interview in > March 2004: > >>>> > queenmarion: I noticed in the Black Family tree that everyone is > named after a constellation. Is this intentional? Does this have any > bearing on the plot? > JK Rowling replies -> It's just one of those family traditions, > although Narcissa breaks the trend. I had always thought of her > as 'Narcissa' so I decided not to change her to match the others when > I came up with their names. There's been a lot of speculation that > she is in some way linked to Lily and Petunia, because of the flower > theme, but I can put that rumour to rest here: she isn't related to > them.<<<< > Ken: I was able to find a crater on the asteroid Eros that is named Narcissus. There is a web site where you can search for feature names on solar system objects: http://planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/index.html It is interesting that Rowling, in the reply you quote above, does not seem to distinguish between stars and constellations. At least she does not correct queenmarion's failure to distinguish between them. This may be an indication that we are giving this a lot more thought than JKR has. Ken From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 20 19:10:56 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 19:10:56 -0000 Subject: More PS/SS quotes and musings./Hermione, Snape and others In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154109 >Betsy Hp: > > Well, there's the Restricted Section. > >>Alla: > ??????. Since when Quidditch through ages belongs to restricted > section? >>Betsy Hp: >>It doesn't. But you asked for an example of a rule that restricts >>students reading. The Restricted Section does just that. Alla: Ugh. Editing to add A LOT. Yes, I did, I just do not see the relevance of this example since Quidditch through ages does not belong to restricted section. Betsy Hp: But Hermione has *just* becomes friends with Harry and Ron. I think she'd be inclined to back Harry up if he's right (not to Snape, but after he leaves) to show her support, but keep her mouth shut if Harry is wrong. At least, this early in the game. Alla: Hermione does NOT keep her mouth shut since the moment she meets Harry and Ron, when they are not even officially friends yet. She corrects their spells, etc, etc. I don??t see why she would not correct Harry in this instance if he is wrong. Now, not correcting Snape because she is scared, oh yes, I can totally see that. IMO of course. Betsy: However, even if Snape *did* make that rule up... Eh, it doesn't bother me. Five points won't make or break the race for the School Cup. Alla: One point on the first lesson for not helping Neville ( when later Hermione is punished for HELPING Neville), five points here, another unfair points taking which I cannot give you of the top of my head, but which I can sure come up with quite a bit will totally make or break House Cup, IMO.Why risk Dumbledore??s wrath and take many points right away, if it is possible to take a few but many times and with the same result. If it was an isolated incident, it would not have bothered me, maybe. It is though just one of the long patterns of mistreatment Snape dishes out at Harry. Look, as you know I am greatly bothered what Snape does during his lessons towards Harry. But many people argue that it has some kind of goal, teaching Harry, whatever. I don't buy it, I think that this is the same pattern, BUT I think that this incident is MUCH MUCH worse that anything Snape does at his lessons. Why? Because in my mind there is NOTHING Harry did to deserve it. He was reading a book, he was minding his own business, Snape found a reason to be nasty anyways. I don't care how many points Snape took - one or million. What I do care about is that IMO Harry did absolutely nothing to deserve it and Snape did it anyways. I put it on the same level when Snape torments Harry when he comes looking for Dumbledore - nothing wrong Harry did and Snape still runs his mouth at the boy, who is upset enough as it is. > >>Leah: > Snape clearly knows something is up and deducts the points. If the > fire is breaking the rules, then the points would have gone > anyway. Not wholly fair, but not wholly unfair either. >>Betsy Hp: >>Exactly. Snape's being Snape-ie. Just gives us more to love. ;) Alla: To each their own, just gives me more to be disgusted about dear Severus actions. JMO, Alla From rdsilverstein at yahoo.com Tue Jun 20 21:40:24 2006 From: rdsilverstein at yahoo.com (hpfan_mom) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 21:40:24 -0000 Subject: Star Gazing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154110 > hpfan_mom previously: > > Ooo, abracadabra. In Hebrew, abra k'adabra, "I will create as I > speak." The interesting part is that in the Hebrew alphabet the > letters B and V are almost the same. If we substitute V for B in > abracadabra we've got avracadavra . . . Avada Kedavra, anyone? The > intended result of which is the opposite of the Hebrew meaning. > > hpfan_mom, sure that this has been mentioned before but not daring to > take on the search function > hpfan_mom now: Responding to my own message. Figured out how to do the search and yes, this has been discussed several times just this year. Not to mention JKR's own description of how she came up with Avada Kedavra . . . Sigh. hpfan_mom From mros at xs4all.nl Tue Jun 20 22:37:50 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 00:37:50 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hating Dark Arts (was re James' essence...) References: <319.5565def.31c7956c@aol.com> <000701c6937f$70a3f200$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: <001101c694ba$29351390$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 154111 Hi again. I had to break off my last mail on this subject because I had an appointment with the eye-surgeon (I'm typing this with one eye taped shut, btw :-) So, in my last mail I stated that I thought that the whole Marauders-against-Snape thing (and the 'James hated Dark Arts' statement) started with Sirius and his ongoing battle against his family. A battle not because they were 'evil' and he was 'good' (he shares a lot of characteristics with his cousin Bellatrix: both are impulsive, rather showy and have a cruel streak) but because he simply was a contrary child and teenager, rebelling against his parents because he *could*. (I'm not saying that the Black family were paragons of virtue or even nice, but some children are simply like that. Some try to please their parents no matter how rotten their parents behave and some simply rebel without a direct cause) As for Sirius' parents, we don't know enough, really. All we've been shown is that portrait of his mum, and that portrait is... mad. Or drunk (Red Hen also made a wonderful suggestion that alcoholism might be a trait in that family. Sirius takes to the bottle when confined to Grimmauld Place, and who knows what his mum did, those few years before her death. When she died, her oldest son was in Azkaban for being a massmurderer, her youngest son was murdered by Voldemort and her husband had died in the same year as her youngest son (murdered by Voldemort's followers? We do know that he 'put all his money in defensive charms for the house') The poor woman might've grown mad with grief. I'd say she was probably a graceful, if oldfashioned, woman when her boys were still young. Exasperated by her oldest son, no doubt. But nothing tells us that Sirius' parents were abusive or didn't love him. They were rather oldfashioned and steeped in tradition, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. And Sirius, for all his ranting against his family, *did* adopt their attitude to the world, but more about that later. Sirius is also one of those people who will find a 'legal cause' to dislike the people he dislikes. It's not that he lies, even to himself; he genuinely believes that Anyway, Sirius enters Hogwarts, determined not to become a Slytherin (to spite his family), he befriends James Potter, and somewhere along the line they aquire two followers: Lupin and Pettigrew. Lupin was a Dark Creature and how cool is *that*! Wouldn't his mother just *scream* if she knew he ran with a Werewolf each month! (hey, this is Sirius, the Pureblood who drove a charmed *motorbike*, a thing both Muggle and associated with rebellion) But does anybody ask themselves why two such clever, old-family, old-money little princes like James and Sirius hang out with Peter Pettigrew? Well, we can safely assume that, pureblood or halfblood or even muggleborn, Peter was nowhere in James' and Sirius' league *socially*. And the WW is a small world. Estemated population in the British Isles (according to Red Hen, my HP guru) about 17.000 wizards and witches. A large village. Or a small town. Anybody who is *anybody* knows eachother in such a society. Anybody who is anybody is related to eachother is one degree or another. But of course not all the wizarding families are Great And Noble Houses like the Blacks, the Malfoys, the Potters etc. There are also the Shunpikes and the Ollivanders. The tradespeople, so to speak. And if you don't belong to an Old Family, and want to come up in the world, you ally yourself to a Big Name, or and Old House. The Weasleys have allied themselves to Dumbledore (and doesn't Percy get flak when he chooses to ally himself to Barty Crouch sr?), Umbridge has connections to Fudge, but apparantly also to Malfoy (Fudge is Malfoy's creature?) It's a rather Roman thing: you've got patrons and you've got clients. I think that Peter Pettigrew was from a 'client' family and Peter allied himself to the oldest sons of *two* old and influential families, hence the syncopanthic behaviour. But Peter miscalculated: Sirius abdicated his role as oldest son and fritters away his early twenties having fun and flying his motorbike and James married a muggleborn witch and settled down in obscurity. They were neither going to be the great shakers and movers of the WW. Not good patron material. So Peter changed affilliations from the once-promising duds that James and Sirius turned out to be to the biggest kid on the political block. This was when Voldmort still had his charming human face and still spouted his partyline about pureblood culture coming first (something half the WW agreed with. Most of them were old enough and clever enough to not fall for it. That handful DE that is Voldemort's 'army' - what? forty, fifty in total? - he recruited when they were just out of Hogwarts. Very young and impressionable. Sirius parents never supported Voldemort. They probably thought him to be a annoying upstart. Who had ever *heard* of the Riddle family, after all..) Anyway, back to the first year at Hogwarts for the Marauders and Snape. Snape is a ickle firstie, but also a very clever, shorttempered, ambitious little firstie. And when provokes, he hexes. And the hexes he uses are hexes no-one has ever *heard* of. Even Bellatrix is impressed. And if cousin Bellatrix is impressed, those hexes *must've* been Dark Arts, right? And that ugly little nobody (because who has ever heard of the *Snapes* after all) doesn't even behave as he should to his social superiors!! When you tell him to move, he spits abuse. When you manhandle him slightly ("as a *joke* you know") he kicks and bites and *hexes* you. Who does this rude, ugly kid in his secondhand gowns and his washed-so-often-they-are-grey underwear think he is? Sirius is a *Black*! That is practically *royalty*, you know! I'm telling you James, that kid is up to his eyeballs in the Dark Arts. Didn't he impress my horrid cousin Bellatrix? And isn't she Bad News? My entire *family* is bad news. Well, they're all Slytherin as well. That tells you something.." Self-justification, we call that. And James swallowed it. Well, he might've been a very bright boy, but he was also an *eleven year old*, very spoiled, very pampered, very protected, very rich boy. The only son of doting elderly parents. Deferred to by his parents clients, no doubt. Homeschooled. Private tutor, perhaps? Both James and Sirius are very spoiled. Oh, they're charming and clever and they charmed their way into their teacher's hearts. Aren't those children charming and clever and *well-bred*?! But let one of their peers refuse to be charmed, let one of them have ambitions, not to be a syncophant like Pettigrew, but a mover and shaker on his own merit (but being a Slytherin not necessarily one that's in the spotlight) and all hell breaks loose. That's how the whole Marauder versus Snape War began, if you ask me. One more thing on the "James hated Dark Arts" thing, though: for a group that so hated Dark magic, they apparantly had no trouble using it themselves. I don't even mean the fact that they had no moral issue with stealing Snape's homemade hexes and using it on others (just like Harry who thinks a toenail-growing hex is quite hilarious when sneakily cast at Vincent Crabbe - or Greg Goyle, I forget which - but who thought it ab-so-lutely unforgivable when Malfoy cast a teeth-growing hex on Hermione. Well, I for one see no difference) No, I mean that blasted Map. There is something fishy about that map... Something Dark, even.... Interesting essay on the Map: http://lunar-music.livejournal.com/1537.html#cutid1 Let me quote Swythyv's (http://swythyv.livejournal.com/) reply on that essay: >>>"The Map was apparently made during the Marauders' fifth year - the height of their extremely unpleasant flirtation with dark magic (fun antipersonnel magic) and personal irresponsibility. JKR about poked us in the eye with it, too. Snape holds the Map and says that "this parchment is plainly full of dark magic." He may be easily aggravated, but this is his area of expertise. In book six, we discover that Argus Filch has a "Secrecy Sensor" which, it is thought, would have detected the Opal Necklace. He conficated something that looked like plain, fresh parchment and put it in a drawer marked "Confiscated and Highly Dangerous." For all that he's made mock of, we should perhaps assume Argus is competent, too. Fred and George report that George dropped a dungbomb and Fred "whipped the drawer open and grabbed - this." So...one blind grab in Filch's "Dangerous" drawer and you get..."this." A bit of volition, there? When the twins say "This little beauty's taught us more than all the teachers at the school," they mean somthing that apparently was capable of thrusting itself into their hand and chosing to teach them its own password. Am I the only person who flinches when the words "I solemnly swear" are considered meaningless in real life? Should we really take those words so lightly in the story when they are said while holding your wand? Remus confirms to Harry that the "manufacturers" of the Map would have wanted to lure him out of the school. "You said they would have thought it was funny." To which Lupin replied "And so we would have." Did it in fact do so? Harry takes the map (p 192 PoA USed), reviews in his head Mr. Weasley's very words about things that think, and acknowledges that "This map was one of those dangerous magical objects that Mr. Weasley had been warning about." So while thinking this, after his rather recent experience with Tom Riddle's diary, "Then, quite suddenly, as though following orders, he rolled up the map, stuffed it inside his robes, and hurried to the door of the classroom." And proceeded repeatedly to Hogwarts for jokes and candy in one of the most disturbing examples of suicidal bad judgment we have in the books. Lupin originally rebuked Harry for his extremely thoughtless behavior. But after Lupin had had the map for a while, he "forgets" to come down for his potion. In fact, with the map open on his desk, he goes running outside at the full moon without taking his potion. And, to top it off, he admits its capacity for dangerous influence and returns it to Harry. Looks like it works on everyone."<<< Looks like those 'Oh-we're-so-against-Dark-Arts' Marauders weren't so squeeky-clean and Light either. Marion [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 20 21:49:21 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 21:49:21 -0000 Subject: More PS/SS quotes and musings./Hermione, Snape and others In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154112 Alla: > > > > > Please point me where in canon it says that the books NOT from restricted section are not allowed to be taken outside. > > > > a_svirn: > > Well, it *is* stated in canon. It's just that you don't want to believe it because it was stated by Snape. > > > > Alla: > We have two statements that contradict each other here, no? I was > asking for back up of one of them. > > I also just realised something else - isn't Remus reading the book > in the Pensieve scene, outside? > > > But how many times she corrects Harry and Ron,when they get the > various rules wrong ( you cannot apparate in Hogwarts, etc,etc). > > She does not correct Harry here. Very nice. :) Carol responds: Two small points, neither of which disproves your view--as you say, it's Snape's word (as teacher) against Harry's (as first-year): Remus is reading his own Transfiguration book, not a library book, and "You can't Apparate on Hogwarts grounds" is a fact, not a rule. (Snape says the same thing in GoF to Fudge, IIRC.) And maybe Hermione doesn't correct Harry (*or* Snape, outside his hearing) because she doesn't know who's right. Carol, who thinks that Snape, as a teacher with ten years' experience at that point (and an exceedingly good memory rather like Hermione's), is more likely to have a through knowledge of the rules than any first-year, even Hermione From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 20 23:01:19 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 23:01:19 -0000 Subject: Hating Dark Arts (was re James' essence...) In-Reply-To: <001101c694ba$29351390$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154113 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Marion Ros" wrote: The poor woman might've grown mad with grief. I'd say she was probably a graceful, if oldfashioned, woman when her boys were still young. Exasperated by her oldest son, no doubt. But nothing tells us that Sirius' parents were abusive or didn't love him. Alla: I'd say Mrs. Black portrait, if it reflects her RL personality tells us A LOT about how much she "loved" Sirius. But that is IMO of course. Marion: Lupin was a Dark Creature and how cool is *that*! Wouldn't his mother just *scream* if she knew he ran with a Werewolf each month! (hey, this is Sirius, the Pureblood who drove a charmed *motorbike*, a thing both Muggle and associated with rebellion) Alla: Just another possibility to suggest here. Maybe Sirius also genuinely liked Remus as a person? Marion: >> Snape is a ickle firstie, but also a very clever, shorttempered, ambitious little firstie. And when provokes, he hexes. And the hexes he uses are hexes no-one has ever *heard* of. Even Bellatrix is impressed. And if cousin Bellatrix is impressed, those hexes *must've* been Dark Arts, right? And that ugly little nobody (because who has ever heard of the *Snapes* after all) doesn't even behave as he should to his social superiors!! When you tell him to move, he spits abuse. When you manhandle him slightly ("as a *joke* you know") he kicks and bites and *hexes* you. Who does this rude, ugly kid in his secondhand gowns and his washed-so-often-they-are-grey underwear think he is? Sirius is a *Black*! That is practically *royalty*, you know! I'm telling you James, that kid is up to his eyeballs in the Dark Arts. Didn't he impress my horrid cousin Bellatrix? And isn't she Bad News? My entire *family* is bad news. Well, they're all Slytherin as well. That tells you something.." > > Self-justification, we call that. Alla: Cousin Belatrix is the one who ended up supporting one of the darkest wizards in WW, it seems to me, so maybe if she was impressed with Snape hexes, they were indeed Dark hexes? Reasonable possibility, I call that. Marion: > And James swallowed it. Well, he might've been a very bright boy, but he was also an *eleven year old*, very spoiled, very pampered, very protected, very rich boy. The only son of doting elderly parents. Deferred to by his parents clients, no doubt. Homeschooled. Private tutor, perhaps? Alla: The only son of the elderst parents, yes. Rich, yes. Canon, please for spoiled and pampered if you do't mind. Marion: > Both James and Sirius are very spoiled. Oh, they're charming and clever and they charmed their way into their teacher's hearts. Aren't those children charming and clever and *well-bred*?! But let one of their peers refuse to be charmed, let one of them have ambitions, not to be a syncophant like Pettigrew, but a mover and shaker on his own merit (but being a Slytherin not necessarily one that's in the spotlight) and all hell breaks loose. > > That's how the whole Marauder versus Snape War began, if you ask me. Alla: Sure, just as valid speculation as any if you ask me. Marion; > One more thing on the "James hated Dark Arts" thing, though: for a group that so hated Dark magic, they apparantly had no trouble using it themselves. I don't even mean the fact that they had no moral issue with stealing Snape's homemade hexes and using it on others (just like Harry who thinks a toenail-growing hex is quite hilarious when sneakily cast at Vincent Crabbe - or Greg Goyle, I forget which - but who thought it ab-so-lutely unforgivable when Malfoy cast a teeth-growing hex on Hermione. Well, I for one see no difference) > > No, I mean that blasted Map. Alla: I am asking you for canon again, if you don't mind for James and Sirius "STEALING" those homemade hexes by Snape. It is also possible that they SAW Snape showing those hexes to somebody else or even somebody else using them, IMO. After all half of the school used levicorpus at one time, according to Lupin. JMO, Alla From estesrandy at yahoo.com Tue Jun 20 23:52:26 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 23:52:26 -0000 Subject: Wolf Constellation Lupus Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154114 Lupus the wolf constellation is considered weak because it has no extremely bright stars in it. Don't forget that Lupin has been called weak by Snape. Lupus is located between Centarus and Hydra constellations. Centaurus represents Chiron, the gentle and wise Centaur mentor of Hercules. Hydra is the many-headed beast that can regrow a head after it has been cut off. The Hydra sounds like Snape's description of facing the many-headed beast associated with the Dark Arts (ie. Voldemort). Lupin is being used by Dumbledore to keep tabs on Werewolves and Death Eaters. You could say he is stuck between Dumbledore and Dark side just like Lupus is stuck between Centaurus and Hydra. That would make him a good DADA teacher. Unfortunately, Lupus has been identified as an animal about to be sacrificed by the Centaur. I am getting a kick out of these constellation myths. Sorry if no one else is. Randy From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 21 00:48:28 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 00:48:28 -0000 Subject: James' essence/some Sirius and his family WAS: Re: Choice and Essentialism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154115 Alla wrote: > Why are you keep coming to explaining their hatred of each other with this statement? Carol responds: Because *Sirius* does. IMO, it's his whole reason for bringing up the Dark Arts, which, for whatever reason, *he* associates with Snape (and, IMO, with Slytherin in general because of his family). I'm not sure that *James* shares these associations. > Alla: > I said it several times that it is NO excuse AT ALL, Carol: Good. We agree on that, at least. :-) Alla: but > independently of that what is the reason to doubt Sirius words? Carol: Because he's not an objective observer, for one thing. IMO, Sirius has a blind spot regarding James and sees nothing but good in him, and he has an equal blind spot regarding Snape, and sees nothing but bad in him. Even JKR has said on her website that Sirius can't see the good in Snape (which suggests that the good is there and not imagined by Dumbledore). I don't trust Black's view of Regulus as an "idiot," either. There's a great deal he doesn't know about either Severus or Regulus. (In the case of Regulus, we're not much better off.) What I am doubting is not so much Sirius's assertion that James hated the Dark Arts, period, as the qualification that he *always* hated them. I am also objecting to his use of this statement as an excuse for James (a point we agree on and that I'm merely repeating here for clarification) and as James's reason for hating Severus, in part because this reason for hating Severus seems unsupported by canon evidence. (If you could only show me one iota of evidence that Teen!James really hated the Dark Arts, or that he hated Severus because he associated him with the Dark Arts as Sirius implies, I would be less adamant on this point.) I am conceding that the (young) adult James may well have hated the Dark Arts as Black believes, but there's no indication that it was his primary motivation for joining the Order as it appears to have been Sirius's. And, at the risk of pounding my point into the ground, there's no indication that the young James held any such belief, as the word "always" implies--or rather, denotes. Also, and this I don't think I've made wholly clear, James, who *enjoys* hexing people, seems to be having a good time in the Pensieve scene (at least until Lily calls him a "toerag," when he becomes angry and ugly and wants to remove Severus's underpants). Until that point, he seems to be merely entertaining Sirius by attacking Severus. Arrogant and bullying and altogether unjustified in his show of power (if two on one on an opponent whose mind is on his exam counts as power), but not truly vicious until that point). Although Snape rather inexplicably hates James more than he hates Sirius (I could speculate on his reasons, but I don't want to go off track), it seems to me that Sirius (as man and boy) hates Severus more than Teen!James does, and the reason for that hatred is his own family history, which gets deflected somehow onto Severus Snape. I don't get the sense that James has any such personal *hatred,* as opposed to, say, an aversion for a talented but nerdy and sullen boy in the House that Gryffindors love to hate. Certainly James's own family history would not breed in him anything like the near-pathological hatred that Sirius feels for his whole family. Alla: > > That is NOT quite what James says. He says because he exists if you > know what I mean. It is your right to interpret it as typical > statement of the bully, who loathes his victim very existence, while > I am interpreting it as JKR hiding something in this statement. Carol: Yes, we all know that she hides things, often in plain sight, so you could be right. I happen to think that what it hides is a lack of legitimate motivation. If he could have justified himself in front of Lily and the whole fifth-year class, IMO he would have done so. I do agree that "because he exists" is not a reason, but I think that if he had another reason, he was ashamed to state it. ("He's a Slytherin and he's nerdy! He doesn't deserve to live, unlike me, the Gryffindor with good reflexes who can transform into a stag.") > Alla: > > So, Sirius says partial truths now? What part of his statement is a > partial truth? James always hated Dark Arts, what is not true here? Carol: I said this already, but let me repeat. I don't think that James *always* hated the Dark Arts (there's no evidence that he hates them in the Pensieve scene), or that James's hating the Dark Arts is the whole truth as an answer to why James tormented Severus Snape, which is the reason Sirius makes the statement in this scene. (He's trying to defend the indefensible by associating Severus with Dark magic and James with opposition to Dark magic as represented by Severus.) Look at the context in which the statement is made: First Lupin makes the excuse that James was only fifteen, to which Harry replies, "I'm fifteen!" Then Black says "placatingly," "James and Snape hated each other from the moment they set eyes on each other. . . . James . . . was popular, he was good at Quidditch, good at pretty much everything. And Snape was *just* this little oddball who was up to his eyes in the Dark Arts and James--whatever else he may have appeared to you, Harry--always hated the Dark Arts" (OoP Am. ed. 670, my emphasis). Can I make it any clearer? Black's very inadequate assessment of teen!Snape is intended to diminish him (*just* a little oddball) and make James (the popular athlete) look good, to excuse James's behavior by associating Teen!Snape with the Dark Arts and Teen!James with hatred of the Dark Arts. And Harry doesn't buy it, at least not at that time. He points out that James attacked Severus "for no good reason" because Sirius said he was bored--*not* because James associated Severus with the Dark Arts (as Black clearly does). I'm treating the statement as a partial truth *within the context of the conversation with Harry*, not as an out-of-context assertion about James's character in general, as you seem to be doing. I also think that Sirius may be confusing his own hatred of the Dark Arts with James's motivations, just as in OoP he confuses Harry with James. I think it's Sirius, not necessarily James, who associates Teen!Snape with the Dark Arts. And while even Dumbledore says that the adult snape knows a lot about the Dark Arts--and values his expertise--we have no indication except Sirius's words that the young Snape was "up to his eyes in the Dark Arts." There is no supporting evidence for his assertions, and because he hates Snape, he cannot be viewed as an objective witness. > > Carol: > > Even if James did oppose the Dark Arts as a kid at school, even if > he disliked Severus because he associated him from Day One with the > Dark Arts, that was no excuse for his behavior. (Nor does it excuse his accomplice, Sirius Black.) > > Alla: > > Tries VERY hard to locate the part in her post where she said that it was an excuse. Carol: I wasn't necessarily speaking to you here. I know that we agree on this single, but fortunately important, point. I was just trying to make my own position clear. > > Alla: > Does "Sirius projecting his reasons for hating Severus onto James" > means that he is a liar after all? Carol: Of course not. Projection is a psychological defense mechanism, performed unconsciously. We see Sirius projecting James onto Harry several times in OoP. It isn't conscious, it isn't deliberate, it isn't lying. But it doesn't make his views accurate, either, assuming that he is indeed doing it. > Carol earlier: > > As I said, I'm not saying that Sirius is lying, only that he may be mistaken, looking at young James in light of the heroically dead adult James. > > Alla: > He maybe mistaken? That means that statement is not true, right? Carol: No. It means that it *may* not be *wholly* true because it *may* apply to a later period than the one in the Pensieve (or earlier). He *may* be mistaken about James *always* hating the Dark Arts, about the intensity of that hatred, and about the relationship of that hatred to Severus Snape. (He seems to regard hatred of the Dark Arts as synonmous with, or at least the cause of, James's hatred of Severus Snape.) None of which means that he's deliberately lying, though he is certainly making excuses for James's behavior, as you seem to have conceded. And, as I said, I think he's seeing Teen!James in the light of what James later became, a hero, instead of the unflattering but accurate light of schoolyard bully. I think that James hated (or cordially disliked) Severus Snape for rather different reasons that we don't yet know (which could fit in with your idea that "because he exists" is hiding James's real motives)--in part *because* he was so talented, IMO, and in part because of the Slytherin-Gryffindor rivalry, and because he wasn't handsome and popular and had a rather sullen personality. In a way, he was a "snapegoat"--but one who, if fought one on one without a surprise attack, could "give as good as he got." > > > > Clearly Severus did care about the exam, which is why he was > rereading > > the exam questions. > > Alla: > > They did not care about the exam means they knew the subject worse? > You know, two students whom Mcgonagall remembers as two of the most > talented kids in school? Carol: It means that they didn't possess his in-depth knowledge. McGonagall is not an impartial witness. They are in her House, and we know she favors the Gryffindors, and they excel at her subject. She is seeing them--James in particular--through rose-colored glasses because he's a hero who died fighting Voldemort. She didn't witness the scene in which Sirius and James humiliated Severus, nor does she see him in the classes at which he excels. (I imagine that he was no slouch at Transfiguration, as he's pretty handy with a wand and at nonverbal spells, but she's not thinking of severus snape. She's thinking of her fond memories of James Potter and the supposed murderer Sirius Black and poor little Peter Pettigrew, supposed murder victim. This is not a time to be objective, any more than slughorn is objective in his memories of Lily. > Alla: > > James joined the Order at seventeen or eighteen, as I said it is your right to think that he changed so much, I find it HIGLY unlikely, > personally. Carol: By which time he had saved Severus Snape and stopped hexing people in the hallways. Maybe Lily had a favorable influence on his character. And do we know how old he was when he joined the Order? All we know is that he was an Order member who had defied Voldemort three times by the time of his death. It seems likely that he was a member at the time Harry was born and baptized as well, perhaps even when Harry was conceived (which I like to think of as Halloween night and the night of the Prophecy). James would have been about twenty then. If you see no difference between James the family man and Order member who died trying to save his family and James the bully who wanted to remove Severus's pants, then I guess there's nothing more to say. Alla: > And I do like James after pensieve scene more, but not because of his actions there, but because it added complexity to his character. Carol: Thanks for the explanation. I wondered why you would consider him likeable. I'm glad it's the complexity that you like, not his actions. I think he's an arrogant, inconsiderate, egotistical show-off as well as a "bullying toerag" myself. > Carol, hoping that she hasn't exceeded the new limit as Yahoo informs her that she hasn't posted today ("There are no messages matching your query") and she thinks this is really number five From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Wed Jun 21 01:27:50 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 01:27:50 -0000 Subject: Horcruxes, the Prophesy, where Dumbledore goes, and other secrets Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154116 The portraits of the former headmasters are privy to everything that goes on in Dumbledore's office. When Dumbledore and Harry spoke after seeing Slughorn's memory, one of them even used an ear trumpet to make sure he heard everything. I remember (I think from OOP, IMR) that the portraits serve the current rightful headmaster of Hogwarts. Therefore, wouldn't McGonagle be able to find out where Dumbledore went when he left Hogwarts,about the prophesy, Horcruxes etc., all just by asking the portraits the right questions? From thebookandtherose at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jun 20 20:11:09 2006 From: thebookandtherose at yahoo.co.uk (thebookandtherose) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 20:11:09 -0000 Subject: Sirius' motivation for breaking with his family In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154117 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ericoppen" wrote: > > While I'm sure that Sirius liked attention and standing out in a > crowd, that alone might not have been his motivation for breaking so > completely with his family. The Wizard World operates on patronage > and family influence (it's pre-Victorian, almost Regency, sometimes, > at least that's how it feels to me)and turning one's back on a > powerful source of influence such as the Black family would not be > something done lightly. > > I think that we may have seen a clue to Sirius' motivation in our > first minutes in his family mauso--er, his family _mansion._ What > if Little Sirius had had a house elf that he really, really loved, > that was his favorite playmate---and one day he comes downstairs to > find out that Mama has had that elf's head cut off and mounted on a > plaque? > Mmmm, I think thats an interesting theory, but you need some more evidence before it can be accepted. You might want to draw comparisons from the Winky-Barty jr. relationship, or even the Dobby-Harry but remember not all children have similar relationships with their house elves (Draco isn't shown to have any affection for Dobby and frankly I can't imagine any). I would also question how far a house elf would dare go against the opinions of the master/mistress of the house (Sirius's parents). Then again, there is Dobby and Harry, though Dobby is a bit of a radical with his pride of clothes and wages. I think Sirius is a rebel who had the debatable fortune to be born into a family that needed to be rebelled against. Had he been the son of fervent aurors he may have turned to the dark side, or he may have rebelled in some other way I don't know. Back on topic, I think Sirius resents Kreacher because he is a relic of the Black family, much the same as the disdain he shows to the Black heirlooms when they are cleaning them out in OotP. Bookish Rose From littleleah at handbag.com Tue Jun 20 23:47:06 2006 From: littleleah at handbag.com (littleleahstill) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 23:47:06 -0000 Subject: More PS/SS quotes and musings./Hermione, Snape and others In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154118 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: >> I think that this incident is MUCH MUCH worse that anything Snape > does at his lessons. > > Why? Because in my mind there is NOTHING Harry did to deserve it. He > was reading a book, he was minding his own business, Snape found a > reason to be nasty anyways. > > I don't care how many points Snape took - one or million. What I do > care about is that IMO Harry did absolutely nothing to deserve it > and Snape did it anyways. Leah: But Harry was not minding his own business; he was doing something that he thought was wrong, and he and his friends looked guilty. That was what attracted Snape's attention, and that was why he deducted the points. Harry has marked Snape's card from the outset, and Snape shows lack of maturity by responding as he does. But I don't see Harry as helpless victim; in the development of the storyline, I think Snape has lost more by antagonising Harry than vice versa. Leah (who instantly recognised Snape as her old geography teacher, though sadly the latter was nothing like as clever, amusing and dare I say Sexy! as the Potions Master. Even so, I still kept doing geography ) From iam.kemper at gmail.com Wed Jun 21 02:05:00 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 19:05:00 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hating Dark Arts (was re James' essence...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40606201905y71e0b3d1w3c31b6a8deccd078@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154119 > > Carol closed: > > Carol, who absolutely agrees that James's hatred of Severus is > strange > > when he's so fond of casting hexes himself but does not think that > > relative "Darkness" provides the explanation > > > Julie opened: > That's why I wonder what *really* made James hate Snape so much? > Because he was a Slytherin, part of a house supposedly full of Dark > Arts supporters? Then why not hex all the Slytherins of that year > equally? Why single out Snape? Because he was even odder and greasier > than the average Slytherin? Because he *talked* about his > love/knowledge of the Dark Arts (given he wasn't really old enough or > experienced enough or maybe even determined enough to actually > perform them)? Really, what was it between those two? (Though Lily > could be part of it, that doesn't explain their earlier years at > Hogwarts before she presumably came into the picture.) > > It's a bit of a conundrum, though maybe not one important enough for > JKR to clarify. Perhaps it's only there to serve as a parallel to the > animosity between Draco and Harry/his friends. Or maybe we will learn > that there was another reason for the mutual animosity between Snape > and James. Only Book 7 will tell :-) > > Kemper now: What if the animosity is nothing more than personality conflict? What if Sevie showed up to his first ever DADA lesson and was the quickest to raise his hand at all the questions the DADA professor asked of the class? Much like a younger Hermione did in her first Potions lesson. And what if many of Sevie's fellow classmates were put off by this performance? Much like many of Hermione's class(and house)mates. What if Sevie was able to express verbally his knowledge of the Dark Arts? Much like Hermione knew about the uses of various apothecaric ingredients. Maybe prior to entering Hogwarts, Li'l Sevie read his mom's copy of "Dark Arts, a History". And his know-it-all-ness really irked ThrowsTheFirstStone James and his best mate, CoolerThanYou Black. I see the Dark Arts as a false reason the boys hated Sevie. Based on both boys' competitive spirit and over developed sense of self, I'd say they hated Sevie because he was an intellectually/magically gifted equal, if not better. Just my musings... Kemper [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From iam.kemper at gmail.com Wed Jun 21 02:11:15 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 19:11:15 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Horcruxes, the Prophesy, where Dumbledore goes, and other secrets In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40606201911k591811d7sbb4f83aa7404e160@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154120 steven1965aaa wrote: > The portraits of the former headmasters are privy to everything that > goes on in Dumbledore's office. When Dumbledore and Harry spoke after > seeing Slughorn's memory, one of them even used an ear trumpet to make > sure he heard everything. > > I remember (I think from OOP, IMR) that the portraits serve the > current rightful headmaster of Hogwarts. > > Therefore, wouldn't McGonagle be able to find out where Dumbledore > went when he left Hogwarts,about the prophesy, Horcruxes etc., all > just by asking the portraits the right questions? > > Kemper now: It seems to be an expectation of the portraits which could be broken. But I think it would be Phineas who will be the first to spill. And he won't even be asked a question. Briefly, Kemper From puduhepa98 at aol.com Wed Jun 21 02:14:02 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 22:14:02 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] James' essence/some Sirius and his family WAS: Re: Choic... Message-ID: <225.60ce094.31ca056a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154121 >Carol writes >There is absolutely no evidence that even the teenage Severus (as opposed to the child Severus) practiced Dark magic at this point--except the single spell Sectumsempra, which apparently was invented as retaliation against "enemies," nor is there any evidence that he was a supporter of the Dark Lord when the Pensieve incident occurred. >Even if James did oppose the Dark Arts as a kid at school, even if he disliked Severus because he associated him from Day One with the Dark Arts, that was no excuse for his behavior. (Nor does it excuse his accomplice, Sirius Black.) More important to the present argument, I see no indication of any such association of Severus Snape with the Dark Arts in young *James's* mind. I do see it in young Sirius's mind. His family were Dark wizards with a tradition of being placed in Slytherin. Severus Snape at eleven was a clever little boy who knew more hexes by far than he should have known at that age. He must have seemed like the ultimate Slytherin to Sirius (something like the boy his parents wanted him to be). And it might not have been difficult to persuade James to share that view. Or Sirius may simply have been projecting his reasons for hating Severus onto James. If I had to think of a reason why both boys hated Severus (and Sirius's hatred seems stronger to me than James's), I'd say that it's probably a hatred of Slytherin House, which they project onto the most talented Slytherin in their year. Nikkalmati: Part of our problem here is not only that we don't know enough about James, we don't know enough about Snape (or what exactly are the Dark Arts). I assume that Snape was pegged with the Dark Arts association because he knew so many curses when he came to school. BTW how did Sirius know Snape knew a lot of curses? I would guess that Snape had to use them in self-defense because Sirius and his friends started bullying him right away. JMO. Snape must have learned these curses at home or whatever passed as a home. Perhaps the Dark Arts were the only form of magic available to him. Did his mother teach him magic? His father was a Muggle. Was the man angry in the Pensive scene because Snape's mother was teaching him magic? Snape undoubtedly would have shown signs of magical ability at an early age and someone had to direct him. He had his mother's potions book, not necessarily because he could not afford a new one, but perhaps, because she had used it to teach him? The notes could be partly hers or things he had learned from her. Were the Princes a Dark Magic family like the Blacks? That would explain why Sirius would have labeled Snape from the very first as an opponent. As Carol says, we have much more reason to believe Sirius hated the Dark Arts than James. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From estesrandy at yahoo.com Wed Jun 21 02:15:48 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 02:15:48 -0000 Subject: Wolf Constellation Lupus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154122 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Randy" wrote: > > Lupus the wolf constellation is considered weak because it has no > extremely bright stars in it. > > Don't forget that Lupin has been called weak by Snape. > > Lupus is located between Centarus and Hydra constellations. Centaurus > represents Chiron, the gentle and wise Centaur mentor of Hercules. > Hydra is the many-headed beast that can regrow a head after it has > been cut off. The Hydra sounds like Snape's description of facing the > many-headed beast associated with the Dark Arts (ie. Voldemort). > > Lupin is being used by Dumbledore to keep tabs on Werewolves and Death > Eaters. You could say he is stuck between Dumbledore and Dark side > just like Lupus is stuck between Centaurus and Hydra. That would make > him a good DADA teacher. > > Unfortunately, Lupus has been identified as an animal about to be > sacrificed by the Centaur. > > I am getting a kick out of these constellation myths. Sorry if no one > else is. > > Randy > My mistake here about location of Lupus. It is between Centaurus and Scorpio not Hydra. Oh well. But I did think of another fun connection to Ophiuchus (serpent bearer)constellation and Snape. The reason Ophiuchus is a zodiacal constellation (one that the Sun passes through during the year) but not an astrological sign is because it straddles the equator. It is on both sides just like Snape seems to be on both sides of the Wizard War! Randy From coverton at netscape.com Tue Jun 20 14:10:50 2006 From: coverton at netscape.com (corey_over) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:10:50 -0000 Subject: why Ron and Hermione resemble a married couple Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154123 Hi members. Been a while since I've posted but am I the only one that some times think Ron and Hermione resemble a married couple. I mean they often fight like a married couple could, they won't speak to each other for long streches of time. They get upset with each other at the smallest things sometimes. They'll have to quit fighting if they are to help Harry accomplish his mission. Another topic Luna's honesty. Do you think it is good or should she tone it down a bit? For the most part it is good but it can be a tad hard to deal with. But guess that what happens when people make fun of her a lot. Hope Luna will play a bigger role in book 7. I'm starting to kind of like her. Corey From mros at xs4all.nl Tue Jun 20 23:26:37 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 01:26:37 +0200 Subject: Sirius' motivation for breaking with his family, house elves References: Message-ID: <001f01c694c0$fa1faf50$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 154124 ericoppen wrote: >>>I think that we may have seen a clue to Sirius' motivation in our first minutes in his family mauso--er, his family _mansion._ What if Little Sirius had had a house elf that he really, really loved, that was his favorite playmate---and one day he comes downstairs to find out that Mama has had that elf's head cut off and mounted on a plaque? <<< Marion: Hm. Well, it's a nice thought but I don't buy it. I don't believe that children could hate their parents when they do something that might hurt the child, but the parent think it's for the child's own good (or in this case the elf's own good). We've been told that Kreacher at least had the wish to have his head amongst his predecessors after he died (probably a way to stay 'with his Masters family' even after death). Elves are *weird*. Elves are *different*. Elves *want* to serve and are loyal. You don't kill and cut of a healthy elf's head just for kicks. Especially not when they belong to an ancient and noble House. (The Malfoys may be old purebloods, but they sound rather New Money to me.) When Harry tricked Lucius in giving Dobby a sock, Lucius said "you've cost me my servant, boy!". Servant. Not, 'one of my servants'. I don't think that a House has more than one House elves. Two at the most. You don't go and cut off a perfectly good elf's head for no good reason. If the elf had died, and had asked on his or her deathbed to be mounted just like his or her predecessors, then maybe. It just doesn't make economical sense to go kill of perfectly good house elves! And even if they *did* put a deathly ill house elf out of his or her misery, is this a reason for Sirius to get all upset? He's a pureblood of a Ancient House! He *knows* about house elves and the way they think. This kind of knowledge and these values are poured into him with a silver spoon. Besides, if a farmers son who lived on a farm where they had, say, hutches of rabbits, if he had a rabbit he was aspecially fond of, and one day that rabbit was slaughtered (like all the rabbits on that farm were, sooner or later), would that kid be traumatized for life? No, because I *know* ex-farmkids and they grow up with the knowledge that rabbits get slaughtered, just like the pigs and the chickens. Now, citykids who get a pet rabbit and *that* gets slaughtered for Christmas Lunch.. Yeah, that kid might be traumatized. But not traumatized enough to hate his parents for years and years afterwards. Not enough to run away from home when he's sixteen. And Sirius never has any concrete allegations against his parents, does he? We never hear him tell the world at large, "they were quite mean you know, they killed my childhood friend. Look, there is his head, mounted". Now, I've had my problems with *my* parents. I've been seriously depressed, even suicidal, when living in their house, but in the end, they are my parents, whom I love. Who love me. I've read accounts of men and women whose parent(s) were alcoholic, abusive, even incestuous, and the one thing they had in common was that they all thought that there was something wrong with *them*, not with the parent(s). They would still love their parent(s). It's the spoiled and indulged child that spits in his parents face and treads on their hearts. Besides, Sirius doesnt' strike me as a particular sensitive kid, now does he? He gleefully bullies helpless children four to one, he kicks his house elf (who is defenseless - no matter how much Kreacher disapproves of him, he can't NOT obey) he is reckless and impulsive and has a cruel streak. Nope, sorry, I know that Sirius has a great fanbase, because he was handsome and brave and falsely accused and imprisoned, but for all his bravery and sad destiny, he simply wasn't a very nice person to those he percieved as 'different' or 'not his kind' or 'wanting different things than he wanted'. No, the more I think about it, the more I believe that Sirius was too much indulged rather than mistreated. It's a myth that mistreated children turn into bullies. It's the overindulged, undisciplined children that turn into bullies. Dudley Dursley was loved and overindulged. James Potter was loved and overindulged. The Weasley twins were loved and overindulged (note that when they nick their father's illegally charmed car and their mother tries to discipline them for it, their father replies with a 'did it handle well'. That's what I call overindulging. No consequenses to bad behaviour) Waaay past midnight. I'm quitting for the day. Marion From aceworker at yahoo.com Wed Jun 21 03:06:11 2006 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (aceworker) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 03:06:11 -0000 Subject: Horcruxes, the Prophesy, where Dumbledore goes, and other secrets In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154125 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "steven1965aaa" wrote: > > The portraits of the former headmasters are privy to everything that > goes on in Dumbledore's office. When Dumbledore and Harry spoke after > seeing Slughorn's memory, one of them even used an ear trumpet to make > sure he heard everything. > > I remember (I think from OOP, IMR) that the portraits serve the > current rightful headmaster of Hogwarts. > > Therefore, wouldn't McGonagle be able to find out where Dumbledore > went when he left Hogwarts,about the prophesy, Horcruxes etc., all > just by asking the portraits the right questions? > Yes, but McGonagall is just the acting headmistress so maybe they won't answer her until she is appointed Headmistress or perhaps Dumbledore isn't dead and they know that somehow so they won't talk to her either. I suppose Dumbledore also could have order he portraits not to listen and they couldn't. But something is suspicious about that sleeping portrait. DA Jones From puduhepa98 at aol.com Wed Jun 21 03:17:38 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 23:17:38 EDT Subject: Christian themes in HP Message-ID: <48b.2f30683.31ca1452@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154126 > Tonks: > >>> (Since I have said that the COS was the tomb of Christ, > and I see DD as a symbol of Christ, to me it ties together. And I > think that JKR meant to tie those two images together in that > moment.) Since I think that DD is a Christ figure I do think > that we will see him again. <<< > > Barbara Kraus wrote: > >> I think this is a wonderful story and a world I would like to > enter...but do you really think that J.K. Rowling was trying to > write in parallels to the Bible? I think you do a disservice to > her... The Harry Potter stories are so well-written - - > when I read the biblical comparisons here, I can only think...oh, > please. Give me a break. << > > Katie: > I have to agree with Barbara. I think that reducing great literature to Bible allegory fails to see the beauty of the story itself. > I feel (in my opinion) that people who try to see Christian > stuff in HP are in some way assuaging some misplaced guilt about > being Christian and reading about witches. It just isn't there! There is no Christian allegory in HP. (snip)> I just don't understand why everything has to relate to religion! I > am a pretty faithful pagan, and I don't relate everything I do, read, or see to my religion. > > Now, I am also a fan of the Narnia series, which is a well-known > and purposeful allegory to the Bible, but the story of Narnia can > also be read without looking for Christian themes, and still be a > wonderful and magical story. Can't we all just read HP for what it > is? - a fantastical and magical and unique work of literature (snip> Tonks: The Narnia series is an allegory, and why it is perfectly OK to read it as just an enjoyable story you can not just wish away the basic intent of the author, or tell others who do see the author's intent that they are just imagining it. The HP series IMO is not an allegory like Narnia. JKR has a subliminal story running under the surface and she does some unique things with symbolism. If you don't see it, that is fine. But when the final book is written and JKR tells what she has done, if she proves me wrong, no big deal. I will still love and treasure the books. On the other hand if JKR says that she has used symbols and ideas from Christianity in the constructions of her books, I suspect that some here will burn them or use them for mulch. Such is the bias that I hear voiced here against the very *idea* that there could be anything that looks like Christianity in the books. Nikkalmati: When Tonks first wrote that she had seen resistance to the discussion of Christian themes in the books, I thought "well, I haven't seen it." I have seen it now. The author herself has said that there is a Christian theme to the books which will become obvious after Book 7. I do not agree with all of the links made on this list by various individuals to Christian symbols or parallels to Biblical characters or stories, but many of them are interesting and stimulate thought. I personally don't "get' the alchemy references many others find and some of the astronomy connections are "far out".:>) However, I certainly don't feel these discussions should be abandoned or that they are not worth pursuing. Why should discussions about the Christian meanings in the books be any different? Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From aceworker at yahoo.com Wed Jun 21 03:27:19 2006 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (aceworker) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 03:27:19 -0000 Subject: why Ron and Hermione resemble a married couple/Luna In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154127 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "corey_over" wrote: > > Hi members. Been a while since I've posted but am I the only one that > some times think Ron and Hermione resemble a married couple. I mean they > often fight like a married couple could, they won't speak to each other > for long streches of time. They get upset with each other at the > smallest things sometimes. They'll have to quit fighting if they are to > help Harry accomplish his mission. > > > Another topic Luna's honesty. Do you > think it is good or should she tone it down a bit? For the most part it > is good but it can be a tad hard to deal with. But guess that what > happens when people make fun of her a lot. Hope Luna will play a bigger > role in book 7. I'm starting to kind of like her. > > Corey > Ron & Hermione will never stop fighting even if JKr has them admit there love for each other. They are too different in their opinions and are an example of opposites atract. Besides their debates at least some times are an authors device to let readers see both sides of an issue. Luna will never stop being honest just as JKR will never stop having her believe in mystical beasts. Besides being funny Luna is an example of a person who just says what she believes. She never has tact. She is shunned because not only due to her crazy beliefs but also due to the fact that she tells everyone what they don't want too hear. There are a lot of fanfics that have her as a healer but she would be a terrible healer because she would tell every screaming patient of hers every grusome detail of their injury with no detail sparred. Unf my reading of what JKR is going to do is prob kill her. She is one of the only 'major char' for which JKR has not celebrated a birthday on her website and she is one of the funny char. It is a common tactic of writers to kill 'funny char' in order to truly show horror. I expect the first few chapters of book 7 to really ramp up the horror, so it is poss JKR might kill Luna very early and dramatically. She has also shot down the Luna and Neville romance for poss good reason. If you also follow the idea that the story is also a christian allegory as has been proposed many times on this group recently then Luna as the most 'fatihful' of Harry's disciples may be the martyr for the cause. Perhaps I've started to gain a reputation as the 'kill Luna' member of the list, but it would be nice if someone could come up with aq convincing reason as to why JKR wouldn't kill her. As she is one of my favorites. From celizwh at intergate.com Wed Jun 21 03:37:30 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 03:37:30 -0000 Subject: Hating Dark Arts (was re James' essence...) In-Reply-To: <001101c694ba$29351390$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154128 Marion: > One more thing on the "James hated Dark Arts" thing, > though: for a group that so hated Dark magic, they > apparantly had no trouble using it themselves. [snip] > No, I mean that blasted Map. > Let me quote Swythyv's (http://swythyv.livejournal.com/) > reply on that essay: > > Am I the only person who flinches when the words > > "I solemnly swear" are considered meaningless in real > > life? Should we really take those words so lightly in > > the story when they are said while holding your wand? houyhnhnm: If the Map was exercising its own will when it "fluttered out of [Harry's] hand and slid down six steps" and made its way into Barty, Jr.'s then it is a very Dark object indeed. From dontask2much at yahoo.com Wed Jun 21 03:37:41 2006 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 23:37:41 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Christian themes in HP References: <48b.2f30683.31ca1452@aol.com> Message-ID: <006701c694e4$0d283130$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 154129 > Nikkalmati: > When Tonks first wrote that she had seen resistance to the discussion of > Christian themes in the books, I thought "well, I haven't seen it." I > have seen > it now. The author herself has said that there is a Christian theme to > the > books which will become obvious after Book 7. I do not agree with all of > the > links made on this list by various individuals to Christian symbols or > parallels to Biblical characters or stories, but many of them are > interesting and > stimulate thought. I personally don't "get' the alchemy references many > others find and some of the astronomy connections are "far out".:>) > However, I > certainly don't feel these discussions should be abandoned or that they > are > not worth pursuing. Why should discussions about the Christian meanings > in the > books be any different? Rebecca: I agree that some of the recent discussion of symbolism merits thought, however I'm curious that JKR has actually stated there was a Christian theme to the books in that manner. I checked Quick Quotes Quill and have only seen the line in an Time magazine interview that when asked about faith or her belief in God this came up: "Interestingly, although Rowling is a member of the Church of Scotland, the books are free of references to God. On this point, Rowling is cagey. "Um. I don't think they're that secular," she says, choosing her words slowly. "But, obviously, Dumbledore is not Jesus." and then this: "There comes a point where Susan, who was the older girl, is lost to Narnia because she becomes interested in lipstick. She's become irreligious basically because she found sex," Rowling says. "I have a big problem with that." and this: "And unlike Lewis, whose books are drenched in theology, Rowling refuses to view herself as a moral educator to the millions of children who read her books. "I don't think that it's at all healthy for the work for me to think in those terms. So I don't," she says. "I never think in terms of What am I going to teach them? Or, What would it be good for them to find out here." Has anyone see and can quote where she herself has specifically said anything else about theology or religious overtones in the books? Rebecca From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Jun 21 03:42:56 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 03:42:56 -0000 Subject: Hating Dark Arts (was re James' essence...) In-Reply-To: <700201d40606201905y71e0b3d1w3c31b6a8deccd078@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154130 Kemper: > I see the Dark Arts as a false reason the boys hated Sevie. Based on both > boys' competitive spirit and over developed sense of self, I'd say they > hated Sevie because he was an intellectually/magically gifted equal, if not > better. Potioncat: It seems to me, based on JKR's comment that Sirius loathed Snape and the feeling was mutual, that the dislike was between these two and James simply went along with it. That is, the animosity was personal between Sirius and Severus, but not so personal between James and Severus. James may have hated the Dark Arts and so, disliked anyone who performed/studied them. Severus may have fallen in that category as well as being Sirius's enemy. It certainly doesn't seem that the same degree of ill will flows between Severus and Remus. Sirius Black has some real credibility issues. There are several places where he's made a statement that later proves to be incorrect. Just like Hagrid, who says things that turn out to be wrong. His comment about Severus being an 'oddball' sends up warning flags. It's very easy to misjudge the oddball. Now either his comment that Snape hung out with a certain gang of Slytherins is wrong, or JKR's math is very bad. We aren't going to know whose mistake it is until the next book. And at the moment, either one is a strong possibility. I'm very interested in why Sirius and James disliked Severus and why Severus disliked them. One other piece of the puzzle. The Black Family Tree may be nothing more than a bit of fluff to raise money for a charity, but it could hold clues. Dorea Black Potter may have had some influence on young James. She could have rejected the Dark Arts of her family and may have passed stories down that James heard. (I'm guessing she's an aunt, not his mother.) JKR likes to mislead her readers. I think there's something important in this mix, that will change how we look at the Marauder/Snape relationship. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 21 02:49:44 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 02:49:44 -0000 Subject: Phineas and Snape (Was: Horcruxes, the Prophesy, where Dumbledore goes), In-Reply-To: <700201d40606201911k591811d7sbb4f83aa7404e160@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154131 Kemper now: > It seems to be an expectation of the portraits which could be broken. > But I think it would be Phineas who will be the first to spill. And > he won't even be asked a question. > > Briefly, > Kemper > Carol responds: I agree that the portraits, and especially Phineas Nigellus, are ideally placed to overhear key conversations, but it's not McGonagall who'll benefit from his knowledge, IMO, it's Harry--who just happens to own the other house where Phineas has a portrait. Twice in HBP Phineas reprimands Harry for speaking disrespectfully of Severus Snape. Why? Because, IMO, Phineas has heard doing everything from Snape's change of sides to his reports of Harry's dreams (revealed to Snape in the Occlumency lessons). The only key conversations between DD and Snape that Phineas would not have overheard, aside from messages delivered by Patronus, are the argument in the forest and the events on the tower in HBP. Who better to inform, say, Lupin that he's mistaken about Snape in Harry's hearing? And even if Harry rejects Phineas's words, Lupin might start thinking about, oh, say, the DADA curse. . . . At any rate, surely Harry learning about Snape's true loyalties is more important than McGonagall (whose specialty is Transfiguration, not DADA) learning about Horcruxes, and who better to inform him than Witness!Phineas? Carol, who has only posted three times today after all (make that four now) and still hates the new Yahoo set-up From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Jun 21 02:58:05 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 22:58:05 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] James' essence/some Sirius and his family WAS: Re: Choice and Essentialism References: Message-ID: <009501c694de$85996130$fc66400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 154132 Carol: As Magpie > says, both Black and Lupin were trying to placate Harry when they > talked to him after the Pensieve scene. Both of them wanted > Harry to regard his father with something like the affection they felt > for him. And I agree with Magpie that Black--who is surely not known > for analytical thinking (my observation, not hers)--has a tendency to > oversimplify things, including both his family background and Severus > Snape. Alla: If Magpie made an observation that Sirius has a tendency to oversimplify things, then I have to disagree with her. Sorry, Magpie. Trying to justify to Harry - YES, oversimplify things in general - not really, IMO. Magpie: Totally anal post, but Carol was saying that was her observation, not mine, about Sirius over-simplifying. Though I don't think she necessarily means it as saying that Sirius over-simplifies everything. I remember finding him a relief when I re-read GoF because he was thinking logically! What I do think he has a tendency to do, and he shares this trait with lots of characters, especially Harry, is sometimes let his emotions cloud his thinking. When he's describing his family, for instance, and claiming that no member ever did anything worthwhile, that they were idiots, or hated, or bought their way into anything that looked respectable, I don't think he's over-simplifying, but that it's his pain speaking more than his true objective thoughts on his family. Carol, I think, made the reference to the loyalty of dogs and that may be a good way to think of it-not in an insulting way, but wiht the idea that Sirius is always trying to show his affection or pain of loss any way he can. He would never, for instance, have spoken about James the way Dumbledore speaks about him to Harry right after his death. Even his claims that Regulus was an idiot are, I think, possibly a way of distancing himself from emotions about him he doesn't want to feel. In this case, in the context of the scene, one thing Sirius isn't doing is sitting down to have a long chat about the whole history of Snape and James. He's giving Harry the parts that he thinks are most important for Harry to understand at that moment (okay, we did wrong, but James was really a good guy and Snape was...Snape)--really he gives Harry two reasons for the animosity: James hated the Dark Arts and Snape was jealous of James being so good at everything. It's sort of a classic combination--I've heard it in a lot of fandom kerfuffles too: "I hated so-and-so for some ideological reason that made me have issues with her, and she just irrationally hated me--let's assume she was jealous." Personally, I'd love to know the details of the Snape/James animosity. So far we've ironically seen more of Snape's side of it (which reveal some of his own issues) with his references to James strutting, the Pensieve scene, and the insulting of Snape through the map. Then we get the HBP who comes across to Harry like a cool guy. JKR may be holding back on the personal stakes for James. It doesn't seem to quite fit the disinterested bully impression we get from the Gryffindor side. -m From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Jun 21 03:25:07 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 03:25:07 -0000 Subject: Horcruxes, the Prophesy, where Dumbledore goes, and other secrets In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154133 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "aceworker" wrote: > But something is suspicious about that sleeping > portrait. > Tonks: I think it makes sense to have the portrait of DD asleep. He had a hard day for one thing. And we need to make the transition from DD alive to DD dead before we can see the portrait communicating with anyone. Seeing his portrait asleep helps us realize that DD is dead. And he is resting peacefully. Isn't that what we say, the image that is planted in us by our traditions of funeral homes and funerals? Our loved one is asleep. The body is laid out as if asleep and at peace. So I don't see the fact that DD is asleep in his portrait as unusual or suspicious. It would seem weird IMO to see him talking and acting normally when people are still morning his death and there hasn't been a funeral yet. I think that probably all of the headmasters portraits looked that way until sometime after their funerals. I agree with the person that said that Phineas will be the first to volunteer information to McG. Would be fun to be a mouse in the corner to hear that one. Maybe DD will still be asleep when it happens. Tonks_op From iam.kemper at gmail.com Wed Jun 21 05:29:02 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 22:29:02 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Horcruxes, the Prophesy, where Dumbledore goes, and other secrets In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40606202229o7ccb7b2asb377c807d7aece16@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154134 > aceworker wrote: > > > But something is suspicious about that sleeping > > portrait. > > > > > Tonks replied: > I think it makes sense to have the portrait of DD asleep. He had a > hard day for one thing. And we need to make the transition from DD > alive to DD dead before we can see the portrait communicating with > anyone. Seeing his portrait asleep helps us realize that DD is dead. > And he is resting peacefully. Isn't that what we say, the image that > is planted in us by our traditions of funeral homes and funerals? > Our loved one is asleep. The body is laid out as if asleep and at > peace. So I don't see the fact that DD is asleep in his portrait as > unusual or suspicious. It would seem weird IMO to see him talking > and acting normally when people are still morning his death and > there hasn't been a funeral yet. I think that probably all of the > headmasters portraits looked that way until sometime after their > funerals. > > I agree with the person that said that Phineas will be the first to > volunteer information to McG. Would be fun to be a mouse in the > corner to hear that one. Maybe DD will still be asleep when it > happens. > > Kemper now: Hi Tonks! The Phineas comment was mine. I'm not sure if anyone knows, but I'm a DD lives fan. Putting that aside, I don't think the portraits of the past Headmasters denote a Headmaster who is dead. IIRC, they are always referred to as 'past' or 'former' Headmasters. To me, this suggests that a Headmaster could retire and still have a portrait. Putting it another way (for the Americans), if the Headmasters were Supreme Court Justices, then Sandra Day O'Connor's portrait would be yucking it up with William Rehnquist's portrait: one retired while the other died. Kemper From puduhepa98 at aol.com Wed Jun 21 13:07:02 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:07:02 EDT Subject: Life Debt Message-ID: <517.d64721.31ca9e76@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154135 I have had a thought about the Life Debt. What if like some monetary obligations it is "payable on demand". That is, the debtor is free to ignore the debt until the one to whom the debt is owed says "I'm calling in my debt". That would mean Peter Pettigrew was free to ignore his debt to Harry unless Harry specifically stated he wanted Peter to do something in repayment. If only Harry knew that. This possibility also raises some issues with James and Severus. We know Severus spoke to James and warned him against using Sirius as a Secret-Keeper (advice James seems to have taken!). What if James told Severus he was calling in his debt in some way. The most likely request would be "If something happens to us, will you watch out for Harry in repayment?" Whether this request would bind Severus and in what way is open to discussion. Has it been repayed? Is Severus free to ignore it? Did James ask for something else instead? If the debt was never called in by James, could Harry reactivate it by telling Severus he wanted something in repayment? Again, how would Harry know to do this? Clearly, DD never told him he had any such specific power over Peter or Severus even though he told Harry about both life debts. Nikkalmati. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Jun 21 16:12:05 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 16:12:05 -0000 Subject: Horcruxes, the Prophesy, where Dumbledore goes, and other secrets In-Reply-To: <700201d40606202229o7ccb7b2asb377c807d7aece16@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154136 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kemper wrote: > > I'm not sure if anyone knows, but I'm a DD lives fan. Putting that > aside, I don't think the portraits of the past Headmasters denote a > Headmaster who is dead. IIRC, they are always referred to as 'past' > or 'former' Headmasters. To me, this suggests that a Headmaster could > retire and still have a portrait. > Tonks: Pouring a cup of tea for Kemper. I hate to break this to you. Here is some Kleenex too. But it says on page 626 of the U.S. Scholastic version: "And a new portrait had joined the ranks of the dead headmasters and headmistresses of Hogwarts: Dumbledore was slumbering in a golden frame over the desk, his half-moon spectacles pearched upon his crooked nose, looking peaceful and untroubled." Tonks_op From enlil65 at gmail.com Wed Jun 21 17:01:57 2006 From: enlil65 at gmail.com (Peggy Wilkins) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 12:01:57 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Life Debt In-Reply-To: <517.d64721.31ca9e76@aol.com> References: <517.d64721.31ca9e76@aol.com> Message-ID: <1789c2360606211001g415f828dq3bb68ff2f0e45517@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154137 On 6/21/06, puduhepa98 at aol.com wrote: Nikkalmati: > This possibility also raises some issues with James and Severus. We know > Severus spoke to James and warned him against using Sirius as a Secret-Keeper > (advice James seems to have taken!). Peggy W: I don't remember this at all. IIRC in POA Snape calls James "arrogant" regarding his "trust in Black" but I don't think it's stated anywhere that they ever had any direct conversation about the Secret Keeper issue. Or was this stated somewhere besides in the Shrieking Shack confrontation? If Snape is known to have had any contact with James after their school days together, I have completely forgotten reading about it. -- Peggy Wilkins enlil65 at gmail.com From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Wed Jun 21 16:31:37 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 16:31:37 -0000 Subject: Sirius' motivation for breaking with his family In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154138 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ericoppen" wrote: > I think that we may have seen a clue to Sirius' motivation in our > first minutes in his family mauso--er, his family _mansion._ What > if Little Sirius had had a house elf that he really, really loved, > that was his favorite playmate---and one day he comes downstairs to > find out that Mama has had that elf's head cut off and mounted on a > plaque? Interesting theory, but I go for the simpler one. Sirius favourite cousin was Tonks, or the other way round I forget. Anyways, they liked each other a lot. Quite probably he liked his Uncle Ted and his aunt Andromeda as well, despite his mother telling him how inferior they were. These things give children an incentive to start thinking for themselves rather early. The Black family strikes me as not the most affectionate, whereas Tonks seems to come from a loving home. Sirius quite probably saw the difference and decided which part of the family he liked best and wanted to be associated with. Gerry From iam.kemper at gmail.com Wed Jun 21 17:37:54 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:37:54 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Horcruxes, the Prophesy, where Dumbledore goes, and other secrets In-Reply-To: References: <700201d40606202229o7ccb7b2asb377c807d7aece16@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <700201d40606211037i42b785d6o484c99af25f3679a@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154139 > Kemper wrote: > > > > I'm not sure if anyone knows, but I'm a DD lives fan. Putting that > > aside, I don't think the portraits of the past Headmasters denote a > > Headmaster who is dead. IIRC, they are always referred to as 'past' > > or 'former' Headmasters. To me, this suggests that a Headmaster could > > retire and still have a portrait. > > > > > Tonks: > Pouring a cup of tea for Kemper. I hate to break this to you. Here is > some Kleenex too. But it says on page 626 of the U.S. Scholastic > version: > > "And a new portrait had joined the ranks of the dead headmasters and > headmistresses of Hogwarts: Dumbledore was slumbering in a golden frame > over the desk, his half-moon spectacles pearched upon his crooked nose, > looking peaceful and untroubled." > > Kemper now: Tonks, thanks for the canon and the tissue, but the tea is a bit bitter. I think I'll sweeten it with a cube of sugar. The scene is seen through a Harry filter or are you saying the narrator is always accurately omniscient? Kemper, sipping on the sweetened tea and offering Tonks a biscuit [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 21 17:46:24 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 17:46:24 -0000 Subject: Horcruxes, the Prophesy, where Dumbledore goes, and other secrets In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154140 DA Jones wrote: > But something is suspicious about that sleeping > portrait. Carol responds: Not "suspicious," perhaps, but certainly "significant." We've seen portraits feigning sleep, and maybe that's what DD is doing. But, to me, what's significant is his peaceful expression. Clearly, Portrait!DD is not at all upset by his own death or the events on the tower. And surely he would know the manner of his own death and everything leading up to it (except that the Horcrux is fake). We're told that the portraits repeat catch phrases used by the subject of the painting when he or she was alive (though we've also seen them act on their own volition--Phineas Nigellus leaving his painting when he learns that his great-great-grandson Sirius is dead, so I think there's more to them than JKR lets on). I fully expect to hear Portrait!Dumbledore say, among other familiar phrases, "I trust Severus Snape." And another thing: DD is likely to have portraits in other places that he can travel between, which leaves open the possibility that Harry may encounter him in unexpected places. Godric's Hollow, possibly? Carol, who finds herself increasingly tempted by the "Dumbledore isn't dead" (Draught of Living Death) theories but thinks that JKR will find a more clever, less anticipatable method of proving to Harry and the reader that Snape isn't evil From celizwh at intergate.com Wed Jun 21 18:04:52 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 18:04:52 -0000 Subject: Horcruxes, the Prophesy, where Dumbledore goes, and other secrets In-Reply-To: <700201d40606211037i42b785d6o484c99af25f3679a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154141 Tonks: > > Pouring a cup of tea for Kemper. I hate to break > > this to you. Here is some Kleenex too. But it says on > > page 626 of the U.S. Scholastic version: "And a new > > portrait had joined the ranks of the dea headmasters > > and headmistresses of Hogwarts Kemper now: > The scene is seen through a Harry filter > or are you saying the narrator is always accurately omniscient? houyhynhnm: Of course they were all dead in 1997. Dumbledore had been Headmaster for some 40 years by that time. Continuing with Kemper's Supreme Court analogy, most Heads probably do leave office horizontally. But that doesn't mean there has *never* been a Head who retired, in which case there would be a portrait on the wall while its subject was still alive. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 21 18:12:29 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 18:12:29 -0000 Subject: Sirius' motivation for breaking with his family In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154142 Gerry wrote: > Interesting theory, but I go for the simpler one. Sirius favourite cousin was Tonks, or the other way round I forget. Anyways, they liked each other a lot. Quite probably he liked his Uncle Ted and his aunt Andromeda as well, despite his mother telling him how inferior they were. These things give children an incentive to start thinking for themselves rather early. The Black family strikes me as not the most affectionate, whereas Tonks seems to come from a loving home. Sirius quite probably saw the difference and decided which part of the family he liked best and wanted to be associated with. Carol responds: Forgive me for correcting the canon here (I'm not going into the theory of what motivated Sirius Black to hate his family). Sirius's favorite cousin was Andromeda, as he tells Harry in "The Most Noble and Ancient House of Black" in OoP. Andromeda, the sister of Bellatrix Lestrange and Narcissa Malfoy, is Sirius Black's first cousin, not his aunt. Nymphadora Tonks is Sirius's first cousin once removed (if it matters)--one generation apart from him on the genealogical charts. She is also considerably younger than he is, only about six or seven years older than Harry, IIRC, and only a child of seven or eight when Sirius was sent to prison. I see no evidence of any close relationship between them--note that she still has her pink hair and cheerful attitude when we last see her in OoP despite her own serious injury in the MoM battle and Sirius's death. It's only in HBP that we see her losing her Metamorphmagus abilities and casting a changed Patronus that turns out to represent Lupin, not first-cousin- once-removed Sirius. At any rate, he does seem to have liked his cousin Andromeda, but I don't think we can theorize about his relationship with his Muggleborn cousin-in-law Ted Tonks as there's no evidence one way or the other. All we know about him is that he's "a right old slob," according to his daughter. (Odd, since her mother is good at "householdy spells" and can fold socks with a flick of her wand--maybe another instance of opposites attracting in the HP books.) But he would have seen little of Tonks as a child, considering that she was about fourteen years younger than he was (I'd consult the Lexicon, but the approximate dates here are close enough for my purposes in this post). He would not have made his decision to leave home based on Andromeda's marriage to Ted, much less on her treatment of Tonks, who would have been about two years old when he moved out at age sixteen. Carol, who agrees with Gerry that we don't need to resort to an invented house elf to explain Sirius Black's intense dislike of his family, given jars of blood and other unpleasant artifacts throughout the house From evangelist at ihug.co.nz Wed Jun 21 12:23:48 2006 From: evangelist at ihug.co.nz (Tim) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 00:23:48 +1200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Phoenix fire? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44993A54.4020001@ihug.co.nz> No: HPFGUIDX 154143 houyhnhnm: I don't know. I can't quite put my finger on it either. Except that we aready have the suggestion (from the Sorting Hat) that the healing of the Wizarding World must come from unification of the qualities of *all* the houses, not the triumph of the "good" house over the "bad" house... The fact that Rowling chose to emphasize the healing powers of Fawkes, and that he sounds so much much like the Scorpio-Phoenix, makes me think that we are supposed to see Slytherin qualities in Fawkes as well as Gryffindorish ones. Tonks: > And in your Slytherin idea associated with Fawkes you > mention the Eagle. This is associated with Ravenclaw. > What does this me ?? How does the Ravenclaw Eagle and the > Phoenix combine? What abou the Lion of Gryffindor. And > the Badger. Are they represented in astrology any where? I tried writing a reply to this yesterday when the Scorpio-phoenix suggestion was first raised but you've beaten me to it 'cause mozzila was doing funny things. Anyway.. I have a feeling that all the major characters have elements of all the houses in them but are applied in different ways. Fawkes as a phoenix is portrayed as the epitome of goodness (just as Gryffindor and as such has the major characteristics of the houses in a balanced way (Cleverness, bravery, loyalty, and the self-interested one that i can't remember the actual word). And DD as the wizard Fawkes is loyal to has the very same. I am however not entirely convinced that selfishness is any worse or better, as it acts as a driver in most situations - yet is when not countered by the balancing of the care for the other. I have absolutely no idea about the actual symbolizing in this except drawing on kinda arbitrary feelings and senses from the scenes that you're talking about. oh, And tonks I think it is likely that DDs wand is a phoenix, yet not Fawkes's as we have seen DD battle with Voldemort and there was no reverse spell effect. However it seems to point to the message that "brothers" shouldn't fight - possibly preventing the destruction of the brother, or/& that when it does happen other tactics are required. I have nothing tangible to offer just impressions at the moment. Tim From s.mcdonald at rgu.ac.uk Wed Jun 21 00:18:11 2006 From: s.mcdonald at rgu.ac.uk (weeseon) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 00:18:11 -0000 Subject: RAB case is broken - all Aurors please read! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154144 > ~aussie~ wrote: > - Who do we know Regulus as? > - What do we really know about Filch? > > Just as DD kept Trelawney on in Hogwarts, more for her own > protection as the medium who revealed the prophecy, I am wondering > what Filch is doing there. > > As a Squib, no wizard would have remembered going to school with > Filch (so none of the parents could talk about his background). As > the Cranky caretaker, no student (and few teachers) get personal > with him. If Regulus wanted DD's protection inside Hogwarts, that > squib would be the perfect disguise. > > Can anyone find canon proof to support or reject this suggestion? This is a great theory but if Filch is Regulus then I don't think DD is knowingly hiding him. In order to get DD to hide him, Regulus would have had to tell DD why he was in trouble and then DD would have known about the locket horcrux but surely wouldn't have gone to the cave or drunk the potion etc because he'd know Regulus had stolen it. Of course Regulus could have had (or just told DD)another reason to be fleeing for his life, but why not tell DD about the locket? So if Regulus is Filch then I think DD doesn't know. weeseon From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 21 20:25:32 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 20:25:32 -0000 Subject: RAB case is broken - all Aurors please read! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154145 Weeson wrote: > So if Regulus is Filch then I think DD doesn't know. Carol responds: This idea has been definitively squelched by the canon fact that Filch was caretaker when MWPP, and therefore Sirius's younger brother Regulus, were in school. Filch confiscated the Marauder's Map, probably during MWPP's sixth or seventh year, when Regulus would have been in about his fourth or fifth year. They can't possibly be the same person. Carol, who is pretty sure that Regulus is dead From vinkv002 at planet.nl Wed Jun 21 20:39:49 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 20:39:49 -0000 Subject: Prank question (Was: RAB case is broken) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154146 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > > Hehe. Love Regulus, still think that "dead THESE days" means that he > may be not dead another days, but your post made me want to go on > the sort of the different tangent or maybe not so different. > > Anyways, the small warning here. I take as an absolute fact that we > are nowhere close to knowing complete information about Prank > events and what preceded them. And yes, that means that I don't buy > as a fact that Sirius wanted Snape dead, since I don't see enough > canon support. > > > > So, if one position is that we know everything we need to know about > Prank night, then my next question will make no sense to you. Renee: If I remember correctly, JKR has said we *will* learn more about the prank, which I take to mean that we don't know everything we need to know at this point. I expect the missing information to shed more light on Snape's role, and on his reason for keeping his mouth shut about it, which otherwise is rather peculiar. > We will have to learn about what happened on Prank night from > somebody, right? > > Unless JKR will just do the "history chapter", somebody who is > available to testify about mindsets, intentions, COMPLETE events of > that night is needed. > > I just realised yesterday that nobody else is available to tell us > everything, especially about Sirius intentions, but also about > Peter, James role ( how did he learn, where he was, etc) > > Sirius and James are dead, Snape, well we know his testimony already > don't we? > > What else? Somebody's diary? Another pensieve? Dumbledore's? My > memory is as good as ever, so maybe he DOES have full memory of the > event stored somewhere. > > If pensieve is objective, then Snape's or Sirius' will do too. > > Renee, the reason I am talking about all that stuff in your post > about Regulus is because your idea that Regulus may have been > connected with Remus or Greyback somehow made me think that IF > Regulus was involved somehow and he is alive, it would be SO cool if > he finally sheds light on what happened that night. > > He can certainly know about Sirius' intentions, estranged as they > were, they must have been communicated somehow and he certainly may > know about Snape. > Renee: That's an interesting question: how will we get to know the truth about the Prank? As you say, people who knew about it are growing scarce. Only Snape and Lupin are still there. So is Wormtail, but we don't even know if he had anything to do with it. I'm not sure, however, that it's necessary to bring Regulus into the picture. I don't expect Snape to offer an alternative to the view he's already given, but Lupin could. He may not have known beforehand what was going on that night, but I wouldn't be surprised he was informed afterwards, so he could be the one to shed light on the whole thing. So could Wormtail, if he *was* involved, though right now I can't see him having a quiet little chat with Harry about such past events. Lupin remains the best bet. I'd love it if Regulus would turn out to be alive, and the words `these days' in JKR's answer are an interesting addition, given the existence of a potion called the Draught of Living Death. But I doubt he'll be the one to speak the final word on the Prank. Renee From puduhepa98 at aol.com Wed Jun 21 13:48:38 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:48:38 EDT Subject: Evil Snape Message-ID: <52e.613a44.31caa836@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154147 puduhepa98 at .puduhepa9 > So you envision Snape eventually > trying to take over the UK- WW? >Eggplant >Yes but not just the UK- WW, the entire world, Wizard and Muggle. Two reasons,[why Snape did nothing after LV disappeared] he knew that sooner or later Voldemort would return and Dumbledore was still alive. Even though he hates him killing Harry was the last thing on earth Snape would want to do because he was one of only two people who knew Harry could kill Voldemort and was the only one who could. I think Snape heard the ENTIRE prophesy but just told Voldemort the first half. In fact I think the reason Dumbledore trusted Snape so much is that 17 years ago he made an unbreakable vow to protect the life of Harry Potter; Dumbledore thought Snape did this because basically he was a good guy, but Snape did it for quite different reasons. Nikkalmati: So to put this into a plot line: Snape wants to kill both DD and LV and take over the world. He believes the prophecy completely so that only Harry can kill LV. After LV mysteriously disappears, he does nothing to advance his cause for 10 years. When Harry appears at Hogwarts, he protects him so he can grow up to kill LV, whenever LV returns. When LV returns, he goes back as a faithful follower, taking his life in his hands, so he can convince both LV and DD he is on their side. He cures DD of the ring curse for some unknown reason, and takes an Unbreakable Vow to impress Bella? When fate unexpectedly places him on the Tower with a weakened DD, he kills him, thus fulfilling the UV and advancing his own cause. [BTW I don't think DD would allow a UV to protect Harry - Dark Magic you know. He is too good to accept a UV and all his talk about choices would not allow him to coerce another person in that way.JMO] In Book 7 Snape must help the Order and Harry as much as possible, so Harry can destroy or vanquish LV through love. However, this is not the denouement. Once Harry kills LV, Snape and Harry will face off. The ideal situation for Snape is to kill Harry at once, but either he won't be present or Harry will be too well protected, so Harry will have to hunt him down. Snape will not have any allies among the DEs or somehow he and Harry will come face to face, mano a mano, and Harry will win. Is this about it? Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From thebookandtherose at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jun 21 18:56:16 2006 From: thebookandtherose at yahoo.co.uk (thebookandtherose) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 18:56:16 -0000 Subject: New Topic: Reading HP books to chilldren Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154148 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Pamela Rosen wrote: > > --The day after finishing COS, he had another run-in with the stock-character class bully. Before reading COS, my son reacted to bullying by punching the kid. The day after hearing Dumbledore talk about choices, the bully did the ultimate--he insulted my son's mother (me). This time my son simply walked away, even though the urge to take action was great. He later told me, "I wanted to hit him. But I could choose to be a bad guy or be a good guy. I want to be a good guy." I don't think that would have happened without Dumbledore's words fresh in his mind. > > So that leaves me in a quandary--if he's getting a lot more than birthday-party themes from the books, how do we approach the rest? What have been others' experiences? > Thebookandtherose: It's refreshing to find someone who actually acknowledges that the Harry Potter books have a positive effect on children. They are too many people who claim the books are 'too scary' or have become 'too adult'. Although I appreciate people want to protect their children I personally don't have much patience for them. I grew up reading Harry Potter. Only once in that time have I been so scared I put the book down. I was about ten, probably a bit younger, which is easily still in the 'impressionable age' and I took the book PS/SS back to the libary and got it out again when I was ready to finish the story. No psychological scars, no nightmares, no 'corruption of innocence'. I think it's part of the series's charm that the themes of the book mature along with the main character. What's worse is the people who believe the books are some sort of satanist propaganda. I've even heard of HP books being burned, (which always brings out the Madam Pince in me). I don't want to bring down the wrath of the List Elves while I'm on mod status so I'll only say this; the Nazi's burnt books. Too get back to the topic, I've found myself absorbing a lot of the Harry Potter philosophy unconciously. I always thought I was a coward before I read to the end of PS/SS and read the section where Neville stood up to the trio. Since then I've understood the distinction between bravery and bravado and it's one of the lessons I value most, (which is maybe because of my Luna-esque tendencies). Harry's social status in books 2-5 also made me feel a lot better at being a bit of an outcast. I aspire to Lilly, take Hermione's SPEW side as a dire warning, and strive to avoid becoming a young Peter Pettigrew. I think people will find what they're looking for in books. It was a harsh wake up call when I read in an archive (overanalysing the text by Elkins) about connotations of muggle rape by deatheaters at the Quidditch World Cup- in my defence I couldn't have been more than 10 or 11 (when the campsite owners wife is turned upside down to revel her underwear). I think thats a strength of JKR, a lot of the darker themes are implied, and younger children are unlikely to see them as what they are. After answering the question I'd like to add one of my own. How many people here either checked the post for a Hogwarts letter on their 11th birthday or caught their children/siblings etc doing the same? BookishRose.....who answers 'No Comment' to her own question. From celizwh at intergate.com Wed Jun 21 21:25:01 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 21:25:01 -0000 Subject: Phoenix fire? In-Reply-To: <44993A54.4020001@ihug.co.nz> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154149 Tim: > I am however not entirely convinced that selfishness is > any worse or better, as it acts as a driver in most situations - > yet is when not countered by the balancing of the care for the > other. I have absolutely no idea about the actual symbolizing > in this except drawing on kinda arbitrary feelings and senses > from the scenes that you're talking about. houyhnhnm: I would go further than that. I am not sure that selfishness is a Slytherin trait at all. First of all, I agree with you that individual characters in the Harry Potter books have elements of all four houses in them, but I am also interested in what the characteristics of the pure type for each house would be, since those are the qualities that are going to be *nurtured* by the assignment to a particular house. I think all four types are capable of being selfish, but the selfishness would manifest itself in different ways according to the characteristics of the house type. I was fascinated to read that Rowling associated the four Hogwarts Houses with the four elements because I had been thinking along those lines myself. Then we had the assertion by the Sorting Hat that the four houses must unify to defeat Voldemort and Rowling's words about the "idea of harmony and balance, that you had four necessary components and by integrating them you would make a very strong place". I got out my old astrology books (I am a science teacher now and a Champion of the Rational Principle but once I dabbled in the Dark arts ;-) to look at the traits traditionally ascribed to each of the four elements. The problem was that I started with water and the descriptors didn't seem to fit. That's why I turned to look at the characteristics of individual water signs. And Scorpio descriptors really do seem to fit the Slytherin characters that we have seen, especially the lowest, least evolved sub-type (Scorpion) who is avaricious, feeds on other people's weakness, totally self-seeking. The middle sub-type (Eagle) seems to correspond well with Slughorn's character. He is self-seeking and self-indulgent.He uses other people's resources, but does at least try to do so in a way that brings mutual benefits. Below I have compiled a list of positive and negative traits associated with the four elements. I started with fire this time and left water for last. ***** Fire: Positive--Optimististic, exhuberant, adventuresome, always ready for what is new and never afraid to face hazards. Negative--reckless, overconfident, proud, arrogant and lacking in sympathy for the weak. ***** Air: Positive--intellectual, refined, idealistic, humane. Negative--superficial, loquacious, aloof and cold, nervous, divorced from the real and practical. ***** Earth: Positive--practical, reliable, hardworking, responsible, dutiful. Negative--materialistic, commonplace, narrowly utilitarian, a slave to routine and law and order. ***** Water: Positive--prudent, compassionate, understanding, artistic, protective, sensitive, reserved, seeking to help others. Negative--suspicious, self-repressed, hysterical, self-indulgent, seeking to gain control over others, exaggerating feelings all out of proportion. ***** You see the problem. The first three sets of descriptors accord pretty well with what we have seen of Gryffindor, Ravenclaw, and Hufflepuff. The last set makes you go, "Huh?" Compassionate? Protective? Sensitive? Seeking to help others? Slytherins? That's what made me think that maybe we are supposed to see something of the most evolved Slytherin characteristics in Fawkes. That and the fact that the phoenix is asscociated with the water sign Scorpio. From evangelist at ihug.co.nz Wed Jun 21 13:39:40 2006 From: evangelist at ihug.co.nz (Tim) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 01:39:40 +1200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius' motivation for breaking with his family In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44994C1C.4040208@ihug.co.nz> No: HPFGUIDX 154150 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ericoppen" wrote: > > While I'm sure that Sirius liked attention and standing out in a > crowd, that alone might not have been his motivation for breaking so > completely with his family. The Wizard World operates on patronage > and family influence (it's pre-Victorian, almost Regency, sometimes, > at least that's how it feels to me)and turning one's back on a > powerful source of influence such as the Black family would not be > something done lightly. Bookish Rose wrote: > I think Sirius is a rebel who had the debatable fortune to be born > into a family that needed to be rebelled against. Had he been the > son of fervent aurors he may have turned to the dark side, or he may > have rebelled in some other way I don't know. Personally, it would be interesting to know whether Sirius rebellion was completely defined before encountering muggleborns at Hogwarts. I suspect (in homage to another thread) that Sirius had an essence that was just and well meaning and in rebelling may have taken the Fred and George route in rebelling against rules that restricted, and attempted to simply uphold some ethical right to some kind of liberty rather than rebelling against the ethics themselves. Tim who is glad to have moved out of the shadow world and is finally participating. From distaiyi at yahoo.com Wed Jun 21 22:27:13 2006 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 22:27:13 -0000 Subject: New Topic: Reading HP books to chilldren Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154151 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Pamela Rosen wrote: > > Here's something that has been on my mind lately. I wonder how many of you are (or have) read HP to children? > Distaiyi : The bad parent.... Quite frankly I've always held that chilren understand far more than people give them credit for... I've read the first 4 books to my daughters, my 8 year old is reading the 5th book with my help and I'm reading it to my 6 year old daughter. My younger son could care less. At any rate, exposing them to older themes isn't really an issue. After all, they are already coming home singing "my lumps, my lumps, my lovely lady lumps" ... and so on... They don't need my help being exposed to adult, or teen themes. So I take the opportunity to read a good morality tale to them and then TALK about it after we read a chapter. What happened? What do you think about that? What do you think Dumbledore meant by that? Do you think Malfoy really should have been transfigured into a Ferret? Then we discuss their answers. Now that we've seen the movies a number of times I'm doing the same with them as well. The death scene is a particular scene which recently came in useful. Distaiyi. From winkadup at yahoo.com Tue Jun 20 20:40:23 2006 From: winkadup at yahoo.com (Wendy Dupuy) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:40:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Sirius' motivation for breaking with his family In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060620204023.83379.qmail@web34107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154152 ericoppen wrote: I think that we may have seen a clue to Sirius' motivation in our first minutes in his family mauso--er, his family _mansion._ What if Little Sirius had had a house elf that he really, really loved, that was his favorite playmate---and one day he comes downstairs to find out that Mama has had that elf's head cut off and mounted on a plaque? Winkadup: I totally missed the nice elf that was beheaded? What reasons would they behead the house elf? I remember seeing a row of house elves on a the wall, just forgot what the crime was. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 22 00:11:39 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 00:11:39 -0000 Subject: Prank question (Was: RAB case is broken) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154153 Renee wrote: > That's an interesting question: how will we get to know the truth about the Prank? As you say, people who knew about it are growing scarce. Only Snape and Lupin are still there. So is Wormtail, but we don't even know if he had anything to do with it. > Carol responds: I've snipped the parts of this post pertaining to Regulus, who, IMO, had nothing to do with the so-called Prank. What's important, I think, is Sirius's intentions, James's role (how much did he know and if he didn't get "cold feet," how did he find out?), and Severus's reasons for keeping quiet all those years. I'm curious as to whether Wormtail was involved, but it isn't really important unless it has a bearing on the contempt Snape shows for Wormtail in "Spinner's End" (which can be accounted for by other causes, such as the betrayal of the Potters and the murder of Cedric). Unless DD left Harry a stock of bottled memories (Once more into the Pensieve, good friends!), including some of Snape's, I think we'll have to rely on Lupin, who was present, even though he doesn't remember it, at least for the moment when Severus saw him in werewolf form and James pulled him out of the way--or did whatever he did. Seeing even that much of the incident would reveal how much danger Severus was in (not necessarily whether he would have died or been turned into a werewolf, but whether he was in what could safely be considered "mortal peril"), whether he was really helpless and in need of saving despite his extensive knowledge of hexes and curses, and exactly what James did to save him. (He can't have transformed into a stag without Severus knowing it--unless he Obliviated him afterwards. Or did he Stun him from behind, step in front of him, and transform while Severus was out cold? Of course, he would have transformed back into a boy when he reached the part of the tunnel that was too narrow for a stag to enter, and would have been in human form when he dragged Severus out and restored him to consciousness, if that's what happened.) The part that occurred within Lupin's sight and hearing would show up in Lupin's memory even though he was unaware of it at the time. It's even possible that parts which occurred out of his hearing would show up, just as MWPP's unheard conversations showed up in Snape's memory. The range of the memory, by which I mean the distance away from the person it happened to that can be explored objectively, is unclear, but at least Harry would be able to walk around and discover exactly what happened in the tunnel and/or the Shrieking Shack (if Severus and James got that far). What the Pensieve probably wouldn't show is what Sirius said to Severus to tempt him into the tunnel, or any conversation between Sirius and James before or after the incident while they were outside the tunnel and Remus was inside. But if Lupin was present when Dumbledore talked with them later, we might hear more of the story from another of his memories, even though it would only be there words and not "what happened" (to quote Mrs. Figg). Carol, imagining an unconscious Severus being carried to the narrow end of the tunnel on the horns of a dilemma--I mean, the antlers of a stag--and wondering if Snape still has nightmares about it as of OoP From richter at ridgenet.net Thu Jun 22 00:37:55 2006 From: richter at ridgenet.net (Peggy Richter) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 00:37:55 -0000 Subject: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: <52e.613a44.31caa836@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154154 Nikkalmati: So to put this into a plot line:Snape wants to kill both DD and LV and take over the world. He believes the prophecy completely so that only Harry can kill LV. After LV mysteriously disappears, he does nothing to advance his cause for 10 years. PAR: why not? DD is "presently" more powerful and better situated than Snape is. On the other hand, he's 150 or so years old and Snape is in his 30s. He can outwait DD and in the interium, he has Hogwarts as a safe place to research potions, influence (for good or ill) students, manage the Slytherin students. And Crouch was "in charge" of the Ministry initially -- best to wait until an obvious opportunity arises. Which happens when Harry comes to school. Nikkalmati: When Harry appears at Hogwarts, he protects him so he can grow up to kill LV, whenever LV returns. PAR: becasue by now, since he's in the confidence of DD, Snape knows LV isn't dead. So he's going to wait until he sees if he can make a tool out of Harry -- one that will possibly remove both DD AND LV for him. And in fact, that is pretty much what happens. by the end of HBP, Harry is dedicated to going after LV AND DD is dead -- at least in part because he was helping Harry with the horcruxes. If DD had not been helping Harry, would he have even been on the tower? And if so, without Harry to protect, but only Draco, could he not have dealt with the DEs -- especially since DD would NOT have drunk any potion (since that only happens becasue he's helping Harry). So yes, at the end of HBP, evil Snape is situated pretty well. DD is dead, LV trusts him BUT Harry is coming after LV. And the fact that Harry is coming after Snape? so what? Snape doesn't feel Harry is any real threat to SNAPE -- he considers Harry mediocre to the last degree. Even if the prophesy is false, Harry is a distraction to LV. All the better for evil Snape. Nikkalmati: When LV returns, he goes back as a faithful follower, PAR: PRETENDING to be a faithful follower. Snape has no problem taking his life in his hands. He's been doing that all along no matter WHAT Snape is (DD!man or ESE!Snape both require Snape to risk his life throughout the entire series. if OFH!Snape does so, it is hardly OOC). Nikkalmati: He cures DD of the ring curse for some unknown reason, PAR: Did he? that hand didn't look too cured to me. Helped DD just "enough" to use DD as a "stalking-horse" would work just as well with that blackend hand. Nikkalmati: and takes an Unbreakable Vow to impress Bella? When fate unexpectedly places him on the Tower with a weakened DD, he kills him, thus fulfilling the UV and advancing his own cause. PAR: the UV didn't require evil Snape to do anything he wasn't already going to do, but it sure gives him a good reason to do it if DD questions Snape's actions. Nikkalmati: In Book 7 Snape must help the Order and Harry as much as possible, so Harry can destroy or vanquish LV through love. PAR: No. In Book 7 Snape must help Harry "just enough" for Harry to try to kill LV. Either Harry will succeed, in which case Evil Snape can kill "mediocre to the last degree" Harry OR Harry fails but STILL is a distraction for LV and the prophesy has been fulfilled, leaving the door open for Snape to make his move against LV. PAR. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 22 02:15:52 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 02:15:52 -0000 Subject: Prank question (Was: RAB case is broken)/Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154155 > Renee: > If I remember correctly, JKR has said we *will* learn more about the > prank, which I take to mean that we don't know everything we need to > know at this point. Alla: Me too :) Renee: I expect the missing information to shed more > light on Snape's role, and on his reason for keeping his mouth shut > about it, which otherwise is rather peculiar. Alla: Well, yes among other things. I mean, Snape being silent about him being wronged? Must have really good reason and Dumbledore must have know it, if you ask me. > Renee: > > That's an interesting question: how will we get to know the truth > about the Prank? As you say, people who knew about it are growing > scarce. Only Snape and Lupin are still there. So is Wormtail, but we > don't even know if he had anything to do with it. > > I'm not sure, however, that it's necessary to bring Regulus into the > picture. I don't expect Snape to offer an alternative to the view he's > already given, but Lupin could. He may not have known beforehand what > was going on that night, but I wouldn't be surprised he was informed > afterwards, so he could be the one to shed light on the whole thing. Alla: Oh, just a possibility (Regulus I mean), believe it or not when I realised it few days ago, I was rather puzzled, since I believed for quite some time that we don't know everything about Prank ( JKR answer turned it into well, strong belief :)), but then I was like, um, Okay who is going to tell the story then? As to Remus, hmmm, I was pretty sure that he does not know complete story ( in that I include James and Peter roles), since he was in his werewolfy self, but you could be totally right that he was informed later and if one look at this narrative where we hear Remus talking about Prank, it does not appear complete to me at all. Those three periods may mean something, no? "Jealous, I think, of James's talent on the Quidditch field...anyway Snape had seen me crossing the grounds with Madam Pomfrey one evening as she led me toward the Whomping Willow to transform" - PoA, p.357. It is beyond strange if you ask me. Snape sees Remus with ADULT going to Shack, so it should be clear to him that no rules are being broken here and he still goes to Shack? Oh, I so wonder what else Remus knows, but I am still not sure if he was fully informed after all. IF Prank caused him to be seriously mad at Sirius, why would Sirius ( and James) for that matter would be filling him in on the details of what occurred? Unless no serious estrangement happened at all? > So could Wormtail, if he *was* involved, though right now I can't see > him having a quiet little chat with Harry about such past events. > Lupin remains the best bet. Alla: Heeee, quite chat surely not, forced confessions of his involvement under stress or late remorse or something like that maybe? What do you think about Harry diving into somebody else's pensieve to see full Prank story? Renee: > I'd love it if Regulus would turn out to be alive, and the words > `these days' in JKR's answer are an interesting addition, given the > existence of a potion called the Draught of Living Death. But I doubt > he'll be the one to speak the final word on the Prank. Alla: Yes, would like him to be alive and you are probably right, but IMO that would be nice. > PAR: No. In Book 7 Snape must help Harry "just enough" for Harry to > try to kill LV. Either Harry will succeed, in which case Evil Snape > can kill "mediocre to the last degree" Harry OR Harry fails but > STILL is a distraction for LV and the prophesy has been fulfilled, > leaving the door open for Snape to make his move against LV. Alla: Yes, yes, am saying it, since it is combined with normal post. Loved your whole post PAR :) From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Jun 22 02:24:18 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 02:24:18 -0000 Subject: More PS/SS quotes and musings./Hermione, Snape and others In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154156 > > Carol, who thinks that Snape, as a teacher with ten years' experience > at that point (and an exceedingly good memory rather like Hermione's), > is more likely to have a through knowledge of the rules than any > first-year, even Hermione Potioncat: The name of this chapter is "Quidditch". We learned two chapters ago that McGonagall and Snape have a deep-seated rivalry over Quidditch. Some vague amount of time has passed since Halloween--a couple of weeks? It's clearly not just a day or two based on the chapter's introduction. We learn a great deal in just a few sentences. The Trio has formed a friendship. Hermione is helping the boys with homework. Hermione can conjure fire--and does so, even though it may be against the rules. Snape has an injury. Snape can be outside in the daytime. (Hey, that was big news once upon a time!) So JKR set us up, over a known rivalry, for Snape to come and confiscate the book. Perhaps he took it to keep Potter from learning too much about the game. Maybe he was checking out their guilt, but needed a cover, so took the book. Book cover--get it? But JKR put him there to get our suspicions up. In just a few more sentences, Harry will discover that Snape tried to get past the three- headed dog. Have we ever learned "why" Snape was doing that? Harry has a good idea: Snape is evil. Next we'll see Hermione use the fire to distract Snape and save Harry. It all plays together very well and tells us much more than we realized at the first read. Is the "no library books outside of the school" rule genuine? I'd bet so. Pince has come to be more and more like Filch and we know how fond of rules Filch is. Besides, it just sounds funny that students are "made" to go outside in bad weather, but books are not allowed out at all. (I'm taking it that the Trio is not outside by choice.) The real question shouldn't be "Was the rule genuine" but rather "Why did the Trio think Hermione's fire was against the rule?" Just what kind of magic was it? From estesrandy at yahoo.com Thu Jun 22 02:29:11 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 02:29:11 -0000 Subject: New Topic: Reading HP books to chilldren In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154157 > SNIP SNIP > > Thebookandtherose: > > It's refreshing to find someone who actually acknowledges that the > Harry Potter books have a positive effect on children. > > They are too many people who claim the books are 'too scary' or have > become 'too adult'. Although I appreciate people want to protect > their children I personally don't have much patience for them. > I grew up reading Harry Potter. Only once in that time have I been > so scared I put the book down. SNIP SNIP SNIP RANDY replies. I agree with your assessment. All three of my sons enjoy the movies and the books. They are not scared, but they ask intelligient questions about the stories. My youngest is seven, my middle son is almost 10 and my oldest is almost 13. They each take something different from the stories. > Harry's social status in books 2-5 also made me feel a lot better at > being a bit of an outcast. I aspire to Lilly, take Hermione's SPEW > side as a dire warning, and strive to avoid becoming a young Peter > Pettigrew. > > I think people will find what they're looking for in books. It was SNIP SNIP SNIP Randy replies... I agree again with your assessment. I think that is why some people are inspired by the books. Some people see links to their religious heritage. Others see characters that they can identify with. I am learning new things by looking for clues by searching the internet and reading posts. If there was not much depth to these books, most of us would have stopped posting long ago. I have never done this for any other books that I have read. JKR has done a great job in my opinion even if I end up not liking the ending of the series. The ride is much more fun than getting off the train at the final destination! > > After answering the question I'd like to add one of my own. How many > people here either checked the post for a Hogwarts letter on their > 11th birthday or caught their children/siblings etc doing the same? > > BookishRose.....who answers 'No Comment' to her own question. > BRose, So sorry to hear that you did not receive the letter. My son, Brian will start his third year at Hogwarts next fall. Steven is looking forward to getting a letter next year! ;0) Honestly, when my wife and I tease our kids about such fancy, they always yell "It's not real! It's just a story!" and they laugh. But what do they know! They're just kids. Of course, it is real.;0) Now if you want to get into fantasy, try watching a presidential newconference or a political debate. Randy From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Jun 22 02:58:28 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 02:58:28 -0000 Subject: New Topic: Reading HP books to chilldren In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154158 > Randy replies... > > I agree again with your assessment. I think that is why some people > are inspired by the books. Some people see links to their religious > heritage. Others see characters that they can identify with. I am > learning new things by looking for clues by searching the internet > and reading posts. snip snap Potioncat: I've read all the books to my 11 year old. His short attention span was a problem with the earlier books, and I did skip over some things- --not because they were too adult or too frightening---but because they were too long for him. (I did a lot of summaries) But I read all of HBP. I expected him to be upset that DD was killed---particularly upset that Snape did the killing. He was dumbfounded, but not upset. I think in a way, he actually enjoyed the big twist in the plot. Now he's reading them on his own. He just finished CoS. It's fun watching him picking up new things from the books now. When he was a bit younger we used the Boggart story to help him overcome night-time fears. We'd find ways to make the monsters under the bed funny. It worked. My oldest likes the movies and likes asking me about the books, but wouldn't be caught dead reading one. Of course, he wouldn't be caught dead reading any book. Ditto my daughter who doesn't care for HP at all. But, at 16, and a big fan of horror movies, she still says the scariest scene in any movie is in SS/PS when Snape comes upon the Trio and says, "Good afternoon." From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Jun 22 03:56:30 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 03:56:30 -0000 Subject: Phoenix fire? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154159 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > I am not sure that selfishness > is a Slytherin trait at all. (snip) > I was fascinated to read that Rowling associated the > four Hogwarts Houses with the four elements because I > had been thinking along those lines myself. Then we > had the assertion by the Sorting Hat that the four > houses must unify to defeat Voldemort and Rowling's > words about the "idea of harmony and balance, that > you had four necessary components and by integrating > them you would make a very strong place". > Tonks: When I think of Slytherin I think of shrewdness, cleverness, cunning. (DD had some of that. And so does Harry. Remember he reconized "a master at work" when he was watching Tom in the pensive.) So yes, Slytherin's are out for themselves, but I thing the key to Slytherin house is more along the line of being "wise as serpents". I am intrigued by the idea of the four elements. Until you mentioned the houses working together in connection with the elements I have not thought of this idea. Is it possible that there is some alchemical significance to mixing water, earth, air and fire? I am not an alchemist, maybe the alchemist among us can help with this one. What would you get if you mixed these four elements together? And what would you get if you mixed water, earth, air, fire, and a Lion, Eagle, Badger, and Snake?? Or the colors of these. Do the colors correspond to anything in chemistry or alchemy? What would a Lion, an Eagle, a Badger, and a Snape be able to DO if they were an army working together?? How would that look? Just some ideas to ponder. Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Jun 22 04:05:40 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 04:05:40 -0000 Subject: Phoenix fire? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154160 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > > What would a Lion, an Eagle, a Badger, and a Snape be able to DO if > they were an army working together?? How would that look? > > Tonks: Opps. Talk about a Freudian slip! I meant Snake. Not Snape. Maybe we should just free associate and see what we get. ;-) Tonks_op From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Thu Jun 22 05:16:20 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 05:16:20 -0000 Subject: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: <52e.613a44.31caa836@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154161 puduhepa98 at ... wrote: > Snape wants to kill both DD and LV > and take over the world. He believes > the prophecy completely so that only > Harry can kill LV Yes, that's what I think. > he does nothing to advance his cause > for 10 years. As Snape admitted he spied out Dumbledore's weaknesses during those years. > When Harry appears at Hogwarts, > he protects him so he can grow up to > kill LV, whenever LV returns. Exactly. > When LV returns, he goes back as a > faithful follower, taking his life > in his hands, so he can convince both > LV and DD he is on their side. Yes it was risky but if you want to advance you must take risks, and although Snape has many faults cowardice is not one of them. > He cures DD of the ring curse for > some unknown reason I admit that is the weakest part of my theory, but as we have no details of that incident I don't believe it is a fatal flaw. > and takes an Unbreakable Vow to impress Bella Why not? It cost Snape nothing to make that vow, he was only vowing to do something he had every intention of doing anyway; in fact I wouldn't be surprised if he was only repeating a vow he had already made to Voldemort. > I don't think DD would allow a > UV to protect Harry - Dark Magic you know. > He is too good to accept a UV I don't think Dumbledore ordered Snape to do it, he freely vowed to protect the life of Harry Potter. > In Book 7 Snape must help the Order > and Harry as much as possible Why? I think it would be far more thrilling if Harry didn't have the help of a very powerful wizard like Snape when Harry confronts Voldemort for the last time, that is after all why JKR decided Dumbledore must die in book 6. > so Harry can destroy or vanquish LV through love God I hope not! If this were fact not fiction I would think the idea was great, but in a novel vanquishing Voldemort through love sounds so sweet I want to throw up. I want Harry to shoot Voldemort in the gut and then watch him slowly die. Now that's entertainment! > Once Harry kills LV, Snape and Harry > will face off. [ ] and Harry will come > face to face, mano a mano, and Harry will win. And so Harry and Snape were in a Mexican standoff with their wands pointed at each other. Then Harry walked forward until he was just inches from Snape's face and with an air of quiet confidence said: "I know what you're thinking - did he drink Felix Felicis 25 hours ago or only 24? Well, to tell you the truth, in all the excitement I've kind of lost track myself, but as it's the Magnum curse I'm aiming to perform, the most powerful in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question - do I feel lucky ? Well, do you punk?" > Is this about it? Yea, that's about it. Eggplant From leslie41 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 22 06:21:20 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 06:21:20 -0000 Subject: Prank question/Dumbledore and Evil (?) Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154162 > Alla: > Well, yes among other things. I mean, Snape being silent about him > being wronged? Must have really good reason and Dumbledore must > have know it, if you ask me. Leslie41: I've heard this theory before--and certainly it's tempting to think something like this especially since as Rowling has indicated, we don't know everything we need to about the prank. But it doesn't ring true for me, mostly because this would put Dumbledore in the position of essentially "blackmailing" Snape to stay quiet. In other words, "I know this about you, Snape, so shut up about Black or you'll both be in trouble." This doesn't seem to fit with my perception of Dumbledore, really. To me he seems averse to punishing people in general, averse to using his position to *force* them to take responsibility for what they do. It seems to me that he only leans on people when an enormous amount is at stake--the fate of the Wizarding World, for example. There's that conversation that Hagrid overheard him having with Snape, of course. But he also presses down rather hard on Harry to get information from Slughorn. Under more normal circumstances, Dumbledore seems to me to be a "no harm, no foul" kind of headmaster. So, since Snape was not actually hurt, and one of the Marauders took responsibility for fixing the "prank," it's much easier for him to brush everything under the table. Thus I don't think he "has" something on Snape re the prank. I think most likely he took the teenaged Snape into his office, sat him down, and said "Yes, Sirius Black tried to trick you, but you're not hurt, are you, and you *were* nosing about at the whomping willow, weren't you?" Snape was a boy. Boys don't need an authority figure to hold something over their heads to make them obey. Snape did what the headmaster wanted simply because he was the headmaster. It is very rare for a student, especially a student who hasn't yet reached majority, to call a teacher, a headmaster, to account for anything. The teenaged Snape would have backed off, and kept Lupin's secret, simply because Dumbledore asked him to. I would guess as well that Snape felt incredibly indebted to Dumbledore, even at a very young age. HBP made this even clearer to me, with the eradication of the rather romantic, unrealistic idea that somehow Snape is from a very wealthy background (how happy I was to see Snape in a hovel). It seems to me likely that Dumbledore worked as hard to get Snape to Hogwarts as he did to bring Lupin there. Snape knew that. What do you suppose the situation was like in his household when the owl from Dumbledore arrived inviting him to attend Hogwarts? Snape was undoubtedly poor, with a very unpleasant and perhaps abusive Muggle father, who might not have liked the idea of his son going to an exclusive, perhaps costly Wizard prepatory school. I imagine Tobias Snape as resistant as Dursley in that regard. And I imagine as well that Dumbledore did everything in his power to bring that dark, unpleasant little boy to Hogwarts nonetheless. Snape owed Dumbledore a lot, I would think. And I think as well that his resentment of Dumbledore--and his love--began quite young, as it does with many men for the father figures in their lives. For all purposes Dumbledore *was* his father. And Sirius and James and Remus the brothers whom he felt got preferential treatment. From wootshanks at yahoo.com Wed Jun 21 22:13:28 2006 From: wootshanks at yahoo.com (Paul W) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 15:13:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: why Ron and Hermione resemble a married couple / Luna In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060621221328.13899.qmail@web35205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154163 >Corey_over had written: Another topic Luna's honesty. Do you think it is good or should she tone it down a bit? For the most part it is good but it can be a tad hard to deal with. But guess that what happens when people make fun of her a lot. Hope Luna will play a bigger role in book 7. I'm starting to kind of like her. Wootshanks now: I think a fair question would be, "Is anything Luna says accurate?" It is mentioned that Harry felt a little uneasy at her open honesty. But I'm talking about things that she and Hermione disagreed about....like the existance of, what was it, Crumplehorned Snorkacks or whatever. Didn't she say at that Scrimgeour was a vampire? Was that ever confirmed? I do remember having a discussion about it in another group. It was said that he went out side during the day, like when he went to the Burrow to talk to Harry. But it could be speculated that it was cloudy at the time. Anyway...just some random thoughts! >(o.o)< . Prof Wootshanks >(o.o)< Head o Ravenclaw Quidditch Mastah Holder of the Coveted WOMBAT Card --------------------------------- Ring'em or ping'em. Make PC-to-phone calls as low as 1?/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puduhepa98 at aol.com Thu Jun 22 12:42:31 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 08:42:31 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Evil Snape Message-ID: <51b.1145f02.31cbea37@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154164 >Eggplant >"I know what you're thinking - did he drink Felix Felicis 25 hours ago or only 24? Well, to tell you the truth, in all the excitement I've kind of lost track myself, but as it's the Magnum curse I'm aiming to perform, the most powerful in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question - do I feel lucky ? Well, do you punk?" Nikkalmati Ok, just wanted some detail on how people saw Book 7 coming down. I don't buy this scenario myself, but it is possible. :>) In my view, Snape is loyal to the Light. I don't think there is any major plot line after LV is taken down by Harry - that is the climax and I think somewhere in Book 7 Harry's view of Snape will be shown to be completely wrong. That transformation of Harry's thinking will help him defeat LV by purging him of all the negative thoughts and actions we have seen from him. Possibly, Snape will die for the cause and Harry will feel guilty? Possibly, we will see a parallel with the Prank. If James was so appalled at the near death of Severus that he gave up his juvenile ways, Harry could be shocked out of his own hostility and arrogance by something Snape does. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From quigonginger at yahoo.com Thu Jun 22 12:45:38 2006 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 12:45:38 -0000 Subject: Sirius' motivation for breaking with his family In-Reply-To: <20060620204023.83379.qmail@web34107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154165 > Winkadup: > I totally missed the nice elf that was beheaded? What reasons would they behead the house elf? I remember seeing a row of house elves on a the wall, just forgot what the crime was. > Ginger: It was Aunt Elladora who started the tradition. She beheaded house elves when they were too old to carry the tea tray. I do hope Kreacher gets his final wish to join his forebearers. And the sooner, the better. Perhaps he will do something degrading and Harry will tell him that he ought to be hanging his head in shame, and Kreacher will take him literally. He's been known to do that. Ginger, getting her mean streak out of the way for the day. From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jun 22 12:47:15 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 12:47:15 -0000 Subject: Prank question/Dumbledore and Evil (?) Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154166 > > Alla: > > Well, yes among other things. I mean, Snape being silent about him > > being wronged? Must have really good reason and Dumbledore must > > have know it, if you ask me. > > Leslie41: > > I've heard this theory before--and certainly it's tempting to think > something like this especially since as Rowling has indicated, we > don't know everything we need to about the prank. > > But it doesn't ring true for me, mostly because this would put > Dumbledore in the position of essentially "blackmailing" Snape to > stay quiet. In other words, "I know this about you, Snape, so shut > up about Black or you'll both be in trouble." Pippin: The willow was off limits, so Snape would have been in trouble for approaching it regardless of the time of day, though it was probably after hours as well. Unless he had an innocent reason, Snape could have been facing suspension or expulsion himself just for being where he was. Further, what proof would there be that anyone had meant Snape to come to serious harm? The tunnel is quite safe when transformed Lupin is not in it. It would have looked like the usual mischief -- trying to get someone from a rival house to lose points for being out of bounds. Unless it was suspected that Sirius (or someone else) *arranged* for Snape to enter at the proper time, it would have seemed like a joke that went wrong, though of course Sirius would be very lucky indeed that Snape got rescued and luckier still that his friend Lupin's secret was not publicly revealed. Dumbledore would probably think that they had all learned their lesson and didn't need to be punished further. Snape would have had to hold his peace or face punishment himself, and unlike his wealthy antagonists, James and Sirius, he couldn't have afforded to go to another wizarding school. He doesn't seem to have been having a happy time at Hogwarts -- surely he'd have gone elsewhere if he could. *After* Hogwarts, though, Snape could have outed Lupin -- but why antagonize Dumbledore when a quiet word to someone as powerful and influential as Lucius would do the same thing? No need to make a fuss--but after that, Lupin would be told that any positions he applied for had just been filled, so sorry. Fitting punishment, if, having kept Lupin from employment, Snape was forced to take up a job he hated. (Not so nice for Snape's students, but then Rowling's poetic justice is dystopian. Who'd really want to live in a world where the creator makes people do evil so she can torture them for fun? Not me!) Now, if this was indeed all there was to the prank, then there'd be no need to make such a mystery of it. But if it was *Lupin* who wanted Snape out of the way, then everyone important is still alive, there really was an attempted murder, and a juicy mystery awaits the skills of detective Harry. As I've said many times, Lupin is the one Marauder with a good enough motive to want Snape dead. Once you realize that James and Sirius weren't going to want to stop running with the werewolf just because Snape had spied out Lupin's hiding place, you can see how precarious Lupin's position had become. The added risk would only have made it more fun for Sirius and James. But Lupin knew what would happen to his animagi friends if they were caught with him. He had to act. Pippin From patriciah711 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 21 19:00:53 2006 From: patriciah711 at yahoo.com (Patricia Hurley) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 12:00:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Life Debt In-Reply-To: <1789c2360606211001g415f828dq3bb68ff2f0e45517@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060621190053.15471.qmail@web52809.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154167 Nikkalmati: > This possibility also raises some issues with James and Severus. We know > Severus spoke to James and warned him against using Sirius as a Secret-Keeper > (advice James seems to have taken!). Peggy W: I don't remember this at all. IIRC in POA Snape calls James "arrogant" regarding his "trust in Black" but I don't think it's stated anywhere that they ever had any direct conversation about the Secret Keeper issue. Or was this stated somewhere besides in the Shrieking Shack confrontation? If Snape is known to have had any contact with James after their school days together, I have completely forgotten reading about it. Patricia: I don't recall ever seeing anything about Severus being the one to change James' mind about his secretkeeper. This would of course drastically change everything, because it would mean that Snape coerced James into switching his secretkeeper from loyal Sirius to Pettigrew whom Snape must have known was a traitor because Snape was himself playing on both sides (on orders or not). If you could let us know where you thought you saw this info, please do. From puduhepa98 at aol.com Thu Jun 22 14:16:49 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 10:16:49 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: More PS/SS quotes and musings./Hermione, Snape and ot... Message-ID: <32f.609dbd5.31cc0051@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154168 >Alla >I put it on the same level when Snape torments Harry when he comes looking for Dumbledore - nothing wrong Harry did and Snape still runs his mouth at the boy, who is upset enough as it is. Nikkalmati: "Handsome is as handsome does" applies to Snape in all his dealings with Harry. You can't be deceived by the nasty comments of SS or the POV of Harry; JKR is pulling the wool over our eyes. If you look at this scene in GOF, where Harry is desperately trying to get to DD to tell him Crouch is out by the Forbidden Forest asking for DD, Snape is helping Harry. The purpose of holding him up is to be sure he sees DD as soon as possible (without actually seeming to help).:>) Harry can't get into the stairwell because he does not have the password. He is dashing for the stairs to go down to the Staff Room when Snape comes out of the stair and calls him back. He knows DD is coming down right behind him so he hold Harry there (probably on DD's orders), until DD steps out of the stairs and can go with Harry. "Perhaps Dumbledore was in the staffroom? He started running as fast as he could toward the staircase-- "POTTER" Harry skidded to a halt and looked around. Snape had just emerged from the hidden staircase behind the stone gargoyle. The wall was sliding shut behind him even as he beckoned Harry back toward him. "What are you doing here, Potter?" . . . . . The stone wall behind Snape slid open. Dumbledore was standing there, . . "Is there a problem?" GOF paperback 557-58. Nikkalmati (who pats Snape on the back, but doesn't hug him) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puduhepa98 at aol.com Thu Jun 22 14:22:40 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 10:22:40 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Life Debt Message-ID: <14.55e910e5.31cc01b0@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154169 Nikkalmati Ok I have looked, without success, but I want to ask for help here. I think it is in the same place where we learn that James turned DD down as Secret Keeper. It is not in POA so that only leaves 3 books to find it. Does anyone out there recall this? Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 22 14:25:20 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 14:25:20 -0000 Subject: Snape trying to warn James' redux WAS: Re: Life Debt In-Reply-To: <20060621190053.15471.qmail@web52809.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154170 > Nikkalmati: > > This possibility also raises some issues with James and Severus. We know > > Severus spoke to James and warned him against using Sirius as a Secret-Keeper > > (advice James seems to have taken!). > Peggy W: > I don't remember this at all. IIRC in POA Snape calls James > "arrogant" regarding his "trust in Black" but I don't think it's > stated anywhere that they ever had any direct conversation about the > Secret Keeper issue. Or was this stated somewhere besides in the > Shrieking Shack confrontation? If Snape is known to have had any > contact with James after their school days together, I have completely > forgotten reading about it. > Alla: I don't remember anything else on this issue either, so would love to know that. As far as I remember in the past it was deduced based on that quote that Snape tried to warn James, but that is a BIG deduction IMO. It can mean any number of things, including IMO that somebody ELSE told Snape that people were telling James not to trust Sirius, but he refused. > Patricia: > I don't recall ever seeing anything about Severus being the one to change James' mind about his secretkeeper. This would of course drastically change everything, because it would mean that Snape coerced James into switching his secretkeeper from loyal Sirius to Pettigrew whom Snape must have known was a traitor because Snape was himself playing on both sides (on orders or not). If you could let us know where you thought you saw this info, please do. > Alla: Heee! That is a good point. I mean we can interpret ambiguities in Snape favor or NOT. :) And that would mean to me that dear Severus even more complicit in James death then after he reported the prophecy. Even if he did not know that Pettigrew is a dirty traitor and was just trying to make James doubt Sirius' loyalty. JMO, Alla From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jun 22 14:32:17 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 14:32:17 -0000 Subject: Cold Fish Dumbledore Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154171 I've been thinking further on the notion that Dumbledore may have started out with a pathology similar to Tom Riddle's. It explains some things I've been wondering about -- why did Dumbledore think that Voldemort would simply assume that there was no special relationship between him and Harry? and why did Voldemort decide to go after Dumbledore at the end of OOP when he'd been afraid to attack him for so many years? If Voldemort saw in Dumbledore the one person who was like himself, and *that* is why Voldemort feared him, then it makes sense that Voldemort would lose that fear when he discovered that Dumbledore had become "one of those fools who love" after all. Some additional canon, besides all the detached behavior towards Sirius and Hagrid, and DD's determination to pretend to be detached from Harry: Surely Dumbledore knows that McGonagall felt close to James, so isn't it odd that in PS/SS he would ask her why she hadn't been out celebrating? But it is what you might expect from someone who doesn't grieve normally, and has to work out what a normal person would feel. Pippin From mkk69 at hotmail.com Wed Jun 21 21:58:57 2006 From: mkk69 at hotmail.com (woollybear_99) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 21:58:57 -0000 Subject: New Topic: Reading HP books to chilldren Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154172 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Pamela Rosen wrote: > > Here's something that has been on my mind lately. I wonder how >many of you >are (or have) read HP to children? I wish that HP books had come out when I was a kid. I was the poor, misfit kid who was the target for the school bullies. I think I would have been better able to deal with people like that had I read the HP books. My daughter is 9 months old, but I can't wait till she is old enough so that I can read them to her. I think the HP books deal with real life issues that face children today.(or even some adults) Dealing with bullies, feeling like you don't fit in, dealing with teachers who hate you for reasons only they know, and how very important it is to be a true friend. It has been my experience that the people who want to burn HP books are people who have never read them. woolybear From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Thu Jun 22 15:27:45 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 15:27:45 -0000 Subject: Sirius' motivation for breaking with his family In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154173 > Gerry wrote: > Quite probably he liked his Uncle Ted and his aunt > Andromeda as well, despite his mother telling him how inferior they > were. These things give children an incentive to start thinking for > themselves > > Carol responds: > Sirius's favorite cousin was Andromeda, as he tells Harry in "The Most > Noble and Ancient House of Black" in OoP. Andromeda, the sister of > Bellatrix Lestrange and Narcissa Malfoy, is Sirius Black's first > cousin, not his aunt. Nymphadora Tonks is Sirius's first cousin once > removed (if it matters)--one generation apart from him on the > genealogical charts. She is also considerably younger > > At any rate, he does seem to have liked his cousin Andromeda, but I > don't think we can theorize about his relationship with his Muggleborn > cousin-in-law Ted Tonks as there's no evidence one way or the other. > All we know about him is that he's "a right old slob," according to > his daughter. But he would have seen little > of Tonks as a child, considering that she was about fourteen years > younger than he was AUSSIE: Would another little bit of Lexicon sleuthing help. Alphard was close enough to Sirius to give gold to him after he left the family. Did that mean he approved and may have even encouraged the change? Alphard was the younger brother of Walburga (1925 - 1985), Sirius's Mother. Walburga was in the same uear at hogwarts as McGonagall, and 2 years ahead of a promising young wizard, Tom Riddle. We are not told Alphard's year of birth, but we are told there is another younger sibling, Cygnus (1938 - 1992), dad of Bellatrix(DE), Andromeda (Tonk's mama) and Narcissa (Draco's mummy). So Cygnus missed Riddle by 1 year. Therefore, Alphard being the middle child was around Tom's, Myrtle's or maybe Hagrid's year. How does this add to theories? - Would have seen Riddle's gang in action in the Slytherin Common room and their treatment of younger kids. - Financially supported Sirius when he made a move away from Riddle/LV 's activities. - No word of family for him ... but, SHIRLEY TEMPLE married a man called BLACK and she was born 1928. - CoIncidence? Dang, but I hope so. LOL From enlil65 at gmail.com Thu Jun 22 15:42:09 2006 From: enlil65 at gmail.com (Peggy Wilkins) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 10:42:09 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Cold Fish Dumbledore In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1789c2360606220842w8b5b207n47703ecfcd52891d@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154174 On 6/22/06, pippin_999 wrote: Pippin: > If Voldemort saw in Dumbledore the one person who was like himself, > and *that* is why Voldemort feared him, then it makes sense that > Voldemort would lose that fear when he discovered that Dumbledore > had become "one of those fools who love" after all. Peggy W: But Voldemort had plenty of reason to fear Dumbledore anyway, due to what we might call Dumbledore's "prodigious wizardly powers" and, more importantly, the fact that Dumbledore was "onto" him and clearly not susceptible to Tom's charismatic charms. Dumbledore established this at their first meeting, and it never changed. I think the reason Tom feared Dumbledore was because he had no means of controlling or subduing him. That is quite sufficient for Voldemort, I think. In my interpretation, Dumbledore is isolated because he has so few people capable of being his equal. That doesn't mean he is unfeeling, it simply makes him less likely to... how to put this... swing along with the crowd. -- Peggy Wilkins enlil65 at gmail.com From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Thu Jun 22 15:55:13 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 15:55:13 -0000 Subject: How did MWPP make the Maunderer's Map? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154175 The Map has blind spots where it can't see anyone. So how come some areas show up and not others? The three areas not shown on the map I know of are:- - Hagrid's Hut (or Lupin would have seen Pettigrew there - POA) - Room of Requirements (where Draco disappeared off the map - HBP) - The Chamber of Secrets has never been mentioned again. Do the makers of the map have to have been in those areas of Hogwarts to be able to include them on the map? - If so, Hagrid didn't trust them enough to allow them into his hut. - They never discovered the secrets of the Room of Requirements. - They couldn't open the Chamber - just as well for all of Hogwarts. - BUT ... it also means they got into the Slytherin Common Rooom to plot that on the map because Harry sees Draco on the map when he is back in the Common room(HBP). Agree? / Disagree? / what would MWPP be doing there? Was it Pettigrew (as a Rat) that crept around plotting some areas? Would his map making skill come back into book 7? What do u think? From seonaidh_m at hotmail.com Thu Jun 22 15:38:41 2006 From: seonaidh_m at hotmail.com (weeseon) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 15:38:41 -0000 Subject: Horcrux musings/ destroying horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154176 AmanitaMuscaria: > And a bit more off-the-wall; Harry, Ron, Hermione, Neville, Luna, > Ginny ... and a.n.other(Snape?) - the core of DAs plus another for > the final showdown? > weeseon: What about Draco for your a.n.other? It strikes me that each of the DAs have different talents: Harry: top OWL was in defence against the dark arts (HBP5) Neville: herbology Luna: divination Ron: strategy? maybe his talents have yet to be revealed Ginny: we don't really know her that well, but she is good at charms (OP6) and she is a seventh child Hermione: everything else? but Arithmancy is Hermione's favorite subject (PA12) and that Draco is very good at Occlumency, perfect for a potential double agent(HBP15) ;) and something we know Harry isn't good at. I really like the idea that together they have the whole range of skills. This is something LV wouldn't consider - sacrifice for others (reminicsent of Lily)- like when he made the locket impossible for one person to get on their own figuring that noone would drink the poison for someone else. seon From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Jun 22 16:19:45 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 16:19:45 -0000 Subject: Cold Fish Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154177 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > I've been thinking further on the notion that Dumbledore may have > started out with a pathology similar to Tom Riddle's. It explains > some things I've been wondering about -- why did Dumbledore > think that Voldemort would simply assume that there was no > special relationship between him and Harry? and why did Voldemort > decide to go after Dumbledore at the end of OOP when he'd been > afraid to attack him for so many years? > > If Voldemort saw in Dumbledore the one person who was like himself, > and *that* is why Voldemort feared him, then it makes sense that > Voldemort would lose that fear when he discovered that Dumbledore > had become "one of those fools who love" after all. > > Some additional canon, besides all the detached behavior towards > Sirius and Hagrid, and DD's determination to pretend to be detached > from Harry: > Tonks: Just because you can know how a psychopath thinks doesn't mean that you *are* one yourself. Once a psychopath, always a psychopath. That is the only type of Personality Disorder that can not be fixed. The damage is done very early in infancy. If a person can't bond with other, they can never bond with others. So DD was *never* like LV!! DD just doesn't wear his heart on his sleeve. He is a man. And old school. As to why LV came to fight DD. DD was fighting Bella and she needed help. Now we can ask why he didn't just leave her to die or be arrested??? Tonks_op From wolfxavier1975 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 22 14:38:14 2006 From: wolfxavier1975 at yahoo.com (Wolf Xavier) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 07:38:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Prank question - Lupin wanted Snape DEAD? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060622143814.33743.qmail@web38110.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154178 Pippin: "As I've said many times, Lupin is the one Marauder with a good enough motive to want Snape dead. Once you realize that James and Sirius weren't going to want to stop running with the werewolf just because Snape had spied out Lupin's hiding place, you can see how precarious Lupin's position had become. The added risk would only have made it more fun for Sirius and James. But Lupin knew what would happen to his animagi friends if they were caught with him. He had to act." I MAY be misunderstanding you. If so, please forgive me. Given that Lupin's situation is known (not by the public at large, but in the Ministry records and by the Headmaster at Hogwarts), getting caught would really just mean that public outcry would force Lupin into some sort of home-school or alternative education program (if such exists). AND, it's not like being an unregistered animagus would mean being chucked into Azkaban or even immediate expulsion at thier age (I wouldn't THINK, given the other shenanigans that go on at that school). Likely, registration and a public slaps on the wrists (with some private pats on the back for accomplishing such advanced magic) would be the result. With that in mind, we Muggles could probably equate it to losing a scholarship and catching other students smoking their own personally grown high quality TOBACCO in a secret location. I cannot imagine that someone like Remus Lupin seeing those as reasons to even jokingly entertain the thought of murder. -Wolf From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 22 17:35:25 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 17:35:25 -0000 Subject: Snape trying to warn James redux (WAS: Re: Life Debt) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154179 Patricia wrote: > > I don't recall ever seeing anything about Severus being the one to change James' mind about his secretkeeper. This would of course drastically change everything, because it would mean that Snape coerced James into switching his secretkeeper from loyal Sirius to Pettigrew whom Snape must have known was a traitor because Snape was himself playing on both sides (on orders or not). If you could let us know where you thought you saw this info, please do. Carol responds: Oh, dear. I've seen people interpreting the quotation to mean that young Snape tried to warn James against Sirius, thinking he was the traitor who was informing on Order members (not knowing it was Peter). Now we have the opposite interpretation, based solely on hopes that Snape is evil. At any rate, here are the words in question, which certainly do not state that Snape tried to trick James into switching from loyal Sirius to Rat!Pettigrew. What Snape actually says is: "Like father, like son, Potter! I have just saved your neck; you should be thanking me on bended knee! You would have been well served if he'd killed you! You would have died like your father, too arrogant to believe you might be mistaken in Black1" (PoA Am. ed. 361). The implication does seem to be that Snape (or Dumbledore?) warned James Potter against Sirius Black (perhaps suggesting that he was the traitor who was betraying the Order's secrets to Voldemort), and that James didn't listen, whether out of "arrogance" or distrust of Severus Snape or certainty that Sirius was his friend (or all of the above). But whether he was warned or not, it was James, on his own (or with Lily), who refused Dumbledore's offer to be Secret Keeper and chose Sirius in his place, whether or not Severus (for whatever reason) had tried to warn James against Sirius. And it was Sirius who, by his own confession, persuaded James to switch to Peter. Let's not leap to conclusions just because they happen to fit our wishes regarding where Snape's loyalties lie, whether we think he's ESE! or DDM!. We don't even know whether Snape knew about the Fidelius charm. He may have known only that someone close to the Potters was a traitor and a spy, without knowing that that person had also been the Secret Keeper who betrayed their whereabouts to Voldemort. And if he did know it, he may have learned about it after Black's arrest, not before. After all, Pettigrew was only SK for a week, and it's unclear whether Black was ever the SK at all. And please present your evidence that Snape knew that Pettigrew was the traitor. "Must have known" is an assumption. (Bellatrix seems to have known; Black heard her screaming about it in Azkaban. But that doesn't mean that Snape did.) Carol, who just noticed that Snape does wandless magic in that scene, clicking his fingers to bring the ends of the ropes binding the soon-to-be-transformed Lupin into his hands From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Jun 22 17:39:05 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 17:39:05 -0000 Subject: Phoenix fire? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154180 Tonks: > When I think of Slytherin I think of shrewdness, cleverness, > cunning. (DD had some of that. And so does Harry. Remember he > reconized "a master at work" when he was watching Tom in the > pensive.) So yes, Slytherin's are out for themselves, but I > thing the key to Slytherin house is more along the line of > being "wise as serpents". houyhnhnm: First I want to digress a bit. While belief that there are only four elements (one of which is not even a *state* of matter) or that human physiology is controlled by four corresponding humours, may seem quaint to us today, I think the ancient Greeks really did recognize a valid pattern in nature when they came up with the belief that the manifest universe was made up of fire, air, earth, and water. What they were recognizing was the four states of matter (gas, solid, and liquid) plus energy. And while the idea that the position of the planets determines a person's nature may be an antiquated superstitious notion, the idea of four basic personality types is not. just google "Myers-Briggs". We have a more sophisticated understanding of the workings of the natural world today. But the mythic truth embodied in these ancient beliefs still holds true--that "it takes all kinds". I take Rowling at her word when she says, "Harmony is the word." And I take her at her word when she says, "Gryffindor is fire, Ravenclaw is air, Hufflepuff is earth, and Slytherin is water." The question then for me is, since she has said straight out (black letter cannon) that the four houses correspond to fire, earth, air, and water, and since she has given us respresentations of three of the houses that tally so well with the traditional meanings associated with those elements, why is it that the fourth house doesn't fit? I, too, think of shrewdness, cleverness, cunning, and being out for themselves when I think of Slytherins. That is all we have seen of them so far. But that is not the whole picture if you are talking about the characteristics of water. Where is the sensitivity? Where is the emotional depth that is also supposed to be associated with water? Did Rowling just get tired of the conceit when it came to delineating the qualities of Slytherin House, or did she leave those positive traits out on purpose? Perhaps it is that Slytherin House is the most alienated, the most dis-eased of the four houses because Slytherin was the one who broke away from the other three founders. Perhaps only in uniting with the other three houses will Slytherin again become whole and able to express the positive side of its nature. That's why I have been wondering if part of Fawkes' purpose in the story is to show what Slytherin is capapble of if only it can become healed and whole again. I am hoping that this is what we will see in book 7 (although I think we have seen a little of the positive side of Slytherin--protectiveness and healing--in Snape, already). Tonks: > I am not an alchemist, maybe the alchemist among us can > help with this one. What would you get if you mixed these > four elements together? > And what would you get if you mixed water, earth, air, > fire, and a Lion, Eagle, Badger, and Snake?? Or the colors > of these. Do the colors correspond to anything in chemistry > or alchemy? > What would a Lion, an Eagle, a Badger, and a Snape be able > to DO if they were an army working together?? How would > that look? houyhnhnm: Well, I believe that this is really the opposite direction to the way I was thinking. It is not the symbols that are important, but what they stand for. Not what would happen if you combined fire, earth, air, and water, but what would happen if you combined courage with discetion, intrepidity with sensitivity, idealism with practicality. From distaiyi at yahoo.com Thu Jun 22 17:59:00 2006 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 17:59:00 -0000 Subject: How did MWPP make the Maunderer's Map? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154181 --- "Hagrid" wrote: > > The Map has blind spots where it can't see anyone. So how come some > areas show up and not others? > > The three areas not shown on the map I know of are:- > > - Hagrid's Hut (or Lupin would have seen Pettigrew there - POA) > - Room of Requirements (where Draco disappeared off the map - HBP) > - The Chamber of Secrets has never been mentioned again. Interesting question and not interesting at the same time. With respect to Hagrid's hut, I suspect that it wasn't there. Hagrid wasn't game master then... maybe it was there and the previous game master kept the hut. In either case it is probably on the map BUT Lupin didn't bother to look for Peter there because a) Peter was dead and b) there is no way Hagrid would hide Peter. The room of requirements seems to be non-normal space... or at the very least non-plotable. In either case obviously not something that would end up on the map. Perhaps it is simply, somewhere else. The CoS... given that NO ONE knew where the chamber was apparently except Harry who found it later, there would be no way for it to get onto the map in the first place... to paraphrase Prof. McG... "The castle has been searched over and over and the chamber has never been found..." > - BUT ... it also means they got into the Slytherin Common Rooom to > plot that on the map because Harry sees Draco on the map when he is > back in the Common room(HBP). They had an invisibility cloak. I suspect they could get into just about any common areas. Wonder if they plotted the girl's bathrooms? Do the girl Prefects have their own bathroom or was that a common bathtub... Saturday nights in the Prefect's bathroom have a whole new meaning for 5th, 6th, and 7th years. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 22 18:15:33 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 18:15:33 -0000 Subject: Snape as Scorpio (Was: Phoenix fire?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154182 houyhnhnm wrote: > Water: > Positive--prudent, compassionate, understanding, artistic, > protective, sensitive, reserved, seeking to help others. > Negative--suspicious, self-repressed, hysterical, > self-indulgent, seeking to gain control over others, > exaggerating feelings all out of proportion. > ***** > > You see the problem. The first three sets of descriptors > accord pretty well with what we have seen of Gryffindor, > Ravenclaw, and Hufflepuff. > > The last set makes you go, "Huh?" Compassionate? Protective? > Sensitive? Seeking to help others? Slytherins? That's > what made me think that maybe we are supposed to see something > of the most evolved Slytherin characteristics in Fawkes. > That and the fact that the phoenix is asscociated with the > water sign Scorpio. > Carol responds: It may be relevant that both Tom Riddle (born December 31 or possibly January 1) and Severus Snape (born January 9, according to JKR's website) are Scorpios. (Please note that I don't have any actual interest in astrology and am only following up this idea to see where it leads.) We don't even need to ask where Tom Riddle/Voldemort fits in this picture, but Snape is a perennial enigma, at least till we read Book 7. The ESE!Snape faction will point out that, with the exception of self-indulgence, he fits the negative traits pretty well--not hysteria, perhaps, but certainly self-repression most of the time, exaggerated displays of a particular emotion (anger) on three or four memorable occasions, and a desire to exercise power over his students. But Snape also shows some of the positive traits that you listed. He is prudent--indeed, he has to be to survive as a double agent. We often see him exercising great caution in the words he uses, especially with Harry in the Occlumency lessons and Bella in "Spinner's End." Sirius-style recklessness would have killed Snape long ago. Compassionate? Perhaps not, at first glance, yet surely he showed compassion for Narcissa and for Draco in HBP--and perhaps, off-page, for the critically injured Dumbledore whose life he saved from the ring Horcrux curse. (Surprising Healing skills perhaps fit under compassion as well.) And yet this trait is certainly not always evident, as his biting remarks to his students frequently demonstrate. Understanding likewise--though he may understand more than we give him credit for (he certainly understands Harry's desperate message that Sirius is being tortured by Voldemort, and it's likely that his understanding extends to the feelings as well as the contents of that message). Sensitivity? I suppose it depends how we define the term. Sensivity to others' feelings, perhaps not ordinarily, though he certainly tries to understand Draco's in HBP. But he displays a rather remarkable sensitivity to the beauty of the subjects he teaches. (Harry even claims that he speaks of the Dark Arts with a caress in his voice.) And artistic? I would say that he displays artistry in his words (when he's in poetic mode or being witty), in the very elegant obstacle he sets up in SS/PS (compare a troll or a three-headed dog), in his inventive and imaginative spells and Potions improvements as the HBP. He even refers to potion-making as an art and a science in Book 1. Protective? He's been protecting Harry (and his friends) since SS/PS, perhaps protecting the WW as a whole by working with Dumbledore. He makes the Unbreakable Vow to protect Draco in HBP, and if we believe in DDM!Snape, gets Draco and Harry off the tower and the Death Eaters out of the school in HBP. *Protective*? He's a Horntail protecting her, erm, his eggs. Reserved? A little too reserved, perhaps, at least when he isn't losing his temper. I'd say that he's as aloof and distant as you can get most of the time. Even his anger is usually cold, and his fear is only a slight pallor and glittering eyes. But he's also repressed (a negative Scorpio tendency), and he's a superb Occlumens who may be wary of displaying any show of emotion, so it's hardly surprising that he'd be reserved. Seeking to help others? Well, maybe not *seeking* to help, but he is certainly helping Dumbledore throughout the books, and sometimes taking it upon himself to help or save people (the countercurse in SS/PS, rushing into the Shrieking Shack in PoA, informing the Order in OoP, trying to save Draco in HBP). He's an Order member, he spied for DD "at great personal risk," he tries to get Harry to learn Occlumency and nonverbal spells and to stay away from the Dark Arts. (That his personality flaws get in the way of his desire to help doesn't negate that desire if it indeed exists.) If you want a Slytherin embodying both the best and the worst of the Scorpio/water sign traits, I'd say that Snape (or at least DDM!Snape) is your man. Just remember Healer!Snape crooning a songlike counterspell over the wounded and erring Draco. Compassionate, protective, seeking to help others--even artistic, if he invented that countercurse himself, as he must have done since he invented the spell. Carol, wondering if there's a connection between Healer!Snape and Fawkes, who, like the portraits, will have overheard most of Snape's conversations with Dumbledore From vinkv002 at planet.nl Thu Jun 22 18:21:55 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 18:21:55 -0000 Subject: Prank question (Was: RAB case is broken)/Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154183 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > >> Alla: > It is beyond strange if you ask me. Snape sees Remus with ADULT > going to Shack, so it should be clear to him that no rules are being > broken here and he still goes to Shack? > > Oh, I so wonder what else Remus knows, but I am still not sure if he > was fully informed after all. IF Prank caused him to be seriously > mad at Sirius, why would Sirius ( and James) for that matter would > be filling him in on the details of what occurred? > > Unless no serious estrangement happened at all? Renee: Nothing in Lupin's account in the Shrieking Shack indicates any estrangement between him and Sirius during their school days. Which seems perfectly in character: even if Lupin would have been angry at Sirius, he'd have played it down, because he likes too much to be liked. And nothing in Sirius's reaction indicates that it ever was a touchy subject among the Marauders; it's obvious he isn't sorry at all about the Prank and I doubt he even realises it could have had dire consequences for Lupin. I see no reason why Lupin wouldn't be fully informed, but when the story came up in that particular chapter of PoA, it wasn't the time or the place to go into details - not to mention that it would probably have given away something JKR didn't want to reveal until the 7th book. As for Snape seeing that no rules were broken: why would this have stopped him if he thought he was on to something and wanted to satisfy his curiosity, or if he was goaded into following Lupin? > Alla: > > What do you think about Harry diving into somebody else's pensieve > to see full Prank story? > Renee: Though I'd like to read such a scene, but I'm not sure it's important enough for JKR to spend much page time on. From anita_hillin at yahoo.com Thu Jun 22 18:29:14 2006 From: anita_hillin at yahoo.com (AnitaKH) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 11:29:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape as Scorpio (Was: Phoenix fire?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060622182914.99454.qmail@web55107.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154184 justcarol67 wrote: It may be relevant that both Tom Riddle (born December 31 or possibly January 1) and Severus Snape (born January 9, according to JKR's website) are Scorpios. (Please note that I don't have any actual interest in astrology and am only following up this idea to see where it leads.) snip-o-rama akh quips: There's one small problem: astrologically speaking, they're Capricorns. In fact, the typical Capricorn does fit their personalities rather well. The description Trelawney gives in POA for Harry is much of the Capricorn description: they tend to be dark, the often brood, they have logical, systematic natures and are very detail oriented, but they can be extremely stubborn. They are often happy working behind the scenes as the "brains behind the brawn." They can take the limelight, though. Richard Nixon was a Capricorn, if my memory serves me correctly. I long thought Snape would just have to be a Capricorn; he too perfectly embodies most of the personality traits to be anything else. akh, a Capricorn (January 14) who has fair skin, light hair and was an actress and dancer. Go figure... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 22 18:33:10 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 18:33:10 -0000 Subject: Why did LV save Bellatrix from DD? (Was: Cold Fish Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154185 Tonks wrote: > As to why LV came to fight DD. DD was fighting Bella and she needed > help. Now we can ask why he didn't just leave her to die or be > arrested??? Carol responds: I thought that *Harry* was fighting Bella and LV heard him tell Bella that the Prophecy orb had been destroyed and knew it was true, so he showed up to kill Harry. When DD joined the fight (fortunately, almost immediately), he used the broken fountain to pin Bella down and prevent her from joining in (as well as to shield Harry). It's interesting that LV took her with him when he left. Maybe she was the only loyal follower that he had left, or at least the only one involved in the MoM fiasco who escaped arrest? If he doesn't have her, he's stuck with the likes of Wormtail, Goyle (who seems to have been absent for some reason), Amycus and Alecto, the "brutal-faced" DE (Yaxley), and Fenrir Greyback. And, oh, yes, that enigma Snape, whom he was ready to murder at the end of GoF for leaving him forever. If I were LV, I'd have taken her with me, too. Unstable she may be, and she failed to save the Prophecy, but at least there's no question where her loyalties lie. Carol, who agrees with Tonks that DD is not a cold fish, much less a psychopath or sociopath, but thinks that LV acted out of self-interest here as usual From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Jun 22 18:36:02 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 18:36:02 -0000 Subject: How did MWPP make the Maunderer's Map? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154186 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hagrid" wrote: > > The Map has blind spots where it can't see anyone. So how come some > areas show up and not others? > > The three areas not shown on the map I know of are:- > > - Hagrid's Hut (or Lupin would have seen Pettigrew there - POA) > - Room of Requirements (where Draco disappeared off the map - HBP) > - The Chamber of Secrets has never been mentioned again. > > Do the makers of the map have to have been in those areas of Hogwarts > to be able to include them on the map? houyhnhnm: Oh, I like this. I had assumed the RoR was simply unplottable for magical reasons, but the fact that Lupin could not see inside Hagrid's hut has been nagging at the back of my mind. I hadn't really looked at the missing spaces altogether before. No one knew the location of the Chamber (except for Riddle) so it is not surprising that it was not on the Map. Maybe they did have to actually be in an area to put it on their map. A rat would have been an ideal form in which to sneak around the castle. Why doesn't the Shrieking Shack show up on the Map though? Or anywhere else outside of the Hogwarts grounds. How much of Hogwarts' ancient magic is incorporated into the Map. Did the Marauders really know what they were messing with? I was really convinced by the argument at LiveJournal (referenced by Marion) that the Map is a Dark object. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 22 19:23:11 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 19:23:11 -0000 Subject: Prank question/Dumbledore and Evil (?) Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154187 Betsy Hp: I'm taking this *way* off topic, but I have a couple of questions. > >>Pippin: > > [Snape] doesn't seem to have been having a happy time at Hogwarts - > - surely he'd have gone elsewhere if he could. > Betsy Hp: I've always imagined that young!Snape *adored* Hogwarts. That it was a sort of haven for him where he was able to fully stretch his intelligence and creativity. He found a mentor in Lucius, a friend in Lily, and a ready-made network in the Slugclub. I think, for the most part, Hogwarts was Snape's ideal. Except for the Marauders. Which is why, in logical fashion, Snape set out to get them expelled. Not fully appreciating the power wealth and proper breeding can give someone I think Snape probably thought it would be easy. The Marauders felt they were above the rules, and all Snape had to do was catch them in the act and they'd be gone. Unfortunately for Snape, as we've seen with Harry, the rules aren't *nearly* as hard and fast as he'd first been lead to believe. Some of this is conjecture (with canon as foundation, but still, I leap ), but it's how I see things. > >>Pippin: > > Fitting punishment, if, having kept Lupin from employment, Snape > was forced to take up a job he hated. > Betsy Hp: But does Snape hate teaching? Does he hate being Head of Slytherin? I don't think so. I've had teachers who hated their jobs. They didn't act like Snape. The social ones spent class time chatting about anything and everything not about their subject with their students. The non-social ones droned through a lecture or wrote their lecture on the chalk-board for the class to copy. Snape does none of these things. His lectures engage his students, he assigns homework based on class performance, he spends lab-time actively monitering the students' work, and if someone runs into trouble, Snape takes them in hand. (Neville would have not feared Snape so much if Snape had been content to let him comfortably fail.) I've heard this idea in fandom a *lot*, that Snape hates teaching. I've never seen it in canon, myself. Betsy Hp From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Jun 22 19:24:59 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 19:24:59 -0000 Subject: Snape as Scorpio (Was: Phoenix fire?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154188 Carol responds: > The ESE!Snape faction will point out that, with the > exception of self-indulgence, he fits the negative > traits pretty well. > But Snape also shows some of the positive traits > that you listed. houyhnhnm: I agree that Snape exhibits some of the positive traits of water. In fact, I think he is the *only* Slytherin character we have seen who does. Of course he shows the negative side as well and the negative side frequently dominates him. It is Snape's struggle to overcome the negative and actualize the positive side of his Slytherin nature that makes him such a fascinating character. And the fact that he seems to want to so badly is what makes him a sympathetic character for many. The reason Snape (and others of that House) have not succeeded in evolving into the Good Slytherin yet is that Voldemort is still out there and Hogwarts is still divided against itself. Hogwarts and the WW have to become united and whole before the full potential of Slytherin can come into its own. > Carol, wondering if there's a connection between > Healer!Snape and Fawkes, who, like the portraits, will > have overheard most of Snape's conversations with Dumbledore houyhnhnm: I do also believe that there is some kind of connection between Snape and Fawkes. When I looking for descriptions of the sky outside Dumbledore's office, I was really struck by the fact that the first thing Harry sees when he goes to Dumbledore's office for the last time is the light from the sunset reflected in Fawkes' eyes. "Fawkes the phoenix looked around, his bright black eyes gleaming with reflected gold from the sunset beyond the windows." Fawkes' red and gold plumage has been practically crammed down our throats, but I don't think our attention has ever been drawn to the color of his eyes before (although it is mentioned when he is in the chamber of secrets with Harry-- "a beady black eye") at least not the way we have been beat over the head with Snape's black eyes. I don't know what it means, but I think there is some kind of connection. akh quips: > There's one small problem: astrologically speaking, > they're Capricorns. houyhnhnm: I don't think Rowling was going for cheesy newspaper horoscope sun signs in using astrological symbolism and, obviously, if a person's birthday determined their house placement there would be no need for the Hat. The Gryffindors are mixed with respect to sun sign. Harry, Neville, Fred, George, Ginny, Hagrid, Bill, and Charlie all have fire sign birthdays. Ron, Percy, Hermione, Angelina Johnson, Molly Weasley, and Minerva McGonagall do not. The only other character from another House that I can find on the Lexicon is Professor Flitwick--Libra. Appropriate. But of course, as anyone who has dabbled in the Dark Arts knows, it is the *overall* influence in the horoscope that is important, not just the sun sign. I did horoscopes for Snape for both 1959 and 1960. If born in 1060, he does have a preponderance of water and air (and I bet the Hat thought long and hard about putting him in Ravenclaw, too). If born in 1959, he has Jupiter in Scorpio--very appropriate for a potions master. so, take your pick ;-) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 22 19:38:11 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 19:38:11 -0000 Subject: Snape and Slytherin as the House of Water (Was: Snape as Scorpio) In-Reply-To: <20060622182914.99454.qmail@web55107.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154189 Carol earlier: > > It may be relevant that both Tom Riddle (born December 31 or possibly January 1) and Severus Snape (born January 9, according to JKR's website) are Scorpios. (Please note that I don't have any actual interest in astrology and am only following up this idea to see where it leads.) > > > akh quips: > There's one small problem: astrologically speaking, they're Capricorns. In fact, the typical Capricorn does fit their personalities rather well. The description Trelawney gives in POA for Harry is much of the Capricorn description: they tend to be dark, the often brood, they have logical, systematic natures and are very detail oriented, but they can be extremely stubborn. They are often happy working behind the scenes as the "brains behind the brawn." They can take the limelight, though. Richard Nixon was a Capricorn, if my memory serves me correctly. > I long thought Snape would just have to be a Capricorn; he too perfectly embodies most of the personality traits to be anything else. Carol responds: Oops! Told you I wasn't into astrology. Even so, I always wondered (before JKR gave us Snape's birtday) whether Trelawney's remarks in PoA relating being born under the planet Saturn to small stature (in childhood), suffering early in life, and dark coloring (hair and eyes, anyway) referred to Snape rather than Harry, and the description appears to be applicable if being skinny and looking like a plant that's been kept out of the sun counts as "small stature." (There's no evidence that Teen!Snape is actually short, but he's smaller than the adult Snape, who is shorter than Sirius. Maybe, like Harry, Severus took a while to reach adult stature because he was neglected at home.) Again, I obviously don't know anything about astrology, but Trelawney talks about being born in "midwinter" as equivalent to being born under Saturn, and I did check to be sure that Saturn is the ruling planet of Capricorn (Snape's correct birth sign!) before posting this time. (Interesting that the British would consider December 22 to January 19 to be "midwinter" when technically it's early winter, but I suppose that's what happens when you live so far north. Cf. Christina Rossetti's Christmas carol, "In the Bleak Midwinter." If you live in a warmer climate, you know that midwinter is essentially February.) At any rate, Saturn as ruling planet fits Snape rather than Harry, whose ruling "planet" is Sol (the Sun), FWIW. I'm wondering if there's something to it. But the main point of my post is the part that you snipped, about the relevance of the "positive" water sign traits to Snape. And since Slytherin House is definitively associated with water, the idea still applies, whether Snape himself is a Scorpio or a Capricorn. Any comments on those thoughts, which can be found upthread? Carol, blushing for her error and hoping that it hasn't caused her main point to be disregarded From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Jun 22 19:41:15 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 19:41:15 -0000 Subject: Snape as Scorpio (Was: Phoenix fire?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154190 houyhnhnm: > If born in 1060, he does have a preponderance > of water and air houyhnhnm: Uh, make that 1960. And I was looking at the wrong tally. It's Harry who has a majority planets in water and air (but without knowing time of birth...). If Snape was born in 1960, he would have four planets in fire and only two in water. No way. I'm going with 1959. From seonaidh_m at hotmail.com Thu Jun 22 19:48:20 2006 From: seonaidh_m at hotmail.com (weeseon) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 19:48:20 -0000 Subject: Son of Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154191 Heidi wrote: > No, no. This is not another post about how Snape is really Harry's > father My question is this: Is Lucius really Draco's father? Could > it be that Snape is actually the father of Draco Malfoy? Seon: I've been wondering about this ever since JKR said that Snape did not have a daughter and that he had been loved by someone. If Snape has a son and we've already met him then my money is also on Draco. Heidi wrote: > Narcissa went to Snape directly when Draco's life was threatened. > (HBP, Spinner's End) Seon: but it's not just that Narcissa rushes to Snape that makes me suspicious, but the way she is with him. I don't have HBP to hand, but quote Carol: Carol wrote (#152462) >Clearly Narcissa--proud, rich, beautiful, pureblood Narcissa-- >doesn't consider him repellant in HBP, shedding tears on his chest, >putting her face close to hers, seizing her hand in both of his and >kissing it. Also, Snape and Draco are both skilled Occlumens As Heidi points out, Snape favours Draco in his classes and Draco says Snape is his favourite teacher houyhnhnm: >There's that and there's the rather obvious point I should have >thought of earlier, that it would be very strange for Narcissa to >appeal to Snape as "Draco's favorite teacher" if he's actually her >babydaddy. Seon: IIRC she said that when her sister was there, so, no, I don't find that odd at all - but I could be wrong - don't have the book to hand, sorry! Heidi wrote: > A lot of the storyline has re-emphasized over and over again that > Draco is pure-blood. Wouldn't it be ironic if he really wasn't? Seon: couldn't agree more - this is *very* JKR and I think this is the best evidence of all! Heidi wrote: > (We don't really know Draco's birthdate... Seon: The lexicon has it down as 5th June. Definitely 1980 (from Black family tree). Unfortunately the Black family tree doesn't give dates for marriages so we can't tell how big an interval there was between Narcissa and Lucuis' marriage and Draco's birth. It is of course possible that Snape just likes Narcissa (because she had a crush on him) and isn't Draco's father. A friend of mine suggests that Snape is Draco's godfather (setting up a nice symmetry with Harry & Sirius - also very JKR). Seon From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 22 20:13:02 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 20:13:02 -0000 Subject: Phoenix fire? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154192 > >>houyhnhnm: > > Below I have compiled a list of positive and negative > traits associated with the four elements. I started > with fire this time and left water for last. > Betsy Hp: Thanks for doing this, houyhnhnm. I'd been wondering how the elements broke down. And I love what we've got for Slytherin (the most fascinating house, IMO). > >>houyhnhnm: > ***** > Water: > Positive--prudent, compassionate, understanding, artistic, > protective, sensitive, reserved, seeking to help others. > Negative--suspicious, self-repressed, hysterical, > self-indulgent, seeking to gain control over others, > exaggerating feelings all out of proportion. > ***** > > The last set makes you go, "Huh?" Compassionate? Protective? > Sensitive? Seeking to help others? Slytherins? > > >>Carol: > > If you want a Slytherin embodying both the best and the worst of > the Scorpio/water sign traits, I'd say that Snape (or at least DDM! > Snape) is your man. Just remember Healer!Snape crooning a songlike > counterspell over the wounded and erring Draco. Compassionate, > protective, seeking to help others--even artistic, if he invented > that countercurse himself, as he must have done since he invented > the spell. > >>houyhnhnm: > I agree that Snape exhibits some of the positive traits of water. > In fact, I think he is the *only* Slytherin character we have seen > who does. Betsy Hp: Ooh, wait, hang on. I don't agree with that. *Harry* only acknowledges the negative aspects of Slytherin, but once you decide that one quarter of the student body of Hogwarts is *not* actually evil, there are some positive traits waiting to be plucked out of canon, IMO. Pansy has often shown compassion for Draco. The suggestion that several people visited the injured Montague* also shows us a house compassionate with its own. Narcissa shows compassion, prudence and protectiveness for her son in HBP. Draco shows protectiveness for his family. The Slytherins as a whole express prudence when they become Umbridge's Inquisitorial Squad in OotP. "Weasley is Our King" is an example of both poetic and musical artistry. Draco understands exactly how Harry feels in PoA when Harry finds out about Black. And while Draco's verbal attacks are generally pretty childish, he does manage to get under his victim's skin. Which suggests a certain amount of sensitivity. That leaves "reserved" and "seeking to help others". Crabbe and Goyle in a nutshell. Seriously, we've *never* heard them speak, and they put up with a *lot* in order to help Draco. Actually, as a house, I get the feeling that Slytherin prides itself on looking after its own. What happens in Slytherin stays in Slytherin, but also Slytherin's help each other out. I don't think Slytherin is as Darwinian as fandom likes to think it is. Draco was not turned on in HBP, after all. And he was certainly at his weakest. > >>houyhnhnm: > > The reason Snape (and others of that House) have not succeeded in > evolving into the Good Slytherin yet is that Voldemort is still out > there and Hogwarts is still divided against itself. Hogwarts and > the WW have to become united and whole before the full potential > of Slytherin can come into its own. Betsy Hp: I think a big reason is Slytherin's status as Hogwarts scapegoat. A status it's held since Salazar left the school, I'd imagine. We've seen newly sorted Slytherins hissed to their seats, so it's not like the Slytherins don't quickly realize that it's them againt the rest. No wonder Voldemort found Slytherin so ripe for the plucking. And no wonder the sensitive and prudent Slytherins keep their light carefully hidden under a bushel. At least, that's how I see it. Betsy Hp * "*Everyone* thought it was a really good story..." [HBP scholastic p. 587] emphasis mine From anita_hillin at yahoo.com Thu Jun 22 20:24:36 2006 From: anita_hillin at yahoo.com (AnitaKH) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 13:24:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape and Slytherin as the House of Water (Was: Snape as Scorpio) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060622202436.90673.qmail@web55114.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154193 justcarol67 wrote: Carol earlier: > > It may be relevant that both Tom Riddle (born December 31 or possibly January 1) and Severus Snape (born January 9, according to JKR's website) are Scorpios. (Please note that I don't have any actual interest in astrology and am only following up this idea to see where it leads.) > > > akh quips: > There's one small problem: astrologically speaking, they're Capricorns. Carol responds: Oops! Told you I wasn't into astrology. [snipping some good points] But the main point of my post is the part that you snipped, about the relevance of the "positive" water sign traits to Snape. And since Slytherin House is definitively associated with water, the idea still applies, whether Snape himself is a Scorpio or a Capricorn. Any comments on those thoughts, which can be found upthread? Carol, blushing for her error and hoping that it hasn't caused her main point to be disregarded akh follows up: No need to feel embarrassed. My mother, usually an extremely logical person (she was a business major with a math minor in college) became obsessed with astrology and had our full charts done, so I lived from early adolescence on with a parent who evaluated people's personalitis by their sun signs (and excused away aberrations with, "They probably have a moon in Virgo," or some such.) I snipped the rest because I thought the water comparisons were valid, and my only quibble was with the sun sign. Perhaps Snape is Scorpio rising or his Moon is in Scorpio. Hmm, Capricorn's an Earth Sign. If Snape's a Slytherin and his other major houses are air and fire, he could embody a full complement of elements. akh, who thinks it might be fun to see Severus Snape's astrological chart, but realizes it would be dodgy at best, without a location and time of birth [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 22 21:15:14 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 21:15:14 -0000 Subject: Son of Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154194 Seon wrote: > I've been wondering about this ever since JKR said that Snape did not have a daughter and that he had been loved by someone. If Snape has a son and we've already met him then my money is also on Draco. but it's not just that Narcissa rushes to Snape that makes me > suspicious, but the way she is with him. I don't have HBP to hand, > but quote Carol: > > Carol wrote (#152462) > >Clearly Narcissa--proud, rich, beautiful, pureblood Narcissa-- doesn't consider him repellant in HBP, shedding tears on his chest, putting her face close to hers [his], seizing her hand in both of his and kissing it. Carol responds: Aah! Is this some sort of Karmic retribution for my coming up with the acronym for Neri's ACID POPS theory? All I meant by this quotation is that even Narcissa doesn't consider Snape repulsive, or anything close to it. I didn't mean to suggest that she's in love with him, much less that he's Draco's father. The physical resemblance between Draco and Lucius is very marked--pointed face, pale blond hair, grey eyes that are sometimes narrowed in contempt or hatred. Even their drawling voices are similar, though admittedly a drawl could be an acquired trait. Snape, in contrast, has black eyes and black hair. There ar no references to his chin as pointed or to Draco's nose as hooked. > Seon wrote: > Also, Snape and Draco are both skilled Occlumens > As Heidi points out, Snape favours Draco in his classes and Draco > says Snape is his favourite teacher Carol responds: I wouldn't call Draco a "skilled" Occlumens. Snape immediately detects his rather crude and somewhat delayed attempt to block Snape's Legilimency (he even announces that he's doing it). Snape, in contrast, is a "superb Occlumens" who can conceal thoughts and memories from LV without LV knowing he's doing so (apparently he can control what LV sees, and only those memories that would reveal the lie as a lie are blocked). If Draco attempted to use his unsophisticated Occlumency against Voldemort, he wouldn't live long. (I'm surprised that Bellatrix, who wears her emotions on her sleeve, knows enough Occlumency to teach it to Draco.) As for favoritism, Draco is the son of Snape's old friend, Lucius Malfoy, so Snape and Draco may well have known each other before Draco started school (which would explain his use of Draco's first name). And it appears that Draco is good at Potions and likes the subject, which could only help the relationship. (Note that it falls apart a bit when Snape starts teaching DADA, a subject Draco holds in contempt--though admittedly, Draco is also withholding information from Snape and the mentor/pupil relationship is on rocky ground through the whole book because of Snape's "interference" with Draco's plan.) Seon: A friend of mine suggests that Snape > is Draco's godfather (setting up a nice symmetry with Harry & Sirius Carol: Now this I'd be more likely to buy except that it seems unlikely that Lucius and Narcissa would give their son a Christian baptism. There's a similar Wiccan ceremony, I believe, so they might have chosen him as, say, a guardian if anything happened to them. Still, Narcissa would surely have brought up this relationship if it existed. (I do see parallels between the wording of the UV, which asks Snape to protect draco and act as a sort of guardian, and the Anglican baptismal ceremony, which I pointed out some time ago in a post that could probably be found using the Advanced function of our supposedly improved search engine.) However, if we're going to see parallels between Draco and Snape on the one hand and Harry and an adult mentor on the other, I'd say the similarity is closer to the Harry/Dumbledore relationship (despite Snape's being some 115 year DD's junior) than to the Harry/Sirius relationship, which is more like an older and younger brother. Even the rift in the Snape/Draco relationship in HBP to some degree parallels the friction between Harry and DD in OoP. Carol, wondering if Neri would be so kind as to provide a link to his original post on the Snape/Narcissa SHIP (on which I don't sail despite having given it a name) From littleleah at handbag.com Thu Jun 22 21:22:38 2006 From: littleleah at handbag.com (littleleahstill) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 21:22:38 -0000 Subject: Snape and Slytherin as the House of Water (Was: Snape as Scorpio) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154195 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Carol earlier: > > > It may be relevant that both Tom Riddle (born December 31 or > possibly January 1) and Severus Snape (born January 9, according to > JKR's website) are Scorpios. (Please note that I don't have any > actual interest in astrology and am only following up this idea to see > where it leads.) > > > > > > akh quips: > > There's one small problem: astrologically speaking, they're > Capricorns. > > Carol responds: > > Oops! Told you I wasn't into astrology. > > . And since > Slytherin House is definitively associated with water, the idea still > applies, whether Snape himself is a Scorpio or a Capricorn. Any > comments on those thoughts, which can be found upthread? > > Carol, blushing for her error and hoping that it hasn't caused her > main point to be disregarded Leah: I found this interesting article on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capricorn which states that Capricorn was orginally a water sign. You can see from the article that the sun was considered to be 'stabled' in Capricorn during the winter solstice, and the article also references the cleaning of the Augean stables- Aquarius following Capricorn. Leah From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Thu Jun 22 21:38:56 2006 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (Jazmyn Concolor) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 14:38:56 -0700 Subject: Son of Snape? Ummm.. not likely to be alive if so. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <449B0DF0.6030705@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154196 If Snape had a son, which I think is unlikely, he is likely dead along with 'whomever it was who loved him'. Would explain his bitter attitude. Maybe even explain more on why he changed sides. People may only ASSUME he changed sides due to the Potter family, but I doubt it highly. More then likely the news that there might be a way to defeat Voldemort gave him a shred of hope to cling to for revenge against Volde, possibly for killing or having killed, his (pick any) wife, son(s), mother, pregnant girlfriend, pet, whatever.... Can you imagine if he did have a wife (possibly with child?) and Voldemort forced him to kill her to prove his loyalty? He would be REALLY messed up in the head after that and looking for any chance for revenge, not to mention terribly bitter and unapproachable. He would likely feel that love only leads to losing what one loves. Fools who wear their hearts on their sleeves....(don't let Volde know you love someone or they get used to force you to obey? See Draco's fear of his parents being killed for an example). Oh wait.. He is already a bit messed up in the head and bitter... Hmmmm.... Jazmyn > _,_._,___ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jun 22 22:31:49 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 22:31:49 -0000 Subject: Snape liked Hogwarts? was Re: Prank question/Dumbledore and Evil (?) Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154197 > Betsy Hp: > I'm taking this *way* off topic, but I have a couple of questions. > > > >>Pippin: > > > > [Snape] doesn't seem to have been having a happy time at Hogwarts - > > - surely he'd have gone elsewhere if he could. > > > > Betsy Hp: > I've always imagined that young!Snape *adored* Hogwarts. That it > was a sort of haven for him where he was able to fully stretch his > intelligence and creativity. He found a mentor in Lucius, a friend > in Lily, and a ready-made network in the Slugclub. I think, for the > most part, Hogwarts was Snape's ideal. Pippin: Nope, don't think so. Snape obviously loves learning, but I'm not sure he was in the Slug Club as a student. And stretching his intelligence and creativity brought him into conflict with students who were scared silly of the Dark Arts. I think he did his HBP experimenting on his own, for fear it would be considered dark just because it was his, a Slytherin and a noted student of curses. This is, indeed, exactly the reaction Harry has when he realizes who the Prince was. Nobody appreciates the power of wealth and breeding like somebody who hasn't got it. I see Snape as lurking at the edges of things, always on the outside looking in, and wishing he could go to Durmstrang, where he'd be appreciated for his interest in the Dark Arts instead of shunned. > > >>Pippin: > > > > Fitting punishment, if, having kept Lupin from employment, Snape > > was forced to take up a job he hated. > > > > Betsy Hp: > But does Snape hate teaching? Does he hate being Head of > Slytherin? I don't think so. I've had teachers who hated their > jobs. They didn't act like Snape. The social ones spent class time > chatting about anything and everything not about their subject with > their students. The non-social ones droned through a lecture or > wrote their lecture on the chalk-board for the class to copy. Pippin: Not teaching in general, but teaching basic potions to dunderheads who have no appreciation for the subject and wouldn't be caught dead near a cauldron if it weren't required. If Snape were allowed to teach DADA, or NEWT or Auror level Potions only, then yeah, he'd love his job. Meanwhile he pushed for that high pass rate as a matter of pride and a passport to a more rewarding post when Dumbledore found him worthy, IMO. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jun 22 22:49:31 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 22:49:31 -0000 Subject: Prank question - Lupin wanted Snape DEAD? In-Reply-To: <20060622143814.33743.qmail@web38110.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154198 > Pippin: > "As I've said many times, Lupin is the one Marauder with a good > enough motive to want Snape dead. Once you realize that James > and Sirius weren't going to want to stop running with the werewolf > just because Snape had spied out Lupin's hiding place, you can > see how precarious Lupin's position had become. The added > risk would only have made it more fun for Sirius and James. But > Lupin knew what would happen to his animagi friends if they > were caught with him. He had to act." > Wolf Xavier: > I MAY be misunderstanding you. If so, please forgive me. > Given that Lupin's situation is known (not by the public at large, but in the Ministry records and by the Headmaster at Hogwarts), getting caught would really just mean that public outcry would force Lupin into some sort of home-school or alternative education program (if such exists). Pippin: I don't think it does. Otherwise Hagrid could have continued his magical education after he'd been expelled. Wolf Xavier > AND, it's not like being an unregistered animagus would mean being chucked into Azkaban or even immediate expulsion at thier age (I wouldn't THINK, given the other shenanigans that go on at that school). Pippin: If Dumbledore had caught them, maybe so. But Sirius and James were taking Lupin into Hogsmeade, where they had many close calls. If they'd been caught there, it would be the Ministry, not Dumbledore, who decided what to do with them. With Voldemort on the rise and Fenrir on the loose, they could well have been convicted of every unsolved werewolf attack on the books. Pippin From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 23 00:56:47 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 00:56:47 -0000 Subject: Snape liked Hogwarts? was Re: Prank question/Dumbledore and Evil (?) Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154199 > >>Betsy Hp: > > I've always imagined that young!Snape *adored* Hogwarts. That > > it was a sort of haven for him where he was able to fully > > stretch his intelligence and creativity. He found a mentor in > > Lucius, a friend in Lily, and a ready-made network in the > > Slugclub. I think, for the most part, Hogwarts was Snape's > > ideal. > >>Pippin: > Nope, don't think so. Snape obviously loves learning, but I'm not > sure he was in the Slug Club as a student. And stretching his > intelligence and creativity brought him into conflict with students > who were scared silly of the Dark Arts. I think he did his HBP > experimenting on his own, for fear it would be considered dark > just because it was his, a Slytherin and a noted student of > curses. > Betsy Hp: The entire school is not made up of Gryffindor ideologues. From the pensieve scene it doesn't seem that Snape was popular, but it looks like, other than the Marauders, he was pretty much left alone. And Snape has never struck me as a man (or a boy) who needed or even wanted popularity. A few friends would make all the difference. And he had that. I do think he was in the Slug Club, mainly because he was at Slughorn's Christmas party (which I realize isn't seen as definitive proof), a club we know for sure did *not* include any of the Marauders. Yes, Snape was a Slytherin, but I don't think Slytherins hate each other for being Slytherin. He was one of a group of outsiders. If other houses hated and/or feared him, well, they felt the same about his housemates. (Though I don't recall anyone saying Snape actually scared his fellow students.) He did become part of a group of older Slytherins, and it seems that Lucius took him under his wing. Snape may well have done his Prince experiments on his own. But I think that's how he'd prefer it. (Though I do wonder if Lily wasn't there for a few experiments.) > >>Pippin: > > Nobody appreciates the power of wealth and breeding like > somebody who hasn't got it. Betsy Hp: But he would have seen that Lucius Malfoy, and the Black sisters were just as much outsiders to Hogwarts as he was. Plus, I think Snape is the sort of person who really *would* think that rules are the same for everyone. (The logical mind, etc.) > >>Pippin: > I see Snape as lurking at the edges of things, always on the > outside looking in, and wishing he could go to Durmstrang, where > he'd be appreciated for his interest in the Dark Arts instead of > shunned. Betsy Hp: Where do you find evidence of Snape being shunned? Also, where is the evidence of a remarkable or unusual interest in the Dark Arts? >From his book it seems that Snape was able to experiment to his heart's content. Harry doesn't find any arrested spells or unfinished potion improvements. What Snape wanted to do he did. Snape wasn't popular, but he didn't give me the impression, in the few scenes and hints we have of his youth, of *wanting* to be popular. He didn't want Sirius and James to *like* him, he didn't want to *join* the Marauders, he wanted them gone. I'm not sure what he stood outside of. > >>Betsy Hp: > > But does Snape hate teaching? Does he hate being Head of > > Slytherin? I don't think so. I've had teachers who hated their > > jobs. They didn't act like Snape. The social ones spent class > > time chatting about anything and everything not about their > > subject with their students. The non-social ones droned through > > a lecture or wrote their lecture on the chalk-board for the > > class to copy. > >>Pippin: > Not teaching in general, but teaching basic potions to dunderheads > who have no appreciation for the subject and wouldn't be caught > dead near a cauldron if it weren't required. If Snape were > allowed to teach DADA, or NEWT or Auror level Potions only, then > yeah, he'd love his job. Betsy Hp: Since we've never seen Snape teaching NEWT Potions, and since he handles his NEWT level DADA exactly as he handled his first year Potions class I'm not sure what you base this on. Snape never struck me as a teacher marking time, going through the rote, etc. He's engaged, he's alert, and he's able to adjust his class plan depending on his students' performance. None of that points to someone hating where they are. > >>Pippin: > Meanwhile he pushed for that high pass rate as a matter of pride > and a passport to a more rewarding post when Dumbledore found him > worthy, IMO. Betsy Hp: Higher than Head of Slytherin? I was under the impression that the Heads of Houses are pretty high on the school totem pole already. And Snape seems to rank just below McGonagall amongst the staff. (Pretty darn impressive for such a young man, I think.) I do think Snape is proud of his high pass rate, that it's part of what motivates him. But again, I don't see anything in the text that suggests he doesn't enjoy teaching. Betsy Hp From evangelist at ihug.co.nz Thu Jun 22 17:14:05 2006 From: evangelist at ihug.co.nz (Tim) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 05:14:05 +1200 Subject: How did MWPP make the Maunderer's Map? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <449ACFDD.9090107@ihug.co.nz> No: HPFGUIDX 154200 Hagrid Wrote: > The Map has blind spots where it can't see anyone. So how come some > areas show up and not others? > >The three areas not shown on the map I know of are:- > >- Hagrid's Hut (or Lupin would have seen Pettigrew there - POA) >- Room of Requirements (where Draco disappeared off the map - HBP) >- The Chamber of Secrets has never been mentioned again. > > Do the makers of the map have to have been in those areas of Hogwarts > to be able to include them on the map? > - If so, Hagrid didn't trust them enough to allow them into his hut. > - They never discovered the secrets of the Room of Requirements. > - They couldn't open the Chamber - just as well for all of Hogwarts. > > - BUT ... it also means they got into the Slytherin Common Rooom to > plot that on the map because Harry sees Draco on the map when he is > back in the Common room(HBP). > > Agree? / Disagree? / what would MWPP be doing there? Was it Pettigrew > (as a Rat) that crept around plotting some areas? Would his map making > skill come back into book 7? What do u think? I don't have a lot to say about this bar a bit of shallow reasoning. And I think you're right to raise them. 1. Hagrid's Hut - Isn't it impolite to spy on friends, assuming of course that Hagrid shared the same relationship with the Marauders as he does with Fred and George. I think Hagrid did trust them. Hagrid I feel would have seen/felt the good in them and that to me appears to be the way Hagrid judges people - with his heart, (well it's more accurate than his head at least) 2. Well I think that's been explained in a book, GoF, or HBP with its (possibly) unplottable nature. 3. They weren't looking for the chamber. Probably didn't know/believe of its existence outside of folklore. 4. To me it doesn't appear too difficult to get into the Slytherin Common Room, and as it isn't that big of a school, and the resentment felt by the marauders toward slyth's and allies, that isn't too surprising. To me, if i think back to my school days there wasn't a single room, good hiding spot (ie behind the bike sheds type of thing), camera blackspot, secret that I didn't know about. And especially since the privileged position favoured kids like the Marauders (and myself ) do get kind of given a bit of license. What would MWPP be doing there? Snape comes to mind. HOw? Two Words - invisibility cloak oh and fearlessness (three) As for Peter's mapmaking skill, I thik enough has been said in canon to show that Pettigrew's talent only stretches ads far as the wizard instructing him. Cos & GoF and I would personally prefer not to think to highly of him. Tim, who is apologising most profusely for his cynical tone and the overuse of brackets and dashes in his writing, and plagerising the use of comments after his name. From coverton at netscape.com Thu Jun 22 12:22:17 2006 From: coverton at netscape.com (corey_over) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 12:22:17 -0000 Subject: why Ron and Hermione resemble a married couple / Luna In-Reply-To: <20060621221328.13899.qmail@web35205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154201 > Wootshanks now: > I think a fair question would be, "Is anything Luna says accurate?" It is mentioned that Harry felt a little uneasy at her open honesty. But I'm talking about things that she and Hermione disagreed about....like the existance of, what was it, Crumplehorned Snorkacks or whatever. > Didn't she say at that Scrimgeour was a vampire? Was that ever confirmed? I do remember having a discussion about it in another group. It was said that he went out side during the day, like when he went to the Burrow to talk to Harry. But it could be speculated that it was cloudy at the time. Corey: Hey Paul, I think Hermione and Luna are two very strong willed people. Luna believes what she does and Hermione will believe what she will. However outrageous some of Luna's views are she is a fun character and I think she'll be helpful to Harry in some way. From hutchingslesley at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jun 22 22:04:34 2006 From: hutchingslesley at yahoo.co.uk (hutchingslesley) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 22:04:34 -0000 Subject: How did MWPP make the Maunderer's Map? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154202 I think the marauders only included areas they knew about and they couldn't include the Chamber of secrets as they didn't know if it existed. As there are hundreds of names on the map, Lupin probably hadn't noticed PP in Hagrids hut as he probably hadn't looked for it there. I'm guessing that they either didn't know of the room of requirement or it is unplottable, they made their map based on their exploits when they had joined Lupin as animagi and probably explored Hogwarts grounds more than the inside of the castle.??? hutchinglesley From pebbles104 at sbcglobal.net Thu Jun 22 23:02:45 2006 From: pebbles104 at sbcglobal.net (Kellie and Lady J) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 19:02:45 -0400 Subject: Snape as Scorpio (Was: Phoenix fire?) References: Message-ID: <014101c6964f$f99915e0$6500a8c0@shannonn2zgd3u> No: HPFGUIDX 154203 Carol said: > It may be relevant that both Tom Riddle (born December 31 or possibly > January 1) and Severus Snape (born January 9, according to JKR's > website) are Scorpios. (Please note that I don't have any actual > interest in astrology and am only following up this idea to see where > it leads.) end snip Kellie now: Actually, the end of December as well as the beginning of January is under the astrological sign of Capricorn. Mid October to mid November is the sign of Scorpio. Kellie From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 22 15:29:12 2006 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 08:29:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Cold Fish Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060622152912.91727.qmail@web52712.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154204 pippin_999 wrote: >> I've been thinking further on the notion that Dumbledore may have started out with a pathology similar to Tom Riddle's. If Voldemort saw in Dumbledore the one person who was like himself, and *that* is why Voldemort feared him, then it makes sense that Voldemort would lose that fear when he discovered that Dumbledore had become "one of those fools who love" after all. Some additional canon, besides all the detached behavior towards Sirius and Hagrid, and DD's determination to pretend to be detached from Harry: Surely Dumbledore knows that McGonagall felt close to James, so isn't it odd that in PS/SS he would ask her why she hadn't been out celebrating? But it is what you might expect from someone who doesn't grieve normally, and has to work out what a normal person would feel. <<< I just totally, and respectfully, disagree. I don't think Dumbledore is cold at all, or that he doesn't grieve. Dumbledore is the head of a large, important, and constantly threatened school full of children. He would not be good at his job if he was constantly visibly upset by everything that happens at Hogwarts. He knows that he needs to be the calming force amongst all the chaos, and he's very good at that. However, that doesn't mean that he ISN'T upset by these things, just that he is good at hiding his feelings because he knows that it is the best thing to do. I mean, imagine if Dumbledore was like Ron - going around getting upset and angry at everything and holding grudges and not being able to see the whole picture because of his emotions...he wouldn't be the pillar of strength that he has always been to Hogwarts, and to Harry. A few examples of moments that I think Dumbledore is feeling strong emotions, but holds back for other people's sake: In SS/PS chapter 1, Hagrid is sobbing hysterically, and McGonagall is also holding back tears...American hardback version, pg 16: "For a full minute the three of them stood and looked at the little bundle; Hagrid's shoulders shook, Professor McGonagall blinked furiously, and the twinkling light that usually shone from Dumbledore's eyes seemed to have gone out[my bold]. "Well," said Dumbledore finally, "that's that. We've no business staying here. We may as well go and join the celebrations." In Goblet of Fire, American hardback version, pg 695, after Cedric is dead, Moody has been uncovered, and Harry and Sirius are in Dumbledore's office: "If I thought I could help you, " Dumbledore said gently, "by putting you into an enchanted sleep and allowing you to postpone the moment when you would have to think about what has happened tonight, I would do it. But I know better. Numbing the pain for a while will make it worse when you finally feel it. You have shown bravery beyond anything I could have expected of you. I ask you to demonstrate that courage one more time. I ask you to tell us what happened." Now, to me, especially that last one, shows that Dumbledore feels strong emotions, or else how would he know that holding back from grieving isn't good for a person? One more example, and then I'll have to find others when I have more time...HBP, Amer. hardback ver., page 357, After Harry has met with Scrimgeour at the Burrow, and tells Dumbledore about being "Dumbledore's man, through and though": "Dumbledore opened his mouth to speak and then closed it again. Behind Harry, Fawkes the phoenix let out alow, soft, musical cry. To Harry's intense embarrassment, he suddenly realized that Dumbledore's bright blue eyes looked rather watery, and he hastily looked at his own knees." I mean, a man who can cry so easily, has some pretty deep emotions. Or so I believe. Katie From honeykissed246 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 22 22:18:40 2006 From: honeykissed246 at yahoo.com (Darlene Carroll) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 15:18:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: More PS/SS quotes and musings./Hermione, Snape and others In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060622221840.5333.qmail@web33201.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154205 Alla wrote: "Why? Because in my mind there is NOTHING Harry did to deserve it. He was reading a book, he was minding his own business, Snape found a reason to be nasty anyways." Honeykissed: This reminds me specifically of the scene with James and Snape when James hexed Snape just because "he exists". Snape did not do anything to deserve that either but James found a reason to be "nasty anyway". I think that in a way, maybe in Snape's mind he is getting back at James by mistreating Harry. It appears that he is doing to Harry what James did to him. Now of course this is not right but to me Snape has a lot of issues that he has not dealt with and this is a big one. It will be nice to see how it plays out in this last book. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Jun 23 01:39:05 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 01:39:05 -0000 Subject: Prank question/Dumbledore and Evil (?) Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154206 Betsy Hp: *(snip)* > But does Snape hate teaching? Does he hate being Head of > Slytherin? I don't think so. I've had teachers who hated their > jobs. They didn't act like Snape. *(snip)* > Snape does none of these things. His lectures engage his students, > he assigns homework based on class performance, he spends lab-time > actively monitering the students' work, and if someone runs into > trouble, Snape takes them in hand. (Neville would have not feared > Snape so much if Snape had been content to let him comfortably fail.) Ceridwen: Back in school, I had a teacher who, once he reached that wondrous place in a teacher's career that he could choose what he would do in the school, only taught the oldest two years. He didn't care for working with the younger children. Snape seemed different in the NEWT DADA class, and I thought that maybe it was Harry growing up, and of course I thought that part of it was that this was Snape's rumored Dream Job. But, what if he prefers to teach students who are not there because they have to be, but students who have chosen the subject? These students are more likely to be serious about their studies, and less likely to cause disturbance in class. Ceridwen. From wolfxavier1975 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 22 17:54:57 2006 From: wolfxavier1975 at yahoo.com (Wolf Xavier) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 10:54:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The Pensive Runes Message-ID: <20060622175457.3849.qmail@web38112.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154207 I figured it out! After much research and mystical study I have established that the symbols on the late Albus Dumbledore's pensive are... The "runes" from the Led Zeppelin IV album (see attachment). Yep, that's right, Albus was Led-ed. They don't really affect the functioning of the pensive, Albus just thought they looked "bloody brilliant". The album was released in November of 1971. 1971, folks! The year that James, Lilly, Sirius, Remus, Peter and Severus began at Hogwarts. The year that Lucious Malfoy would begin his seventh year. What does it all mean? I have no clue. But probably something significant. Or maybe not. -Wolf From pebbles104 at sbcglobal.net Thu Jun 22 23:44:48 2006 From: pebbles104 at sbcglobal.net (Kellie and Lady J) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 19:44:48 -0400 Subject: Son of Snape? References: Message-ID: <018301c69655$d937d7e0$6500a8c0@shannonn2zgd3u> No: HPFGUIDX 154208 snip Heidi wrote: > My question is this: Is Lucius really Draco's father? Could it > be that Snape is actually the father of Draco Malfoy? Seon: > I've been wondering about this ever since JKR said that Snape did > not have a daughter and that he had been loved by someone. If Snape > has a son and we've already met him then my money is also on Draco. snip > Carol wrote (#152462) >Clearly Narcissa--proud, rich, beautiful, pureblood Narcissa-- >doesn't consider him repellant in HBP, shedding tears on his chest, >putting her face close to hers, seizing her hand in both of his and >kissing it. Seon: > Also, Snape and Draco are both skilled Occlumens > As Heidi points out, Snape favours Draco in his classes and Draco > says Snape is his favourite teacher. end snip Kellie now: This is something that I never considered and I suppose it is possible. But, in Chamber of Secrets, there was a description of Draco's father. When Harry used the floo powder and ended up in that dark wizard shop in Nocturn Alley, he hid in a cabinet and saw Draco's father. Here is the part I am talking about. I apologize for not being able to give a page number, but I listen to the book in audio. "Seconds later, a bell clanged, and Malfoy stepped into the shop. The man who followed, could only be Draco's father. He had the same pale, pointed face and identical cold gray eyes." >From that description, to me, it seems that Harry would have been able to pin him as Draco's father even had Draco not been there. Now, Harry could just be seeing these similarities because he assumes that Lucius is his dad. And, it would be like J. K. to slip something like that in. But, I am not sure what I think of Draco being Snape's son. It could be nothing more than that Snape was a very very close friend and Draco thinks of him as family. There is a friend of my Mom's who I consider family. He is close to me and I could talk to him about anything. He would come to my defense and rescue if I needed it. Kellie From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Fri Jun 23 02:01:55 2006 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 22:01:55 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape as Scorpio (Was: Phoenix fire?) Message-ID: <523.139a6a2.31cca593@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154209 In a message dated 6/22/06 2:17:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, justcarol67 at yahoo.com writes: > Carol responds: > It may be relevant that both Tom Riddle (born December 31 or possibly > January 1) and Severus Snape (born January 9, according to JKR's > website) are Scorpios. (Please note that I don't have any actual > interest in astrology and am only following up this idea to see where > it leads.) > > Sandy here: I'm a little confused. We *are* speaking of the astrological signs here, aren't we? That being the case your information is wrong because *I* am a Scorpio and my birthday is October 29. I hate to contradict you, Carol, as I have so much respect for your posts and thoughts and ideas, but Tom Riddle and Snape are not Scorpios, at least not astrologically speaking. They are Capricorns. Sandy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puduhepa98 at aol.com Fri Jun 23 02:42:58 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 22:42:58 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hating Dark Arts (was re James' essence...) Message-ID: <26d.b7dc0e9.31ccaf32@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154210 Marion: > One more thing on the "James hated Dark Arts" thing, > though: for a group that so hated Dark magic, they > apparantly had no trouble using it themselves. [snip] > No, I mean that blasted Map. >snip> > > Am I the only person who flinches when the words > > "I solemnly swear" are considered meaningless in real > > life? Should we really take those words so lightly in > > the story when they are said while holding your wand? houyhnhnm: If the Map was exercising its own will when it "fluttered out of [Harry's] hand and slid down six steps" and made its way into Barty, Jr.'s then it is a very Dark object indeed. Nikkalmati: I wonder if the Map had a part in the Prank. Could James have seen on the Map that Severus was approaching the Whomping Willow and run out to stop him? Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From estesrandy at yahoo.com Fri Jun 23 02:46:25 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 02:46:25 -0000 Subject: The Pensive Runes In-Reply-To: <20060622175457.3849.qmail@web38112.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154211 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Wolf Xavier wrote: > > I figured it out! > After much research and mystical study I have established that the symbols on the late Albus Dumbledore's pensive are... > > The "runes" from the Led Zeppelin IV album (see attachment). > > Yep, that's right, Albus was Led-ed. They don't really affect the functioning of the pensive, Albus just thought they looked "bloody brilliant". > > The album was released in November of 1971. 1971, folks! The year that James, Lilly, Sirius, Remus, Peter and Severus began at Hogwarts. The year that Lucious Malfoy would begin his seventh year. > What does it all mean? > I have no clue. But probably something significant. Or maybe not. > > -Wolf > Randy replies... So of course this information leads to the obvious conclusion... Lily was listening to "Whole Lotta Love" on that fateful night, and Sirius was listening to "Gallow's Pole". Narcissa and Lucius have always been big fans of "Stairway to Heaven". ;0) If you touch your wands together while listening to the album, it plays back all of your spells in reverse and says "Paul is Dead" From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Jun 23 03:19:17 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 03:19:17 -0000 Subject: Phoenix fire? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154212 houyhnhnm: > > I agree that Snape exhibits some of the positive traits > > of water. In fact, I think he is the *only* Slytherin > > character we have seen who does. Betsy Hp: > Ooh, wait, hang on. I don't agree with that. *Harry* > only acknowledges the negative aspects of Slytherin, but > once you decide that one quarter of the student body of > Hogwarts is *not* actually evil, there are some positive > traits waiting to be plucked out of canon, IMO. houyhnhnm: I agree about protectiveness toward each other. I think there is abundant evidence in canon that Slytherins stand together and look out for each other. I've always had the feeling, too, that Draco's love for his parents is absolutely genuine. The most innocent quality Draco has IMO is his desire to please, both his father and his parens in loco. (His defiant behavior toward Snape in HBP is probably a reflection of the conflicting feelings he has toward his father.) I don't know about compassion. That word was bandied about quite a bit recently. I've always thought of compassion as an internal sort of thing. My grandmother used to say "always look at other people as if they are doing the best they can." That is my idea of true compassion. I think Harry shows it on a few occasions, but we don't see into anyone else's head the way we do into Harry's, so it's hard to say whether other characters show compassion or not. A seeming kind or sympathic *act* can have all kinds of motives behind it that have nothing to do with compassion. I'm glad I finally got off my duff and compiled that list, too. I'm not a "water" person, myself (fire and air), but I'm starting to see Slytherin House as /sui generis/ and it's kind of interesting From aceworker at yahoo.com Fri Jun 23 03:35:09 2006 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (aceworker) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 03:35:09 -0000 Subject: Phoenix Fire? / Tonks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154213 < Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154214 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: >>>>>>>> Oh, I like this. I had assumed the RoR was simply unplottable for magical reasons, but the fact that Lupin could not see inside Hagrid's hut has been nagging at the back of my mind. I hadn't really looked at the missing spaces altogether before. ...... Maybe they did have to actually be in an area to put it on their map. A rat would have been an ideal form in which to sneak around the castle. ...... Why doesn't the Shrieking Shack show up on the Map though? ...... I was really convinced by the argument at LiveJournal (referenced by Marion) that the Map is a Dark object. >>>>>>>> Allie: I don't think they would necessarily have to have been *inside* a place (e.g. Slytherin Common Room) to map it, but they would have to know where it was. The Shrieking Shack isn't on the Hogwarts grounds. Can someone repost that link or email me offlist? I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Map is a dark object, but I don't think that the Marauders intended it that way. Maybe it acquired a life of its own through their advanced magic. Or maybe someone intentionally corrupted it later - we don't know where it was before Filch had it. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Jun 23 04:18:51 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 04:18:51 -0000 Subject: Why did LV save Bellatrix from DD? (Was: Cold Fish Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154215 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Tonks wrote: > > > As to why LV came to fight DD. DD was fighting Bella and she needed help. Now we can ask why he didn't just leave her to die or be arrested??? > > Carol responds: > I thought that *Harry* was fighting Bella and LV heard him tell Bella that the Prophecy orb had been destroyed and knew it was true, so he showed up to kill Harry. When DD joined the fight (fortunately, almost immediately), he used the broken fountain to pin Bella down and prevent her from joining in (as well as to shield Harry). > Tonks: Opps. Thanks for correcting that. I had forgotten and posted that quickly just before running out the door. Carol: > It's interesting that LV took her with him when he left. Maybe she was the only loyal follower that he had left, or at least the only one involved in the MoM fiasco who escaped arrest? If he doesn't have her, he's stuck with the likes of Wormtail, Goyle (who seems to have been absent for some reason), Amycus and Alecto, the "brutal- faced" DE (Yaxley), and Fenrir Greyback. And, oh, yes, that enigma Snape, whom he was ready to murder at the end of GoF for leaving him forever. > > If I were LV, I'd have taken her with me, too. Unstable she may be, > and she failed to save the Prophecy, but at least there's no question where her loyalties lie. > Tonks: It is interesting isn't it. Now that you mention it, of all the others that we have seen, other that Malfoy and Snape, she does seem the most competent. I think of her as a female (but unrepentant) Snape. Of any females in the series she seems to be his equal. McGonagall and Molly are both competent, but they do not know the dark arts like Bella and Snape. Often those who are most alike are those who hate each other the most. This might be the case between Bella and Snape. Tonks_op From juli17 at aol.com Fri Jun 23 04:53:15 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 00:53:15 EDT Subject: Snape as Scorpio (Was: Phoenix fire?) Message-ID: <530.c6ea51.31cccdbb@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154216 > Carol responds: > It may be relevant that both Tom Riddle (born December 31 or possibly > January 1) and Severus Snape (born January 9, according to JKR's > website) are Scorpios. (Please note that I don't have any actual > interest in astrology and am only following up this idea to see where > it leads.) > > Sandy here: I'm a little confused. We *are* speaking of the astrological signs here, aren't we? That being the case your information is wrong because *I* am a Scorpio and my birthday is October 29. I hate to contradict you, Carol, as I have so much respect for your posts and thoughts and ideas, but Tom Riddle and Snape are not Scorpios, at least not astrologically speaking. They are Capricorns. Julie: Astrology started as a "science" of reading the influence of the stars on a person's life depending on when he/she was born. This was based on the astronomical location of the sun. I.e., whichever constellation the sun was passing through when a person was born was his/her "sun" sign. In ancient times this worked out quite nicely, but 2000+ years later, due to the wobble of the Earth on its axis which produces a phenomenon called "procession of the equinoxes", the sun has moved out of those ancient positions. When once the sun actually *was* in the constellation of Scorpio on Oct 29--and in the constellation of Capricorn on Jan 9--the sun now is in the constellation of Virgo on Oct 29--and in the constellation of Sagittarius on Dec 9. (And on a side note, I can't imagine any astrological sign that describes Snape *less* than Sagittarius!) Astrologers haven't ever accomodated this physical movement of the sun, though if the position of the sun in relation to the stars actually had an effect on a person's personality, it would only be logical that it would be the REAL position of the sun, not its position 2000 years ago, that would wield influence. I doubt JKR has any knowledge of this either, as her general knowledge of astronomy seems to be lacking (e.g. Orion isn't in the sky in June). Nor I don't glean any interest in astrology from her writing (nor her placement of the character's birthdays), so I doubt the astrological--or astronomical--sun signs of the HP characters have any real meaning in the books, even though Trelawney does spout a few references to astrology here and there (and I suspect if any of her mystic spoutings prove significant, it will be the tarot readings). Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Jun 23 05:17:06 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 05:17:06 -0000 Subject: The Pensive Runes In-Reply-To: <20060622175457.3849.qmail@web38112.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154217 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Wolf Xavier wrote: > > I figured it out! > After much research and mystical study I have established that the symbols on the late Albus Dumbledore's pensive are... > > The "runes" from the Led Zeppelin IV album (see attachment). > > Yep, that's right, Albus was Led-ed. They don't really affect the functioning of the pensive, Albus just thought they looked "bloody brilliant". > > The album was released in November of 1971. 1971, folks! The year that James, Lilly, Sirius, Remus, Peter and Severus began at Hogwarts. The year that Lucious Malfoy would begin his seventh year. > What does it all mean? > I have no clue. But probably something significant. Or maybe not. > Tonks: Interesting. Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Zoso.svg It is a bit far out. But you never know. It is in the public domaine. There are 4. I think they were suppose to be orginial, but 2 of them look like something I have seen somewhere before. But I can't remember where. The second and third. Like a lotus blossom for the second .. and ?? for the 3rd. Did you notice that the last one has a feather in it. Raven by any chance? Could be that JKR's mother had an album and listened to it when Jo was a child. Speaking of runes. Do we have any rune symbols for each house?? Tonks_op Tonks_op From juli17 at aol.com Fri Jun 23 07:06:24 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 07:06:24 -0000 Subject: SOFAS theory (was Re: Son of Snape?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154218 Here's my theory, one I came up with one night last month while unable to sleep (because of jet lag while on vacation, happily not ongoing insomnia). While this theory violates nothing in canon, it's still not likely to appear in Book 7 since few of our theories actually coincide with JKR's fertile imagination ;-) At the very least it could make a nice fanfic if I ever got around to it... We start with Florence and Snape, kissing (yep, in *that* scene). I postulate that Florence was a Slytherin and a Malfoy in blood if not in name (first cousin to Lucius). Also a Malfoy in looks, with pale blond hair and gray eyes. Snape's crush on Lily (if it existed) is over. She chose James after all, proving she is a girl with no taste whatsoever. Snape and Florence become a couple naturally, because of their shared Slytherin ties, their common connection with the Malfoys, and because they share a genuine affection for each other. Soon after Hogwarts they both join Voldemort, Florence perhaps because of family influences, and Snape for his own reasons. Voldemort himself gives approval of their union so they marry. Snape makes potions for Voldemort--life-extending elixirs and probably deadly potions that Voldemort can use against his enemies. And of course he overhears part of the prophecy and reports it. Florence does...er, something. But both become disenchanted with Voldemort before too much time passes. Whatever freedom and autonomy from the societal strictures of the WW they expected with Voldemort aren't forthcoming. Snape knows full well leaving isn't an option. Look what happened to Regulus. He can hide his doubts and his growing disgust via Occlumency, but Florence isn't so good at it. At some point Voldemort decides Florence has betrayed him, in thought if not in action. There is only one fate for betrayal. But perhaps Snape needs a lesson too, and Voldemort wants proof of *his* loyalty even if his wife has turned away. The lesson comes via Voldemort's method of disposing of Florence, via one of the deadly potions Snape has concocted for him. It causes Florence a slow, painful death, and Snape can do nothing to stop it. What he doesn't know, and what Voldemort doesn't know, is that Florence is pregnant. She begs Snape to save their baby before she dies. Now, Snape doesn't have the ability to save their baby on his own, but he knows someone who can help him, an old friend (once) from school. Lily. Between her skill with charms and his healing ability, they can save the baby. Whatever their past differences, she's willing to help him (though wisely she keeps it from James). But the baby is no more than a tiny fetus that needs another womb to grow in (NO, NOT Lily's--what are you thinking?!!!). Enter Narcissa. Narcissa and Lucius have been trying to get pregnant, but it hasn't happened. (They are years older than Lily and James remember, so could have been married a while without conceiving). The idea of Lucius not having an heir would be devastating. Narcissa hates Lily, but she's willing to do whatever it takes to get that baby she hasn't been able to conceive with Lucius. And Florence is a Malfoy by birth, so Narcissa trust the baby's genes to pan out. Lucius need never know (and quite possibly Narcissa won't either once the fetus is implanted in her womb, should Snape wisely choose to obliviate her). So it goes. Snape gives up his baby, aware that Voldemort would insist the baby die with its mother if he knew, and aware that he can never claim the child once it's born. But at least the child will live. His wife dies, yet he knows he remains tied to her killer, as he sees no way out except in the same manner as Regulus and Florence. Perhaps it is Lily who reminds him there are always choices, even if he coldly disagrees. But he does not forget Lily's help this night, even as he returns to Voldemort, denouncing his faithless wife and cementing the Dark Lord's belief (for the moment anyway) in his deep devotion. Narcissa "discovers" her pregnancy, and some 6 months or so later Draco Malfoy is born, heir to an old and proud pureblood wizarding family. And less than 2 months later Harry Potter is born. Is this when Voldemort interprets the prophecy to indicate that Harry Potter is the boy who threatens his power, the boy who must be eliminated? Quite probably, and when Voldemort informs Snape, it is the moment Snape finally makes a choice, driven not only by a simmering if well- occluded desire for revenge, a life debt to James Potter he is determined to honor even while he hates the man, as well as a need to return the favor to the woman who saved *his* son, but also perhaps by a level of disgust at his own part in Voldemort's evil designs that he can no longer tolerate. He goes to Dumbledore. Dumbledore accepts Snape's story, believing not only Snape's regret over everything he's done, but receiving Snape's open gesture of faith in telling Dumbledore the secret of his son's existence. If Snape can trust Dumbledore with his son's life, than Dumbledore can trust Snape in turn with the Order's secrets. Snape becomes a spy, and Dumbledore's man, and watches his son grow up in the Malfoy home. He never overtly tries to sway Draco from Lucius Malfoy's point of view, because he cannot take the risk not just of his own life, but of Draco's life. Better to work covertly to earn the boy's trust and affection (in moments we--and Harry Potter--wouldn't be privy to) until the day his hand is forced and he must hope that bond between them will be strong enough to bring Draco to his side. Well, that's pretty much my theory of how Draco can be Snape's son and look like Lucius (Draco is still a Malfoy through his real mother), how Narcissa can either keep the truth a secret in her own self-interest or even not know the truth, and how JKR can say Snape doesn't have a daughter without spilling the beans. And I haven't even gotten to Snape's side of the family, Eileen Pince, with her uncles Albus and Abelforth, but that's enough for one theory! Call it S.O.F.A.S (Son of Florence and Severus). Julie (going to bed now) From honeykissed246 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 23 05:59:31 2006 From: honeykissed246 at yahoo.com (Darlene Carroll) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 22:59:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: why Ron and Hermione resemble a married couple / Luna In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060623055932.92249.qmail@web33209.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154219 Wootshanks now: > I think a fair question would be, "Is anything Luna says accurate?" Honeykissed: I think we can agree that Luna is a very eccentric person. I think she is accurate about some of the things she sees and says. Remember the therstals (sp) and she also heard the voices behind the veil. Now if Harry did not confirm these incidents, one might think that Luna was well "looney" because the way she "says" things just makes her appear off the wall. Now if she was right about those two things what else is she right about? I do believe that she will play a big part in the 7th book. From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jun 23 12:46:04 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 12:46:04 -0000 Subject: Cold Fish Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154220 > Tonks: > Just because you can know how a psychopath thinks doesn't mean that > you *are* one yourself. Once a psychopath, always a psychopath. > That is the only type of Personality Disorder that can not be fixed. > The damage is done very early in infancy. If a person can't bond > with other, they can never bond with others. So DD was *never* like > LV!! > Pippin: Ah, but if Harry is a message of divine love, empowered by Lily's sacrifice, then surely a miracle is not beyond its power? (Interesting, then, to think of the Dursleys as a blistering critique of the guardians of that message over the years.) I am not saying that Harry or Dumbledore *did* anything to bring this about, except that Dumbledore made a lifelong effort to live as though he did feel love for his fellow beings (and incidentally seems to have done a better job of it than those more culpable folks who take their ability to love for granted.) My understanding is that it's possible for a psychopath to do that, though by making Dumbledore so fantastically old when he experienced a bond, Rowling insulates herself from raising false hopes for real people. It is interesting that all the emotional attachment Dumbledore shows is for Harry. We can't tell if he feels attached to anyone else. We have questioned how Dumbledore, if he didn't believe in the prophecy, could know from the beginning that Harry had the extraordinary power that he speaks of. What better way than if it had transformed Dumbledore himself? It really isn't enough to say that Voldemort feared Dumbledore because Dumbledore was such a powerful wizard. Dumbledore was still a powerful wizard when Voldemort attacked him in OOP. Even the fact that Voldemort knew he could survive death doesn't explain it, because he fled Quirrell's body rather than attack DD in PS/SS. Something had to have changed. Pippin with small hope that anyone will be won to this theory, since we do seem to love our characters warm and fuzzy in defiance of theme and logical plotting. Of course JKR knows this... From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Fri Jun 23 12:53:49 2006 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 13:53:49 +0100 (BST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Cold Fish Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060623125349.99068.qmail@web86204.mail.ird.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154221 --- pippin_999 wrote: > > Pippin > with small hope that anyone will be won to this > theory, > since we do seem to love our characters warm and > fuzzy in > defiance of theme and logical plotting. Of course > JKR knows > this... I'm not opposed to your theory. One can't help thinking that Dumbledore's handling of the whole James-Snape-Sirus-Harry mess suggests a complete emotinal deafness, but... What stops me from embracing it completely, is that stupid "epitome of goodness" comment. I can't see how that could apply to a reformed sociopath. Or even to a sociopath that contained his tendencies through a mental effort. Irene ___________________________________________________________ Inbox full of spam? Get leading spam protection and 1GB storage with All New Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jun 23 13:55:10 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 13:55:10 -0000 Subject: Cold Fish Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <20060623125349.99068.qmail@web86204.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154222 Irene: > I'm not opposed to your theory. One can't help > thinking that Dumbledore's handling of the whole > James-Snape-Sirus-Harry mess suggests a complete > emotinal deafness, but... What stops me from embracing > it completely, is that stupid "epitome of goodness" > comment. I can't see how that could apply to a > reformed sociopath. Or even to a sociopath that > contained his tendencies through a mental effort. > Pippin: Funny, that's the exact opposite of how I see it. If the emphasis is on *choices* then surely someone who does right by choice is a better example of what Rowling means by goodness than someone who does right by instinct, or by habits formed in childhood. And if the emphasis is on choosing right over what is easy, then the harder the choice is, the more praise it deserves. Faramir said it better than me, when Sam praised him for rejecting the Ring, "Yet there was nought in this to praise. I had no lure or desire to do other than I have done." LOTR-The Two Towers, Book 2 ch 5. Pippin From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Fri Jun 23 14:19:48 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 14:19:48 -0000 Subject: How did MWPP make the Maunderer's Map? In-Reply-To: <449ACFDD.9090107@ihug.co.nz> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154223 > Hagrid Wrote: > > > The Map has blind spots where it can't see anyone. So how come > > some areas show up and not others? > > > >The three areas not shown on the map I know of are:- > > > >- Hagrid's Hut (or Lupin would have seen Pettigrew there - POA) > >- Room of Requirements (where Draco disappeared - HBP) > >- The Chamber of Secrets has never been mentioned again. > > > > Do the makers of the map have to have been in those areas of > > Hogwarts to be able to include them on the map? > > > - If so, Hagrid didn't trust them enough to allow them into his hut. > > - They never discovered the secrets of the Room of Requirements. > > - They couldn't open the Chamber - just as well for all of Hogwarts. > > > > - BUT ... it also means they got into the Slytherin Common > > Rooom to plot that on the map because Harry sees Draco on the > > map when he is back in the Common room(HBP). > > > > Agree? / Disagree? / what would MWPP be doing there? Was it > > Pettigrew (as a Rat) that crept around plotting some areas? > > Would his map making skill come into book 7? What do u think? > > > Allie: > I don't think they would necessarily have to have been *inside* a place (e.g. Slytherin Common Room) to map it, but they would have to know where it was. > The Shrieking Shack isn't on the Hogwarts grounds. > HAGRID / AUSSIE now: HOGWARTS ITSELF IS UNPLOTTABLE - SO THE BOUNDARY AND OUTSIDE THE GROUNDS WOULD NEED TO FIDDLE WITH THAT AGE OLD PROTECTIVE CHARM. I THINK THE MAP IS WITHIN THE CAMPUS GROUNDS ONLY. > > Tim wrote: > > I don't have a lot to say about this bar a bit of shallow > reasoning. And I think you're right to raise them. > > 1. Hagrid's Hut - Isn't it impolite to spy on friends, assuming of > course that Hagrid shared the same relationship with the Marauders > as he does with Fred and George. I think Hagrid did trust them. > Hagrid I feel would have seen/felt the good in them and that to me > appears to be the way Hagrid judges people - with his heart, (well > it's more accurate than his head at least) HAGRID / AUSSIE now: WITHIN OOTP, THEY WERE FRIENDS. BUT McGONAGALL ACCUSES MWPP OF BEING THE BIGGEST TROUBLEMAKERS HOGWARTS HAD SEEN, AND HAGRID COMPARES THEM TO F/G. (POA Chap 10) So During their school years, harder to trust them. SOMEONE SUGGESTED LUPIN WOULD NOT NOTICE PETTIGREW IN HAGRID'S HUT. But remember, Lupin took the map to look for Sirius sneaking into Hogwarts to kill Harry. Lupin would have looked at EVERYTHING on the map. > Tim wrote: > > 4. To me it doesn't appear too difficult to get into the Slytherin > Common Room, and as it isn't that big of a school, and the resentment > felt by the marauders toward slyth's and allies, that isn't too > surprising. > > What would MWPP be doing there? Snape comes to mind. > > HOw? Two Words - invisibility cloak oh and fearlessness (three) HAGRID / AUSSIE now: OK, SO ANY THEORIES ON HOW THAT WOULD HAVE HELPED / HURT MWPP'S OPINION OF SNAPE? - Only Lupin (and Peter) knew Snape became a Hogwarts professor. > Tim wrote: > > As for Peter's mapmaking skill, I thik enough has been said in > canon to show that Pettigrew's talent only stretches ads far as > the wizard instructing him. Cos & GoF and I would personally > prefer not to think to highly of him. HAGRID / AUSSIE now: EVEN GUILDEROY LOCKHART HAD A SPELL HE WAS EFFICIENT AT. If Peter has map making skills and able to overcome "Unplottable" Spells to do it, LV may have invited a DE into the group with a devistating talent that could repay the life debt to Harry. From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Fri Jun 23 14:42:10 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 14:42:10 -0000 Subject: Drumstrang School Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154224 "Veil, ve have a castle also, not as big as this, nor as comfortable, I am thinking," he(Krum) was telling Hermione. "Ve have just four floors, and the fires are lit only for magical purposes. But ve have grounds larger even than these - though in vinter, ve have very little daylight, so ve are not enjoying them. But in summer ve are flying every day, over the lakes and the mountains -" "Now, now, Viktor!" said Karkaroff with a laugh that didn't reach his cold eyes, "don't go giving away anything else, now, or your charming friend will know exactly where to find us!" (GOF - Chap 23) In the next exchange, DD hints towards the Room of Requirements. That did not turn out to be idle chatter in the following two books, so what about Drumstrang School? Could that little description get HRH to explore Drumstrang in their quest for Horcruxes? Where do you think Drumstrang is? - "very little daylight" during winter sounds close to the artic circle. - Arriving by ship sounds not land bound - lakes and mountains, hmmm Some memebers know that area much better than me. Is it: - Norway? - Baltic nations? - another area? From fairwynn at hotmail.com Fri Jun 23 14:43:33 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (fair wynn) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 09:43:33 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape trying to warn James redux (WAS: Re: Life Debt) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154225 Carol said > >At any rate, here are the words in question, which certainly do not >state that Snape tried to trick James into switching from loyal Sirius >to Rat!Pettigrew. What Snape actually says is: > >"Like father, like son, Potter! I have just saved your neck; you >should be thanking me on bended knee! You would have been well served >if he'd killed you! You would have died like your father, too arrogant >to believe you might be mistaken in Black1" (PoA Am. ed. 361). > >The implication does seem to be that Snape (or Dumbledore?) warned >James Potter against Sirius Black (perhaps suggesting that he was the >traitor who was betraying the Order's secrets to Voldemort), and that >James didn't listen, whether out of "arrogance" or distrust of Severus >Snape or certainty that Sirius was his friend (or all of the above). wynnleaf, Actually in the Maraurder's Map chapter of POA, Fudge, in the hearing of McGonagall who does not contradict him, said that a spy of Dumbledore's had "tipped him off." Later Fudge said Dumbledore offered to be their secret keeper, and McGonagall immediately afterward, apparently by way of explanation for Dumbledore's offer, adds that Dumbledore thought someone on the Order's side was giving info to Voldemort about the Potters. The strong implication is that Dumbledore offered to be the secret keeper because he was afriad that the Potters would choose a secret keeper who was really an informant. Readers often assume that Dumbledore suspected one of the Maraurders due to a spy's information. And readers also assume that the spy was Snape. But such an assumption does make sense, particularly in light of Snape's fury at James' decision to trust one of his friends as secret keeper. First, it means that Snape almost certainly knew that there was suspicion that one of the Maruaders was an informant for Voldemort. For Snape to know that, it's likely he was the spy that brought that info. The fact that he's so furious over James' decision to disregard that warning gives credence to the notion that Snape brought the information and that it was truly brought to get James to avoid using a traitor as an informant -- not for some sort of evil reason. Ah, please note that I didn't say it *proves* anything. wynnleaf _________________________________________________________________ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Jun 23 15:00:28 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:00:28 -0000 Subject: Cold Fish Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154226 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > Tonks: > > Just because you can know how a psychopath thinks doesn't mean that you *are* one yourself. Once a psychopath, always a psychopath. That is the only type of Personality Disorder that can not be fixed. The damage is done very early in infancy. If a person can't bond with other, they can never bond with others. So DD was *never* like LV!! > > > Pippin: > Ah, but if Harry is a message of divine love, empowered by > Lily's sacrifice, then surely a miracle is not beyond its power? (Snip)> > I am not saying that Harry or Dumbledore *did* anything to > bring this about, except that Dumbledore made a lifelong effort > to live as though he did feel love for his fellow beings (and > incidentally seems to have done a better job of it than those > more culpable folks who take their ability to love for granted.) > > My understanding is that it's possible for a psychopath to do > that, though by making Dumbledore so fantastically old when > he experienced a bond, Rowling insulates herself from raising > false hopes for real people. It is interesting that all the > emotional attachment Dumbledore shows is for Harry. We > can't tell if he feels attached to anyone else. > (Snip) > It really isn't enough to say that Voldemort feared Dumbledore > because Dumbledore was such a powerful wizard. Tonks: It is true that a psychopath could *choose* to *act* in a loving manner towards others. But they would not feel love or have a real bond with another. They can change their behavior. I guess a true *miracle* of the magnitude that you describe could happen. It would be very rare, IM(professional)O. (Almost like the dead being raised.) But I think that if it has or ever will happen in the series it will be with LV himself. DD has never, never, been a psychopath (AKA Anti-social Personality Disorder). I don't see DD as a cold fish at all. I was going to suggest that he was a "thinking" type as opposed to a "feeling" type if he took the Myers-Briggs test, but I personally don't see him as that cold so I don't think of him as a "thinking" type personality. Maybe that is because I being a feeling type myself see the thinking types as not only cold but cruel. And DD is not like that. The 'twinking eyes' shows him as a loving man. I think the reason that DD didn't see the problem with Snape and Harry coming was that he expected that Snape could overcome this. Snape IMO, being a member of the Order is probably expected to progress in his own Alchemical process of Spiritual perfection. And DD would have expected Snape to work on and overcome that little problem. DD is detached to some extent I guess. But there is such a thing as "holy detachment". The eqivalant of `not wearing your heart on your sleeve'. I am not sure what others expect to see in DD to prove that he Loves deeply. I see him as a very kind, loving man. And apparently so does half the WW, as evidenced by his funeral. Most of those people were not there out of duty. As to why LV fears him. I think it is because DD *knows* Tom. DD knows Tom from a child, sees him for who and what he really is. Unlike others who fear LV, DD has no fear of him. Someone without fear is a threat like no other. And LV knows this. He can not intimidate DD like he can other people. When he tries, DD just turns to him and says "Tom .." Tonks_op From honeykissed246 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 23 06:06:57 2006 From: honeykissed246 at yahoo.com (Darlene Carroll) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 23:06:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: <51b.1145f02.31cbea37@aol.com> Message-ID: <20060623060657.949.qmail@web33210.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154227 Nikkalmati: "that is the climax and I think somewhere in Book 7 Harry's view of Snape will be shown to be completely wrong". Honeykissed: Just like Harry was wrong about Sirius in POA , I think he is also wrong about Snape. We shall see if he figures it out before he goes "Snape" hunting. From sherriola at earthlink.net Fri Jun 23 18:11:58 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 11:11:58 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: <20060623060657.949.qmail@web33210.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154228 Nikkalmati: "that is the climax and I think somewhere in Book 7 Harry's view of Snape will be shown to be completely wrong". Honeykissed: Just like Harry was wrong about Sirius in POA , I think he is also wrong about Snape. We shall see if he figures it out before he goes "Snape" hunting. Sherry now: I disagree. It is time for Harry to take on his true role as hero, and it's time for his judgment to be correct. The torch has passed from Dumbledore to Harry, and I think it diminishes him if his judgment is wrong again. It would be ironic, if after all these years of everyone telling him he was wrong about Snape, and now he is proven right. It's about time. Sherry From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Jun 23 18:20:40 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 18:20:40 -0000 Subject: How did MWPP make the Maunderer's Map? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154229 Allie: > The Shrieking Shack isn't on the Hogwarts grounds. > Can someone repost that link or email me offlist? > I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Map is a dark > object, but I don't think that the Marauders intended > it that way. Maybe it acquired a life of its own > through their advanced magic. Or maybe someone > intentionally corrupted it later - we don't know > where it was before Filch had it. houyhnhnm: What I was wondering is *why* doesn't the Map show places that are not on the Hogwarts grounds. There would have been no need to map the Shrieking Shack and the tunnel leading to it since no one goes there. But it seems that they would have had an interest in knowing who was where in Hogsmeade and surroundings since their escapades frequently took them there. It would appear that extending the Map to include territory outside of Hogwarts was something they were unable to do. Why? Was it because their knowledge of magic was simply not advanced enough? But why could they have gotten so far--making such a map must surely have involved very advanced magic--and no farther, or did it have something to do with the nature of the magic involved and its connection to Hogwarts. This is the passage that started my train of thought. Dumbledore is speculating on Tom Riddle's reason for wanting a teaching post at Hogwarts: "Secondly, the castle is a stronghold of ancient magic. Undoubtedly Voldemort had penetrated many more of its secrets than most of the students who pass through the place, but he may have felt that there were mysteries to unravel, stores of magic to tap." (HBP20) So I was wondering if the Marauders tapped into those stores of ancient magic to make the Map. They could not plot any area that Hogwarts itself would not allow them to plot. Perhaps they were fooling around with magic whose power they did not fully comprehend. They were in over their heads, so to speak, and did not realize how Dark was the magic they were involved with. Never trust anything that can think for itself if you can't see where it keeps its brain. http://lunar-music.livejournal.com/1537.html Could the unplottability of the interior of Hagrid's hut have anything to do with his Giant side? (Like the way he was impervious to the stunning spells of the aurors in OotP.) From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Fri Jun 23 18:21:35 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 18:21:35 -0000 Subject: Cold Fish Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154230 > Pippin: > It really isn't enough to say that Voldemort feared Dumbledore > because Dumbledore was such a powerful wizard. Dumbledore > was still a powerful wizard when Voldemort attacked him in OOP. > Even the fact that Voldemort knew he could survive death > doesn't explain it, because he fled Quirrell's body rather than > attack DD in PS/SS. Something had to have changed. Amiable Dorsai: Going out on a limb here, is it possible that Voldy felt a little more comfortable with the idea of fighting Dumbledore when he had his own, undamaged body, his own wand, and his powers restored to full strength, as opposed to when he was a diminished wraith inhabiting a borrowed body that was damaged by the blood protection? Amiable Dorsai From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 23 18:47:55 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 18:47:55 -0000 Subject: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: <51b.1145f02.31cbea37@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154231 > Nikkalmati Possibly, Snape will die for the > cause and Harry will feel guilty? Possibly, we will see a parallel with the > Prank. If James was so appalled at the near death of Severus that he gave up his > juvenile ways, Harry could be shocked out of his own hostility and > arrogance by something Snape does. Alla: Ok, I can see as a possibility that Harry was wrong about Snape. I mean, I hope it does not happen, but I always try to keep alternate possibilities in mind in order not to be too dissapointed, but this argument I cannot even see where you are coming from. Harry's arrogance about Snape? Harry was standing on the Tower, helpless, paralyzed and was forced to watch Snape kill Dumbledore for whatever reasons. Even if it IS a mistake, is it an ARROGANT mistake to make? Harry was trying so hard to get DD home to get help for him, here comes Severus dearest and deals with Harry's beloved mentor very fast. Um, why is it arrogant on Harry behalf to desire to bring Snape to justice? As I said, I can see that it COULD be a mistake, but I see it as a very reasonable, understandable mistake, IF it is a mistake of course. JMO, Alla. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 23 18:50:54 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 18:50:54 -0000 Subject: Names and POV in the HP books Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154232 This is a minor point and probably not worth making, but I find it annoying that the narrator refers to James and Sirius by their first names in the Pensieve scene, but to Severus and Remus by their last names. They're all the same age (fifteen or sixteen), the same age as Harry, or a few months older; none of them is yet a teacher. Why not call them all by their first names (as Adult!Lupin does)? The obvious answer is that the narrator's use of the names reflects Harry's. Black, the supposed betrayer of his parents and would-be murderer (of Pettigrew, not Harry) has been transformed, thanks to Hermione's tentative use of his first name in PoA, not into Mr. Black but into Sirius, James's old friend. Harry picks up this name and never varies from it. The opposite process applies for Lupin and Snape, whom Harry first met (and interacted with rather extensively) as adults. He "knows" them, and while he notes their appearance (especially Severus's) as boys and he knows their first names, he still thinks of them as Snape and Lupin. The narrator uses those names because Harry does. Oddly, or perhaps not so oddly, Pettigrew is neither Peter nor Pettigrew but Wormtail, reflecting his "introduction" to Harry when he was transformed from "Scabbers" into his snivelling, cowardly human self (I would say ratlike except that it would insult those intelligent little creatures). To get back to names, except for this scene, Harry (and the narrator, reflecting Harr's PoV) uses last names for characters referred to in the third person for two reasons: either they're adults, usually teachers or staff members, or Harry dislikes them. Most but not all of the characters referred to by last name are male. In the first category are Dumbledore, Snape, Lupin, Hagrid, McGonagall, Trelawney, Filch, Flitwick, and many others. The degree of respect or affection Harry feels for the character seems to have no bearing on his (or the narrator's) use of the last name only for these characters (some of whom are also called "Professor _____" on various occasions in the narrative, but not usually so-called by Harry and his friends in their discussions with each other). Some of the female adults are usually referred to as "Madam _____" (Hooch, Pince, Pomfrey). Madam Rosmerta, perhaps because she's a bartender rather than a teacher, is called by "Madam" plus her first name (more friendly and intimate, or less respectful, or both? Contrast Madam Malkin, the robemaker). Grubbly-Plank, though only a substitute, is called "Professor" or referred to by her last name. Lucius Malfoy and Arthur Weasley are both referred to as "Mr.", perhaps to distinguish them from their sons (surely not a title of respect in Malfoy's case). Ollivander, IIRC, is also referred to as "Mr." Narcissa and Bellatrix are referred to their first names by the narrator in "Spinner's End," reflecting their own usage (and Snape's), as well as the unusual PoV of that chapter. Elsewhere, Bellatrix is referred to by both names but Narcissa is first "Narcissa Malfoy" and then Narcissa in "Draco's Detour"--a deviation, apparently, from Harry's PoV as surely he would not use her first name in referring to her. The only thing these examples have in common that I can determine is the near-absence of first names for adult male characters, with Sirius Black as the marked exception to the rule (such as it is). (James, of course, is called James to distinguish him from Harry, who calls him "my father" or "my dad," neither of which would work in the narrative. Among the students, Harry and the narrator use last names for Draco Malfoy, Vincent Crabbe, and Gregory Goyle, perhaps reflecting Harry's dislike or Draco's own interest in bloodlines ("What's your surname?" he asks Harry in SS/PS). The chapter title "Draco's Detour" breaks the pattern, perhaps for the sake of alliteration but perhaps signalling that the narrator, unlike Harry, is gaining insight into the Malfoys (note the use of "Narcissa" mentioned above, though Narcissa does not appear to advantage in this chapter.) A few other male characters whom Harry doesn't know well but dislikes (Blaise Zabini, Cormac McLaggen) are sometimes referred to by the narrator by last name alone, reflecting Harry's usage. The only instances of a female student being referred to by her last name alone that I can think of all occur in dialogue: Hermione addressed as "Granger" by Pansy and Draco, reflecting contempt, and James Potter addresses Lily as "Evans," reflecting, erm, arrogant desperation.(?) Can anyone make sense of all this? Is there a pattern? Is it significant? Does it reflect the social structure of the WW or Harry's skewed perception, or is it just a mishmash of unmeaning variations that JKR hasn't thought out properly? Am I the only one who thinks that Sirius Black, at least, is being relegated to the category of "close male friend" rather than "male adult," whatever the rest may mean? Is it important that Wormtail is sui generis (the only one of the Marauders referred to by his nickname) and that Snape and Lupin (despite the difference in the way they address each other) are placed in the same category ("male adult") by the narrator? For that matter, does it matter that Lupin places Snape in the same category as James and Sirius by persistently addressing him and referring to him in third person as "Severus"? Does he still see them all, and perhaps himself, as boys, or does "Severus" suggest equality with himself and a vague hope for reconciliation (pre-tower)? Carol, who intends to use first names for the kids and last names for the adults (except Wormtail!) until she receives some sort of explanation to resolve her confusion From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Fri Jun 23 19:11:03 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 19:11:03 -0000 Subject: Names and POV in the HP books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154233 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > >Am I the only one who thinks that Sirius Black, at least, is being relegated to the category of "close male friend" rather than "male adult," whatever the rest may mean? Steven1965aaa: I don't think HRH mean any disrespect whatsoever to Sirius by using his first name. Harry does so because, as Dumbledore says, he was coming to view Sirius as a mixture of father and brother. No one would call their uncle Mr._______. Ron and Hermione are following his lead. And Sirius is not the type of person to mind the lack of formality (similarly Dumbledore is called by many "Dumbledore" by the adults throughout and does not seem to mind). Similarly Harry does not call Hagrid "Professor" (except that one time in HBP which he did with purpose). Lupin is different because HRH first met him as a professor. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 23 19:25:00 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 19:25:00 -0000 Subject: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154234 Sherry wrote: > > I disagree. It is time for Harry to take on his true role as hero, and it's time for his judgment to be correct. The torch has passed from Dumbledore to Harry, and I think it diminishes him if his judgment is wrong again. It would be ironic, if after all these years of everyone telling him he was wrong about Snape, and now he is proven right. It's about time. Carol responds: Hi, Sherry. I understand your feelings, but I think it's important for Harry to grow and learn throughout the books, including the last one, in which he will have barely reached what the WW optimistically considers adulthood. He's learning to take the true measure of people (notably Luna and Neville, based on their actions in the MoM) and increasingly able to empathize with others (again, notably Luna and Neville, and, all too briefly, Snape in the Pensieve scene). The book is (IMO) as much a Bildungsroman as a heroic quest, and Harry, starting out like all protagonists of the genre at Innocence, has yet to finish his journey through Experience to reach Wisdom (which DD, at approximately 150 years old, has long since reached). Wisdom is not omniscience--the wise can make mistakes. But they're less quick to judge others than young people are (including some adults who have not finished their journey and may never do so, for example Sirius Black and Severus Snape, both of whom seem stuck in adolescence), and they have learned many lessons from long experience (as most older people have done in real life, and which teenagers too seldom appreciate in Western culture, IMO). Yes, it would be ironic (deliciously so, from my perspective) if Harry is wrong about Snape, but it wouldn't diminish him, IMO. Learning that Snape has been helping him all along, that Snape had no choice but to kill DD and by doing so was following DD's wishes (exactly as Harry himself did in the cave), would be one last posthumous lesson from Dumbledore, the lesson that prepares Harry for the final confrontation with Voldemort, his true antagonist. If, however, Harry turns out to be right, Dumbledore will be revealed as not only fallible but foolish, an utter failure as guide and teacher and mentor, nothing but, in Draco Malfoy's words, "a foolish old man." So much for "the next great adventure" and "what is right not what is easy" and choices and second chances and all the other lessons he has attempted to teach Harry. I, for one, will be very sad if Dumbledore turns out to be a false guide who died for nothing (and Snape turns out to be a cardboard villain and plot device correctly interpreted by Harry from their first encounter in SS/PS). I'd much rather have Snape be the means of teaching Harry a lesson in love and forgiveness and redemption, not through his own goodness or for his own sake but as proof that Dumbledore was right to "trust Severus Snape completely." Harry can't continue hating Snape and seeking revenge, falling into Snape's own trap, if he's going to defeat Voldemort. And I can't see Harry forgiving Snape for revealing the Prophecy to Voldemort (and being snide and sarcastic) if Snape isn't on Dumbledore's side. Carol, sincerely hoping that Dumbledore's judgment will be validated and that Harry will have reached Wisdom, or something close to it, by the end of Book 7 From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Jun 23 19:57:42 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 19:57:42 -0000 Subject: Phoenix Fire? / Tonks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154235 DA Jones: > The one word answer to houyhnhnm question about where > the sensitivity is in Slytherin is prob: Tonks! > We don't have in canon anwhere that I'm aware of a > statement of what house she was in and since her mother > was a Black there is a very good chance that she is a > Slytherin. In OOP of the Phoenix isn't something stated > to the effect that the blacks have all been Slyutherins > for generations, except for Sirius. JKR hasn't shown us > much of the female side of Slytherin's. Females are > usually more sensative. Pansy is the only female Slytherin > we know much about and hasn't she been shown to always > be sensitve to Draco at least. Slughorn has some sensitivity > too. He is not a total cold fish. houyhnhnm: I like the idea of Tonks being a Slytherin. In OotP Tonks says: "I was never a prefect myself," said Tonks brightly ... "My Head of House said I lacked certain necessary qualities." "Like what?" said Ginny who was choosing a baked potato. "Like the ability to behave myself," said Tonks. Now if McGonagall had been present, I could see Tonks using this curiously impersonal mode of referring to her HoH, accompanied by a wink. But since McGonagall was not there, it seems an odd way of putting it. Combining Tonks' statement with what Lupin said a little later, it appears that Dumbldore made the final decision to appoint prefects but the Heads of Houses could make recommendations. Now who do we know that would nix a student's chance of becoming prefect because she couldn't behave? Misbehavior hardly seems to be a disqualifier for the office of prefect in Gryffindor House. Even though Snape was an Order member, he was clearly personally unpopular with the bevy of Gryffindors sitting around the table with her. She may have been reluctant to draw attention to either her House of her HoH under the circumstances. What does sensitivity mean exactly? Does it mean being prone to having one's feelings hurt? Does it mean being attuned to the nuances in a social situation? Among Wizarding folk might it mean a heightened awareness of magical traces? I'm going to have to give that some more thought. I do think that Slytherins are very quick to perceive a slight, so they in that sense they could be considered to show sensitivity. From coverton at netscape.com Fri Jun 23 14:13:58 2006 From: coverton at netscape.com (corey_over) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 14:13:58 -0000 Subject: Luna In-Reply-To: <20060623055932.92249.qmail@web33209.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154236 > Honeykissed: > I think we can agree that Luna is a very eccentric person. I >think she is accurate about some of the things she sees and says. >Remember the therstals (sp) and she also heard the voices behind the >veil. Now if Harry did not confirm these incidents, one might think >that Luna was well "looney" because the way she "says" things just >makes her appear off the wall. Now if she was right about those two >things what else is she right about? I do believe that she will play >a big part in the 7th book. > Yes Luna is a little odd,I won't deny that. But I just can't wait to see what she'll do in book 7. Let's not forget the good job she did at the Department of Mysteries. Corey. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Jun 23 21:52:04 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 21:52:04 -0000 Subject: Drumstrang School In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154237 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hagrid" wrote: > > "Veil, ve have a castle also, not as big as this, nor as > comfortable, I am thinking," he(Krum) was telling Hermione. "Ve > have just four floors, ... -" > ... > > In the next exchange, DD hints towards the Room of Requirements. > ..., so what about Drumstrang School? > > Could that little description get HRH to explore Drumstrang in their > quest for Horcruxes? > > 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. Though I do NOT think Durmstrang is literally in Murmansk (which is actually a city). I think it is more likely in a large unpopulated area south west of Murmansk in a mountainous region near the Finland boarder - see maps. As to exploring Durmstrang, I think it is more likely that Durmstrang will come to them in the form of Viktor Krum than it is that they will actually go to Durmstrang. Even if by some chance they do go to Durmstrang, Viktor's presence will be critical; he will act as their guide. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From wolfxavier1975 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 23 14:14:36 2006 From: wolfxavier1975 at yahoo.com (Wolf Xavier) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 07:14:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Prank question - Lupin wanted Snape DEAD? Still don't quite buy it. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060623141436.23635.qmail@web38114.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154238 Pippin: >> If Dumbledore had caught them, maybe so. But Sirius and James were taking Lupin into Hogsmeade, where they had many close calls. If they'd been caught there, it would be the Ministry, not Dumbledore, who decided what to do with them. With Voldemort on the rise and Fenrir on the loose, they could well have been convicted of every unsolved werewolf attack on the books. << Wolf Xavier: Excellent points. I had not accounted for trouble Remus might get into regarding GREYBACK's possible predations. Even so... It still sounds like, in context of JKR's elegantly moral world, that it still would seem like "I could get into major trouble, better snuff Snape", no matter how it was more palatably phrased. Consider the attitudes our heroic characters are given toward murder by JKR. I point to PoA at the Shreiking Shack and the almost-execution of Peter Petigrew. I say "execution" as that's how I would see it. However, JKR has had her characters refer to it as murder. Sirius, in particular, has FAR more reason to kill Peter by this point than Remus may have had to do Snape in back in the day. And yet they do not. All of their combined emotional baggage... imprisonment, betrayal, Lily and James DEAD... And they still easily accept that it is wrong. From wolfxavier1975 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 23 14:28:19 2006 From: wolfxavier1975 at yahoo.com (Wolf Xavier) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 07:28:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Son of Snape? Not really JKR's style In-Reply-To: <018301c69655$d937d7e0$6500a8c0@shannonn2zgd3u> Message-ID: <20060623142819.52631.qmail@web38109.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154239 > Heidi wrote: > My question is this: Is Lucius really Draco's father? Could it > be that Snape is actually the father of Draco Malfoy? > Seon: > I've been wondering about this ever since JKR said that Snape did > not have a daughter and that he had been loved by someone. If Snape > has a son and we've already met him then my money is also on Draco. > The biggest hiccup I can point to in canon is that there are, as near as I know, NO examples of children out of wedlock. Is that an absolute rule? Of course not. But it may be one of those things that JKR considers a "no-no" (at least in a story that, while growing darker, is still mostly for kids) and simply will not include in any way. So with that in mind, I doubt we will ever encounter any "secret love children" of any sort. Or, more bluntly, there are no bastards in the Potterverse. -Wolf From wolfxavier1975 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 23 14:42:01 2006 From: wolfxavier1975 at yahoo.com (Wolf Xavier) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 07:42:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The Pensive Runes (and Zeppelin in Potterverse in general) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060623144201.40668.qmail@web38112.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154240 Randy replies... > So of course this information leads to the obvious conclusion... > > Lily was listening to "Whole Lotta Love" on that fateful night, > and Sirius was listening to "Gallow's Pole". Narcissa and Lucius > have always been big fans of "Stairway to Heaven". ;0) > > If you touch your wands together while listening to the album, it > plays back all of your spells in reverse and says "Paul is Dead" Wolf: And of course there are the persistant rumors that James Page, who was captivated by magic, was somehow "in the know" (possibly even a squib) and that "The Battle of Evermore" (often mistaken as Tolkien-based) is, in fact, the encoded tale of the fight against that dark wizard Grindelwald. If so, Albus isn't saying. However (according to Mundungus Fletcher, so take it with a grain of salt) the barman at the Hog's Head tends to turn the volume WAY UP on the rare occasions the song comes thru on the wizarding wireless. Just being goofy, sorry. Wolf From Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com Fri Jun 23 23:12:56 2006 From: Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com (kibakianakaya) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 23:12:56 -0000 Subject: Names and POV in the HP books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154241 Carol wrote: >> The obvious answer is that the narrator's use of the names > reflects Harry's. Lilygale here: Very interesting. I never noticed the name game before. I agree that name usage reflects Harry's POV or feelings towards the person. For example, he literally knew Wormtail as the rat for three years before meeting the man. He's not going to call the man "Scabbers" but he probably thinks of him as that 'dirty rat' hence Wormtail. Huge Snip > Narcissa and Bellatrix are referred to their first names by the > narrator in "Spinner's End," reflecting their own usage (and > Snape's), as well as the unusual PoV of that chapter. Elsewhere, > Bellatrix is referred to by both names but Narcissa is first > "Narcissa Malfoy" and then Narcissa in "Draco's Detour"--a > deviation, apparently, from Harry's PoV as surely he would not > use her first name in referring to her. > Snip Lilygale again: Thanks for getting me thinking about Narcissa. We may find some clues in the interactions between Harry and Narcissa in "Draco's Detour". Draco insults Hermione; Harry and Ron whip out their wands. Narcissa tells them to put the wands away and threatens them "If you attack my son again, I shall ensure that it is the last thing you ever do." Again? Harry and Ron threatened Draco, but did not attack him. Harry's response is interesting. He treats Narcissa as an equal deserving of contempt, with no attempt to preserve any semblance of respect that one might give to an (otherwise unknown) mother of a schoolmate. Harry (thinks he) knows that Narcissa is on the side of evil and is going to show it. '"Really?, said Harry, taking a step forward and gazing into the smoothly arrogant face that, for all its pallor, still resembled her sister's. He was as tall as she was now. "Going to get a few Death Eaters to do us in, are you?"' Notice that the narrator points out that Harry is as tall as Narcissa. This scene indicates to me that Harry feels like he is growing up (he is as tall as she is) and no longer constrained to call all adults by their titles. The adults have to earn the respect that goes with the title. Harry goes on to mention Narcissa's "loser of a husband," strengthening the idea that the shift from Mrs. Malfoy to Narcissa is based on his loss of respect for her, and feeling confident that he can address her in a way that displays his contempt. Furthermore, to call Narcissa "Malfoy" at this point would be confusing, since Draco is there and Lucius is mentioned. Hence, Narcissa. From wolfxavier1975 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 23 14:46:02 2006 From: wolfxavier1975 at yahoo.com (Wolf Xavier) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 07:46:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Hagrid's home on the Maunderer's Map In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060623144602.47251.qmail@web38107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154242 houyhnhnm102 wrote: >> I had assumed the RoR was simply unplottable for magical reasons, but the fact that Lupin could not see inside Hagrid's hut has been nagging at the back of my mind. I hadn't really looked at the missing spaces altogether before. Why doesn't the Shrieking Shack show up on the Map though? << Allie: >> The Shrieking Shack isn't on the Hogwarts grounds. << Wolf: Do we really know how much of the grounds is covered by the Map? I'm not saying it does or does not cover the grounds, or to what degree. It may be that Hagrid's little hut, on the edge of the Forbidden Forest, may not be within the Map's area of coverage. houyhnhnm: >> What I was wondering is *why* doesn't the Map show places that are not on the Hogwarts grounds. It would appear that extending the Map to include territory outside of Hogwarts was something they were unable to do. Why? Was it because their knowledge of magic was simply not advanced enough? << Wolf: I think the BIGGEST problem in figuring out of the Map works is that, I suspect, JKR only thought it out so far, and the Map, really, is a plot device only. It does what JKR needs it to do and nothing else. That is not to say that she just makes stuff up as she goes, but the Map serves the need to allow for things to happen that would be tough to justify otherwise. Powerful enough to help Harry get about or spot Pettigrew, and keep the story moving, but not SO powerful as to give the heroes TOO MUCH info and kill the story from another direction. It is fun to deduce how it works, it really is, but I suspect that we will never get an explanation so it will remain a contradictory device that defies any greater detailed explanation than "it's magic". From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Jun 24 00:46:30 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 00:46:30 -0000 Subject: How did MWPP make the Maunderer's Map? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154243 houyhnhnm: *(snip)* > So I was wondering if the Marauders tapped into those stores of > ancient magic to make the Map. They could not plot any area that > Hogwarts itself would not allow them to plot. Perhaps they were > fooling around with magic whose power they did not fully comprehend. > They were in over their heads, so to speak, and did not realize how > Dark was the magic they were involved with. > > > Never trust anything that can think for itself if you can't see where > it keeps its brain. > http://lunar-music.livejournal.com/1537.html Ceridwen: Thanks for reposting the link. I didn't have a lot of time the other night when it was posted before. I read down the comments to the original, and saw something that got me started thinking. 'Gingersomething' says about the map that it is "Useful, seemingly benign, has a clever catchphrase..." Aside from the clever catchphrase, isn't that just the way Harry thought about his visions/dreams in OotP? He argues with people who want him to learn Occlumency by pointing out how his vision saved Arthur Weasley's life. He has a window into Voldemort's world. It's useful, he insists, why would he want to break the connection? The map is useful even if it doesn't show everything. It's seemingly benign, and has a sense of humor, too. It's precious to Harry, too, for another reason - his father, Sirius and Lupin (yeah, and Pettigrew, but three out of four ain't bad) made it. It's an artifact that is a rare connection with his father which, as an orphan, Harry is not likely to give up without a struggle. It could be that the hat and the map really are benign, just another example of something that wizards can do that we poor Muggles can't. I tend to think that the Founders, when they put something of themselves into the hat, also placed spells to keep it tamper-proof. Sure, it's possbile that a powerful wizard like Tom Riddle could get around them or find some way to add his own little quirk to the mix, but to witches and wizards in general, the hat would be protected, I think. Not so sure about the map. Three kids, not very disciplined in their extra-curricular activities if their rule-breaking is an indication, and possibly leaving the map open for more modifications later on, might have also left it open for Dark Magic, or might have, in their zeal to create it, fudged and used some questionable magic. After all, magic is a thing, neither good nor bad, until someone uses it for a specific purpose. Interesting discussion! Ceridwen. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Jun 24 00:59:02 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 00:59:02 -0000 Subject: Phoenix Fire? / Tonks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154244 houyhnhnm: > > I like the idea of Tonks being a Slytherin. > > In OotP Tonks says: > > "I was never a prefect myself," said Tonks brightly ... > "My Head of House said I lacked certain necessary qualities." > "Like what?" said Ginny who was choosing a baked potato. > "Like the ability to behave myself," said Tonks. *(snip)* > Now who do we know that would nix a student's chance of > becoming prefect because she couldn't behave? Misbehavior > hardly seems to be a disqualifier for the office of prefect > in Gryffindor House. Ceridwen: Snape also calls Tonks by her given name in HBP. He calls other Slytherin students by their first names, but so far, I haven't noticed him using first names with students from other houses, or at least students from Gryffindor. Ceridwen. From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sat Jun 24 01:30:17 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 21:30:17 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Evil Snape Message-ID: <2c5.9ed63ec.31cdefa9@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154245 >Alla: >Ok, I can see as a possibility that Harry was wrong about Snape. I mean, I hope it does not happen, but I always try to keep alternate possibilities in mind in order not to be too dissapointed, but this argument I cannot even see where you are coming from. >Harry's arrogance about Snape? Harry was standing on the Tower, helpless, paralyzed and was forced to watch Snape kill Dumbledore for whatever reasons. >Even if it IS a mistake, is it an ARROGANT mistake to make? Nikkalmati: Harry's arrogance has nothing to do with the Tower scene, it is a personality characteristic. He always thinks he knows better than anyone else. He doesn't listen to others' opinions and he has been getting worse as he gets older. Example: his certain belief in his own POV leads him to misrepresent to the Order what DD told him about why Snape left LV. HBP 616 "Snape passed Voldemort the information that made Voldemort hunt down my mum and dad. Then Snape told Dumbledore he had not realized what he was doing, he was really sorry he'd done it, sorry that they were dead." We know DD told Harry Snape came to him with some story long before the Potters were killed, so that is a distortion in Harry's thinking. Example 2: he refuses to confide in McGonnagal about where he and DD were that night, apparently thinking he knew best again. HBP 626. I bet that keep it to myself attitude turns out to be a mistake in Book 7. JKR loves to use plot twists to make the reader realize things are not always what there appear. Neville the shy boy is really brave; he receives points for moral courage in the very first book, then he shows physical bravery at the MOM. Luna, who is the type of weird and tactless girl who is often shunned, is actually one of Harry's best friends and very perceptive. Trelawney really is a Seer, despite appearances. Doris Umbridge is not a sweet little girl. The kind professor is really a werewolf. Sirius is not a murderer after all. Mrs. Figg his neighbor is a Squib. James was a bully, at least at times. There is certainly more to Petunia than meets the eye. Handsome Tom is a psychopath. Slughorn is an armchair . The Half Blood Prince is - well you know that one. It goes on and on. The odds are that whatever you see JKR is going to turn it around. I am sure there are plenty of surprises waiting in Book 7, so, yes, keep an open mind. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 24 01:43:48 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 01:43:48 -0000 Subject: Tonks as Slytherin (Was: Phoenix Fire? / Tonks) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154246 houyhnhnm wrote: > > I like the idea of Tonks being a Slytherin. > What does sensitivity mean exactly? Does it mean being > prone to having one's feelings hurt? Does it mean being > attuned to the nuances in a social situation? Among > Wizarding folk might it mean a heightened awareness of > magical traces? I'm going to have to give that some more > thought. I do think that Slytherins are very quick to > perceive a slight, so they in that sense they could be > considered to show sensitivity. > Carol responds: Wouldn't "sensitivity" in the sense of having your feelings easily hurt (Moaning Myrtle?) be categorized as a "negative" trait (character flaw) rather than a "positive" one (virtue)? Heightened awareness, yes; maybe awareness of others' feelings or of beauty. See my comments on Snape, who is "sensitive" to to the interaction of ingredients in a potion, both what can go wrong and what can be made more effective, to a degree that makes him a Potions genius rather than merely an excellent potion make like Slughorn. As for Tonks being a Slytherin, I like your arguments and evidence (and we also have Snape addressing her as Nymphadora, which would be most unusual if she were a Gryffindor, and her shocked response to his snide comment on her new Patronus, as if she's not used to his rudeness). And it would be great if a character we know fairly well and most of us like turned out to be a "good Slytherin." (Not the only one, I hope.) However, I'm not sure how she measures up according to the criteria we've been given for Slytherin so far. Not a pureblood, but her mother's a Black, so that's okay. If Snape and Tom Riddle can be sorted into Slytherin, so can the daughter of a pureblood and a Muggleborn. But cunning? Ambitious? Willing to use any means to achieve her ends? She can be very efficient (rescuing Harry on the train, dealing with Stan Shunpike on the Knight Bus in OoP), if that counts for anything, and Dumbledore himself listed "a certain disregard for rules" as a Slytherin trait, which would fit her comments on why her HoH didn't suggest her as a Prefect (Snape, the HoH in question if she's a Slytherin, has a most un-Slytherinsih regard for rules, at least as they apply to students--contrast Crouch!Moody). I leave it to you to determine whether she fits the traits you listed for Slytherin as the Water House. Carol, wondering whether Barty Jr. was a Slytherin and hoping for the sake of Slytherin's reputation that he was a Ravenclaw gone bad From sherriola at earthlink.net Sat Jun 24 01:46:51 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 18:46:51 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: <2c5.9ed63ec.31cdefa9@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154247 Nikkalmati: Example: his certain belief in his own POV leads him to misrepresent to the Order what DD told him about why Snape left LV. HBP 616 "Snape passed Voldemort the information that made Voldemort hunt down my mum and dad. Then Snape told Dumbledore he had not realized what he was doing, he was really sorry he'd done it, sorry that they were dead." We know DD told Harry Snape came to him with some story long before the Potters were killed, so that is a distortion in Harry's thinking. Sherry now: Is that actually deliberate misleading, or is it just the anguish of just having seen Dumbledore die and not seeing or saying things clearly. It's a long time since I read HBP, but didn't he just find out this juicy bit of info that night, before going off with Dumbledore? I never considered it to be deliberate, but more just the natural way things get tangled up in the immediate aftermath of a sudden and shocking situation. Harry had certainly been through a hell of a lot that night! Nikkalmati: Example 2: he refuses to confide in McGonnagal about where he and DD were that night, apparently thinking he knew best again. HBP 626. I bet that keep it to myself attitude turns out to be a mistake in Book 7. Sherry now: Again, I do not consider that to be arrogance. Dumbledore made him promise not to tell anyone but Ron and Hermione, and he is not going to tell anyone. I applaud that and would do the same thing. I think he'll have to observe the situation before he agrees to tell anyone else, and I doubt it will ever be McGonagall. And no, I don't think she's secretly evil, but neither do I think Harry has built the kind of trust with her that he would need to break that very special promise he made to Dumbledore. I think that to Harry, Dumbledore's death does not give him the freedom to break his word in this matter. I thought it was wonderful, when I first read that moment and felt very proud of Harry. Sherry From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Jun 24 01:59:16 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 01:59:16 -0000 Subject: Tonks as Slytherin (Was: Phoenix Fire? / Tonks) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154248 > Carol responds: > However, I'm not sure how she measures up according to the criteria > we've been given for Slytherin so far. Not a pureblood, but her > mother's a Black, so that's okay. If Snape and Tom Riddle can be > sorted into Slytherin, so can the daughter of a pureblood and a > Muggleborn. But cunning? Ambitious? Willing to use any means to > achieve her ends? zgirnius: I am a fan of the idea that Tonks might be revealed as a former Slytherin, myself. For an example of her cunning-it was she that thought of sending the Dursleys to the award ceremony for the All- England Best Suburban Lawn competition, the afternoon the Order memers came for Harry in OotP. For ambition, using the word in a more positive connotation than is usually used in a discussion of Slytherins (the Sorting Hat, after all, said it saw in Harry a thirst to prove himself...is that not ambition?) well, Tonks is an Auror. This is a very elite job, from what we hear they accept a candidate from Hogwarts only once every few years, so just the fact that she aspired to such a job may indicate some ambition. Especially in light of her unfortunate family connections (for a Dark Wizard catcher). An aunt and two cousins (once removed), all Death Eaters (Sirius wasn't, but nobody knew that when she was in school!). Not to mention the unfortunate uncle by marriage who was Imperiused and served Voldemort as well (Lucius Malfoy, or so it was believed). From iam.kemper at gmail.com Sat Jun 24 02:28:32 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 19:28:32 -0700 Subject: Nightingale!Snape Message-ID: <700201d40606231928w3f4177f8l352716005e231e7c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154249 So I just finished Hans Christian Andersen's short story, 'The Nightingale'. The plot gist: Emperor is treated to the sound of the Nightingale, a remarkably plain bird. Emperor is moved. Emperor gets a gift of a mechanical bird ornately decorated in jewels on top of silver and gold. When wound up, it sings almost as beautifully as the Nightingale. The Nightingale flies away unnoticed during the metal bird's premiere performance. Time passes and the hand operated bird breaks. Years after that, the Emperor falls ill. Death waits by his bedside as he yells at his broken toy to work again. Nothing. Then out of the silence came the most beautiful song. The Nightingale had heard of the Emperor's suffering and had come to sing to him -- to give him solace and hope. Death listened to the song and urged the Nightingale to keep singing. Death left the Emperor's bedside, and the Nightingale was left singing solely to the Emperor. The Nightingale sang him to sleep, and to strength, and to health. The Nightingale said it would come by in the sing in the evenings and bring joy and wisdom. It would also tell the emperor of the happy and the suffering, and of the good and evil. The Nightingale makes a request of the Emperor: Don't let anyone know that a little bird tells you everything. It is also notable that three of the characters in the short story are reminded of something loved when they hear the song. The Nightingale is remarkably plain ( for picture, see: pbc.codehog.co.uk/ report/nightingale.html ) The Nightingale heals with song. The Nightingale says, more or less, that it will act the spy. Now to Snape. Though Snape has not been referred to as plain, what's remarkable is that the reader expects certain actions from Snape's character. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that none of us imagined Snape singing someone to strength and health. Snape and Draco in the bathroom echos Fawkes and Harry in the Chamber . But how silly, let alone inappropriate, would it look for Snape to bend over Draco while squeezing out a tear? Having Snape chant-sing is a much more powerful image. Bellatrix said that you have to mean an Unforgivable, that you have to really want to cause the curse, that you have to enjoy it. She also said an Unforgivable cast in righteous anger wouldn't hurt her for long. There's something about Snape's song. It seems to be Light Magic. Thinking how the Unforgivables require meaning the cast, wanting the cast, and enjoying the cast, I wonder what is required for Snape's song. I would guess 'meaning' and 'wanting', but 'enjoying'? No. Compassion? Yes. I wonder: could Bellatrix perform Snape's song as well as he does, or would her attempt at it mirror Harry's failed crucio? I suspect the later, so if that were true, what does it say about Snape? There's something about that song. Phoenix. Nightingale. Snape. -Kemper [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From iam.kemper at gmail.com Sat Jun 24 03:01:39 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 20:01:39 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why did LV save Bellatrix from DD? (Was: Cold Fish Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40606232001u6f1fff85r22678d417b161a6e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154250 > Tonks wrote: > > > As to why LV came to fight DD. DD was fighting Bella and she needed > > help. Now we can ask why he didn't just leave her to die or be > > arrested??? > > Carol responds: > ... snip... > > It's interesting that LV took her with him when he left. Maybe she was > the only loyal follower that he had left, or at least the only one > involved in the MoM fiasco who escaped arrest? If he doesn't have her, > he's stuck with the likes of Wormtail, Goyle (who seems to have been > absent for some reason), Amycus and Alecto, the "brutal-faced" DE > (Yaxley), and Fenrir Greyback. And, oh, yes, that enigma Snape, whom > he was ready to murder at the end of GoF for leaving him forever. > > If I were LV, I'd have taken her with me, too. Unstable she may be, > and she failed to save the Prophecy, but at least there's no question > where her loyalties lie. > > Carol, who agrees with Tonks that DD is not a cold fish, much less a > psychopath or sociopath, but thinks that LV acted out of self-interest > here as usual > > .. . Kemper now: LV does act out of self interest, the question is: what is the interest with Bella? I'm ruling out any shipping. And though Carol offers good reasons (her obsessive loyalty and LV's underwhelming lackeys except for the enigmatic Snape), I think the real reason is more self preserving. While I'm not a fan of the theory, others seem to be, so here's what I'm offering: he grabbed Bella so that others, namely DD, wouldn't question her. I don't buy the theory that claims Bella hid the Locket!Horcrux in the cave, but I like the idea that he lied to her, telling her a secret that none of the other DE's knew of their Master. And that secret? That he made a (as in one) horcrux. The beauty of the lie is that it's veiled in a truth. This is why at her trial, Bella called out, "The Dark Lord will rise again, Crouch! Throw us into Azkaban; we will wait! He will rise again and will come for us, he will reward us beyond any of his other supporters! We alone were faithful! We alone tried to find him!" -Kemper From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Jun 24 03:53:45 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 03:53:45 -0000 Subject: Tonks as Slytherin (Was: Phoenix Fire? / Tonks) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154251 Ceridwen: > Snape also calls Tonks by her given name in HBP. He > calls other Slytherin students by their first names, > but so far, I haven't noticed him using first names > with students from other houses, or at least students > from Gryffindor. Carol responds: > As for Tonks being a Slytherin, I like your arguments > and evidence (and we also have Snape addressing her > as Nymphadora, houyhnhnm: Though I still like my theory that calling Tonks "Nymphadora" to verify her identity was part of the Orders security protocol. Just as a Molly who likes to be called "mollywobbles" is the real Molly, a Tonks who reacts with a frown to being called "Nymphadora" is the real Tonks. Oh woe, one piece of evidence, two theories. I like them both. I can't decide. :-( Carol: > But cunning? Ambitious? Willing to use any means to > achieve her ends? > and Dumbledore himself listed "a certain disregard for > rules" as a Slytherin trait, houyhnhnm: But which characters have we been *shown* breaking the rules? Sure the Slytherin kids are a bunch of sneaky little provocateurs and they hex people up and down the hall, but which house not only produces serious rule breakers generation after generation, but takes *pride* in their scalawags. I don't think we can take Dumbledore's word for what Slytherin's true nature is, nor can we take what the Hat says about them in years one, four, and five. Dumbledore is a Gryffindor and may have as much trouble empathizing with the temperaments of the other houses as he does with youth (however devoted he is to the welfare of all his students). The Hat is a magical object which appears to be able to think for itself. Its sings a different song every year and its song is always topical. So it shows what Slytherin has become (and may have become a thousand years ago) not what it is capable of. I have been thinking about whether Tonks shows sensitivity or deep feelings or whatever, and I realized well, yeah, she wears her heart on her sleeve all through HBP. Now wearing your heart on your sleeve would certainly be seen as lacking in "certain necessary qualities" by your HoH if your HoH was Severus Snape. And yet, if Slytherin is water, to deny feelings is to deny your nature. As Snape does. And see how it has warped his soul. zgirnius: > For ambition, using the word in a more positive > connotation than is usually used in a discussion of > Slytherins (the Sorting Hat, after all, said it saw > in Harry a thirst to prove himself...is that not > ambition?) well, Tonks is an Auror. I agree that Tonks' becoming an auror shows ambition. There is an interesting essay in _Harry Potter and Philosophy: If Aristotle Ran Hogwarts_ that shows why ambition could be considered a virtue in the Aristotelian sense. Have you read it? I don't know if we are allowed to discuss such things here or if it would be considered off topic. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 24 04:31:59 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 04:31:59 -0000 Subject: Harry' s arrogance and Horcruxes/surprises in the books WAS: Re: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: <2c5.9ed63ec.31cdefa9@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154252 > Nikkalmati: > Harry's arrogance has nothing to do with the Tower scene, it is a > personality characteristic. He always thinks he knows better than anyone else. He > doesn't listen to others' opinions and he has been getting worse as he gets > older. Alla: Thanks for clarifying, but I do disagree with that too. I mean, SOMETIMES Harry certainly thinks that he knows better and I think that it sometimes true and sometimes not.After all, but for him and Ron Ginny would have died. But it is getting worse as he gets older? Where do you see it? I am having trouble naming one person of the top of my head whom he did not tell about his suspicions about Draco. Where is the arrogance here? He went to adults with the problem ( whole lot of good it helped him too< IMO) probably for the first time in his life. > Example: his certain belief in his own POV leads him to misrepresent to the > Order what DD told him about why Snape left LV. Alla: Sherry dealt with this one really well, IMO. Example 2: he refuses to confide in McGonnagal > about where he and DD were that night, apparently thinking he knew best again. > HBP 626. I bet that keep it to myself attitude turns out to be a mistake in > Book 7. Alla: He honors the wishes of his dead mentor, which was just now viciously murdered ( that is not a fact of course, only my opinion, but that is how I see it till JKR calls it otherwise :)) Where is the arrogance here? I guess Harry is damned when he does and damned when he does not. I remember so many arguments after OOP saying how stupidly Harry behaved because he did NOT listen to DD wishes and did not study Occlumency. I was not buying that argument either, at least in part, because I think that putting Harry and Snape together was NOT smart atll, although Harry certainly should have tried harder. BUT now Harry listens to Dumbledore wishes and does NOT tell anybody but Ron and Hermione about Prophecy and he is arrogant again? Frankly, I think this is "don't tell anyone but Ron and Hermione" about Horcruxes is simply a plot device to put adults even more in a back seat than they are now and put Trio even more center stage. Am repeating my prediction here - adults will play VERY minor roles in Horcruxes quest if any ( except maybe Alberwoth and Regulus if he is alive) Trio comes into their own. They are the heroes now and they will do horcruxes hunting IMO with the help of other younger generation. I am not quite sure whar order will be doing in book 7, if anything, unfortunately. IMO of course. I mean, maybe doing some minor DE hunting. Mcgonagall is out, so whole Order with her is out of the loop, no? Nikkalmati: The odds are that whatever you > see JKR is going to turn it around. I am sure there are plenty of surprises > waiting in Book 7, so, yes, keep an open mind. Alla: Yes, there are plenty of surprises in the books, on the other hand - there plenty of pretty straightforward stuff with the "anvil sized clues", you know? :) What saved Harry in DOM battle? His heart. What is the power that will help him win? Nothing more complicated that love, just love. And shipping of course is a good example of very straightforward stuff happening IMO. So, I will keep an open mind of course, but it also IMO sometimes pays out to think that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, even in Potterverse. Have you seen a REALLY big surprise in the books since Scabbers turned to be Peter? I mean, Fake!Moody counts, I guess, but after that? I don't know about you, but in OOP after I learned that Prophecy was made about Harry and Voldie, I was staring at the page and saying - "that's it?" When I read about Horcruxes, I was forcefully reminded of Katchey from the Russian fairy tales, who preserves his soul in a quite similar way that Voldie did ( not exactly, but close) and I was not exactly saying "that's it", but I am not sure I can count it as a big plot twist either. I totally expected something MUCH more complicated in Voldy's quest for immortality. So, I am thinking that it is a big possibility that ending will not be a big twist, but something that many of us will say " that's it?" I could be wrong of course. JMO, Alla From aceworker at yahoo.com Sat Jun 24 05:02:51 2006 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (aceworker) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 05:02:51 -0000 Subject: Maunderer's Map/ Does Lee Jordan Know? In-Reply-To: <20060623144602.47251.qmail@web38107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154253 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Wolf Xavier wrote: > > houyhnhnm102 wrote: > >> I had assumed the RoR was simply unplottable for magical > reasons, but the fact that Lupin could not see inside Hagrid's > hut has been nagging at the back of my mind. I hadn't really > looked at the missing spaces altogether before. > > Why doesn't the Shrieking Shack show up on the Map though? << > > Allie: > >> The Shrieking Shack isn't on the Hogwarts grounds. << > > > Wolf: > Do we really know how much of the grounds is covered by the Map? > I'm not saying it does or does not cover the grounds, or to what > degree. It may be that Hagrid's little hut, on the edge of the > Forbidden Forest, may not be within the Map's area of coverage. > > > houyhnhnm: > >> What I was wondering is *why* doesn't the Map show places that > are not on the Hogwarts grounds. > > It would appear that extending the Map to include territory outside > of Hogwarts was something they were unable to do. Why? Was it because > their knowledge of magic was simply not advanced enough? << > > > Wolf: > I think the BIGGEST problem in figuring out of the Map works is that, > I suspect, JKR only thought it out so far, and the Map, really, is a > plot device only. It does what JKR needs it to do and nothing else. > That is not to say that she just makes stuff up as she goes, but the > Map serves the need to allow for things to happen that would be tough > to justify otherwise. Powerful enough to help Harry get about or spot > Pettigrew, and keep the story moving, but not SO powerful as to give > the heroes TOO MUCH info and kill the story from another direction. > It is fun to deduce how it works, it really is, but I suspect that we > will never get an explanation so it will remain a contradictory device > that defies any greater detailed explanation than "it's magic". > There was an interesting question on one of the forums on Harry Potter fanfiction related to the map and the question is simply: Does Lee Jordan know? Somoone pointed out that apparently Ron didn't know about the map. So if Ron doesn't know would Lee? He had been part of at least some of their pranks and execursions. DA Jones From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jun 24 06:45:44 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 06:45:44 -0000 Subject: Durmstrang School Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154256 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. Though I do NOT think > Durmstrang is literally in Murmansk (which is actually a city). I > think 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" 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. From josturgess at eircom.net Sat Jun 24 12:19:47 2006 From: josturgess at eircom.net (mooseming) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 12:19:47 -0000 Subject: The Gleam, The Blood, and TM Riddle (Long) In-Reply-To: <007a01c68aab$62d0f560$6a01a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154257 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rebecca" wrote: > > I started this effort researching the whole "Harry's got Lily's eyes and > what does THAT mean?" question, but I keep getting drawn back to the gleam > in Dumbledore's eye at His Dark Lordshipness taking and using Harry's blood > for his rebirthing in GoF. Note to all who read: this is only what I think > is the case. Feel more than free to have your own view and share, will you, > please? > > I'm asking myself "how thick could you get?" in relation to why Voldemort > would do what he did after reading all that I could about ancient blood > rituals. Ancient beliefs about blood were remarkably similiar to what > Voldemort did in taking Harry's blood for his rebirthing - the practice of > using the strength of your enemy's blood to sustain and empower yourself is > rampant through ancient times. It is believed the same substance can cleanse > or defile, drive men to fury and murder or appease anger and restore life. > IMO, Voldemort's got a problem and a big one: if any of the above is true, > he's now got some, well..... shall we say, "issues." Let's discuss... > > In ancient times, it was believed that you had to extremely careful about > taking enemy blood for yourself , because the following could be true: > > - The enemy's soul, life experiences, personality or a combination of all > three were in the blood > - You acquired not only the strengths, but could acquire the weaknesses of > your opponent, too > - Drinking or using your enemy's blood constitued a "bond" between you and > the person from whom you took the blood. > - Just because you killed your opponent and bested him doesn't mean that if > you take his blood for your own purposes, that your enemy couldn't best you > in the end from *within you.* > > Now, on to the guesswork. Trays in the upright position......exits to the > left and right.... > > First, as Dumbledore says, Voldemort's use of Harry's blood now allows him > to overcome the "particular hurdle" of touching Harry without harm to > himself. Protection there nullified, however isn't there more to Harry's > blood than just the bond of blood protection by his mother's sacrifice? > (Note: Dumbledore says "particular hurdle" which can mean he's implying > there's more than one for Voldemort associated with Harry's blood.) If Harry > really has a piece of T.M. Riddle in his head, then Voldemort's use of > Harry's blood might just even that score, too. How? > > Seatbelts tightened, please. > > Harry is repeatedly told, by Dumbledore, how unusual and unique he is with > all he's endured, specifically that Harry's soul is "untarnished and whole" > whereas Voldemort's is not: > > "You are protected, in short, by your ability to love!" said Dum? bledore > loudly. "The only protection that can possibly work against the lure of > power like Voldemort's! In spite of all the temptation you have endured, all > the suffering, you remain pure of heart, just as pure as you were at the age > of eleven, when you stared into a mir?ror that reflected your heart's > desire, and it showed you only the way to thwart Lord Voldemort, and not > immortality or riches." (HBP) > > Note this from SS/PS about the blood protection: > > "Not a scar, no visible sign... to have been loved so deeply, even though > the person who loved us is gone, will give us some protection forever. It is > in your very skin." > > And this from Dumbledore in the Ministry of Magic (OoP) during his battle > with Voldemort: > > 'We both know that there are other ways of destroying a man, Tom." > > What better way to destroy a man than from within his very self? IMO, the > blood Voldemort took from Harry now acts as a permanent medium to introduce > all those "weaknesses" Lord Voldemort perceives Harry as having: love, > friendship, trust, a complete and untarnished soul along with the protection > of a mother, which we know the Dark Lord never had. > > Maybe Voldemort can deploy Occulmency against Harry all day long to avoid > Harry having access to his thoughts, but it may be another story for the > Dark Lord when he's being peppered with doubts, emotion or confusion from > within and perhaps he can't control it as much as he'd like to. Remember, > Harry is described by Dumbledore as being "pure of heart' which one can > infer means that his blood is pure in this way, too. Those "feelings" or > thoughts might not be blocked by Occlumency (which Dumbledore believes that > Voldemort is using against Harry at the beginning of HBP) because perhaps > they come from *Voldemort's skin*, just as Harry's protection is in > his skin. And look out, time might make that worse and take the edge off > Voldemort's somewhat considerable power. He certainly didn't risk a second > turn at Dumbledore himself after OoP, preferring instead to plot, plan and > scheme and keep his Dark Butt out of the fray. > > What was the rebirthing other than a potion/spell combination? And who do we > know who is proficient at potions and spells? I think someone is going to > give Harry the "clue" about using Voldemort's mistake to his advantage (and > I think it was a HUGE error on Voldemort's part - one Wormtail tried > inadvertently to avoid for him.) . By using Harry's blood for his > restoration, Voldemort left the door open for several situations to occur, > however one I am specifically drawn to is putting into play what's perhaps > in Harry, allowing it to spring into action. You know, that mysterious > piece of one T.M. Riddle which Harry thought he couldn't possibly have known > as a friend as a younger child, even though the name was familiar to him in > that manner. > > T.M Riddle might help Harry through Book 7 and the Horcux hunt; here's what > I perceive as T.M Riddle's influencing Harry to understand innately how to > destroy the diary horcrux: > > "Then, without thinking, without considering, as though he had meant to do > it all along, Harry seized the basilisk fang on the floor next to him and > plunged it straight into the heart of the book." > > And this interesting description of how Harry reacted after destroying the > diary: > > "Shaking all over, Harry pulled himself up. His head was spinning as though > he'd just traveled miles by Floo powder." > > There's also the mention of Harry's ability to throw off the Imperius curse > in GoF - who is the little voice in Harry's head? The same voice also > appears to encourage Harry in PoA to kill Sirius when he has the chance. > Now, let's travel to the emotion Harry feels at an Easter egg Ginny gives > him from Mrs. Weasley in OoP: > > "She handed him a handsome chocolate egg decorated with small, iced Snitches > and, according to the packaging, containing a bag of Fizzing Whizzbees. > Harry looked at it for a moment, then, to his horror, felt a lump rise in > his throat. > > 'Are you OK, Harry?' Ginny asked quietly. > > 'Yeah, I'm fine,' said Harry gruffly. The lump in his throat was painful. He > did not understand why an Easter egg should have made him feel like this" > > I suspect that T.M. Riddle, if he's there in Harry, knows now concepts like > love, sacrifice, friendship, honor, trust, tolerance, and kindness really > *do* exist. He's had Harry's untarnished and complete soul as an example. > Give that part back to Voldemort while he's in a skin which was partly > produced and perhaps influenced by Harry's blood - well, there may be a > result astonishing to behold. > > For Voldemort, such an event may result in knowledge, which begets truth, > and with truth, self realization and reality. A life well lived is truly > better than a life not lived to the fullest at all and that, my friends, is > not something I think any of us want to have at the point of death. > > Rebecca, who is glad to get this out of *her* head, thank you very much > Ah I know *that* feeling! Sorry, couldn't find a meaningful way to snip your post and seeing as how you posted it a while back decided to simply add my thoughts at the end. I agree and I don't! That Harry and Voldy's final confrontation will be a battle of wills not of wands I concur. Is there redemption in store for the Voldybeast, hum, I think not. Your excellent thoughts on the `blood thing' led me to the following conclusion. First up how could Voldy think using Harry's blood was a `good' idea? Why did DD think otherwise? Well Voldy is obsessed with the power of blood and blood purity, this in the HP world is a bad thing. He has a misplaced belief that blood matters above other heart related qualities: loyalty, love, sacrifice, compassion. If Voldy thinks that Harry's blood will in some measure give him protection from "The one with the power to vanquish the dark lord" he is surely sorely mistaken. DD's gleam then is perhaps an understanding that Voldy believes himself stronger than he is, over confidence being the vulnerability most likely to knobble your power hungry villain. Harry as a weapon has *not* been defused but Voldy doesn't know that and DD does. Is there something more, however, to Harry's blood and the reincarnation? Has Voldy in some way become rehumanised leading ultimately to his defeat as you suggest. There is a certain appeal to the idea that whatever the connection between Voldy and Harry is, it has in some way been balanced by this action. Of course we don't know what that connection is, indeed it's kept the theorists very busy; Salazar`s legacy, Harry as Horcrux, Harry as Tom's son, who knows, we can all agree with Moody there is something odd about that boy! Whatever it is it's ambiguous, Harry has gained some of Voldy's powers and seen his actions and thoughts, Voldy has been able to manipulate Harry, the balance then is already evident. For me Voldy has chosen to dehumanise himself bath tubs of blood cannot alter the outcome, there is no redemption for Voldemort. There is only one response to what he has become, or more specifically what Tom Riddle has become and that is pity. So yes Voldy will be defeated from within, Tom Riddle the child, the true victim of Lord Voldemort's machinations is his Achilles heel which is why DD calls him Tom. Why can Harry, a boy, so unequal in knowledge and experience to Voldmort defeat him? Because the boy Tom is the riddle to be answered and who better to answer that than Harry Potter. Regards Mooseming From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jun 24 12:51:20 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 12:51:20 -0000 Subject: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154258 > > Nikkalmati: > Example: his certain belief in his own POV leads him to misrepresent to the > Order what DD told him about why Snape left LV. HBP 616 "Snape passed > Voldemort the information that made Voldemort hunt down my mum and dad. > Then Snape > told Dumbledore he had not realized what he was doing, he was really sorry > he'd done it, sorry that they were dead." We know DD told Harry Snape came > to him with some story long before the Potters were killed, so that is a > distortion in Harry's thinking. > > > Sherry now: > > Is that actually deliberate misleading, or is it just the anguish of just > having seen Dumbledore die and not seeing or saying things clearly. It's a > long time since I read HBP, but didn't he just find out this juicy bit of > info that night, before going off with Dumbledore? I never considered it to > be deliberate, but more just the natural way things get tangled up in the > immediate aftermath of a sudden and shocking situation. Harry had certainly > been through a hell of a lot that night! > Pippin: No, it's not deliberately misleading, but it's still arrogant and wrong. Crouch Sr. didn't think he was putting an innocent man in prison when he sent Sirius off to Azkaban without a trial. He was just so certain of his assumptions that he didn't see any point in letting them be questioned. I'm sure that is part of the point Rowling is getting at: that many more people do evil by carelessly assuming they are right than by deliberately setting out to do wrong. The very fact that we want Harry to be right so much shows us why it is not time for him to be right yet. After all, which is the braver and more interesting hero, the one who takes up the torch and strides confidently to victory, or the one who takes up the torch, stumbles, and reaches the finish line by the skin of his teeth? Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jun 24 13:08:32 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 13:08:32 -0000 Subject: Prank question - Lupin wanted Snape DEAD? Still don't quite buy it. In-Reply-To: <20060623141436.23635.qmail@web38114.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154259 Wolf Xavier: > > Consider the attitudes our heroic characters are given toward murder by JKR. I point to PoA at the Shreiking Shack and the almost-execution of Peter Petigrew. I say "execution" as that's how I would see it. However, JKR has had her characters refer to it as murder. Sirius, in particular, has FAR more reason to kill Peter by this point than Remus may have had to do Snape in back in the day. And yet they do not. All of their combined emotional baggage... imprisonment, betrayal, Lily and James DEAD... And they still easily accept that it is wrong. > Pippin: Execution-style slayings are associated with gangsters and terrorists in the real world. I don't think Rowling wants us to admire Sirius and Lupin for trying it. They would have done it if Harry hadn't stopped them, so I'm not sure how that shows that Lupin wouldn't have plotted to murder Snape. He had already placed his friends' happiness over the lives of innocent strangers by repeatedly going into Hogsmeade, so why should Snape's life matter so much? Not admirable at all, but Lupin has done a whole lot of things that aren't heroic besides the near gangland slaying of Pettigrew. Failing to tell Dumbledore about Sirius, failing to turn in the Marauder's Map,, leaving Ron to suffer with his broken leg, (and isn't it *interesting* that Lupin says he's not so good with healing spells, now that we find out that Snape is) -- and failing to write to Harry before going on his secret mission. Wouldn't it be ironic if Harry thought Dumbledore was letting admiration for the good in Snape blind him to evil, and all the time both Harry and Dumbledore were actually making that mistake about Lupin? Pippin From vinkv002 at planet.nl Sat Jun 24 14:06:34 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 14:06:34 -0000 Subject: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154260 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > > Nikkalmati: > > Example: his certain belief in his own POV leads him to misrepresent to the > > Order what DD told him about why Snape left LV. HBP 616 "Snape passed > > Voldemort the information that made Voldemort hunt down my mum and dad. > > Then Snape > > told Dumbledore he had not realized what he was doing, he was really sorry > > he'd done it, sorry that they were dead." We know DD told Harry Snape came > > to him with some story long before the Potters were killed, so that is a > > distortion in Harry's thinking. > > > > > > Sherry now: > > > > Is that actually deliberate misleading, or is it just the anguish of just > > having seen Dumbledore die and not seeing or saying things clearly. It's a > > long time since I read HBP, but didn't he just find out this juicy bit of > > info that night, before going off with Dumbledore? I never considered it to > > be deliberate, but more just the natural way things get tangled up in the > > immediate aftermath of a sudden and shocking situation. Harry had certainly > > been through a hell of a lot that night! > > > > Pippin: > No, it's not deliberately misleading, but it's still arrogant and wrong. > Crouch Sr. didn't think he was putting an innocent man in prison when > he sent Sirius off to Azkaban without a trial. He was just so certain of > his assumptions that he didn't see any point in letting them be > questioned. I'm sure that is part of the point Rowling is getting at: > that many more people do evil by carelessly assuming they are > right than by deliberately setting out to do wrong. > > The very fact that we want Harry to be right so much shows us why it is > not time for him to be right yet. After all, which is the braver and more > interesting hero, the one who takes up the torch and strides confidently > to victory, or the one who takes up the torch, stumbles, and reaches the > finish line by the skin of his teeth? > > Pippin > Renee: You're right, Harry's wrong to misrepresent Dumbledore's words, but I still fail to see why this is arrogant. Harry ignores the possibility that he's missed something, that Dumbledore's assessment of Snape was correct, not because he's an arrogant prick who thinks he's always, right, but because he insists on believing the worst of Snape. I'd rather call this bias or prejudice. Harry is also judgmental (and not just in this scene) and needs to learn to reserve judgement until he's got all the facts. But to me, that's not the same as arrogance. I've looked up a dictionary definition of the term, and I don't think it describes Harry Potter: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/arrogance From vinkv002 at planet.nl Sat Jun 24 14:20:34 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 14:20:34 -0000 Subject: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: <2c5.9ed63ec.31cdefa9@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154261 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, puduhepa98 at ... wrote: > > > Nikkalmati: >> > JKR loves to use plot twists to make the reader realize things are not > always what there appear. Neville the shy boy is really brave; he receives points > for moral courage in the very first book, then he shows physical bravery at > the MOM. Luna, who is the type of weird and tactless girl who is often > shunned, is actually one of Harry's best friends and very perceptive. Trelawney > really is a Seer, despite appearances. Doris Umbridge is not a sweet little > girl. The kind professor is really a werewolf. Sirius is not a murderer > after all. Mrs. Figg his neighbor is a Squib. James was a bully, at least at > times. There is certainly more to Petunia than meets the eye. Handsome Tom > is a psychopath. Slughorn is an armchair . The Half Blood Prince is - > well you know that one. It goes on and on. The odds are that whatever you > see JKR is going to turn it around. I am sure there are plenty of surprises > waiting in Book 7, so, yes, keep an open mind. > Nikkalmati > > Renee: Yes, JKR loves plot twists, and I, too, expect to see a few more of those in Book 7. But not everything is not what it seems. "What you see is what you get" in all probabilty applies to more characters than just Dudley Dursley. The point with JKR's plot twists is, that we generally don't see them coming and don't know beforehand which characters are what they seem, and which are not. So I'd rather change your "Whatever you see JKR is going to turn it around" into "you never can tell what JKR is going to turn around". The only problem I see with Snape is that all possibilities have been discussed at length. When it comes to him, there's no way she's going to surprise all readers - or is there? Renee From vinkv002 at planet.nl Sat Jun 24 14:50:11 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 14:50:11 -0000 Subject: Prank question - Lupin wanted Snape DEAD? Still don't quite buy it. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154262 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > > Pippin: > Lupin has done a whole lot of things > that aren't heroic besides the near gangland slaying of Pettigrew. > Failing to tell Dumbledore about Sirius, failing to turn in the > Marauder's Map,, leaving Ron to suffer with his broken leg, > (and isn't it *interesting* that Lupin says he's not so good > with healing spells, now that we find out that Snape is) -- > and failing to write to Harry before going on his > secret mission. > > Wouldn't it be ironic if Harry thought Dumbledore was letting > admiration for the good in Snape blind him to evil, and all the > time both Harry and Dumbledore were actually making that > mistake about Lupin? > Renee: Aren't you overdoing it a little now? I'd be hard put to find a less well-meaning description of the way Lupin handled Ron's predicament than "Leaving Ron to suffer with his broken leg". (Though I wouldn't be surprised if you could.) Let's have a look at the text. When Ron's in pain, shortly after Lupin's demasque as a werewolf, Lupin starts toward him, looking concerned, but he is rebuffed by Ron's reaction. Later, when they leave the shack, he does provide Ron with a splint and bandages, because as he says, he "can't mend bones nearly as well as Madam Pomfrey". Compare this way of dealing with an injury to Lockhart's in CoS. He is obviously incompetent with healing spells, but he tries to heal Harry's arm all the same, with dire results (and I wouldn't be surprised if the contrast between him and Lupin was intentional). I'd prefer Lupin's approach; at least he knows he's not competent enough. And what little he does do, gives Ron temporary relief: "Lupin helped him to his feet; Ron put his weight gingerly on the leg and didn't wince. 'That's better,' he said. 'Thanks.'" Lupin leaves Ron to *suffer* with his broken leg?? His only flaw - admittedly, only in this particular case - is not being nearly as competent in healing as Pomfrey, the professional. Or Snape, apparently. (If I were less than well-meaning, I could say that it may be no more than a matter of common sense and self-preservation to find a way to heal the effects of your own dark magic, but actually I'm inclined to think the singing is of some significance.) Renee From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 24 16:11:42 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 16:11:42 -0000 Subject: Harry's "arrogance" (Was: Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154263 Pippin wrote: > > No, it's not deliberately misleading, but it's still arrogant and wrong. Crouch Sr. didn't think he was putting an innocent man in prison when he sent Sirius off to Azkaban without a trial. He was just so certain of his assumptions that he didn't see any point in letting them be questioned. I'm sure that is part of the point Rowling is getting at: that many more people do evil by carelessly assuming they are right than by deliberately setting out to do wrong. > > Renee responded: > You're right, Harry's wrong to misrepresent Dumbledore's words, but I still fail to see why this is arrogant. Harry ignores the possibility that he's missed something, that Dumbledore's assessment of Snape was correct, not because he's an arrogant prick who thinks he's always, right, but because he insists on believing the worst of Snape. I'd rather call this bias or prejudice. Harry is also judgmental (and not just in this scene) and needs to learn to reserve judgement until he's got all the facts. But to me, that's not the same as arrogance. I've looked up a dictionary definition of the term, and I don't think it describes Harry Potter: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/arrogance > Carol notes: True, that definition doesn't describe Harry. It sounds more like the young Sirius Black, or his cousin Bellatrix at her sentencing. But how about this one, from Merriam-Webster Online: "a feeling or an impression of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or presumptuous claims"? Surely Harry is making "presumptuous claims" about Snape here and elsewhere, just as he blames Snape (to himself) for "goading" Sirius Black into going to the MoM? That same presumption that Snape is guilty and evil goes back to SS/Ps. It should have been eradicated by Snape's attempts to thwart Quirrell and by his saving Harry's from Quirrell's countercurse, but it wasn't. (Not that Snape isn't guilty of arrogance himself. His words about James Potter, "Too arrogant to believe he might be wrong about Black," are ironic in context given that he's the one who's wrong, at least about the identity of Black's intended victim in PoA.) No one is calling Harry a "prick" or even a "berk" like his father, but he's guilty of the same sort of presumption, and here I *would* call it arrogance, in refusing to listen to Hermione when she tells him how unlikely it is that LV would be torturing Black in the MoM at five o'clock in the afternoon. His scar hurts a little, he just had a vision like the one he had of Mr. Weasley, which saved Mr. Weasley's life; therefore, he must be right and Hermione's logic and common sense must be wrong. And though he isn't "doing evil" through his absolute certainty that he's right and his unwillingness to listen to Hermione, he does bring his friends into great danger (after arrogantly assuming that Neville, Ginny, and Luna would be useless)--he realizes when Hermione lies struck by Dolohov's evil spell that he will be at fault if she dies--and he does indirectly bring about Sirius Black's death when Black decides to join the rescue mission. No, he didn't kill his godfather or want him dead, but if he'd listened to Hermione instead of arrogantly assuming that he was right, his godfather would still be alive. Harry knows this, but he can't bring himself to believe it, so he arrogantly (or presumptuously, if you prefer) blames Snape. Harry is learning, a year at a time, to be less judgmental and presumptuous (he's made huge leaps with regard to Neville and Luna), but he's still assuming that he's right and Dumbledore is wrong with regard to Snape. I think the incident in which Harry misreports what DD has told him about Snape's repentance (and, yes, I know he's distraught, but he's also blinded by prejudice and preconceptions) is there for a reason. We're supposed to note his inaccuracy, just as we can't help but see that he's wrong about Snape torturing him into insanity (a blatant misconception that's shoved into our faces). Arrogant or not, Harry assumes that he's right, a tendency that may be strengthened in Book 7 by his partial correctness about Draco and his seeming correctness about Snape. The evidence of Snape's guilt seems overwhelming--but so did the evidence against Sirius Black, and Harry himself was presumed guilty of Petrifying Justin Finch-Fletchley and even of somehow killing Cedric. I have a feeling that he's going to learn one last valuable lesson about the presumption of guilt and the assumption of evil, about the certainty that he's right and Dumbledore is wrong. He's gone a good distance down the road toward Wisdom, as I said in another post, but he's not there yet. Carol, who doesn't want the word "arrogance" to get in the way of the point that Harry needs to stop assuming that he's always right and start listening to other people, rather than ignoring them when they say what he doesn't want to hear From sherriola at earthlink.net Sat Jun 24 16:31:06 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 09:31:06 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's "arrogance" (Was: Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154264 Carol: No one is calling Harry a "prick" or even a "berk" like his father, but he's guilty of the same sort of presumption, and here I *would* call it arrogance, in refusing to listen to Hermione when she tells him how unlikely it is that LV would be torturing Black in the MoM at five o'clock in the afternoon. His scar hurts a little, he just had a vision like the one he had of Mr. Weasley, which saved Mr. Weasley's life; therefore, he must be right and Hermione's logic and common sense must be wrong. And though he isn't "doing evil" through his absolute certainty that he's right and his unwillingness to listen to Hermione, he does bring his friends into great danger (after arrogantly assuming that Neville, Ginny, and Luna would be useless)--he realizes when Hermione lies struck by Dolohov's evil spell that he will be at fault if she dies--and he does indirectly bring about Sirius Black's death when Black decides to join the rescue mission. No, he didn't kill his godfather or want him dead, but if he'd listened to Hermione instead of arrogantly assuming that he was right, his godfather would still be alive. Harry knows this, but he can't bring himself to believe it, so he arrogantly (or presumptuously, if you prefer) blames Snape. Sherry now: I totally disagree. You probably knew I would, since I always fiercely defend Harry on this point. Harry is not a perfect person, and his mistakes make him the wonderful character he is, because he's so like everyone. But in the case of the fake vision about Sirius, he has absolutely no blame. It is not arrogance for him to believe his vision, when he has evidence that his visions are true. He did save Arthur's life after all. I would call his thoughts and actions desperate not arrogant. How could he risk it being false? His guilt is completely misplaced in my opinion. He has absolutely nothing to blame himself for in the death of Sirius, not even indirectly. Who would not have done the same? He did try to contact Sirius, and he did try to tell Snape. He tried to do the responsible things. When nothing seemed to work, and Kreacher told him Sirius was not there, what on earth could he have done? It wasn't arrogance. He was desperate not to lose Sirius. The death of Sirius is the blame of Bellatrix and Voldemort, not Harry. I'm confident any of us who thought our dearest loved one was being tortured by a madman would try to do something and wouldn't listen to well meaning friends, especially friends who are always too quick to disbelieve or to put their trust in authority. just my opinion of course, but something in me just aches whenever I hear Harry being blamed or partly guilty of the death of Sirius. Sherry From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 24 16:36:12 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 16:36:12 -0000 Subject: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154265 Renee wrote: > Yes, JKR loves plot twists, and I, too, expect to see a few more of > those in Book 7. The point with JKR's plot twists is, that we > generally don't see them coming and don't know beforehand which > characters are what they seem, and which are not. > > So I'd rather change your "Whatever you see JKR is going to turn it > around" into "you never can tell what JKR is going to turn around". > The only problem I see with Snape is that all possibilities have been discussed at length. When it comes to him, there's no way she's going > to surprise all readers - or is there? Carol responds: She's already surprised some of us by having Snape make the Unbreakable Vow and kill Dumbledore. (Alla may not consider that a surprise, but it nearly killed me. I was in mourning for days for *Snape* until I realized that he could still be DDM.) All (well, most) of us are on tenterhooks to discover his true loyalties and whether we've interpreted the evidence correctly. But the real surprise, I think, will be how Harry discovers that Snape is Dumbledore's Man. (If he isn't, there's no surprise for Harry, and what's the fun in that?) According to JKR, what we have in Book 6 is just the first half of Book 6-7, and I think we can confidently expect a reversal in which Harry learns that he's wrong about Snape. That's simply the way that the mystery element of the plot works, with Harry barking up the wrong tree for more than half the book before he turns his attention finally and fully to Voldemort. (Sydney, where are you?) But how it will happen, how she can possibly show Harry and the reader that Snape is on the side of good--that's the big question. And, if she's really good, how can she do it without having Snape die saving Harry's life, which would be moving (if done well) but predictable? (I'd love to see Snape become a Healer in St. Mungo's, putting his formidable talents to good use, but I rather doubt that will happen outside of fanfic.) Carol, who has had enough surprises, thank you, and just wants a satisfactory resolution to the plot(s) and a plausible solution to the riddle of Severus Snape From fairwynn at hotmail.com Sat Jun 24 17:02:24 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (fair wynn) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 12:02:24 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's "arrogance" (Was: Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154266 I don't think Harry's actions in going to the MOM were specifically "arrogant," but they do indicate his unwillingness to trust anyone other than himself. In many people, one might call that arrogant, but I think Harry's been brought up to not trust the adults who are in positions of responsibility. Of course, Harry hates Snape. But even though Snape did a terrible job of teaching occlumency, Harry made absolutely no effort to learn, regardless of the fact that he *knew* these were life and death matters. So in the first place, the fact that he got the vision was in part his fault because he never tried to learn occlumency. Second, Harry had been told by Snape that Voldemort might use the connection to try to get at Harry. After learning that, Harry should have been suspicious of any vision, even though his previous ones had proven to be true. Thirds, after giving the message to Snape, Harry assumed that it was still up to him to "save" Sirius. He did not trust Snape to do anything about it. Of course, one might say that he had no reason to trust Snape, since he knew Snape disliked Sirius, but actually Harry had no evidence at all that Snape ever had betrayed the Order or done anything that would harm an Order member. Harry allowed his personal hatred of Snape to get in the way and cause him to assume that Snape would not act. After disposing of Umbridge, Harry and friends could have returned to Hogwarts and attempted to contact Grimmauld Place using the floo, or gone back to Snape and told him directly what was going on. But Harry assumed that he was the only one who could help. But I don't exactly consider this arrogant. Harry has been taught since babyhood that this is the way it is. Even at Hogwarts, Dumbledore allows Harry to enter into situations where he has to save the day without adult help. Is it any wonder that he'd think he had to do it again? However, after Sirius' death, Harry realized that his decisions brought about Sirius leaving Grimmault Place (recall that when Sirius gave him the mirror, Harry didn't hope it because he didn't want to be the cause of anything that would lure Sirius out of the house.) Harry's sense of guilt -- even though he is not truly the one at fault -- causes him to want to displace that guilt onto someone else. So he blamed Snape for Sirius' leaving the house, which is naturally ridiculous -- I mean what is Harry really saying about Sirius if he thinks that a couple of taunts months before are the reason Sirius went to the MOM, rather than the danger to his godson? But Harry feels the burden of responsibility for Sirius' death and wants to find another to blame. Harry often shows the same characteristics of arrogance (can't think off hand of a better term), because he believes his own "take" on situations much more than anyone else's, including Dumbledore. But whereas in most people that might be arrogance, in Harry it seems more like all he knows to do. I don't think he really knows how to really trust others, particularly adults. He can love adults, but he doesn't really trust them. _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ From honeykissed246 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 24 05:23:32 2006 From: honeykissed246 at yahoo.com (Darlene Carroll) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 22:23:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060624052332.41875.qmail@web33207.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154267 Nikkalmati: "that is the climax and I think somewhere in Book 7 Harry's view of Snape will be shown to be completely wrong". Honeykissed: Just like Harry was wrong about Sirius in POA , I think he is also wrong about Snape. We shall see if he figures it out before he goes "Snape" hunting. Sherry now: >> I disagree. It is time for Harry to take on his true role as hero, and it's time for his judgment to be correct. The torch has passed from Dumbledore to Harry, and I think it diminishes him if his judgment is wrong again. It would be ironic, if after all these years of everyone telling him he was wrong about Snape, and now he is proven right. It's about time. << Honeykissed: Hummmm...I believe part of Dumbledore's greatness was his ability to admit that he was wrong in some incidences. I do not believe that Harry is right about Snape and I don't think it diminishes his judgment if he if found to be incorrect. I think at this point Snape will become Harry's greatest asset. Just like Snape was "teaching" Harry in HBP and Harry didn't even know it. :) Harry will still be the "hero" but he is going to need help and I think he will need Snape's help, one way or the other. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 24 17:07:12 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 17:07:12 -0000 Subject: Was Severus in the Slug Club? (Was: Snape liked Hogwarts? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154268 Pippin wrote: > > Snape obviously loves learning, but I'm not sure he was in the Slug Club as a student. > > > Betsy Hp responded: > I do think he was in the Slug Club, mainly because he was at > Slughorn's Christmas party (which I realize isn't seen as definitive > proof), a club we know for sure did *not* include any of the > Marauders. Carol adds: I'd say that his being at the Christmas party is pretty strong evidence, considering that the only other teacher we see there is Trelawney, great-great-granddaughter of a famous Seer, and all the other guests are apparently either current Slug Club members like Harry, Hermione, and McLaggen and their dates or former Slug Club members like Eldred Worple and their guests. (Or perhaps Worple is a current celebrity who was somehow overlooked by Slughorn in his Hogwarts, but I doubt it.) Slughorn tells Trelawney, "We all think our subject is most important," and it's highly unlikely that he would have overlooked the shining talents in his own subject of a boy who also happened to be in his House. Slughorn doesn't care about personality (look at McLaggen). What he cares about is talent or potential for advancement, and he would have seen plenty of that in young Severus Snape. (No doubt he got O's on his long, detailed essays as well as the potions he produced in class.) "I don't think even you, Severus" may relegate Snape wrongly and unfairly to second best, but it's rather like McGonagall's "Charlie Weasley couldn't have done it" when Harry catches the Remembrall in SS/PS. Charlie Weasley could have played Quidditch for England, so the comparison illustrates Harry's exceptional ability (genuine ability in Quidditch; feigned ability in Potions) not Charlie's or Snape's inferiority. "Even you" indicates awareness of abilities far above those usually encountered in a student. (That Harry's Potions "talent" is really Snape's is a painful or comic irony here, but it doesn't negate Slughorn's awareness of Snape's abilities.) Slughorn's treatment of Snape at the party is genial and affable, if a bit oblivious of Snape's reserved personality and his and Harry's mutual dislike. He calls him by his first name, puts an arm around his shoulders, and encourages him to socialize rather than "skulking." Later, after the events on the tower, he says, "I taught him. I thought I knew him." Unlike McGonagall, who goes on about how Dumbledore wanted everyone to trust Snape despite his past, Slughorn seems to have trusted and even liked him on his own. Carol, who thinks that the evidence points toward young Severus having been a Sluggie, though he probably was not invited to the initial lunch on the train because he would have been an unknown at that point From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sat Jun 24 18:01:03 2006 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 18:01:03 -0000 Subject: Filk: Me and Wormtail Down by the Schoolyard Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154269 Me and Wormtail Down by the Schoolyard To the tune of Me and Julio Down by the Schoolyard by Paul Simon To Potioncat, for no real reason except that she's nice. Midi here: (go down to Paul Simon) http://www.skunkworx.org/music.stuff/s.html Sirius, in his tropical paradise, recalls his escape that fateful night in PoA: The werewolf Marauder pulled out a map As he waited for his libation. When the rat came out, he began to shout And he ran to his old habitation. Running from the law, I's running from the law, What the M'rauder saw: Me running from the law. Old Sevvie came down and put Harry down- Said it all coulda been prevented. And Fugde said "Oy, When I get that boy, I'll make good and sure he's demented." I'm on my way. I don't know where I'm going. I'm on my way, As Beaky will fly, he will take me there. Goodbye to Hogsmead, Cuz one lone Marauder Saw me and Wormtail down by the schoolyard. Saw me and Wormtail down by the schoolyard. The hours seemed like days When they locked me away, But Hermione gave time a tweak. And when the magical beast Flew to get me released, Well, my smile made the Top Ten of "Witch Week". I'm on my way. I don't know where I'm going. I'm on my way, As Beaky will fly, he will take me there. Goodbye to Hogsmead, Cuz one lone Marauder Saw me and Wormtail down by the schoolyard. Saw me and Wormtail down by the schoolyard. Ginger, who misses Sirius From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 24 18:20:52 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 18:20:52 -0000 Subject: Harry's "arrogance" (Was: Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154270 Carol earlier: > No one is calling Harry a "prick" or even a "berk" like his father, but he's guilty of the same sort of presumption, and here I *would* call it arrogance, in refusing to listen to Hermione when she tells him how unlikely it is that LV would be torturing Black in the MoM at five o'clock in the afternoon. His scar hurts a little, he just had a vision like the one he had of Mr. Weasley, which saved Mr. Weasley's life; therefore, he must be right and Hermione's logic and common sense must be wrong. And though he isn't "doing evil" through his absolute certainty that he's right and his unwillingness to listen to Hermione, he does . . . indirectly bring about Sirius Black's death when Black decides to join the rescue mission. No, he didn't kill his godfather or want him dead, but if he'd listened to Hermione instead of arrogantly assuming that he was right, his godfather would still be alive. Harry knows this, but he can't bring himself to believe it, so he arrogantly (or presumptuously, if you prefer) blames Snape. Sherry responded: > > I totally disagree. You probably knew I would, since I always fiercely defend Harry on this point. Harry is not a perfect person But in the case of the fake vision about Sirius, he has absolutely no blame. It is not arrogance for him to believe his vision, when he has evidence that his visions are true. He did save Arthur's life after all. I would call his thoughts and actions desperate not arrogant. How could he risk it being false? His guilt is completely misplaced in my opinion. He has absolutely nothing to blame himself for in the death of Sirius, not even indirectly. Who would not have done the same? The death of Sirius is the blame of Bellatrix and Voldemort, not Harry. something in me just aches whenever I hear Harry being blamed or partly guilty of the death of Sirius. Carol again: Just a quick clarification. First, the word "arrogance" may be getting in the way. What I'm talking about is Harry's tendency to assume that he's right--and if you look at the way he treats Hermione when she tries to question him, it isn't exactly friendly or willing to consider her point of view. "'Who? *What*?' said Harry. He could not understand why they were both gaping at him as though he was asking them something unreasonable. "'Harry,' said Hermione in a rather frightened voice, 'er . . . how . . . how did Voldemort get into the Ministry of Magic without anybody realizing he was there?' '"How do I know?' bellowed Harry. "'The question is how we're going to get in there!'" (OoP Am. e. 733). Snape has told Harry that the whole point of Occlumency is to keep Voldemort from getting inside his head, but Harry is unwilling to consider that possibility here, or the possibility that Voldemort may be taking advantage of his "saving people thing" for his own reasons. (And the vision itself is highly melodramatic and almost absurd, let alone the question Hermione raised of how the two most wanted wizards in the WW got into the MoM without being noticed while the Ministry employees are still at work. Why would Sirius Black be able to get a "weapon" of a shelf in the DoM if Voldemort couldn't? It makes no sense.) Second, I'm in no way blaming Harry for Sirius Black's death. The murderer is Bellatrix Lestrange; the instigator is Voldemort; the conspirators are Kreacher and the Malfoys, with the DEs as agents of the conspiracy. There are, of course, other contributing factors, including Black's decision to join the Order in rescuing Harry, Harry's decision to "save" Black without realizing that Black was never in danger, and Harry's failure to learn Occlumency (for which DD, Harry, and snape all share the blame). None of these things makes Harry guilty of his godfather's death. Nevertheless, he knows that if he had learned Occlumency and blocked the vision, if he had listened to Hermione and realized that the situation was improbable at best, if he had actually gone to Snape to tell him about it rather than taking things into his own hands, Black would not be dead. Rather than admit that painful truth, or blame his godfather for not listening to Snape's advice to stay home and wait for DD (which would be OOC), Harry chooses to blame Snape's "snide remarks" for Black's death. He knows what he's doing but "clung to this notion, because it enabled him to blame Snape, which felt satisfying" (161). It also serves as a form of self-protection, a denial of his own role in his godfather's death, which is too painful to face. It doesn't matter that the guilt is "misplaced" (and I agree that it is). It doesn't matter, in terms of Harry's feelings about what happened, that he was trying to save his godfather, not get him killed. What matters (to him) is that if he hadn't gone off on his mistaken rescue mission, accepting the false vision that Voldemort planted in his head as real, Sirius would be alive. Survivor's guilt may be illogical, but it's real, and Harry is avoiding it by blaming Snape. Let me say again that I'm not blaming Harry for Sirius Black's death, or for his determination to save him. The only thing he did wrong was to refuse to seriously consider the possibility that Voldemort might be trying to trick him. That's the part that can be considered "arrogant," if we choose to use that adjective, as is his shifting the blame to Snape because he wants to believe that Snape is evil. But Harry still is not thinking sensibly about the events at the MoM. He blames himself, or would do so if he could face the thought (essentially, "If only I hadn't been stupid enough to believe that vision, Sirius wouldn't have died!") He has to accept his share of the responsibility and acknowledge that his godfather's death isn't Snape's fault before he can shift the blame to where it properly belongs, on Bellatrix and Voldemort. But he hasn't yet reached that point, and the events at the end of HBP, which seem to confirm his view that Snape is evil, have made it still more difficult for him to get there. Carol, who understands that this particular lesson is painful for Harry but hopes that he will learn it for his own sake before it's too late. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 24 19:27:36 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 19:27:36 -0000 Subject: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154271 > Carol responds: > She's already surprised some of us by having Snape make the > Unbreakable Vow and kill Dumbledore. (Alla may not consider that a > surprise, but it nearly killed me. I was in mourning for days for > *Snape* until I realized that he could still be DDM.) All (well, most) > of us are on tenterhooks to discover his true loyalties and whether > we've interpreted the evidence correctly. Alla: But I WAS surprised, hugely surprised in fact (that is considering the fact that I did read those spoilers few days in advance) and did not even give them second thought. I always considered Snape to be abusive bastard (IMO of course), but I was shocked that he turned out to be the killer of Dumbledore. My first shock was a "tale of deepest remorse" of course, but even then I kept saying to myself. No, that cannot be, he is a spy, he just plays a game. Ooops. No games - here comes Snape, Dumbledore is dead. That is why I think that it is quite possible that no more huge reversals are forthcoming and the book 7 will be dealing with aftermath of what happened. Alla, who DID cry after the Tower, but for Dumbledore's death and for Harry's pain and not for the man who killed Dumbledore. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 24 20:36:01 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 20:36:01 -0000 Subject: Nightingale!Snape In-Reply-To: <700201d40606231928w3f4177f8l352716005e231e7c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154272 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kemper wrote: > > So I just finished Hans Christian Andersen's short story, 'The Nightingale'. > > The plot gist: > It is also notable that three of the characters in the short story are > reminded of something loved when they hear the song. > > The Nightingale is remarkably plain > ( for picture, see: pbc.codehog.co.uk/ report/nightingale.html ) > The Nightingale heals with song. > The Nightingale says, more or less, that it will act the spy. > > > Now to Snape. > Though Snape has not been referred to as plain, what's remarkable is that > the reader expects certain actions from Snape's character. I'm going to go > out on a limb and say that none of us imagined Snape singing someone to > strength and health. > > Snape and Draco in the bathroom echos Fawkes and Harry in the Chamber . But > how silly, let alone inappropriate, would it look for Snape to bend over > Draco while squeezing out a tear? Having Snape chant-sing is a much more > powerful image. > > Bellatrix said that you have to mean an Unforgivable, that you have to > really want to cause the curse, that you have to enjoy it. She also said an > Unforgivable cast in righteous anger wouldn't hurt her for long. > > There's something about Snape's song. It seems to be Light Magic. There's something about that song. > > Phoenix. Nightingale. Snape. Alla: Oh, Kemper. It is so strange that you mention this story. It was one of the most favorite stories of my childhood, you know. I also like that you call it short story. I had Andersen book as "fairy tales" collections, but even though they sometimes resembled fairy tales, I always thought that they were a bit too sad to be called ones. I am not sure, what they really are? Parables? Just short stories? In any event, no, I cannot compare Nightingale with Snape, I mean, if we are to do comparisons, shouldn't the comparison work well, not only on Nightingale, but on the Emperor side and it seems to be that Emperor does not remotely resemble Draco, but more of Dumbledore, kind of sort of? As a figure of power? And while Nightingale nurses Emperor to health, Snape well doesn't? If you are comparing Nightingale to Snape based only on the song, well, I guess if you can say that Nightingale brought the misery upon the emperor himself by leaving and then came to treat him ( still don't see Nightingale deliberately doing it), and Snape does not just heals dark curse, he heals the Dark curse invented by him. Oh, the irony. So, yes of course it can be pure Light magic of healing or it can be as Renee said self-preservation by Snape, developing cure, in case Snape dear accidentally cuts the wrong person. Alla, who loves Nightingale too much to ever see Snape in it. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 24 21:13:45 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 21:13:45 -0000 Subject: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154273 Carol earlier: > > She's already surprised some of us by having Snape make the Unbreakable Vow and kill Dumbledore. (Alla may not consider that a surprise, but it nearly killed me. I was in mourning for days for *Snape* until I realized that he could still be DDM.) All (well, most) of us are on tenterhooks to discover his true loyalties and whether we've interpreted the evidence correctly. > > Alla responded: > > But I WAS surprised, hugely surprised in fact (that is considering the fact that I did read those spoilers few days in advance) and did not even give them second thought. > > I always considered Snape to be abusive bastard (IMO of course), but > I was shocked that he turned out to be the killer of Dumbledore. > > My first shock was a "tale of deepest remorse" of course, but even then I kept saying to myself. No, that cannot be, he is a spy, he just plays a game. Ooops. No games - here comes Snape, Dumbledore is dead. > > That is why I think that it is quite possible that no more huge reversals are forthcoming and the book 7 will be dealing with aftermath of what happened. > > Alla, who DID cry after the Tower, but for Dumbledore's death and for Harry's pain and not for the man who killed Dumbledore. > Carol again: Just to clarify, so that no one will think I'm in mourning for an evil character, I knew that Dumbledore was going to die, but I wasn't prepared for the manner of his death. Of course, I mourned Dumbledore, but I was also mourning DDM!Snape, who had been so real to me and for the moment seemed to me to have been cruelly snatched away by JKR. I felt betrayed and cheated. How could she create this fascinating, conflicted character and then replace him with a cardboard villain, a mere plot device whose sole purpose was to dispose of Dumbledore so that Harry could carry on alone? Had I been deluded to believe in him all this time? Or was I right that Snape was loyal to Dumbledore, but he had now been forced by an unbearable fate to kill his beloved mentor? Either way, it was, and is, very hard to accept. After coming back to the list, reading other people's posts, and giving the matter a lot more thought than a person with other responsibilities ought to do, I'm convinced that Snape is indeed DDM. The problem is how he can prove that to Harry and (for me) how he can possibly survive Book 7. But there's always a reversal. The plot structure requires it. And it has to happen in the second half of Book 6-7, not the first. Rest assured that she does have surprises in store for us and for Harry, and at least some of them, almost certainly, relate to Snape. Carol, who sees Snape as a deeply flawed, deeply tragic character who will almost certainly be redeemed whether he survives into the Epilogue or not From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 24 21:26:33 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 21:26:33 -0000 Subject: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154274 Carol: > But there's always a reversal. The plot structure requires it. And it > has to happen in the second half of Book 6-7, not the first. Rest > assured that she does have surprises in store for us and for Harry, > and at least some of them, almost certainly, relate to Snape. Alla: That's a possibility. Or the main surprise already happened ( Snape killing DD) and in the second part the consequences of such surprise would be dealt with among other things. But I wonder why you say that there is always a reversal. Where do you see a reversal at the end of OOP for example. What turned out to be not what it seemed? I mean, we knew that Umbridge is a bastard, we knew that most likely visions were untrue, we knew that DD had his reasons to stay away from Harry, even if Harry did not. What kind of reversal occurred at the end of OOP? Because I did not see any, unless we are defining reversal very differently. So, yeah, IMO reversal is possible, but always? I don't think so. IMO of course. What I am trying to say is that it MAY happened, but I strongly doubt that it HAS TO happen. > Carol, who sees Snape as a deeply flawed, deeply tragic character who > will almost certainly be redeemed whether he survives into the > Epilogue or not > Alla, who agrees on that part, unfortunately, but who thinks of very different Snape redemption - as in him deeply regretting "killing Dumbledore" and trying to make Harry see it - that he, Snape regrets what he did. From catlady at wicca.net Sun Jun 25 01:12:42 2006 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 01:12:42 -0000 Subject: Black Names/Counter-Jinx/Hate at 1st Sight/Headmaster Portraits/The Mesdames Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154275 Ken Hutchinson wrpte in : << Rowling often uses a heavy dose of whimsy in her place and character names. You have to wonder how she avoided the temptation to use the star name Zubenelgenubi as a character name. >> Zubeneschameli is even better. They could be the two daughters of Scorpius Black ... I like *my* Black Family Tree better than Rowling's. Hers has so many born-Blacks whose names aren't astronomical. Consulting the Lexicon at , I found Isla, Elladora, Belvina, Marius, Dorea, Lucretia, Lycoris, Walburga ... Are Cedrella, Calidora, and Charis stars? When all the canon I had on the subject was from the BOOKS, I was willing to allow as how Phineas Nigellus was before the astronomical tradition started, that the wizards have named some particular star 'Narcissa', that Elladora is a nickname for Lambda Doradus (*is* there a lambda Doradus?), and that Araminta Melliflua was a Black by marriage only (I had her as a Malfoy by birth). Altho' back when I was studying this on websites, I found that there is a star named Meissa in Orion's neck (not bright enough for me to ever be able to see it) and it seems to me that JKR could have changed Narcissa's name to Meissa and kept the narcissim ("ME"issa). Rabastan Lestrange is one sound-transposition away from the star name Rastaban. Oh, if Lucretia Black and Ignatius Prewett are the parents of Fabian, Gideon, and Molly Prewett, then Molly Weasley (nee Prewett) was Sirius's first cousin, not 'cousins by marriage'. Pollux Black born 1912 is shown as father of Walburga born 1925, when he was (by arithmetic) 13. Cygnus Black born 1938 is shown as father of Bellatrix born 1951, when he was (by arithmetic) 13. If this document is canonical and time-travel is not involved, all SexGod!Draco fanfics can be defended as merely continuing a Black family tradition of early sexual activity. Pippin wrote in : << Well, as Hermione points out in OOP, the label changes from jinx to counterjinx depending on how the spell is being used. >> I think Wilbert Slinkhard was wrong. (I *hope* Slinkhard isn't the answer to the question "What does Rowling think of nonviolent resistance?") I think Hermione changed the subject rather than actually addressed his error. '[Slinkhard] says that counter-jinxes are improperly named.... He says "counter-jinx" is just a name people give their jinxes when they want to make them sound more acceptable. ... But I disagree.... Mr Slinkhard doesn't like jinxes, does he? But I think they can be very useful when they're used defensively.' I start with a feeling of certainty that, just as 'jinx' is a name used for some curses, so 'counterjinx' is a name used for some countercurses, so I can speak of 'counterjinx/countercurse'. In Potterverse, a countercurse/counterjinx is NOT a curse/jinx; it is a only a defense against (or a cure for) a curse/jinx. One that comes immediately to mind is Fake!Moody teaching about the Killing Curse (Avada Kedavra): "Not nice," he said calmly. "Not pleasant. And there's no counter-curse. There's no blocking it. Only one known person has ever survived it, and he's sitting right in front of me." Also in GoF, we have Hermione helping Harry prepare for the Third Task: "He was still having trouble with the Shield Charm, though. This was supposed to cast a temporary, invisible wall around himself that deflected minor curses; Hermione managed to shatter it with a well placed Jelly-Legs Jinx. Harry wobbled around the room for ten minutes afterwards before she had looked up the counter-jinx." (LOOK! The actual word 'COUNTER-JINX'!) PS/SS: "At that moment Neville toppled into the common room. How he had managed to climb through the portrait hole was anyone's guess, because his legs had been stuck together with what they recognized at once as the Leg-Locker Curse. He must have had to bunny hop all the way up to Gryffindor tower. Everyone fell over laughing except Hermione, who leapt up and performed the countercurse. Neville's legs sprang apart and he got to his feet, trembling." And Quirrelmort's confession: ""No, no, no. I tried to kill you. Your friend Miss Granger accidentally knocked me over as she rushed to set fire to Snape at that Quidditch match. She broke my eye contact with you. Another few seconds and I'd have got you off that broom. I'd have managed it before then if Snape hadn't been muttering a countercurse, trying to save you." In the latter three examples, the counter-curse removes the effects of its specific curse (Jelly-Legs Jinx, Leg-Locker Curse, broomstick curse). The broomstick example shows Snape's counter-curse can remove the effects of Quirrelmort's curse while that curse is still being cast. Presumably if the counter-curse was cast powerfully enough and fast enough, it could remove the effects of the curse before they even occured, thus serving to *block* the curse entirely. So Fake!Moody's "no counter-curse, no way to block it" would be repetition for emphasis. I don't know if the spell sung by Snape over Draco was a countercurse to Sectumsempra or a regular healing charm for big, deep cuts, whether caused by spells, steel, or hippogryff claws. Alla wrote in : << Draco and Harry absolutely in my opinion has some "political" base for it ? NOT Dark Arts hatred, but hatred of ideology Draco stands for. Of course that is not all of it ? it is also two kids who did not like each other on the spot >> 1) At that point, the only Draco-ideology that Harry was rejecting was snobbery. 2) They didn't 'not like each other on the spot'. When they first met, at Madam Malkin's robe shop, Draco showed no animosity to Harry -- he went through a child!Draco version of trying to make friends with Harry, by telling how great he was and assuming that the person to whom he was speaking shared his bigot values. And Harry didn't dislike Draco until he had gotten an earful of Draco's opinions. To me, Draco didn't dislike Harry until their second meeting, when Harry dissed Draco because Draco had dissed Ron. Carol wrote in : << Twice in HBP Phineas reprimands Harry for speaking disrespectfully of Severus Snape. Why? Because, IMO, Phineas has heard doing everything from Snape's change of sides to his reports of Harry's dreams (revealed to Snape in the Occlumency lessons). The only key conversations between DD and Snape that Phineas would not have overheard, aside from messages delivered by Patronus, are the argument in the forest and the events on the tower in HBP. >> The portraits are sworn to serve the Headmaster of Hogwarts. The Board of Governors could choose a Dark Wizard or some other kind of evil person to be Headmaster. Then the portraits would serve the new Headmaster as loyally as they served Dumbledore. Therefore, it would be careless of Dumbledore to let the portraits know too many of the Order of the Phoenix's secrets or any other anti-Voldemort secrets. Does anyone actually know if the talking portraits were painted or otherwise made by humans, or do they just Magically Appear when needed? Carol wrote in : << Some of the female adults are usually referred to as "Madam _____" (Hooch, Pince, Pomfrey). Madam Rosmerta, perhaps because she's a bartender rather than a teacher, is called by "Madam" plus her first name (more friendly and intimate, or less respectful, or both? Contrast Madam Malkin, the robemaker). >> I remain convinced that Madam Malkin is a Madam Given-Name example. I remain convinced that Malkin is an old nickname for Mary, related to that other old nickname Molly, even tho' dictionaries claim that Malkin is a nickname for Matilda (still a given name). What I dunno about is Madam Puddifoot: Puddifoot is not a normal given name, but it is not a normal surname either. From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun Jun 25 02:27:10 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 22:27:10 EDT Subject: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) Message-ID: <545.5f2a86.31cf4e7e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154276 >Sherry now: >Is that actually deliberate misleading, or is it just the anguish of just >having seen Dumbledore die and not seeing or saying things clearly Nikkalmati: Yes, I agree, that is why is said "so that is a distortion in Harry's thinking." >Alla: >He honors the wishes of his dead mentor, which was just now >viciously murdered ( that is not a fact of course, only my opinion, >but that is how I see it till JKR calls it otherwise :)) >Where is the arrogance here? >BUT now Harry listens to Dumbledore wishes and does NOT tell anybody >but Ron and Hermione about Prophecy and he is arrogant again? Nikkalmati: Yes, because again he is making his own decision without consulting anyone else. Arguably, the situation has changed, since he last spoke with DD! I would also cite another instance of so-called" arrogance" from HBP. It was foolish for Harry to rush out of the castle after Draco and Snape followed by three DEs. What was he thinking? Did he believe he could fight them all? Apparently, he did. I would call that arrogant. >Alla. >Frankly, I think this is "don't tell anyone but Ron and Hermione" >about Horcruxes is simply a plot device to put adults even more in a >back seat than they are now and put Trio even more center stage. Nikkalmati: Indeed, I think you are correct from a plot development point of view. But I think some of the adults must play at least a supportive role in Book 7. > Renee: >You're right, Harry's wrong to misrepresent Dumbledore's words, but I >still fail to see why this is arrogant. Harry ignores the possibility >that he's missed something, that Dumbledore's assessment of Snape was >correct, not because he's an arrogant prick who thinks he's always, >right, but because he insists on believing the worst of Snape. I'd >rather call this bias or prejudice. Nikkalmati: Perhaps in this one instance it is a better example of bias; I don't want to quibble over words; however, his bias causes him to misremember what he has been told. I do think that it is another example of how Harry thinks he is right and distorts the facts to fit what he believes. >Sherry now: > But in the case of the fake vision about Sirius, he has absolutely no blame. It is not arrogance for him to believe his vision, when he has evidence that his visions are true. He did save Arthur's life after all. I would call his thoughts and actions desperate not arrogant. How could he risk it being false? His guilt is completely misplaced in my opinion. He has absolutely nothing to blame himself for in the death of Sirius, not even indirectly. Who would not have done the same? He did try to contact Sirius, and he did try to tell Snape. He tried to do the responsible things. When nothing seemed to work, and Kreacher told him Sirius was not there, what on earth could he have done? It wasn't arrogance. Nikkalmati: Harry skipped two important steps he should have taken. He should have remembered to use the mirror to contact Sirius directly. If that didn't work, he then should have gone in person to Snape to ask for help. Even Harry realized in Umbridge's office that there was a member of the Order he should have gone to, Snape. OTP U.S.ed. 743. Instead, he took action immediately by going to Umbridge's office to use the floo. Again, he did not think of the mirror or of Snape, because he believes that everything depends on himself. >fairwynn said >After disposing of Umbridge, Harry and friends could have returned to Hogwarts and attempted to contact Grimmauld Place using the floo, or gone back to Snape and told him directly what was going on. But Harry assumed that he was the only one who could help. Nikkalmati: Certainly, these are also possibilities [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jun 25 02:34:08 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 02:34:08 -0000 Subject: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154277 > Carol: > > > > But there's always a reversal. The plot structure requires it. And it > > has to happen in the second half of Book 6-7, not the first. Rest > > assured that she does have surprises in store for us and for Harry, > > and at least some of them, almost certainly, relate to Snape. > > Alla: > > That's a possibility. Or the main surprise already happened ( Snape > killing DD) and in the second part the consequences of such surprise > would be dealt with among other things. > > But I wonder why you say that there is always a reversal. Where do you > see a reversal at the end of OOP for example. What turned out to be > not what it seemed? Pippin: If I can jump in here, it's true there's no reversal in OOP, but there's no resolution either. The only big issue that got resolved is who was going to die, and that was completely extraneous to the book -- unless it turns out that someone *was* plotting Sirius's death. But that would be a reversal, since right now we're meant to think it was a random act of war. As Alla says, the big revelation about the prophecy didn't resolve anything much, even without being revealed as a misinterpretation in Book Six. Otherwise, at the end of Book Five, Umbridge was still alive and in power, Grawp was on the loose, and Lupin promised to step into a protective role only to abdicate it almost immediately. In other words, in the context of Book Six, Book Five doesn't really stand alone. Book Five is most likely the first part of a three book novel with each book corresponding to one act of the classic three act structure. In that case we shouldn't expect the climax, the reversal or the resolution until the last book. > Alla, who agrees on that part, unfortunately, but who thinks of very > different Snape redemption - as in him deeply regretting "killing > Dumbledore" and trying to make Harry see it - that he, Snape regrets > what he did. > Pippin: If Snape is DDM, he is not the traitor, in which case all that stuff about Dumbledore's weakness of seeing only good in people is simply irrelevant -- and since Rowling has told us it isn't, the traitor must be someone else. But if someone else is the traitor, it would hardly be economical to have Snape bear the responsibility for Dumbledore's death. IMO, Snape does not need to be redeemed from loyalty to the Dark Side, but only from his misdirected hate. IMO, that can only happen when the righteous anger behind it is recognized and dealt with. Meanwhile Harry has to realize that his own righteous anger is leading him into a similar trap. Pippin From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Jun 25 02:36:23 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 02:36:23 -0000 Subject: Nightingale!Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154278 Alla: > If you are comparing Nightingale to Snape based only on the song, > well, I guess if you can say that Nightingale brought the misery > upon the emperor himself by leaving and then came to treat him ( > still don't see Nightingale deliberately doing it), and Snape does > not just heals dark curse, he heals the Dark curse invented by him. > Oh, the irony. Ceridwen: Just this part made me think of one of the speculations about Snape - that he was Dumbledore's golden boy until Harry arrived (Nightingale, mechanical nightingale). And Nightingale flew away when the mechanical bird became the new favorite of the emperor, but returned once the emperor was ill. I can see a possible parallel, but I can't quite see Harry in the role of the mechanical bird who broke. *IF*, just playing for speculation here, Snape is the Nightingale, then could James Potter be the mechanical bird? Or, Remus Lupin? Or (Powers That Be forfend!) Peter Pettigrew? Or Sirius Black? In one way or another, they all broke down - James made the fatal mistake of asking Wormtail to be his Secret Keeper, denying Dumbledore that position; Lupin didn't tell Dumbledore that Sirius and Pettigrew were Animagi; Pettigrew betrayed his friends and 'broke' spectacularly; Sirius was flawed, like a firework that burns out too quickly. Personally, I'd go for the Marauders, with James at the forefront, as the mechanical bird if we're going to try and draw parallels to the story. And it wasn't just Dumbledore ailing, and certainly not physically, but the entire WW at that time. The reason I say the Marauders as a group is that they seem to have broken down as friends. Some people have noted that Lupin was not included in all of the bustle of the Order and the Secret Keeping. This sounds like the group breaking up and at least one member going his own way after school (common occurrence, Lupin was not of the same social or financial standing as his friends, he had other priorities). And one betrayed another to his and his wife's death while yet another decided to go after the killer without waiting for the police and ended up in Azkaban wrongfully named as their killer. And somewhere between the prophecy and the months before the Potters were killed, Snape 'returned', Dumbledore's words at Karkarov's evidence hearing (or whatever it's called!) in the Penseive, to assist by spying. Just some thoughts. Ceridwen. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jun 25 02:47:20 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 02:47:20 -0000 Subject: Prank question - Lupin wanted Snape DEAD? Still don't quite buy it. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154279 > > Pippin: > > Lupin has done a whole lot of things > > that aren't heroic besides the near gangland slaying of Pettigrew. > > Failing to tell Dumbledore about Sirius, failing to turn in the > > Marauder's Map,, leaving Ron to suffer with his broken leg, > > (and isn't it *interesting* that Lupin says he's not so good > > with healing spells, now that we find out that Snape is) -- > > and failing to write to Harry before going on his > > secret mission. > Renee: > Aren't you overdoing it a little now? I'd be hard put to find a less > well-meaning description of the way Lupin handled Ron's predicament > than "Leaving Ron to suffer with his broken leg". (Though I wouldn't > be surprised if you could.) > > Let's have a look at the text. When Ron's in pain, shortly after > Lupin's demasque as a werewolf, Lupin starts toward him, looking > concerned, but he is rebuffed by Ron's reaction. Later, when they > leave the shack, he does provide Ron with a splint and bandages, > because as he says, he "can't mend bones nearly as well as Madam > Pomfrey". > > Compare this way of dealing with an injury to Lockhart's in CoS. He is > obviously incompetent with healing spells, but he tries to heal > Harry's arm all the same, with dire results (and I wouldn't be > surprised if the contrast between him and Lupin was intentional). I'd > prefer Lupin's approach; at least he knows he's not competent enough. > And what little he does do, gives Ron temporary relief: "Lupin helped > him to his feet; Ron put his weight gingerly on the leg and didn't > wince. 'That's better,' he said. 'Thanks.'" Lupin leaves Ron to > *suffer* with his broken leg?? Pippin: Yes indeed, for nearly an hour. Why didn't Lupin splint Ron's leg immediately instead of waiting all that time? Because Ron rebuffed him? Lupin, the adult professor, let a fourteen year old kid decide whether he needed first aid? Compare that to Tonks in HBP, who tends to Harry's broken nose over Harry's objections. I'm sure that contrast was deliberate too :) It can't be because Lupin was intimidated by Ron's distrust -- that didn't stop him from ordering Ron not to leave, or from pointing his wand at Scabbers, an innocent rat as far as Ron was concerned. Pippin From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Jun 25 03:02:41 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 03:02:41 -0000 Subject: Black Names/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154280 "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" > Oh, if Lucretia Black and Ignatius Prewett are the parents of Fabian, > Gideon, and Molly Prewett, then Molly Weasley (nee Prewett) was > Sirius's first cousin, not 'cousins by marriage'. Potioncat: I think it's more likely that Ignatius is Molly's uncle. That would make Sirius and Molly 'cousins by marriage'. > Catlady > Pollux Black born 1912 is shown as father of Walburga born 1925, when > he was (by arithmetic) 13. Cygnus Black born 1938 is shown as father > of Bellatrix born 1951, when he was (by arithmetic) 13. If this > document is canonical and time-travel is not involved, all > SexGod!Draco fanfics can be defended as merely continuing a Black > family tradition of early sexual activity. Potioncat: While I think it's a great big error--or a series of errors--I've seen an essay that explains it. Sort of. I think it was linked in an earlier post within the past week. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 25 03:15:05 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 03:15:05 -0000 Subject: Harry's arrogance /Evil Snape In-Reply-To: <545.5f2a86.31cf4e7e@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154281 > >Alla: > > >He honors the wishes of his dead mentor, which was just now > >viciously murdered ( that is not a fact of course, only my opinion, > >but that is how I see it till JKR calls it otherwise :)) > >Where is the arrogance here? > >BUT now Harry listens to Dumbledore wishes and does NOT tell anybody > >but Ron and Hermione about Prophecy and he is arrogant again? > > Nikkalmati: > Yes, because again he is making his own decision without consulting anyone > else. Arguably, the situation has changed, since he last spoke with DD! Alla: How did situation change? Besides the fact that DD is dead of course. Dumbledore did NOT tell him - you can tell anybody else IF I am dead, right? So, Harry honours Dumbledore wishes to the letter. I still do not understdand how is it arrogance? Harry emphasises it by saying that "he is DD man", I believe that him not telling anybody else will turn out to be a blessing, not a curse, but have not figured out yet how. There is another interesting thing in Harry not telling Scrimgeore anything. It is IMO shows that Harry will not work willingly with the person with whom he has many ethical disagreements even if they are on the same side. Hmmm. Yes, I think it would be a blessing :) > I would also cite another instance of so-called" arrogance" from HBP. It > was foolish for Harry to rush out of the castle after Draco and Snape followed > by three DEs. What was he thinking? Did he believe he could fight them all? > Apparently, he did. I would call that arrogant. Alla: I would call that desire to bring the murderer to justice. Was it foolish? Sure, it was, but arrogant? I think that I am not really fit to chase the killer, if G-d forbid, I would ever witness a murder, but I am not sure if I would be able to remember it if somebody would (G-d forbid) murder my loved one in front of me. I think that my primary thought would be to GET this person, NOW. My state of mind ( I think, I cannot say for sure of course, because I hope never ever to find myself in RL in such a horrible situation Harry did) would not be the one to calculate whether I should chase after the killer or not. I mean, I HOPE that my first move would be to call the police ASAP, BUT I am twice as old as Harry is and am a lawyer, and I am still having doubts that I would not be consumed by the desire to get the person who just killed my loved one. So, to answer your question, I think Harry did NOT think much, but can I blame him for that? Not at all. IMO of course. > > Alla, who agrees on that part, unfortunately, but who thinks of very > > different Snape redemption - as in him deeply regretting "killing > > Dumbledore" and trying to make Harry see it - that he, Snape regrets > > what he did. > > > > Pippin: > If Snape is DDM, he is not the traitor, in which case all that stuff about > Dumbledore's weakness of seeing only good in people is simply > irrelevant -- and since Rowling has told us it isn't, the traitor must > be someone else. Alla: Erm... Yes, IF he is DD!M he is not the traitor, but I thought it was clear enough from my many posts on the subject if not from this one that I don't believe that he IS the DD!M :) Then that stuff about Dumbledore weakness of seeing the good in people being his weakness is very very relevant - as in him being wrong about Snape. Did you base this argument on the fact that I said that I believe in Snape redemption? If so, then I am sorry to misrepresent myself. I DO believe that Snape redemption will occur, as I said, I find it very unfortunate, BUT the redemption I believe will happen is NOT the one that DD!M Snape theorists ( or at least the majority of DD!M Snape theorists) talk about. This is NOT the redemption of the man who did the right thing on the Tower, but the one who did the WRONG thing on the Tower ( nothing of following DD orders, fake AK or anything like that - NOT buying, sorry. Keep the possibilities in mind, but really not buying them till JKR says so :)) I suppose I should call it the redemption of OFH!Snape or Grey Snape or whatever you wish to call it. This is the Snape who was NOT plotting Dumbledore's murder or anything like that, but the one who was being incredibly foolish and took the UV for whatever reasons, did NOT inform DD of the third clause (Siguine essay again) and on the Tower when DD wanted help, felt that it would not be very SMART to give him help, since then Snape will die. This is the Snape who has "LATENT" good qualities ( which JKR said Sirius could not see), which to me indicate that those good qualities did not wake up yet. This Snape is driven by self-preservation primarily, BUT does love DD and that conflict causes him to regret what he did LATER. This Snape did NOT make his choice yet and will do so probably at the end,when he finally sees that Harry DOES have Lily's eyes ( Alla cringes again). So, no, Pippin my Snape is NOT DD man or at least not completely such. > But if someone else is the traitor, it would hardly be economical to > have Snape bear the responsibility for Dumbledore's death. Alla: Wait, let me guess. To the multiple list of the evils that Lupin committed you now add DD's murder? Was Lupin on the Tower the same way he was at the Graveyard as "Second Wormtail"? Pippin: > IMO, Snape does not need to be redeemed from loyalty to the Dark Side, > but only from his misdirected hate. Alla: We agree on the "misdirected hate" part. Alla, who really wishes for Snape to turn out fully Evil, but based on the fact how much JKR does not want to talk about his loyalties, does not keept her hopes up to much. From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Jun 25 03:43:54 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 03:43:54 -0000 Subject: Healing Magic (wasRe: Prank question - Lupin wanted Snape DEAD In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154282 > Pippin: > Big Snip ...leaving Ron to suffer with his broken leg, > (and isn't it *interesting* that Lupin says he's not so good > with healing spells, now that we find out that Snape is) -- Potioncat: I think Snape's healing ability is a major part of who he is--another sort of contrast for our favorite baddie. I wonder if his motivation for knowing Dark Arts as a young boy was to learn/invent cures for them? It might also explain his joining the DEs. I'm sure LV was more accepting of a little Dark Magic experimentation than others might have been. To be honest, for the longest time I was sure that Agnes, the dog faced witch was his mother. And back to Ron--Lupin has him limping with a splint, but Snape conjurs a stretcher. From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Jun 25 03:52:28 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 03:52:28 -0000 Subject: Tonks's House In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154283 > Ceridwen: > Snape also calls Tonks by her given name in HBP. He calls other > Slytherin students by their first names, but so far, I haven't > noticed him using first names with students from other houses, or at > least students from Gryffindor. Potioncat: I've seen some very good arguments for McGonagall and for Snape as Tonks's HoH. Snape and McG do have some traits in common and that sort of story of Tonks's could fit either of them. Hardly anyone ever suggests she's a Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw.I think JKR wrote Tonks's little story with the intent to drive us crazy. Personally, I like the idea of Slytherin. But, as for the first name bit--has Snape ever called other students by first names? The first names that I recall are: Igor, Draco, Tonks, Bellatrix and Narcissa. Seems like there was one or two more. Taking a good look at this list, all but one are Blacks! From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Jun 25 05:09:35 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 05:09:35 -0000 Subject: The Forth Death Eater Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154285 Lupin: I think you should tell McGonagall of you suspicions. She is acting head of the Order. Tonks: Yes, you're right. I can't tell anyone at work. It might cost me my job. Lupin: Or your life. Tonks: (deep sigh) well I have been wrong before. But the evidence .. well it is there but not enough for a conviction. I can't really prove anything. Only time will tell. He will have to make a move. Lupin: Let's go over it again. Tonks: Well first on page 40 (U.S. edition of HBP) the narrator describes him as having a "ravaged face". Then on page 594, we have the forth death eater described as having a heavy, brutal-looking face. Lupin: I was under the impression that DE usually wear mask. Otherwise Lucius Malfoy would have been found out long ago. Everyone knows him. Tonks: Yes, they often wear mask and very pointy hats. So you see it *could* be possible that a "ravaged face" and a "brutal-looking face" could be the same person. It is very hard to tell. But if you add the fact that in all of these years the Auror department has *never* been able to find LV and his DE's well it does start to look a bit suspicious. And with Amelia Bone's murder by Voldemort himself. You have to wonder why Voldemort went after her. Could be many reasons, of course, but if she was getting suspicious herself and starting to get a bit too close.. well Lupin: And DD has never quiet liked the man. Tonks: Yes, I heard that Harry asked DD once if our suspect was "good" and DD was rather evasive in his answer. (see page 61) Lupin: Yes, I can see why you are suspicious. But as you say it is not enough evidence. We just have to watch Scrimgeour closely. Maybe he will make a move. Tonks: I can watch in disguise. Lupin: Do be careful my dear. Tonks_op From dark_ally8 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 25 04:34:56 2006 From: dark_ally8 at yahoo.com (dark_ally8) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 04:34:56 -0000 Subject: Tonks's House In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154286 > Potioncat: The first names that I recall are: Igor, Draco, Tonks, Bellatrix and Narcissa. Seems like there was one or two more. Taking a good look at this list, all but one are Blacks! > Btw, `karkar' means black in Mongol. D.Ally From dbose58 at excite.com Sun Jun 25 05:13:14 2006 From: dbose58 at excite.com (jayhawk1024) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 05:13:14 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore is not Dead Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154287 Everyone should check out this website. It's got great theories on Dumbledore's death and Snape good/evil situation. I had always questioned if Dumbledore was really dead or if Snape was truly evil. The closing of HBP just didn't seem right.... This site did the research with quotes from the American and Europe editions. http://www.dumbledoreisnotdead.com/ From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Jun 25 06:24:24 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 06:24:24 -0000 Subject: Black Names/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154288 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" > > Oh, if Lucretia Black and Ignatius Prewett are the parents of > Fabian, > > Gideon, and Molly Prewett, then Molly Weasley (nee Prewett) was > > Sirius's first cousin, not 'cousins by marriage'. > > Potioncat: > I think it's more likely that Ignatius is Molly's uncle. That would make Sirius and Molly 'cousins by marriage'. > > > Catlady > > Pollux Black born 1912 is shown as father of Walburga born 1925, > Tonks: Just reading some of the discussion about Black family names and noticed that some of them are named after Saints. Just an FYI: Ignatius is a Saint. 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. Tonks_op From vinkv002 at planet.nl Sun Jun 25 11:42:57 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 11:42:57 -0000 Subject: Prank question - Lupin wanted Snape DEAD? Still don't quite buy it. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154289 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > > Pippin: > > > Lupin has done a whole lot of things > > > that aren't heroic besides the near gangland slaying of Pettigrew. > > > Failing to tell Dumbledore about Sirius, failing to turn in the > > > Marauder's Map,, leaving Ron to suffer with his broken leg, > > > (and isn't it *interesting* that Lupin says he's not so good > > > with healing spells, now that we find out that Snape is) -- > > > and failing to write to Harry before going on his > > > secret mission. > > > Renee: > > Aren't you overdoing it a little now? I'd be hard put to find a less > > well-meaning description of the way Lupin handled Ron's predicament > > than "Leaving Ron to suffer with his broken leg". (Though I wouldn't > > be surprised if you could.) > > > > Let's have a look at the text. When Ron's in pain, shortly after > > Lupin's demasque as a werewolf, Lupin starts toward him, looking > > concerned, but he is rebuffed by Ron's reaction. Later, when they > > leave the shack, he does provide Ron with a splint and bandages, > > because as he says, he "can't mend bones nearly as well as Madam > > Pomfrey". > > > > Compare this way of dealing with an injury to Lockhart's in CoS. He is > > obviously incompetent with healing spells, but he tries to heal > > Harry's arm all the same, with dire results (and I wouldn't be > > surprised if the contrast between him and Lupin was intentional). I'd > > prefer Lupin's approach; at least he knows he's not competent enough. > > And what little he does do, gives Ron temporary relief: "Lupin helped > > him to his feet; Ron put his weight gingerly on the leg and didn't > > wince. 'That's better,' he said. 'Thanks.'" Lupin leaves Ron to > > *suffer* with his broken leg?? > > Pippin: > Yes indeed, for nearly an hour. Why didn't Lupin splint Ron's leg > immediately instead of waiting all that time? > > Because Ron rebuffed him? Lupin, the adult professor, let a fourteen year > old kid decide whether he needed first aid? Compare that to Tonks in > HBP, who tends to Harry's broken nose over Harry's objections. I'm > sure that contrast was deliberate too :) > > It can't be because Lupin was intimidated by Ron's distrust -- > that didn't stop him from ordering Ron not to leave, or from pointing > his wand at Scabbers, an innocent rat as far as Ron was concerned. > > > Pippin > Renee: 1) Huh? Harry doesn't object verbally; how is Tonks to know what he thinks?? All he does is stay stock-still and close his eyes. If I were Tonks, I'd take that for agreement, too. Compare this to Ron's almost vicious reaction towards Lupin (a man he liked well enough when he didn't know he was a werewolf). 2) Tonks doesn't have other things on her mind at that moment than finding Harry and making sure he's al right. Lupin has to try and win the Trio's trust, convince them that Sirius is not a crazed murderer, prevent Sirius from acting prematurely and unmask Scabbers. A rather daunting task, given the Trio's attitude right then. The moment Ron gives him this verbal slap in the face and rejects him, he probably decides he'd better try and take care of the trust problem first (and personally, I believe this was the right decision). 3) How is Ron to know that Lupin just wants to help him, instead of trying to do something nasty - the bl**dy werewolf? He might hurt himself even more in his frenzy to get away if Lupin tries to approach him. Not a good moment to act forcefully, even if it is with the best of intentions. 4)In accordance with the casual attitude the WW displays towards injury in general, no one seems too concerned about Ron's leg; Hermione doesn't voice the opinion that Ron should be taken to the hospital wing, Harry never even mentions it, while Ron himself seems to believe he can still leave the Shrieking Shack. In fact, the only one who mentions it before the party makes to leave the Shack is Sirius - the one who broke it, and who later is so intent on getting his hands on Scabbers that he falls on it. (Talking about irony...) But I guess this whoe matter is just another example of our perception of the various characters colouring our interpretations of what they do, or don't do. Renee From MadameSSnape at aol.com Sun Jun 25 12:23:09 2006 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 08:23:09 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: Black Names/Counter-Jinx/Hate at 1st Sight/Headmaster... Message-ID: <360.684b9fb.31cfda2d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154290 In a message dated 6/24/2006 9:13:48 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, catlady at wicca.net writes: What I dunno about is Madam Puddifoot: Puddifoot is not a normal given name, but it is not a normal surname either. --------------------- Sherrie here: It is a perfectly normal surname - if you're a Hobbit. I KNEW I'd seen that name before (it's been a while since I've reread the trilogy - ask me about Gettysburg names, I'm better at that! ). 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. IIRc (sorry, too lazy to go get my Red Book), the name is noted among the guests at The Party. JKR claims to have read Tolkien only once... Sherrie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Sun Jun 25 12:46:24 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 12:46:24 -0000 Subject: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: <545.5f2a86.31cf4e7e@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154291 > >Alla: > > >BUT now Harry listens to Dumbledore wishes and does NOT tell > >anybody but Ron and Hermione about Prophecy and he is arrogant > > again? > Nikkalmati: > Yes, because again he is making his own decision without consulting > anyone else. Arguably, the situation has changed, since he last > spoke with DD! Amiable Dorsai: What's changed? Gotta search canon, see if I can find it. Ah,here it is: "And with the death of Albus Dumbledore came a gentle rain that washed all of the Voldemort sympathizers from the Ministry, and also transformed the likes of Dolores Umbridge, Percy Weasley, and Rufus Scrimgeour into wise, selfless, dedicated public servants who could not even concieve of misusing, mishandling or mislaying any information Harry might give them. This same rain washed away any beetles at the window, rats in the wainscotting, or spies in the Order that might have been poking around, thus making it safe for Harry to blab away at will." >From "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince--Rose Colored Glasses Edition" Amiable Dorsai From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jun 25 13:16:26 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 13:16:26 -0000 Subject: Harry's arrogance /Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154292 > > Pippin: > > If Snape is DDM, he is not the traitor, in which case all that stuff aboutDumbledore's weakness of seeing only good in people is simply irrelevant -- and since Rowling has told us it isn't, the traitor must be someone else. > > Alla: > > Erm... Yes, IF he is DD!M he is not the traitor, but I thought it > was clear enough from my many posts on the subject if not from this > one that I don't believe that he IS the DD!M :) Pippin: Er, yes. I was responding to Carol's theory that Snape was loyal and was forced to kill Dumbledore by circumstances beyond his control. Your theory, if I may summarize, is that Snape was not loyal and was forced to kill Dumbledore by circumstances which were beyond his control, but wouldn't have been beyond his control if he'd been loyal. Is that right? The trouble with both these theories is that in neither one could Dumbledore's death have been prevented if he hadn't trusted Snape recklessly. I think that's self-evident in the case of Carol's theory. In the case of your theory, the problem is that even if Dumbledore suspected Snape and sent him away from the castle, he'd still have wound up dead, since there'd be no one to cure him of the "no health drink." Depending on who won the battle of the stairs, either the DE's or Madame Pomfrey and Slughorn could only have watched helplessly as Dumbledore succumbed. It might be said that Dumbledore recklessly trusted that Snape would be able to cure him, but Dumbledore didn't know the drink would be that dangerous when he drank it. Dumbledore made it clear that he did not think it would be worth the risk of another hand to destroy another horcrux, so I think he was sincere when he said that the green goo wouldn't be fatal immediately. That's also borne out by the Inferi who attack only after all the goo had been drunk. Dumbledore had reason to think that Voldemort did not not want the thief to die -- not unless he had defeated all the other protections and was about to get away. Unfortunately, RAB had no reason to preserve this feature of the trap -- his note makes clear that he expected Voldemort to be the next person to retrieve the locket. He'd have wanted Voldemort to live-- but only until he'd opened the locket, realize who had swindled him, that his horcrux was destroyed and uh oh, RAB would have had to remove the original liquid to get at the locket so what was this stuff I just drank, argh, argh argh. Unfortunately for RAB's plan but even more so for Dumbledore, it was Dumbledore who drank the poison instead. One must note that literary poisons have a long history of killing people they weren't intended for. ;) Now my Snape theory, since you asked, is that Snape was loyal to Dumbledore, faked the AK on the Tower and then had to leave him to his fate due to circumstances beyond his control. Snape is thus no more a murderer than a triage nurse or the fireman who leaves the grandfather behind in order to save a teenager. What put circumstances beyond Snape's control was not the vow, which has enough holes in it to fill the Albert Hall, but the entry of DE's into the castle. We might blame Draco for that, but since he was acting under duress, should we not blame the agent of that duress? AFAWK, Draco was serving willingly until sometime after term began. Then someone delivered Voldemort's threats against Draco and his family. The same person no doubt enchanted Rosmerta, assembled the DE's for the raiding party, perhaps even supplied Draco with Peruvian darkness powder. (Do we really think Fred and George would sell Draco anything?) Shouldn't we be wondering how these things happened and who was responsible? Whoever delivered the threats to Draco had to have access to Hogwarts, so it must have been someone whom Dumbledore trusted -- recklessly as it turned out. I do think it was Lupin, but in fairness Tonks and McGonagall are also suspect. Pippin From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Jun 25 13:43:50 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 13:43:50 -0000 Subject: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154293 Nikkalmati: (*snip)* > > Arguably, the situation has changed, since he last > > spoke with DD! Amiable Dorsai: > What's changed? Gotta search canon, see if I can find it. Ah,here it is: > "And with the death of Albus Dumbledore came a gentle rain that washed > all of the Voldemort sympathizers from the Ministry... > From "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince--Rose Colored Glasses > Edition" Ceridwen: What has changed is that Harry&Co no longer have a trusted adult, who knows more (much! more in the case of DD) about the WW than they do, someone who has more experience with spells, jinxes and hexes, someone with more knowledge as well as much more wisdom. True, no one is quite like Dumbledore! But there are all ranges of wisdom, knowledge and experience between the trio just starting out in life, and Dumbledore's high level. I'm starting to wonder if part of Harry's journey is to learn how to trust other people. As has been mentioned at least twice, what can be seen as Harry's arrogance, thinking that the entire world depends on only him to save it (MoM/Sirius, Gauntlet/Sorcer's Stone, etc.) is understandable since he has been raised by the Dursleys who have left him pretty much to depend on himself, and have even placed him in the role of servant, giving him more household responsibilities than people normally do with their kids today. He has had to rely only on himself, and has not been taught to trust in others to help. Learning to trust in himself is a story for another boy, I think. Harry already does that, to the point that he does come off as arrogant in certain situations. Understandable, absolutely. But he must learn how to trust, and if he is ever going to be an effective leader, he must learn how to trust enough to delegate duties. For instance, I don't think making Harry leader of the OotP would work out well because he simply doesn't know how to delegate, he doesn't know how to evaluate who would be best in a situation because he has always had to think that he was the best because he was the only one who would. So, I think that part of the journey in book 7 will be Harry needing to break this vow to a man who is now dead, which was made while that man was still alive and available to help him. This could be one of those twists that sets a genre on its head that has been mentioned - the hero, instead of having to learn how to depend on himself, must learn how to rely on others. Ceridwen. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jun 25 13:45:00 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 13:45:00 -0000 Subject: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154294 > Renee: > You're right, Harry's wrong to misrepresent Dumbledore's words, but I > still fail to see why this is arrogant. Harry ignores the possibility > that he's missed something, that Dumbledore's assessment of Snape was > correct, not because he's an arrogant prick who thinks he's always, > right, but because he insists on believing the worst of Snape. I'd > rather call this bias or prejudice. Harry is also judgmental (and not > just in this scene) and needs to learn to reserve judgement until he's > got all the facts. But to me, that's not the same as arrogance. I've > looked up a dictionary definition of the term, and I don't think it > describes Harry Potter: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/arrogance > Pippin: What was arrogant, in the sense of an unwarranted assumption of superiority, was for Harry to think that his judgement was better than Dumbledore's. Especially in regard to Snape, where Harry knew that Dumbledore's information was more complete than his, it was arrogant for Harry to assume that he was right and Dumbledore, "the greatest wizard Harry had ever, or would ever, meet," was wrong. That Harry then unconsciously altered facts to fit his opinion was the result of this arrogance if not an example of it. Pippin From richter at ridgenet.net Sun Jun 25 13:53:21 2006 From: richter at ridgenet.net (Peggy Richter) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 13:53:21 -0000 Subject: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: <545.5f2a86.31cf4e7e@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154295 > >fairwynn said > >After disposing of Umbridge, Harry and friends could > have returned to Hogwarts and attempted to contact Grimmauld Place using the floo, or gone back to Snape and told him directly what was going on. But Harry assumed that he was the only one who could help. > ==Harry has already tried contacting Sirius. He believes Sirius is being tortured by LV. He has seen, in the Longbottoms, that the results of that torture can be death or worse. He already tried having Snape help him and didn't get anywhere (agreed that Snape could hardly give a clear acknowledgement with Umbrage there) AND he already knows that Snape is in the habit of forestalling him -- the incident where Snape blocked Harry trying to reach DD to get help for Crouch in GOF. AND when he left, Umbrage's allies, the Inquistion Squad and Filch still controlled the castle. Nor does he know that the ministry will help him -- everything he's seen to date in OOP is that they will arrest him, not help. -- using a floo would signal Ministry people, not friends of Sirius. Using Umbrages' means he has to go back to the castle, fight his way past all the allies of Umbrage and get to that ONE floo he can use and even then, if he finds Sirus not there, all he has accomplished is more delay. >From the posts here, it's amazing that Harry is considered the hero of the series. He's stupid. He doesn't study. He is arrogant about every decision he makes for himself-- which is what I always thought being an adult was-- making decisions for oneself. Not depending on someone else, however wise and however much the epitome of goodness, to make them for you. He's wrong to distrust people. He's wrong to trust people. He's wrong to trust himself and he's wrong to take any action at all that isn't choreographed and approved by Snape and DD. Snape, DD, the ministry and the OOP have all had decades to fight LV. They had decades before the prophesy. They didn't get the job done. So if Harry takes matters into his own hands, it is not arrogance. It is taking on the role he has been designated to take ? the role of St. George slaying the dragon. And yes, it is the case that the same action is good or bad based on what you intend. Otherwise the invasion of France by Hitler and the invasion of France on D-day are the "same type of evil" because they were both armed invasions. I like to think the PURPOSE of those invasions makes the former evil and the latter good. The same applies to jinxes, hexes and yes, even curses. It was for that reason that the Ministry allowed aurors to use unforgivables. That decision may or may not have been right, but it was not so that the aurors could become evil. It's easy to abuse power ? Umbrage is a prime example. But even if one is the epitome of goodness, it is easy to abuse power. Knowing when and where and how to use the power one has is a question even the most wise differ on. Expecting Harry to be perfect at it is unreasonable, when we debate about if DD's use was or wasn't always correct. Heros don't just wait for someone "wiser" to direct them (not even in LOTR ). At some point they have to make their own decisions. Having Harry be wrong yet again does not further the story. Rather it diminishes the hero and becomes a tale advocating no one do anything about evil because they might be wrong in what they do. I don't think that is JKR's philosophy. I think finally, Harry is right and DD and the others are the arrogant ones. PAR From iam.kemper at gmail.com Sun Jun 25 14:29:32 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 07:29:32 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Nightingale!Snape In-Reply-To: References: <700201d40606231928w3f4177f8l352716005e231e7c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <700201d40606250729l295a2fb9x738ce617f1d4686b@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154296 > Kemper wrote earlier: > > It is also notable that three of the characters in the short story > are > > reminded of something loved when they hear the song. > > > > The Nightingale is remarkably plain > > ( for picture, see: pbc.codehog.co.uk/ report/nightingale.html ) > > The Nightingale heals with song. > > The Nightingale says, more or less, that it will act the spy. > > > > > > Now to Snape. > > Though Snape has not been referred to as plain, what's remarkable > is that > > the reader expects certain actions from Snape's character. I'm > going to go > > out on a limb and say that none of us imagined Snape singing > someone to > > strength and health. > > > > Snape and Draco in the bathroom echos Fawkes and Harry in the > Chamber . But > > how silly, let alone inappropriate, would it look for Snape to > bend over > > Draco while squeezing out a tear? Having Snape chant-sing is a > much more > > powerful image. > > > > Bellatrix said that you have to mean an Unforgivable, that you > have to > > really want to cause the curse, that you have to enjoy it. She > also said an > > Unforgivable cast in righteous anger wouldn't hurt her for long. > > > > There's something about Snape's song. It seems to be Light > > Magic. > > There's something about that song. > > > > Phoenix. Nightingale. Snape. > > > Alla responded: > > ... snip ... > > ... I cannot compare Nightingale with Snape, I mean, > if we are to do comparisons, shouldn't the comparison work well, not > only on Nightingale, but on the Emperor side and it seems to be that > Emperor does not remotely resemble Draco, but more of Dumbledore, > kind of sort of? As a figure of power? > > And while Nightingale nurses Emperor to health, Snape well doesn't? > > If you are comparing Nightingale to Snape based only on the song, > well, I guess if you can say that Nightingale brought the misery > upon the emperor himself by leaving and then came to treat him ( > still don't see Nightingale deliberately doing it), and Snape does > not just heals dark curse, he heals the Dark curse invented by him. > Oh, the irony. > > So, yes of course it can be pure Light magic of healing or it can be > as Renee said self-preservation by Snape, developing cure, in case > Snape dear accidentally cuts the wrong person. > > Alla, who loves Nightingale too much to ever see Snape in it. > .. . Kemper now: Hi Alla! My only intention was to compare Snape with the Nightingale, and not to compare any other HP character with the Emperor. Though if a DE held a wand to my heart, I would have to compare the metallic nightingale to Tom/Voldemort and therefore, the Emperor with Draco. The metal nightingale is a beautiful piece of art as Tom was a handsome young man. The metal nightingale charms its listeners as Tom charmed his peers and Hepzibah. The Emperor is blinded by the the metal bird's beauty as Draco is blinded with Voldemort's power/prestige. While the Emperor hears that the fake bird lacks heart, he denies the truth of its soullessness. While Draco sees Voldemort's unhuman looks, he denies the truth of the Dark Lord's inhumanity. But these are just comparisons, the contrasts for Emperor and Draco are clear. Emperor is genuinely liked by those under him. Draco is not so much liked as he is tolerated (my impression only). ... Gotta go to work... Kemper, who's excited about next month's release of Night Watch, translated from original Russian From sherriola at earthlink.net Sun Jun 25 14:44:34 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 07:44:34 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154297 Pippin: What was arrogant, in the sense of an unwarranted assumption of superiority, was for Harry to think that his judgement was better than Dumbledore's. Especially in regard to Snape, where Harry knew that Dumbledore's information was more complete than his, it was arrogant for Harry to assume that he was right and Dumbledore, "the greatest wizard Harry had ever, or would ever, meet," was wrong. S hurry now: But Harry has had six years worth of reasons to believe his own assessment of Snape. Why should anyone judge one person solely on the word of another person, after six years of personal direct experience that has shown otherwise. This is not about good or bad Snape. this is about Harry's opinion. From his point of view, he has no reason to believe Snape is truly good or that Dumbledore's trust is warranted. From his very first class moment with Snape, he has been treated badly. Whether or not it is abuse is also not what I'm talking about. And at the moment he's talking to the adults in this scene, he's just seen Snape murder Dumbledore. Again, I'm not talking about whether it was real or whether Snape did it for good or ill. I'm just talking about what Harry has seen before his own eyes, and that with the culmination of the years of horrible treatment by Snape. why on earth should he trust Dumbledore's word on this? It has nothing to do with trusting Dumbledore overall. There are people I trust absolutely, with my life, but that doesn't mean I'd believe their opinion about one person who treated me as badly as Snape has treated Harry. Sherry From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Jun 25 14:57:06 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 10:57:06 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) References: Message-ID: <005d01c69867$a10a5460$29b4400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 154298 Peggy Richter: Expecting Harry to be perfect at it is unreasonable, when we debate about if DD's use was or wasn't always correct. Heros don't just wait for someone "wiser" to direct them (not even in LOTR ). At some point they have to make their own decisions. Having Harry be wrong yet again does not further the story. Rather it diminishes the hero and becomes a tale advocating no one do anything about evil because they might be wrong in what they do. I don't think that is JKR's philosophy. I think finally, Harry is right and DD and the others are the arrogant ones. Magpie: Having Harry be wrong again absolutely furthers the story, because this is the story of the development of Harry Potter from boy to man. With a whole nother both left Harry had better have some big wrongs to go. The biggest wrongs, hopefully, because we've got a climax here. Pointing out mistakes that Harry has made is not saying he's not good enough to be the hero; that's what heroes often do is make mistakes because they haven't learned things. It's not like Harry's the only one--Snape and Dumbledore have made huge mistakes. We just don't focus on them as much because it's not their story. There are ways that Harry is right, especially in Book VI, but I think it's important where he's right and where he's wrong. I don't think he's right about Snape just being evil evil evil, which Harry always knew because Snape helpfully irritated him on a daily basis for 6 years. That's Dumbledore's area of understanding as someone who has lived longer and knows the facts more and Snape better. I think Dumbledore even showed his better instincts there in how he saw the Draco problem. However, Dumbledore also made a huge mistake in handling the Draco case and that highlights Harry's area--Dumbledore is not wholly in touch with the young. It wasn't that Harry was right in knowing who was evil. Harry is Draco's peer and in certain ways understands him better than a lot of people. When Sirius Black was on the loose Draco talks to Harry about what he would do "if it were his family" that Black had killed. It's the only time in the series pre-HBP that Ron and Hermione have to talk Harry away from listening to Malfoy, when Harry tells them "Malfoy knows" about Black--and I now think JKR was subtly setting up HBP there. In HBP no one believes Malfoy could be working as a DE because he's too young, but that's where Harry's pov--a part connected to all his mistakes as well as his strengths--has a much clearer understanding of what both Voldemort and Malfoy would do and not do in the situation. (In Malfoy's case I think Harry is correctly doing some projecting--Malfoy is doing what Harry would probably do in his situation, since it's not completely different from what Harry does now. Not murder people, obviously, but act as the one that's got to make things right.) So to me there's a perfectly good balance, especially at this point in the series. Harry's pov as a younger person makes him understand certain things that older people like DD do not. DD should have listened to him about the danger of whatever Malfoy was doing in the RoR. But he still must learn DD's lesson about second chances and seeing the good in people. I think that was DD's most important lesson in HBP, given to a frozen, invisible Harry in the Tower. That was the first time Harry actually *saw* a person he was predisposed to think of as only bad show conflict. He has not yet seen that with Snape, but I think it happened. A Harry who grows in the next book into someone who has his own strengths and also learns to appreciate the complexity of people more instead of sorting them into people who are all good/people who are all bad and becomes able to deal with people who bother him personally but still have value, will be a Harry who grows up. The idea of a Harry who learns that the man he felt was so wise was really just a stupid old man with a soft heart and that it's better to go through life as a teenager who knows everything seems kind of like a bad joke to me. It even makes things less complex for Harry than they were before, as it gives him a reason to forget (as he already wants to do) the times when Snape has protected him. -m From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Sun Jun 25 15:26:30 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 15:26:30 -0000 Subject: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154299 > Ceridwen: > What has changed is that Harry&Co no longer have a trusted adult... AD: So you propose that Harry should spill his secrets to an untrusted adult, then? What I was trying to gently point out is that it would be foolish for Harry to rush into telling *anyone* else his mission right now. He's going to have enough trouble without word of his plans leaking to Voldemort. He may decide, after reflection, to bring in some others--perhaps McGonagall, in return for access to Hogwarts, or the new leader of the Order of the Phoenix, to secure the Order's cooperation, but blurting it out to McG and company immediately after Dumbledore's death would have been dumb. He needs to take his time, think it through, perhaps consult with the other two people who share his secrets, before he takes that risk As to whether Harry has a touch of arrogance, well, I hope he does. He's going to need all the backbone he can get in the next few days, as he's going to have to go against the wishes of some very strong personalities--starting with Vernon and Petunia. Amiable Dorsai From distaiyi at yahoo.com Sun Jun 25 16:24:51 2006 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 16:24:51 -0000 Subject: Of essence divided? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154300 In HP and the OotP, page 470 of the hardback US edition... Harry is telling Dumbledore about his dream about Mr. Weasley... '"Naturally, naturally," murmured Dumbledore apparently to himself, still observing the stream of smoke without the slightest sign of surprise. "But in essence divided?"' This to me appears to bolster the argument that perhaps Nagini is a horcrux for LV. If LV was not part of the snake how could harry see through the snakes eyes... This has probably all been covered before and I simply missed it. From homeboys at adelphia.net Sun Jun 25 16:34:01 2006 From: homeboys at adelphia.net (Adesa) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 16:34:01 -0000 Subject: Healing Magic (wasRe: Prank question - Lupin wanted Snape DEAD In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154301 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > > Pippin: > > > Big Snip > ...leaving Ron to suffer with his broken leg, > > (and isn't it *interesting* that Lupin says he's not so good > > with healing spells, now that we find out that Snape is) -- > > Potioncat: > I think Snape's healing ability is a major part of who he is-- another > sort of contrast for our favorite baddie. I wonder if his motivation > for knowing Dark Arts as a young boy was to learn/invent cures for > them? It might also explain his joining the DEs. I'm sure LV was more > accepting of a little Dark Magic experimentation than others might have > been. To be honest, for the longest time I was sure that Agnes, the dog > faced witch was his mother. Adesa: Oh, Lord, please don't tell me this is a Darth Vader/Anakin thing. You think Snape joined V to learn how to heal someone he loved? OK, that would be fine (and I'd trust JKR to do a better job with it than George Lucas), but it's been *done*. And recently. I'd be *so* disappointed if that's the way JKR goes with it. From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Sun Jun 25 16:55:34 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 16:55:34 -0000 Subject: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154302 > Pippin This morning): > What was arrogant, in the sense of an unwarranted assumption of > superiority, was for Harry to think that his judgement was > better than Dumbledore's. Especially in regard to Snape, > where Harry knew that Dumbledore's information was more complete > than his, it was arrogant for Harry to assume that he was right > and Dumbledore, "the greatest wizard Harry had ever, or would > ever, meet," was wrong. Pippin (Back in December): >Harry, furthermore, wouldn't know the post hoc fallacy if it >danced in front of him wearing a tea cozy. Amiable Dorsai: May he knows an ad hominem argument when he hears one, though. Other than the apparent absurdity that Snape was sorry he got James and Lily killed, Dumbledore refused to give Harry a reason to trust Snape that didn't boil down to "I trust trust him, and I'm older and wiser than you." Dumbledore probably had good reasons for refusing, but that still leaves Harry with more reasons to distrust Snape than to trust him. After all, Harry, to his sorrow, knows that Dumbledore is as capable of making mistakes as any other human. Pippin (This morning): > That Harry then unconsciously altered facts to fit his opinion > was the result of this arrogance if not an example of it. AD: What facts do you mean? I'm curious to know if we see the same thing. Amiable Dorsai From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 25 17:05:25 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 17:05:25 -0000 Subject: The Knights of Walpurgis and Madam Malkin (Was: Black Names) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154303 Tonks wrote: > > I think the early DE were named the Knights of Walburga. What it all > means is a mystery IMO. Carol responds: Isn't it the Knights of Walpurgis? If so, it's a pun (like Knight Bus and Knockturn Alley and many others) on Walpurgis Night, the festival of Saint Walburga (good catch, Tonks!), an eighth-century Saxon nun. The celebration of her sainthood somehow got mixed up with celebrations for the arrival of spring involving bonfires. There's a detailed explanation in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walpurgis_Night Note to Catlady regarding Madam Malkin: "Malkin" means "cat," as in "grimalkin" (gray cat). http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/malkin http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/grimalkin I think it's a surname, but since it's a derivative of Maud and can also mean an untidy woman (not exactly the image I have of Madam Malkin!), you could be right. Still, I'm betting on the cat connection and the surname. Carol From kelley_thompson at sbcglobal.net Sun Jun 25 17:12:17 2006 From: kelley_thompson at sbcglobal.net (Kelley) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 17:12:17 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154304 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 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 25 17:55:58 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 17:55:58 -0000 Subject: Of essence divided? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154305 distaiyi wrote: "But in essence divided?"' > > This to me appears to bolster the argument that perhaps Nagini is a horcrux for LV. If LV was not part of the snake how could harry see through the snakes eyes... > > This has probably all been covered before and I simply missed it. > Carol responds: Snape provided the explanation: Voldemort was possessing Nagini at the time. (OoP, the "Occlumency" chapter, IIRC.) So Harry sees through the snake's eyes and feels her urge to bite, but he also senses Voldemort's will guiding the snake. She (Nagini) is not supposed to bite the man (Mr. Weasley) until he wakes up and she has no choice. So the snake (Nagini) is "in essence divided" because she has her own mind and will, but she also has Voldemort's--rather like Quirrell, the man with two faces, who retains his own mind and will, however weakened that will may be, and is still capable of failing Voldemort or pleading with him. I do believe that Nagini is a Horcrux, but her being one isn't necessary to explain the "in essence divided" comment. It might, however, have a bearing on Voldemort's snakelike appearance--but only if she was made a Horcrux before Voldemort was vaporized, as Voldemort has snakelike features when his face emerges from the back of Quirrell's head. The close relationship between Voldemort and Nagini is also indicated by Wormtail's use of Nagini's venom (along with unicorn blood) to create the potion that created Fetus!mort and to sustain Voldemort while he wa in that form. So, I agree that Nagini is probably a Horcrux (much more likely than Harry or his scar being one), but I don't think that's what "in essence divided" means. Carol, who thinks that Wormtail's talents as a potion maker have been underestimated From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Jun 25 18:33:49 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 18:33:49 -0000 Subject: Harry's arrogance /Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154306 Pippin: > The same person no doubt enchanted Rosmerta, assembled > the DE's for the raiding party, perhaps even supplied > Draco with Peruvian darkness powder. (Do we really think > Fred and George would sell Draco anything?) houyhnhnm: "--Peruvian Instant Darkness Powder," said Ron bitterly. "Fred and George's. *I'm going to be having a word with them* about who they let buy their products. [emphasis added] It will be interesting to find out what he learns." From vinkv002 at planet.nl Sun Jun 25 18:51:53 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 18:51:53 -0000 Subject: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154307 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > Renee: > > You're right, Harry's wrong to misrepresent Dumbledore's words, but I > > still fail to see why this is arrogant. Harry ignores the possibility > > that he's missed something, that Dumbledore's assessment of Snape was > > correct, not because he's an arrogant prick who thinks he's always, > > right, but because he insists on believing the worst of Snape. I'd > > rather call this bias or prejudice. Harry is also judgmental (and not > > just in this scene) and needs to learn to reserve judgement until he's > > got all the facts. But to me, that's not the same as arrogance. I've > > looked up a dictionary definition of the term, and I don't think it > > describes Harry Potter: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/arrogance > > > > Pippin: > What was arrogant, in the sense of an unwarranted assumption of > superiority, was for Harry to think that his judgement was better than > Dumbledore's. Especially in regard to Snape, where Harry knew that > Dumbledore's information was more complete than his, it was arrogant > for Harry to assume that he was right and Dumbledore, "the > greatest wizard Harry had ever, or would ever, meet," was wrong. > > That Harry then unconsciously altered facts to fit his opinion was the > result of this arrogance if not an example of it. Renee: Well, Harry has just seen Snape kill Dumbledore (yes, I know you think it was the potion in the cave, but this possibility hasn't occurred to Harry at this point; the whole disaster has yet to sink in properly). So I don't think it's particularly arrogant of him to assume DD made a mistake in trusting Snape. He's got information that DD hadn't when he made that statement. On the surface, the facts are against DD's trust and Harry lacks some crucial information, partially due to DD's own reticence. He has also heard DD admit a mistake at the end of OotP, a mistake that cost Harry dearly. (One wonders if DD shouldn't have known better than to keep information from Harry after the OotP fiasco). The conclusion he jumps to, though perhaps not precisely commendable, is understandable. He's not being arrogant but giving in to his hatred of Snape, a different flaw, which also accuonts for his altering of the facts. From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Sun Jun 25 19:25:25 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 19:25:25 -0000 Subject: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154308 In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > What was arrogant, in the sense of an unwarranted assumption of superiority, was for Harry to think that his judgement was better than Dumbledore's. Especially in regard to Snape, where Harry knew that Dumbledore's information was more complete than his, it was arrogant for Harry to assume that he was right and Dumbledore, "the> greatest wizard Harry had ever, or would ever, meet," was wrong. Steven1965aaa: I don't think its arrogant. After what Harry just saw on the Tower, why in the world would he believe anything other than that Dumbledore was wrong for having trusted Snape. Lupin (who earlier had said he trusts Snape because he trusts DD's judgment, etc.), McGonagle, and everybody else also seemed to think the same thing. Note however Hagrid's earlier comment (Snape must have gone with the death eaters to keep his cover because DD told him to) may forshadow the truth if you are a Snape DDM person. From scarrie5 at verizon.net Sun Jun 25 19:52:06 2006 From: scarrie5 at verizon.net (Carrie) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 19:52:06 -0000 Subject: RAB case is broken - all Aurors please read! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154309 Carrie earlier wrote: > I looked up 'regulus' in dictionary.com and a secondary definition > came up as "The metallic mass that sinks to the bottom of a > furnace or crucible during smelting." The bottom of a furnace could > be synonomous to the bottom of a boiler which is Kreacher's 'bedroom' > in OOP. Maybe there is some kind of clue(s) there. Carrie again: I also think that Regulus Black is supposed to bring to mind 'regular Black', giving us the impression that he is into the Dark Arts and pure bloods and was a DE etc. When (if in fact Regulus is RAB) he actually turned out to be a good guy deceiving LV at least once with the locket horcrux. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 25 20:49:35 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 20:49:35 -0000 Subject: Harry's arrogance /Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154310 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > > Pippin: > > > The same person no doubt enchanted Rosmerta, assembled > > the DE's for the raiding party, perhaps even supplied > > Draco with Peruvian darkness powder. (Do we really think > > Fred and George would sell Draco anything?) > > houyhnhnm: > > "--Peruvian Instant Darkness Powder," said Ron bitterly. > "Fred and George's. *I'm going to be having a word with > them* about who they let buy their products. [emphasis added] > > It will be interesting to find out what he learns." > Carol notes: Remember Verity, the girl who works for "Mr. Weasley and Mr. Weasley"? Maybe she sold it to Draco while Fred and George were in the back room with HRH during "Draco's Detour." Carol, noting FWIW that Verity means "truth" From catlady at wicca.net Sun Jun 25 21:15:01 2006 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 21:15:01 -0000 Subject: Malkin (was: The Knights of Walpurgis and Madam Malkin (Was: Black Names) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154311 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote in : > Note to Catlady regarding Madam Malkin: "Malkin" means "cat," as in > "grimalkin" (gray cat). > http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/malkin > http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/grimalkin I think Malkin (from Molly-kins or Maudie-kins) means a female cat the same way Tom means a male cat, because it was a name very commonly given to pet cats. (I read somewhere that male cats were called 'ram cats' until a very popular book about Tom the Cat led people to name their male cats Tom.) > I think it's a surname, but since it's a derivative of Maud and can > also mean an untidy woman (not exactly the image I have of Madam > Malkin!), That's JKR being sarcastic with her clever names. When Narcissa and Draco stomp out of Madam Malkin's shop in HPB, Narcissa says they're taking their business to "Twilfitt and Tatting's." I'm sure the latter name refers to 'tatty' rather than to one of the lacy needle arts. > you could be right. Still, I'm betting on the cat connection > and the surname. From mros at xs4all.nl Sun Jun 25 20:25:50 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 22:25:50 +0200 Subject: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) References: <005d01c69867$a10a5460$29b4400c@Spot> Message-ID: <002501c69895$8cc09c20$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 154312 Magpie said: >>> It wasn't that Harry was right in knowing who was evil. Harry is Draco's peer and in certain ways understands him better than a lot of people.<<< Marion: I call it the 'Harry-roulette'. If you put your money on 22 red and play long enough, one day the little ball will fall on 22 red. Harry's been convinced that Draco was Up To No Good from the very beginning (going so far as to polyjuicing himself as Draco's sidekick because he was *convinced* that Draco was Slytherin's Heir and petrifying people in second year. Don't know why or how, but it's Draco Malfoy! He *must* be Up To No Good!) Well, finally he wins the table: and it took him only six years of playing. Really, Harry's obsessive conviction that the people he doesn't like are Evil Incarnate is getting rather unhealthy. Harry Roulette. Just as much fun as Russian Roulette, and just as deadly. :-) From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jun 25 21:50:30 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 21:50:30 -0000 Subject: The Knights of Walpurgis and Madam Malkin (Was: Black Names) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154313 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: Carol: > Note to Catlady regarding Madam Malkin: "Malkin" means "cat," as in > "grimalkin" (gray cat). > http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/malkin > http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/grimalkin Geoff: Interestingly, my mind jumped to: "First witch: When shall we three meet again? In thunder, lightning, or in rain? Second witch: When the hurly-burly's done, When the battle's lost, and won. Third witch: That will be ere the set of sun. First witch: Where the place? Second witch: Upon the Heath. Third witch: There to meet with Macbeth. 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. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jun 25 22:04:02 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 22:04:02 -0000 Subject: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154314 of this arrogance if not an example of it. > > Renee: > Well, Harry has just seen Snape kill Dumbledore (yes, I know you think > it was the potion in the cave, but this possibility hasn't occurred to > Harry at this point; the whole disaster has yet to sink in properly). > So I don't think it's particularly arrogant of him to assume DD made a > mistake in trusting Snape. He's got information that DD hadn't when he > made that statement. On the surface, the facts are against DD's trust > and Harry lacks some crucial information, partially due to DD's own > reticence. He has also heard DD admit a mistake at the end of OotP, a > mistake that cost Harry dearly. (One wonders if DD shouldn't have > known better than to keep information from Harry after the OotP > fiasco). The conclusion he jumps to, though perhaps not precisely > commendable, is understandable. He's not being arrogant but giving in > to his hatred of Snape, a different flaw, which also accuonts for his > altering of the facts. Pippin: I think we're agreed that Harry's insistence on his version of events, in the face of Hagrid and Hermione's doubts, stems as much from his hatred of Snape as from his eyewitness evidence. Otherwise he would have as many questions as they do. And I think we agree that Harry's hatred of Snape comes from his personal issues. But there's a reason that Harry never brought up those issues when he was discussing his suspicions of Snape with Dumbledore. He knew that it wouldn't strengthen his case to remind Dumbledore that he doesn't like Snape. In other words, Harry knows it would make him sound weak and self-serving. It just never occurs to him that it might actually *be* weak and self-serving to suspect Snape. That's not anti- Snape bias, IMO, that's pro-Harry bias, otherwise known as arrogance. And isn't that really why we want so much for Harry not to be wrong? Because we too are just a little bit lazy and as Harry would rather be spared thinking critically about Snape, so we would rather have our fictional heroes be untarnished when it counts, so that we, and our children, do not have to think about what they are doing, and can just stand up and cheer. Pippin From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Sun Jun 25 22:24:41 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 22:24:41 -0000 Subject: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154315 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > I think we're agreed that Harry's insistence on his version > of events, in the face of Hagrid and Hermione's doubts, stems as > much from his hatred of Snape as from his eyewitness evidence. > Otherwise he would have as many questions as they do. Steven1965aaa: What doubts? I don't recall any doubts by anyone of Snape's culpability, at any time after Dumbledore's death. Hagrid says Snape must have gone with the death eaters on DD's orders, but he says that before he knows DD is dead. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 25 22:38:25 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 22:38:25 -0000 Subject: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154316 Sherry: Again, I'm > not talking about whether it was real or whether Snape did it for good or > ill. I'm just talking about what Harry has seen before his own eyes, and > that with the culmination of the years of horrible treatment by Snape. why > on earth should he trust Dumbledore's word on this? It has nothing to do > with trusting Dumbledore overall. There are people I trust absolutely, with > my life, but that doesn't mean I'd believe their opinion about one person > who treated me as badly as Snape has treated Harry. Alla: Just want to add that Harry DID see Dumbledore being wrong, um, several times at least now, so yes, I think it DOES have something to do with him trusting DD overall. Not as in doubting his moral authority, although, boy, oh boy if I just learned that somebody played a part in my parents death and my beloved authority figure just in essense told me that my anger means nothing, I would sure doubted the moral authority this figure had over me. But Harry appears to be just as faithful to Dumbledore as he was all that time and I am sure he is right, but what Harry does doubt is one of the DECISIONS Dumbledore made, that's all. I really don't see arrogance here AT ALL, it could be a mistake, but if this IS a mistake Dumbledore and Snape IMO have nobody else to blame for that mistake of Harry but themselves. Dumbledore for refusing to tell Harry the reasons he trusts Snape ( yes, I know it is plot related) and Snape - well, for treating Harry like garbage for six years. JMO, Alla. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Jun 25 22:55:29 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 22:55:29 -0000 Subject: Of essence divided? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154317 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > distaiyi wrote: > "But in essence divided?"' > > > > This to me appears to bolster the argument that perhaps > Nagini is a horcrux for LV. If LV was not part of the > snake how could harry see through the snakes eyes... > > > > This has probably all been covered before and I simply > > missed it. > > > > Carol responds: > Snape provided the explanation: Voldemort was possessing > Nagini at the time. (OoP, the "Occlumency" chapter, IIRC.) > So Harry sees through the snake's eyes and feels her urge > to bite, but he also senses Voldemort's will guiding the > snake. ...edited... > > I do believe that Nagini is a Horcrux, but her being one > isn't necessary to explain the "in essence divided" > comment. ...edited... > > Carol, who thinks that Wormtail's talents as a potion maker > have been underestimated ... > bboyminn: In general, I tend to agree with Carol. Nagini may or may not be a Horcrux, but I don't think that is the primary purpose of Dumbledore's 'in essence divided' statement. Yes, it could mean that Voldemort and Nagini are inextricably connected, yet still each maintaining it's own independant will. However, it could just as easily mean that while HARRY and Voldemort are connected, the are 'in essence divided' and each maintains his own free will. This could be important in this moment because Dumbledore is trying to determine what influence Voldemort has over Harry. If Harry is under Voldemort's direct control and they are NOT in essence divided, then Harry and Dumbledore are in big trouble. Harry has in a sense become a complete instrument of Voldemort's. It seem however, that while Voldemort can play tricks that try to influence Harry's actions, Voldemort can not actually compel Harry to act against his Harry's own will. They are 'in essence divided'. Specifically, as to whether Nagini is or isn't a Horcrux is a difficult matter in my mind. It seems that Dumbledore concluded this because he had run out of other more reasonable solutions, and was left to speculate that Nagini was likely a Horcrux. But, personally, I think the evidence is scant at best. One could conclude that, but one certainly could not prove it. Voldemort already has Slytherin connections through his existing Horcruxes, so why make another one using Nagini? Perhaps, when Voldemort returned he was desperate to complete his set of 6 extrenal Horcruxes and to have a complete set of 7, that he used whatever was at hand. This one suggested Horcrux seems to be the weakest of them all (logically weakest), so, I am left to wonder whether or not Dumbledore was mistaken on this issue. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Sun Jun 25 23:17:56 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 23:17:56 -0000 Subject: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154318 Steven1965aaa: IMO,if anyone is acting arrogantly here, its Dumbledore, by not letting Harry in on the real reason he trusts Snape (that's how I interpret the pause in his office as if he was making his mind up about something) (but of course he may have a very good reason for not doing so, of which we have not yet been made aware), and by brushing Harry off when he was trying to tell him about Malfoy's "whooping". When Dumbledore says to Harry in the cave that age errs when it underestimates youth, he might as well have been talking about himself. From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Sun Jun 25 23:20:41 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 23:20:41 -0000 Subject: Of essence divided? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154319 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > Specifically, as to whether Nagini is or isn't a Horcrux is a > difficult matter in my mind. It seems that Dumbledore concluded this because he had run out of other more reasonable solutions, and was left to speculate that Nagini was likely a Horcrux. But, personally, I think the evidence is scant at best. One could conclude that, but one certainly could not prove it. Voldemort already has Slytherin connections through his existing Horcruxes, so why make another one using Nagini? Perhaps, when Voldemort returned he was desperate to complete his set of 6 extrenal Horcruxes and to have a complete set of 7, that he used whatever was at hand. This one suggested Horcrux seems to be the weakest of them all (logically weakest), so, I am left to wonder whether or not Dumbledore was mistaken on this issue. > Steven1965aaa: Dubmledore is also led to reason that Nagani is a horcrux because of the unusual amount of control Voldemort has over him, even for a pareslmouth. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 25 23:40:52 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 23:40:52 -0000 Subject: Harry's arrogance /Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154320 > Pippin: > Er, yes. I was responding to Carol's theory that Snape was loyal and > was forced to kill Dumbledore by circumstances beyond his control. Alla: Oh, Okay. Sorry about that. I thought you were responding to me and could not figure that out. Sorry. > Your theory, if I may summarize, is that Snape was not loyal and > was forced to kill Dumbledore by circumstances which were beyond > his control, but wouldn't have been beyond his control if he'd been > loyal. Is that right? Alla: Oh, no, no Pippin that was just a speculation as to what kind of Snape redemption I would find reasonable if that is to happen. As to your summary - no, not quite. In that scenario Snape is NOT forced to do anything, he brings it all upon himself by foolishly taking an UV and then this Snape does not want to bee seen as wrong in DD eyes, conceals third clause from DD ( I guess it is mainly Siguine Snape again) and here we go - Tower. The bottom line - I accept as REASONABLE any kind of Snape as long as his choice on the Tower is shown by JKR as wrong, not even necessarily that Snape thinks that it is wrong, but the author does. As I said, I don't think that any of DD!M Snape theorists accepts that Snape was making a wrong choice on the Tower ( he was either following orders with Real AK or Fake AK, right?), so that means that I don't accept fully DD!M Snape as reasonable possibility ( I mean, it can happen of course and as long as Snape will be still a bastard, I can live with that), but right now I don't buy it. But if any of DD!M Snape agrees that what Snape did was HIS decision and his decision only - I will buy that Snape, even if such Snape truly believes that to kill DD is the only possibility under circumstances. Basically I don't buy the responsibility shift for what happened on the Tower to ANYBODY but Snape ( and Voldemort of course). As long as it WAS Snape decision and Snape accepts responsibility for that, I am buying it, but getting Snape off the hook by putting the responsibility on the dead man? No, not buying that at all, just as I did not buy DD little speech of getting Kreacher off the hook and implying that Sirius is to blame for his own death ( IMO of course). I would even buy that DD was dying on the Tower IF DD did not ask Snape to do him in. Snape may have had the best intentions in mind, but one way or another IMO it will be shown that he was wrong to take the life instead of trying to save it. JMO Alla, who still helds some hope for Snape be putting in Azkaban (without dementors - not wishing this hell even upon Snape) for life at the end, but is doubtful about it . From distaiyi at yahoo.com Mon Jun 26 00:19:10 2006 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 00:19:10 -0000 Subject: Of essence divided? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154321 I read the Occulemency chapter ( well reread it ) after my original post. As JKR has said any number of times, she words things very carefully... In this case she chose the word essence. 1 a : the permanent as contrasted with the accidental element of being b : the individual, real, or ultimate nature of a thing especially as opposed to its existence c : the properties or attributes by means of which something can be placed in its proper class or identified as being what it is 2 : something that exists : ENTITY 3 a (1) : a volatile substance or constituent (as of perfume) (2) : a constituent or derivative possessing the special qualities (as of a plant or drug) in concentrated form; also : a preparation of such an essence or a synthetic substitute b : ODOR, PERFUME 4 : one that possesses or exhibits a quality in abundance as if in concentrated form Frankly I don't see how we can interpret this as anything but a question about the essence of Voldemorte or of Nagini. In either case I find the implication that he believes Nagini is a Horcrux to be stronger than the implication that he believes Nagini simply to be possessed. From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Mon Jun 26 00:52:09 2006 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 20:52:09 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:The name Riddle Message-ID: <4f9.1976d22.31d089b9@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154322 In a message dated 6/24/06 8:21:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, josturgess at eircom.net writes: > Because the boy Tom > is the riddle to be answered and who better to answer that than > Harry Potter. > > How interesting that you put it this way. Until I joined this list I never read the books looking for any kind of hidden meanings, although I have looked for the clues JKR says are there, and have never found them. What can I say? A detective I'm not. BUT, the one thing that jumped out at me the first time I read it, and has niggled at me since is *why* JKR chose to give Voldemort the real name of Tom RIDDLE. Is there some significance to this? Is Voldemort merely a riddle that needs to be solved? I guess that it could be said that HBP solved the *riddle* of Voldemort, but I don't think that is necessarily so. There has to be more. Thoughts anyone? Sandy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Jun 26 01:21:02 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 01:21:02 -0000 Subject: Peverell family crest Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154323 Has anyone come up with anything about the Peverell family? Why is that the Slytherin family? This is what I have found so far. Bradford Peverell is a village in west Dorset, England, situated in the Frome valley two miles north west of Dorchester on the A37 road. The village has a population of 344 (2001). Thomas Peverell was a Bishop in England in 1407 Here is a link to the coat of arms. http://www.houseofnames.com/coatofarms_details.asp?sId=&s=Peverell Does anyone know what the symbols on the coat of arms are called. I see there is a place that explains the meaning if you only knew what the symbol is called to start with. Tonks_op From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 26 01:49:03 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 01:49:03 -0000 Subject: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: <002501c69895$8cc09c20$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154324 > >>Magpie: > > It wasn't that Harry was right in knowing who was evil. Harry is > > Draco's peer and in certain ways understands him better than a > > lot of people. > >>Marion: > I call it the 'Harry-roulette'. > If you put your money on 22 red and play long enough, one day the > little ball will fall on 22 red. > Harry's been convinced that Draco was Up To No Good from the very > beginning (going so far as to polyjuicing himself as Draco's > sidekick because he was *convinced* that Draco was Slytherin's > Heir and petrifying people in second year. Don't know why or how, > but it's Draco Malfoy! He *must* be Up To No Good!) > Well, finally he wins the table: and it took him only six years of > playing. > Really, Harry's obsessive conviction that the people he doesn't > like are Evil Incarnate is getting rather unhealthy. > Harry Roulette. Just as much fun as Russian Roulette, and just as > deadly. :-) Betsy Hp: I think your "Harry-roulette" (love, the name by the way ) can be applied more to Snape than Draco. While Harry has never liked Draco, except for the Heir of Slytherin incident in CoS I don't think he ever thought of Draco as the big bad. (Or even the little bad, for that matter -- more the big annoying, I think.) So that Harry was the only one to recognize the very real danger Draco presented throughout HBP was, I think, more than just Harry making a lucky guess. Not that he saw Draco clearly, but it was a clearer view than those around him. Betsy Hp From sugaranddixie1 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 26 02:01:00 2006 From: sugaranddixie1 at yahoo.com (sugaranddixie1) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 02:01:00 -0000 Subject: Mortality of horcruxes? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154325 ET here- Been reading the "Of essence divided?" thread with great interest & it reminded me of something- I'm perplexed about the whole idea of having a living thing (such as a snake) or something like a scar as a horcrux. Why would you put a portion of your soul into something that has a definite lifespan? If Harry's scar is a horcrux, then why would LV be trying to kill him? Wouldn't that be like LV trying to destroy himself? Or does LV regain that piece of his soul somehow? What happens when Harry dies (of natural causes or otherwise)? Or does being a horcrux confer some sort of immortality or longer lifespan? I guess I've always thought of the 7 Horcruxes as being like 7 different banks that LV deposited bits of his soul in ,so that all his eggs wouldn't be all in one basket... Seems he'd pick the most secure things he could think of....... Along the same lines, if Nagini is a Horcrux, wouldn't LV be a bit more protective of her? LV asks Wormtail where Nagini is (in GOF)and Wormtail replies that he's uncertain(says she's exploring the house,... maybe) LV doesn't really get bent out of shape over it. I know he can give Nagini orders, but at that point, he doesn't know where she is...and they're at the Riddle house then which is in Muggle territory. If you're a Muggle and you come across a snake, won't you try to destroy it? So if Nagini had a piece of LV's soul in her, wouldn't he want to know where she was? At that point the diary had already been destroyed, so he knew he was one down anyway... I hope this makes sense...I'm pretty muddled on it myself to be trying to present it to others. ET From drednort at alphalink.com.au Mon Jun 26 01:26:51 2006 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 11:26:51 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Peverell family crest In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <449FC47B.24884.463DB00@drednort.alphalink.com.au> No: HPFGUIDX 154326 On 26 Jun 2006 at 1:21, Tonks wrote: > Does anyone know what the symbols on the coat of arms are called. I see > there is a place that explains the meaning if you only knew what the > symbol is called to start with. They are called 'garbs' in heraldry - wheat sheaves. They generally indicate agriculture - it's likely that the family was a farming family - owners of farms, rather than farmers themselves. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jun 26 02:09:30 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 02:09:30 -0000 Subject: Harry's arrogance /Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154327 Alla: > > I would even buy that DD was dying on the Tower IF DD did not ask > Snape to do him in. > > Snape may have had the best intentions in mind, but one way or > another IMO it will be shown that he was wrong to take the life > instead of trying to save it. Pippin: My theory is that Snape did not take Dumbledore's life, he didn't try to defend it, and used a ruse to make it seem that he had taken it. Are you saying that's far-fetched when we know that there have been fake deaths in canon? Or are you saying that it would be wrong? If so, was it wrong for Lily to leave James to his fate and try to flee with Harry? I don't think JKR is going there. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 26 02:21:55 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 02:21:55 -0000 Subject: In essence divided? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154328 Carol earlier: > > Snape provided the explanation: Voldemort was possessing Nagini at the time. (OoP, the "Occlumency" chapter, IIRC.) So Harry sees through the snake's eyes and feels her urge to bite, but he also senses Voldemort's will guiding the snake. ...edited... > > > > I do believe that Nagini is a Horcrux, but her being one > > isn't necessary to explain the "in essence divided" > > comment. ...edited... bboyminn responded: > > In general, I tend to agree with Carol. Nagini may or may not be a Horcrux, but I don't think that is the primary purpose of Dumbledore's 'in essence divided' statement. > > Yes, it could mean that Voldemort and Nagini are inextricably connected, yet still each maintaining it's own independant will. However, it could just as easily mean that while HARRY and Voldemort are connected, the are 'in essence divided' and each maintains his own free will. > > Specifically, as to whether Nagini is or isn't a Horcrux is a difficult matter in my mind. It seems that Dumbledore concluded this because he had run out of other more reasonable solutions, and was left to speculate that Nagini was likely a Horcrux. But, personally, I think the evidence is scant at best. This one suggested Horcrux seems to be the weakest of them all (logically weakest), so, I am left to wonder whether or not Dumbledore was mistaken on this issue. Carol again: I'm not so sure. The snake emerging from DD's mysterious instrument starts out as one snake then splits in two (one body, two heads) prompting DD's "in essence divided" comment. I think he means that the snake in the DoM was "in essence divided," with one body but two minds or wills, its own (her own, sorry) and Voldemort's. Harry wasn't present; he wasn't actually possessing the snake. He only dreamed that he was because he was connected to Voldemort's mind via the scar. I still think that Snape's explanation is not only adequate but complete. As to whether Nagini is a Horcrux, which is irrelevant to the "in essence divided" comment, I think we do have evidence, some of which you snipped (LV's snakelike appearance, his use of her venom to create and sustain him fetal form). There's also the fact that she didn't die when he left her body--unlike Quirrell, whose life force was used up by the possession, and also unlike the rats and snakes he possessed in fetal form. It could simply be that the possession was too short too weaken her, but I think DD's right that the strength of the bond between them indicates that she could be a Horcrux. (He was right about Memory!Tom, after all.) But I think he's wrong about the date and that she must have been a Horcrux much earlier for her venom to sustain Baby!mort's life like mother's milk. And from a purely aesthetic and emotional perspective, I'd much rather the last Horcrux be Nagini, whom Harry will surely have to battle in any case, than Harry himself or his scar, which necessitates an accidental Horcrux and Harry's self-sacrifice, as well as messy plot complications that we don't need at this point. I'd really like to see Harry use the Sword of Gryffindor, which he used earlier against the Basilisk, to defeat Nagini. I seriously doubt that he's going to tame her through Love (though they may exchange a few words a la Beren and Glaurung--snake = Worm = dragon etymologically). Carol, who has a headache and would really rather talk about the attack of the Whomping Pine Tree on her nonflying Ford Taurus (which miraculously escaped unscathed) From joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net Mon Jun 26 02:09:28 2006 From: joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net (Joe) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 02:09:28 -0000 Subject: Of essence divided? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154329 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "distaiyi" wrote: > > This to me appears to bolster the argument that perhaps Nagini is a > horcrux for LV. If LV was not part of the snake how could harry see > through the snakes eyes... > Joe: Assuming Nagini is a horcrux is it enough for Nagini to die for the piece of LV's soul to be eliminated from the equation or does the dear snake need to be destroyed completely? Others have suggested that Harry himself is a horcrux and that is why he is connected with LV. That would complicate matters. How would one destroy the bit of Voldy-soul in Harry without destroying Harry? Perhaps this, too, has been discussed before I joined the party. From enlil65 at gmail.com Mon Jun 26 03:23:12 2006 From: enlil65 at gmail.com (Peggy Wilkins) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 22:23:12 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Of essence divided? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1789c2360606252023o55e821d2wb4a566af5fd1b5c7@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154330 On 6/25/06, Steve wrote: Steve/bboyminn: > Specifically, as to whether Nagini is or isn't a Horcrux is a > difficult matter in my mind. It seems that Dumbledore concluded this > because he had run out of other more reasonable solutions, and was > left to speculate that Nagini was likely a Horcrux. But, personally, I > think the evidence is scant at best. One could conclude that, but one > certainly could not prove it. Voldemort already has Slytherin > connections through his existing Horcruxes, so why make another one > using Nagini? Peggy W: Another Slytherin-related Horcrux--the diary--was destroyed. Perhaps Voldemort would have used Nagini to replace it in order to keep a Slytherin connection. Presumably that connection was very important to him. Did Dumbledore guess that Voldemort made Nagini a Horcrux after he found out the diary had been destroyed? It seems reasonable. > Perhaps, when Voldemort returned he was desperate to > complete his set of 6 extrenal Horcruxes and to have a complete set of > 7, that he used whatever was at hand. This one suggested Horcrux seems > to be the weakest of them all (logically weakest), so, I am left to > wonder whether or not Dumbledore was mistaken on this issue. I believe that Harry's death at Godric's Hollow was intended to be the source of the final (sixth) Horcrux, completing the 7-part soul and making Voldemort invulnerable. I believe that Voldemort still intends Harry to fulfill this role, and that is why Harry is being "saved for the Dark Lord" (as all the Death Eaters say, reminding each other not to kill Harry). Voldemort must be the one to kill him because it is important to him to use Harry's death to seal his own invulnerabilty. If that is the case, he wouldn't make his sixth Horcrux with anything but Harry's death. -- Peggy Wilkins enlil65 at gmail.com From monicaboukhalfa at tmail.com Mon Jun 26 02:10:52 2006 From: monicaboukhalfa at tmail.com (Monica Boukhalfa) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 20:10:52 -0600 Subject: Mortality of horcruxes? References: <1151287710.365DD641@fb9.dngr.org> Message-ID: <1151287855.9B63A64@fc9.dngr.org> No: HPFGUIDX 154331 On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 8:04pm, sugaranddixie1 wrote: > ET here- > > Been reading the "Of essence divided?" thread with great interest & > it reminded me of something- > > I'm perplexed about the whole idea of having a living thing (such as > a snake) or something like a scar as a horcrux. > > Why would you put a portion of your soul into something that has a > definite lifespan? Snip (sorry) Monica now: But what if Voldemort performed the horcrux spell FOR Nagini after she killed someone? (She almost took out Arthur, who's saying she hasn't actually killed someone at one point) and SHE has a horcrux. That would make the whole living thing horcrux make a lot more sense. -Monica --Monica M. Boukhalfa From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Jun 26 03:39:58 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 03:39:58 -0000 Subject: Mortality of horcruxes? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154332 wrote: > I know he can give Nagini orders, but at that point, > he doesn't know where she is...and they're at the Riddle > house then which is in Muggle territory. If you're a > Muggle and you come across a snake, won't you try to > destroy it? So if Nagini had a piece of LV's soul in > her, wouldn't he want to know where she was? At that > point the diary had already been destroyed, so he knew > he was one down anyway houyhnhnm: That is a good point that Voldemort didn't know where Nagini was. Of course, he could possess her to find out where she was at any time. But Voldemort was Baby!Mort at the time he made Nagini a horcrux, if he did. He was dependent on Wormtail for everything. He was weak. The effort of possessing the snake probably sapped his strength. "Liar," breathed the second voice. "I am no stronger, and a few days alone would be enough to rob me of the little health I have regained under your clumsy care. /Silence!/" If it would be dangerous for a bodily able wizard "to confide a part of [his] soul to something that can think and move for itself" how much more so for something as weak and helpless as Baby!Mort. It seems like it would have been safer to take another relic from the Riddle house, however commonplace. But this is Voldemort the megalomaniac, for one thing. And for another, it seems unlikely that he would want Wormtail to know about his horcruxes, especially one to which Wormtail had constant access. It would give him too much power. Maybe Nagini was the only object available to Voldemort for which he would not need Wormtail's help. Voldemort would not have known anything about the destruction of the diary horcrux at the time he killed Frank Bryce. He didn't learn about that until he had regained his body and met with Lucius Malfoy again. From brahadambal at indiatimes.com Mon Jun 26 04:02:28 2006 From: brahadambal at indiatimes.com (latha279) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 04:02:28 -0000 Subject: Mortality of horcruxes? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154333 > wrote: > At that point the diary had already been destroyed, so he knew > he was one down anyway I don't think Voldy gets to know when a horcrux is destroyed. And at that moment the baby!mort did not know that the dairy had been destroyed. He came to know about that after he regained his body (after GoF) and his anger was something that left Lucius horribly shaken from inside. From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Jun 26 04:06:40 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 04:06:40 -0000 Subject: Of essence divided? In-Reply-To: <1789c2360606252023o55e821d2wb4a566af5fd1b5c7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154334 Peggy: > that is why Harry is being "saved for the Dark Lord" > (as all the Death Eaters say, reminding each other not > to kill Harry). houyhnhnm: Could you point me to where *all* the Death Eaters say that Harry is being saved for the Dark Lord? The DEs at the MoM fight only appeared to have been restrained by their fear of losing the prophecy. Voldemort was ready to whack Harry then and there for having been irksome too long. During the flight of the Prince I don't remember any of the DEs saying anything about saving Harry for the Dark Lord. Snape said it, but to take what he said at face value requires the assumption that he is a loyal DE. It's a circular argument. We know Snape is really a DE because he's saving Harry for the Dark Lord. And we know the Dark Lord wants Harry saved for him because Snape says so. There is no other evidence to back up that claim. From enlil65 at gmail.com Mon Jun 26 04:22:48 2006 From: enlil65 at gmail.com (Peggy Wilkins) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 23:22:48 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Mortality of horcruxes? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1789c2360606252122r444d9198yf11865ee5ae3ec50@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154335 On 6/25/06, houyhnhnm102 wrote: > houyhnhnm: > That is a good point that Voldemort didn't know where > Nagini was. Of course, he could possess her to find out > where she was at any time. But Voldemort was Baby!Mort > at the time he made Nagini a horcrux, if he did... Peggy W: I don't think we can be so sure that if he made Nagini into one of his Horcruxes, that he would have done it then and there. I don't think he would have, actually. To go back to my pet idea that Voldemort is reserving the act of making his final Horcrux for Harry's death, it would have worked against that plan if he had done this with Nagini at this point. When he is in the Riddle house in Babymort form, he must think he has five Horcruxes (he doesn't know about the diary's destruction yet); if he is saving his final Horcrux for Harry's death, he would not use Nagini yet. Perhaps he kills the gardener only to test his power a bit (no doubt it's been a long time and he is out of practice). > If it would be dangerous for a bodily able wizard "to > confide a part of [his] soul to something that can think > and move for itself" how much more so for something as > weak and helpless as Baby!Mort. To pick nits a bit here, Dumbledore called it "risky" not "dangerous". Dangerous implies something bad will almost certainly happen; risky is less severe. I agree with Dumbledore's assessment that the act carries a risk; I wouldn't go so far as to say it is inherently dangerous. > ... Voldemort would not > have known anything about the destruction of the diary > horcrux at the time he killed Frank Bryce. He didn't learn > about that until he had regained his body and met with > Lucius Malfoy again. I believe this is correct; and so I think that if he made Nagini into a Horcrux it would have been after he found out about the diary. In that case, perhaps he was even a bit grateful that he didn't kill Harry at the graveyard, since with the loss of the diary that wouldn't have completed his 7-part soul. If only Voldemort hadn't tried to trick Dumbledore into killing Harry at the MoM; that little incident suggests that maybe it wasn't entirely important that he kill Harry himself. So maybe my pet idea isn't quite all I was thinking it was... or maybe the MoM was an extenuating circumstance. Something to think about. -- Peggy Wilkins enlil65 at gmail.com From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 26 05:11:01 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 05:11:01 -0000 Subject: Harry's arrogance /Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154336 > Pippin: > My theory is that Snape did not take Dumbledore's life, he > didn't try to defend it, and used a ruse to make it seem that he > had taken it. Are you saying that's far-fetched when we know > that there have been fake deaths in canon? > > Or are you saying that it would be wrong? If so, was it wrong for > Lily to leave James to his fate and try to flee with Harry? I don't think JKR is going there. > Carol notes: Or, assuming that DD really is dead, was it wrong to kill dumbledore if that was the only way to get Harry off the tower? (Snape would have seen the second broom and deduced that Harry was there in his Invisibility Cloak.) If the choice was not between Snape's own life and Dumbledore's but between Harry's life and Dumbledore's, was it wrong to choose Harry? (DD would have been killed by the DEs in any case, but Harry would only have died if he had rushed out to fight them four on one, or five if Draco joined in on their side.) To repeat, *if* Snape's choice was between killing Dumbledore and Harry's almost certain death fighting four DEs (and Draco, if he joined in), surely the correct choice was to save Harry? Carol, pretty sure that Harry would not have survived Book 6 if Snape had not showed up From enlil65 at gmail.com Mon Jun 26 04:48:30 2006 From: enlil65 at gmail.com (Peggy Wilkins) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 23:48:30 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Of essence divided? In-Reply-To: References: <1789c2360606252023o55e821d2wb4a566af5fd1b5c7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1789c2360606252148q2dd6442fgd46ca973b875f730@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154337 On 6/25/06, houyhnhnm102 wrote: > Peggy: > > that is why Harry is being "saved for the Dark Lord" > > (as all the Death Eaters say, reminding each other not > > to kill Harry). > > houyhnhnm: > Could you point me to where *all* the Death Eaters say > that Harry is being saved for the Dark Lord? Apparently only in my mind... You are correct that only Snape says it directly. I just looked it up in HBP again. His words, spoken to the fleeing DE's, are, "Have you forgotten our orders?" but he is the only one who makes direct reference to it. Since he is addressing other DE's, the logical conclusion is that Voldemort has ordered them to "save" Harry for him. > During the flight of the Prince I don't remember any of > the DEs saying anything about saving Harry for the Dark > Lord. Snape said it, but to take what he said at face > value requires the assumption that he is a loyal DE. I don't think his "have you forgotten our orders" can be taken one way or the other, as far as his being a loyal DE or DDM!Snape... we know only that they have been given that order. Peggy W, who will try to remember to check her references next time so as not to make misleading statements... especially as I found another error I made in attributing "risky" to Dumbledore when he really said "inadvisable"... Ah, my faulty memory, it makes things up as it goes along! -- Peggy Wilkins enlil65 at gmail.com From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Jun 26 06:38:33 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 06:38:33 -0000 Subject: Harry's arrogance /Evil Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154338 "justcarol67" wrote: > was it wrong to kill Dumbledore if that > was the only way to get Harry off the > tower? (Snape would have seen the second > broom and deduced that Harry was there > in his Invisibility Cloak. We know that individually, with the exception of Snape, none of the Death Eaters in the tower were a match for Harry, If Snape was on his side (presumably Dumbledore would see what was happening and unfreeze Harry, and after he got his wand back even join into the fight sick as he was) then the two ( probably 3) of them would have maid short work of the Death Eaters; especially as they would have the element of surprise, none would expect Snape to attack and they didn't even know Harry was there. Even if you disagree with the above scenario at the very least you must say that if Snape had chosen to fight the situation would have been far from hopeless. Instead Snape chouse to murder Dumbledore, that is why I think Snape is evil. But I could be wrong, if you'd told me a year ago that there would still be debate in Potter circles if Snape was good or evil I would have said you were crazy. Shows you what I know. As to Harry's arrogance, well, it's not arrogance if it's true. In book 6 Harry was wiser than anybody else, including Dumbledore. Eggplant From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jun 26 06:52:46 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 06:52:46 -0000 Subject: Of essence divided? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154339 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "distaiyi" wrote: > > I read the Occulemency chapter ( well reread it ) after my original post. > > As JKR has said any number of times, she words things very > carefully... In this case she chose the word essence. > > 1 a : the permanent as contrasted with the accidental element of being > b : the individual, real, or ultimate nature of a thing especially > as opposed to its existence c : the properties or attributes by means > of which something can be placed in its proper class or identified as > being what it is > 2 : something that exists : ENTITY > 3 a (1) : a volatile substance or constituent (as of perfume) > (2) : a constituent or derivative possessing the special qualities > (as of a plant or drug) in concentrated form; also : a preparation of > such an essence or a synthetic substitute b : ODOR, PERFUME > 4 : one that possesses or exhibits a quality in abundance as if in > concentrated form > > Frankly I don't see how we can interpret this as anything but a > question about the essence of Voldemorte or of Nagini. In either case > I find the implication that he believes Nagini is a Horcrux to be > stronger than the implication that he believes Nagini simply to be > possessed. Geoff: Might I yet again drag up a thread from the archives.... Way back in the halcyon pre-HBP days, before Horcruxes, (sigh), I started a thread called "The Smoke Serpent". This was message 79231 and some of the replies along the thread might be relevant to or of interest to the current line of thinking. From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Jun 26 10:12:41 2006 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 10:12:41 -0000 Subject: The Gleam, The Blood, and TM Riddle (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154340 > > First up how could Voldy think using Harry's blood was a `good' > idea? Why did DD think otherwise? Well Voldy is obsessed with the > power of blood and blood purity, this in the HP world is a bad > thing. He has a misplaced belief that blood matters above other > heart related qualities: loyalty, love, sacrifice, compassion. Finwitch: I think that Voldy taking Harry's blood enabled him to FEEL, equally strogly as Harry. When it comes to Harry, he can handle it. Voldemort can NOT. (As seen when Harry's *painful* love for Sirius prevented Voldemort from possessing him). Love DOES hurt and Voldemort stealing that power cannot deal with it. Voldemort believes love a weakness - therefore making it so for himself. For Harry, it's power. Remember how after the blood-business, Harry was not only able to sense Voldemort's precense/hatred, but also when he was *happy*? It might be that Voldemort feels same of Harry, and Harry's love weakens him... Finwitch From vinkv002 at planet.nl Mon Jun 26 10:25:28 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 10:25:28 -0000 Subject: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154341 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > Pippin: > I think we're agreed that Harry's insistence on his version > of events, in the face of Hagrid and Hermione's doubts, stems as > much from his hatred of Snape as from his eyewitness evidence. > Otherwise he would have as many questions as they do. Renee: I'm not sure about the "in the face of ... doubts". Steve answered the part concerning Hagrid's doubts. As for Hermione, if you interpret her "well... yes" after Harry calls Snape a murderer as doubt, you're free to do so, but I think this evidence is rather flimsy. Otherwise, we agree about Harry's insistence on his version of events. Actually, the one who is most incredulous, is Lupin... Pippin: > And I think we agree that Harry's hatred of Snape comes from his > personal issues. But there's a reason that Harry never brought up > those issues when he was discussing his suspicions of Snape > with Dumbledore. He knew that it wouldn't strengthen his case > to remind Dumbledore that he doesn't like Snape. > > In other words, Harry knows it would make him sound weak > and self-serving. It just never occurs to him that it might actually > *be* weak and self-serving to suspect Snape. That's not anti- > Snape bias, IMO, that's pro-Harry bias, otherwise known as > arrogance. Renee: It seems to me that this is really juist a quibble about the meaning of words. You say it's arrogance, I stick with bias, which I think is not the same. Pippin: > And isn't that really why we want so much for Harry not to be wrong? > Because we too are just a little bit lazy and as Harry would rather be > spared thinking critically about Snape, so we would rather have our > fictional heroes be untarnished when it counts, so that we, and our > children, do not have to think about what they are doing, and > can just stand up and cheer. Renee: Believe it or not, I don't mind Harry being wrong. I never liked his judgmentalism, and untarnished heroes aren't particularly interesting. His main flaw just doesn't fit my definition of arrogance. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jun 26 10:21:19 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 10:21:19 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts saves the Queen's big party Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154342 This might be a trifle OT but may be of interest and the source of a little amusement to the group. If you live outside the UK, you may not be aware that Queen Elizabeth II celebrated her 80th birthday in April. Her official birthday was marked as usual with the Trooping the Colour parade last weekend but, yesterday, she hosted a huge party extravaganza for several thousand children and parents in the grounds of Buckingham Palace. A huge stage plus giant screens had been erected for the party programme which involved scenes using characters from story and film and TV, in which Hogwarts was involved. The end of the programme involved a search for the Queen's Handbag which had been stolen. Perhaps it should be pointed out for non-UK readers that the Queen's handbag has always been a source of gentle fun as she almost invariably carries one. The search was carried out and then a white barn owl named Bronwen was despatched with a letter from the Prime Minister to Hogwarts requesting their help. On screen, we saw Harry and Ron and Hermione receiving the letter and deciding what to do. They first tried "Accio stolen handbag" which produced a large pile of them in the Gryffindor common room. Neville came in and recognised one of them as his grandmother's. Ron looked inside and caught his hand in a mousetrap and there was some worry on his part about the circulation to his fingers being cut off(!) The Trio then sent a message back to the party enclosing an "Accio" spell which all the huge audience had to shout and the burglar appeared clutching his Swag bag in which was the Queen's Handbag. Her Majesty was able to open the bag, flourish her reading glasses and speech to the great delight of all. So the day was saved by Gryffindor! From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Jun 26 12:48:08 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 12:48:08 -0000 Subject: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154343 AD: > So you propose that Harry should spill his secrets to an > untrusted adult, then? Ceridwen: That isn't what I said. You asked what has changed. Dumbledore's role in the story has changed, therefore Harry's entire method of dealing with problems must change. AD: > What I was trying to gently point out is that it would be foolish > for Harry to rush into telling *anyone* else his mission right now. > He's going to have enough trouble without word of his plans > leaking to Voldemort. Ceridwen: Yes, agreed. Sitting down and thinking about things is something that Harry doesn't normally do. And I think he'll have to do this in book 7 because it's part of growing up, of actually becoming an adult as opposed to becoming one by arbitrary age only. AD: > He may decide, after reflection, to bring in some others--perhaps > McGonagall, in return for access to Hogwarts, or the new leader > of the Order of the Phoenix, to secure the Order's cooperation, but > blurting it out to McG and company immediately after Dumbledore's > death would have been dumb. He needs to take his time, think it > through, perhaps consult with the other two people who share his > secrets, before he takes that risk Ceridwen: Agreed again. We have so many possible 'ESE!So-and-sos' floating around the list here, I imagine Harry's wondering, too. I wouldn't put it past LV to have another spy in the Order, or at least someone he can blackmail or coerce. AD: > As to whether Harry has a touch of arrogance, well, I hope he does. > He's going to need all the backbone he can get in the next few days, > as he's going to have to go against the wishes of some very strong > personalities--starting with Vernon and Petunia. Ceridwen: Heh, I think Harry has plenty of backbone. Adversity makes people either stronger or more bitter - I think Harry has become stronger. But there's a point where good arrogance becomes bad arrogance. There is very little Harry can find out about Horcruxes, for instance, given that the topic is banned. Even fifty years before Harry's story, the subject was not taught and was considered too dodgy to mention, see Slughorn's reaction to Tom's question. As time goes on, less and less is known, and more and more that relates to the topic is cleared away. Tom Riddle had to search it out on his own. Fifty years have passed, there is less for Harry to find. And that's another thing that makes me wonder if Harry's story isn't partially about relying on others. Tom Riddle didn't and doesn't. He uses people, but that isn't the same. He doesn't trust his people, he keeps them guessing and at each other's throats about it. Since it is set up this way, I honestly do believe that Harry will need to break down and depend on someone besides Ron and Hermione even despite misgivings. Not that he got a lot of encouragement in HBP to do this! He was right about Draco's mission in the RoR. I think it was PAR who mentioned this, and Magpie who elaborated on the age link between Harry and Draco. I really wasn't pleased that, when Harry did as he had been told to do for five books, he was so badly received. But I think he will have to push forward, keep on trusting the people DD trusted despite their doubts about him and his mission. And this is where his 'good arrogance' comes into play. He'll have to trust someone, just to get information about Horcruxes. When they prudently advise him against 'fooling around' with that sort of thing, he'll have to push onward anyway. *They* will have to trust *him* as much as he will have to trust them. Remember that, until now, he's come off as an impetuous kid to an adult POV. He will need to be shown to be a true adult in the next book as well. Anyway, I do agree with your points. I just come at them from a different angle. Ceridwen. From mros at xs4all.nl Mon Jun 26 09:25:15 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 11:25:15 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) References: Message-ID: <000b01c69902$6ec311e0$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 154344 > >>Magpie: > > It wasn't that Harry was right in knowing who was evil. Harry is > > Draco's peer and in certain ways understands him better than a > > lot of people. > >>Marion: > I call it the 'Harry-roulette'. > If you put your money on 22 red and play long enough, one day the > little ball will fall on 22 red. > Harry's been convinced that Draco was Up To No Good from the very > beginning (going so far as to polyjuicing himself as Draco's > sidekick because he was *convinced* that Draco was Slytherin's > Heir and petrifying people in second year. Don't know why or how, > but it's Draco Malfoy! He *must* be Up To No Good!) > Well, finally he wins the table: and it took him only six years of > playing. > Really, Harry's obsessive conviction that the people he doesn't > like are Evil Incarnate is getting rather unhealthy. > Harry Roulette. Just as much fun as Russian Roulette, and just as > deadly. :-) >Betsy Hp: >I think your "Harry-roulette" (love, the name by the way ) can be >applied more to Snape than Draco. While Harry has never liked >Draco, except for the Heir of Slytherin incident in CoS I don't >think he ever thought of Draco as the big bad. (Or even the little >bad, for that matter -- more the big annoying, I think.) >So that Harry was the only one to recognize the very real danger >Draco presented throughout HBP was, I think, more than just Harry >making a lucky guess. Not that he saw Draco clearly, but it was a >clearer view than those around him. Marion: My point exactly! I just read a mail from somebody, claiming that in book 6 "Harry was wiser than anybody, including Dumbledore". Harry is not wise. Harry is not even intelligent, or clever. He's frighteningly slow in the uptake. And he is tenacious to the extreme in his prejudices against people. He takes people he doesn't like (Snape and Draco) and projects unto them his own fears. It's pathetic, really. I mean, Draco is not a nice boy, I don't like his character at all (I adore Snape, but that's another story) but what does, until book 6, his 'evil' amounts to? There's namecalling, there's trying to get Potter into trouble by snitching on him, there's the odd hex or two (although in the hexing department Draco mostly seems to come off worse than Potter and co.), he takes advantage of the situation and becomes Umbridge's Brown Shirt in fifth year. Oh, and Draco and his cronies dress up as Dementors to scare Harry (sounds familiar? 'Scaring the git' pranks?) There's no doubt that Draco Malfoy is a spoiled, arrogant little tit, but six years long we hear the Trio malign him as a 'Death Eater in Training' (actually, this might be fanon, not canon. Anybody?) I've heard fans call Draco a 'bully' (because he walks around with two thugs: that's classic bully alright), but we've never heard of Crabbe or Goyle really beating up people. Who *does* get a punch in the nose? Draco! By Littly Miss Bossyboots Hermione ('bossy' is just around the corner from 'bully' if you ask me) And Ron is a hotheaded 'hex first, think never' type. Draco has Crabbe and Goyle, Harry has Ron and Hermione. I know which I would be more afraid of. Harry distrusts Draco because Lucius is a DeathEater. But it's *Harry* who has a curse-scar-which-is-a-direct-hotline-to-Voldemort, who has the dreams, who *cherishes* the dreams (because he thinks them 'useful') Draco might boast as a silly little firstie that he would 'gladly help the Dark Lord rid the world of muggleborns', but when faced with outright murder Draco can't perform. Harry however has *twice* pointed a wand at people and shouted 'Avada Kadavra'. Granted, the ones he wanted to AK were, according to him, murderers, but the *reason* because his attempted AKs was hatred and revenge. Note that Draco's botched murderattempts on Dumbledore (and granted, Draco got *lucky* that no innocent bystander got killed) were inspired by fear for his family. No, I'm not saying that Draco is Good and Harry is Evil. I'm just showing how scary Harry's selfreferencing way of thinking is. "I'm Good, so what I do is justified. They are Bad, so what they do is Bad. When I do the same things They do, it's For The Good. If They do the same things I do, it's Evil". I don't like Harry *or* Draco. But of the two, I find Harry the most dangerous. Not because of what he does but the way he *thinks*. He is the Chosen One, the Boy Who Lived and the Boy Who Is Destined To Kill Voldemort. People who refer to themselves in Capitals are bloody dangerous... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jun 26 12:28:57 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 12:28:57 -0000 Subject: Harry's arrogance /Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154345 > Carol notes: > Or, assuming that DD really is dead, was it wrong to kill dumbledore > if that was the only way to get Harry off the tower? Pippin: I agree Snape could not have expected to get Harry and Draco off the tower in one piece by fighting. Harry nearly got his throat ripped out by one DE and was crucio'd by another. Snape was able to save him from the latter only because the DE's were still taking his orders. But assuming that DDM!Snape thought he could do a convincing fake AK, wouldn't he use that rather than a real one regardless? Pippin noting that if Dumbledore hadn't trusted Snape, he'd have died of the Ring curse, and if Harry hadn't trusted the Prince, he'd have lost Ron. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Jun 26 13:06:20 2006 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 13:06:20 -0000 Subject: Harry's arrogance /Evil Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154346 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > "justcarol67" wrote: > > > was it wrong to kill Dumbledore if that > > was the only way to get Harry off the > > tower? (Snape would have seen the second > > broom and deduced that Harry was there > > in his Invisibility Cloak. > > We know that individually, with the exception of Snape, none of the > Death Eaters in the tower were a match for Harry, If Snape was on his > side (presumably Dumbledore would see what was happening and unfreeze > Harry, and after he got his wand back even join into the fight sick as > he was) then the two ( probably 3) of them would have maid short work > of the Death Eaters; especially as they would have the element of > surprise, none would expect Snape to attack and they didn't even know > Harry was there. Even if you disagree with the above scenario at the > very least you must say that if Snape had chosen to fight the > situation would have been far from hopeless. Yep eggplant, I agree, at face value, far from hopeless for Harry and Dumbledore. Of course deadly for Snape, due to the whole unbreakable vow thing.. but otherwise, there's no reason to think Harry couldn't have taken out the same number of DE's that he did, and Draco, of course would have stood by in stunned silence, his wand by his side, watching Harry Potter stupefy his team. Snape's dead on the floor, but Draco wouldn't rush to judgement that Harry or Dumbledore killed him would he? ;) > Instead Snape chouse to > murder Dumbledore, that is why I think Snape is evil. But I could be > wrong, if you'd told me a year ago that there would still be debate > in Potter circles if Snape was good or evil I would have said you > were crazy. Shows you what I know. LOL! we're all stark raving!! I genuinely think that there is more to the scene than meets the eye, coming from a 'serious snapeoholic' such as myself (ROFL!!) who would've guessed? But I think, you''l find that the main channel of this debate is not split Snape Lover from Snape Hater, but between Dumbledore's fans and Dumbledores pitiers. at least, I know that's how it is for me, I *still* (yeah I do still...) think the Tower scene was an orchestration of Dumbledore's genius, it's just too perfect, there is almost no way Voldemort could *see* anything but Dumbledore *losing*, but that's how you *win* a game of chess, the opposition never *sees* you coming, and niether do the onlookers Valky back in the fray... for a space... or two :) From chrusokomos at gmail.com Mon Jun 26 12:38:19 2006 From: chrusokomos at gmail.com (chrusotoxos) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 12:38:19 -0000 Subject: Mortality of horcruxes? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154347 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sugaranddixie1" wrote: > > ET here- > > I'm perplexed about the whole idea of having a living thing (such as > a snake) or something like a scar as a horcrux. > Along the same lines, if Nagini is a Horcrux, wouldn't LV be a bit > more protective of her? LV asks Wormtail where Nagini is (in GOF)and > Wormtail replies that he's uncertain(says she's exploring the > house,... maybe) LV doesn't really get bent out of shape over it. I > know he can give Nagini orders, but at that point, he doesn't know > where she is... Chrusotoxos now: I totally agree with you when you say that a) you wouldn't chose a living thing as an horcrux, and therefore b) why Harry should be one? DD said clear enough that it was a 'risky business' to place a bit of your soul into a living creature, but then again, LV is unpredictable. I don't think Harry might be an Horcrux, mainly because LV wants to kill him. About Nagini...well, the point is, in my view, not to *control* the living creature with your soul in it, but to be sure that it can't be destroyed. And Nagini is apprently cunning and strong enough to take care of itself. From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jun 26 14:11:55 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 14:11:55 -0000 Subject: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154348 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "steven1965aaa" wrote: > > Steven1965aaa: > > IMO,if anyone is acting arrogantly here, its Dumbledore, by not > letting Harry in on the real reason he trusts Snape (that's how I > interpret the pause in his office as if he was making his mind up > about something) (but of course he may have a very good reason for not > doing so, of which we have not yet been made aware), and by brushing > Harry off when he was trying to tell him about Malfoy's "whooping". > When Dumbledore says to Harry in the cave that age errs when it > underestimates youth, he might as well have been talking about > himself. > Pippin: He certainly was talking about himself. He underestimated Draco's ability to find a way to get DE's into the castle. But he can hardly be blamed for not taking Harry's report very seriously, since Harry forgot the important bit. If Harry had told Dumbledore about the attack on Trelawney, Dumbledore might have reacted differently. Dumbledore was waiting for Draco to show his hand. An attack on a teacher is culpable. Whooping is not. As for not revealing his 'real' reason for trusting Snape-- What if there isn't a 'real' reason? After all, why does Harry trust Ron and Hermione? or Dumbledore himself? It isn't because they've never let him down, or because he's sure they never would. They have, and as long as they're alive they may again, because they're human. It isn't because they've performed some spectacular act of atonement, or because they've taken some magical oath or debt on themselves, or because they're blood relations, or because Fawkes gave magical proof of their loyalty or because they were secretly in love with someone that Voldemort killed. Purely and simply, Harry trusts them because he values their friendship. In the end that is the only reason to trust anybody. The mere fact that Harry is asking for proof shows that he doesn't understand why anybody would value Snape's friendship, so it would be useless to explain it to him. Now maybe there was some incident, like facing a troll together, that cemented Dumbledore's understanding of what a good friend Snape could be. But if Harry were determined to distrust Snape, what difference would knowing about that make? He already knows that Snape has saved both Dumbledore and himself at least once and he's still not convinced. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 26 13:55:20 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 13:55:20 -0000 Subject: Harry's arrogance /Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154349 > > Pippin: > > My theory is that Snape did not take Dumbledore's life, he > > didn't try to defend it, and used a ruse to make it seem that he > > had taken it. Are you saying that's far-fetched when we know > > that there have been fake deaths in canon? Alla: Yes, Pippin that is exactly what I am saying. Under circumstances described I think that this is very far fetched to expect fake death on the Tower. I consider it especially far fetched since JKR was IMo rather clear in the interviews about Dumbledore's death. It is your right of course to disbelieve her interviews, I do believe them. > > Or are you saying that it would be wrong? If so, was it wrong for > > Lily to leave James to his fate and try to flee with Harry? I don't > think JKR is going there. Alla: Wrong to try and save Dumbledore? Of course not - the Snape who would do that is a noble hero, it is just I am not buying that this is what happened. Sorry! But hey, if this is what happened, you will tell me "told you so" after book 7 :) I am curious though where you found analogy with Lily and James on the Tower. > Carol notes: > Or, assuming that DD really is dead, was it wrong to kill dumbledore > if that was the only way to get Harry off the tower? (Snape would have > seen the second broom and deduced that Harry was there in his > Invisibility Cloak.) If the choice was not between Snape's own life > and Dumbledore's but between Harry's life and Dumbledore's, was it > wrong to choose Harry? (DD would have been killed by the DEs in any > case, but Harry would only have died if he had rushed out to fight > them four on one, or five if Draco joined in on their side.) > > To repeat, *if* Snape's choice was between killing Dumbledore and > Harry's almost certain death fighting four DEs (and Draco, if he > joined in), surely the correct choice was to save Harry? Alla: The problem with this question as I see it is that this choice would NEVER occur exactly as you describe IMO. Even if Snape keeps telling himself ( and I am describing Snape which I am not buying, just for the sake of the argument) that he is killing DD for the sake of saving Harry only, we KNOW that it is not true, unless Snape is Saint. IMO of course. Snape's life is ALWAYS in the equasion, because if he does not kill DD, he is well... dead, no? So, if this Snape keeps telling himself that the only reason he kills DD is to save Harry, well, sure , yes, I will cut him some slack. But the thing is he STILL has to to take responsibility for taking the UV, for the fact that HIS foolish choices brought the doom upon DD and Harry and for that I want him to take responsbility and to feel remorse and suffer A LOT. Of course if one buys Snape taking UV on DD orders or any other "good, noble" reasons, then this does not need apply. I am not. As I said, I want Snape to take responsibility and suffer, then maybe in my book he earns redemption. But that is a VERY big maybe in my book. > Carol, pretty sure that Harry would not have survived Book 6 if Snape > had not showed up > Alla, who thinks that Harry did pretty good on the Tower, Snape or no Snape and who cannot wait for confrontation between them in book 7. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Jun 26 14:11:54 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 14:11:54 -0000 Subject: Healing Magic (wasRe: Prank question - Lupin wanted Snape DEAD In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154350 > Adesa: > Oh, Lord, please don't tell me this is a Darth Vader/Anakin thing. > You think Snape joined V to learn how to heal someone he loved? OK, > that would be fine (and I'd trust JKR to do a better job with it than > George Lucas), but it's been *done*. And recently. I'd be *so* > disappointed if that's the way JKR goes with it. Potioncat: Oh, my. Oh, dear. To be honest, no argument, no counter-post has ever left me as dumbstruck as that one. Good point though. ;-) Somewhere in your words must have been the counter-curse to the Obliviate that had wiped that movie from my mind. But, no that's not what I was thinking. JKR went out of her way to make Snape's healing Draco a very touching, very important moment. It can't be a coincidence that the method is simlar to the phoenix singing. If this was just a curse/counter-curse Snape could have waved his wand--or if it was business as usual we would have seen Madam Pomfrey singing to her patients. This was very special magic. So it's important that Snape is a healer if not a Healer. But how do you reconcile Healer/Dark Arts or Halfblood/Death Eater? Autopsies used to be outlawed. We have nice horror stories of doctors buying corpses--no questions asked--to advance their medical knowledge. Now it's a very acceptable tool. I'm just wondering if Snape was drawn to the Dark Arts to find his own sort of glory. Even now, some doctors are seeking glory by stamping out disease. Maybe Snape started out interested in Dark Arts, and moved into creating counter-curses. Or maybe he came back to "our" side and felt a need to redeem himself by creating cures for the sort Dark Magic he'd seen done. If this is the way JKR is going, I think she had this written (in her head at least) before the movie came out. Now, could someone please Obliviate the movie from my mind--careful though, leave everything else. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 26 14:20:56 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 14:20:56 -0000 Subject: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154351 Pippin: > As for not revealing his 'real' reason for trusting Snape-- > > What if there isn't a 'real' reason? After all, why does Harry trust > Ron and Hermione? or Dumbledore himself? It isn't because they've > never let him down, or because he's sure they never would. They > have, and as long as they're alive they may again, because they're > human. Alla: Um, I am sure there can be found some incidents in canon where Ron and Hermione let Harry down, but I would argue that yes, on the big scale they never did. Ron did not treat Harry like garbage from the first time they met, quite the contrary. Hermione did not help to make Harry an orphan, etc, etc. They are human, of course, but I would argue that they stood by Harry always in the grand scheme of things. I would leave out the question of why Harry trusts DD because that is sometimes a puzzle for me. :) Pippin: > It isn't because they've performed some spectacular act of atonement, Alla: Do they HAVE something to atone for? Ron and Hermione, I mean. The only time Ron IMO was not right to leave Harry, he wanted to apologise. But that is surely not comparable to what Snape is guilty of , no? > Purely and simply, Harry trusts them because he values their > friendship. In the end that is the only reason to trust anybody. Alla: It IS, if those people did not do really bad things towards someone who supposed to trust them and Snape did IMO. Pippin: > The mere fact that Harry is asking for proof shows that he doesn't > understand why anybody would value Snape's friendship, so > it would be useless to explain it to him. Now maybe there was > some incident, like facing a troll together, that cemented Dumbledore's > understanding of what a good friend Snape could be. But if > Harry were determined to distrust Snape, what difference would > knowing about that make? He already knows that Snape has saved > both Dumbledore and himself at least once and he's still not > convinced. Alla: The difference it makes because it is maybe enough for DD, but it is not enough for Harry, who now knows that he has to in part thank Snape for growing up without his parents IMO, that Snape barked at him the moment he saw him. As to what difference it would make? It would have shown Harry that Snape maybe a bastard, but a bastard who is on our side. Alla, who thinks that Dumbledore better have a REALLY good reason to trust Snape. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Jun 26 14:39:43 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 14:39:43 -0000 Subject: Peverell family crest In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154352 "Tonks" wrote: > > Has anyone come up with anything about the Peverell family? Why is that > the Slytherin family? This is what I have found so far. Potioncat: This isn't a brush off, it's an "I'd like to discuss this but I don't have the time to work up the reply" post. So here's one post that started a discussion about the historical Gaunts and Peverells. It's number 148506, HBP CHPT 10 DISCUSSION. Oops, should have made a link. From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Mon Jun 26 14:59:17 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 14:59:17 -0000 Subject: Of essence divided? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154353 > Joe: > Assuming Nagini is a horcrux is it enough for Nagini to die for the > piece of LV's soul to be eliminated from the equation or does the > dear snake need to be destroyed completely? Others have suggested > that Harry himself is a horcrux and that is why he is connected with > LV. That would complicate matters. How would one destroy the bit of > Voldy-soul in Harry without destroying Harry? Perhaps this, too, has > been discussed before I joined the party. > aussie: The Ring Horcrux didn't injure DD, but the terrible Curse that was upon it. (HBP -Chap 23) DD was able to destroy the Horcrux in the ring and keep it wearable, even if cracked. DD said a lot about the Horcruxes in that chapter. DD recognised the Diary as a Horcrux from Harry's explaination and started his quest for other Horcruxes. DD was the one to suggest the snake as the Horcrux although he said, "it is inadvisable to ...confide a part of your soul to something that can think and move for itself ...", so I doubt Harry is a Horcrux. Nonetheless, the soul can be removed or destroyed without damaging the vessel if no Curse is upon it (IMO). The Horcruxes should be protected. - The ring was in the Gaunt shack with "many powerful enchantments" with "magical concealment". (HBP Chap 23) The locket had enchantments and concealment too. - The snake stayed close to LV himself - The diary was in Malfoy's safekeeping until orders came from LV himself (but Auther was looking around Malfoy's house too much, so he sought to open the Chamber of Secrets and get rid of incriminating evidence at the same time. DD in his 150 years may have delt with Horcruxes before, which is why Slughorn said DD was "particularly fierce" about Horcruxes. Was Grindelwald destroyed by getting to his Horcrux in 1945? (DD's Choc Frog card) From mhersheybar at hotmail.com Mon Jun 26 15:04:24 2006 From: mhersheybar at hotmail.com (melhersheybar) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 15:04:24 -0000 Subject: Gone a while - question about Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154354 I am sure this question has been debated a lot, but I have been gone a while, so if someone could either point me to the right threads or summarize the conventional wisdom, that would be great. In re-reading books 4-6, the accounts of when and why Snape came back to Hogwarts do not match. Here (without page numbers, as I am at work), are the inconsistencies. Book 4 - Dumbledore tells Harry and others that Snape gave up his DE days and came back at great personal risk to himself before VD fell. Book 6 (I think) - Harry learns that Snape was the one who overheard the prophesy and passed it on to VD, leading to the death of Harry's parents. Dumbledore tells Harry that it was Snape's remorse at causing the deaths of James and Lily that led DD to give Snape a job at Hogwarts. Yet, Snape also tells Narcissa and Bellatrix that at the time VD fell, he was already at Hogwarts, acting as a spy, as VD had ordered him to be. So I don't get it. Is it that there was a gap in time between when Snape overheard the prophesy and when Wormtail turned traitor, and during that time Snape went and repented to DD? But that still doesn't work, because DD makes it sound like it was James and Lily's actual deaths that caused Snape to feel remorse, so there is no way he could have already been at Hogwarts when VD fell. Am I missing something? Help please! mhersheybar From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Jun 26 11:20:54 2006 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 11:20:54 -0000 Subject: Hating Dark Arts (was re James' essence...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154355 > WhirledGirl: > > Now Finwitch's problem, was James instructed by his dad (or his mum, > right?) to hex anyone who annoyed him?; ... > Let's not forget also that James came from a wizarding family, and > that the parents in an all magical family are responsible for > regulating whether their children actually use magic out of school. > And while Harry's use of magic against Aunt Marge *was* accidental, > it was also reversible. This would surely be true if it happened at > Hogwarts, esp. with the teachers fully grown witches and wizards. > Imo, they would be able to rectify any accidental magic, so this is > not valid..'reason' for James to take out his frustration/hatred of > Snape in the way he does. Finwitch: Well, my little speculation of that early accident (11 or so) is that it required *Special* knowledge/things to rectify - Fire perhaps - and while you can quite easily use that paste to heal burns, fire also has tendency to spread rather uncontrollably. And the simple fire-freezing-charm that would prevent the fire from causing destruction WOULD, OTOH, gain attention from Muggles... (and you know what the MOM thinks of that.) I suppose the Potters were living in a neighbourhood near Muggles. (Godric's Hollow maybe?) And unlike Blacks, they didn't place any Muggle-repelling charms in place... So I'd say they had reason for James not to have magical accidents during vacations. (or pre-Hogwarts, for that matter. But they had better knowledge than the Dursleys on how to do that..) Finwitch From fairwynn at hotmail.com Mon Jun 26 15:07:47 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (fair wynn) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 10:07:47 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's arrogance /Evil Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154356 Valky: < But I think, you''l find that the main channel of this debate is not split Snape Lover from Snape Hater, but between Dumbledore's fans and Dumbledores pitiers. at least, I know that's how it is for me, I *still* (yeah I do still...) think the Tower scene was an orchestration of Dumbledore's genius, it's just too perfect, there is almost no way Voldemort could *see* anything but Dumbledore *losing*, but that's how you *win* a game of chess, the opposition never *sees* you coming, and niether do the onlookers wynnleaf Exactly. Poor, poor Dumbledore -- he spotted Tom Riddle as untrustworthy within 5 minutes, but can spend 16 years working with someone and still not have a clue. And isn't it too bad that he's so forgiving? Just goes to show where forgiveness and believing in people will get you. Makes you wonder why Harry would believe anything at all from Dumbledore -- horcruxes included -- when he's so obviously taken in by a 16 year old Draco's schemes and can't see Snape's disloyalty which is so incredibly obvious. Dumbledore is either trustworthy or he's not. He's either a very intelligent wizard who has a terrific amount of insight, or he's not. I'm not saying Dumbledore has to be perfect, but if Harry's the one that's right about Snape -- even though Dumbledore had far more knowledge of the facts about Snape than Harry ever did -- then Dumbledore can't be anywhere nearly the brilliant wizard he's supposed to be. Instead, he becomes a very deluded man. I honestly don't think JKR wants part of the "moral of the story" to be "forgiveness is too risky and second chances are given by blind fools." In general, most people who trust Dumbledore also trust Snape. And that goes for the characters, too. Harry doesn't truly trust Dumbledore. Yes, he believes the "factual" information like this or that history of something, or info on the horcruxes -- but he doesn't necessarily trust Dumbledore's decisions, even when it is a certainty that Dumbledore knows more about a situation than Harry does. For instance, Harry never trusted Dumbledore's opinion of Snape, even back when the only bad thing Harry knew about Snape was that he was an extremely unpleasant teacher. wynnleaf _________________________________________________________________ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jun 26 15:19:40 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 15:19:40 -0000 Subject: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154357 > Alla: > > Um, I am sure there can be found some incidents in canon where Ron > and Hermione let Harry down, but I would argue that yes, on the big > scale they never did. Pippin: Ron's jealousy in GoF was a big deal, in fact prior to OOP lots of people were saying it proved Ron could not be trusted and he would betray Harry to LV. Hermione let Harry down when she ratted him out about the Firebolt (the least she could have done was let him know what she was going to do) and he was upset enough about that to drop her. It may not seem like a grand scale thing to us, but Harry certainly thought so. Alla: > Ron did not treat Harry like garbage from the first time they met, > quite the contrary. Pippin: Um, I seem to remember Hermione telling Ron he had dirt on his nose and Harry that he should open a book or two, as in "I'd have found out everything I could it if was me." Ron called her a nightmare, IIRC. Harry thought he'd never met anyone so interfering. Pippin: > > Purely and simply, Harry trusts them because he values their > > friendship. In the end that is the only reason to trust anybody. > > Alla: > > It IS, if those people did not do really bad things towards someone > who supposed to trust them and Snape did IMO. Pippin: We can debate the wisdom of giving second chances at all. But If you trusted someone before you gave them a second chance, I should think you'd have to trust them afterward. Otherwise it wouldn't be a second chance at all. And Dumbledore simply doesn't regard Snape's barking at Harry as a reason not to trust him. You can argue the wisdom of that too, but it seems Dumbledore doesn't have a problem with hostile teachers, as long as they aren't physically abusive. It seems he feels there are lots of hostile people in life, and you can't always run away from them, or hope some voice from on high will deal with them for you. Sometimes you just have to cope. Alla: > As to what difference it would make? It would have shown Harry that > Snape maybe a bastard, but a bastard who is on our side. Pippin: If saving Harry's life and Dumbledore's life isn't enough, then it seems to me Harry doesn't want a 'real' reason. He wants a magical shortcut. I don't think Rowling is going to give him one. As in, by the time Harry finds out the 'real' reason, it won't matter. Pippin From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Mon Jun 26 15:28:10 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 15:28:10 -0000 Subject: Harry Dies, Ginny scarred Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154358 According to DD, Harry's greatest weapon is that he can love. So the guy that sees the world through his mother's eyes would be willing to repeat Lilly's sacrifice if Ginny is kidnapped as live bait. Harry defends Ginny with a body shield and LV successfully killed Harry. Then he turns on Ginny to get rid of the excess rubbish only to discover too late Harry's love protects her as Lilly's love protected baby Harry. And then the last line of book 7 would read ... "Ginny is able to stand and walk awy from the scene of Lord Voldemort's demise with no injury, excpt for a mark on her forehead: a lightening shaped scar." This fits with what we know from Joanne, including making sure there is no "Harry Potter and the 8th Book" From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 26 15:29:33 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 15:29:33 -0000 Subject: Harry's arrogance /Evil Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154359 > wynnleaf > Exactly. Poor, poor Dumbledore -- he spotted Tom Riddle as untrustworthy > within 5 minutes, but can spend 16 years working with someone and still not > have a clue. Alla: YES, he did, but he did something very similar with Tom Riddle as he did with Snape, no? He did not SHARE his suspicions with anybody, he supposedly kpet an eye on Tom himself, but obviously did not act on his suspicions, no? Isn't that a very similar mistake? If one believes that DD made a mistake of course. Wynnleaf: > Dumbledore is either trustworthy or he's not. He's either a very > intelligent wizard who has a terrific amount of insight, or he's not. I'm > not saying Dumbledore has to be perfect, but if Harry's the one that's right > about Snape -- even though Dumbledore had far more knowledge of the facts > about Snape than Harry ever did -- then Dumbledore can't be anywhere nearly > the brilliant wizard he's supposed to be. Instead, he becomes a very > deluded man. I honestly don't think JKR wants part of the "moral of the > story" to be "forgiveness is too risky and second chances are given by blind > fools." Alla: Um, why does he become deluded if he trusts the wrong person? It is never a bad thing to give a second chance to the undeserving person IMO. It shows that Dumbledore has faith in people. It is THAT person misgiving who rejects the second chance. I don't think that JKR will show that second chances are given by blind fools, but that sometimes people reject second chances and fallen from grace so to speak. JKR said as much that Dumbledore very detached that he DOES make emotional mistakes and we IMO saw it, so is it such a big stretch to believe that he DID make that mistake with Snape. BUT I think she would also show that DD was right in a sense when Snape "latent" good qualities would finally show up at the end and he would do the right thing by dying for Harry or something like that. Of course this is NOT DD!M Snape, who faithfully follows DD orders all the time, this is a conflicted, pathetic man, but that is how I see it, today anyways. JMO, Alla From leslie41 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 26 16:24:10 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 16:24:10 -0000 Subject: Was Severus in the Slug Club? (Was: Snape liked Hogwarts? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154360 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol adds: > I'd say that his being at the Christmas party is pretty strong > evidence, considering that the only other teacher we see there is > Trelawney, great-great-granddaughter of a famous Seer, and all the > other guests are apparently either current Slug Club members like > Harry, Hermione, and McLaggen and their dates or former Slug Club > members like Eldred Worple and their guests. (Or perhaps Worple is a > current celebrity who was somehow overlooked by Slughorn in his > Hogwarts, but I doubt it.) > > Slughorn tells Trelawney, "We all think our subject is most > important," and it's highly unlikely that he would have overlooked > the shining talents in his own subject of a boy who also happened > to be in his House. Slughorn doesn't care about personality (look > at McLaggen). What he cares about is talent or potential for > advancement, and he would have seen plenty of that in young Severus > Snape. (No doubt he got O's on his long, detailed essays as well as > the potions he produced in class.) Leslie41: You know, I can't agree, because in that case wouldn't Hermione have been asked to join? She wasn't, was she (I don't have the book with me, but that's what I seem to recall)? I know that the whole "house loyalty" thing might have come into play, but I don't think that would have been enough to get Snape into the club. He was very poor, and ugly, and not at all well-liked. Despite his perceived intelligence I can't see Slughorn letting him in. And truthfully, intelligence is not always (or even most often) the best indicator of how important a person will be, or how high they will rise. As for why the adult Snape was invited, well they're colleagues now, and Slughorn has taken over Snape's old position. In addition, Snape has now achieved a position of trust and is head of house. There's no way he couldn't invite him. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Jun 26 16:29:44 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 16:29:44 -0000 Subject: Gone a while - question about Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154361 melhersheybar asked: > Book 4 - Dumbledore tells Harry and others that Snape gave up his DE > days and came back at great personal risk to himself before VD fell. > > Book 6 (I think) - Harry learns that Snape was the one who overheard > the prophesy and passed it on to VD, leading to the death of Harry's > parents. Dumbledore tells Harry that it was Snape's remorse at > causing the deaths of James and Lily that led DD to give Snape a job > at Hogwarts. Yet, Snape also tells Narcissa and Bellatrix that at > the time VD fell, he was already at Hogwarts, acting as a spy, as VD > had ordered him to be. > > So I don't get it. Is it that there was a gap in time between when > Snape overheard the prophesy and when Wormtail turned traitor, and > during that time Snape went and repented to DD? But that still > doesn't work, because DD makes it sound like it was James and Lily's > actual deaths that caused Snape to feel remorse, so there is no way > he could have already been at Hogwarts when VD fell. zgirnius: I believe you are confusing what Dumbledore actually said, and Harry's restatement of it. Dumbledore: ("The Seer Overheard", HBP) "You have no idea of the remorse Professor Snape felt when he realized how Lord Voldemort had interpreted the prophecy." zgirnius: Now, it seems to me that Voldemort would have been in a position to interpret the prophecy within a few months of Harry's birth-once July 31 passed, all he needed to do was figure out which children were born 'as the seventh month died', and further marrow it down to those whose parents had 'thrice defied him'. This would leave about a year between Voldemort's interpretation, and the death of the Potters, during which time Snaep coudl have learned of the interpretation, and decided to approach Dumbledore. Now, Harry's account: ("The Phoenix Lament", HBP) "Snape passed Voldemort the information that made Voldemort hunt down my mum and dad. Then Snape told Dumbledore he hadn't realized what he was doing, he was really sorry he'd done it, sorry that they were dead." zgirnius: That last bit, "sorry he'd done it, sorry that they were dead" makes it sound this apology came after the deaths of the Potters. Dumbledore's own statements are more ambiguous, and certainly admit the possibility Snape came to him long before the Potters were dead. (This would be more consistent with the testimony Dubledore gave in the Pensieve scene of GoF). From fairwynn at hotmail.com Mon Jun 26 16:36:31 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (fair wynn) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 11:36:31 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154362 Ceridwen >Since it is set up this way, I honestly do believe that Harry will >need to break down and depend on someone besides Ron and Hermione >even despite misgivings. > >Not that he got a lot of encouragement in HBP to do this! He was >right about Draco's mission in the RoR. I think it was PAR who >mentioned this, and Magpie who elaborated on the age link between >Harry and Draco. I really wasn't pleased that, when Harry did as he >had been told to do for five books, he was so badly received. But I >think he will have to push forward, keep on trusting the people DD >trusted despite their doubts about him and his mission. And this is >where his 'good arrogance' comes into play. He'll have to trust >someone, just to get information about Horcruxes. When they >prudently advise him against 'fooling around' with that sort of >thing, he'll have to push onward anyway. *They* will have to trust >*him* as much as he will have to trust them. Remember that, until >now, he's come off as an impetuous kid to an adult POV. He will need >to be shown to be a true adult in the next book as well. This is why I don't think of Harry's approach as so much "arrogant" as simply a modis operandi that is a learned behavior -- primarily learned because a great many of his experiences with adults have not lead him to an ability to trust others. Ceriden's example of the reaction he got every time he talked about his suspicions of Draco is excellent. He either had adults who didn't know the situation reassuring him, or one adult -- Dumbledore -- who *did* know what was going on, but wouldn't fill him in with any more information. This is so often Harry's experience that it's little wonder that he'd have difficulty trusting adults. However, he, Ron and Hermione won't have nearly enough information to find, much less destroy the remaining horcruxes. He will *have* to talk to someone else about it. Which is interesting because Dumbledore specifically said not to tell anyone, leaving Harry in a difficult spot. My suspicions are that Harry will be approached in some way by others who, unbeknownst to Harry, already know about the horcruxes. Naturally, my guess would be Snape. :) Anyway, I think that Dumbledore has contributed to Harry's difficulty in going to others for advice by telling him to tell no one about the horcruxes. And Dumbledore has contributed to this weakness of Harry's in other ways as even though Dumbledore is supposed to be one of the most trustworthy adults in Harry's world, Harry knows for a fact that Dumbledore keeps a lot hidden from him. Harry's habit of not going to others for advice, assuming that between he and his friends he has all he needs to figure things out or take on a particular crisis, is learned behavior because that has been what was expected of him too often. I don't *blame* Harry for this, but I do see it as a weakness that he will almost certainly have to grow past in book 7. wynnleaf _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ From mhersheybar at hotmail.com Mon Jun 26 17:09:08 2006 From: mhersheybar at hotmail.com (melhersheybar) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 17:09:08 -0000 Subject: Gone a while - question about Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154363 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zgirnius" wrote: >Mhersheybar wrote: Snip> > > So I don't get it. Is it that there was a gap in time between when > > Snape overheard the prophesy and when Wormtail turned traitor, and > > during that time Snape went and repented to DD? But that still > > doesn't work, because DD makes it sound like it was James and > Lily's > > actual deaths that caused Snape to feel remorse, so there is no way > > he could have already been at Hogwarts when VD fell. > SNIP >> zgirnius: > Now, it seems to me that Voldemort would have been in a position to > interpret the prophecy within a few months of Harry's birth-once July > 31 passed, all he needed to do was figure out which children were > born 'as the seventh month died', and further marrow it down to those > whose parents had 'thrice defied him'. This would leave about a year > between Voldemort's interpretation, and the death of the Potters, > during which time Snaep coudl have learned of the interpretation, and > decided to approach Dumbledore. > Mhershey again: Ah, okay. So at some point after Harry is born, Snape learns that VD is after the Potters because of the info. Snape had given VD(and we know from Canon that the Potters knew they were being targeted), then, Snape goes to DD, says he feels bad about the whole thing, and gets a job at Hogwarts. In my mind, the whole "Snape overhearing/Wormtail revealing/Potters dying" occurred in a span of a few days, I overlooked the fact that Harry was not born at the time the prophecy was made. Thanks for clearing up what has seriously confused me. Mhershey From fairwynn at hotmail.com Mon Jun 26 17:17:34 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (fair wynn) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 12:17:34 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Was Severus in the Slug Club? (Was: Snape liked Hogwarts? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154364 > > Carol adds: > > I'd say that his being at the Christmas party is pretty strong > > evidence, considering that the only other teacher we see there is > > Trelawney, great-great-granddaughter of a famous Seer, and all the > > other guests are apparently either current Slug Club members like > > Harry, Hermione, and McLaggen and their dates or former Slug Club > > members like Eldred Worple and their guests. (Or perhaps Worple is a > > current celebrity who was somehow overlooked by Slughorn in his > > Hogwarts, but I doubt it.) >>Leslie41: > >You know, I can't agree, because in that case wouldn't Hermione have >been asked to join? She wasn't, was she (I don't have the book with >me, but that's what I seem to recall)? I know that the whole "house >loyalty" thing might have come into play, but I don't think that >would have been enough to get Snape into the club. He was very poor, >and ugly, and not at all well-liked. Despite his perceived >intelligence I can't see Slughorn letting him in. And truthfully, >intelligence is not always (or even most often) the best indicator of >how important a person will be, or how high they will rise. > >As for why the adult Snape was invited, well they're colleagues now, >and Slughorn has taken over Snape's old position. In addition, Snape >has now achieved a position of trust and is head of house. There's >no way he couldn't invite him. > wynnleaf I don't have my book here, but I'm fairly certain that Slughorn *did* try to get Hermione to join. Wasn't that part of Ron's jealousy? That both Harry and Hermione were considered of interest to Slughorn, but not him? Hermione's primary attribute (in Slughorn's estimation) would probably be her intelligence and possibly her link to Harry. She's not wealthy, well-connected, beautiful, or popular. I agree that Slughorn's inviting Snape to the Christmas party is strong evidence that he was in the Club. No other faculty member was there other than Trelawney (and she did have "connections" from her ancestry). If it was simply professional curtesy that Snape was invited, then all other faculty would have been invited as well. If that was the case, wouldn't professional curtesy have brought at least a few other faculty members to accept their invitations and attend the party? It's hard to believe that Snape's professional curtesy (if that's the only reason he was invited) was so much better than all the other faculty who chose not to accept invitations. Therefore, since other faculty members didn't come, I'd assume the entire faculty were not invited. We really don't have much evidence to go on. There is *no* evidence that Snape was not in the Slug Club. There is some evidence that he would have been (Christmas party, his own aptitude with potions, being in Slytherin). Therefore, the weight of evidence rests in him being in the Slug Club. wynnleaf _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jun 26 17:18:35 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 17:18:35 -0000 Subject: Harry's arrogance /Evil Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154365 > Alla: > > YES, he did, but he did something very similar with Tom Riddle as he > did with Snape, no? > > He did not SHARE his suspicions with anybody, he supposedly kpet an > eye on Tom himself, but obviously did not act on his suspicions, no? > > Isn't that a very similar mistake? If one believes that DD made a > mistake of course. > Pippin: Um, no. Dumbledore had no evidence other than hearsay that Tom was guilty of anything besides petty pilfering. That is hardly a matter for the wizengamot. But Crouch's tribunal cleared Snape. Presumably the ministry could have overruled Dumbledore and sent Snape to Azkaban if they weren't satisfied. It also apparently gave Snape the right to keep his past a secret. If so, I see no justice in Dumbledore overturning it to pacify Harry's doubts about Dumbledore's wisdom. If personal interests are allowed to outweight the decisions of the courts, we might as well not have them. It isn't even as if Harry is consumed with a desire to learn what happened to Lily and James -- at least not until he found out that Snape was involved. I'm afraid Harry is more concerned with feeding his vicious anger against Snape than with learning about his parents. > Alla: > > Um, why does he become deluded if he trusts the wrong person? Pippin: What makes him deluded is not being wrong, but being wrong in the face of Harry's insistence. If he gets fooled by someone both he and Harry trusted, that's a lot different than having poorer judgement than a sixteen year old boy with a history of jumping to conclusions about people. Also, if Snape has to die to prove that he's really redeemed, then the whole second chance thing is delusional, because it sure would look like the only good DE is a dead DE. Pippin From caiomhino at gmail.com Mon Jun 26 02:18:17 2006 From: caiomhino at gmail.com (Kevin Furey) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 19:18:17 -0700 Subject: Peverell family crest In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <570ecd1c0606251918v26cf6a58uc13246e5a7fb25eb@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154366 Tonks wrote: > > Here is a link to the coat of arms. > http://www.houseofnames.com/coatofarms_details.asp?sId=&s=Peverell > > Does anyone know what the symbols on the coat of arms are called. I > see there is a place that explains the meaning if you only knew what > the symbol is called to start with. Three white sheafs of wheat on a blue field. In Blazon, the language of heraldry, Azure, three sheafs of wheat argent. - Kevin, who spent many years as a herald in the SCA. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 26 17:24:50 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 17:24:50 -0000 Subject: In essence divided? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154367 Geoff: > Might I yet again drag up a thread from the archives.... > > Way back in the halcyon pre-HBP days, before Horcruxes, (sigh), I started > a thread called "The Smoke Serpent". > > This was message 79231 and some of the replies along the thread > might be relevant to or of interest to the current line of thinking. > Carol responds: Thanks for dredging up that thread, Geoff. I still think that the smoke serpent represents Nagini, who is "in essence divided" between herself and Voldemort while he's possessing her (though she seems to tolerate possession better than other animals, much less human hosts like Harry and Quirrell, which may indicate that she's a Horcrux). I'm indebted to one of the posters in the thread you cited, Corinth, for pointing out that the division of the smoke serpents shows that Voldemort and Nagini are separate entities--he's not a snake Animagus or performing human Transfiguration on himself--so Voldemort can possess animals (and presumably people) even when he has a body of his own, a point clarified by Snape in the Occlumency lessons (Harry could see from the snake's POV because LV was possessing the snake). This ability becomes important later when LV tries to possess Harry at the MoM. Since Harry acquired some of Voldemort's powers at Godric's Hollow, perhaps he acquired the power of possession as well and that's the secret to his defeat of Voldemort? (Of course, Voldemort seems to possess Harry bodily, by which I mean that his entire self enters Harry in some monstrous serpentine form, which perhaps is also what he did to Nagini, who would find it considerably less intolerable for various reasons. If Harry can possess Voldemort, would he need to do so bodily, or could he leave his body behind to reenter when Voldemort was defeated by Love? Which takes us back to the Veil scenario, where I can't go right now, or heaven forfend, Harry crying out "Kill us!" to Snape. . . .) Didn't mean to go here. The process of association, you know. What I meant to say is, it seems clear (to me) that "in essence divided" refers to Nagini and Voldemort, whether or not she's a Horcrux (and I think she is). But what I want to know is what Dumbledore was looking for in the first place when he consulted that silver instrument. When the smoke serpent came out, he said, "Naturally, naturally." "But in essence divided?" was a question, answered by the instrument when the smoke serpent divided into two. But what does "Naturally, naturally" mean? One last point, tangentially related: If Nagini is a Horcrux, she's one that Harry is uniquely fitted to destroy given his knowledge of Parseltongue and his previous use of the Sword of Gryffindor, which I hope will come to his aid again. No need for knowledge of curse-breaking in this instance. Harry can do it without help from Snape or Bill Weasley or any other adult wizard (or witch). So that leaves only three (the locket, the cup and the tiara or wand or whatever the Ravenclaw Horcrux is) that require outside help (Bill's for the locket and Snape's for the other two? Or Bill's for both locket and tiara, nicely disposed of after his wedding so that Harry can get on with his Snape hunting, and Snape for the cup Horcrux? Once Snape has destroyed the fifth Horcrux, he could advise Harry on how to destroy Nagini and Voldemort. Assuming, of course, that he knows about the Horcruxes, as I think he must.) Carol, hoping that Harry will destroy Voldemort through possession and that he can do so without dying himself From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Jun 26 17:55:58 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 17:55:58 -0000 Subject: Of essence divided? In-Reply-To: <1789c2360606252148q2dd6442fgd46ca973b875f730@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154368 Peggy: > I don't think his "have you forgotten our orders" > can be taken one way or the other, as far as his > being a loyal DE or DDM!Snape... we know only that > they have been given that order. houyhnhnm: We only know that Snape *says* they have been given that order. There is no corroborating evidence. I see what you are saying. That Snape could only have dared to make such a claim if they *had* been given such orders and Snape knew about it and the DEs knew he knew. But see what follows from that assumption. For it to be true, Snape would have to have been in on the plans to bring Death Eaters into Hogwarts. Draco says he wasn't. Of course Draco may have been left partially out of the loop himself. He certainly was not informed of the fact that Fenrir Greyback was coming along for the ride. But if Snape had a higher security clearance, so to speak, than Draco, isn't it logical that he would have been told of what Draco was trying to accomplish in the RoR. But then, if Snape was in on the plan to invade Hogwarts, and he is DDM, Dumbledore would have to known also, and Dumbledore claims not to have known. On the other hand, we know from Karkaroff (and from everything we've seen of Voldemort) that Voldemort keeps his minions in the dark. Like all tyrants, he maintains contol by keeping his followers suspicious and jealous of each other, pretending to have favorites but trusting no one. This creates a fertile atmosphere for a spinner to work in and Snape is a master spinner. The crew of DEs at Hogwarts that night were a pretty dim-witted lot. It is hard to imagine that Amycus and Alecto, for example, have ever even been in a position to *imagine* that they were the Dark Lord's favorites. Here is Big Bad Snape, who *has* done a pretty good job (as we see at Spinner's End) of convincing the other DE's that he is Voldemort's right hand man, telling them to "remember our orders". Even if they never heard any such thing, the DEs are not going to question him. They aren't going to want to admit that they were left out of the loop. "Oh, yeah, *those* orders." I think there is a very good possibility that Snape was bluffing. At any rate there can be no certainty that Voldemort did really give such an order; therefore, I don't think it is wise to use that *fact* as a premise on which to build other arguments. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Jun 26 18:20:37 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 18:20:37 -0000 Subject: Gone a while - question about Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154369 > Mhershey again: > Ah, okay. So at some point after Harry is born, Snape learns that > VD is after the Potters because of the info. Snape had given VD(and > we know from Canon that the Potters knew they were being targeted), > then, Snape goes to DD, says he feels bad about the whole thing, and > gets a job at Hogwarts. In my mind, the whole "Snape > overhearing/Wormtail revealing/Potters dying" occurred in a span of > a few days, I overlooked the fact that Harry was not born at the > time the prophecy was made. Thanks for clearing up what has > seriously confused me. Potioncat: That's one possible timeline. Sometime after hearing the Prophecy, Snape came back to "our side" and began spying at great personal risk. We really don't know when that happened. A few people, (myself included) think he may have "come back" before he even took the Prophecy to LV. My calculations (maths!!) has the Trelawney-DD interview around September of 79. DD's wording to Harry, although not conclusive, hints that he knew Snape was a DE at the time. So either he knew Snape would take the information to LV, but didn't stop him; or he discussed the delivery with a reformed Snape. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 26 18:24:52 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 18:24:52 -0000 Subject: Harry's "arrogance" (Was: Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154370 Renee wrote: > Believe it or not, I don't mind Harry being wrong. I never liked his > judgmentalism, and untarnished heroes aren't particularly interesting. His main flaw just doesn't fit my definition of arrogance. Carol responds: What about "self-certainty" rather than "arrogance"? It seems to me that Harry and Hermione (and Snape) share a reluctance to believe that they might be wrong despite having been proven wrong on several occasions. In Harry's case, the certainty that he's right is most evident with regard to Snape but is not confineed to him. Rather than listening to others and conceding that he might be wrong, Harry tends to argue for his own position or silently continue to hold it. (Do I need to cite examples here? Just as Hermione relies on books and logic, Harry relies on his senses and his gut reactions. Both are capable of error, but both retain a conviction of their own rightness and moral rectitude.) I understand perfectly well why Harry (and Hermione) would do so; it's a common flaw in teenagers (I was "right" and anyone who disagreed with me was "wrong" until I was at least twenty). And Harry (IMO) has a psychological need to solve problems through action rather than through logic that compels him to insist on rescuing Sirius Black (and everyone else's hostages in the Second Task). These explanations (along with an upbringing that drove him to rely on himself rather than others to solve whatever probelems he was facing) may partially justify Harry's tendency to believe that he's right and everyone else is wrong, but they don't negate the existence of that tendency. It's very hard to argue with Harry when he thinks he's right, as the tears in Hermione's eyes on several occasions testify. I agree that untarnished heroes aren't interesting. If Harry doesn't have flaws, he can't change and develop over time. In short, he can't grow up. The same is true for Hermione, who, I hope, will find that Luna (whose opinions she despises) is right about something and she, Hermione, is wrong. Carol, noting that pointing out flaws in the hero of the novel does not mean that we don't love him, any more than a father who reprimands his son for lying or smoking or swearing doesn't love him (contrast Dumbledore and Vernon Dursley as father figures) From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Jun 26 18:39:54 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 18:39:54 -0000 Subject: Harry's "arrogance" (Was: Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154371 > Carol, >noting that pointing out flaws in the hero of the novel does > not mean that we don't love him, any more than a father who reprimands > his son for lying or smoking or swearing doesn't love him (contrast > Dumbledore and Vernon Dursley as father figures) Potioncat: Well, what they both have in common is a reluctance to impose discipline when someone is out of bounds. But of course, DD is equally reluctant with everyone, while Vernon only witholds discipline from Dudders. From annemehr at yahoo.com Mon Jun 26 19:03:23 2006 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 19:03:23 -0000 Subject: Of essence divided? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154372 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > > Peggy: > > > I don't think his "have you forgotten our orders" > > can be taken one way or the other, as far as his > > being a loyal DE or DDM!Snape... we know only that > > they have been given that order. > > houyhnhnm: > > We only know that Snape *says* they have been given > that order. There is no corroborating evidence. > > I see what you are saying. That Snape could only have > dared to make such a claim if they *had* been given > such orders and Snape knew about it and the DEs knew he knew. > > But see what follows from that assumption. For it > to be true, Snape would have to have been in on the > plans to bring Death Eaters into Hogwarts. Draco > says he wasn't. Annemehr: I don't believe that what you are saying actually does follow from Peggy's assumption. The orders, if they were actually given, need not apply to this particular mission alone, but can be something very general that LV told all his DEs at some earlier time: "Whatever happens, no one is to harm Potter; he's mine." In fact, there is actually some corroborating evidence, in GoF, at the end of ch. 34: "Stand aside! I will kill him! He is mine!" shrieked Voldemort, as Harry ran for the Portkey. Annemehr Of course Draco may have been left > partially out of the loop himself. He certainly was > not informed of the fact that Fenrir Greyback was > coming along for the ride. But if Snape had a higher > security clearance, so to speak, than Draco, isn't it > logical that he would have been told of what Draco was > trying to accomplish in the RoR. > > But then, if Snape was in on the plan to invade Hogwarts, > and he is DDM, Dumbledore would have to known also, and > Dumbledore claims not to have known. > > On the other hand, we know from Karkaroff (and from > everything we've seen of Voldemort) that Voldemort > keeps his minions in the dark. Like all tyrants, > he maintains contol by keeping his followers suspicious > and jealous of each other, pretending to have favorites > but trusting no one. This creates a fertile atmosphere > for a spinner to work in and Snape is a master spinner. > > The crew of DEs at Hogwarts that night were a pretty > dim-witted lot. It is hard to imagine that Amycus and > Alecto, for example, have ever even been in a position > to *imagine* that they were the Dark Lord's favorites. > Here is Big Bad Snape, who *has* done a pretty good job > (as we see at Spinner's End) of convincing the other DE's > that he is Voldemort's right hand man, telling them to > "remember our orders". Even if they never heard any such > thing, the DEs are not going to question him. They aren't > going to want to admit that they were left out of the loop. > "Oh, yeah, *those* orders." > > I think there is a very good possibility that Snape was > bluffing. At any rate there can be no certainty that > Voldemort did really give such an order; therefore, I > don't think it is wise to use that *fact* as a premise > on which to build other arguments. > From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 26 19:27:46 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 19:27:46 -0000 Subject: Who dies? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154373 Um, I just saw the quote from JKR's today interview. It could be a paraphrase, so please don't beat me up. But I think the gist is right. She says that in book 7 one character gets a reprieve, but two that she did nto intend to kill off ? die. Personally I doubt that it is Harry ( of course I also don't want it to be Harry), but I think that he would be the one that she intended to kill off , IF she did. Although she also says that she understands the author mentality to kill off main character , because it will not be possible to bring this character back or something. So, any guesses? Who dies? My bet ( since she says she did not intend to) is on Ron and Hermione. Although I sure hope it is not so. Or Harry and Ginny ( even more hope it is not so) I cannot really look up the dictionary now, so before I ask who gets a "reprieve", what does it mean ( the word "reprieve"? Thanks, guys. Have fun. Alla From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Jun 26 19:01:58 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 19:01:58 -0000 Subject: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: <000b01c69902$6ec311e0$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154374 Marion: > No, I'm not saying that Draco is Good and Harry is Evil. > I'm just showing how scary Harry's selfreferencing way of > thinking is. "I'm Good, so what I do is justified. They > are Bad, so what they do is Bad. When I do the same things > They do, it's For The Good. If They do the same things I do, > it's Evil". houyhnhnm: This makes me think of Martin Buber's second stage of evil. (In "Images of Good and Evil" which I reread in November, 2004) "The wicked spirit--in whom, therefore, evil is already present, even if only /in statu nascendi/--has to choose between the two affirmations: affirmation of himself and affirmation of the order, which has established and eternally establishes good and evil, the first as the affirmed and the second as the denied. If he affirms the order he must become 'good' and that means he must deny and overcome his present state of being. If he affirms himself he must deny and reverse the order .... "By glorifying and blessing himself as his own creator, he commits the lie against being, for truth shall no longer be what he experiences as such, but what he ordains as such." The self-referencing way of moral reasoning is, I think, key to understanding what Rowling is trying to say about the nature of evil. This is Voldemort, fully realized in the second stage of evil, as his own creator. But this is also the path many of the other characters, including Harry, are heading down when they choose to act based on the reasoning that "I'm Good, so what I do is justified". Hermione's decision to use enchanted coins based on the Dark Marks of the Death Eaters is picked up by Draco, so that whether "justified" or not, her action has an evil consequence. Likewise Fred and George's decision to put Montague in the vanishing cabinet leads directly to the attack on Hogwarts, regardless of whether or not they were "justified" in getting back at Montague for his abuse of power. Their decision to collude in the importation of contraband into Hogwarts leads indirectly to the near death of their brother, however "justified" they were in making a profit and however innocent of any desire to do harm. Because, after all, they are "good". But their actions lead to evil all the same. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 26 19:20:23 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 19:20:23 -0000 Subject: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154375 Ceridwen wrote: > Sitting down and thinking about things is something that Harry doesn't normally do. And I think he'll have to do this in book 7 because it's part of growing up, of actually becoming an adult as opposed to becoming one by arbitrary age only. Carol responds: Exactly. Having a seventeenth (or eighteenth or twenty-first) birthday doesn't make a boy a man (or a girl a woman). Harry has learned some valuable lessons in the previous books, but he still has more to learn--and thinking before he acts is just one of those lessons. another is actually listening to others and considering the possibility that they might be right. (Being right about Draco doesn't make him right on all counts.) Ceridwen wrote: > And that's another thing that makes me wonder if Harry's story isn't partially about relying on others. Tom Riddle didn't and doesn't. He uses people, but that isn't the same. He doesn't trust his people, he keeps them guessing and at each other's throats about it. Since it is set up this way, I honestly do believe that Harry will need to break down and depend on someone besides Ron and Hermione even despite misgivings. Carol responds: Excellent point. In any case, I don't see how he can avoid working with others, including adult Order members and/or Snape, in dealing with the Horcruxes. I'm sure that his self-sufficiency (as opposed to self-certainty or "arrogance") will come into play at the end of the book in dealing with Nagini and Voldemort, but Harry has as much experience in curse-breaking as I do. Ceridwen wrote: I really wasn't pleased that, when Harry did as he had been told to do for five books, he was so badly received. But I think he will have to push forward, keep on trusting the people DD trusted despite their doubts about him and his mission. Carol responds: Or rather, *learn* to trust them, especially Snape if he's DDM. Harry doesn't really trust anybody now other than Ron and Hermione (and Hagrid, within reason). Are you referring to Harry being told to confide in adults or in Dumbledore? I don't remember that happening, other than DD's "Is there anything you want to tell me, Harry?" in CoS, to which Harry, like Tom Riddle before him, says "No." (Harry sees that parallel himself but then seems to forget about it. Admittedly in OoP, he can't confide in Dumbledore because Dumbledore is avoiding him.) However, if you mean that Dumbledore rebuffed Harry for confiding in him about Draco and Snape, I also found Dumbledore's response disconcerting. And yet, if Snape had already reported the entire interview to him, if indeed Dumbledore did already know and understand more about that interview than Harry did, including Draco's assignment to kill him and the three provisions of Snape's Unbreakable Vow, what else was Dumbledore to say? He couldn't very well confide either of those things to Harry. And if he planned for Snape to (seemingly) rejoin the Death Eaters at the end of the year (as he must have known would happen as the result of the DADA curse), he couldn't tell Harry that, either. What else could he do? What else can any adult do when a teenager persists in asking for information that it's not in his best interests to have? Dumbledore is uncharacteristically brusque in many scenes in HBP (and more than a little immodest about his own abilities, which annoys me more). He's also annoyingly close-mouthed about Snape's role in saving him from the ring Horcrux and why he trusts Snape and all the rest. It seems to me that Dumbledore's brusqueness can be justified (or at least explained) by the knowledge that he's running out of time, and his reticence can be justified if (and only if) he's right about Snape. And since I very much doubt that Rowling sees Dumbledore as "a foolish old man," I think we'll learn that DD had his reasons for receiving Harry's confidences so "badly," and Harry will learn that he can indeed trust the people Dumbledore trusted, including Snape. Carol, wondering how we'll find out what Dumbledore knew From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jun 26 19:24:13 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 19:24:13 -0000 Subject: Harry's arrogance /Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154376 > Alla: > > Yes, Pippin that is exactly what I am saying. Under circumstances > described I think that this is very far fetched to expect fake death > on the Tower. I consider it especially far fetched since JKR was IMo > rather clear in the interviews about Dumbledore's death. > > It is your right of course to disbelieve her interviews, I do believe > them. Pippin: I believe in the interviews, but there is nothing in them to say that Snape was the killer. JKR is an admirer of Agatha Christie, and it would be very Christie to have a fake AK followed by a real death caused by other means, especially since we know that Dumbledore was deathly ill. It's hardly more far-fetched than a character who has been a rat for two books turning out to be a human. Pippin:> > > > Or are you saying that it would be wrong? If so, was it wrong > for Lily to leave James to his fate and try to flee with Harry? I > don't think JKR is going there. > > Alla: > > Wrong to try and save Dumbledore? Of course not - the Snape who would > do that is a noble hero, it is just I am not buying that this is what > happened. Sorry! > > But hey, if this is what happened, you will tell me "told you so" > after book 7 :) > > I am curious though where you found analogy with Lily and James on > the Tower. Pippin: Wrong to try and save Harry, at the cost of leaving Dumbledore in peril. Lily, at James's order, left him to face Voldemort alone. She could have stayed at James's side and fought with him, but instead she ran to save Harry. If Snape, at Dumbledore's request, pretended to kill him and fled in order to save Harry and Draco, is that not similar to what Lily did? > > > > Carol notes: > > > > To repeat, *if* Snape's choice was between killing Dumbledore and > > Harry's almost certain death fighting four DEs (and Draco, if he > > joined in), surely the correct choice was to save Harry? > > > Alla: > > The problem with this question as I see it is that this choice would > NEVER occur exactly as you describe IMO. > > Even if Snape keeps telling himself ( and I am describing Snape which > I am not buying, just for the sake of the argument) that he is > killing DD for the sake of saving Harry only, we KNOW that it is not > true, unless Snape is Saint. IMO of course. > > Snape's life is ALWAYS in the equasion, because if he does not kill > DD, he is well... dead, no? Pippin: Narcissa neglected to put any kind of time constraint on the vow. It does not say *when* Snape has to carry out the task, does it? I don't see that he would have necessarily dropped dead at once if he didn't kill Dumbledore immediately upon Draco's failure, or if Dumbledore died through misadventure or from old age, though it probably wouldn't have been healthy for Snape to refuse the task outright. Pippin From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Jun 26 19:28:14 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 19:28:14 -0000 Subject: Was Severus in the Slug Club? (Was: Snape liked Hogwarts? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154377 fair wynn: > I don't have my book here, but I'm fairly certain that Slughorn *did* try to > get Hermione to join. zgirnius: That is right. She even attended those meetings Harry foudn ways out of (like detention, or Quidditch practice). fair wynn: > Hermione's primary attribute (in Slughorn's estimation) would probably be > her intelligence and possibly her link to Harry. She's not wealthy, > well-connected, beautiful, or popular. zgirnius: That it was her intelligence that interested him is less clear. In his first meeting with Harry, the blood question came up. Harry told Slughorn that one of his best friends was a Muggleborn, and she was also the best student in his year. Slughorn knew this was Hermione during the first class-he made this clear be referring to Harry's comment. So it could be either or a combination of both, that made her worthy of inclusion in his eyes. fair wynn: > I agree that Slughorn's inviting Snape to the Christmas party is strong > evidence that he was in the Club. No other faculty member was there other > than Trelawney (and she did have "connections" from her ancestry). If it > was simply professional curtesy that Snape was invited, then all other > faculty would have been invited as well. > If that was the case, wouldn't > professional curtesy have brought at least a few other faculty members to > accept their invitations and attend the party? zgirnius: I had assumed the faculty were invited, and courtesouly declined, except Sybill, who could not missd the opportunity for a greater quality of booze, and Snape, who wanted to keep an eye on any suspicious outsiders Sluggie may have invited. (Hence, the skulking in the corners). Also, Snape has a different relationship to Slughorn compared to the other faculty. He was his student, in his house, and took over his teaching position. To my mind, this could be another reason to accept the invitation. fair wynn: > There is some evidence that he would have > been (Christmas party, his own aptitude with potions, being in Slytherin). > Therefore, the weight of evidence rests in him being in the Slug Club. zgirnius: I don't think he was. Not being recognized for his achievements and abilities just seems to be what happens to him. I have trouble imagining it was different at school. Of the evidence for you list, I do not think being in SLytherin belongs. We have no indication it makes one more likely to get in. In HBP, we see the SLytherin Blaise Zabini in the club. That's it. Among Gryffindors, Harry, Hermione, Ginny, and COrmac make it in (and Neville is considered). It appears that Sluggie does not favor his House in this (or anything else, for that matter). From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jun 26 19:59:30 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 19:59:30 -0000 Subject: Who dies? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154379 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: Alla: > Um, I just saw the quote from JKR's today interview. It could be a > paraphrase, so please don't beat me up. > > But I think the gist is right. She says that in book 7 one character > gets a reprieve, but two that she did nto intend to kill off ? die. > I cannot really look up the dictionary now, so before I ask who gets > a "reprieve", what does it mean ( the word "reprieve"? > > Thanks, guys. Geoff: As a noun, reprieve is defined as: (1) The cancellation of a punishment (2) A respite from difficulty or danger A very common UK usage was the rescinding of a death sentence - when we still had capital punishment. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 26 20:04:40 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 20:04:40 -0000 Subject: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: <000b01c69902$6ec311e0$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154380 Marion wrote: > My point exactly! > I just read a mail from somebody, claiming that in book 6 "Harry was wiser than anybody, including Dumbledore". Harry is not wise. Harry is not even intelligent, or clever. He's frighteningly slow in the uptake. And he is tenacious to the extreme in his prejudices against people. He takes people he doesn't like (Snape and Draco) and projects unto them his own fears. Carol responds: I agree that Harry isn't wise (he's still a hero in training, so to speak and has a lot of lessons to learn) and that he's tenacious in his prejudices against Draco and Snape, but to be fair, they do nothing to make him feel more friendly toward them. (Harry is blinded to Snape's persistent efforts to help him by Snape's attitude. He sees the style rather than the substance; the sneers rather than the advice and protection. I'm a DDM!Snaper and I think that Snape has his reasons for maintaining this attitude, but I don't think we can fairly expect Harry to see them.) And, yes, as I posted elsewhere in this thread, he obstinately clings to his own opinions and either angrily or silently rejects views that differ from his own, but that doesn't make him unintelligent--only young. Hermione, who can't be called unintelligent, is equally certain that she's right on a number of issues, most notably house-elf liberation. (Good thing she's not advocating equal rights for giants!) We see that Harry *is* intelligent (or Slythernishly clever and devious) when he figures out how to get the memory from Slughorn (I doubt that Felix Felicis would have enabled him to do that if he didn't have the potential to do so on his own). He arrives at at least some of the right conclusions after the excursions into the Pensieve in HBP. And he's a lot quicker in remembering bezoars (thank goodness for Snape!) than Slughorn is when Ron is dying from the poisoned mead. (I'm sure that others can come up with additional examples of Harry's intelligence or resourcefulness. He does have an extraordinary amount of luck and at least one clever friend, not to mention being powerfully magical when it comes to Patronuses and other DADA spells, but IMO he wouldn't have survived this long if he didn't also have above-average intelligence. (I'm not claiming that he's a genius like the teenage Severus, by any means, but I certainly wouldn't call him unintelligent.) > >Marion: > I've heard fans call Draco a 'bully' (because he walks around with two thugs: that's classic bully alright), but we've never heard of Crabbe or Goyle really beating up people. Carol responds: As I recall, Neville fights with Crabbe and Goyle twice, once in SS/PS during a Quidditch match (I can't remember who attacked whom) and once when Neville attacks Draco for his snide remarks about people being confined to St. Mungo's for permanent mental injuries. Their purpose seems to be to protect Draco. Apparently they don't act on their own. (It's interesting that Crabbe briefly stands up to Draco in HBP. Is he less stupid than we think?) Marion wrote: > I don't like Harry *or* Draco. But of the two, I find Harry the most dangerous. Not because of what he does but the way he *thinks*. > He is the Chosen One, the Boy Who Lived and the Boy Who Is Destined To Kill Voldemort. > People who refer to themselves in Capitals are bloody dangerous... Carol responds: When does Harry refer to himself in capital letters? It's the Daily Prophet that calls him the Boy Who Lived and the Chosen One and whatever else. (I have yet to hear anyone call him the Boy Who Is Destined To Kill Voldemort--though Dumbledore has convinced Harry that doing so is his destiny. And there's the wording of the Prophecy, "the one with the power to defeat the Dark Lord approaches," but Harry doesn't use that phrase, nor is it capitalized.) As for "people who refer to themselves in Capitals" being "bloody dangerous," does that include the Half-Blood Prince? I thought you were a Snape fan. Liking or disliking a character is, of course, a matter of personal preference, but let's be fair and accurate in our assessments to the extent that canon allows. Carol, who does not think that being a DDM!Snaper necessitates underestimating Harry From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Jun 26 20:17:31 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 20:17:31 -0000 Subject: Harry's arrogance /Evil Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154381 "M.Clifford" wrote: > at face value, far from hopeless for > Harry and Dumbledore. Of course deadly > for Snape, due to the whole unbreakable > vow thing. Then Snape should have died rather than betray his friends, especially since it was his idea to make that fantastically idiotic and evil vow, idiotic if Snape was really a good guy that is. > and Draco, of course would have stood > by in stunned silence, his wand by his > side, watching Harry Potter stupefy his team. Actually after seeing Draco's performance in the tower with Dumbledore I think that's exactly what he'd do, he'd freeze up. Draco talks tough but unlike Harry he doesn't have what it takes to be a warrior. Harry on the other hand is at his best in a crises and instinctively knows what to do. Harry may agonize over his actions after the danger has passed but not at the time, he will do what needs to be done. If instead of Draco holding his wand on a ill Dumbledore Harry had held his wand on a ill Voldemort I think Voldemort would be toast. Harry's nerve failed him only once, when he stopped Sirius and Lupin from dealing with Peter Pettigrew. Harry learns from his mistakes. > there is almost no way Voldemort could > *see* anything but Dumbledore *losing* I agree, but it's not just Voldemort, I can't see anyway the events of that terrible night were a victory for the good guys either; and if anybody in this group can see how it was they're keeping it to themselves. > but that's how you *win* a game of chess Yea, and General George Armstrong Custer really won over the Indians. Eggplant From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 26 19:18:18 2006 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 19:18:18 -0000 Subject: Hermione Leaving School/Fate of the Weasleys Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154382 Hi all! We've been really focused on Dumbledore and Snape lately, with good reason, but there are a few other tidbits at the end of HBP that I wanted to bring up... 1 - Ron and Hermione pledge their allegiance to Harry after DD's funeral, basically saying (you'll forgive me, I am at work and do not have the book with me. Bad Katie, Bad Katie!) "We'll follow you wherever you go, whatever you do." While I would expect nothing else, I also am somewhat suprised...Let's assume Hogwarts WILL be open. Hermione leaving school in her seventh year? That seems slightly out of character to me. Wouldn't Hermione feel like she could help Harry AND finish school? Or am I forgetting how much she has changed over the last few years? What do you all think? 2 - What about the Weasley clan? I know someone else brought up Percy recently, and his chance (or not) at redemption and reconciliation...but what about the rest of them? We know Ron will be with Harry. Will Bill want to fight and get retribution for what Greyback did to him? Where's Charlie? Will he be more involved? I know Ginny will probably fight, whether Harry wants her to or not - she's not one to take orders from anyone. And what of Molly? Will she want to protect her chickens, or will she be off fighting? And WHO will be head of the OotP, assuming DD is in fact dead? Arthur? Any speculations on the fate of the Weasleys? Katie From jsummerill at summerillj.freeserve.co.uk Mon Jun 26 20:26:39 2006 From: jsummerill at summerillj.freeserve.co.uk (jotwo2003) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 20:26:39 -0000 Subject: SPOILERS My Humble Opinion on JKR's Richard & Judy interview Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154383 S P O I L E R S P A C E M O R E S P O I L E R S P A C E I've only just seen it. Long-suffering Dad was under orders to video it for me (I'm all of 37) because I was at work. I even rang him to ask him to do it. No, I'm not obsessed. When Jo said that a character had got a reprieve I went, 'Yes, Snape, please let it be Snape'. Then she said that other characters were being bumped off. I hoped she hadn't been fooling us into thinking Snape had no future only then to kill him off. Although, now I've put that feeling into words the second interpretation doesn't make much sense as it would be expected, not unexpected. Judy is clearly a Harry/Ginny shipper, which I'm sure some fans will be really squeeing about. But I noticed she mixed up the portraits of headmasters with Lockhart's portrait with his hair in curlers. (Or I could be cynical and suggest she'd been given research for the interview.) I was pleased to hear we're getting a lot of back story. There wasn't much new in the interview for afficianados. The kids' questions were predictable, but I expected that. I'm glad JKR's written quite a lot of book 7. I bet the biggest speculation after this interview will be the identities of the unexpected victim and survivor. Just my two Knuts worth. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Jun 26 20:14:52 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 20:14:52 -0000 Subject: DE Loyality Vow Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154384 I was listening to a news report about RL terrorist and how they take a vow to their leader. Being obsessed with HP, I, of course, thought about the DE and LV. Why have we not head of a DE vow? We now know about the unbreakable vow. It would certainly make sense that LV would have his DE take a vow of some sort. I think that JKR like to be inventive so she would not use the same type of vow twice. I also wondered about Draco. It certainly seems that he has a dark mark on his arm and he is underage. I wonder if there is a vow that DE's take to the Dark Lord and it involves a provision that if you betray the Dark Lord your first born will die. If I were a Dark Lord that is what I would do to make sure that my followers are loyal! And if there were such a provision there might be a fine print clause that says "in the event your actions cause your arrest" your first born will take your place in the Dark Lord's service. Maybe that is why Draco must take his father's place. What do people think?? Tonks_op From maria8162001 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 26 20:04:37 2006 From: maria8162001 at yahoo.com (Maria Vaerewyck) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 20:04:37 -0000 Subject: Who dies? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154385 wrote: > But I think the gist is right. She says that in book 7 one > character gets a reprieve, but two that she did not intend > to kill off ??? die. > > Who dies? My bet (since she says she did not intend to) > is on Ron and Hermione. Although I sure hope it is not so. > > Or Harry and Ginny (even more hope it is not so). > > I cannot really look up the dictionary now, so before I ask > who gets a "reprieve", what does it mean, the word "reprieve"? maria8162001 here, I'm going to guess about the 2 characters she didn't intend to kill off but died. My guesses are Luna and Ginny or Narcissa and Hagrid. The character who gets a reprieve is I guess, Snape. Reprieve means: spare for a time, suspend or delay the execution, a respite. So, I think yeah it's Snape who gets reprieve. From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Mon Jun 26 20:46:20 2006 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Luckdragon) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 20:46:20 -0000 Subject: Who dies? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154386 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Um, I just saw the quote from JKR's today interview. It could be a > paraphrase, so please don't beat me up. > > But I think the gist is right. She says that in book 7 one character > gets a reprieve, but two that she did nto intend to kill off ? die. > > Personally I doubt that it is Harry ( of course I also don't want it > to be Harry), but I think that he would be the one that she intended > to kill off , IF she did. > > Although she also says that she understands the author mentality to > kill off main character , because it will not be possible to bring > this character back or something. > > So, any guesses? > > Who dies? My bet ( since she says she did not intend to) is on Ron > and Hermione. Although I sure hope it is not so. > > Or Harry and Ginny ( even more hope it is not so) > >snip< Luckdragon: I read that she said " At least two characters will die". My picks are: 1) Bellatrix 2) MacNair 3) Grawp 4) Snape 5) Kreacher From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Jun 26 20:48:22 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 20:48:22 -0000 Subject: Who dies? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154387 > Alla: > > Um, I just saw the quote from JKR's today interview. It could be a > > paraphrase, so please don't beat me up. > > > > But I think the gist is right. She says that in book 7 one character > > gets a reprieve, but two that she did nto intend to kill off ? die. > > Geoff: > A very common UK usage was the rescinding of a death sentence - > when we still had capital punishment. Potioncat: What I took her statement to mean, is that she had intended to kill off one character, but has changed her mind. (a reprieve) However, two characters who were not scheduled to die before, have been killed off. I also think she is doing this because of the flow of the writing, not because of anything the fans have said, yelled, shouted or threatened. She is reported to have said, that something(s) she wrote in earlier books have boxed her in. The very fact that some characters' fates have changed, probably means (more now than ever) that we can't use any of the birthday wishes as proof that someone is or isn't alive now. (or by end of book 7) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 26 20:41:32 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 20:41:32 -0000 Subject: Harry's arrogance /Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154388 Carol earlier : > > Or, assuming that DD really is dead, was it wrong to kill Dumbledore if that was the only way to get Harry off the tower? > Pippin responded: > I agree Snape could not have expected to get Harry and Draco off the tower in one piece by fighting. Harry nearly got his throat ripped out by one DE and was crucio'd by another. Snape was able to save him from the latter only because the DE's were still taking his orders. > > But assuming that DDM!Snape thought he could do a convincing fake AK, wouldn't he use that rather than a real one regardless? > Pippin, noting that if Dumbledore hadn't trusted Snape, he'd have died of the Ring curse, and if Harry hadn't trusted the Prince, he'd have lost Ron. > Carol again: I agree completely and argued in post 134812 that the supposed AK could have been a silent Impedimenta (who better than Snape to cast a nonverbal curse that sends DD over the wall, away from the teeth and claws of Fenrir Greyback?). http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/134812 I've also pointed out DD's and Ron's debts to Snape (and note that the HBP's note causes Harry to remember Snape's first Potions lesson about the bezoar!--a double debt to Snape on that one). Snape saves at least four lives, directly or indirectly, in HBP, the others being Draco's and Katie Bell's. But my concern is for a DDM!Snape who may have had no choice but to kill Dumbledore, forced to do so by a combination of the UV (which might have killed him on the spot if the AK were fake despite all the holes you find in it), the DADA curse (which seems responsible for forcing Snape into this terrible dilemma), and DD's last wish as expressed through mutual Legilimency on the tower (if that's what happened) or through Snape's correct interpretation of "Severus, please." (The UV itself is perfectly reconcilable with DDM!Snape, but that's a topic for another post.) I would love to have you be right--much better for Snape not to be his mentor's unwilling murderer and face the guilt and mental anguish that such a crime entails even though he had no choice but to perform it. But if JKR has not tricked us by faking DD's death (and I wouldn't put it past her to do so), if DD is really dead, I think that Snape's actions can still be justified, and his mental anguish when Harry calls him a coward is much easier to explain if "what is right" is exceedingly difficult and painful, condemning Snape not to temporary ostracism but to infamy and not only to a probable sentence in Azkaban (or death) but to a soul split through the act of murder (or perhaps manslaughter, if it's unpremeditated and unavoidable). To do *that* for your mentor and for the cause of defeating Voldemort is surely a greater sacrifice than to die fighting for the same cause and be regarded as a hero. No wonder Snape argued with Dumbledore in the forest and said that he didn't want to do it!) Carol, certain that Healer!Snape is Dumbledore's Man and that DD's trust in him is (was) wholly justified, but not yet persuaded that Dumbledore is alive and Snape is off the hook From grich277080 at aol.com Mon Jun 26 19:54:19 2006 From: grich277080 at aol.com (grich277080 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 15:54:19 EDT Subject: Who dies? Message-ID: <50c.1cc9d08.31d1956b@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154389 Alla: >> Um, I just saw the quote from JKR's today interview. It could be a paraphrase, so please don't beat me up. But I think the gist is right. She says that in book 7 one character gets a reprieve, but two that she did not intend to kill off ? die. Personally I doubt that it is Harry (of course I also don't want it to be Harry), but I think that he would be the one that she intended to kill off, IF she did. Although she also says that she understands the author mentality to kill off main character, because it will not be possible to bring this character back or something. So, any guesses? << AnnR: In relation to the above. I understand JKR said this in an interview after or during the children's show at Buckingham Palace. Coincidentally, in a speech at the end of the show Mary Poppins says that in all our British stories the good always wins over evil and all our stories end with a happy ending. (I hope I've got this right). Has JKR had a rethink on Harry living? I do hope so. Personally, I only want Voldy to die and Bellatrix by Neville's hand. AnnR From leslie41 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 26 20:59:29 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 20:59:29 -0000 Subject: Was Severus in the Slug Club? (Was: Snape liked Hogwarts? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154390 > zgirnius: > I had assumed the faculty were invited, and courtesouly declined, > except Sybill, who could not missd the opportunity for a greater > quality of booze, and Snape, who wanted to keep an eye on any > suspicious outsiders Sluggie may have invited. (Hence, the > skulking in the corners). > Leslie41: That makes sense to me. I can't abide the idea of the "Slug Club," and I'd be willing to bet that other faculty can't either. The fact that Trelawney is the only other faculty member who shows leads me to think others were invited and politely declined. > zgirnius: > I don't think he was. Not being recognized for his achievements > and abilities just seems to be what happens to him. I have trouble > imagining it was different at school. Leslie41: Ditto. Slughorn obviously chooses students he feels will do him good, whom he feels will reflect well on him. It's really disgusting, his little club. I can't imagine Snape being in it. I can't imagine either Snape liking Slughorn, or the way he cozies up to the students. From leslie41 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 26 21:10:22 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 21:10:22 -0000 Subject: Who dies?/JKR borrows from heroic literature... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154391 I don't think Hermione will die. She's too bossy to die. Besides, JKR has often stated that Hermione is her avatar in a lot of ways. She sees herself most like her. I don't think she will do her in. Harry? Naw. Don't think Harry will die. This isn't a tragedy. But in heroic literature, what often happens is that the hero lives but his best friend dies. It is the death of his best friend that impels him to his greatest successes. Enkidu, Patroklus, etc. Ron will die. Besides, there are so many Weasleys. ONE at least has to die. Harry has broken away from Ginny. The biggest impact, the biggest loss to him will be Ron. As for the other person, pick an adult, any adult, save for Tonks and Lupin, who will end up together. She likes Lupin, and he's suffered enough already, for JKR to make him die. As for the saved person, I would guess Snape but I don't know. It would also be completely logical for him to snuff it. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Jun 26 21:16:44 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 21:16:44 -0000 Subject: Was Severus in the Slug Club? (Was: Snape liked Hogwarts? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154392 > Leslie41: > Ditto. Slughorn obviously chooses students he feels will do him > good, whom he feels will reflect well on him. It's really > disgusting, his little club. I can't imagine Snape being in it. I > can't imagine either Snape liking Slughorn, or the way he cozies up > to the students. Potioncat: No matter how well we each make our point--Snape was or was not in the Club--we still don't know. Both sides have come up with good theories, but much of it is assumption. Neither Hermione or Ginny have any ethical problems attending the Slug Club. Nor do I think Snape would refuse to be in the club. Still we don't know. We only see Snape and Trelawney. We don't see the invitation list. Nor do we know for sure that other teachers weren't there either while Harry was there (but he didn't see them) or that they came afterwards. Now, how many think Minerva was in the Slug Club? From minerva_523 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 26 19:57:19 2006 From: minerva_523 at yahoo.com (minerva_523) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 19:57:19 -0000 Subject: Who dies? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154393 "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > But I think the gist is right. She says that in book 7 one character > gets a reprieve, but two that she did nto intend to kill off ? die. > So, any guesses? > > Who dies? SNIP Now Cacaia: I think Snape's got it coming...he'll probably die, either to save Harry and help him one last time, or as another casualty of Lord V. As to Harry dying- possible. Very possible, though a bit on the cliche side...we'll just have to see... Cacaia From MadameSSnape at aol.com Mon Jun 26 21:23:47 2006 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 17:23:47 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Of essence divided? Message-ID: <15.55c8240c.31d1aa63@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154395 In a message dated 6/26/2006 2:16:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, celizwh at intergate.com writes: But see what follows from that assumption. For it to be true, Snape would have to have been in on the plans to bring Death Eaters into Hogwarts. --------------------------- Sherrie here: Not necessarily. It could simply have been a blanket order - "I don't care when or where you run across Potter - I don't care if you've got him disarmed & helpless in front of you! You WILL NOT touch him - he's MINE!" Sherrie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Jun 26 21:19:56 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 21:19:56 -0000 Subject: Book 7 news In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154396 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tim" wrote: > > Don't read if you don't want to know.... you have been warned. > > S > P > O > I > L > E > R > > S > P > A > C > E > > Rowling says 2 characters die in final Potter book > > Children's author J.K. Rowling has revealed that at least two > characters will die in the seventh and final installment of her > bestselling Harry Potter series, but was careful not to say who. > (Snip) > "The final chapter is hidden away, although it's now changed very > slightly," she said in an interview broadcast on Monday on Britain's > Channel 4. "One character got a reprieve, but I have to say two die that I didn't intend to die." > > When asked to be more specific, she added: "No, I'm not going to > commit myself, because I don't want the hate mail or anything else." > 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+. Maybe it was Lupin that was spared because he now has a girlfriend. OR maybe it is *because* he has a girlfriend that there are 2 new ones to be killed off!! Alright, deep breath... She will spare us. Lupin has suffered enough, so we will be spared. Maybe it is because Lupin fell in love with me, I who was once the "chosen one" (to die) an now spared. Snape will die. Planned all along.??? There is just no way to guess this. Whatever we guess it will be wrong. Options: Lucius and Narcissa, leaving Draco an orphan. Oh, how horrible that would be. No, she is not that evil. Bella: yes LV: yes Scrimgeour: yes Firenze: yes Hagrid: no Weasleys: none Hermione: no Harry: near death experience, but will live. Dursley's: no Tonks_op From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 26 21:33:42 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 21:33:42 -0000 Subject: Was Severus in the Slug Club? (Was: Snape liked Hogwarts? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154397 > >>Leslie41: > > Ditto. Slughorn obviously chooses students he feels will do him > > good, whom he feels will reflect well on him. It's really > > disgusting, his little club. I can't imagine Snape being in > > it. I can't imagine either Snape liking Slughorn, or the way he > > cozies up to the students. > >>Potioncat: > > Neither Hermione or Ginny have any ethical problems attending the > Slug Club. Nor do I think Snape would refuse to be in the club. > Still we don't know. Betsy Hp: I agree, Potioncat. I don't see young!Severus refusing to belong to the Club. He'd see the same advantages Hermione saw: a chance for an outsider to get some good networking in. That Lily was in the club is (IIRC) canon, so I don't think the Slug Club was sneered at by the student body. (Sirius and James may have sneered, but then they had the advantage of their family name, and Sirius was in the middle of refuting that kind of old boy network anyway.) > >>Potioncat: > We only see Snape and Trelawney. We don't see the invitation list. > Nor do we know for sure that other teachers weren't there either > while Harry was there (but he didn't see them) or that they came > afterwards. > Now, how many think Minerva was in the Slug Club? Betsy Hp: Hmm, for some reason I doubt Minerva was in it. But I'm not sure what my reasoning is. Too practical, maybe? She strikes me as someone who was a solidly good student but not one with flair. Or, her flair was of an underground sort where she was the queen of all pranksters but was rarely, if ever, caught. (The Slug Club seemed awfully male around her time, as well.) I will say the absence of Flitwick, who I can't see passing on any party, is fairly indicitive that this was an exculsive Slug Club affair. And of course that's just as wobbly a foundation as the rest. Betsy Hp From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 26 22:32:20 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 22:32:20 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154398 > >>Marion: > > No, I'm not saying that Draco is Good and Harry is Evil. > > I'm just showing how scary Harry's selfreferencing way of > > thinking is. "I'm Good, so what I do is justified. They > > are Bad, so what they do is Bad. When I do the same things > > They do, it's For The Good. If They do the same things I do, > > it's Evil". > >>houyhnhnm: > This makes me think of Martin Buber's second stage of evil. > (In "Images of Good and Evil" which I reread in November, 2004) > > This is Voldemort, fully realized in the second stage of evil, > as his own creator. But this is also the path many of the > other characters, including Harry, are heading down when they > choose to act based on the reasoning that "I'm Good, so what > I do is justified". > Hermione's decision to use enchanted coins based on the Dark > Marks of the Death Eaters is picked up by Draco, so that whether > "justified" or not, her action has an evil consequence. Betsy Hp: Of the trio Hermione scares me the most in regards to this sort of thinking. I mean, she's branded a girl *on the face* and it doesn't seem to phase her a bit. (I think it's noteworthy that two students walked away from that year with words etched into their skin: Harry and Marietta. So Hermione seems to have taken a page out of Umbridge's book while she was also imitating Death Eaters.) > >>houyhnhnm: > Likewise Fred and George's decision to put Montague in the > vanishing cabinet leads directly to the attack on Hogwarts, > regardless of whether or not they were "justified" in getting > back at Montague for his abuse of power. Their decision to > collude in the importation of contraband into Hogwarts leads > indirectly to the near death of their brother, however "justified" > they were in making a profit and however innocent of any desire > to do harm. Because, after all, they are "good". But their > actions lead to evil all the same. Betsy Hp: Oh yeah, the twins are so completely evil. I mean, Draco nearly kills someone by mistake and he falls apart over it. The twins shrug and move on. And Draco was doing what he did to uphold family honor and protect the lives of those he loves. The twins were upset about house points. Blech, nasty little psychopaths, I say. (I'm, um, not a fan of the twins. ) But really, a great many of the "good" guys seem to follow that sort of code, that it's okay to hurt someone as long as they're not "one of us". The Longbottoms engage in infanticide, Hagrid takes his anger at an adult out on a child, Hermione and the twins do their thing, McGonagall takes her fear and anger out on her weakest student... I think these sort of actions wouldn't bother me quite so much if they were *seen* as bad behavior. I *think* JKR is relatively neutral when those scenes occur. For example, she doesn't tell us whether it's good or bad that if Neville had been a squib his family would have killed him. But it'd be nice if Harry started to pick up that sometimes his friends behave badly, that his side isn't as shiny as all that. I believe Luna pointed out that Ron is sometimes quite nasty in the things he says, and Harry acknowledged it, IIRC. So maybe there's hope. > >>Marion: > > I don't like Harry *or* Draco. But of the two, I find Harry the > most dangerous. Not because of what he does but the way he > *thinks*. > Betsy Hp: I like them both (and Snape, too!). And I think Draco and Harry are both dangerous in a similar way: they will both do what it takes if they feel they have to. Which is why Harry recognized that Draco *was* a danger. Just as Draco realized how Harry would feel about Black in PoA, Harry realized how Draco would feel with his dad in prison. They have similar levels of family pride. Something both Hermione and Ron seem to lack, which is why neither of them could take Draco seriously. (Neither Hermione nor Ron have had their families attacked in the way Draco and Harry have, so I'm not saying they couldn't get to that place.) It's interesting though, because I think Draco has the harder path to walk and so may end up wiser than Harry. After all, Harry hasn't had to question his definitions of good and evil. All of his friends are good and all of his foes are evil. It's been easy for him. While Draco is having to question his assumptions, Harry seems quite safe in keeping his. Ooh, though that is a *perfect* argument for DDM!Snape. Because it would be strange for the book to end with Draco the more well- rounded and adult character. But if Harry *does* have to question his assumptions, just as Draco is having to do, than they'll both grow in wisdom. Betsy Hp, who kind of meandered all over the place in this reply, but still felt free to adjust the subject line From distaiyi at yahoo.com Mon Jun 26 22:42:00 2006 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 22:42:00 -0000 Subject: "Either must die..." Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154399 Hrm... Okay I just had a truly aweful thought. As any of you know who read my posts I'm a Neville fan... Well re-reading the prophecy, it occured to me that this line : ... And either must die at the hands of the other for neither can live while the other survives... Well, this isn't about Harry and the Dark Lord... This is reference to Harry and Neville. Think about their lives. Neither one really has had one given their circumstances. I think she's telling us, one of them is going to die at the other's hands (purpose or accident really doesn't matter) and then the survivor will eliminate the Dark Lord. Raving Lunatic Distaiyi From jmrazo at hotmail.com Mon Jun 26 23:22:25 2006 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 23:22:25 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154400 > Betsy Hp: > > It's interesting though, because I think Draco has the harder path > to walk and so may end up wiser than Harry. After all, Harry hasn't > had to question his definitions of good and evil. All of his > friends are good and all of his foes are evil. It's been easy for > him. While Draco is having to question his assumptions, Harry seems > quite safe in keeping his. Or you could look at it as Draco is taking longer to reach a stage of wisdom that harry obtained a long time ago. Of the two of them, I would say that Harry has had the 'easier' route because his judgement of friends and enemies has been better than Draco's (lets just compare Ron/Hermione with Crabbe/Goyle to test that theory), and when he is wrong he shifts gears pretty quickly. Draco has stuck to wrong assumptions for quite a long time. if he is changing then he's doing it at a glacial pace. Phoenixgod2000 From annemehr at yahoo.com Tue Jun 27 00:08:55 2006 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 00:08:55 -0000 Subject: Who dies? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154401 Alla wrote: > > Um, I just saw the quote from JKR's today interview. It could be a > paraphrase, so please don't beat me up. > > But I think the gist is right. She says that in book 7 one character > gets a reprieve, but two that she did nto intend to kill off ? die. Annemehr: You mean the Richard and Judy show, I believe? I downloaded the interview (a WMV file, 30 min. run time) from the link at HPANA. Actually, Rowling is talking about the *final chapter* of book 7 at this point, which means it's the promised epilogue, so it *could* refer events from any of the books in the series. Not that I'd bet thirty-seven Galleons, fifteen Sickles, three Knuts and a fake wand on it or anything... Here's a transcript I did from that section (look at 03:44): JKR: The final chapter is hidden away -- although it's now changed very slightly. One character got a reprieve, but I have to say two died that I didn't intend to die... Judy: Oooh! Two much-loved ones? JKR: Well, you know, the price has to be paid. We *are* dealing with pure evil, so -- they don't target the extras, do they, they go for the main characters... ~Annemehr who was very sure, at one time, that JKR once said that she had originally intended that the real Moody would die in GoF, but then could never find an interview quote to back that up... From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Jun 27 00:09:27 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 00:09:27 -0000 Subject: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154402 Carol: > Are you referring to Harry being told to confide in adults or in > Dumbledore? I don't remember that happening, other than DD's "Is there > anything you want to tell me, Harry?" in CoS, to which Harry, like Tom > Riddle before him, says "No." (Harry sees that parallel himself but > then seems to forget about it. Admittedly in OoP, he can't confide in > Dumbledore because Dumbledore is avoiding him.) Ceridwen: In HBP, he tells Ron, Hermione, Arthur, McGonagall and Dumbledore about his suspicions. Ron and Hermione at one point are pretending not to hear him when he starts bringing Draco up. McGonagall ends their interview and pointedly indicates that he should leave her office. Dumbledore brushes him off brisquely (I agree with you, Dumbledore knew he was on limited time and wanted to get everything as settled as possible). The only person who listens to him is Arthur, but nothing is turned up at Malfoy Manor. IIRC, and I've had a headache for two weeks so I might not be remembering right, Harry has been encouraged to go to adults in at least two of the books. And, he has been encouraged by Hermione to do so before HBP. There may be instances I'm forgetting. Ceridwen. From juli17 at aol.com Tue Jun 27 01:01:06 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 21:01:06 EDT Subject: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) Message-ID: <542.ef5fc7.31d1dd52@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154403 Carol: We see that Harry *is* intelligent (or Slythernishly clever and devious) when he figures out how to get the memory from Slughorn (I doubt that Felix Felicis would have enabled him to do that if he didn't have the potential to do so on his own). He arrives at at least some of the right conclusions after the excursions into the Pensieve in HBP. And he's a lot quicker in remembering bezoars (thank goodness for Snape!) than Slughorn is when Ron is dying from the poisoned mead. (I'm sure that others can come up with additional examples of Harry's intelligence or resourcefulness. He does have an extraordinary amount of luck and at least one clever friend, not to mention being powerfully magical when it comes to Patronuses and other DADA spells, but IMO he wouldn't have survived this long if he didn't also have above-average intelligence. (I'm not claiming that he's a genius like the teenage Severus, by any means, but I certainly wouldn't call him unintelligent.) Julie: I agree that Harry is reasonably intelligent. And there are different kinds of intelligence. Being book-smart like Hermione is only one type. Spatial intelligence, social intelligence, insightfulness, and resourcefulness are also important factors in overall intelligence. Harry has no problem with deduction in general, as you point out, Carol. And like Snape, he has certain innate talents (magically speaking). But even more importantly, in fact most, MOST importantly, Harry has something no amount of bookish intelligence can compensate for, and that is an amazing ability to keep his composure during a crisis. It doesn't matter how much you know or how talented you are if you can't access those resources when you need them most. Harry can. He doesn't panic as Hermione can, nor freeze as Slughorn did. That doesn't mean he isn't afraid--terrified even--but he doesn't let that stop him from thinking and acting right through it. Ron and the bezoar being one example, the events in the graveyard in GoF another. (Admittedly the Dementors are initially an exception, but Harry is particularly susceptible to them, and once he knows how to fight them, he does without hesitation.) That's what makes Harry a successful hero character. Reasonable intelligence and the ability to use it when seconds count. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dontask2much at yahoo.com Tue Jun 27 01:02:39 2006 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 21:02:39 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who dies? References: Message-ID: <008901c69985$63539540$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 154404 >Alla said: >But I think the gist is right. She says that in book 7 one character >gets a reprieve, but two that she did nto intend to kill off - die. >Personally I doubt that it is Harry ( of course I also don't want it >to be Harry), but I think that he would be the one that she intended >to kill off , IF she did. >Who dies? My bet ( since she says she did not intend to) is on Ron >and Hermione. Although I sure hope it is not so. >Or Harry and Ginny ( even more hope it is not so) Rebecca: About who was granted the "reprieve"...why couldn't it be...Voldemort himself? Live normally, have no powers, basically be the laughing stock of the Wizarding World until his timely death by an infected stubbed and broken toe, preferably the smallest one. (I'm sorry, I can't think of anything more painful. For something so damn little and so far from your head, they hurt like the devil when you inadventently smash one into some innocent piece of furniture or a quite solid doorframe, don't they?) IMO, those who die are Peter and Lupin. Thus ends the saga of the Marauders, rest in peace. Rebecca From celizwh at intergate.com Tue Jun 27 01:13:13 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 01:13:13 -0000 Subject: Of essence divided? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154405 Annemehr: > I don't believe that what you are saying actually does > follow from Peggy's assumption. The orders, if they were > actually given, need not apply to this particular mission > alone, but can be something very general that LV told all > his DEs at some earlier time: "Whatever happens, no one is > to harm Potter; he's mine." houyhnhnm: But there is no evidence that he did so. This an appeal to ignorance. Annemehr: > In fact, there is actually some corroborating evidence, > in GoF, at the end of ch. 34: "Stand aside! I will kill him! > He is mine!" shrieked Voldemort, as Harry ran for the Portkey. houyhnhnm: Voldemort did claim Harry in the graveyard when he already had Harry in front of him, but that is not the same thing as saying that the DEs are to leave him for LV under all circumstances. After Harry came back, Barty Crouch, Jr. said, "Imagine how he will reward me when he finds I have done it for him. I gave you to him--the thing he needed above all to regenerate--and then I killed you for him. I will be honored above all other Death Eaters." (GoF35) During the confrontation in the Department of Mysteries, Lucius Malfoy told the DEs, "Be gentle with Potter until we've got the prophecy, you can kill the others if necessary...." "Until we've got the prophecy" sounds like it's okay to do whatever they want with Potter after they've retrieved the prophecy. Surely Lucius would have told them specifically not to kill Harry, if those were Voldemort's orders. Finally, there is no mention of any such order in the conversation at Spinner's End. Since the issue of Harry's life does come up in that conversation, it would be the logical place for the author to insert some corroborating evidence for Snape's command to the Death Eaters on the lawn. There isn't any. In short there is no evidence to back up Snape's claim that Harry is to be left for the Dark Lord. On the other hand, it is odd that Snape used that claim to stop the DE's from performing cruciatus on Harry. No one had tried to use the Avadra. Why would Voldemort care if Harry got tortured a little? Fenrir had already tried to take a nibble. And why not kidnap Harry and take to Voldemort if he belongs to the Dark Lord rather than leaving him behind to continue being a threat? From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Jun 27 01:15:52 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 21:15:52 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) References: Message-ID: <009e01c69987$3c6c4100$1f98400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 154406 >>Marion: >> I've heard fans call Draco a 'bully' (because he walks around > with two thugs: that's classic bully alright), but we've never heard > of Crabbe or Goyle really beating up people. > > Carol responds: > As I recall, Neville fights with Crabbe and Goyle twice, once in SS/PS > during a Quidditch match (I can't remember who attacked whom) and once > when Neville attacks Draco for his snide remarks about people being > confined to St. Mungo's for permanent mental injuries. Their purpose > seems to be to protect Draco. Apparently they don't act on their own. > (It's interesting that Crabbe briefly stands up to Draco in HBP. Is he > less stupid than we think?) Magpie: For accuracy, I think it's that Draco is teasing Ron, and Ron jumps Draco. The two of them fight and Neville jumps into help Ron, where upon Crabbe and Goyle jump Neville. I think that's how it's described. It's funny the thing about Crabbe standing up to Draco--to me it reads like concern. I think Crabbe (who's sometimes called the smarter one) is also the one who picks up ferret!Draco. Given how things must have looked from his angle, I can see him seeing the Draco is in trouble and getting deeper into trouble, and being concerned for him (and for himself as well). Draco hasn't told him even what's going on, he's physically deteriorating, stressing out--I'd be freaked out. I thought it was one of those things hinting that Harry ought to consider the ties on the Slytherin side, which he has always dismissed as not being important. Also poor Crabbe trying desperately to get a line in canon and Draco cuts him off with "I know what you're going to say." I'm sure JKR was laughing when she wrote that. > Carol responds: > When does Harry refer to himself in capital letters? It's the Daily > Prophet that calls him the Boy Who Lived and the Chosen One and > whatever else. Magpie: He does, I think, call himself the Chosen One to Slughorn when he's trying to get the memory, but of course he's doing that to manipulate him. Does he refer to himself as a Marked Man? Eggplant: If instead of Draco holding his wand on a ill Dumbledore Harry had held his wand on a ill Voldemort I think Voldemort would be toast. Harry's nerve failed him only once, when he stopped Sirius and Lupin from dealing with Peter Pettigrew. Harry learns from his mistakes. Magpie: Well, yes, because Harry has good reason to kill Voldemort to protect himself and others. Draco was committing an assassination of a good person under threat--that takes something more disturbing than just nerve. He was conflicted as to what he wanted. His whole story's about that, imo. Harry had a more similar experience when he was going to kill Sirius Black--I wouldn't call that simply a loss of nerve, but something better. He's going to do it, he says, but he's not doing it. Thank goodness! His nerve doesn't fail him at all when he stops Lupin and Black from killing Peter--how is his nerve failing him there? He knows exactly what he thinks should be done and says it. Both Draco and Harry start out planning on just killing somebody thinking it's easy, but when the time comes it becomes something more real. -m From juli17 at aol.com Tue Jun 27 01:25:14 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 21:25:14 EDT Subject: Harry's arrogance /Evil Snape Message-ID: <54f.70fbf6.31d1e2fa@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154407 > > > Carol notes: > > > > To repeat, *if* Snape's choice was between killing Dumbledore and > > Harry's almost certain death fighting four DEs (and Draco, if he > > joined in), surely the correct choice was to save Harry? > > > Alla: > > The problem with this question as I see it is that this choice would > NEVER occur exactly as you describe IMO. > > Even if Snape keeps telling himself ( and I am describing Snape which > I am not buying, just for the sake of the argument) that he is > killing DD for the sake of saving Harry only, we KNOW that it is not > true, unless Snape is Saint. IMO of course. Julie: Why does Snape have to be a saint to save Harry? He's been saving Harry since Book 1, even though he hates the little brat (his view). He can do it again on the Tower while still hating the brat, because it is what *DD* wants, and because it's what will save the WW (and even because he doesn't want Harry dead even if he hates him). And why exactly could it "NEVER" occur as Carol suggested? I do think it could, leaving Snape to make a choice, neither of which he wants to make. He's between a rock and a hard place as the saying goes, in a no-win scenario. No matter what he does, his action is going to lead to someone else's death. The choices are 1. Dumbledore, or 2. Harry and Draco, *and* Dumbledore (who appears too weak to fight back against the DEs) as well as, yes, himself. (I'm assuming the UV would start working on Snape as soon as he *didn't* finish Draco's task by trying to save DD from the DEs instead, which is as reasonable an assumption as any about the UV.) Alla: > Snape's life is ALWAYS in the equasion, because if he does not kill > DD, he is well... dead, no? Julie: This is true, but we don't really know whether Snape was willing to die or not. I think he *was* willing to die rather than kill Dumbledore but Dumbledore wouldn't allow it, because it would mean Harry's likely death too. If Snape could have gotten out of the whole thing with his death being the only one, I think he would have taken that option in a heartbeat. But that option wasn't there. Julie, who's never seen evidence of Snape clinging to his joyless life no matter the cost as Voldemort and Wormtail are wont to do. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pam_rosen at yahoo.com Mon Jun 26 22:30:38 2006 From: pam_rosen at yahoo.com (Pamela Rosen) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 15:30:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Who dies?/JKR borrows from heroic literature... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060626223038.24629.qmail@web30813.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154408 leslie41 wrote: I don't think Hermione will die. She's too bossy to die. Besides, JKR has often stated that Hermione is her avatar in a lot of ways. She sees herself most like her. I don't think she will do her in. Harry? Naw. Don't think Harry will die. This isn't a tragedy. But in heroic literature, what often happens is that the hero lives but his best friend dies. It is the death of his best friend that impels him to his greatest successes. Enkidu, Patroklus, etc. Ron will die. Besides, there are so many Weasleys. ONE at least has to die. Harry has broken away from Ginny. The biggest impact, the biggest loss to him will be Ron. As for the other person, pick an adult, any adult, save for Tonks and Lupin, who will end up together. She likes Lupin, and he's suffered enough already, for JKR to make him die. As for the saved person, I would guess Snape but I don't know. It would also be completely logical for him to snuff it. Pam: What's missing here is that JKR revealed only that two characters that JKR *expected* to live will die. That does not take into account any characters who have had their expiration dates set for them for years. For example, we cannot assume that Snape is the one to get the reprieve because he may have *already* been scheduled to live or die. In effect, when you think about it, all JKR told us was that she changed her mind about three characters she had scheduled to live or die. Since we will not know until after the fact who was scheduled to die and who was scheduled to live but did not, JKR has essentially told us....well, nothing. Personally, I think if she wants children to read HP for years to come, Harry has to live. New generations of kids will not want to even begin the series if they know (and how could they not...do you know how hard it is to keep Dumbledore's death from my 7 year old who is only on POA? How hard it was to explain the COS diary to him without using the word "horcrux"?) if they know they're going to go through seven books only to lose their hero. She would kill the series' future. That's just my thought on that issue. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Tue Jun 27 01:30:33 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 21:30:33 EDT Subject: DE Loyality Vow Message-ID: <55b.547010.31d1e439@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154409 Tonks wrote: I was listening to a news report about RL terrorist and how they take a vow to their leader. Being obsessed with HP, I, of course, thought about the DE and LV. Why have we not head of a DE vow? We now know about the unbreakable vow. It would certainly make sense that LV would have his DE take a vow of some sort. I think that JKR like to be inventive so she would not use the same type of vow twice. Julie: It's just a guess, but wouldn't a burned on mark that one can never remove constitute in essence a vow of loyalty? Since we've been told one can't ever leave Voldemort's service (as Regulus found out) I'd say it's pretty unbreakable also. So why does Voldemort need mere words when once you take on the mark you're his forever? ;-) Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mandorino222 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 27 01:38:06 2006 From: mandorino222 at yahoo.com (mandorino222) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 01:38:06 -0000 Subject: Who dies (clearly Ron and Snape)? In-Reply-To: <008901c69985$63539540$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154410 She says that pure evil goes after major characters. First of all, I say good for her. Kill more. Ron is the obvious choice because of the SS foreshadowing and the Hermione back-up plan via Krum. Anyone up for Draco killing Ron? I'm guessing Snape dies as well. An ESE Snape would have to die. A DDM Snape would probably die in a heroic moment of truth. Either way, try to imagine Snape being alive at the end of this series. Sorry, doesn't work. If she considers clowns like Hagrid or McGonnagal "major characters", I'm gonna puke. Nick --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rebecca" wrote: > > >Alla said: > > > > >But I think the gist is right. She says that in book 7 one character > >gets a reprieve, but two that she did nto intend to kill off - die. > > >Personally I doubt that it is Harry ( of course I also don't want it > >to be Harry), but I think that he would be the one that she intended > >to kill off , IF she did. > > > > >Who dies? My bet ( since she says she did not intend to) is on Ron > >and Hermione. Although I sure hope it is not so. > > >Or Harry and Ginny ( even more hope it is not so) > > Rebecca: > > About who was granted the "reprieve"...why couldn't it be...Voldemort > himself? Live normally, have no powers, basically be the laughing stock of > the Wizarding World until his timely death by an infected stubbed and broken > toe, preferably the smallest one. (I'm sorry, I can't think of anything > more painful. For something so damn little and so far from your head, they > hurt like the devil when you inadventently smash one into some innocent > piece of furniture or a quite solid doorframe, don't they?) > > IMO, those who die are Peter and Lupin. Thus ends the saga of the > Marauders, rest in peace. > > Rebecca > From puduhepa98 at aol.com Tue Jun 27 01:39:28 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 21:39:28 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In essence divided? Message-ID: <270.c11f40a.31d1e650@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154411 >Carol >And from a purely aesthetic and emotional perspective, I'd much rather the last Horcrux be Nagini, whom Harry will surely have to battle in any case, than Harry himself or his scar, which necessitates an accidental Horcrux and Harry's self-sacrifice, as well as messy plot complications that we don't need at this point. I'd really like to see Harry use the Sword of Gryffindor, which he used earlier against the Basilisk, to defeat Nagini. Nikkalmati: I have some doubts whether Nagini is a Horcrux, because she is a living being. Where did Nagini come from? They don't have snakes like that in Albania. (I know, JKR thinks snakes can wink and boas are poisonous !). How long have LV and Nagini been together? Possibly, Harry's Parselmouth powers will play a part in the final confrontation. He may be able to speak to Nagini and even convince her to attack LV or reveal something that will cause her to decide to attack him on her own. Wouldn't that be a cool way to end the series. Hoist on his own snake, so to speak. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dontask2much at yahoo.com Tue Jun 27 01:48:19 2006 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 21:48:19 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's arrogance /Evil Snape References: Message-ID: <010f01c6998b$c45b4ee0$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 154412 >Carol said: > Carol, certain that Healer!Snape is Dumbledore's Man and that DD's > trust in him is (was) wholly justified, but not yet persuaded that > Dumbledore is alive and Snape is off the hook and the Julie said: >Why does Snape have to be a saint to save Harry? He's been saving >Harry since Book 1, even though he hates the little brat (his view). >He can do it again on the Tower while still hating the brat, because >it is what *DD* wants, and because it's what will save the WW (and >even because he doesn't want Harry dead even if he hates him). Rebecca: First, the only compelling evidence that I feel comfortable with that Snape is loyal to Dumbledore is the fact that Snape didn't let him die when he returned to Hogwarts after breaking the curse on Slytherin's ring: "Yes indeed," said Dumbledore, and he raised his blackened, burned-looking hand. "The ring, Harry. Marvolo's ring. And a terrible 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, desperately 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." We already know the Ministry doesn't know where Dumbledore goes and what he does. Interesting timing it would appear (and note I said "appear") that Snape helped Dumbledore before he made his Unbreakable Vow with Narcissa. If Snape was a truly ambitious, evil-loving Death Eater, wouldn't he have just made himself "unavailable" to assist? Dumbledore's demise couldn't have pinned on him, and he would have done Voldemort a favor, particularly so close to the episode between the two in MoM in OoP. IMO, Julie is correct - one doesn't have to be a saint to save Harry on the Tower. He only needs to have a bigger picture, if he's truly Dumbledore's Man, to know that most likely Harry would die if he didn't take action. The only problem with this is the Unbreakable Vow thing as Draco might be killed too on the Tower if all hell broke loose and Snape's going to die if he doesn't protect Draco. Therefore, it's yet again an ambiguous (yes I hate that) choice. I must say this, however - Dumbledore says in the quote above "I might not have lived to tell the tale." The question is did he only sacrifice his "withered hand" to destroy the Ring Horcrux or did Snape just slow the progression of whatever curse that affected Dumbledore such that he would just buy himself *more time?* I ask this because it's noted several times that Harry observes Dumbledore looking weary - even Nick says so in the same chapter as the quote above: "I had it from the Bloody Baron, who saw him arrive," said Nick. "He appeared, according to the Baron, to be in good spirits, though a little tired, of course." And just for good measure, Harry's POV notes it, too: "There sat Dumbledore looking unusually tired; his hand was as black and burned as ever, but he smiled when he gestured to Harry to sit down." and "Please close the door and sit down, Harry," said Dumbledore, sounding rather tired." Hmmm. Much pondering to ensue. Rebecca From juli17 at aol.com Tue Jun 27 01:48:40 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 21:48:40 EDT Subject: Book 7 news Message-ID: <32e.5df490b.31d1e878@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154413 Tonks wrote: Alright, deep breath... She will spare us. Lupin has suffered enough, so we will be spared. Maybe it is because Lupin fell in love with me, I who was once the "chosen one" (to die) an now spared. Julie: You could be right about Lupin, though as he is the only Maurader left as a mentor to Harry, I'm not sure JKR would have planned his death. I tend to think he was always safe. Unless he's ESE!Lupin of course ;-) Tonks wrote: Snape will die. Planned all along.??? Julie: Snape's death fits the typical pattern for this type of story. So he could be the one who has received a reprieve, if JKR decided to depart from the pattern. Or if she became so fond of the character that she decided he could have purpose after he's proved himself DDM and earned his redemption (I vote for this one!). OTOH, maybe she departed from the pattern with Snape from the start, and has now changed her mind and is going to kill him. (Noooo...!) Tonks: There is just no way to guess this. Whatever we guess it will be wrong. Julie: That's the only real certainty, isn't it? We're certain to be wrong at least on some counts! Tonks: Options: Lucius and Narcissa, leaving Draco an orphan. Oh, how horrible that would be. No, she is not that evil. Julie: Not so horrible, really. Draco's an adult now, so he wouldn't be an orphan in the legal sense. Besides he'll have a Fully Redeemed DDM!Snape to stand in as a father figure ;-) Tonks: Bella: yes LV: yes Julie: I agree with both, and doubt nothing has changed about their fates! Tonks: Scrimgeour: yes Firenze: yes Hagrid: no Weasleys: none Hermione: no Julie: I agree on Hermione. Scrim and Firenze are minor enough characters that their deaths aren't so meaningful. I think Hagrid could be one of the previously alive who will now perish. And I very much fear at least one of the Weasleys will go. Remember, JKR said she couldn't say anymore because she didn't want hate mail, so someone who dies will be someone we really care about, and not just a minor character like Scrimgeour, Firenze, Trelawney, etc. It'll be someone who is painful for Harry, and for us, to lose. :-( Tonks: Harry: near death experience, but will live. Dursley's: no Julie: Agreed, though who really cares about the Dursleys one way or the other ;-) Julie, who's never believed for a second that Harry will die, and isn't about to change now. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puduhepa98 at aol.com Tue Jun 27 02:29:21 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 22:29:21 EDT Subject: Harry's arrogance/ Who dies? Message-ID: <366.718a57a.31d1f201@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154414 > Carol >Or, assuming that DD really is dead, was it wrong to kill dumbledore if that was the only way to get Harry off the tower? (Snape would have seen the second broom and deduced that Harry was there in his Invisibility Cloak.) If the choice was not between Snape's own life and Dumbledore's but between Harry's life and Dumbledore's, was it wrong to choose Harry? Nikkalmati: I don't think JKR would ever give young readers the impression that it is ok to kill someone in certain circumstances, just as I don't think she would allow a character to commit suicide for a good cause. To my mind, that means Snape committed deliberate murder and is evil or DD is not actually dead. Nikkalmati >Potioncat >. She is reported to have said, that something(s) she wrote in earlier books have boxed her in. Nikkalmati: I am reluctantly thinking that she may have decided that she cannot get Snape out of the Unbreakable Vow. In that case it is probably Snape and Draco who die. Boo hoo. Possibly, Ron has been saved. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sherriola at earthlink.net Tue Jun 27 02:39:59 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 19:39:59 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's arrogance/ Who dies? In-Reply-To: <366.718a57a.31d1f201@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154415 >Potioncat >. She is reported to have said, that something(s) she wrote in earlier books have boxed her in. Nikkalmati: I am reluctantly thinking that she may have decided that she cannot get Snape out of the Unbreakable Vow. In that case it is probably Snape and Draco who die. Boo hoo. Possibly, Ron has been saved. Nikkalmati Sherry now: You can download the video from muggle net. In the interview, she says it was some minor plot points that boxed her in, not one of the major points. Whew! much as I dislike the unbreakable vow, I don't think that was the thing that boxed her in. sherry From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 27 02:45:04 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 02:45:04 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154416 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > It's interesting though, because I think Draco has the harder > > path to walk and so may end up wiser than Harry. After all, > > Harry hasn't had to question his definitions of good and evil. > > All of his friends are good and all of his foes are evil. It's > > been easy for him. While Draco is having to question his > > assumptions, Harry seems quite safe in keeping his. > > > >>Phoenixgod: > Or you could look at it as Draco is taking longer to reach a stage > of wisdom that harry obtained a long time ago. Of the two of > them, I would say that Harry has had the 'easier' route because > his judgement of friends and enemies has been better than Draco's > (lets just compare Ron/Hermione with Crabbe/Goyle to test that > theory)... Betsy Hp: Hi Phoenixgod! But sure, lets try comparing Crabbe and Goyle with Ron and Hermione. No one is walking around with a permantly scarred face because of something Crabbe or Goyle did. I'm still bothered by the fact that no member of the trio is bothered by that. If Crabbe or Goyle *had* scarred someone like Hermione did, that would have been another brick in the wall. But since it was Hermione, I guess it's okay? To do a real side by side comparison is hard though, because Crabbe and Goyle don't have any lines of dialogue. And I'm not sure they're even Draco's closest friends. We don't know because we don't see Draco on his home turf. > >>Phoenixgod: > ...and when he is wrong he shifts gears pretty quickly. Betsy Hp: Really? I'd love an example or two. As far as I can remember Harry generally only turns on someone when they try to kill him or his friends. Which is what it appears to be taking for Draco as well. > >>Phoenixgod: > Draco has stuck to wrong assumptions for quite a long time. if he > is changing then he's doing it at a glacial pace. Betsy Hp: Oh, I don't know. He's only sixteen in HBP. That's a fairly young age to have such a crisis of his belief system. (A crisis Harry has yet to have, by the way.) And it's not like the "good guys" have behaved in such a stellar fashion that the rightness of their view point is obvious. The Weasleys behave like thugs and their father uses his power to persecute Draco's father. Dumbledore uses his position to promote his Gryffindors even if the rest of the school suffers. Voldemort loses Draco. The good guys don't do anything to attract him. Not until Dumbledore *finally* shows that he's willing to protect Draco's family. Something I doubt Draco ever thought the old man capable of or interested in doing. Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 27 03:33:01 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 03:33:01 -0000 Subject: Who dies?/Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154417 >> Geoff: > As a noun, reprieve is defined as: > (1) The cancellation of a punishment > (2) A respite from difficulty or danger > > A very common UK usage was the rescinding of a death sentence - > when we still had capital punishment. > Alla: Yes, thank you Geoff and everybody who so kindly explained the meaning. I think I will remember it forever now. Thanks, guys. :) Hmmmm, who gets is then? It could be sooo anybody, but I think either Ron or Snape and of course Ron is preferably to me :) And yes, I agree with Pam that JKR told us nothing - still ANY number of characters could be SCHEDULED to live or scheduled to die. Hmmmm. >> Julie: > Why does Snape have to be a saint to save Harry? He's been saving > Harry since Book 1, even though he hates the little brat (his view). > He can do it again on the Tower while still hating the brat, because > it is what *DD* wants, and because it's what will save the WW (and > even because he doesn't want Harry dead even if he hates him). > > And why exactly could it "NEVER" occur as Carol suggested? > Alla: > > Snape's life is ALWAYS in the equasion, because if he does not kill > > DD, he is well... dead, no? > > Julie: > This is true, but we don't really know whether Snape was willing to > die or not. I think he *was* willing to die rather than kill Dumbledore > but Dumbledore wouldn't allow it, because it would mean Harry's > likely death too. If Snape could have gotten out of the whole thing > with his death being the only one, I think he would have taken that > option in a heartbeat. But that option wasn't there. Alla: I was not clear. Sorry about that. Snape does NOT have to be a Saint to save Harry, BUT IMO Snape absolutely does have to be a saint to make the choice that Carol suggests would feature : 1) To save Dumbledore OR 2) To save Harry. Meaning to make a choice where Snape life is not taken into account when Snape makes his decision. As I said earlier - there is UV lurking on the horizon, so I am not buying that Snape does not care whether it kicks in or not. There may be a time frame on it, or not, but how would Snape know for sure? > Julie, who's never seen evidence of Snape clinging to his joyless life > no matter the cost as Voldemort and Wormtail are wont to do. Alla: He did NOT want to go to Azkaban, where people go mad with grief and die, didn't he? To me that means that Snape does cling to his life and dearly so. > Pippin: > I believe in the interviews, but there is nothing in them to say that > Snape was the killer. JKR is an admirer of Agatha Christie, and it > would be very Christie to have a fake AK followed by a real death > caused by other means, especially since we know that Dumbledore > was deathly ill. It's hardly more far-fetched than a character who > has been a rat for two books turning out to be a human. Alla: Pippin, we have to agree to disagree here. JKR IS Christie admirer, but she is NOT Christie, no? So, I would not expect her works to be so similar to Christie, but that is IMO of course. And yes, Scabbers is ONE example that brought up as such a twist. IMO even Fake!Moody does not count as very twisty, surprising, yes. I guess, but incredibly twisty, not sure. > Nikkalmati: > I don't think JKR would ever give young readers the impression that it is ok > to kill someone in certain circumstances, just as I don't think she would > allow a character to commit suicide for a good cause. To my mind, that means > Snape committed deliberate murder and is evil or DD is not actually dead. Alla: LOL. We agree here. But see since I am not buying Alive!Dumbledore that too me leaves only one thing. :) I am not a big fan of arguing about which message JKR will send or not, BUT if we were to argue about messages, I am always amused that it is argued that JKR will not send the message that DD can be wrong BUT JKR will send the message that under appropriate circumstances killing is fine and dandy. Of course I think that self - defense is fine and dandy and if Harry kills Voldemort it will be IMO self defense even if Harry kills him in his sleep. But me thinks Voldie will be finished by other means, not killing Hehe. JMO, Alla From puduhepa98 at aol.com Tue Jun 27 03:20:46 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 23:20:46 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Was Severus in the Slug Club? (Was: Snape liked Hogwa... Message-ID: <35e.6d2813c.31d1fe0e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154418 > >>Leslie41: > > Ditto. Slughorn obviously chooses students he feels will do him > > good, whom he feels will reflect well on him. It's really > > disgusting, his little club. I can't imagine Snape being in > > it. I can't imagine either Snape liking Slughorn, or the way he > > cozies up to the students. > >>Potioncat: > > Neither Hermione or Ginny have any ethical problems attending the > Slug Club. Nor do I think Snape would refuse to be in the club. > Still we don't know. Betsy Hp: I agree, Potioncat. I don't see young!Severus refusing to belong to the Club. He'd see the same advantages Hermione saw: a chance for an outsider to get some good networking in. That Lily was in the club is (IIRC) canon, so I don't think the Slug Club was sneered at by the student body. (Sirius and James may have sneered, but then they had the advantage of their family name, and Sirius was in the middle of refuting that kind of old boy network anyway.) > >>Potioncat: > We only see Snape and Trelawney. We don't see the invitation list. > Nor do we know for sure that other teachers weren't there either > while Harry was there (but he didn't see them) or that they came > afterwards. > Now, how many think Minerva was in the Slug Club? Nikkalmati: I will point out Snape was very tolerant of Slughorn's manhandling him and joshing him at the party. I doubt Snape would have taken that from just anyone. It indicates a certain amount of familiarity and even respect for Slughorn, who would have been his HOH. Also, when Slughorn says after the Tower "I thought I knew him", it echoes more than just having a student in your classes; it implies he really believed he had insight into his character. I vote for Snape as Slug club material. Nikkalmati . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From wjjett4 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 27 01:21:31 2006 From: wjjett4 at yahoo.com (JENNIFER JETT) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 18:21:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Who dies? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060627012131.51452.qmail@web60122.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154419 Alla wrote: > > Um, I just saw the quote from JKR's today interview. It could be a > paraphrase, so please don't beat me up. > > But I think the gist is right. She says that in book 7 one character > gets a reprieve, but two that she did nto intend to kill off ? die. Well, I have looked at all information. I don't think Snape is the one with the reprieve. I think Draco is. Why? Draco was so uncertain to kill DD. He was only doing LV bidding because he was told his family would suffer if he didn't. I think Draco will(in the end) turn to help Harry. I feel Draco will realize that his future, for any kind of freedom, will be in Harry's hands. He in will turn. Who do I think will die? Well, JKR did not say two "main" characters will die. So, I think it could possibly be the following. * Petunia- Something will happen at #4 Privet Drive that Harry and Dudley will be in danger. She does for the boys what Lily did for Harry. Her Mother instinct will kick in and she will put herself in harms way to protect them. *Hagrid- Now Sirius and DD are gone, Hagrid is the next best thing to a parent he has had. *Slughorn- LV will find out his role in helping Harry. *Bill, Charley or Percy- We have not heard the last of this group of boys. Percy may have a similar situation as I stated above about Petunia. Ginny is a soft spot for all of her older brothers. Ginny could be in danger and one of the older brother comes to help. *Wesley Twins- JKR mentions two characters will died. Could be kill two-birds-with-one-stone deal. *Someone we haven't met yet- You know how she is? Gives us just enough information to go nuts! RAB could come into play and died in the process. Someone, who was at Godric's Hollow, could come forward with some "new" information and then pay the ultimate price. *****Snape.........nope, he will not be reprieved or killed. He is too obvious. JKR loves to throw red herrings at us. wjjett From annemehr at yahoo.com Tue Jun 27 04:19:23 2006 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 04:19:23 -0000 Subject: Of essence divided? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154420 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > > Annemehr: > > > I don't believe that what you are saying actually does > > follow from Peggy's assumption. The orders, if they were > > actually given, need not apply to this particular mission > > alone, but can be something very general that LV told all > > his DEs at some earlier time: "Whatever happens, no one is > > to harm Potter; he's mine." > > houyhnhnm: > > But there is no evidence that he did so. > This an appeal to ignorance. Annemehr: It's an appeal to logic, actually, and you're changing the subject. You originally asserted: houyhnhnm earlier: > I see what you are saying. That Snape could only have > dared to make such a claim if they *had* been given > such orders and Snape knew about it and the DEs knew he knew. > > But see what follows from that assumption. For it > to be true, Snape would have to have been in on the > plans to bring Death Eaters into Hogwarts. Draco > says he wasn't. But your second paragraph does not logically follow from the first. My only intent was to point out the existence of a perfectly plausible alternative, not to prove such an alternative had in fact happened. The plausibility of the alternative means that Snape *could* know of such an order and still not be a loyal DE or privy to Draco's plans. > Annemehr: > > > In fact, there is actually some corroborating evidence, > > in GoF, at the end of ch. 34: "Stand aside! I will kill him! > > He is mine!" shrieked Voldemort, as Harry ran for the Portkey. > > houyhnhnm: > > Voldemort did claim Harry in the graveyard when he > already had Harry in front of him, but that is not > the same thing as saying that the DEs are to leave > him for LV under all circumstances. > > After Harry came back, Barty Crouch, Jr. said, "Imagine > how he will reward me when he finds I have done it for > him. I gave you to him--the thing he needed above all > to regenerate--and then I killed you for him. I will > be honored above all other Death Eaters." (GoF35) Annemehr: I remember that -- and how the common opinion around here was that Barty would have been toast had he actually managed it. There was no reason at that time for LV to have issued any order about saving Harry's death for LV's hand, since Harry was meant to have died in the graveyard in the duel with LV, as the Dark Lord himself proclaimed to the DEs present. It was, however, nicely illustrated even then that LV cared about who should kill Harry Potter. houyhnhnm: > During the confrontation in the Department of Mysteries, > Lucius Malfoy told the DEs, "Be gentle with Potter until > we've got the prophecy, you can kill the others if necessary...." > > "Until we've got the prophecy" sounds like it's okay > to do whatever they want with Potter after they've > retrieved the prophecy. Surely Lucius would have told > them specifically not to kill Harry, if those were > Voldemort's orders. Annemehr: It's hard to tell; Bellatrix had only tried to stun Harry by that point -- why didn't she fire an AK instead? It was Lucius who first brought up killing, and then only in the context of Harry's companions. Also, of course, since the whole point of the mission is to get a prophecy *about* Harry, it would make sense that they weren't supposed to try and *kill* Harry in the meanwhile, whether or not the DEs knew exactly why LV wanted the prophecy in the first place. houyhnhnm: > Finally, there is no mention of any such order in the > conversation at Spinner's End. Since the issue of Harry's > life does come up in that conversation, it would be the > logical place for the author to insert some corroborating > evidence for Snape's command to the Death Eaters on the lawn. > There isn't any. Annemehr: I do not see what place such a mention would have in the Spinner's End chapter. Before LV's return, there could of course have been no such order. After the events in the graveyard, Snape's role is once again to "spy" on Dumbledore for LV, and as Snape mentions, killing Harry would tend to make DD suspicious of him. houyhnhnm: > In short there is no evidence to back up Snape's claim > that Harry is to be left for the Dark Lord. On the other > hand, it is odd that Snape used that claim to stop the DE's > from performing cruciatus on Harry. No one had tried to > use the Avadra. Why would Voldemort care if Harry got > tortured a little? Fenrir had already tried to take a > nibble. And why not kidnap Harry and take to Voldemort > if he belongs to the Dark Lord rather than leaving him > behind to continue being a threat? > Annemehr: I don't understand your objection to the plain reading of Snape's statement in itself: "Have you forgotten our orders? Potter belongs to the Dark Lord -- we are to leave him!" I agree with Peggy's original conclusion that for Snape to phrase it that way implies that there is indeed such an order for the DEs to remember. Of course, often enough the plain reading is misleading. Do you have a better, hidden one for this case? With canon? I believe he stopped the DE torturing Harry because he's actually on Harry's side. And why not kidnap Harry? Because either LV has no plan for dealing with him yet (since he failed to hear the prophecy), or else having Harry brought to him on the night in question is not it. Fenrir's a loose cannon; he wasn't even supposed to be there. He may not even have realised who he was trying to bite. Annemehr who's thinking that many a DE may just as soon *not* try firing an AK at The Boy Who Lived, thank you very much From Schlobin at aol.com Tue Jun 27 04:57:45 2006 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 04:57:45 -0000 Subject: Who dies (clearly Ron and Snape)? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154421 > > > If she considers clowns like Hagrid or McGonnagal "major > characters", I'm gonna puke. > > Nick > > Please do start throwing up, Nick. Obviously JKR DOES consider Professors Hagrid and McGonagall major characters (you might want to work on your spelling). So, my thoughts about who dies.... Here's who I would choose: 1) Snape. My theory is that Snape did in fact repent after the death of James and Lily (in part because he owed his life to James)...I don't know that that makes him "good", because he certainly was terribly abusive to Neville and Harry, and I don't think people who are abusive to children are good. However, he might have been on DD's side. I want to believe that because I believe in DD..and don't want to believe that he is "foolish" because he believes in love. If in fact he was on DD's side, I think he will sacrifice himself in a last ditch attempt to kill Voldemort (and save Harry). 2) Percy. I would love it if Percy would redeem himself by sacrificing himself to save one of his family members from Voldemort. However, I'm not sure that JKR agrees with me.... SHE may kill off Neville....he is one of the characters who has exhibited the most growth..it might be connected to his steadfast goal to avenge his parents.....also, Peter Pettigrew might die..remember he owes Harry a debt (and DD said that when one wizard saves another's life, it creates a debt)... I don't think Harry will die. I think JKR will continue her classic work in which the hero prevails and does not die (of course she says that she's obsessed with death so who knows). Ron could die.....as the loyal best friend sacrificing himself....frankly, I don't see Ron as having that level of depth of character, but he could be killed off in a battle... Susan (Interested in joining Harry Potter for Grownups Over 40? It's a low volume group with about 70 members...email me at SusanGSMcGee at aol.com) From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Jun 27 05:43:16 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 05:43:16 -0000 Subject: JKR borrows from heroic literature In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154422 When Rowling said there would be 2 major deaths in the next book I think she meant 2 death's we'd grieve over (this being a heroic tragedy) so I don't think the number includes Voldemort. Thus the obvious 2 with an appointment with death would be Harry and Snape. To me the more intriguing question is who had Rowling originally decided to kill but then changed her mind? My guess would be Ginny, I think Rowling decided to let her live so she could produce Harry Potter Junior, just in case she changed her mind yet again and some day decides to write another book set in the Potter universe. My hope is that Percy will die too, it's possible because despite his last name few would grieve much if he took a dirt nap, not even the Weasleys. Eggplant From enlil65 at gmail.com Tue Jun 27 06:40:13 2006 From: enlil65 at gmail.com (Peggy Wilkins) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 01:40:13 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Of essence divided? In-Reply-To: References: <1789c2360606252148q2dd6442fgd46ca973b875f730@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1789c2360606262340v1ecb34edq88db133b1ce79071@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154423 On 6/26/06, houyhnhnm102 wrote: > Peggy: > > I don't think his "have you forgotten our orders" > > can be taken one way or the other, as far as his > > being a loyal DE or DDM!Snape... we know only that > > they have been given that order. > > houyhnhnm: > We only know that Snape *says* they have been given > that order. There is no corroborating evidence. > > I see what you are saying. That Snape could only have > dared to make such a claim if they *had* been given > such orders and Snape knew about it and the DEs knew he knew. Peggy W again: Actually, that's not what I mean to say at all. It's not that I think Snape's statement is beyond doubt, but rather, I choose to believe what he is saying because it makes sense to me. It fits Voldemort's past behavior. Voldemort uses meaningful deaths to make Horcruxes, and Harry's death would be meaningful to him because he sees Prophecy-Boy-Harry as the last remaining threat to his power. Dumbledore tells Harry his belief that Voldemort was one Horcrux short of his goal at Godric's Hollow and so intended Harry's death to complete that plan; and Dumbeldore says that Harry's death would be meaningful to Voldemort. That makes a lot of sense to me. We may not have hard evidence by the end of HBP of whether or not Voldemort has completed his goal, but my guess is that Harry's death is important enough to Voldemort that he still wants to use it to make that sixth and final Horcrux and complete his 7-part soul. That gives me sufficient motivation for believing at face value Snape's statement that Harry is being saved for Voldemort alone. I know that this is my belief and that it isn't supportable by hard evidence (as you say, we only have Snape's word for it); but if we can only believe things that are supported by hard evidence, we will find ourselves able to believe very little. So for me, it is my personal choice to believe Snape's statement because it makes sense to me in the context of the larger story. -- Peggy Wilkins enlil65 at gmail.com From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jun 27 06:51:26 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 06:51:26 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154425 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "phoenixgod2000" wrote: > > > > Betsy Hp: > > > > > It's interesting though, because I think Draco has the harder path > > to walk and so may end up wiser than Harry. After all, Harry hasn't > > had to question his definitions of good and evil. All of his > > friends are good and all of his foes are evil. It's been easy for > > him. While Draco is having to question his assumptions, Harry seems > > quite safe in keeping his. Phoenixgod2000: > Or you could look at it as Draco is taking longer to reach a stage of > wisdom that harry obtained a long time ago. Of the two of them, I > would say that Harry has had the 'easier' route because his judgement > of friends and enemies has been better than Draco's (lets just compare > Ron/Hermione with Crabbe/Goyle to test that theory), and when he is > wrong he shifts gears pretty quickly. Draco has stuck to wrong > assumptions for quite a long time. if he is changing then he's doing it > at a glacial pace. Geoff: Draco is only changing slowly because, like a glacier, he is moving through the same sort of territory all the time. Possibly until the imprisonment of Lucius at the end of OOTP, he has never suffered major shocks or changes to his life style and, hence, his view of life. Harry, on the other hand, is a river in an earthquake zone. He has had to contend with a whole series of major shifts in his life and his ideas over a period of six years up to the end of HBP. His entire world view has been turned upside-down; whether you put it down to "sheer dumb luck", the help of friends or innate intuition, he has faced up to Voldemort four times since he learned he was a wizard and lived which has certainly honed his survival skills somewhat. From juli17 at aol.com Tue Jun 27 06:51:57 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 02:51:57 EDT Subject: Who dies?/Evil Snape Message-ID: <53f.164f596.31d22f8d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154426 > Julie, who's never seen evidence of Snape clinging to his joyless life > no matter the cost as Voldemort and Wormtail are wont to do. Alla: He did NOT want to go to Azkaban, where people go mad with grief and die, didn't he? To me that means that Snape does cling to his life and dearly so. Julie again: I don't know that you die when you go to Azkaban. Maybe some do but most seem to live on within their insanity and grief. No, Snape didn't want to go to Azkaban (who would?!) but it's a very different prospect than merely dying, and many would consider dying the preferable alternative. Let's also remember that Snape faced that choice some 15 years prior to HBP. He's lived a lot of life since then, and most of it hasn't been a lot of fun, if we assume he's been beholden to DD, the life debt to James, his own guilty conscience, and whatever else. Who's to say a 37 year old Snape wouldn't be much more willing to accept death than a 22 year old Snape? Finally, we are talking about two very different circumstances. 22 year old Snape wasn't affecting anyone else's life adversely by escaping imprisonment in Azkaban. He was only affecting his life positively. It's very different 15 years later when his survival means the death of the one man who has truly cared for and trusted him. Perhaps the only person he really loves, as a father figure and a mentor. So the choice to accept DD's offer (whatever it was) and avoid Azkaban, and the choice to kill DD so he could live are two very unrelated decisions. Julie, still convinced Snape would have readily given up his life rather than take Dumbledore's, if it hadn't meant Harry and Draco likely dying with him [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Jun 27 07:07:10 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 07:07:10 -0000 Subject: JKR borrows from heroic literature/ who dies? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154427 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > When Rowling said there would be 2 major deaths in the next book I > think she meant 2 death's we'd grieve over (this being a heroic > tragedy) so I don't think the number includes Voldemort. Thus the > obvious 2 with an appointment with death would be Harry and Snape. Tonks: I watched the interview on Mugglenet. She didn't say 2 major deaths. She said she spared one person she had planned to kill and killed 2 that she hadn't planned to killing. This is apparently in addition to any others that she had *planned* to kill. And she said that real evil goes after the main characters. I don't think that we can put those two statements together and get that she is only going to kill 2 people, and that those people will be main characters. I think she will kill more than 2 people. They may or may not be major characters. They certainly will be people we know. She might lead us on an emotional roller coaster ride like she did in OP, without really killing off who we think she is killing. Remember Arthur? We all thought he was a goner for sure. I hated JKR for about a half hour there. Since this is a book for children I suspect that the trio and Ginny will live. And hopefully Luna and Neville. I think she has killed all of the young folks she planned to kill when she killed Cedric. She made the statement, IMO, that she wanted to make with his death. Any more would be, pardon me, overkill. I think there will be a lot of action. It will look like Harry and company is losing. We will be on the edge of our seats, maybe with boxes of Kleenex, but when the dust settles, it will end well. Snape will be dead, Bella, LV, a house elf or two, and Firenze. Kreacher might even get his head mounted on the wall. Fawkes will return. And by the grace of Rowling, everyone else will live long and prosper. Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Jun 27 07:41:02 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 07:41:02 -0000 Subject: Of essence divided? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154428 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" wrote: > > I don't understand your objection to the plain reading of Snape's > statement in itself: "Have you forgotten our orders? Potter belongs to the Dark Lord -- we are to leave him!" I agree with Peggy's original conclusion that for Snape to phrase it that way implies that there is indeed such an order for the DEs to remember. > (snip > I believe he stopped the DE torturing Harry because he's actually on Harry's side. Tonks: I agree that LV probably did have a long standing order that Harry was his and his alone. Here is my reason: I think the whole point of LV being the *one* to kill Harry is to reinstate LV as being the most powerful wizard. Harry took away LV's political power and LV must regain that. But if someone else kills Harry that person will be the top dog and LV will not. That is why LV needs to keep Harry for himself. It is also the reason, IMO, why Draco was sent to kill DD. If he had succeeded the message it would have sent is that DD is not really a powerful wizard, "why even a child can kill him". The idea here in both cases is that if a child can kill wizard X, then X was not very powerful to begin with. It would mean that X was not as powerful as everyone thought. And a person in LV's political position can not afford to have a child get the best of him. This is exactly what it seems that Harry has done on more than one occasion. It would be political suicide for LV to have anyone else kill Harry. It is bad enough that Snape killed DD instead of Draco. That is not according to plan, I think. It makes Snape look like a real rival for LV. I suspect that LV might not be as happy about this as we think he will be. On the other hand if LV can kill Harry then that still makes LV king of the hill. He will have to kill off Snape too, since Snape will be seen as the #1 potential threat to LV's position. (Politics it is all about politics. A very dirty business.) And since Snape is DDM, I agree that his main reason for reminding them was to protect Harry. Tonks_op From honeykissed246 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 27 06:26:54 2006 From: honeykissed246 at yahoo.com (honeykissed246) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 06:26:54 -0000 Subject: Durmstrang and Horcruxes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154429 I was reading a few post as they relate to the horcruxes and it dawned on me (late...but dawned) that teaching about horcruxes was banned at Hogwarts but was it banned at Durmstrang? I don't remember reading anywhere that it was and isn't it a school that openly teaches the dark arts. I think that Hermione's "friendship" with with Viktor Krum will come in handy here. I do believe that Harry will (or Hermione) will learn more about horcruxes from Viktor. With Dumbledore's death, I don't feel that Harry has learned enough about horcruxes and needs additional information. This makes me think that we have not seen or heard the last from "Mr. Viktor Krum"...:) honeykissed. From red_light_runner08 at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jun 27 09:45:38 2006 From: red_light_runner08 at yahoo.co.uk (Jennifer) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 09:45:38 -0000 Subject: Trelawney's predictions in "HBP"? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154430 I'm sure this has already been asked a million times but it's impossible to look back over all these posts so I apologise if this is repetitive. I was wondering about Trelawney's predictions? Towards the end of the sixth book she makes the predictions with the cards about "the lightning-struck tower. Calamity. Disaster..." etc. I know she's a fraud who is never aware of making proper predictions but this seems to show that she at least reads the cards right even if she doesn't really understand what they actually mean and would rather concentrate on dramatic effect than figuring it out. What bothers me (and this is so trivial that I'm almost embarrassed to ask) is a prediction she makes with the cards earlier on in the sixth book in chapter 10, " The House of Gaunt". At the beginning of the chapter she says: "Two of Spades: conflict. Seven of Spades: an ill omen. Ten of Spades: violence. Knave of Spades: a dark young man, possibly troubled, one who dislikes the questioner ". Can anyone tell me if she's reading an event that happens later in the HBP (like the Malfoy situation) or something else? Like I said it's a bit of a trivial question but it's been really bugging me. I cant help feeling I'm missing the obvious. Jennifer From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jun 27 13:00:19 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 13:00:19 -0000 Subject: Harry's arrogance /Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154431 > Carol again: > > But my concern is for a DDM!Snape who may have had no choice but to > kill Dumbledore, forced to do so by a combination of the UV (which > might have killed him on the spot if the AK were fake despite all the > holes you find in it), the DADA curse (which seems responsible for > forcing Snape into this terrible dilemma), and DD's last wish as > expressed through mutual Legilimency on the tower (if that's what > happened) or through Snape's correct interpretation of "Severus, > please." (The UV itself is perfectly reconcilable with DDM!Snape, but > that's a topic for another post.) Pippin: As has been pointed out, if JKR ever decides to write Year -12, _Revenge of the Death Eater_ , she'll do a better job than GL. But this is Harry's story, and Harry already knows all about doing the right thing while everyone else thinks you're mad, bad and dangerous to know. The revelation and the reversal, when they come, have to tell Harry something that he didn't know before. I don't think JKR believes in curses, vows and prophecies, and we saw that even the prophecy is not the reason that Harry *has* to kill Voldemort. I don't believe she would make the UV or the DADA curse the reason that Snape had to kill Dumbledore. I think the DADA curse worked the way it always does and revealed Snape's darkest secret: his culpability in the death of James. As for the holes in the vow, I am sure it was worded as carefully as the prophecy, precisely so that it could be interpreted in various ways. And as JKR has told us, no magic is foolproof. Those holes are important, one way or another. Carol: > I would love to have you be right--much better for Snape not to be his > mentor's unwilling murderer and face the guilt and mental anguish that > such a crime entails even though he had no choice but to perform it. > But if JKR has not tricked us by faking DD's death (and I wouldn't put > it past her to do so), if DD is really dead, I think that Snape's > actions can still be justified, and his mental anguish when Harry > calls him a coward is much easier to explain Pippin: But there's a beat between DON'T and CALL ME A COWARD! That's awkward, unless, of course, the Don't refers to something else and the coward bit is obfuscation. I wasn't going to go through my theory about this again, but I've thought of something to add to it. Dumbledore sends Harry away with the, er, transparent, excuse that he'll need to fetch his Invisibility Cloak. We've concentrated on what DD might have wanted Harry to do. But what if it was DD who needed to do something, namely, to tell Snape that the eavesdropping episode had come out and beg Snape's permission to tell Harry the whole story? If Snape gave it, then he would assume that Harry knows why DD trusted him and *that* puts faking Dumbledore's death in a very different light. Then when Harry says, Kill me like you killed him, Snape thinks Harry is talking about James, who they've just been speaking of and is the cause of Snape's remorse according to Dumbledore, and Snape's anguish over this is revealed. Then, of course, Snape realizes he's given himself away with DE's watching and tacks on the "call me a coward" to preserve his cover. But as Snape was bantering about his supposed cowardice a moment before, and as Sirius never called Snape a coward even when Snape was calling him one, I don't think a charge of cowardice would hit Snape where he lives. I think the "I don't want to do it anymore" argument has to do with the thing Snape agreed to do at the end of GoF - take up his role as a double agent, ie slither out of action but otherwise play the part of a loyal DE. I think Dumbledore was insisting that if DE's ever did get into the castle, which he was sure they never would, (you take too much for granted) Snape was to continue to play his part to the hilt, as he was bound to do both by his agreement with Dumbledore, and by the UV, which he took because, following Dumbledore's orders, it's what Bella would have expected of a loyal DE. Snape's hatred and revulsion on the tower are for having, choosing, to follow this order, knowing that Dumbledore will probably die without his aid. -- "If I tell you to hide, will you do so?" "Yes." "If I tell you to flee, will you obey?" "Yes" "If I tell you to leave me and save yourself, you will do as I tell you? "I--" "Harry?" They looked at each other for a moment. "Yes, sir." ---HBP ch 25 What Harry has to learn is that people who hate him can be as loyal to Dumbledore as he is. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jun 27 13:43:26 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 13:43:26 -0000 Subject: Who dies?/Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154432 > Alla: > > I was not clear. Sorry about that. Snape does NOT have to be a > Saint to save Harry, BUT IMO Snape absolutely does have to be a > saint to make the choice that Carol suggests would feature : > > 1) To save Dumbledore OR > > 2) To save Harry. > > Meaning to make a choice where Snape life is not taken into account > when Snape makes his decision. > > As I said earlier - there is UV lurking on the horizon, so I am not > buying that Snape does not care whether it kicks in or not. > > There may be a time frame on it, or not, but how would Snape know > for sure? Pippin: Snape has the biggest library we've seen outside Hogwarts. He's also a recognized expert on Dark Magic. If anyone knows about how the Vow works, he does. > Alla: > > Pippin, we have to agree to disagree here. JKR IS Christie admirer, > but she is NOT Christie, no? > > So, I would not expect her works to be so similar to Christie, but > that is IMO of course. > > And yes, Scabbers is ONE example that brought up as such a twist. > > IMO even Fake!Moody does not count as very twisty, surprising, yes. > I guess, but incredibly twisty, not sure. Pippin: And Quirrell turning out to be the villain wasn't twisty, and Riddle turning out to be Voldemort wasn't twisty, and the prophecy turning out not to control events wasn't twisty? You see straightforward clues to all that? The clues for Fake!Moody are definitely twisty. The ferret bounce, Moody's claim that Crouch had disappeared from the Map, Tom Riddle (Sr) having the same name as, er, Tom Riddle (Jr), and Snape's accusations of missing polyjuice ingredients all seem to be coincidence or invite misleading interpretations on first reading. The only clue that's not twisty is Voldemort's claim that the MoM will be "checking and re-checking identitites" which was an easily overlooked but perfectly straightforward message that impersonation was in play. Are you saying that JKR manifestly likes twists and likes Christie, but her work is not so similar to Christie's that it has Christie-ish twists? I guess we will have to disagree on that. Pippin From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Jun 27 14:28:55 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 14:28:55 -0000 Subject: Who dies?/Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154433 > > Pippin: > Snape has the biggest library we've seen outside Hogwarts. He's > also a recognized expert on Dark Magic. If anyone knows about > how the Vow works, he does. Potioncat: Someone, sometime, suggested the books would follow along with the challenges from SS/PS. That would have HBP as the Potions Challenge. That challenge was a logic puzzle--created by Snape. I think the UV, as taken by Snape--is an exercise in logic as well. That's why there are holes written into it and it's how Snape expected to get out of it. (IMHO) > > > > Alla: > > > > Pippin, we have to agree to disagree here. JKR IS Christie admirer, > > but she is NOT Christie, no? > > > > So, I would not expect her works to be so similar to Christie, but > > that is IMO of course. Pippin: > Are you saying that JKR manifestly likes twists and likes Christie, > but her work is not so similar to Christie's that it has > Christie-ish twists? I guess we will have to disagree on that. Potioncat: Drat! I can't find it. In the interview that JKR did with the Girl Guides (UK or just Scotland?) she comented that she enjoyed pulling the wool over her readers' eyes. Her favorite book was one that Jane Austen wrote "because" it had a major plot twist. JKR was stating the two facts together, "I like pulling the wool over my readers' eyes and my favorite book is...because..." (as close as memory permits.) While it may not be possible to trick everyone of us, I think she's going to give it a good try. She's going to be putting in twists and turns. From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Tue Jun 27 14:11:28 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 14:11:28 -0000 Subject: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154434 > AD: > > So you propose that Harry should spill his secrets to an > > untrusted adult, then? > > Ceridwen: > That isn't what I said. Amiable Dorsai: Clearly not. I took your words out of context to make a point, which, on reflection, was unfair of me. My apologies. Though it's a bit ironic, given what I'm about to propose. > AD: > > As to whether Harry has a touch of arrogance, well, I hope he > > does. He's going to need all the backbone he can get in the > > next few days, as he's going to have to go against the wishes > > of some very strong personalities--starting with Vernon and > > Petunia. > > Ceridwen: > Heh, I think Harry has plenty of backbone. Adversity makes people > either stronger or more bitter - I think Harry has become stronger. > But there's a point where good arrogance becomes bad arrogance. > There is very little Harry can find out about Horcruxes, for > instance, given that the topic is banned. Amiable Dorsai: Which brings me to the irony. It occurs to me that there is an "untrusted adult" that Harry probably needs to confide in, at least partially: Horace Slughorn. Sluggy, assuming he remembers the night Harry got him drunk, almost certainly has a pretty good idea of what Dumbledore and Harry were up to that night already. He knows at least something about Horcruxes, and he may have more insight into Tom Riddle, and/or his Death Eaters. In particular, he was friendly with Regulus Black. Now, how does Harry convince Sluggy to disgorge? Amiable Dorsai From distaiyi at yahoo.com Tue Jun 27 14:49:14 2006 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 14:49:14 -0000 Subject: JKR borrows from heroic literature/ who dies? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154435 --- "Tonks" wrote: > Since this is a book for children I suspect that the trio and Ginny > will live. And hopefully Luna and Neville. I think she has killed > all of the young folks she planned to kill when she killed Cedric. > She made the statement, IMO, that she wanted to make with his > death. Any more would be, pardon me, overkill. Since we're citing JKR, she's repeatedly said her books are not necessarily children's books. Thus I don't think you can assume those 4 characters survive. I think she has always had every intention of killing Harry. I don't see how he can survive. I see him much like Bilbo in LotR... he won't be able to live on in this world, and rather than have him just "vanish" I see JKR as finishing him off. He may kill LV first, but he must die, his experiences have made him unfit for "normal wizard" company. I'm still considering my theory about who must die to fufill the prophecy, I'm thinking Harry kills Neville, then kills Voldemort, but dies of magical damage suffered in the battle, so he can have his last soliloquy with Dumbledore. Distaiyi, the definitely twisted From alkaline_poet at yahoo.com Tue Jun 27 06:40:55 2006 From: alkaline_poet at yahoo.com (Robyn Walton) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 23:40:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Who dies? In-Reply-To: <20060627012131.51452.qmail@web60122.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060627064055.56561.qmail@web55102.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154436 > Alla wrote: > Um, I just saw the quote from JKR's today interview. It could be a > paraphrase, so please don't beat me up. > > But I think the gist is right. She says that in book 7 one character > gets a reprieve, but two that she did nto intend to kill off ??? die. Robyn: I believe it'll be someone close to Harry. LV would kill someone who is not only close to Harry, but to everyone else. So maybe one of the people to die will be either Remus or Ginny. Remus is close to Harry threw the connection of knowing his parents and Sirius. Ginny because of the relationship with Harry and everyone else. The second person...not sure yet. Could be both of the persons I just said. The second person would, most likly to me, be Neville. I have no clue why, but he just seems like an target. That's what I think. (I'm such a forgetful person. I have to re-read HBP again...grr, it's not funny...and no I'm Not a blonde!) Cheers! From bjk5377 at verizon.net Tue Jun 27 07:33:12 2006 From: bjk5377 at verizon.net (Barbara Kraus) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 02:33:12 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Who dies? (Harry) (was Re: Who dies (clearly Ron and Snape)?) Message-ID: <10654380.2278481151393592861.JavaMail.root@vms073.mailsrvcs.net> No: HPFGUIDX 154437 Susan: > I don't think Harry will die. I think JKR will continue > her classic work in which the hero prevails and does not die > (of course she says that she's obsessed with death so who knows). I say that Harry dies and is reunited in some fashion with his parents, Sirius, and Dumbledore...which is what he's really always wanted...he'll go out in a blaze of glory having wiped out the dark wizards and his reward will be his family. Barbara From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 27 14:07:32 2006 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 07:07:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Who dies (not Neville) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060627140732.82807.qmail@web52708.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154438 Susan wrote: >> SHE may kill off Neville....he is one of the characters who has exhibited the most growth..it might be connected to his steadfast goal to avenge his parents.....also, Peter Pettigrew might die.. remember he owes Harry a debt (and DD said that when one wizard saves another's life, it creates a debt)... << I don't see Neville dying precisely because all his growth and learning would then be for no reason. I have a hard time believing that JK would kill off someone who's just at the beginning of his life's journey, as Neville clearly is. I feel like Pettigrew HAS to die, because without him, LV would never have returned...so I feel like he needs to pay for that. My bet is that Snape will die in an act of total goodness, like physically saving Harry's life, because he really needs to be redeemed, even if killing DD was DD's plan. I also think that one of the Weasleys will die, though not Ron. I feel like if JK was to kill off any of the trio, it would be Harry. Maybe Molly, since she's the only one Harry hasn't saved! Just a guess. Katie From jelly92784 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 27 15:54:27 2006 From: jelly92784 at yahoo.com (jelly92784) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 15:54:27 -0000 Subject: Trelawney's predictions in "HBP"? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154439 Jennifer wrote: "Two of Spades: conflict. Seven of Spades: an ill omen. Ten of Spades: violence. Knave of Spades: a dark young man, possibly troubled, one who dislikes the questioner ". Can anyone tell me if she's reading an event that happens later in the HBP (like the Malfoy situation) or something else? Like I said it's a bit of a trivial question but it's been really bugging me. I cant help feeling I'm missing the obvious. Janelle: I tend to read this section as a warning that we should take Trelawny more seriously than we have in the past. Harry, "a dark young man" is standing, hidden, listening to Trelawny "the questioner" make these predictions. I think it's interesting that she seems to get something right, if she is in fact referring to the fact that Harry is there and that he dislikes her, and then she just writes it off saying, "that can't be right" or something to that effect. I always read this passage as a hint that we should pay more attention to the things that Trelawney says because she tends to be right more often than we are originally led to believe. As I reread what I wrote above I realized that when she draws the Knave of Spades she ends up referring to something happening right at that moment, Harry's presence. Could it be that the other cards, the two, seven, and ten of spades are also representing something that is happening right then or that happened immediately before this moment? "Conflict", "an ill omen", and "violence". I really wish I had my books with me so I could re-read this chapter and find out what happens around that same time. I'd also go back and read the chapter of PoA where Harry looks at that book about bad omens, you know, the one wiht the Grim on the cover. There could be some sort of interesting connection there. Also, could the knave of spades, the card representing Harry, be significant in some way? From thebookandtherose at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jun 27 14:40:42 2006 From: thebookandtherose at yahoo.co.uk (thebookandtherose) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 14:40:42 -0000 Subject: "Either must die..." In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154440 Distaiyi wrote: > ... And either must die at the hands of the other for neither can > live while the other survives... > > Well, this isn't about Harry and the Dark Lord... This is reference > to Harry and Neville. Think about their lives. Neither one really > has had one given their circumstances. I think she's telling us, > one of them is going to die at the other's hands (purpose or > accident really doesn't matter) and then the survivor will > eliminate the Dark Lord. BookishRose: Sorry, I don't buy it. Harry and Neville never did anything to hurt each other whereas Harry half killed Voldemort when he was one, stopped him directly twice, PS/SS CoS, warned Dumbledore (his greatest enemy) when he did come back, stopped him from getting the prophecy and is now in the process of destroying his Horcruxes, and Voldemort killed Harry's parents, godfather and mentor and made it impossible for him to live a normal life. Having said that Neville could potentially get very resentful of Harry. Harry's parents died a hero's death whereas his exist in a kind of limbo almost like the Dementor's kiss victims; Harry gets fame, he is unpopular and overlooked. His Gran is sort of the opposite of the Dursleys- she wants him to take after his father and the pressure is just as negative as the neglect and resentment from the Dursleys. Has Neville got it in him to be evil? I don't think so, but it's always the quiet ones. Bookish Rose...a very quiet one. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Jun 27 15:22:19 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 15:22:19 -0000 Subject: Who dies?/Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154441 > Potioncat: > Drat! I can't find it. In the interview that JKR did with the Girl > Guides (UK or just Scotland?) she comented that she enjoyed pulling > the wool over her readers' eyes. Her favorite book was one that Jane > Austen wrote "because" it had a major plot twist. JKR was stating the > two facts together, "I like pulling the wool over my readers' eyes > and my favorite book is...because..." (as close as memory permits.) > > While it may not be possible to trick everyone of us, I think she's > going to give it a good try. She's going to be putting in twists and > turns. zgirnius: I found this, from an interview published in Reader's Digest in 2000... JKR: "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." zgirnius: So yes, I too expect to see some more twistiness in Book 7! From celizwh at intergate.com Tue Jun 27 17:03:09 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 17:03:09 -0000 Subject: Who dies?/Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154442 Remember that the *changes* Rowling spoke of are to a draft she wrote in 1990. The first Harry Potter book wasn't published until 1998, so I don't think her statements necessarily indicate a change of course in the story since book one. Personally, I think she's just ramping up the publicity machine with an eye to breaking book sales records in 2007. houyhnhnm From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Tue Jun 27 17:12:52 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 17:12:52 -0000 Subject: Who dies? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154443 > Annemehr: > I downloaded the interview (a WMV file, 30 min. run time) from the > link at HPANA. > > Rowling is talking about the *final chapter* of book 7 at > this point, > > Here's a transcript I did from that section (look at 03:44): > > JKR: The final chapter is hidden away -- although it's now > changed very slightly. One character got a reprieve, but I have > to say two died that I didn't intend to die... > > Judy: Oooh! Two much-loved ones? > > JKR: Well, you know, the price has to be paid. We *are* dealing > with pure evil, so -- they don't target the extras, do they, they > go for the main characters... aussie/Hagrid: Thanks for that, Anne. I was wondering how far through the book Joanne was when she realised they would die. To make a death more emotional, she would need to build up the connection Harry has with that person during that book itself. Bill and Fleur are scheduled to be married near the start of the book. If it is a pair that dies, I would say someone we get emotionally closer to around the wedding. Bill and Fleur are not central enough (unless Bill's curse breaking makes him help in the Horcrux hunting). Neither is Madam Maxime paired with Hagrid (although I'd expect Fleur's old Headmistress at the wedding). Molly and Arther passed the peak of their motional development with Harry already. I don't think they are the ones Joanne ment there (although they may be unaltered casualties) Lupin and Tonks as a pair are vulnerable. So are Fred and George. (George mentions a pretty girl working in the village paper shop [HBP Chap 16] - a wizard + muggle relationship may make him an even greater target) Joanne may have held Charlie Weasley to develop during this book. So his nature / personality / emotional connection will become endearing to readers in this book. Non-central fatalities may include: - Scrimgeour - Kingsley Shacklebolt - Trelawney (to get the prophesy from her) - Ollivander (disappeared soon after Neville bought his wand) - Susan Bones (her whole family seemed targetted) With Snape and Draco, their execution would reinforce LV's low esteem for human life, even towards his followers. And Hagrid? As you can see from my ID, I'd prefer Hagrid to survive. He may be the one getting the reprieve. Although Joanne may have always developed the emotional connection between HRH to Hagrid, she made his character very impervious to spells and hexes. Hermione calls it "Giant's blood" but I think there is more than heritage there to make DD say he would trust him with his life. Either his clothing or body are treated to withstand mast magical attacks. This could be the skin of a creature from Magical Beasts or DD's protective spell saving him. (Hagid was unscathed after hexes from Umbridge and later DE's flight from Hogwarts) From distaiyi at yahoo.com Tue Jun 27 17:30:05 2006 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 17:30:05 -0000 Subject: Trelawney's predictions in "HBP"? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154444 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jelly92784" wrote: > > Jennifer wrote: > Janelle: I tend to read this section as a warning that we should > take Trelawny more seriously than we have in the past. There is a really excellent article on this at mugglenet : http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/spinnersend/se03.shtml I'm not even going to try to duplicate it here, but it is worth reading to broaden one's thoughts on this issue. Distaiyi From celizwh at intergate.com Tue Jun 27 17:26:00 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 17:26:00 -0000 Subject: Of essence divided? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154445 Peggy W again: > Actually, that's not what I mean to say at all. It's not > that I think Snape's statement is beyond doubt, but rather, > I choose to believe what he is saying because it makes > sense to me. It fits Voldemort's past behavior. houyhnhnm: And to me it makes sense that Snape is lying based on Snape's past behavior. Annemehr: > It's an appeal to logic, actually, and you're changing > the subject. > But your second paragraph does not logically follow from > the first. My only intent was to point out the existence > of a perfectly plausible alternative, not to prove such > an alternative had in fact happened. The plausibility of > the alternative means that Snape *could* know of such an > order and still not be a loyal DE or privy to Draco's plans. houyhnhnm: An appeal to ignorance can be a valid logical argument but it gets misused a lot on this forum. We are never told that such-and-such didn't happen, therefore it must have happened. If you are saying that if Snape is telling the truth it doesn't necessarily follow that he is a loyal DE, because Voldemort could have issued a general order to spare Harry, then I take your point. But if you are saying that we have no evidence that Voldemort didn't issue such an order, therefore it is likely that he did, that is not a valid argument. I don't think there is enough evidence either way, so I don't think the *fact* that Voldemort is saving Harry for himself is a sound foundation on which to build a theory. From distaiyi at yahoo.com Tue Jun 27 17:20:11 2006 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 17:20:11 -0000 Subject: "Either must die..." In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154446 --- "thebookandtherose" wrote: > Sorry, I don't buy it. Not certain I was clear then... In book 5 Harry and Neville were the only ones facing the whole of the Death Eaters sent for the prophecy. Neville was not going to allow Harry to continue even though Neville could not properly cast a spell at that point. In the battle we see people almost getting hit by stray hexes all over the place. I'm quite convinced that in an upcoming battle that it is entirely possible that Harry accidently kills Neville. This is what tips him over th edge to actually meaning it when he casts an unforgivable curse (e.g., AK) to eliminate the Dark Lord once and for all. We already know that JKR has every intention of killing off characters in book 7. No matter how badly I want it to be otherwise, I'm coming to believe that both Harry AND Neville ultimately die to defeat the Dark Lord for the final time. Hoping I'm Wrong : Distaiyi From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 27 17:46:02 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 17:46:02 -0000 Subject: Evil Snape/ JKR and Christy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154447 > > Alla: > > > > Pippin, we have to agree to disagree here. JKR IS Christie admirer, > > but she is NOT Christie, no? > > > > So, I would not expect her works to be so similar to Christie, but > > that is IMO of course. > > > > And yes, Scabbers is ONE example that brought up as such a twist. > > > > IMO even Fake!Moody does not count as very twisty, surprising, yes. > > I guess, but incredibly twisty, not sure. > > Pippin: > And Quirrell turning out to be the villain wasn't twisty, and > Riddle turning out to be Voldemort wasn't twisty, and the prophecy > turning out not to control events wasn't twisty? You see straightforward > clues to all that? > Alla: Look, I think this is the case of using different definitions again. To me "twist" means SO unexpected plot turn that there is absolutely NO WAY that I could predict it. And that is what I see in Christie works, yes. The plot turns you listed, well, no to me they don't quite count as twists. Surprise? Maybe, but even those are not quite there. I don't quite remember how shocked I was when Quirrell turned out to be a villain, since I read the books closely together in 2000, but I think I remember that I was not SHOCKED. And as to CoS, I am not sure that I was even surprised, I mean not that I figured it out well in advance of course, but from the moment Harry was in Chamber, I figured he would encounter major evil there. And major evil is bound to be connected to Lord Voldemort, no? And Prophecy? Twisty? Surely not for me, as I said in one of my posts upthread, that was a "that's it?" moment for me. Prophecy not controling events? Um,I do not count as twist either, more like JKR doing some damage control over readers saying " that's it?" in OOP. Besides, despite Dumbledore pronouncing it, he IMO clearly acted as he believes in prophecy, so I personally don't see the twist here one way or another. Again IMO. Could you please giving me the definition of twist you are using, maybe we are arguing over semantics again. That's JMO. I agree that JKR loves surprises, but as I said I see PLENTY of straightforward stuff in her series, that goes to the core of it - the major one of course is that Harry's power is Love, NOT some complicated charm that Dumbledore and Lily cooked up well in advance, knowing what lies ahead, but just Love. So, IMO no I cannot say that JKR puts the same shocking twists in her works as Christie does, but you know, I am GLAD that she does not ( the way I see it, I understand you disagree), because I love or hate JKR characters MUCH more passionately than I care for Christie's. I would reread JKR work over and over again and Christie works? Never after I finished them. Because there is nothing in her books to interest me after I know "who done it" I hope that JKR does not do the same thing. Distayi: > Since we're citing JKR, she's repeatedly said her books are not > necessarily children's books. Thus I don't think you can assume those > 4 characters survive. Alla: Yes, she did. She also said that she likes being seen as a children writer ( paraphrase), she also targets your books at younger audience, no? So, I think they are primarily oriented to the younger audience, but of course there is plenty in there for us adults too. IMO of course. Distayi: > I think she has always had every intention of killing Harry. I don't > see how he can survive. I see him much like Bilbo in LotR... he won't > be able to live on in this world, and rather than have him just > "vanish" I see JKR as finishing him off. He may kill LV first, but he > must die, his experiences have made him unfit for "normal wizard" company. Alla: Except Harry is not Bilbo, and his experiences could be different, no? I mean I don't see that JKR will necessarily decide to follow LOTR route, love it as I am. I do hope that she will let Harry live. Why person should be necessarily broken by hard experiences as much as he could not move on and live his life? Again IMO Alla. From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Tue Jun 27 17:54:21 2006 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 10:54:21 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Durmstrang and Horcruxes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <944416554.20060627105421@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154448 Monday, June 26, 2006, 11:26:54 PM, honeykissed246 wrote: h> I was reading a few post as they relate to the horcruxes and it dawned h> on me (late...but dawned) that teaching about horcruxes was banned at h> Hogwarts but was it banned at Durmstrang? I don't remember reading h> anywhere that it was and isn't it a school that openly teaches the h> dark arts... You make a good point. I'm wondering if LV's missing 10 years might at least been partly spent at Durmstrang. I don't think he could have learned about the Horcrux spell itself there, since he seems to have made at least one (the ring) before he vanished from Borgin and Burkes; but he may have picked up lots of useful stuff, like the uses of snake venom and unicorn blood, and maybe confirmation that his six-Horcrux scheme was practicable. Maybe Dumbledore is wrong about Nagini, and LV, despairing of finding a fourth Hogwarts artifact, settled for a Durmstrang artifact instead...? -- Dave (Who can't get over Dumbledore telling Harry that animal Horcruxes are "not advisable", as if any Horcrux *was*!!) From jmrazo at hotmail.com Tue Jun 27 18:08:17 2006 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:08:17 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154449 > Betsy Hp: > Hi Phoenixgod! But sure, lets try comparing Crabbe and Goyle > with Ron and Hermione. No one is walking around with a permantly > scarred face because of something Crabbe or Goyle did. I'm still > bothered by the fact that no member of the trio is bothered by > that. If Crabbe or Goyle *had* scarred someone like Hermione did, > that would have been another brick in the wall. But since it was > Hermione, I guess it's okay? Don't play the marrieta card with me :) I have no sympathy for her. I do agree that JKR's humor with the good guys has a surprising dark color to it, I think it fits well with wizarding world. they live in a world with very few consequences that magic can't make better. makes sense to me that they would push the envelope wover what could be done. I just don't marrieta is a good example. She's a traitor to the school and to the group. she deserves what she gets. > To do a real side by side comparison is hard though, because Crabbe > and Goyle don't have any lines of dialogue. And I'm not sure > they're even Draco's closest friends. We don't know because we > don't see Draco on his home turf. I doubt Draco has any close friends, which again, speaks well of Harry's wisdom in making allies who will stand by him through thick and thin. > Betsy Hp: > Really? I'd love an example or two. As far as I can remember Harry > generally only turns on someone when they try to kill him or his > friends. Which is what it appears to be taking for Draco as well. Sure, I'll give you two. Hermione: He really doesn't like Hermione in the beginning of the series, yet after the troll incident, despite the fact that Hermione is still basically the same annoying person she was before the incident, Harry becomes best friends with her. Speaks well of his ability to admit that he misjudged someone and take a second look at them. Sirius: Harry wanted to murder Sirius in the beginning of Azkaban. yet in the climactic scene, Harry manages to control his bloodlust and divine that something else was going on. Once again, shifts gears quickly and shows good judgement. > Betsy Hp: > Oh, I don't know. He's only sixteen in HBP. That's a fairly young > age to have such a crisis of his belief system. (A crisis Harry has > yet to have, by the way.) well, except for his father. And Dumbledore's fallibility. Oh and the prophecy. Harry has had plenty of crisis in his beliefs and assumptions. He just handles them better than Draco does. He's also much more proactive than Draco. Our little Dragon is far to Slytherin--everything he does is manipuation and misdirection, it circles around the problem without dealing with it. Do you really think that Harry would have sat around and done what Voldemort wanted him to do if his mother was in trouble, or would he have tried to do something to rescue her? As much as people want to paint Harry's directness as a weakness, it is not. it is his strength. And it's not like the "good guys" have > behaved in such a stellar fashion that the rightness of their view > point is obvious. The Weasleys behave like thugs and their father > uses his power to persecute Draco's father. I'm losing sleep over the persecution of Lucius Malfoy. Are you watching ;) Dumbledore uses his > position to promote his Gryffindors even if the rest of the school > suffers. How many times did Slytherin win the house cup before Harry got there? Wasn't it about a billion times? straight? Dumbledore needs to be much more effective if he wants to cheat for his alma mater. > Voldemort loses Draco. The good guys don't do anything to attract > him. Not until Dumbledore *finally* shows that he's willing to > protect Draco's family. Once again. Harry would have tried to do something on his own instead of relying on other people to do it for him. He doesn't need someone to *attract* him to the side of light. his good sense does that for him. Something I doubt Draco ever thought the > old man capable of or interested in doing. True. Because Draco doesn't have the sense to see past the end of his nose when it comes to people he already made assumptions about. An idiot could see that Dumbledore cares about all of his students, Draco just didn't want to believe that. He'd rather play at currying favor with the dark lord. From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Tue Jun 27 18:11:20 2006 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 11:11:20 -0700 Subject: ESE!JKR ? :) (was: [HPforGrownups] Re: Book 7 news) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3810282123.20060627111120@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154450 Monday, June 26, 2006, 2:19:56 PM, Tonks wrote: T> Oh I can't STAND it!! Why does she do this to us? ESE Rowling!! T> Better to say nothing. *Nothing*!!. My anxiety level is a 10+. Yes, I don't understand what the point was. It's like a sort of "informational striptease" -- Reveal just enough to be infuriating. I do feel concern about her turning people off with this "war" in which the casualties seem to be incredibly one-sided. If at the end there's no one left standing but some DE's, scattered MoM bureaucrats, and Old Archie, who's going to want to read it again, or in years to come, read it to their children?? But she says again and again that she writes these books strictly for herself... Frankly I find that more unsettling than anything... -- Dave From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Tue Jun 27 18:07:19 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:07:19 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154451 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy Hp: > Oh, I don't know. He's only sixteen in HBP. That's a fairly young > age to have such a crisis of his belief system. (A crisis Harry has > yet to have, by the way.) And it's not like the "good guys" have > behaved in such a stellar fashion that the rightness of their view > point is obvious. The Weasleys behave like thugs and their father > uses his power to persecute Draco's father. > Thugs? How? Persecute? You mean doing his job and searching Malfoy Manor again because the known Death Eater according to Harry has something highly illegal and dark hidden there? He did not this time, but once he did have a diary which he used to set up Ginny and cause death and distruction at Hogwarts. So yes, a tip that there is still more dangerous stoff at Malfoy Manor should be taken very seriously I think Gerry, catching up on days and days of posts From dk59us at yahoo.com Tue Jun 27 18:38:08 2006 From: dk59us at yahoo.com (Eustace_Scrubb) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:38:08 -0000 Subject: Who dies? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154452 dumbledore11214 wrote: > > > > Um, I just saw the quote from JKR's today interview. It could be > a > > paraphrase, so please don't beat me up. > > > > But I think the gist is right. She says that in book 7 one > > character gets a reprieve, but two that she did nto intend to kill > > off ? die. > > So, any guesses? Then Luckdragon wrote: > > I read that she said " At least two characters will die". > My picks are: > 1) Bellatrix > 2) MacNair > 3) Grawp > 4) Snape > 5) Kreacher > Now Eustace_Scrubb: According to the article on this interview published in the Sun (possibly not the _last_ word on journalistic reliability, but it seems to cover the same ground as most of the other reports), "She said: "One character got a reprieve but I have to say that two die that I didn't want to die." She added that her husband Dr Neil Murray, 34, "shuddered" when she told him the identity of one of the pair." (see http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006290442,00.html) Whoever dies, they are persons that Rowling "didn't want to die" and her husband "shuddered" about _one_ of them. Maybe Snape would qualify, but I can't see the others on this list being on JKR's "Do Not Want to Kill" list or her hubby's "Oh my goodness how could you kill [soon-to-be-deceased character's name here]" list. Now who _would_ be on these lists? The trio of course, their families (even the Dursleys I suspect), Hagrid, Neville, Luna, McGonnagall, Lupin, Tonks, Moody...who else? There are scads of less important characters that JKR might not want to kill (Dean, Cho, Flitwick, Sprout, Filch(?), but their demise might not be worth a shudder from Dr. Murray. Of course maybe the shudder was due to a sudden draft in the room and is a complete misdirection! On the reprieve front, Snape again could qualify (he's a slippery double agent even in literary speculation). Or could it be Malfoy pere or Malfoy fils? Ollivander the disappeared? Aunt Petunia,Uncle Vernon or Dudders? Peter P.? or maybe Hagrid _has_ been destined for the chop all along but makes a last minute escape? Harder to say, as JKR apparently didn't indicate whether the escapee was someone she reluctantly saved against her instincts or someone she really wanted to spare all along. Cheers, Eustace_Scrubb From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 27 18:37:45 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:37:45 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154453 > > Betsy Hp: > > Really? I'd love an example or two. As far as I can remember > Harry > > generally only turns on someone when they try to kill him or his > > friends. Which is what it appears to be taking for Draco as well. Phoenixgod: > Sure, I'll give you two. Alla: So happy to see you posting Phoenixgod. Me too, me too. :) To not be a complete "me too", din't Harry not like Luna much either initially? Betsy Hp: > Dumbledore uses his > > position to promote his Gryffindors even if the rest of the school > > suffers. Phoenixgod: > How many times did Slytherin win the house cup before Harry got > there? Wasn't it about a billion times? straight? Dumbledore needs > to be much more effective if he wants to cheat for his alma mater. Alla: Seven, that was seven times :) Phoenixgod > An idiot could see that Dumbledore cares about all of his students, > Draco just didn't want to believe that. He'd rather play at > currying favor with the dark lord. > Alla: As I told someone off list, I don't like generalisations, but from my life experience people who hate other people because of their different ethnicity ( that is my experience, so I will stick to that) generally do not change ( I mean, I am sure some are and maybe many are, I just have not met them). So, Draco to me is a disgusting little bigot and whatever he gets, he deserves. I do think that the end of the HBP MAY signal the change in his belief system, in fact I will go ahead and say that it is quite likely, but so far in the six books I have not seen Draco act as a decent person once. If he will, I will tolerate him as a character, but so far if he drops dead, I won't be upset at all. JMO, Alla, who is not bothered by JKR "situational morality" at all, simply because to me she makes it very clear that bad guys ideology is really really bad, that is why if good guys are allowed to get away with things, it is fine by me. From honeykissed246 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 27 18:17:24 2006 From: honeykissed246 at yahoo.com (honeykissed246) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:17:24 -0000 Subject: Hermione Leaving School/Fate of the Weasleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154454 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Katie" wrote: >"What about the Weasley clan? I know someone else brought up > Percy recently, and his chance (or not) at redemption and > reconciliation...but what about the rest of them? We know Ron will > be with Harry. Will Bill want to fight and get retribution for what > Greyback did to him? Where's Charlie? Will he be more involved? I > know Ginny will probably fight, whether Harry wants her to or not - > she's not one to take orders from anyone. And what of Molly? Will > she want to protect her chickens, or will she be off fighting? And > WHO will be head of the OotP, assuming DD is in fact dead? Arthur? > Any speculations on the fate of the Weasleys?" Honeykissed: You know, I have been thinking about the Weasleys as well. I personally think one or more will die in book 7. If you can remember, in the OoTP, chapter 9 "The woes of Mrs. Weasley", she was trying to get rid of a boggart and it kept turning into a "dead" member of her family: (Pg 175, Am/UK ed.) "Someone was cowering against the dark wall, her wand in her hand, her whole body shaking with sobs. Sprawled on the dusty old carpet in a patch of moonlight, clearly dead, was Ron". (Pg 175, Am/Uk ed.) "Ron's body turned into Bill's, spread-eagle on his back, his eyes open and empty". (Pg. 176, Am/Uk ed.) Molly stated, "I see them d-d-dead all the time!" Mrs. Weasley moaned into his shoulder. "All the t-t-time! I d-d-dream about it....." I hate feeling that this is going to happen, because I really like the Wealeys, but I believe that Ron will be one of the ones who dies. I also think Percy may end up sacrificing hisself for the cause after he discovers that money, power and fame isn't everything. This will be the time he needs his family. He has been so distant from his family in the last two books. I am preparing myself for what I believe is the "inevitable". From distaiyi at yahoo.com Tue Jun 27 18:27:05 2006 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:27:05 -0000 Subject: Evil Snape/ JKR and Christy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154455 --- "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Distayi: > > Since we're citing JKR, she's repeatedly said her books are not > > necessarily children's books. Thus I don't think you can assume > those > > 4 characters survive. > > Alla: > > Yes, she did. She also said that she likes being seen as a children > writer ( paraphrase), she also targets your books at younger > audience, no? > > So, I think they are primarily oriented to the younger audience, but > of course there is plenty in there for us adults too. IMO of course. Now I can't find the quote I had in mind ... I did find quotes from her indicating : PS/SS : was written for ages 8 and up. She envisions her audience aging as her characters age. From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Tue Jun 27 18:39:53 2006 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 10:39:53 -0800 Subject: Troll Question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154456 Since this is about Book 1, it has probably been discussed before, but I have a question about the troll. If Quirrell's contribution to guarding the Stone was to bring in the troll, then Dumbledore at least would have been aware of that. Knowing that Quirrell had done so, how could he have not informed Snape and the rest of the teachers that Quirrell probably let the troll in at Halloween? How could Quirrell act so afraid of the troll in front of McGonagall and Snape in the dining hall and in the bathroom scene? Wouldn't that automatically compromise his believability? Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com From leslie41 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 27 18:36:56 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:36:56 -0000 Subject: Tarot reading in book ten, was: Trelawney's predictions in "HBP" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154457 I've got a bit of experience with tarot cards, enough to make Trelawney's reading in book ten very interesting (at least to me!). As she passes Harry, she pulls out the two of spades (conflict), seven of spades (ill omen), ten of spades (violence), and knave of spades?"A dark young man, possibly troubled, who dislikes the questioner." She doesn't understand it at first, and mutters something about it not making sense, but that's because essentially what happens is Harry's presence influences the reading. In other words, Harry becomes the "questioner," not Trelawney. When she started out she was not doing a reading for Harry, but his proximity most definitely lurches the cards towards his fate and his future, and her reading provides clues as to Harry's future in this book, and perhaps in the next one. As Trelawney made the prophecy about Harry before, we definitely should listen to her now if we want clues to what happens next. Spades are the lesser arcana's version of swords, and the brief interpretations that Trelawney gives as she walks support this. Her explication of the cards as she walks is extremely brief, and needs fleshing out for it to make more sense. Swords symbolize the life of the mind, and logic, and mental acuity. They are the least "beneficent" suit, the cards most associated with trouble and anguish in human affairs. The cards themselves are fixed, but I'd encourage anyone to do their own interpretations of them and see if they can find even more clues. All of my quotes are taken from Frater LUC's Astrology and Tarot Corner. http://www.hawkman.org/tarot/tarot/ Two of Swords: I would suggest that this is probably the card that represents Harry and his situation. Remember that at this point in the narrative Harry has just discovered the HBP's potions book, and is wondering who he is. The reading is a direct outcome of that specific situation in Harry's life. http://www.hawkman.org/tarot/tarot/card_detail.cfm?cardid=52 "The woman is blindfolded, showing that she is confused about her situation. She cannot see the problem or the solution clearly. The swords are perfectly balanced, showing a balanced and stable mind. The water signifies emotions, and the rocks show tension. One of the divinatory meanings of this card is tension in a relationship, needing a cool head to solve the problem. A need to look at both sides of the situation. The waxing moon shows a new beginning arising out of the solutions found for this problem. The preponderance of grey shows a need to be neutral, and to look at both sides of the situation. The balanced crossed swords signify the same thing. Crossed swords, in Native symbology, is a symbol of truce. A truce needs to be called, and the problem needs to be resolved using logic (the suit of swords deals with logic and the use of the intellect). Both sides of the situation need to be addressed." The relationship, of course, is with the HBP, and in a larger sense, with Snape overall. The immediate suggestion is that Harry doesn't know who the HBP is, whether or not the book is "dangerous," etc. But in a larger sense, since Snape is the HBP (which the cards seem to know, but Harry of course does not), there's an indication that Harry is not neutral about him, and needs to "look at both sides". This is something the text supports as well, because in no other book do so many people around him defend Snape, and make Harry try to see that his opinion may be skewed. Seven of swords: http://www.hawkman.org/tarot/tarot/card_detail.cfm?cardid=57 The seven of swords forecasts to the situation with Snape, and the man on the card can only be interpreted as Snape. The man depicted in the seven of swords is a thief, who"gives the impression of having secret, solitary plans...." It's a card of "deception and betrayal." There are figures in the background depicted on the card that see what he is doing, and one of them is holding a sword (Harry?). Interestingly enough as well, "this card sometimes represents the lone-wolf style - the desire to run lone and free the lone-wolf hero always acts totally on his own. He discovers, investigates and solves every problem using only his own wits and resources. He's successful because he ignores the fumbling efforts of ordinary people." This card also has associations with cunning, trickery, and deceit. Is this a card that condemns Snape? Yes and no. Arthur Edward Waite, probably the most famous and consulted source on the meaning of the tarot, interprets the card thusly: "Design, attempt, wish, hope, confidence; also quarrelling, a plan that may fail, annoyance. The design is uncertain in its import, because the significations are widely at variance with each other." The "design" may indeed be the plan to make Snape seem a traitor; that in fact may be the "wish," in fact, the only "hope" for the situation. Ten of Swords: http://www.hawkman.org/tarot/tarot/card_detail.cfm?cardid=60 Clearly, this forecasts Dumbledore's death at the hands of Snape. "The Ten of Swords depicts one of the most painful and sad images in the entire Tarot deck. A man lies face down with ten long swords embedded in his back. The sky above is pitch black and the general feeling is one of sadness, loss, and misfortune." Well, of course. But . "However, despite these ominous images, there are positive aspects to this card. The sea before which the body lies is glassy and calm, and the sunrise is appearing in the distance beyond the mountains. The fire of the sun is burning the clouds of darkness away as it rises and the darkness will soon be dispelled." !!!!!!!!! Indeed! This is very much a "darkness before the dawn" type of card. Now, whether it implies resurrection of Dumbledore, or just forecasts to the overthrow of Voldemort, that's the question. Knave of Spades: The last card is the "knave of spades," the jack, which corresponds to the page in the tarot deck. So the last card is the Page of Swords. It is this card we should look to, one would suppose, to give us clues for the next book. Perhaps this is the "outcome" card. http://www.hawkman.org/tarot/tarot/card_detail.cfm?cardid=61 It seems clear to me that the knave of spades is the HBP, Snape. Here's a couple of trenchant quotes: "The Page of Swords has the ability to find out the truth regarding all matters. He has both mental and physical agility." "In readings, the Page of Swords offers gestures of challenge. He suggests that an opportunity for growth may come your way in the guise of a problem or dilemma. Such gestures will not be your favorites. In fact, you will probably want to say `Thanks...but no thanks'." "The Page of Swords asks you to embrace a difficult situation and meet its challenge. You could think of these as trials designed to test your mettle. If you accept and prevail, you will become stronger and more resilient." This site tends to emphasize the more positive, youthful aspects of the page, which isn't necessarily wrong since Harry is contemplating the HBP, not Snape as he knows him. But what is also associated with the page as well is vigilance and spying, which, it is also stressed, can be used either for evil or for good. Waite's interpretation of the page of swords: "Authority, overseeing, secret service, vigilance, spying, examination, and the qualities thereto belonging." These readings are neutral in terms of their judgement on the character. The negative aspects are balanced out by the positive. We are also reminded by this interpretation of how clever Snape is, how he is master of "concealment and revelation." These are readings that are completely ambiguous as to Snape's loyalties. He's a brilliant master of deception. I'm a Snape fan, and I have no problem with him being an utter bastard, but I do have a problem with him being irredeemably evil, and I'm hoping that Rowling is building towards a final alignment of his character that preserves this. From juli17 at aol.com Tue Jun 27 19:24:06 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 15:24:06 -0400 Subject: Who dies? (Harry) (was Re: Who dies (clearly Ron and Snape)?) In-Reply-To: <1151430178.7557.62777.m28@yahoogroups.com> References: <1151430178.7557.62777.m28@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <8C868366409CC41-1FBC-464@FWM-D36.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154458 Susan: > I don't think Harry will die. I think JKR will continue > her classic work in which the hero prevails and does not die > (of course she says that she's obsessed with death so who knows). Barbara: I say that Harry dies and is reunited in some fashion with his parents, Sirius, and Dumbledore...which is what he's really always wanted...he'll go out in a blaze of glory having wiped out the dark wizards and his reward will be his family. Julie: Harry's reward will be to die, you mean. Which is okay--in fact preferable to living out a full life--because he'll be with his deceased loved ones. And no doubt his parents, Sirius and DD will welcome him with open arms, not a bit distressed that his life was cut horribly short because who really needs to go through all the mixed-up joys and sorrows of living when you can just die and get to your "reward" that much sooner. What a lovely message. I know you probably don't mean it that way, but that's the way such an end would come off to me. There's more to courage than fighting evil. It's not hard for Harry to find *that* courage, as he's always had it. But for Harry to find the courage to survive, to continue on in the face of his losses, well, that would be much truer courage than getting what he supposedly wants--to give up and join his dead loved ones. I don't think this is the message JKR wants to send, and I don't really think she would see Harry dying as a reward, or a good thing at all, even if it meant reuniting with his loved ones. I think he may reunite briefly with them--go beyond the veil in his fight to defeat Voldemort--but it will be his decision to leave them and go back to the world of the living that will define Harry's courage. I'm convinced Harry will live for other reasons, not the least of which is JKR loves him (even if he's only a fictional character) and I don't think she would find it easy to kill him off and let his so far trauma-fraught life be all there is for him. Not to mention that the HP books would no longer be beloved, much read, dog-earred books, because who wants to read all of Harry's efforts to overcome so many emotional and physical obstacles knowing he simply dies in the end--even if he gets to be reunited with his mummy, daddy, Uncles Sirius and Dumbly? It won't happen, I tell you! It won't. (IMO, of course ;-) Julie, who is off to Las Vegas in a couple of weeks and wonders if there are odds on Harry's survival, because there are odds on everything else in Vegas! ________________________________________________________________________ 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 belviso at attglobal.net Tue Jun 27 19:07:01 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 19:07:01 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154459 Phoenixgod: > Don't play the marrieta card with me :) I have no sympathy for her. > I do agree that JKR's humor with the good guys has a surprising dark > color to it, I think it fits well with wizarding world. they live in > a world with very few consequences that magic can't make better. > makes sense to me that they would push the envelope wover what could > be done. I just don't marrieta is a good example. She's a traitor to > the school and to the group. she deserves what she gets. Magpie: But what does that prove, exactly? Betsy thinks it's harsh, you think Marietta deserves what she gets. The facts stay the same, so obviously one side isn't just the end of the story. Pheonixgod: Hermione: He really doesn't like Hermione in the beginning of the series, yet after the troll incident, despite the fact that Hermione is still basically the same annoying person she was before the incident, Harry becomes best friends with her. Speaks well of his ability to admit that he misjudged someone and take a second look at them. Sirius: Harry wanted to murder Sirius in the beginning of Azkaban. yet in the climactic scene, Harry manages to control his bloodlust and divine that something else was going on. Once again, shifts gears quickly and shows good judgement. Magpie: Well, yes and no. These aren't quite the same challenge Harry faces with somebody like Snape. Hermione wasn't someone Harry hated, he just found her annoying--and then she protected him. Sirius was someone Harry *thought* he hated because of what he *thought* he did- -and that was taken away. It's not quite the same thing as asking Harry to examine feelings about people he actually has real trouble with, the ones that really press his buttons. Harry is not exactly controlling his bloodlust when it comes to Sirius, he stands over someone he thinks he should want to kill and doesn't. It seems like he's experiencing something more like Draco faces with Dumbledore. Pheonixgod: > > I doubt Draco has any close friends, which again, speaks well of > Harry's wisdom in making allies who will stand by him through thick > and thin. Magpie: So we should just assume he has close friends for some reason? Because Harry isn't and doesn't want to be? Why does the other side have to be incapable of having ties to each other? It doesn't seem to me that so far Draco's got a problem with people not standing by him. Phoenixgod: > well, except for his father. And Dumbledore's fallibility. Oh and > the prophecy. Harry has had plenty of crisis in his beliefs and > assumptions. He just handles them better than Draco does. He's also > much more proactive than Draco. Our little Dragon is far to > Slytherin--everything he does is manipuation and misdirection, it > circles around the problem without dealing with it. Do you really > think that Harry would have sat around and done what Voldemort > wanted him to do if his mother was in trouble, or would he have > tried to do something to rescue her? Magpie: That's creating a totally different situation to say that it's just Harry trying to rescue his mother. Draco is trying to do something to rescue her, and Voldemort to Draco is like Dumbledore (not Voldemort) to Harry. He's having a completely different challenge to all his beliefs than Harry has so no, I don't think you can just say that Harry would have handled it better. It's apples and oranges- -and I'm glad we get both in the book. Phoenixgod: > As much as people want to paint Harry's directness as a weakness, it > is not. it is his strength. Magpie: Yes, it is his strength, but that doesn't mean it doesn't offer challenges when Harry's in a position where his particular strength isn't what's called for. > Once again. Harry would have tried to do something on his own > instead of relying on other people to do it for him. He doesn't > need someone to *attract* him to the side of light. his good sense > does that for him. Magpie: Harry has a LOT attracting him to the side of Light and he's in a completely different starting place from Draco, who, imo, shouldn't be judged on how he's not Harry. It's not common sense alone that gives Harry his anti-Voldemort passion, and it's not simply a lack of common sense that's driving Draco. I think one has to look at Draco's story from Draco's pov and accept that his beliefs are just as real as someone else's. Pheonixgod: > True. Because Draco doesn't have the sense to see past the end of > his nose when it comes to people he already made assumptions about. > An idiot could see that Dumbledore cares about all of his students, > Draco just didn't want to believe that. He'd rather play at > currying favor with the dark lord. Magpie: An idiot couldn't necessarily see that at all. You've got Harry's pov, Harry who gets special favorite from Dumbledore. I'm sure there are lots of students who don't think of Dumbledore as caring about them as much as others. Different people can have genuinely different experiences of the world that leads them to think different things without just being idiots. Let Draco go through his own dark night of the soul, not just judge him for not being Harry. He's got real, passionate reasons for wanting to "play currying favor with the dark lord," which makes it more dramatic when he realizes he's been wrong. Wrong in a way that Harry's never been. But no, I don't think you can just say Harry would handle it differently than Draco--if we really want Harry in Draco's shoes then that means all the way. Harry is Lucius and Narcissa's son, loves them the way Draco does, worships his father (and his father's alive so we're not talking about the idealized portrait that an already independent Harry can reject when it doesn't live up to his fantasy). Given Harry's basic personality no, I don't think there's anything in him that guarantees he would have rejected the Dark Lord as easily as he does now. I'll go so far as to say it would be at least as interesting to watch Harry have this kind of crisis of faith as it is to watch Draco have it. -m From unique_orn at yahoo.com Tue Jun 27 19:20:01 2006 From: unique_orn at yahoo.com (B. W.) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 12:20:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Troll Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060627192002.58310.qmail@web53708.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154460 Laura Lynn Walsh wrote: Since this is about Book 1, it has probably been discussed before, but I have a question about the troll. If Quirrell's contribution to guarding the Stone was to bring in the troll, then Dumbledore at least would have been aware of that. Knowing that Quirrell had done so, how could he have not informed Snape and the rest of the teachers that Quirrell probably let the troll in at Halloween? How could Quirrell act so afraid of the troll in front of McGonagall and Snape in the dining hall and in the bathroom scene? Wouldn't that automatically compromise his believability? Birdie: Hi, I'm new to the group and this is the first time that I have replied. Now on to the question at hand... Quirrell did not bring in the troll to guard the stone, he brought in the troll to keep everyone busy while he tried to steal the stone. So, he was acting surprised to not let on that it was he and while everyone else was busy trying to get rid of the troll, then he could steal the stone. But Snape seemed to think this odd, so he headed up to the 3rd floor to stop anyone who thought this would be a good way to get to the stone. Hope this clears up some confusion on this. Birdie From mkk69 at hotmail.com Tue Jun 27 16:55:26 2006 From: mkk69 at hotmail.com (woollybear_99) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 16:55:26 -0000 Subject: Who dies? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154461 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Um, I just saw the quote from JKR's today interview. It could be a > paraphrase, so please don't beat me up. > > But I think the gist is right. She says that in book 7 one character > gets a reprieve, but two that she did not intend to kill off ? die. > > I got this feeling that Ron is going to die. I don't know why and I have no clues to support my guess. Anyway I am almost always wrong about stuff like this. But what if Ron dies to save Harry? That would be a twist I think since Harry is normally the one who saves people. But like I said I am almost always wrong about this stuff so my guess is most likely way way off. woollybear From BrwNeil at aol.com Tue Jun 27 20:30:22 2006 From: BrwNeil at aol.com (BrwNeil at aol.com) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 16:30:22 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who dies (not Neville) Message-ID: <52a.183a450.31d2ef5e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154462 In a message dated 6/27/2006 12:15:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com writes: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154463 Bah, read a quote somewhere from JKR which essentially squashes my theory. Hrm. Ah well. Maybe I'll get lucky and Neville will actually live. From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Tue Jun 27 20:54:14 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 20:54:14 -0000 Subject: Who dies? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154464 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "woollybear_99" wrote: > >I got this feeling that Ron is going to die. I don't know why and I have no clues to support my guess. Anyway I am almost always wrong about stuff like this. But what if Ron dies to save Harry? That would be a twist I think since Harry is normally the one who saves people. But like I said I am almost always wrong about this stuff so my > guess is most likely way way off. > Steven1965aaa: That would of course parallel the end of Book 1 when Ron as the Chess Knight sacrificed himself so that Harry could get through. From honeykissed246 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 27 20:03:24 2006 From: honeykissed246 at yahoo.com (honeykissed246) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 20:03:24 -0000 Subject: Draco Reprieve? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154465 I just finished reading some post about Rowlings comments concerning book 7. I was thinking initially that the reprieve may go to Snape (again) but then I got to thinking about Draco. If he is not one of the characters that gets killed in book 7, he would need a reprieve?? Considering that he was the one that let the DE's into Hogwarts and caused the death of Dumbledore. Now what I find interesting is that I read only "1" will be given a reprieve so its my guess that either Snape or Draco will be killed in book 7. Any thoughts on this? honeykissed From celizwh at intergate.com Tue Jun 27 20:28:35 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 20:28:35 -0000 Subject: Troll Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154466 Laura: > Since this is about Book 1, it has probably been discussed > before, but I have a question about the troll. If Quirrell's > contribution to guarding the Stone was to bring in the troll, > then Dumbledore at least would have been aware of that. > Knowing that Quirrell had done so, how could he have not > informed Snape and the rest of the teachers that Quirrell > probably let the troll in at Halloween? How could Quirrell > act so afraid of the troll in front of McGonagall and Snape > in the dining hall and in the bathroom scene? Wouldn't > that automatically compromise his believability? houyhnhnm: This has bothered me, too. It is possible that each teacher came up a protection but did not actually put it in place. So Professor Sprout provided the Devil's Snare from her greenhouses, Professor McGonagall transfigured the chess pieces, etc., but Dumbledore actually assembled everything. In that case each teacher knew of his or her own protection and knew that there were multiple enchantments guarding the Stone, but did not know the exact nature of the others' protections, thus they need not have known about the troll guarding the Stone. But Dumbldore would have to have known. Did he send Snape to the third floor or was Snape acting on his own? Why did Dumbledore send Hagrid to retrieve the Stone from the second most secure place in the WW the day before it was stolen? From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Tue Jun 27 21:33:55 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 21:33:55 -0000 Subject: Evil Snape/ JKR and Christy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154467 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > I do hope that she will let Harry live. Why person should be > necessarily broken by hard experiences as much as he could not move > on and live his life? > Frodo was not so much broken as changed. Changed so much he did not fit in Hobbiton any more. He had seen so much more, experienced so much more, and the short occupation the Shire had seen was nothing compared to the years of hardship and horror he had had. There is also the change the ring wrought. Now Harry was changed by LV at age one. The change is not only different, some powers and a connection instead of a constant lure and seduction, he has grown up with it. Apart from his first year he never experienced the world without it. Besides, though he may have experienced and will experience much more hardship than the general population of the WW there is happening enough of gruesomeness for the world for him to stay a part in it. Besides, he has had awful and life changing things happening to him in all books and he still is a normal person. So why would the last book suddenly make that big a difference? Only if Jo kills of everybody he loved or something like that, and I don't think she'll go that far. So I think it will be a happy ending for Harry. Gerry From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jun 27 21:09:37 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 21:09:37 -0000 Subject: Evil Snape/ JKR and Christy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154468 > Alla: > > Look, I think this is the case of using different definitions again. > To me "twist" means SO unexpected plot turn that there is absolutely > NO WAY that I could predict it. > > And that is what I see in Christie works, yes. > > The plot turns you listed, well, no to me they don't quite count as > twists. > > Surprise? Maybe, but even those are not quite there. > > I don't quite remember how shocked I was when Quirrell turned out to > be a villain, since I read the books closely together in 2000, but I > think I remember that I was not SHOCKED. > > And as to CoS, I am not sure that I was even surprised, I mean not > that I figured it out well in advance of course, but from the moment > Harry was in Chamber, I figured he would encounter major evil there. > > And major evil is bound to be connected to Lord Voldemort, no? > > And Prophecy? Twisty? Surely not for me, as I said in one of my posts > upthread, that was a "that's it?" moment for me. > > Prophecy not controling events? Um,I do not count as twist either, > more like JKR doing some damage control over readers saying " that's > it?" in OOP. Besides, despite Dumbledore pronouncing it, he IMO > clearly acted as he believes in prophecy, so I personally don't see > the twist here one way or another. Again IMO. > > Could you please giving me the definition of twist you are using, > maybe we are arguing over semantics again. Pippin: It sounds like we have very different Christie experiences :). I did read some of them over and over, especially The Mirror Crack'd, and I got pretty good at spotting the villains on first reading, not by analyzing the clues but by analyzing the characters. Hint: you can put your money on the _other_ nice young man, or the ever so helpful female nanny/governess/nurse/companion. What I mean by a twist is a story arc that seems to point in one direction but turns out to go somewhere else. For example in The Mirror Crack'd, (SPOILERS AHEAD) the actress Marina Gregg is supposed to have reacted violently to someone she saw on the stairs during a party, and all through the story Miss Marple is hunting that person, who must have tried to poison Marina, but it turns out the reaction was to the painting above the stairs, and far from being the intended victim of the poisoning, Marina is the poisoner herself. I don't see nearly the backtracking in canon that you do -- JKR had a plot in mind from the beginning and hasn't changed it much, IMO. The shift in the import of the prophecy was, IMO, planned and necessary in order to provide a resolution to Book Five which turns out to be false almost as soon as Book Six is underway, so that Five, Six and Seven become one story. I agree that JKR is straightforward, or at least drops anvil-sized hints, about some things, and that Voldemort will be defeated by love is one of them. But other things are complicated. Isn't it funny that we are attracted to Snape by the complexity of his character, and yet expend all this bandwidth trying to reduce him to some three-letter formula or other? :) I think much of canon is directed at showing us that people do not fit into neat little categories. Even the purely evil Voldemort is capable of doing good he does not intend, while epitome of goodness Dumbledore sometimes must let others come to harm. Most of the canon characters are a good deal more muddled than they are, so that Harry often finds people he distrusts among the good guys, and people he likes among the bad guys. Pippin From celizwh at intergate.com Tue Jun 27 21:23:27 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 21:23:27 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154469 Betsy Hp: > I think these sort of actions wouldn't bother me quite > so much if they were *seen* as bad behavior. I *think* > JKR is relatively neutral when those scenes occur. houyhnhnm: But they *do* occur and many readers are aware of them. She could easily have left out morally questionable actions committed by the "good" characters, it seems to me, if she wanted to write a black and white adventure story in which everything the good guys do is good just because they're the good guys. She could have created a Pensieve scene in which Harry has to confront that fact that his idealized father had faults, yet still made it clear that young Severus was the original instigator or at least that he gave as good as he got. She could have put a better answer in James' mouth when he was asked what Snape had ever done to him than "It's more the fact that he exists". She didn't. Surely she could have come up with different plot devices to enable Draco to get DEs into Hogwarts and onto the tower, ones that didn't link directly back to Hermione, Fred and George. She could have made Lupin less ambiguous if he is supposed to be a sympathetic character. Why have Dumbledore say that "a certain disregard for rules" is a characteristic that Slytherin prized, but then *show* us that the Gryffindors are the rule beaking champions of Hogwarts and have been for generations (and proud of it)? I think maybe she has only appeared to be neutral about the morally questionable actions of her "good" charqcters the better to surprise readers with the ending. I'm hoping anyway. From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Tue Jun 27 21:27:08 2006 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 13:27:08 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Troll Question In-Reply-To: <20060627192002.58310.qmail@web53708.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060627192002.58310.qmail@web53708.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154470 >Laura Lynn Walsh <lwalsh at acsalaska.net> wrote: >Quirrell did not bring in the troll to guard the stone, he brought >in the troll to keep everyone busy while he tried to steal the >stone. So, he was acting surprised to not let on that it was he and >while everyone else was busy trying to get rid of the troll, then he >could steal the stone. But Snape seemed to think this odd, so he >headed up to the 3rd floor to stop anyone who thought this would be >a good way to get to the stone. > >Hope this clears up some confusion on this. > >Birdie I mean the other troll. The one who is knocked out in the room just after the giant chess set. Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com From ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com Tue Jun 27 22:23:03 2006 From: ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com (Constance Vigilance) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 22:23:03 -0000 Subject: Troll Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154471 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Laura Lynn Walsh wrote: > > Since this is about Book 1, it has probably been discussed > before, but I have a question about the troll. If Quirrell's > contribution to guarding the Stone was to bring in the troll, > then Dumbledore at least would have been aware of that. > Knowing that Quirrell had done so, how could he have not > informed Snape and the rest of the teachers that Quirrell > probably let the troll in at Halloween? How could Quirrell > act so afraid of the troll in front of McGonagall and Snape > in the dining hall and in the bathroom scene? Wouldn't > that automatically compromise his believability? > Laura > -- > Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at ... > http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com > Ah, Quirrel. My favorite character. Really! The answer is simple. Quirrell has established himself as trying to better himself in his craft. He went on a sabbatical for that purpose, remember? Since he was obviously afraid of the first troll, one can assume he did some off-line practice and learned how to manage trolls. In fact, he was so successful at his self-improvement studies that he became an expert at trolls, and as such, it was logical for that to have been his contribution to the stone protection. At least, that is how he would have presented it. Since my dear Q-man has been brought up again, let me be the first to point out that I have not a shred of doubt that Quirrell will return in the final book. (Read SS again - Voldy LEFT HIM FOR dead - it specifically does not say he IS dead) Remember the Man With Two Faces? That is a representation of Janus, the God of beginnings and endings. Ahem. That's ENDINGS. Anyway, there is your answer on how Quirrell could appear to be afraid of a troll and then legitimately be an expert with them some months later. ~ CV From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jun 27 21:56:05 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 21:56:05 -0000 Subject: Troll Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154472 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Laura Lynn Walsh wrote: > > Since this is about Book 1, it has probably been discussed > before, but I have a question about the troll. If Quirrell's > contribution to guarding the Stone was to bring in the troll, > then Dumbledore at least would have been aware of that. > Knowing that Quirrell had done so, how could he have not > informed Snape and the rest of the teachers that Quirrell > probably let the troll in at Halloween? How could Quirrell > act so afraid of the troll in front of McGonagall and Snape > in the dining hall and in the bathroom scene? Wouldn't > that automatically compromise his believability? > Laura > -- > Pippin: Some of the protections around the Stone would have been set in place before the Stone itself, perhaps before end of term 1991. Quirrell could also have left for his trip around the world before his year of teaching ended, in an attempt to thwart the curse. In that case Quirrell could have put the troll in place, enountered Lord Voldemort on his trip around the world, visited Hagrid during the summer (giving Hagrid a chance to note the change in his personality,) and then made his failed attempt to steal the stone before it was removed from Gringotts. Pippin From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Tue Jun 27 22:49:32 2006 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 22:49:32 -0000 Subject: Who dies? and new poll In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154473 Hi Everyone! I've been lurking for a while (a couple of months actually), but yesterday I heard on the radio that Jo confirmed 2'deaths. NOOOOO. Anyway, I bet it's someone we've seen Jo celebrate their birthdays, someone we thought would survive. She did say the deaths were unintended, so perhaps we were right about our theory I'm thinking Remus and Tonks... I've started a poll so we can all cast our votes... "Jo: The final chapter is hidden away, although it has now changed very sightly. One character got a reprieve, but I have to say two die that I didn't intend to die ... Judy: Two much loved ones? Jo: Well, you know. A price has to be paid. We are dealing with pure evil. They don't target the extras do they? They go for the main characters, or I do." (from TLC) From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 27 23:22:21 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 23:22:21 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154474 > >>Phoenixgod: > > Don't play the marrieta card with me :) I have no sympathy for > > her. > > > > She's a traitor to the school and to the group. she deserves > > what she gets. > >>Magpie: > But what does that prove, exactly? Betsy thinks it's harsh, you > think Marietta deserves what she gets. The facts stay the same, > so obviously one side isn't just the end of the story. Betsy Hp: Exactly! This is a *perfect* example of the "Because I am Good what I do is Good, but if you do the same thing it's Bad, because you are Bad" mindset. That there are no rules governing behavior. Anything goes if you're the right sort of person. The Death Eaters can torment a family of muggles and it's bad, because they're bad. But the twins can torment a family of muggles and it's funny, because they are good. It's like, once Harry defeats Voldemort he can set up his own little totalitarian dicatorship, and it'll be okay because Harry is a good and benevolent guy. (Only the bad people will be sent to the camps, erm, re-education facilities. Run by Hermione. Because she cares.) > >>Pheonixgod: > I doubt Draco has any close friends, which again, speaks well of > Harry's wisdom in making allies who will stand by him through > thick and thin. Betsy Hp: Really? Draco is at his lowest in HBP. His family is in disgrace, he's an utter mess, and he's blowing off his classes and quidditch. He's lost his position, his looks, and the talents he brought to the table in the race for the House and Quidditch cups. And yet, Crabble and Goyle are willing to dress up as little girls for him, and Pansy and Blaise still seem willing to hang with him. Draco certainly doesn't appear to be shunned by his house, and he's going through some pretty "thin" times. > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > And it's not like the "good guys" have behaved in such a stellar > > fashion that the rightness of their view point is obvious. The > > Weasleys behave like thugs and their father uses his power to > > persecute Draco's father. > >>Gerry: > Thugs? How? Persecute? You mean doing his job and searching Malfoy > Manor again because the known Death Eater according to Harry has > something highly illegal and dark hidden there? > Betsy Hp: Oh, I think the Weasleys definitely come across as thugs. And they certainly appear that way to Draco: Arthur going all caveman on Lucius in CoS in the bookstore, Ron constantly lurching at Draco with fists raised, the twins (and Harry) attacking Draco, the twins nearly murdering a classmate, the twins hissing tiny little firsties sorted into Slytherin. And Arthur uses his position at the Ministry to pass laws and push for raids that hurt Draco's father. I'm quite sure Draco heard his father complaining about it at the manor, going by Lucius's complaints in Knockturn Alley. Especially since it was probably the impetus to Lucius courting Fudge. Not that the Malfoys are perfect, themselves, of course. But to Draco I'm sure they are. So those who brawl, and manipulate, and cheat to bring down his own could never be defined, by Draco, as good. In the end they behave exactly as Lucius would (if not in quite the same style) to get what they want. Again, there's not a huge difference in behavior seperating the good guys from the bad guys. Not where Draco would see it, anyway. > >>Alla: > As I told someone off list, I don't like generalisations, but from > my life experience people who hate other people because of their > different ethnicity ( that is my experience, so I will stick to > that) generally do not change ( I mean, I am sure some are and > maybe many are, I just have not met them). > So, Draco to me is a disgusting little bigot and whatever he > gets, he deserves. Betsy Hp: I've met bigots who've changed (some in my own family) so there you are. But the thing is, to Draco the *Order* is made up of disgusting little bigots that should get what they deserve. It's not until HBP that Draco sees or experiences anything that would tell him differently. So Draco is facing a moment where he can step out of his family's shadow and examine things for himself. I feel like Harry will need to do something similar himself, especially since he's yet to question his own bigotry. > >>Geoff: > Draco is only changing slowly because, like a glacier, he is > moving through the same sort of territory all the time. Possibly > until the imprisonment of Lucius at the end of OOTP, he has never > suffered major shocks or changes to his life style and, hence, his > view of life. > Harry, on the other hand, is a river in an earthquake zone. He has > had to contend with a whole series of major shifts in his life and > his ideas over a period of six years up to the end of HBP. His > entire world view has been turned upside-down... > Betsy Hp: See, I don't see that Harry has gone through any turning upside-down of his world. Voldemort killed his parents; Voldemort is evil. That's a truth that will not change. Just as, Dumbledore is good has not and (IMO) will not change for Harry. You mention sheer dumb luck in the part I snipped. But it seems that Harry has just lucked into being on the "good" side. He's never been tempted by Voldemort. He's never had to question his mentor's goodness. He's never questioned his own judgement of good and evil. And it seems to me that if Harry *never* has to question himself on that basic question, he won't end the series fully grown. > >>Betsy Hp: > > I think these sort of actions wouldn't bother me quite > > so much if they were *seen* as bad behavior. I *think* > > JKR is relatively neutral when those scenes occur. > >>houyhnhnm: > But they *do* occur and many readers are aware of them. > She could easily have left out morally questionable actions > committed by the "good" characters, it seems to me, if she > wanted to write a black and white adventure story in which > everything the good guys do is good just because they're > the good guys. > > I think maybe she has only appeared to be neutral about > the morally questionable actions of her "good" charqcters > the better to surprise readers with the ending. > I'm hoping anyway. Betsy Hp: Houyhnhnm, I think I love you. This really makes so much sense to me. I think what bothered me was that we're so close to the end and there hasn't been a moment of, "hmm, maybe that wasn't such a good act, even though I'm a good guy." However, it will make for a bigger bang, I guess, if that realization hits Harry (and hopefully his friends, especially scary Hermione) all at once. A sort of super-intense moment of crisis. I will join you in the hopeful corner. Betsy Hp, who had to type about half of this all over again, blech From elfundeb at gmail.com Wed Jun 28 00:01:10 2006 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 20:01:10 -0400 Subject: Who Lives? (Was: who dies?) Message-ID: <80f25c3a0606271701h7f4180asd07f49e799b6afb1@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154475 > > > "Tonks" wrote: > Since this is a book for children I suspect that the trio and Ginny > will live. And hopefully Luna and Neville. I think she has killed > all of the young folks she planned to kill when she killed Cedric. > She made the statement, IMO, that she wanted to make with his > death. Any more would be, pardon me, overkill. Distaiyi: Since we're citing JKR, she's repeatedly said her books are not > necessarily children's books. Thus I don't think you can assume those > 4 characters survive. > > I think she has always had every intention of killing Harry. I don't > see how he can survive. I see him much like Bilbo in LotR... he won't > be able to live on in this world, and rather than have him just > "vanish" I see JKR as finishing him off. He may kill LV first, but he > must die, his experiences have made him unfit for "normal wizard" company. > Debbie: I find it odd that no one has suggested this before (though perhaps I missed it), but I think it is Harry who has been given a reprieve. Not because JKR can't kill off a main character in a child's book, but because she has realized that she doesn't need to. Harry has already proved himself *willing* to sacrifice himself to rid the WW of Voldemort's threat, and I think she has decided that the point has been made. In my vision of book 7, Harry will attempt to sacrifice himself but will ironically be saved by Voldemort himself. (Did I mention that I'm a fan of Harrycrux theories?) In exchange for Harry, JKR may well be willing to kill off another main character. Ron seems like a good trade-off for Harry; he has shown himself willing to sacrifice himself for the Cause, and besides, it might please some of the more radical H/H shippers. Maybe one of his brothers will join him. My bet is on Percy, dying in a tragic attempt to save a sibling from a Ministry-inflicted crisis. But there may well be more than two deaths, so I can add Snape, at least, to the list. Hermione is probably off limits. Draco, too, but for different reasons. Having been set up as a candidate for redemption, his death would be pointless. Just some idle musings . . . Debbie who at some point or another has proposed each of the deaths and survivals mentioned above; post numbers available upon request > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From evangelist at ihug.co.nz Tue Jun 27 23:37:12 2006 From: evangelist at ihug.co.nz (Tim) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 11:37:12 +1200 Subject: Mirror of Erised Message-ID: <44A1C128.4020302@ihug.co.nz> No: HPFGUIDX 154476 I've just had a look through the earlier posts and could'nt find anything about this. I know this isn't exactly a current discussion but bear with me. I just finished watching the movie for the whatever numbered time it is now and couldn't help thinking where have I heard a phrase like that before. I'm refering to the "men have wasted away in front of it.." quote of DDs. My mother refering to the TV and various computer games I got addicted to during my teens. Now the point is for me that JKR is using the Mirror of Erised to illustrate the dependence some have on external thing (TV, et al.) to remove them from reality into their desires - she is illustrating people and society through an object central to the plot. Are there any others? This just came - although it wouldn't surprise me if its already been done on this list (sorry if it has). Tim From sunflowerlaw at gmail.com Wed Jun 28 00:09:31 2006 From: sunflowerlaw at gmail.com (Lindsay) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 17:09:31 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who dies? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154477 Of course, it would also be prudent to mention that she didn't exactly say WHEN she did the rewrite - do remember that the manuscript has been sitting around since 1990. It's completely possible that she did the rewrite some time ago (as in, before the birthday notices), and only now feels safe - or mischievous - enough to mention it, since we're in the final stretch. Prior to the quote, they WERE talking about her writing the the final chapter so long ago - what she said could simply mean, in relative to 1990, the final chapter had changed - not anytime recently. This also doesn't stop her from changing the chapter again. Personally, I think we're all going to be stabbing the dark with this one. Rather than Dumbledore, no character death - major or minor - was really something we could see coming. Sort of cheapens the moment, if you know it's coming through foreshadowing (such as Ron's sacrifice on the chessboard). She got around that problem with Dumbledore through the method of his death (not that I'm suggesting Snape was Dumbledore's murderer for pure effect). Who knows, maybe she'll drop some more hints, soon. I sure hope so! All this stabbing in the dark is rather antagonizing. --Lindsay, who really doesn't want Snape to die, and doesn't think he will, but spends far too much time second-guessing herself. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 28 00:14:45 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 00:14:45 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154478 > > >>Magpie: > > But what does that prove, exactly? Betsy thinks it's harsh, you > > think Marietta deserves what she gets. The facts stay the same, > > so obviously one side isn't just the end of the story. > Alla: Yes, the facts stay the same, but Marietta does not stop being a traitor, does not she? So, that comes to either agreeing with what she did or disagreeing with what she did, no? Or I guess the third option is to disapprove of what she did, but to think that her punishment was too harsh, right? (That is Betsy's position, right?) But the thing is what plays into consideration the most IMO is how JKR evaluates the action, no? I mean for the purposes of writing about it. I think she is pretty harsh on traitors. IMO of course. > Betsy Hp: > Exactly! This is a *perfect* example of the "Because I am Good what > I do is Good, but if you do the same thing it's Bad, because you are > Bad" mindset. That there are no rules governing behavior. Anything > goes if you're the right sort of person. The Death Eaters can > torment a family of muggles and it's bad, because they're bad. But > the twins can torment a family of muggles and it's funny, because > they are good. Alla: 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. And when Twins torment a family of muggles to me it is funny NOT because they are good ( although I love them), BUT because those muggles to me are so very horrible and yes, deserve everything that they get IMO of course. Betsy Hp: >> Not that the Malfoys are perfect, themselves, of course. But to > Draco I'm sure they are. So those who brawl, and manipulate, and > cheat to bring down his own could never be defined, by Draco, as > good. In the end they behave exactly as Lucius would (if not in > quite the same style) to get what they want. Again, there's not a > huge difference in behavior seperating the good guys from the bad > guys. Not where Draco would see it, anyway. Alla: But should Draco's POV matter in evaluating his parents? I mean except the fact that they ARE his parents? His father is a member of the terrorist gang, that to me counts as much more than not perfect. Yes, Draco does not get that he should be brought to justice, Draco does not get that law enforcement has every right IMO to act on their suspicion that Lucius has Dark objects in his manor, but why should it matter, if they are able to prove Lucius guilt? Draco can be upset, but does it matter in evaluating Arthur's behaviour? Does good guy becomes less a good guy, because he does everything possible to bring the bad guy to justice? Within legal means of course, as they are set up in WW, and it seems to me that raids of the mansions are perfectly legal. Draco is upset, well, somebody should shake him IMO and explain him who his father really is and that his father MUST be punished and the guys who do it are NOT bad guys, his dear old dad is and his mom does not seem to be an angel either. I do hope that the events of HBP shook Draco, I really do. > Betsy Hp: > I've met bigots who've changed (some in my own family) so there you > are. But the thing is, to Draco the *Order* is made up of > disgusting little bigots that should get what they deserve. Alla: And as I said above, why should it matter in deciding who is a good guy? I am absolutely serious here. Betsy Hp: It's > not until HBP that Draco sees or experiences anything that would > tell him differently. So Draco is facing a moment where he can step > out of his family's shadow and examine things for himself. I feel > like Harry will need to do something similar himself, especially > since he's yet to question his own bigotry. Alla: Harry had plenty of those moments IMO, discovering that the fate of wisarding world is on his shoulders was IMO only one of them. Harry's innocence was torn from him IMO in Graveyard. I surely hope that this is what DD's death did to Draco. JMO, Alla From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Wed Jun 28 01:10:47 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 01:10:47 -0000 Subject: HELP, I can't stand it Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154479 aussie: People here refer to "Birthday Wishes" that have appeared on Joanne's own site, but where is the list of those mentioned? Does anyone know where the list is? And the TRANSCRIPT of the interview where 2 were pronounced dead. Is there a written transcript somewhere? I have seen a wave file on Snitch over 100 meg (http://thesnitch.net/videos/jkonraj.wmv) but frustrating to download, so i missed it. Can someone post a site where to get the written transcript of the latest interview, please? From celizwh at intergate.com Wed Jun 28 01:24:55 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 01:24:55 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154480 Alla: > > As I told someone off list, I don't like generalisations, > > but from my life experience people who hate other people > > because of their different ethnicity ( that is my experience, > > so I will stick to that) generally do not change. So, > > Draco to me is a disgusting little bigot and whatever he > > gets, he deserves. houyhnhnm: It is rare for someone who has been taught bigotry from an early age to overcome it. That's why it is especially moving when it happens, and I've known a few such cases. In fact I was thinking of one today in relation to Malfoy and son. There was a white Southern Baptist preacher, raised a racist, who spoke at an MLK celebration I went to a few years ago. The refrain of his speech was "I loved my daddy, but my daddy was wrong". After all, there is "more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance". Betsy Hp: > Houyhnhnm, I think I love you. This really makes > so much sense to me. I think what bothered me was that > we're so close to the end and there hasn't been a moment > of, "hmm, maybe that wasn't such a good act, even though > I'm a good guy." houyhnhnm: Er, I'm a *female* houyhnhnm, so I'll take that in the magical sense. She did it with Fred and George in one book. I didn't care much for the twins from the get-go. I didn't like the disrespectful way they treated their mother. I didn't like their slacker attitude towards their studies or the way they tried to corrupt those around them or the way they experimented on first years. I could go on and on. And yet we were supposed to see them as such lovable scalawags. Then in HBP, Rowling had them starting chains of events that led to the mutilation of their older brother, the near poisoning of their younger brother, and the death of Dumbledore. Of course, she didn't spell it out and a lot of people still don't get it. It may take something really bangy in book 7 to drive the point home. If she does kill Harry (or another highly beloved character) off, and if he dies *needlessly* as the result of the selfishness/insouciance/recklessness /smugness/carelessness of one of the *good* characters, that might do it. From brokentreasures at comcast.net Tue Jun 27 18:25:45 2006 From: brokentreasures at comcast.net (hcats_2000) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:25:45 -0000 Subject: JKR borrows from heroic literature In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154481 The only way JKR will be rid of Harry after the 7th book is to kill him off; after all, can you imagine the whining going on to please write another, etc. As for the second character, really would anyone grieve if Snape died? I do think that Dumbledore had an agreement with Snape, somewhat like the agreement he had with Harry, to promise to follow his instructions no matter what. So, i think that Snape killed Dumbledore because of that promise. (Snape did owe Dumbledore big time afterall.) As to the other death, Ginny does seem to be a possibility, and I wouldn't put it pastJKR to have Voldemort kill them both together. Whomever it is, I will be very sad when the books are gone. I haven't been this excited to read a book since the last Harry Potter. paula p.s. i'm new. hi. From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Jun 28 01:51:03 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 01:51:03 -0000 Subject: HELP, I can't stand it In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154482 > > aussie: > People here refer to "Birthday Wishes" that have appeared on Joanne's > own site, but where is the list of those mentioned? Does anyone know > where the list is? Potioncat: I don't know if a list exists, but the Lexicon has a calendar of dates at this site: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/timelines/timeline-year-calendar.html It includes birthdays and if you do a bit of looking, you can find the source for the information. In many cases, it's JKR's site. (The Happy Birthday wishes on her calendar.) > aussie: > And the TRANSCRIPT of the interview where 2 were pronounced dead. Is > there a written transcript somewhere? I have seen a wave file on > Snitch over 100 meg (http://thesnitch.net/videos/jkonraj.wmv) but > frustrating to download, so i missed it. Potioncat: There are a couple of threads that deal with this topic. I guess they all sprung up about the same time. Someone has provided a transcript in one of them. So, take a look at today's posts. I'm sure it's there. I just can't remember who posted it. From phil at pcsgames.net Wed Jun 28 02:43:02 2006 From: phil at pcsgames.net (Phil Vlasak) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 22:43:02 -0400 Subject: Happy Birthday list References: Message-ID: <011d01c69a5c$9a9b1000$6600a8c0@phil> No: HPFGUIDX 154483 Here is my collected list of birthday wishes from Jo's site: Section: Happy Birthday 9 January, Severus Snape 6 February Arthur Weasley 1 March, Ron Weasley 10 march Remus Lupin 1 April Fred and George Weasley 15 May Pomona Sprout 5 June Draco Malfoy 28 June Dobby 30 July Neville Longbottom 31 July Harry Potter 11 August Ginny Weasley 22 August Percy Weasley 19 September Hermione Granger 4 October Minerva McGonagall 17 October Filius Flitwick 30 October Molly Weasley 29 November Bill Weasley 6 December Rubeus Hagrid 12 December Charlie Weasley And one I added for completeness: Section: Unfortunate Birthday 31 december Tom Marvolo Riddle Note the December 31 date is exactly 6 months from Harry's birthday. Phil, who likes to keep lists. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Jun 28 03:27:19 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 03:27:19 -0000 Subject: JKR borrows from heroic literature In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154484 hcats_2000 wrote: > The only way JKR will be rid of Harry after the 7th book is to kill > him off; after all, can you imagine the whining going on to please > write another, etc. zgirnius: I think she is too fond of Harry to kill him off. She'll want to write him that happily ever after ending, I think. A billion dollars can buy a lot of soundproofing to keep the whiners away! hcats_2000 again: > As for the second character, really would anyone grieve if Snape > died? zgirnius: Do you mean in the books? (The answer would depend on the circusmtances, I'd say). Or do you mean on this list? If you mean the latter, gee...you ARE new here. :D Yes. Many someones would grieve (myself included.) hcats 200: > p.s. i'm new. hi. zgirnius: Hi Paula! It will be sad when the series is over. Though, actually, I will be sort of curious to see what, if anything, she will write next... From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 28 03:22:30 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 03:22:30 -0000 Subject: Evil Snape/ JKR and Christy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154485 > Pippin: > It sounds like we have very different Christie experiences :). I did > read some of them over and over, especially The Mirror Crack'd, and > I got pretty good at spotting the villains on first reading, not > by analyzing the clues but by analyzing the characters. Hint: you > can put your money on the _other_ nice young man, or the > ever so helpful female nanny/governess/nurse/companion. > > What I mean by a twist is a story arc that seems to point in one direction > but turns out to go somewhere else. Alla: Hehe. Yes, we do. I must clarify though - I am loving all murder mysteries including classics less and less as time goes by, NOT more. The main thing to me is of course that I usually don't care much for the characters of murder mysteries and yes, even Miss Marple :) Once you know, who done it, poof to me attraction is gone. Attraction is not going away from Potterverse though and that is because it is so much more than who done it and I so hope that it will not be reduced to simple murder mystery. Besides, I more and more often ending up looking at the last page while I am in the middle of murder mystery. Want to know who did it and ooops, no reason to read a book anymore. Thanks for your definition of twist, but does your definition means shocking unpredictable direction or just unpredictable? Pippin: > I don't see nearly the backtracking in canon that you do -- JKR had > a plot in mind from the beginning and hasn't changed it much, IMO. > The shift in the import of the prophecy was, IMO, planned and > necessary in order to provide a resolution to Book Five which turns > out to be false almost as soon as Book Six is underway, so that Five, Six > and Seven become one story. Alla: Well, we can only guess, don't we how well she planned? I mean, I won't argue that she planned the major story but how much backtracking she does that is IMO anybody's guess. > I agree that JKR is straightforward, or at least drops anvil-sized hints, > about some things, and that Voldemort will be defeated by love is > one of them. But other things are complicated. Isn't it funny that we > are attracted to Snape by the complexity of his character, and yet > expend all this bandwidth trying to reduce him to some three-letter > formula or other? :) Alla: But you see to me the funny thing is that ALL stuff that seems to draw us closer to resolution of the books as in important stuff, IMO ends uo being quite simple and to me it is not a bad thing at all. Love is of course the best example, another thing is remember how JKR with absolute directness told us that important question to speculate about would be how Voldemort survived? Trying to push us to find out about Horcruxes or something like that? Remember supercomplex theories that never materialised in canon? I mean, I totally remember being dismissed out of hand at when I dared to suggest that those theories are a little too complex and sometimes cigar is indeed just a cigar even in Potterverse. It seems to me that books are moving to some kind of simple, elegant resolution whatever that is. But to me "simple" is the key word. As to Snape, I can only speak for myself, but I absolutely think that his complexiness is greatly exaggerated. I totally attracted to his character ( as in Love to hate him), but to me - I just want to know his motives, meaning knowing the mystery of his backstory. I am thinking that when we learn it, it is going to be another "that's it?" But I am sure many people will disagree with me JMO, Alla From pebbles104 at sbcglobal.net Wed Jun 28 02:37:55 2006 From: pebbles104 at sbcglobal.net (Kellie and Lady J) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 22:37:55 -0400 Subject: ESE!JKR ? :) (was: Re: Book 7 news) References: <3810282123.20060627111120@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <019201c69a5b$dc618d80$6500a8c0@shannonn2zgd3u> No: HPFGUIDX 154486 snip Dave: > But she says again and again that she writes these books strictly > for herself... Frankly I find that more unsettling than anything... end snip Kellie now: I agree that it would be unfortunate if the losses are only one-sided and I would be quite disappointed in that. But, as for her writing for herself, that doesn't unsettle me. I would be more bothered if she catored to her readers' whims and wishes. If she stopped writing for herself I think that her books would be lacking. She wouldn't be writing with her heart in it, and I believe she does that. Her characters come to life for her and in order to keep that, she has to write for her, and not others. This is just my opinion. Also, if she were to start writing for everyone else, she would go crazy, because no matter what she did or wrote in her book, someone would be unsatisfied with it. She isn't going to be able to please everyone, so she has to write what she believes. Whoever dies, someone is going to be upset by it, and there is no getting around that. An author can't change the story lines because of how their readers may react to it, it is part of the plot. Just my thoughts. Kellie From alkaline_poet at yahoo.com Tue Jun 27 16:28:17 2006 From: alkaline_poet at yahoo.com (Robyn Walton) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 09:28:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Who dies (not Neville) In-Reply-To: <20060627140732.82807.qmail@web52708.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060627162817.13795.qmail@web55114.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154487 Katie wrote: >> I don't see Neville dying precisely because all his growth and learning would then be for no reason. I feel like Pettigrew HAS to die, because without him, LV would never have returned...so I feel like he needs to pay for that. << Robyn: I totally forgot about Pettigrew. Whoops! He's a possible other who may die. The growth shown in Neville is like a countdown till he battles Lestrange. I think he may die in battle to avenge his parents' death. (Has the Lestranges' been captured or killed yet? Last I know was that she left with the Voldemort after the D.O.M.) From wjjett4 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 28 03:19:53 2006 From: wjjett4 at yahoo.com (JENNIFER JETT) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 20:19:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Draco Reprieve? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060628031953.16776.qmail@web60122.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154488 honeykissed wrote: >> I just finished reading some post about Rowlings comments concerning book 7. I was thinking initially that the reprieve may go to Snape (again) but then I got to thinking about Draco. If he is not one of the characters that gets killed in book 7, he would need a reprieve?? Considering that he was the one that let the DE's into Hogwarts and caused the death of Dumbledore. Now what I find interesting is that I read only "1" will be given a reprieve so it's my guess that either Snape or Draco will be killed in book 7. Any thoughts on this? << Jennifer: Honeykissed, Well, I have looked at all information. I don't think Snape is the one with the reprieve. I think Draco is. Why? Draco was so uncertain to kill DD. He was only doing LV's bidding because he was told his family would suffer if he didn't. I think Draco will (in the end) turn to help Harry. I feel Draco will realize that his future, for any kind of freedom, will be in Harry's hands. He in will turn. Who do I think will die? Well, JKR did not say two "main" characters will die. So, I think it could possibly be the following. * Petunia- Something will happen at #4 Privet Drive that Harry and Dudley will be in danger. She does for the boys what Lily did for Harry. Her Mother instinct will kick in and she will put herself in harms way to protect them. *Hagrid- Now Sirius and DD are gone, Hagrid is the next best thing to a parent he has had. *Slughorn- LV will find out his role in helping Harry. *Bill, Charley or Percy- We have not heard the last of this group of boys. Percy may have a similar situation as I stated above about Petunia. Ginny is a soft spot for all of her older brothers. Ginny could be in danger and one of the older brother comes to help. *Wesley Twins- JKR mentions two characters will died. Could be kill two-birds-with-one-stone deal. *Someone we haven't met yet- You know how she is? Gives us just enough information to go nuts! RAB could come into play and died in the process. Someone, who was at Godric's Hollow, could come forward with some "new" information and then pay the ultimate price. *****Snape.........nope, he will not be reprieved or killed. He is too obvious. JKR loves to throw red herrings at us. Cheers! Jennifer From elizabeth.lacey at international-brand-id-ltd.com Sun Jun 25 18:43:04 2006 From: elizabeth.lacey at international-brand-id-ltd.com (internationalbrandidltd) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 18:43:04 -0000 Subject: Of essence divided? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154489 > distaiyi wrote: > > "But in essence divided?"' > > > > This to me appears to bolster the argument that perhaps Nagini > > is a horcrux for LV. If LV was not part of the snake how could > > Harry see through the snake's eyes... > Carol responds: > Snape provided the explanation: Voldemort was possessing Nagini at > the time. (OoP, the "Occlumency" chapter, IIRC.) So Harry sees > through the snake's eyes and feels her urge to bite, but he also > senses Voldemort's will guiding the snake. She (Nagini) is not > supposed to bite the man (Mr. Weasley) until he wakes up and she > has no choice. So the snake (Nagini) is "in essence divided" > because she has her own mind and will, but she also has > Voldemort's--rather like Quirrell, the man with two faces, who > retains his own mind and will, however weakened that will may be, > and is still capable of failing Voldemort or pleading with him. Elizabeth: Hello; the scene in DD's office refers to the smoke augury. The smoke auguror puffs out some smoke which takes the shape of a serpent's head, mouth wide open and DD murmurs "naturally." Is there a shared nature between LV and Harry? The single smoke serpent answers yes there is; they share a serpent nature, but divided one nature, two essences. This is symbolism of Christ both essessence both Divine and Both Human. Harry is choosing Life over Death whereas LV is choosing the way of death. It's about us muggles being double minded; Jo just isn't telling a story about a boy who lived here, she is teaching us about life and how our choices affect us and those around us. You would have to read John Granger's book "Looking for God in Harry Potter" to fully understand the methods of her writings which is brillant. See my website page: http://www.thewandshoppe.org/LookingforGodinHarryPotter.html I am putting up scanned pages of this work from my own copy. From brokentreasures at comcast.net Tue Jun 27 22:22:40 2006 From: brokentreasures at comcast.net (Paula Fisicaro) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:22:40 -0400 Subject: Draco Reprieve? References: Message-ID: <001401c69a38$34356b40$6401a8c0@computer> No: HPFGUIDX 154490 honeykissed: Now what I find interesting is that I read only "1" will be given a reprieve so it's my guess that either Snape or Draco will be killed in book 7. Any thoughts on this? Paula: I don't think Draco will die, but I think Snape may, and I think she will kill Harry, just to be done with the series. -- paula fisicaro broken treasures foundation brokentreasures at comcast.net dresher, pa home of the H gang - henry, harry, hollis (RIP 9/15/00), harley, hannah (RIP 9/11/00), heidi, howie (RIP 11/22/04), hershey, hella, horton, hoppy, harpo, hazel, holly, hamish, hattie, honora, hart, herbert, hennessey, thor hillel & hemi From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Jun 28 04:28:20 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 04:28:20 -0000 Subject: Happy Birthday list Theory In-Reply-To: <011d01c69a5c$9a9b1000$6600a8c0@phil> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154491 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Phil Vlasak" wrote: > > Here is my collected list of birthday wishes from Jo's site: > Section: Happy Birthday > 9 January, > Severus Snape > 6 February > Arthur Weasley > 1 March, > Ron Weasley > 10 march > Remus Lupin > 1 April > Fred and George Weasley > 15 May > Pomona Sprout > 5 June > Draco Malfoy > 28 June > Dobby > 30 July > Neville Longbottom > 31 July > Harry Potter > 11 August > Ginny Weasley > 22 August > Percy Weasley > 19 September > Hermione Granger > 4 October > Minerva McGonagall > 17 October > Filius Flitwick > 30 October > Molly Weasley > 29 November > Bill Weasley > 6 December > Rubeus Hagrid > 12 December > Charlie Weasley (Snipped LV, because he has never been wished a happy birthday and IMO does not count.) Tonks: OK If the Birthdays List Prediction Theory is correct (and we don't know if it is) Tonks is not on it. This could be because she is not considered a major character. Lupin is there. All the Weasleys are there. Harry, Ginny, Neville and Hermione are there. All of the teachers are there. Others Not on it are: DD - I think because there is something about his birthday we are not suppose to know. Course he is also dead, so it could be the Theory at work. Luna Dudley Petunia Vernon Mad-eye Moody Flitch - isn't he a major character? ????? Well I started this, but I don't know... who are the major players here are who aren't? I mean is someone not on the list because they are going to die or because they are not important? And isn't it interesting that none of the bad guys are on it? Only Draco from the Malfoy family is there. Wonder if this means that he does have a change of allegiance in the last book. And if my "good guy list theory" is correct this is proof of Snape as DDM. Tonks_op From donnawonna at worldnet.att.net Wed Jun 28 04:45:46 2006 From: donnawonna at worldnet.att.net (Donna) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 00:45:46 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: [HPforGrownups] HELP, I can't stand it References: Message-ID: <44A2097A.00000F.02908@D33LDD51> No: HPFGUIDX 154492 Donna says: Go to Mugglenet.com for a transcript of Jo's interview. aussie: People here refer to "Birthday Wishes" that have appeared on Joanne's own site, but where is the list of those mentioned? Does anyone know where the list is? And the TRANSCRIPT of the interview where 2 were pronounced dead. Is there a written transcript somewhere? I have seen a wave file on Snitch over 100 meg (http://thesnitch.net/videos/jkonraj.wmv) but frustrating to download, so i missed it. Can someone post a site where to get the written transcript of the latest interview, please? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From imamommy at sbcglobal.net Wed Jun 28 04:34:24 2006 From: imamommy at sbcglobal.net (Emily) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 04:34:24 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154493 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > > >>Magpie: > > > But what does that prove, exactly? Betsy thinks it's harsh, you > > > think Marietta deserves what she gets. The facts stay the > same, > > > so obviously one side isn't just the end of the story. > > > Alla: > > Yes, the facts stay the same, but Marietta does not stop being a > traitor, does not she? So, that comes to either agreeing with what > she did or disagreeing with what she did, no? > > Or I guess the third option is to disapprove of what she did, but to > think that her punishment was too harsh, right? (That is Betsy's > position, right?) > > But the thing is what plays into consideration the most IMO is how > JKR evaluates the action, no? I mean for the purposes of writing > about it. imamommy: Greetings Alla! I think there is yet another way to see it. I was really surprised that the punishment pustules had not been remedied before the start of term. It seems over the top to me, but I think it's left to us how we take it. IIRC, JKR just kind of mentions it and leaves it, she doesn't really put a comment on it. So, I think you can make of it what you will. One reader may think she got her due, one may think it was totally inappropriate, another may think some Dr. Ubbly's should have been able to take care of things. But Jo let's us make up our own mind if we think Hermione acted correctly or not. Personally, I don't mind the punishment but I don't think it should have been so long-lasting. imamommy From McGregorMax at ec.rr.com Wed Jun 28 00:12:33 2006 From: McGregorMax at ec.rr.com (mcmaxslb) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 00:12:33 -0000 Subject: Who dies? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154494 Who Dies? Harry of course! Harry and Voldemort. HBP only makes sense when you realize that it is all about setting up Harry's death in Book7. Also in every interview that JKR gives she always states that there will never be another HP novel after Book7. What better way to insure that than by killing off the main character. mcmaxslb From iam.kemper at gmail.com Wed Jun 28 05:14:26 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 22:14:26 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Happy Birthday list Theory In-Reply-To: References: <011d01c69a5c$9a9b1000$6600a8c0@phil> Message-ID: <700201d40606272214j2e6f21e1r747ed5fa5f0f7208@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154495 "Phil Vlasak" wrote: > > > > Here is my collected list of birthday wishes from Jo's site: > > ... List Snipped ... > > > Tonks responded: > OK If the Birthdays List Prediction Theory is correct (and we don't > know if it is) ? Tonks is not on it. This could be because she is > not considered a major character. Lupin is there. All the Weasleys > are there. Harry, Ginny, Neville and Hermione are there. All of the > teachers are there. > > Others Not on it are: > DD - I think because there is something about his birthday we are > not suppose to know. Course he is also dead, so it could be the > Theory at work. > > Luna > Dudley > Petunia > Vernon > Mad-eye Moody > Flitch - isn't he a major character? > ????? > > Well I started this, but I don't know... who are the major players > here are who aren't? I mean is someone not on the list because they > are going to die or because they are not important? > > And isn't it interesting that none of the bad guys are on it? Only > Draco from the Malfoy family is there. Wonder if this means that he > does have a change of allegiance in the last book. And if my "good > guy list theory" is correct this is proof of Snape as DDM. > > Kemper now: I notice Fluer isn't on the list, and she's had more page time, it seems, than either Bill or Charlie. Neither is Figgy. I pray she lives. I know her page time is insignificant, but her role isn't. Seamus and Dean, though maybe their Red Shirts who've lived a long time. Trewlany. Her page time is relatively significant as is her role. Grawp. Pretty please, JKR, slay him. And slay him early. -Kemper [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Jun 28 05:35:36 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 05:35:36 -0000 Subject: ESE! JKR ? In-Reply-To: <019201c69a5b$dc618d80$6500a8c0@shannonn2zgd3u> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154496 OK, Lupinlore where is your shredder? I swear if JKR kills off any more of my favorite people I am gonna use it! The more I think about it and wonder who it will be, the more depressed I get. I want the last book to wrap things up and leave us with a good feeling. The good guys win, the bad guys get their due.. you know like an old time Western. Think of all the time, money, tears we have all invested in this series. What a waste if it all ends up on a real downer. I could handle it if she kills Harry, the sacrificial Love for the good of the WW/MW and all. But if someone gets it just because they got in the way, wrong place, wrong time NO!! And if JKR kills off any major characters other than Harry, LV or Snape I am going to think that the woman has a real mental problem. Maybe she wants the whole world to be in morning and miserable as some sick way of dealing with her own loses. Maybe she wants to play God and be in control of who dies and who doesn't. She is writing the books for herself. Maybe it is part of her therapy. Only time will tell. Tonks_op From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jun 28 06:50:02 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 06:50:02 -0000 Subject: HELP, I can't stand it In-Reply-To: <44A2097A.00000F.02908@D33LDD51> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154497 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Donna" wrote: > > Donna says: > > Go to Mugglenet.com for a transcript of Jo's interview. > Geoff: Mugglenet also has a download of the little scene involving Harry, Hermione, Ron and Neville which was used at the Buckingham Palace children's party. It's OT but quite amusing. From h.m.s at mweb.co.za Wed Jun 28 07:13:59 2006 From: h.m.s at mweb.co.za (H.M.S) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 09:13:59 +0200 Subject: Quirrell Message-ID: <000801c69a82$75eb03c0$9dd317c4@Sharon> No: HPFGUIDX 154498 Was Quirrell a deatheater? Just wondering as he called Voldemort by name - which only HP & DD seem to do Sharon From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Wed Jun 28 08:08:30 2006 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 08:08:30 -0000 Subject: Who dies? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154499 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lindsay wrote: > > Of course, it would also be prudent to mention that she didn't exactly say > WHEN she did the rewrite - do remember that the manuscript has been sitting > around since 1990. It's completely possible that she did the rewrite some > time ago (as in, before the birthday notices), and only now feels safe - or > mischievous - enough to mention it, since we're in the final stretch. Prior > to the quote, they WERE talking about her writing the the final chapter so > long ago - what she said could simply mean, in relative to 1990, the final > chapter had changed - not anytime recently. > > This also doesn't stop her from changing the chapter again. > > Personally, I think we're all going to be stabbing the dark with this one. >snippity snip< Doddie here: Personally I feel that if anyone would get a "reprieve"... I'm leaning towards two characters...Voldemor and Lupin...(although...I believe that Lupin is a "given"...seeing as he was one of the marauders....) However much I love lupin...I always link him for lack of punishing not only snape as much as he could have, but the mauraders as well (prefect duties an all), simply because his friends would get in trouble too..(hence why so many of us like Neville--I really appreciate Lupin as Neville's foil....only I don't ever believe Lupin had the courage he should have, but it must be there...only WHERE!?!?!?.) We NEED lupin so show some grypindor qualities....I hope he shows them in a confrontation with snape... Doddie (who does not think he is evil...just needs to find love and show some backbone...GO TONKS!!!) From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Wed Jun 28 08:19:08 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 08:19:08 -0000 Subject: Troll Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154500 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: that automatically compromise his believability? > > houyhnhnm: > > This has bothered me, too. It is possible that each teacher came up a > protection but did not actually put it in place. So Professor Sprout > provided the Devil's Snare from her greenhouses, Professor McGonagall > transfigured the chess pieces, etc., but Dumbledore actually assembled > everything. In that case each teacher knew of his or her own > protection and knew that there were multiple enchantments guarding the > Stone, but did not know the exact nature of the others' protections, > thus they need not have known about the troll guarding the Stone. > 'Do you have what it takes to train security Trolls?' I think Quirrel contacted a firm that provided security Trolls and put it into place, or let DD do it (and pay for it). Security Trolls are trained and thus won't attack humans for no reason. Thus Q would have provided a good protection measure, he would have kept his talent for handling trolls a secret and would at the same time have had a protective measure that was not a problem for him at all. Gerry From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Wed Jun 28 08:43:01 2006 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 01:43:01 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] ESE! JKR ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <381552350.20060628014301@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154501 Kellie: > > If she stopped writing for herself I think that her books would be > lacking. She wouldn't be writing with her heart in it, and I believe > she does that. Her characters come to life for her and in order to > keep that, she has to write for her, and not others. Dave: Of course, I realize in the end she has to write for herself. I know from experience what happens if you try to second-guess your readers. But as Tonks' comments (see below) imply, there is instinctively a "selfish" part of ourselves who want it to all come out the way *we* want. Tonks: > > The more I think about it and wonder who it will be, the more > depressed I get. I want the last book to wrap things up and leave > us with a good feeling. The good guys win, the bad guys get their > due.. you know like an old time Western. Dave: I feel the same way -- Who wants to be depressed by our leisure reading? We have the RW for that! Haven't the good guys been devastated enough? IMO, if Jo kills too many people we care about, it will make the final victory seem pretty hollow. Jo has made her point about evil -- She doesn't need to club us (and her heroes) over the head with it. We know that LV &c. are evil b*s*a*ds and not "Whoa cool!" villians like Darth Vader and other famous meanies in black. The Potters, the Longbottoms, the Crouches, Cedric, Sirius, Dumbledore -- We have plenty of proof of how heinous and horrific the actions of LV and the DEs are -- And now we want the last book to be Payback Time. But all this pontification is just an expression of my own "selfish" desires. As Tonks says, "Only time will tell." -- Dave From h.m.s at mweb.co.za Wed Jun 28 08:36:39 2006 From: h.m.s at mweb.co.za (H.M.S) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 10:36:39 +0200 Subject: Who dies Message-ID: <000c01c69a8d$fae05570$ecd217c4@Sharon> No: HPFGUIDX 154502 JK hasn't finished writing the book yet, but she has already killed off 2 characters. I don't think that the 2 are part of the trio, because they HAVE to live to at least the end of the book, otherwise the rest of the story will just fizzle out. Here's hoping! Sharon From diznee_baby at yahoo.com Wed Jun 28 06:41:58 2006 From: diznee_baby at yahoo.com (diznee_baby) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 06:41:58 -0000 Subject: Who dies (not Neville) In-Reply-To: <52a.183a450.31d2ef5e@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154503 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, BrwNeil at ... wrote: >I think most people are missing some important points about JKR's comments. > First, she never says that only two people will die. She says that two main > characters (not extras will die) and she is talking about the light side, > not Voldemort and his buddies because she uses the term targeted people. > > The question for us to answer is who besides Harry, Ron and Hermione does > JKR consider as main characters. > Neil, Thank you, thank you, thank you! I'm a newbie here and, after reading the interview with JKR, was just waiting for someone else to point this out! The biggest clue, IMO, that it will be the 'good guys' taking the hit (so to speak) is her mentioning that, "we're dealing with pure evil". Also, if I were the one defining "main characters" (and I know I'm not ;-))it would be a character that plays a significant role in the series as a whole, NOT necessarily in the whole series. Dumbledore and Sirius were both "main characters". Dumbledore having been there from the beginning and Sirius making his appearance in PoA. I'd like to throw my hat into the ring and say that Ron doesn't die. In fact I don't think any of the Weasley children will. My reasoning is this, JKR has also stated that she felt she had boxed herself in with some earlier plotlines. I think she might be referring to giving the Weasley's seven children. After all, isn't seven the most magically powerful number? I'd also like to venture a guess as to one of the two that she didn't originally intend to die. I believe it will be Draco. Not only that, I think VM will do it himself and in front of Lucius. Somehow just how evil VM is has to be driven home, to everyone. DizneeBaby From phil at pcsgames.net Wed Jun 28 13:00:53 2006 From: phil at pcsgames.net (Phil Vlasak) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 09:00:53 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Happy Birthday list Theory References: <011d01c69a5c$9a9b1000$6600a8c0@phil> <700201d40606272214j2e6f21e1r747ed5fa5f0f7208@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <004301c69ab2$e8a10240$6600a8c0@phil> No: HPFGUIDX 154504 Tonks responded: > OK If the Birthdays List Prediction Theory is correct (and we don't > know if it is) . Tonks is not on it. This could be because she is > not considered a major character. Lupin is there. All the Weasleys > are there. Harry, Ginny, Neville and Hermione are there. All of the > teachers are there. > > Others Not on it are: > DD - I think because there is something about his birthday we are > not suppose to know. Course he is also dead, so it could be the > Theory at work. > > Luna > Dudley > Petunia > Vernon > Mad-eye Moody > Flitch - isn't he a major character? > ????? > > Well I started this, but I don't know... who are the major players > here are who aren't? I mean is someone not on the list because they > are going to die or because they are not important? > > And isn't it interesting that none of the bad guys are on it? Only > Draco from the Malfoy family is there. Wonder if this means that he > does have a change of allegiance in the last book. And if my "good > guy list theory" is correct this is proof of Snape as DDM. > Now Phil again: Here is my list of what I consider major players not on the birthday list: Alastor Moody Albus Dumbledore Alice Longbottom Argus Filch Augusta Longbottom Bellatrix Lestrange Cho Chang Cormac McLaggen Cornelius Fudge Dean Thomas Dolores Umbridge Firenze Fleur Delacour Frank Longbottom Gilderoy Lockhart Grawp Gregory Goyle Horace Slughorn Kingsley Shacklebolt Kreacher Lavender Brown Lucius Malfoy Ludo Bagman Luna Lovegood Millicent Bulstrode Narcissa Malfoy Nymphadora Tonks Olympe Maxime Pansy Parkinson Parvati Patil Peter Pettigrew Rita Skeeter Rufus Scrimgeour Seamus Finnigan Sibyll Trelawney Sirius Black Tom Marvolo Riddle Viktor Krum Vincent Crabbe Winky From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Jun 28 13:08:09 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:08:09 -0000 Subject: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154505 Alla: > > Um, I am sure there can be found some incidents in canon where > > Ron and Hermione let Harry down, but I would argue that yes, on > > the big scale they never did. Pippin: > Ron's jealousy in GoF was a big deal, in fact prior to OOP lots of > people were saying it proved Ron could not be trusted and he > would betray Harry to LV. Hermione let Harry down when she ratted > him out about the Firebolt (the least she could have done was > let him know what she was going to do) and he was upset enough > about that to drop her. It may not seem like a grand scale thing > to us, but Harry certainly thought so. SSSusan: It's awfully late to post on this, but I did have a thought here as I try (yet again!) to catch up around here. Disclaimer: I am still struggling with the new Yahoo!Groups setup, so while I *think* I've checked the thread to make sure no one else has mentioned this, I sure do find it hard to follow threads through now. Grrrr! Pippin gave a couple of examples of Hermione & Ron letting Harry down in "grand scale" ways. To those I'd also add Hermione's handling of the setup of Dumbledore's Army. I believe she REALLY handled that poorly, where Harry was concerned. She knew she was making it a much bigger group than she'd led Harry on to believe, and she also didn't prepare him at all for what she planned for that first gathering in the Hog's Head. It's like she knew what SHE wanted, and she didn't really care whether it's what Harry was comfortable with or wanted or not. She had her reasons for doing it as she did, but I think the simple truth is that she believed that Harry didn't know what was best and that she did. I find that obnoxious & arrogant, myself. Some listees may agree with her, but in terms of how **Harry** felt, I think he did feel quite let down by her. He was ANGRY with her in the Hog's Head, and I think he actually felt somewhat betrayed by what seemed to him as her conning him or setting him up. Or at least that's how I read the scene. Whether in the end it all worked out okay or not, in the MOMENT I think Harry really did feel let down by her. I would have felt the same. Hermione really put him in an awkward position, and he was forced into doing/saying things he really did not want to. I'd have felt let down as well. Siriusly Snapey Susan From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Jun 28 13:31:59 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:31:59 -0000 Subject: Gone a while - question about Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154506 Mhershey again: > > Ah, okay. So at some point after Harry is born, Snape learns > > that VD is after the Potters because of the info. Snape had given > > VD... then, Snape goes to DD, says he feels bad about the whole > > thing, and gets a job at Hogwarts. Potioncat: > That's one possible timeline. > > Sometime after hearing the Prophecy, Snape came back to "our side" > and began spying at great personal risk. We really don't know when > that happened. A few people, (myself included) think he may > have "come back" before he even took the Prophecy to LV. > > My calculations (maths!!) has the Trelawney-DD interview around > September of 79. DD's wording to Harry, although not conclusive, > hints that he knew Snape was a DE at the time. So either he knew > Snape would take the information to LV, but didn't stop him; or he > discussed the delivery with a reformed Snape. SSSusan: Can you say more on this, Potioncat? I don't quite follow WHY a Snape who had "come back to our side" would *then* go on to deliver the prophecy to Voldy, nor do I understand why DD would have discussed the delivery with a reformed Snape. IOW, what would have there been to gain by delivering the prophecy to Voldy? And wouldn't that possibility cast doubt upon the truth of what DD said when he told Harry that Snape felt great remorse over his role? I can't see that he & DD would have *decided* to deliver the prophecy and then still find that Snape felt tremendous remorse for having provided the info which led to James & Lily's deaths. Siriusly Snapey Susan, feeling a little dense this a.m. and blaming it on a headache From rkdas at charter.net Wed Jun 28 13:35:53 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:35:53 -0000 Subject: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154507 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > >> > SSSusan: > It's awfully late to post on this, but I did have a thought here as I > try (yet again!) to catch up around here. SNIP > Pippin gave a couple of examples of Hermione & Ron letting Harry down > in "grand scale" ways. To those I'd also add Hermione's handling of > the setup of Dumbledore's Army. I believe she REALLY handled that > poorly, where Harry was concerned. She knew she was making it a much > bigger group than she'd led Harry on to believe, and she also didn't > prepare him at all for what she planned for that first gathering in > the Hog's Head. It's like she knew what SHE wanted, and she didn't > really care whether it's what Harry was comfortable with or wanted or > not. > > She had her reasons for doing it as she did, but I think the simple > truth is that she believed that Harry didn't know what was best and > that she did. I find that obnoxious & arrogant, myself. Some > listees may agree with her, but in terms of how **Harry** felt, I > think he did feel quite let down by her. He was ANGRY with her in > the Hog's Head, and I think he actually felt somewhat betrayed by > what seemed to him as her conning him or setting him up. Or at least > that's how I read the scene. > > Whether in the end it all worked out okay or not, in the MOMENT I > think Harry really did feel let down by her. I would have felt the > same. Hermione really put him in an awkward position, and he was > forced into doing/saying things he really did not want to. I'd have > felt let down as well. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan SSSusan! Glad to see you back! But I think you are making way too much of the over-large crowd that greeted Harry at the first DA meeting. I know he was shocked, a little irritated but let down? I can't see it. Maybe surprised so many people wanted to learn DADA and from him. After all, he was just coming off being smeared by the Ministry. I will have to go back and read carefully, but wasn't he actually excited after the initial shock wore off? I recall him thinking about lesson plans and getting quite jazzed. Sometimes your friends do know what you need better than yourself. This is a fine example of Hermione's know-it-all behavior but not a let-down, not a failure to stand by or work for Harry's greater good. Jen D. (back herself from a time in another strange land and glad to be here...) > From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Jun 28 14:04:32 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:04:32 -0000 Subject: Gone a while - question about Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154508 > SSSusan: > Can you say more on this, Potioncat? I don't quite follow WHY a > Snape who had "come back to our side" would *then* go on to deliver > the prophecy to Voldy, nor do I understand why DD would have > discussed the delivery with a reformed Snape. > > IOW, what would have there been to gain by delivering the prophecy to > Voldy? zgirnius: I don't buy this theory myself, but as I understand it, the theory says that Snape and Dumbledore deliberately told Voldemort just the first part of the Prophecy to draw Voldemort into a false move (the attack on the One, causing Voldemort to 'mark him as his equal' and creating an antagonist capable of defeating him). SSSusan: > And wouldn't that possibility cast doubt upon the truth of what DD > said when he told Harry that Snape felt great remorse over his role? > I can't see that he & DD would have *decided* to deliver the prophecy > and then still find that Snape felt tremendous remorse for having > provided the info which led to James & Lily's deaths. > zgirnius: If Snape had some personal reason for caring whether the Potters lived or died (be it a life debt, feelings for Lily, or a general objection to hurting people he actualy knows as opposed to some abstract couple), he might regret the decision even if at the time he had agreed it was the right strategic move. Dumbledore insists that Snape had no way of knowing who the couple were when the decision would have been made. By the way, if the theory is true, Dumbledore is probably feeling somewhat guilty in this scene himself, and his insistence on Snape's ignorance is excusing his own act, as well. And this is probably what Dumbledore considered telling Harry, when he instead decided to end the conversation by asserting that he trusts Snape completely. While his statements about Snape's remorse could still be true, his statements about the overhearing of the prophecy, and who knows it in full, would certainly be false. From iam.kemper at gmail.com Wed Jun 28 15:14:17 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 08:14:17 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Happy Birthday list Theory In-Reply-To: <004301c69ab2$e8a10240$6600a8c0@phil> References: <011d01c69a5c$9a9b1000$6600a8c0@phil> <700201d40606272214j2e6f21e1r747ed5fa5f0f7208@mail.gmail.com> <004301c69ab2$e8a10240$6600a8c0@phil> Message-ID: <700201d40606280814j567de93cg16b2c8289bc7025b@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154509 > Tonks responded: > > OK If the Birthdays List Prediction Theory is correct (and we don't > > know if it is) . Tonks is not on it. This could be because she is > > not considered a major character. Lupin is there. All the Weasleys > > are there. Harry, Ginny, Neville and Hermione are there. All of the > > teachers are there. > > > > Others Not on it are: > > DD - I think because there is something about his birthday we are > > not suppose to know. Course he is also dead, so it could be the > > Theory at work. > > > > Luna > > Dudley > > Petunia > > Vernon > > Mad-eye Moody > > Flitch - isn't he a major character? > > ????? > > > > Well I started this, but I don't know... who are the major players > > here are who aren't? I mean is someone not on the list because they > > are going to die or because they are not important? > > > > And isn't it interesting that none of the bad guys are on it? Only > > Draco from the Malfoy family is there. Wonder if this means that he > > does have a change of allegiance in the last book. And if my "good > > guy list theory" is correct this is proof of Snape as DDM. > > > > Phil again: > Here is my list of what I consider major players not on the birthday list: > Alastor Moody > Albus Dumbledore > Alice Longbottom > Argus Filch > Augusta Longbottom > Bellatrix Lestrange > Cho Chang > Cormac McLaggen > Cornelius Fudge > Dean Thomas > Dolores Umbridge > Firenze > Fleur Delacour > Frank Longbottom > Gilderoy Lockhart > Grawp > Gregory Goyle > Horace Slughorn > Kingsley Shacklebolt > Kreacher > Lavender Brown > Lucius Malfoy > Ludo Bagman > Luna Lovegood > Millicent Bulstrode > Narcissa Malfoy > Nymphadora Tonks > Olympe Maxime > Pansy Parkinson > Parvati Patil > Peter Pettigrew > Rita Skeeter > Rufus Scrimgeour > Seamus Finnigan > Sibyll Trelawney > Sirius Black > Tom Marvolo Riddle > Viktor Krum > Vincent Crabbe > Winky > > > Now Kemper: Part of the interview: Jo: The final chapter is hidden away, although it has now changed very sightly. One character got a reprieve, but I have to say two die that I didn't intend to die ... Judy: Two much loved ones? Jo: Well, you know. A price has to be paid. We are dealing with pure evil. They don't target the extras do they? They go for the main characters, or I do. >From Phil's list, the extras who are not pure evil, insane or a DE are: Alice Longbottom Argus Filch Augusta Longbottom Cho Chang Cormac McLaggen Cornelius Fudge Dean Thomas Dolores Umbridge Fleur Delacour Frank Longbottom Gilderoy Lockhart Gregory Goyle Lavender Brown Ludo Bagman Millicent Bulstrode Olympe Maxime Pansy Parkinson Parvati Patil Rita Skeeter Rufus Scrimgeour Seamus Finnigan Viktor Krum Vincent Crabbe Winky Besides Seamus and Dean, I don't think the average reader is invested in any of these characters. Maybe Fluer and Cho. Maybe. Of Phil's list, the 'good' main characters (defined by me to mean those who have willingly or unwittingly directly helped Harry move his story forward) are: Alastor Moody Albus Dumbledore Firenze Grawp Horace Slughorn Kingsley Shacklebolt Luna Lovegood Nymphadora Tonks Sibyll Trelawney Sirius Black I like that Phil has left in Albus. I think he's still alive, too. Though I have my reservations on Sirius returning from the dead. But hey, to each their own. Of this list, Firenze, Grawp, Horace and Sibyll are the least loved by the readers. (How blessed it would be if Grawp dies early?) -Kemper From tonyaminton at gmail.com Wed Jun 28 15:40:02 2006 From: tonyaminton at gmail.com (Tonya Minton) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 10:40:02 -0500 Subject: Tom Riddle's Birthday STRANGE Isn't it-- Was Happy Birthday list Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154510 On 6/27/06, Phil Vlasak wrote: > > Here is my collected list of birthday wishes from Jo's site: > Section: Happy Birthday > 9 January, > Severus Snape > 6 February > Arthur Weasley > 1 March, > Ron Weasley > 10 march > Remus Lupin > 1 April > Fred and George Weasley > 15 May > Pomona Sprout > 5 June > Draco Malfoy > 28 June > Dobby > 30 July > Neville Longbottom > 31 July > Harry Potter > 11 August > Ginny Weasley > 22 August > Percy Weasley > 19 September > Hermione Granger > 4 October > Minerva McGonagall > 17 October > Filius Flitwick > 30 October > Molly Weasley > 29 November > Bill Weasley > 6 December > Rubeus Hagrid > 12 December > Charlie Weasley > And one I added for completeness: > Section: Unfortunate Birthday > 31 december > Tom Marvolo Riddle > Note the December 31 date is exactly 6 months from Harry's birthday. > Phil, who likes to keep lists. > Now Tonya-- THANK YOU Phil for the complete list. I was afraid that I had missed a few Birthdays and I have!! I find it strange that Tom was born on December 31st. Why do you think that JKR picked that date of all dates to have Lord Voldemort be born?? I am very curious about this choice of date. I would have said WELL of course if he had been born on Halloween, you know what I mean?? Any ideas on this?? Tonya ._,___ > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lindah_6 at msn.com Wed Jun 28 12:15:28 2006 From: lindah_6 at msn.com (linda harwood) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:15:28 +0100 Subject: Being Good and Evil Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154511 In other Potter books many people have sacrificed themselves to help the cause of good - Dumbledore, etc. A theme started in PS: Lily, and then one of Harry's friends, Ron, playing the ultimate chess game though admittedly he did not die.....yet. Rowling has also pointed to Neville proving himself worthy of the house Gryffindor (and admittedly he does have a lot to be angry about and personal reasons to hate Voldemort as not an abstract force of evil but as a very real force of destruction in is life). I think it is Neville who will ultimately provide the sacrifice needed to defeat Voldemort and prove his bravery as a true Gryffindor-as Rowling once pointed out, his story is pivotal to the extent of cutting other characters backstory to include his "personal journey". For instance, the sweet wrappers passed to him from his mother speak of a childhood loss, the disappointment of his family, the derision of some of his classmates-yet we KNOW he MUST be brave. I predict he will die a glorious death, in bravery, in the glory in the fight against evil for good. He at last will gain the right to be a Gryffindor. On a lighter note (!) remember when it was said if you helped someone in the wizarding world they were duty bound to help you back...well, has anyone wondered where Voldemort got that snake? Is it the selfsame one Harry set free in PS? Just an idea... And Snape OBVIOUSLY in love with Lily these bonds are not easily broken... This story will have more twists and turns than Nagini, mark my words. Linda From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 28 16:31:54 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 16:31:54 -0000 Subject: JKR borrows from heroic literature/ who dies? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154512 Distaiyi wrote: > Since we're citing JKR, she's repeatedly said her books are not necessarily children's books. Thus I don't think you can assume those 4 characters survive. > > I think she has always had every intention of killing Harry. I don't see how he can survive. I see him much like Bilbo in LotR... he won't be able to live on in this world, and rather than have him just "vanish" I see JKR as finishing him off. He may kill LV first, but he must die, his experiences have made him unfit for "normal wizard" company. > > I'm still considering my theory about who must die to fufill the prophecy, I'm thinking Harry kills Neville, then kills Voldemort, but dies of magical damage suffered in the battle, so he can have his last soliloquy with Dumbledore. Carol responds: Just a quibble or two here--Harry can't have a soliloquy with DD or anyone else. A soliloquy is a speech delivered to oneself (or the audience) when no other character is onstage (or at least, none can hear the speech). And I think you mean Frodo, not Bilbo. In the same interview in which JKR talked about giving a character a reprieve (and I admittedly have only read the snippet, not a transcript of the same interview), she talked about the temptation of killing off the main character so that no one else could take him over and write more books about him (presumably after her death or the copyright has expired??), but I don't think she would do that. For one thing, we have "neither can live while the other survives." I think that means that the winner (clearly Harry) will finally be able to live, to be "Just Harry," to have normal relationships and finish school and get a job like any other young wizard (or Muggle). And although I suppose that JKR could have the narrator present the POV of a dead person, but I don't think she would do that. Also, she's made clear in one of her interviews that the Epilogue reveals what happens to the characters who survive. Put that together with the last word being "scar," and I'm pretty sure that Harry will survive. My prediction for the last line is something like "Their seventh son looked just like Harry without the scar." I suppose it's also possible that Harry is the character who gets the reprieve, but I think she's intended all along for him to survive. Naturally, I hope that the character who gets the reprieve is Snape, and that it isn't just a temporary stay of execution as the word implies but an actual chance to live as a productive citizen of the WW. What a waste of power and intellect and talent if he dies! Hogwarts won't be Hogwarts without him--but then, Harry probably won't spend much time there in Book 7. I do agree that she'll have no qualms about killing off a kid character, but I don't think it will be Neville. I think he's the character who ends up teaching at Hogwarts (Herbology, of course). And that Mimbulus Mimbletonia will somehow play a role. If the birthdays on JKR's site (and the six drops of red, three drops of green potion) are any clue, it will be Luna. I also think that more than two mainish characters will die (the two she didn't originally plan on plus those she did). I'm guessing Hagrid, Lupin, and at least one Weasley (probably Percy and either Bill or Charlie, or possibly the twins--*a* twin would be worse, leaving Fred or George without his other half). But I confidently predict that the Trio will survive intact, with Harry retaining his own powers but losing those acquired from Voldemort. Carol, who thinks that Harry will somehow pass beyond the Veil and return alive and whole From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Wed Jun 28 16:57:10 2006 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 16:57:10 -0000 Subject: Tom Riddle's Birthday STRANGE Isn't it-- Was Happy Birthday list In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154513 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonya Minton" wrote: I find it strange that Tom was born on December > 31st. Why do you think that JKR picked that date of all dates to > have Lord Voldemort be born?? I am very curious about this choice > of date. I would have said WELL of course if he had been born on > Halloween, you know what I mean?? > Pip!Squeak writes: I think it continues Tom's association with death - just like his yew wand. December 31st is when the Old Year dies. Also, the superstition is that a bad New Year's Eve means a bad year and it's described in HBP Ch. 13 as a really nasty night, snowing and bitter cold. New Year's Eve is also associated with evergreens (as is all the period around the Winter Solstice), which reflects Tom's obsessions with death and immortality. There is also another superstition, which is that a child born on New Year's DAY, as the year is born, is exceptionally lucky. It's possible that JKR is playing around with that as well - a powerful wizard born as the year dies, showing how he''ll be exceptionally unlucky for the world. Pip!Squeak From celizwh at intergate.com Wed Jun 28 17:05:18 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:05:18 -0000 Subject: Quirrell In-Reply-To: <000801c69a82$75eb03c0$9dd317c4@Sharon> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154514 Sharon: > Was Quirrell a deatheater? Just wondering as he called > Voldemort by name -which only HP & DD seem to do houyhnhnm: Lupin also calls Voldemort by name on a regular basis. That has been one of my objections to ESE!Lupin. I failed to pick up on the fact that Quirrel did it, too. Maybe fear of saying Voldemort does have something to do with the Dark Mark. Maybe Quirrel didn't have the Mark. He did call LV "Master" though. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 28 17:15:55 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:15:55 -0000 Subject: Harry on the tower (Was: Harry's arrogance /Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154515 Carol earlier: Carol, pretty sure that Harry would not have survived Book 6 if Snape had not showed up > Alla responded: > Alla, who thinks that Harry did pretty good on the Tower, Snape or no Snape and who cannot wait for confrontation between them in book 7. > Carol responds: Actually, Harry did nothing on the tower but watch and listen. While he is still frozen either from DD's spell or from horror, Snape says, "Out of here, quickly," seizes Draco by the scruff of his neck, and leads the way down the stairs. With DD having gone over the battlements, even Greyback has no reason to stay. "As they vanished through the door, Harry realized that he could move again." He casts off his Invisibility Cloak and hits the "brutal-faced Death Eater" *in the back* with a Freezing spell (Petrificus Totalus), then follows the others down the stairs. At the bottom of the stairs, just as Snape again calls out, "It's over. Time to go!" Harry is attacked by Fenrir Greyback and someone (not Harry) hits Greyback with a freezing spell. He does manage go trip up Amycus and Alecto with an Impedimenta once he's outside, but then Snape saves him from a Crucio and he duels with Snape, who easily anticipates and deflects all his spells. So I'd say that, no, Harry *didn't* do particularly well on the tower. He didn't do anything there at all except hit one DE in the back as he was heading out the door. And he couldn't hold off Fenrir Greyback; someone (Snape or an Order member?) had to save him. Had Harry confronted all four DEs, with Snape lying dead from the broken UV (or simply not present in the scene) and wildcard!Draco either joining in on the side of the DEs or being killed himself, I'm pretty sure that, in the confined space of the tower (with one DE no doubt blocking the doorway), Harry would be toast. Carol, who thinks that once again Harry owes his life to Snape and doesn't know it From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Jun 28 17:17:44 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:17:44 -0000 Subject: Was Severus in the Slug Club? (Was: Snape liked Hogwarts? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154516 zgirnius: > > I had assumed the faculty were invited, and courtesouly declined, > > except Sybill, who could not missd the opportunity for a greater > > quality of booze, and Snape, who wanted to keep an eye on any > > suspicious outsiders Sluggie may have invited. (Hence, the > > skulking in the corners). Leslie41: > That makes sense to me. I can't abide the idea of the "Slug Club," > and I'd be willing to bet that other faculty can't either. The > fact that Trelawney is the only other faculty member who shows > leads me to think others were invited and politely declined. SSSusan: While I agree that it's *possible* that the entire faculty was invited, I guess I just don't see "the fact that Trelawney is the only other faculty member who *shows* [emphasis added]" as a given, nor that it suggests other faculty politely declined. Could her being the only other faculty member *present* not equally (or even more logically) indicate that she was the only other faculty member invited? I could see Sluggy inviting her because of the family connection to the famous Seer. I could see him inviting Snape because of the House/teaching subject connection. And I could see the invitations stopping there. Again, it's possible that McGonagall, Flitwick, Sprout, etc., were all invited and declined, but I sure don't see any evidence for that. zgirnius: > > I don't think he was. Not being recognized for his achievements > > and abilities just seems to be what happens to him. I have > > trouble imagining it was different at school. Leslie41: > Ditto. Slughorn obviously chooses students he feels will do him > good, whom he feels will reflect well on him. It's really > disgusting, his little club. I can't imagine Snape being in it. I > can't imagine either Snape liking Slughorn, or the way he cozies up > to the students. SSSusan: I concur with the notion of Snape disliking Slughorn's "cozying up" to particular students, at least the *present-day* Snape, which is why I think the suggestion that he attended the Christmas party in order to keep an eye on things is likely. The Slug Club strikes me as the kind of thing at which present-day Snape would definitely sneer & turn up his (hooked) nose. (Not that old Snapey doesn't know how to schmooze when the situation requires it -- I see some of that in Spinner's End with Narcissa -- but I think he does that with adults, perhaps in situations where he might need to protect himself; definitely NOT with students, the majority of whom he views as "dunderheads.") He knows how to be *pleasant* to students -- we've seen that with Draco -- but cozying up? feeling "built up" by pulling the best & brightest & most *promising* to him? Not Snape, I don't think! Now, Student!Snape & the Slug Club is an interesting question, though. I agree with those who've said we don't have real *evidence* for his membership, but it interesting to think about how Snape would have reacted if Sluggy had issued an invitation back then. For him to have received some *acknowledgment* of talent at that age might have been heady. Yet somehow I have a feeling that the MAKEUP of the Club at the time of invitation might have factored in pretty heavily in Severus' decision to accept or decline (if he was ever invited). Siriusly Snapey Susan From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jun 28 17:40:54 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:40:54 -0000 Subject: Quirrell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154517 > houyhnhnm: > > Lupin also calls Voldemort by name on a regular basis. That has been > one of my objections to ESE!Lupin. I failed to pick up on the fact > that Quirrel did it, too. Maybe fear of saying Voldemort does have > something to do with the Dark Mark. Maybe Quirrel didn't have the > Mark. He did call LV "Master" though. > Pippin: Unfortunately for this theory, Fake!Moody also uses the name. "Voldemort's back, Harry? You're sure he's back? How did he do it?" GoF ch 35. It really shouldn't be that easy to spot hidden Death Eaters, should it? Pippin From tonyaminton at gmail.com Wed Jun 28 18:00:25 2006 From: tonyaminton at gmail.com (Tonya Minton) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:00:25 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Tom Riddle's Birthday STRANGE Isn't it-- Was Happy Birthday list In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154518 On 6/28/06, bluesqueak wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com , > "Tonya Minton" > wrote: > I find it strange that Tom was born on December > > > 31st. Why do you think that JKR picked that date of all dates to > > have Lord Voldemort be born?? I am very curious about this choice > > of date. I would have said WELL of course if he had been born on > > Halloween, you know what I mean?? > > > > Pip!Squeak writes: > > I think it continues Tom's association with death - just like his > yew wand. December 31st is when the Old Year dies. Also, the > superstition is that a bad New Year's Eve means a bad year and it's > described in HBP Ch. 13 as a really nasty night, snowing and bitter > cold. New Year's Eve is also associated with evergreens (as is all > the period around the Winter Solstice), which reflects Tom's > obsessions with death and immortality. > > There is also another superstition, which is that a child born on > New Year's DAY, as the year is born, is exceptionally lucky. It's > possible that JKR is playing around with that as well - a powerful > wizard born as the year dies, showing how he''ll be exceptionally > unlucky for the world. > > Pip!Squeak > . > Now Tonya: I didn't know all the superstition surrounding a December 31st Birthday. Thank you for the information. Would it then be the reason why Harry's Birthday is exactly 6 months before Tom's show that he is lucky and exceptional?? What does Harry's Birthday show us?? What does Dumbledore's Birthday show us?? Very thought provoking!! We should also analyse Neville's Birthday.... Tonya Very excited to start reading about Birthday meanings!! > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Wed Jun 28 18:03:00 2006 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 10:03:00 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Troll Question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154519 >houyhnhnm: > >This has bothered me, too. It is possible that each teacher came up a >protection but did not actually put it in place. So Professor Sprout >provided the Devil's Snare from her greenhouses, Professor McGonagall >transfigured the chess pieces, etc., but Dumbledore actually assembled >everything. In that case each teacher knew of his or her own >protection and knew that there were multiple enchantments guarding the >Stone, but did not know the exact nature of the others' protections, >thus they need not have known about the troll guarding the Stone. OK, let's postulate that each of the teachers who came up with a protection did not know anything about what the other teachers had done. So, ppppoor ssstuttering QQQuirrell could have gotten away with being terrified of the troll at Halloween. But I can't believe that Dumbledore wouldn't have known about each teacher's contribution. Why wouldn't Dumbledore have IMMEDIATELY known that Quirrell was just putting on an act? Perhaps Dumbledore never even told Snape or McGonagall about Quirrell's contribution. Snape doesn't seem to know when he talks to Quirrell in the forest. But I just can't believe that Dumbledore wouldn't know. How else would he then retrieve the Stone for use or after it is no longer under threat? Another possibility: perhaps Quirrell's contribution to the protection wasn't yet in place at the Halloween feast. In that case, Dumbledore might not have known about the troll then, but he surely would have found out later. Why would Quirrell do something so obviously dishonest directly under Dumbledore's eyes? It seems totally contradictory to pretend to be terrified of the troll and then use it as your contribution to protecting the Stone. And, while I am on the topic, how would Dumbledore get the Stone out of the Mirror at all? Why would the thing that he wants most in life EVER be to FIND the Stone, when he thinks that its products are not necessarily good for humans? >But Dumbldore would have to have known. Did he send Snape to the >third floor or was Snape acting on his own? Why did Dumbledore send >Hagrid to retrieve the Stone from the second most secure place in the >WW the day before it was stolen? I can believe that he thought that the Stone might be under threat and that it might have been just chance that the attempt to steal it came exactly the day that it was removed. But I am still unconvinced about Dumbledore's actions regarding Quirrell. It seems very odd to me. Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com From unix4evr at yahoo.com Wed Jun 28 17:59:49 2006 From: unix4evr at yahoo.com (UNIX4EVR) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:59:49 -0000 Subject: Maybe Harry doesn't die??? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154520 Was just reading the Mugglenet interview. JKR says that Harry has already suffered enough -- does that mean he won't die? R: Listen, all the papers who have been promoting this interview today clearly want us to ask you, "Do you kill off Harry Potter?" It's a ridiculous question because are you likely to say yes or no? I mean, obviously not. You couldn't possibly answer that but have you ever attempted to do him a little more harm than he's suffered - I mean in the same way that... JK: He's already suffered enough, I mean what... J: He's already suffered, he's been through the mill... JK: How could I? Every year of his adolescence and childhood he's saved the wizarding world. And no one believes him, and he...he spends his entire life saving the world, and then next term he's just back at school being bullied. He's Harry Potter and he's just saved your entire school. And everyone thinks he' just a bit annoying. From minerva_523 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 28 17:17:51 2006 From: minerva_523 at yahoo.com (minerva_523) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:17:51 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter as a Slytherin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154521 > Najwa wrote: > Interesting train of thought. I do think that considering how much > pain Harry has been through, that he might have had an interest in the > dark arts, had he been a slytherin, however I think he would have used > them against LV due to the fact that most of the pain that has been > inflicted on Harry is either directly or indirectly because of LV. > Firstly, LV killed Harry's parents and deprived him of two people who > truly loved him and would have given him a happy childhood, and > secondly, due to LV killing Harry's parents, he had to live with the > horrible Dursleys and put up with their abuse his whole childhood. So > I highly doubt he would have joined LV's side. However, after recent > theories of Harry being a Horocrux of LV, I think that is the reason > why the Sorting Hat wanted to put him in Slytherin, and not because of > Harry himself. > Now Cacaia: That is a very good point, about the sorting hat having mentioned Slytherin to Harry because of the possibility of the latter being a horcrux to Lord V. I haven't thought of that...and that kind of makes sense, doesn't it, when one thinks of Harry's Parents? Were they both not in Gryffindor? I know that doesn't really matter, but, seeing as the Weasleys all got into Gryffindor, it's not that far fetched, either?? I don't know...Good point, though! :-) Cacaia From vinkv002 at planet.nl Wed Jun 28 18:42:01 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 18:42:01 -0000 Subject: Harry on the tower (Was: Harry's arrogance /Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154522 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > > Carol: >> So I'd say that, no, Harry *didn't* do particularly well on the tower. > He didn't do anything there at all except hit one DE in the back as he > was heading out the door. And he couldn't hold off Fenrir Greyback; > someone (Snape or an Order member?) had to save him. > Renee: Going of on a tangent, I really hope it was Ginny who petrified Greyback, and that Harry finds out about this in Book 7, maybe from Ron or Hermione. Maybe then he'd realise he doesn't need to distance himself from Ginny in order to save her, as she's proved herself competent enough to save him. Renee From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Jun 28 18:27:57 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 18:27:57 -0000 Subject: JKR borrows from heroic literature/ who dies? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154523 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > > I do agree that she'll have no qualms about killing off a kid > character, but I don't think it will be Neville. I think he's the > character who ends up teaching at Hogwarts (Herbology, of course). And that Mimbulus Mimbletonia will somehow play a role. If the birthdays on JKR's site (and the six drops of red, three drops of green potion) are any clue, it will be Luna. Tonks: Bit dense. Don't follow this.. how does it follow that it is Luna? She is a Ravenclaw. Are we counting deaths to Gryffindor? Lily, James, Sirius, DD maybe, and ??? getting old can't remember anything. Know we talked about it before, long ago. And Slytherin - Regulus, and ?? Is that what you meant by six drops of red and 3 of green? I know that is what it took to revive the plant on JKR's website. But I don't get the Luna connection. >Carol said: > I also think that more than two mainish characters will die (the two > she didn't originally plan on plus those she did). I'm guessing > Hagrid, Lupin, and at least one Weasley (probably Percy and either > Bill or Charlie, or possibly the twins--*a* twin would be worse, > leaving Fred or George without his other half). > Tonks: Oh.. how heartless and cruel. Kill off one twin? Carol!! How could you! No, no, I simply will not tolerate this!! ;-) Tonks_op From vinkv002 at planet.nl Wed Jun 28 18:37:11 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 18:37:11 -0000 Subject: Who dies? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154524 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "doddiemoemoe" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lindsay > wrote: > > > > Of course, it would also be prudent to mention that she didn't > exactly say > > WHEN she did the rewrite - do remember that the manuscript has > been sitting > > around since 1990. It's completely possible that she did the > rewrite some > > time ago (as in, before the birthday notices), and only now feels > safe - or > > mischievous - enough to mention it, since we're in the final > stretch. Prior > > to the quote, they WERE talking about her writing the the final > chapter so > > long ago - what she said could simply mean, in relative to 1990, > the final > > chapter had changed - not anytime recently. > > > > This also doesn't stop her from changing the chapter again. > > > > Personally, I think we're all going to be stabbing the dark with > this one. > >snippity snip< > > Doddie here: > > Personally I feel that if anyone would get a "reprieve"... I'm > leaning towards two characters...Voldemor and Lupin...(although...I > believe that Lupin is a "given"...seeing as he was one of the > marauders....) > > However much I love lupin...I always link him for lack of punishing > not only snape as much as he could have, but the mauraders as well > (prefect duties an all), simply because his friends would get in > trouble too..(hence why so many of us like Neville--I really > appreciate Lupin as Neville's foil....only I don't ever believe > Lupin had the courage he should have, but it must be there...only > WHERE!?!?!?.) > We NEED lupin so show some grypindor qualities....I hope he shows > them in a confrontation with snape... > > Doddie > (who does not think he is evil...just needs to find love and show > some backbone...GO TONKS!!!) > Renee: What Lupin lacks is moral courage, but he did fight Death-Eaters with the other members of the Order, risking his life (he got almost hit by an AK during the fight at Hogwarts), and he went undercover with the werewolves, a dangerous job, as Greyback is in league with Voldemort himself. He's courageous enough, just not when he's afraid of being disliked. Where does it say that Gryffindor only stands for moral courage? But I admit Neville's got more courage than Lupin. Actually, I think Neville is one of the most coureageous characters in the entire series. Renee From minerva_523 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 28 16:50:47 2006 From: minerva_523 at yahoo.com (minerva_523) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 16:50:47 -0000 Subject: Tom Riddle's Birthday STRANGE Isn't it-- Was Happy Birthday list In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154525 Tonya: > THANK YOU Phil for the complete list. I was afraid that I had missed a few > Birthdays and I have!! I find it strange that Tom was born on December > 31st. Why do you think that JKR picked that date of all dates to have Lord > Voldemort be born?? I am very curious about this choice of date. I would > have said WELL of course if he had been born on Halloween, you know what I > mean?? > > Now Cacaia: I'm going to be bold and just throw something out there that's a bit odd...but could it be due to "polarity" reasons? Harry's on one side of the year (light,summer, days are long, etc), whereas Voldermort is on the other extreme of the year(when the dark is predominant, with shorter days, etc). But my guess is as good as yours... But changing subjects for a bit- I'm still quite in shock, actually, that Draco's a Gemini! To me it struck as a bit funny... Carolina From annemehr at yahoo.com Wed Jun 28 19:01:20 2006 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 19:01:20 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione Was:Re: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154526 > > SSSusan: > > Pippin gave a couple of examples of Hermione & Ron letting Harry > down > > in "grand scale" ways. To those I'd also add Hermione's handling > of > > the setup of Dumbledore's Army. > > Hermione really put him in an awkward position, and he was > > forced into doing/saying things he really did not want to. I'd > have > > felt let down as well. > > > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Jen D: > Glad to see you back! But I think you are making way too much of the > over-large crowd that greeted Harry at the first DA meeting. I know > he was shocked, a little irritated but let down? I can't see it. > Maybe surprised so many people wanted to learn DADA and from him. > After all, he was just coming off being smeared by the Ministry. I > will have to go back and read carefully, but wasn't he actually > excited after the initial shock wore off? I recall him thinking about > lesson plans and getting quite jazzed. Sometimes your friends do know > what you need better than yourself. This is a fine example of > Hermione's know-it-all behavior but not a let-down, not a failure to > stand by or work for Harry's greater good. > Jen D. (back herself from a time in another strange land and glad to > be here...) > > Annemehr: *joins the party* I agree with Jen D. on this one. Only those really close to you, who know you really well have the right and insight to do this, but sometimes a friend just has to step in and do the right thing. And as it turned out, the DA was the only thing that made Harry want to go back to Hogwarts at all after spending Christmas at Sirius's house. Not that a good outcome is in itself any excuse for sticking your nose in where it doesn't belong, but I take this particular good outcome as a sign that Hermione actually did know what she was doing this time. Of course, it's easy to question Hermione's behavior in all sorts of ways in this book. I haven't necessarily come to terms with all of it for myself, one way or another. I did have a lot of fun some time ago writing a tongue-in-cheek ESE!Hermione "theory" once, though: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/117983 Annemehr From minerva_523 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 28 17:06:46 2006 From: minerva_523 at yahoo.com (minerva_523) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:06:46 -0000 Subject: DD death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154527 > Najwa wrote: > This is true, he has a quick tongue,so I suppose he might have worded > it in a way that he can think of that might be able to change how he > could react to it, sort of like when we were all kids and someone asks > you if what you said was true and you reply "I SWEAR!" and then mumble > "that my name is " under your breath. I could see > Snape doing something to that effect, only of course in a more mature > way and twisting his words so that they sound like he's agreeing but > there's a catch that only the quick witted and focused will notice, > both of which I fall short of at times. Kudos to you bboyminn for that > point, and to you as well cacaia for helping me understand his point > better :). However, now I am baffled as to what to think, because I > was relying on my theory that DD did this to get Snape and Draco out > of harm's way, along with letting Voldie think that he's got dibs on > Hogwarts. Hmmm, this is hurting my Snape had to kill Dumbledore for > some heroic cause theory...Any Snape fans mind helping me back into > thinking he's really a good guy after all again? > And Cacaia's back to respond: Yes, here's a Snape fan if there ever was one ;-) I, unfortunately, don't have my book with me, but- do you recall the scene in which Hagrid told Harry about what he overheard behind closed doors? Dumbledore and Snape were having a pretty heated argument, in which Dumbledore said something like "do your job" to Snape- could this possibly mean he intended Snape to kill him, and Snape downright refused? There's got to be something planned- Dumbledore, IMO, intended to die- I don't know necessarily why he intended to incriminate Snape, though- it's all very mysterious:-) Cacaia From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Jun 28 18:57:55 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 18:57:55 -0000 Subject: Was Severus in the Slug Club? (Was: Snape liked Hogwarts? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154528 > SSSusan: > I could see Sluggy inviting her because of the family connection to > the famous Seer. I could see him inviting Snape because of the > House/teaching subject connection. And I could see the invitations > stopping there. Again, it's possible that McGonagall, Flitwick, > Sprout, etc., were all invited and declined, but I sure don't see any > evidence for that. zgirnius: Oh, I wasn't claiming any evidence, I was just stating an impression. Actually, I like your explanation, abive, even better. > SSSusan: > Now, Student!Snape & the Slug Club is an interesting question, > though. I agree with those who've said we don't have real *evidence* > for his membership, but it interesting to think about how Snape would > have reacted if Sluggy had issued an invitation back then. For him > to have received some *acknowledgment* of talent at that age might > have been heady. Yet somehow I have a feeling that the MAKEUP of the > Club at the time of invitation might have factored in pretty heavily > in Severus' decision to accept or decline (if he was ever invited). zgirnius: Hi SSSusan, you are luring me out into the swamps of speculation! I think that, had Snape been invited to join the Slug Club, he would have been pleased, at least secretly. I agree with you that who else was in it might affect his decision to join, as well. However, my gut feeling is that he was NOT asked, and it bothered him (at least secretly, he strikes me as a person that would never let on about something like that, choosing instead to denounce the whole thing as a pointless waste of time for silly social butterflies.) His lack of family connections and charm could have outweighed his demonstrated Potions ability in Slughorn's estimation. My main reason for thinking so is that a lot of the other speculations I have seen floating about for why he joined the Death Eaters just don't fit the data for me, so I have settled on, throughout his school experiences nobody seemed to notice or care about his abilities except his future Death Eater pals in Slytherin, so he decided to go along with them at some point after he graduated. I could, of course, be as wrong as the wizard who thought the world was ready for a cheese cauldron... From celizwh at intergate.com Wed Jun 28 19:15:34 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 19:15:34 -0000 Subject: Slughorn's Guest List (was Re: Was Severus in the Slug Club? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154529 Regardless of whether Snape was invited as a faculty member, a former Slug Club member, or Slughorn's successor as Head of Slytherin House, it is Trelawney's presence that interests me. The general consensus seems to be that Trelawney was invited becuase of her famous great-great-grandmother, but that just doesn't wash with me. Slughorn is interested in people who can be of *use* to him. Of what use is a famous ancestor. As small and inbred as the WW is, surely just about everyone has at least one notable ancestor. No, I think Slughorn wanted to know the prophecy. We are led to assume that Slughorn is interested in Harry because he is famous and Slughorn likes to collect celebrities. What if there is more to it than that? In chapter seven, he showed a great deal of interest in the prophecy. ****************************** He contemplated Harry for a moment as though he was a particularly large and succulent piece of pheasant, then said, "'The Chosen One,' they're calling you now!" Harry said nothing. Belby, McLaggen, and Zabini were all staring at him "Of course," said Slughorn, watching Harry closely, "there have been rumors for years....I remember when-- well--after that /terrible/ night--Lily--James--and you survived--and the word was that you must have powers beyond the ordinary--" [Then he is interrupted momentarily by a confrontation between Blaise and Ginny, but Slughorn comes right back to the prophecy] "But the rest of the stories--so sensational, of course, one doesn't know quite what to believe--this fabled prophecy, for instance--" [Neville says they never heard a prophecy. Ginny jumps in and asserts the _Prophet_ is just printing rubbish, and Slughorn drops the subject and starts talking about his connections with Gwenog Jones.] [Then, later, in the Slytherin compartment] "He invited /Longbottom/?" "Well, I assume so since Longbottom was there," said Zabini indifferently "What's Longbottom got to interest Slughorn?" ****************************** Slughorn embarked on a seduction of Harry from the time they were introduced. What if it was not Harry's *person* in his collection that Slughorn wanted, but information that Harry had. It would be funny if Slughorn were engaged in a campaign of flattery against Harry for information at the same time that Harry was trying the very same methods in order to get information from Slughorn. And both got what they wanted. "I am the Chosen One. I have to kill him," Harry told Slughorn After the Burial. And Slughorn gave Harry the memory. How does Slughorn know for sure that there is a prophecy? "We are not allowed to talk about it, don't ask me anything," one agitated Obliviator was quoted as saying in the _Daily Prophet_. No one outside of the Order of the Phoenix and Voldemort and his Death Eaters knew for sure that there *was* a prophecy involving the Dark Lord and a child born as the seventh month dies. And yet Slughorn's interest in Neville suggests that he may actually have heard the first half? How? How does he know that Sybill Trelawney made the prophecy. IIRC, it is likely that no one but Dumbledore, Harry, Snape, Aberforth, and (probably) Voldemort know the identity of the seer who made the prophecy. Maybe Slughorn just guessed correctly, after meeting Trelawney, that DD must have her at Hogwarts for some other reason than her brilliance at divination. I don't know what all this is tending towards. I just think there is more to Slughorn than meets the eye. I'm curious. I hope we will learn more in book 7. From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Wed Jun 28 17:01:28 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:01:28 -0000 Subject: Gone a while - question about Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154530 > > SSSusan: > > Can you say more on this, Potioncat? I don't quite follow WHY a > > Snape who had "come back to our side" would *then* go on to deliver > > the prophecy to Voldy, nor do I understand why DD would have > > discussed the delivery with a reformed Snape. > > > > IOW, what would have there been to gain by delivering the prophecy > to > > Voldy? > > zgirnius: > I don't buy this theory myself, but as I understand it, the theory > says that Snape and Dumbledore deliberately told Voldemort just the > first part of the Prophecy to draw Voldemort into a false move (the > attack on the One, causing Voldemort to 'mark him as his equal' and > creating an antagonist capable of defeating him). > I think a more general answer to this question is that it was a calculated move on DD's part to goad LV into a foolish move that would expose him to defeat and capture. The intent probably was not to specifically tempt him to mark anyone as his equal. DD does not seem to attach much importance to the prophecy itself, after all. He correctly guesses that LV will and correctly guesses that LV will stumble over it. He may have thought that the Longbottoms were adequately protected and he took steps to protect the Potters. If this was the plan it both succeeded and went horribly wrong at the same time. DD does admit that he makes mistakes and big ones. If this theory is true this would certainly count as one of his big mistakes. DD thought he could contain the situation. I doubt he intended for LV to get as far as to mark either child as this would have been incredibly dangerous, no matter the precautions. LV would have been intent on murdering, not marking, the child. I doubt he would have stopped with Harry either. Neville would have been next. Why take chances? I'm sure that in his mind LV didn't choose Harry as The One, he merely chose to kill Harry first. The theory is that Snape (who had already returned to DD's side or had been a DDM all along) agreed to help implement the plan by passing on the partial information. He may or may not have agreed that it was a good risk to take. If he had been dead set against it and then agreed to do it anyway at DD's urging he would have been quite devestated by the way it turned out. Given the connection between LV and Harry and Harry's inability to block it, DD cannot tell Harry any of this. It would be Snape's death warrant and the destruction of any plans DD and Snape had for the future. So he has to give Harry the cover story. DD may have once told Harry he wouldn't lie to him but in this case I think he is because he has to. It is a choice that is neither right nor easy and that is the kind of choice that adults have to make on occasion. Ken From celizwh at intergate.com Wed Jun 28 19:57:27 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 19:57:27 -0000 Subject: Quirrell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154531 Pippin: > Unfortunately for this theory, Fake!Moody also uses > the name. "Voldemort's back, Harry? You're sure he's back? > How did he do it?" GoF ch 35. It really shouldn't be that > easy to spot hidden Death Eaters, should it? houyhnhnm: No it shouldn't ;-) The idea that DEs can't say "Voldemort" without having their Dark Marks react comes from the Occlumency lessons. Snape may have had a completely different reason for not allowing Harry to say the Dark Lord's name, such as the fact that, for all Snape knew, LV could have been listening in on the sessions. I agree wholeheartedly that there is Something About Lupin. Besides everything else that has been said in his disfavor, his reaction to Dumbledore's death struck me as somehow out of kilter. I just think it would be much more interesting, if he betrayed the Order, that he did so out of cowardice or inability to act rather than because he is Ever So Evil. Ever So Evil is boring. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Wed Jun 28 20:18:46 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 20:18:46 -0000 Subject: Tom Riddle's Birthday STRANGE Isn't it-- Was Happy Birthday list In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154532 > > Now Tonya: > > Would it then be the reason why Harry's Birthday is exactly 6 months before > Tom's show that he is lucky and exceptional?? Hickengruendler: I really do not want to nitpick, but because I saw this several times the last few weeks. Harry's birthday is not exactly 6 months before Tom's. It were, if Harry was borne at the end of June. But he is born in July, the seventh month, and Voldemort's born in December, making the difference 5 months. Tonya: What does Harry's Birthday > show us?? Hickengruendler: I think Harry being born in summer does serve as a counterpoint to Voldemort's winter birthday. He's also born under the Zodiac sign of the Lion, which obviously links him to Gryffindor. Hickengruendler From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 28 20:35:35 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 20:35:35 -0000 Subject: Gone a while - question about Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154533 zgirnius: > I don't buy this theory myself, but as I understand it, the theory > says that Snape and Dumbledore deliberately told Voldemort just the > first part of the Prophecy to draw Voldemort into a false move (the > attack on the One, causing Voldemort to 'mark him as his equal' and > creating an antagonist capable of defeating him). > If Snape had some personal reason for caring whether the Potters > lived or died (be it a life debt, feelings for Lily, or a general > objection to hurting people he actualy knows as opposed to some > abstract couple), he might regret the decision even if at the time he had agreed it was the right strategic move. Dumbledore insists that > Snape had no way of knowing who the couple were when the decision > would have been made. > > By the way, if the theory is true, Dumbledore is probably feeling > somewhat guilty in this scene himself, and his insistence on Snape's > ignorance is excusing his own act, as well. And this is probably what Dumbledore considered telling Harry, when he instead decided to end the conversation by asserting that he trusts Snape completely. > > While his statements about Snape's remorse could still be true, his > statements about the overhearing of the prophecy, and who knows it in > full, would certainly be false. > Carol responds: I don't agree with the theory, either. (Sorry, Potioncat!) It makes Dumbledore too culpable, and besides, why would he offer himself as Secret Keeper if he *wanted* Voldemort to try to thwart the Prophecy by marking Baby!Harry as the Chosen One? And he told Harry that Snape was still a Death Eater reporting to his master at that point. I don't think he would lie to Harry about that, especially when he wants Harry to trust Snape. Nor do I think that the Prophecy would have been made as early as September, as Potioncat suggests. I don't think even a Seer could predict the "approach" of "one" who hadn't been conceived yet. I think it would have been made on Halloween night (after the feast), which would be Harry's conception date if we consider a pregnancy as being exactly nine months long (as, of course, it wouldn't be in RL, but this is the Potterverse). Halloween is always a significant date in the HP books, as is the 31 of other months (Harry was born on July 31, like JKR herself, and Tom Riddle on December 31.) That date would also fit the "cold, rainy night" (as, of course, could other dates), and would fit with the idea that young Snape had no idea who the people involved in the Prophecy were, as not even Lily herself would know she was pregnant at that point). I also find Snape's repentance hard to square with this theory. I think he came to Dumbledore after Harry's birth, when he knew for sure that Voldemort was planning to go after the Potters (and possibly the Longbottoms). His repentance makes sense at that point, which is also, I suspect, the point at which he began to spy for DD "at great personal risk." That would make him DD's agent fifteen months before the Potters' deaths and thirteen months before he began teaching Potions. He might have applied for the DADA post at that time and been turned down (too soon to have proven his loyalty and besides, DD knew the post was cursed) and applied again two months before GH and been given the newly vacant Potions post instead. (BTW, I think that Snape's reference in "Spinner's End" to sixteen years of information on DD is a slip--he'd been working with and for DD for sixteen years, but only fifteen as a Hogwarts teacher.) But even though he was loyal to DD and regretted revealing the Prophecy to LV, the remorse didn't fully kick in until after Godric's Hollow. I don't think he would have felt that remorse if revealing the partial Prophecy to LV had been part of a plan between DD and himself. Carol, who will most assuredly grieve if Snape is killed in Book 7 (and will feel cheated and betrayed if he turns out to be evil) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 28 21:06:54 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 21:06:54 -0000 Subject: Troll Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154534 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Laura Lynn Walsh wrote: > > Since this is about Book 1, it has probably been discussed > before, but I have a question about the troll. If Quirrell's > contribution to guarding the Stone was to bring in the troll, > then Dumbledore at least would have been aware of that. > Knowing that Quirrell had done so, how could he have not > informed Snape and the rest of the teachers that Quirrell > probably let the troll in at Halloween? How could Quirrell > act so afraid of the troll in front of McGonagall and Snape > in the dining hall and in the bathroom scene? Wouldn't > that automatically compromise his believability? > Laura Carol responds: I think his believability *was* compromised. Snape must have known that Quirrell had used a (different) troll to protect the stone, and his suspicions were immediately aroused by the "coincidence" of Quirrell supposedly discovering another troll in the dungeons, and by Quirrell's show of fear of a troll. Snape immediately goes to the third-floor corridor to thwart him--as he would not have done had he not known of Quirrell's affinity for trolls. I don't think McGonagall knew, but DD certainly did. I think Snape reported (as usual) to DD and that DD had him keep an eye on Quirrell from that point on (which he would have done in any case, IMO) but without clear evidence, DD could not confront Quirrell. But I agree with hounyhnm (Yes, I know that I messed up the spelling!) that the real mystery is how DD knew that the stone was about to be stolen from Gringott's in the first place. The mysterious silver instruments? What would they tell him? Or maybe Snape's Dark Mark was becoming more pronounced (though still faint), so they both knew LV was on his way back? Carol, wondering if JKR is under the delusion that she's answered all our questions about the earlier books Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 28 21:35:21 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 21:35:21 -0000 Subject: JKR borrows from heroic literature/ who dies? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154535 Carol earlier: > > I do agree that she'll have no qualms about killing off a kid > > character, but I don't think it will be Neville. If the > birthdays on JKR's site (and the six drops of red, three drops of > green potion) are any clue, it will be Luna. > > Tonks: > > Bit dense. Don't follow this.. how does it follow that it is Luna? > She is a Ravenclaw. Carol again: Exactly. There's no single drop of blue for Ravenclaw, just six drops for Gryffindor and three for Slytherin. And as numerous posters have pointed out, JKR hasn't wished her a happy birthday on her site even though she's played a more important role in the books so far than, say, Professor Sprout, who *is* among the birthday people. (Not that I want Luna to die, but the clues seem to point in that direction.) > Tonks: > Are we counting deaths to Gryffindor? Lily, James, Sirius, DD maybe, > and ??? > > And Slytherin - Regulus, and ?? > > Is that what you meant by six drops of red and 3 of green? I know > that is what it took to revive the plant on JKR's website. But I > don't get the Luna connection. Carol responds: I was reading the drops as indicating who'd be most involved in the battle against LV at the end of the last book, or most involved in the Horcrux hunt--the saviors of the WW, so to speak. It's anybody's guess, but I'd say the six Gryffindor drops are for Harry, Hermione, Ron, Ginny, Neville, and one adult, perhaps Lupin, and the three Slytherin drops are Snape, Draco, and maybe Slughorn. Just guessing, naturally. (I'm not counting Regulus because he's canonically dead.) > > > >Carol said: > > I also think that more than two mainish characters will die (the two she didn't originally plan on plus those she did). I'm guessing Hagrid, Lupin, and at least one Weasley (probably Percy and either Bill or Charlie, or possibly the twins--*a* twin would be worse, leaving Fred or George without his other half). > > > > Tonks: > Oh.. how heartless and cruel. Kill off one twin? Carol!! How could > you! No, no, I simply will not tolerate this!! ;-) Carol again: I agree that killing one twin would be heartless and I hope she doesn't do it. BTW, since posting the message you're responding to, I've read the remark about JKR's husband reacting to *one* of the originally planned deaths. I don't think he would react to George but not Fred, or vice versa, so unless the twins were intended to die all along, I don't think the two deaths refer to them. But JKR *is* rather heartless in her treatment of her characters, don't you think? Setting aside injuries in the classroom and on the Quidditch pitch and all of Harry's ordeals, look what Neville has suffered, look at the fate of his parents, look at Lupin (forced to live as an impoverished outcast) and Sirius Black (forced to live off rats and hide in a cave) and Snape (forced by circumstances or that accursed vow to kill his own mentor) and poor Cedric (dead at seventeen for no cause except being a "spare"). Carol, noting that all the people I listed are on the birthday list, so maybe they're all safe (as is Dobby, today's birthday boy, unfortunately!) From aorta47 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 28 21:16:38 2006 From: aorta47 at yahoo.com (aorta47) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 21:16:38 -0000 Subject: Mirror of Erised In-Reply-To: <44A1C128.4020302@ihug.co.nz> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154536 Tim wrote: > > Now the point is for me that JKR is using the Mirror of Erised to > illustrate the dependence some have on external thing (TV, et al.) >to remove them from reality into their desires Mark: Do you think the HP books could be considered one of these external things? The HP books themsleves are like the mirror; everyone sees what they want to in them (I think this list proves that) and it's best not to spend all your time reading them. The HP books "give us neither knowledge or truth. Men [and women] have wasted away before [them], entranced by what they have [read], or been driven mad, not knowing if what [the books] [say] is real or even possible." Those were definitely my feelings after HBP! -Mark From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Wed Jun 28 22:02:03 2006 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 18:02:03 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Book 7 news Message-ID: <511.23f3aac.31d4565b@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154537 In a message dated 6/26/06 5:44:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, tonks_op at yahoo.com writes: > 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! Sandy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From drcarole71 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 28 21:56:05 2006 From: drcarole71 at yahoo.com (drcarole71) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 21:56:05 -0000 Subject: birthday Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154538 Sorry I missed it, but what's the birthday list theory? Is there one post I should start with to read about it? Thanks Carole From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 28 22:18:06 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 22:18:06 -0000 Subject: Book 7 news In-Reply-To: <511.23f3aac.31d4565b@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154539 > > 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. I mean, I was having a similar conversation with the colleague today and this colleague did not read the books and she was telling me that this is precisely why she won't ever going to read them ( still hoping to change her mind) She was saying that there must be not much of artistical merit in the books, where author feels the need to prompt their value by dropping the "sort of hints" like that in the hope that fans would be craving for last book even more than ever. I was responding with the argument that even though I would not read the books that STARTED to be well known because of the advertisiment campaign, IMO this was not the case with "Harry Potter" that started to be well known BECAUSE of their artistic value, readers were spreading out the words of how good the books are, no? And only then industry picked up on that and here we go, movies, games, etc. I am not sure what point I am trying to make and whether I agree with you or not. Partially, maybe? 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. I mean, remember how much she talked about death in book 5? 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. ;) JMO, Alla From tonyaminton at gmail.com Wed Jun 28 22:35:02 2006 From: tonyaminton at gmail.com (Tonya Minton) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:35:02 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Tom Riddle's Birthday STRANGE Isn't it-- Was Happy Birthday list In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154540 > Hickengruendler wrote: > > I really do not want to nitpick, but because I saw this several times > the last few weeks. Harry's birthday is not exactly 6 months before > Tom's. It were, if Harry was borne at the end of June. But he is born > in July, the seventh month, and Voldemort's born in December, making > the difference 5 months. > Now Tonya: This is a good point and looking at Harry's Birthday in the Seventh Month we already know that seven is the most magical number (HBP Chapter 23 I believe). So that gives Harry strength, power. We know that in Mythology there are Seven Wonders, Seven Sisters, Seven Horxruxes. There is even physiology in humans behind the number seven, we remember things better in sets of seven. So I think we can expect great thing from Mr. Harry Potter. What do you think?? Tonya [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 28 23:31:05 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 23:31:05 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154541 > >>Magpie: > > But what does that prove, exactly? Betsy thinks it's harsh, you > > think Marietta deserves what she gets. The facts stay the > > same, so obviously one side isn't just the end of the story. > >>Alla: > Yes, the facts stay the same, but Marietta does not stop being a > traitor, does not she? So, that comes to either agreeing with what > she did or disagreeing with what she did, no? > Or I guess the third option is to disapprove of what she did, but > to think that her punishment was too harsh, right? (That is > Betsy's position, right?) Betsy Hp: That's exactly my position. And my point. Is branding someone a good thing? I don't care who's doing the branding or who's receiving the branding. Because once you get into that sort of excuse making you're opening yourself up to a slippery slope of allowable behavior. And that's dangerous, IMO. Look, two characters get branded in OotP: Marietta and Harry. We like Harry so it's Bad that he was branded. We don't like Marietta so it's Good that she was branded. And that sort of moralizing is ripe for abuse. Because you're not judging someone by their actions or a set of rules. You're judging them by how much you like them, and with your own sense of righteousness. Umbridge doesn't care much for Harry. He's mouths off in her classroom and makes life difficult for the Ministry. She sees herself as on the right side and as a good person. So she's allowed to brand Harry. Because she's good. And if he forces her to Crucio him, well, she's a good person so her actions must be okay. This is exactly how Hermione is behaving. Hermione is on the right side and is a good person. So she's allowed to brand people and she's allowed to cheat when she deems it necessary. Because she's good. And if she's forced to Crucio someone, well, she's a good person so her actions must be okay. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Exactly! This is a *perfect* example of the "Because I am Good > > what I do is Good, but if you do the same thing it's Bad, > > because you are Bad" mindset. That there are no rules governing > > behavior. Anything goes if you're the right sort of person. The > > Death Eaters can torment a family of muggles and it's bad, > > because they're bad. But the twins can torment a family of > > muggles and it's funny, because they are good. > >>Alla: > 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. Betsy Hp: Marietta does not and should not come into play. I'm talking actions not personalities. The argument is that if someone claims they are good they should behave in a good manner. No matter the provocation from the other side. If Ron raped Marietta to "teach her a lesson" would that be okay? You know, because Marietta is a traitor and Ron is a good guy? Of course not. Because rape is bad. It's a bad action that a good person would not do. Even if they hated the other person. Like or dislike shouldn't have anything to do with it, IMO. > >>Alla: > And when Twins torment a family of muggles to me it is funny NOT > because they are good ( although I love them), BUT because those > muggles to me are so very horrible and yes, deserve everything > that they get IMO of course. Betsy Hp: And that's precisely what the Death Eaters (and all the wizards running to join them) would say about the family of muggles they were tormenting. Those muggles were horrible and deserved everything they got. And there's the slippery slope. For all we know (and we know nothing because we know nothing of the muggle family and nothing of the participating wizards) the muggles may have been cruel to one of the wizards in the crowd. Does that change anything? Should it? > >>Alla: > But should Draco's POV matter in evaluating his parents? > Betsy Hp: Exactly!! Should POV matter? Hermione branded a girl permenantly on the face. Does the "why" even matter? Should it? Shouldn't there be a governing set of rules that seperate the good from the bad? Shouldn't we be able to point to the good guys and say, "they'd never..."? And, unfortunately, in many things we can't. The bad guys will brand someone. So will the good guys. The bad guys will hate someone based solely on their family background, so will the good guys. The bad guys will laugh when someone they don't like gets hurt, so will the good guys. > >>Betsy Hp: > > But the thing is, to Draco the *Order* is made up of > > disgusting little bigots that should get what they deserve. > >>Alla: > And as I said above, why should it matter in deciding who is a > good guy? I am absolutely serious here. Betsy Hp: It matters because it makes it hard to evaluate who really *is* the good guys. Your side hates people because of their blood. The opposite side hates people because of their blood. How do you decide which is on the side of the angels? Remember, Draco isn't on the front lines. He gets his father's spin on things, and he observes Harry's gang at Hogwarts. There is never a time that Harry or his friends take an action that suggests they are better people than Draco. In fact, there are times that their behavior is *worst* than Draco's and his friends. (Draco has never branded someone who crossed him, for example.) It's not until Draco actually enters the arena and sees Voldemort in his true light that he sees there *is* a difference. He sees that Voldemort isn't good. And he sees (finally) that Dumbledore isn't bad. And it's based totally and completely on their *actions*. > >>Betsy Hp: > > It's not until HBP that Draco sees or experiences anything that > > would tell him differently. So Draco is facing a moment where > > he can step out of his family's shadow and examine things for > > himself. I feel like Harry will need to do something similar > > himself, especially since he's yet to question his own bigotry. > >>Alla: > Harry had plenty of those moments IMO, discovering that the fate > of wisarding world is on his shoulders was IMO only one of them. > Betsy Hp: No. That's not the same thing at all. Harry isn't confronting his own prejudice, his own mistaken thinking. That's what I'm talking about. Not the pressure of responsibility (which is important, but not what I'm discussing) but the pressure of self-examination. Draco feeling the responsibility of his mother's life is comparable (though not equal) to Harry feeling the responsibility of the fate of the WW. What Draco went through on the Tower is more comparable (though not equal) to what Harry went through seeing his younger father in the pensieve. The thing is, Harry's moment of crisis after the pensieve scene didn't stick. He fell right back into his old, comfortable, unexamined thinking. If Harry is to acheive true wisdom, he'll have to go through a moment of real self-examination where he questions what he believes and why. > >>Alla: > But the thing is what plays into consideration the most IMO is how > JKR evaluates the action, no? I mean for the purposes of writing > about it. > I think she is pretty harsh on traitors. IMO of course. Betsy Hp: Is she? Does JKR approve of Hermione's behavior? Does she approve of the twins? I don't think we can tell, yet, based on the text alone. That Hermione mirrors Umbridge, that the twins mirror Death Eaters, is fairly telling to me. Of course that's my opinion. It'll be interesting to see if the last book clarifies things or leaves them disturbingly muddy. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Houyhnhnm, I think I love you. This really makes > > so much sense to me. > > > >>houyhnhnm: > Er, I'm a *female* houyhnhnm, so I'll take that > in the magical sense. > Betsy Hp: Hee! My love is strictly platonic and based solely on your mind. Betsy Hp From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Thu Jun 29 00:15:45 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 00:15:45 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154542 > Betsy Hp: > Anything > goes if you're the right sort of person. The Death Eaters can > torment a family of muggles and it's bad, because they're bad. But > the twins can torment a family of muggles and it's funny, because > they are good. Amiable Dorsai: This reminds me of one of the lesser-known parts of the Rowling canon: "Lord Derfdnaegroeg, scourge of Muggles, sat in their evil lair, which was carefully hidden in a desirable and well-traveled part of the most popular wizarding shopping district in the entire UK. "Well, what do you think?" asked one half of They-Who-Always-Enliven-A-Party. "Does our reign of terror on the Muggles measure up to Voldemort's yet?" "Let's tally it up," replied the other half of You-Know, Them. "OK, on Voldemort's side, he's driven a government official insane, collapsed a bridge with a dozen occupied cars on it, set loose a giant who caused so much destruction that the Ministry blamed it on a hurricane, and murdered his father and his grandparents. On our side, we caused a bullying git and his abusive parents a few minutes of well-deserved panic." "We've fallen a bit behind, haven't we?" "We were funnier." "There is that." "Still, we need to think of a way to catch up." "And a better anagram." "Angelina likes it." "Can't go by that, Angelina likes you. Poor girl has no taste." The Loudly-Dressed Lord(s) then adjourned their meeting to the Leaky Cauldron, for dinner and a few shots of Ogden's Old Thought-Provoker." --from "Harry Potter and the Party Animals" by JK Rowling Amiable Dorsai From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 29 01:17:20 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 01:17:20 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154543 > >>Betsy Hp: > > Anything goes if you're the right sort of person. The Death > > Eaters can torment a family of muggles and it's bad, because > > they're bad. But the twins can torment a family of muggles and > > it's funny, because they are good. > >>Amiable Dorsai: > > "Well, what do you think?" asked one half of > They-Who-Always-Enliven-A-Party. "Does our reign of terror on the > Muggles measure up to Voldemort's yet?" > "Let's tally it up," replied the other half of You-Know, > Them. "OK, on Voldemort's side, he's driven a government official > insane, collapsed a bridge with a dozen occupied cars on it, set > loose a giant who caused so much destruction that the Ministry > blamed it on a hurricane, and murdered his father and his > grandparents. On our side, we caused a bullying git and his > abusive parents a few minutes of well-deserved panic." > 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. Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 29 01:30:37 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 01:30:37 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154544 > Betsy Hp: > Look, two characters get branded in OotP: Marietta and Harry. We > like Harry so it's Bad that he was branded. We don't like Marietta > so it's Good that she was branded. And that sort of moralizing is > ripe for abuse. Because you're not judging someone by their actions > or a set of rules. You're judging them by how much you like them, > and with your own sense of righteousness. Alla: No, absolutely not. I do NOT judge Marietta based on how much I dislike her, I judge her based on her ACTION, that is why it matters to me very much what kind of person receives the punishment. I would not as far as to say that Marietta is a completely horrible person, she is too minor character for that, but I absolutely think that her action is horrible. THUS because and ONLY because her action is horrible I think that she deserved everything she got. > Betsy Hp: > Marietta does not and should not come into play. I'm talking > actions not personalities. The argument is that if someone claims > they are good they should behave in a good manner. No matter the > provocation from the other side. If Ron raped Marietta to "teach > her a lesson" would that be okay? You know, because Marietta is a > traitor and Ron is a good guy? Of course not. Because rape is > bad. It's a bad action that a good person would not do. Even if > they hated the other person. Like or dislike shouldn't have > anything to do with it, IMO. Alla: Like or dislike should not have to do anything with it, yes, but in book reality the fact that guys that committed bad things are often get punished IMO should matter, yes. Rape is such an unconscionable action that it cannot come into play as carmic punishment at all, but what Marietta got? IMO very very proportionate punishment IMO. You know - for Marietta to remember that to betray - equals bad consequences, if her own conscience was not strong enough to tell her that. I don't necessarily think that the punishment should have stayed for so long, but otherwise I don't have a problem with it. In the books of course and in the books only. I don't advocate taking justice in own hands in RL, but very often in Potterverse that is exactly what Trio is forced to do and should do, because the world around them is too corrupt and the adults are too often portrayed as an idiots who cannot do much for them anyways. Love Mcgonagal, but find her advice to Harry about Umbridge to NOT being helpful at all for example. > > >>Alla: > > But should Draco's POV matter in evaluating his parents? > > > > Betsy Hp: > Exactly!! Should POV matter? Hermione branded a girl permenantly > on the face. Does the "why" even matter? Should it? Shouldn't > there be a governing set of rules that seperate the good from the > bad? Shouldn't we be able to point to the good guys and > say, "they'd never..."? Alla: OF COURSE the "why" should matter, how can it not to be? Otherwise even if Snape turns out to be DD!M ( shudders), his betrayal of Voldemort is really no better than Peter betrayal of his friends, isn't it? Actions, actions, and consequences. Hermione did not brand MArietta because she FELT like it, she did not even know WHOM she was branding, she only knew that IF somebody betrays the group, NO MATTER who she/he will get branded. I can argue that Hermione was punishing an action, NOT a person. Betsy Hp: There is never > a time that Harry or his friends take an action that suggests they > are better people than Draco. In fact, there are times that their > behavior is *worst* than Draco's and his friends. (Draco has never > branded someone who crossed him, for example.) Alla: No, Draco never branded anyone, he only almost killed two people and meticulously planned to kill Dumbledore. Draco never branded anyone, he just had no problem pretending to be injured to make an animal killed and Hagrid fired. I will never be able to see Draco's better behaviour and no, it does not mean that I see Harry as perfect, it is just to me there is a very low barrier to behave better than Draco does and Trio seems to pass it most of the times IMO. JMO, Alla. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 29 01:54:36 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 01:54:36 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154545 > 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. Alla: Draco does not have any actions to look at or Draco just has completely skewed value system and could care less what is good and bad? Let's see what he knows - he knows that Voldemort killed Harry's parents. Killing somebody should be bad in itself action, no matter how much you like or dislike the person? Does that cause Draco to reexamine his views? Voldemort reign of terror is well known among wizarding kids, no? Does that cause Draco to reexamine his views or does that cause him to cling more to the mudbloods will die first slogans? Draco is in school,where Headmaster gives the job to Hagrid who otherwise would have had nowhere to go, pretty much, right? >From the first time Draco sees Hagrid, he mocks him. Why? Because his wonderful parents told him that Hagrid is like a cervant, no? Draco learns that Headmaster gave work to werewolf, helped another being who otherwise could have gone poor, hungry, brokem, no? Does THAT cause Draco to reexamine his views or does that cause him to dislike DD and Lupin even more? Draco learns that Cedric is killed by Voldemort's minion. Does THAT cause Draco to reexamine his views or does that cause him to come to Gryffs appartment and issue what I see as death threats? Draco seen plenty IMO, it is just he chose to not really see. JMO, Alla From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Jun 29 02:39:34 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 02:39:34 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154546 Alla: > No, absolutely not. I do NOT judge Marietta based on > how much I dislike her, I judge her based on her ACTION, > that is why it matters to me very much what kind of > person receives the punishment. > I would not as far as to say that Marietta is a completely > horrible person, she is too minor character for that, but > I absolutely think that her action is horrible. THUS because > and ONLY because her action is horrible I think that she > deserved everything she got. houyhnhnm: Marietta did not betray the DAs for personal gain. She was scared. She was deceiving her mother! She was going against what she had been taught all her life to believe was right--the authority of the Ministry of Magic. I don't see Marietta as a despicable person at all. She may have lacked the maturity to make her own decisions about right and wrong. She may have lacked the moral imagination to comprehend that there was a higher cause to be served than obeying the Ministry and her mother. She may, in fact, have been a moral simpleton, incapable of seeing beyond her own selfish fear of getting in trouble. But she didn't *deserve* to be scarred for life. From kljohnson7868 at gmail.com Thu Jun 29 02:12:20 2006 From: kljohnson7868 at gmail.com (kljohnson7868) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 02:12:20 -0000 Subject: Maybe Harry doesn't die??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154547 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "UNIX4EVR" wrote: > > Was just reading the Mugglenet interview. JKR says that Harry has > already suffered enough -- does that mean he won't die? Not necessarily. Sometimes death is considered the "end of suffering". I can argue both sides of the die/doesn't die coin. Personally, I *do* believe he will die. But what I find most interesting is that the first chapter of the very first book is titled, "The Boy Who Lived". Would that make the last chapter, "The Man Who Died" or is it a presage of the end of the series? Kathi, who thinks Snape is not so evil & that Harry will die. Feel free to rip me to shreds now. *smile* From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Thu Jun 29 02:59:07 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 02:59:07 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154548 > Betsy Hp: > 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". Amiable Dorsai: Other than Ron's and Harry's rescue of a girl they didn't even like from a rampaging troll, the Trio's quest to save the Philosopher's Stone (however wrongheaded you may think it), the opposition and to and eventual defeat of the Heir of Slytherin (You know, the one Draco wanted to help commit murder), support for a teacher he (Draco) tries to have sacked, Hermione's and Ron's attempt to help exonerate an innocent animal Draco wanted destroyed, Harry's risking his life to bring back Cedric's body, Harry and Hermione teaching a group of students how to defend themselves, Hermione's opposition to slavery, and, of course, the Sextet's rescue mission. Sadly, you're right--because none of this will impress Draco as good. He likes the idea of murder right up until he tries to commit it in person, when he finds he hasn't the stones for it. He thinks slavery is just fine. He has no trouble taking revenge on an animal he stupidly provoked. He wanted (and may still want) Muggleborns to die--"mudblood" is his favorite word. He puts on the jackboots and supports unjust authority. He vows revenge on Harry, because Harry did not roll over and die when Draco's father led a group that tried to ambush and murder him and his friends. If Draco can't see that Harry's friends are the "good guys", it's because he has no conception of the good. Those of us not raised by a corrupt, racist, abusive, slave-holding, boot-licking murderer may have a different view of life. Amiable Dorsai From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 29 03:02:04 2006 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 03:02:04 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154549 > > Betsy Hp: > > > Look, two characters get branded in OotP: Marietta and Harry. We > > like Harry so it's Bad that he was branded. We don't like > Marietta > > so it's Good that she was branded. And that sort of moralizing is > > ripe for abuse. Because you're not judging someone by their > actions > > or a set of rules. You're judging them by how much you like them, > > and with your own sense of righteousness. > Lanval: Really, Betsy -- "branded"? A bit sensational for my taste, that choice of word. 'Marked', I'd call it. After all, it's not as if Hermione held Marietta down, wielding a red-hot iron, lowering it with a cruel smile, hissing, "Take that, Evil Traitor Wench!" :) Correct me if I'm wrong, but the poor girl isn't described as being in pain either, is she? Why does it seem so hard to understand that Hermione had very little choice? We have hindsight, of course, and know how the whole DA thing blew up. But Hermione could not have known that in advance. Keep in mind that she was well aware of another group of friends, who paid dearly for having a traitor in their midst and not realizing it. So here she is, trying to come up with a plan. The DA MUST be kept a secret. Expulsion, or worse, is at stake. But what if one of the members turns traitor? For all Hermione knows, any of them might decide to start passing secrets, over a period of time. Umbridge acted quickly, once she had the information, but again, Hermione could not know that in advance. If Umbridge had shown more patience and cunning, she might have encouraged Marietta to keep attending the meetings, and spy for her. The SNEAK mark made sure this was not going to happen. It was absolutely vital that the sneak could be identified, immediately, and in a way that could not be hidden. That having been said, it *was* cruel to let the effects of the hex linger for so long. A few days, a week maybe, would have served its purpose. I also wish Hermione had at least hinted at this unpleasantness, before the others signed her contract. It must have been clear to her that Marietta at least was a potential problem. Lanval *crawls back into RL and lurkdom* From honeykissed246 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 29 03:04:21 2006 From: honeykissed246 at yahoo.com (honeykissed246) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 03:04:21 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154550 Linda wrote: > Snape OBVIOUSLY in love with Lily these bonds are not easily > broken... This story will have more twists and turns than Nagini, > mark my words. > > Linda > Honeykissed: Linda you are brave :) and you have said exactly what I have been thinking for a while but have not been able to take my "chicken suit" off long enough to say it. I do believe that Snape was (and still is) in love with Lily. I am curious to see exactly "HOW" James and Lily got together. I was thinking what if James and Lily's "union" was just like Merope and Tom Riddle Sr. 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?? Even if he did manage to do a few "heroic" deeds while at school, what did he do that was sooo wonderful that she married him? Did Rowling leave us clues with all the "love potions" flying around. We have already seen that James was capable of using magic to his advantage when he was hexing Snape so why would he not use a love potion. Just my thoughts! Honeykissed - ducking and running from all the knives now being thrown. :) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 29 02:56:26 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 02:56:26 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154551 > houyhnhnm: > > Marietta did not betray the DAs for personal gain. Alla: Do we know that? Houyhnhm: She > was scared. She was deceiving her mother! She was going > against what she had been taught all her life to believe > was right--the authority of the Ministry of Magic. Alla: She may have been scared, yes, just as Peter may have been when Voldemort approached him ( if we believe Peter). But no matter what her motivations were, the end result for DA army, whom I see as fighters against Ubridge oppressive regime would have been all the same, they all would have been expelled but for Kingsley quick thinking. I am sure Marietta had her reasons, does it make her action better? Houyhnhm: I > don't see Marietta as a despicable person at all. Alla: Neither do I, I see her ACTION as despicable. Houyhhmmm: She > may have lacked the maturity to make her own decisions > about right and wrong. She may have lacked the moral > imagination to comprehend that there was a higher cause > to be served than obeying the Ministry and her mother. > She may, in fact, have been a moral simpleton, incapable > of seeing beyond her own selfish fear of getting in trouble. > But she didn't *deserve* to be scarred for life. Alla: For life - no, but for some time - to me she absolutely did. JMO, Alla. From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Jun 29 03:21:44 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 03:21:44 -0000 Subject: Mirror of Erised In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154552 Mark: > Do you think the HP books could be considered one of these > external things? The HP books themsleves are like the mirror; > everyone sees what they want to in them (I think this list > proves that) and it's best not to spend all your time reading > them. The HP books "give us neither knowledge or truth. Men > [and women] have wasted away before [them], entranced by what > they have [read], or been driven mad, not knowing if what > [the books] [say] is real or even possible." houyhnhnm: I see the Harry Potter books as being more like a Pensieve. Thoughts about RL people and conflicts can be put into the Potterverse, examined with greater objectivity and analyzed with greater detachment. Then, hopefully, one comes out with fresh insight. Like lately I have been thinking a lot about the characteristics of the four Hogwarts houses, their strengths and weaknesses, and why they don't get along. In the real world (of an urban school)I don't have to deal with Gryffindor, Slytherin, Ravenclaw, and Hufflepuff, but I do have to deal with four cliques-Latin, Asian, black, and white. The conflicts between them are very similar to what occurs between opposing house members at Hogwarts. Even the stereotypes that each group has about the others are similar. I don't think it is time wasted at all. From honeykissed246 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 29 03:34:50 2006 From: honeykissed246 at yahoo.com (honeykissed246) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 03:34:50 -0000 Subject: Gone a while - question about Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154553 Ken wrote: >Snip> > Given the connection between LV and Harry and Harry's inability to > block it, DD cannot tell Harry any of this. It would be Snape's death > warrant and the destruction of any plans DD and Snape had for the > future. > Honeykissed: You know Ken, I think the reason DD doesn't share why he trust Snape so much with Harry is because, like you said, Harry can not block his thoughts from LV. If Harry would have been successful at occlumency and legilimens, maybe DD could have told him before the tower scene. I can remember (even though I can't remember what book its in), that DD would pause when Harry asked him about Snape and why he trusted him so much; it appeared that DD wanted to tell him but chose not to. It would derail everything that had been put in place for the last 15 years and like you stated, be a death sentence for Snape and probably lots of other people in the WW. Honeykissed From kjones at telus.net Thu Jun 29 03:38:14 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 20:38:14 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR borrows from heroic literature/ who dies? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44A34B26.3050108@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 154554 > Carol responds: > In the same interview in which JKR talked about giving a character a > reprieve (and I admittedly have only read the snippet, not a > transcript of the same interview), she talked about the temptation of > killing off the main character so that no one else could take him over > and write more books about him (presumably after her death or the > copyright has expired??), but I don't think she would do that. For one > thing, we have "neither can live while the other survives." I think > that means that the winner (clearly Harry) will finally be able to > live, to be "Just Harry," to have normal relationships and finish > school and get a job like any other young wizard (or Muggle). KJ writes: The thing that seriously bothers me about this is that Harry has never had the chance to just be Harry. He has always been a child with no family, a child in the public eye. As a result, he has suffered from the ministry, the press, classmates, and even his budding social life is messed up. Do you really think that if he wins out over Voldemorte that he would ever have a chance at a "normal" life? I don't. He will never get a job because of his own abilities. He will be the Boy-Who-Lived-And- Defeated-Voldemorte. He will be even more in the hated limelight. The Wizarding world, just like the Real word seems incapable of reacting to this sort of thing with anything approaching common sense. This is why I tend to think that Harry may not survive, it would not be a great life for him. He hates the notoriety, the fawning, the gossiping, and the over-blown expectations of others. KJ From Fett_dFacto at hotmail.com Wed Jun 28 23:28:58 2006 From: Fett_dFacto at hotmail.com (fett_dfacto) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 23:28:58 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Ginny, Harry, Crushes, Love Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154555 I'll begin by saying that I'm sure this has been covered umpteen times, but I couldn't find the relevant posts. If someone could point me in the right direction I'd be grateful. Seeing as I couldn't find the relevant posts, however... At what point does Ginny's crush turn into love, and why? It's fair to assume that her crush develops between Harry's first and second year, as her reaction in PS isn't one of star-struck adoration, but excitement about seeing Harry Potter! By CoS, however, the crush is in full swing - cue one elbow-butter intersection. She's blushing, shy and extraordinarily accident prone given the degree of co-ordination Quidditch probably entails. OotP onward, it can be taken for granted that the crush has dissapeared, to be replaced by love (or something like it). That, and a ruthless long term plan to seduce Harry, courtesy of Hermione - but let's gloss over that little detail. That leaves the time between PoA, and the start of OotP for Ginny's crush to develop in to full-bodied love. As in OotP, Hermione says that Ginny gave up on Harry "months ago" during the Hogsmead visit, it can be assumed that the event occurs by the end of GoF. After being rescued by Harry from the Chamber, she seems to be even more embarrassed by being in Harry's presence than ever (her reaction to seeing him for the first time after he saved her is to be "heartily embarrassed"). Despite this, she seems to have matured enough to be able to talk in his presence and is capable of making eye contact without going into hysterics. She does send a singing get well card when Harry's in the hospital wing, however. This could be seen as an indication that she's still infatuated with Harry, as while Harry would probably appreciate a card, I highly doubt he'd want the attention a singing card would generate. At the begining of GoF she still goes red when she sees Harry, but treats him like a normal human being, and is quite capable of operating in his presence. Ultimately, Ginny's crush develops in three stages: Post CoS Here, Ginny's crush is replaced with a love for her rescuer, her knight in filthy school uniform. She no longer has a crush on the boy-who-lived, but a love(?) (perhaps it's merely a massive infatuation rather than a crush) for the boy who risked his life to save a stupid little girl. She doesn't see Harry as a real person, but is still aware enough of him to know that he'd hate her to treat him any differently to anyone else - so she keeps quiet, only speaking when she knows she's not going to make a fool of herself. Post PoA Ginny has matured considerably during PoA, and while she still harbours the lingering remnants of Damsel in Distress Syndrome (blushing once), she's more or less dealt with it. Harry is, to her, just another friend of Ron's. Harry is just like Hermione was when Ginny first met her - Ron's friend, but someone who could just as easily turn into her friend in time (only she doesn't want Hermione to sweep her off her feet). She treats him like anyone else and has crushed the crush into dust. Has the crush turned to real love, however? GoF This is the crucial section in Ginny's evolving feelings for Harry. Hermione, being Hermione, will (I'm sure) have wanted to rant and rave about Ron's cluelessness, Harry's less than gentlemenly agreement with Ron's belief that they need to move fast or the only things left will be Trolls, Harry's attitude to the second task and someone to talk to about her worries about the tournament. Not to mention Harry and Ron's stupid feud. Ginny begins to see Harry as a real person, with all the same flaws and insecurities as anyone else. I also find it nigh on impossible to believe that Hermione could not tell Ginny (who appears to be her sole female friend) some of what happened in the graveyard. Ginny now must surely realise just how human Harry is. She can clearly see the effect Cedric's death has on him, and realises that he's not a knight in shining armour. He's human, and is barely hanging in there. Mrs Weasley's coldness toward Hermione as Harry's alleged girlfriend can be seen as an indication that Ginny is well on her way to love by the end of the year. Mrs Weasley would never encourage her daughter to crush on anyone, and if Ginny had a crush on Malfoy it is highly unlikely that Mrs Weasley would be frosty with Malfoy's girlfriend. The fact that she does treat Hermione frostily, however, is a clear signpost that Mrs Weasley believes that her daughter is well on the way to being genuinely in love with Harry. Ginny suddenly gets a real insight into the problems of Harry's life, and now understands just what sort of person he is. He can be insensitive, unthinking, stubborn, deceitful (Was Hermione really convinced he had the egg under control?) and shallow. But he is also honourable, talented, and never gives up regardless of how bad it is. This is the moment when she truly opens her eyes, truly sees Harry Potter the boy, and truly loves him. Is there a specific moment when it suddenly dawns, or is it a gradual relaisation over the year? I'm not sure myself. If there is one event, it'd be the aftermath of the Triwizard, but I don't think she really sees enough of him to pick out the effects. OotP As stated above, this is where Ginny comences her plan to ensnare Harry in her web by using her wiles on other people. Her utterly brilliant treatment of Harry while he suffers from Post-Traumatic- Stress-Disorder shows just how far she's come from the infatuated little girl she once was. Her deft handling of him from the moment she first sees him is testament to her newly minted love for Harry. After GoF she understands him perfectly, but that doesn't mean she accepts his behaviour. She sees Harry at his worst. Moody, utterly self-centred, wallowing in depression - and then he finds out Voldemort's inside his head. If she didn't love him before, she does now. ~~~~~~~~ Fett d'Facto P.S. On a side note, if Ginny and Harry did do as fan-fic writers seem wont to do and throw the two of them into a "marriage-bond" after the Chamber of Secrets (which seems to translate as an excuse to marry them at an excessively young age and acts as an exceedingly poor plot device to make Ginny pregnant sans consequences, naturally), how would Ginny react and would it have changed their relationship? From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Jun 29 04:30:58 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 04:30:58 -0000 Subject: Tom Riddle's Birthday STRANGE Isn't it In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154556 It is truly amazing the things that I have learned by being part of this group. I have search the internet for any possible significance of Dec. 31, beyond the normal idea of the end of the old year, death, darkness, etc. Here is what I have learned about December 31st from both Pagan and Christian sources. During the middle ages there was a festival call the Feast of Fools in which the hierarchy of the Church was mocked. This was around the same date as what is today known as the Feast of the Holy Name, or the Circumcision of Jesus,on Jan. 1st, which is 8 days after his birth. That makes LV's birthday 7 days after the birth of Jesus and the day before Jesus' presentation. In some ways this is like All Hollows Eve (Oct.31) occurring the day before All Saints Day (Nov. 1) In Rome and later in other places, there was a pagan festival called Saturnalia around that time honoring Saturn. It was apparently a time of drinking and debauchery, so that among Christians the word "saturnalia" came to mean "orgy". ---------- RE: Saturn (from Wikipedia): In Hesiod's Theogeny, a mythological account of the creation of the universe and Zeus' rise to power, Saturn is mentioned as the son of Uranus, the heavens, and Gaia, the earth. Saturn seizes power, castrating and overthrowing his father Uranus. However, it was foretold that one day a mighty son of Saturn would in turn overthrow him, and Saturn devoured all of his children when they were born to prevent this. Saturn's wife, Ops, hid her sixth child on the island of Crete, and offered Saturn a large stone wrapped in swaddling clothes in his place. Jupiter later overthrew Saturn and the other Titans, becoming the new supreme ruler of the cosmos. Then there is this connection as well (also from Wikipedia): "In Greek mythology, Chronos (?????? in Greek) in pre-Socratic philosophical works is said to be the personification of time. He emerged from the primordial Chaos. He is often mythologically confused with the Titan Cronus (?????? in Greek). He is often depicted as an elderly, gray-haired man with a long beard. His name actually means "Time" , and is alternatively spelled Khronos, Chronos, Chronus (Latin version). In astronomy, the planet we now call Saturn because of Roman influence was called Khronos by the Greeks. It was the outermost planet god/deity, and was considered the seventh of the seven heavenly objects that are visible with the naked eye. Given that it had the longest observable repeatable period in the sky, which is currently around 30 years, it was thought to be the keeper of time, or Father Time, since no other objects had been seen or recorded to have a longer period. That is why it is often depicted as an elderly man with a long gray beard, as mentioned above." ------------ So it could be that LV's birthday is associated with all of the above. Or maybe she just liked the idea of LV being the old year fearing death and about to die at the hands of the baby(new year). There does seem to be a number of references in all of the above information to the number "7". Thoughts?? Tonks_op who has probably over analyzed this. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Jun 29 04:44:15 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 04:44:15 -0000 Subject: birthday In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154557 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "drcarole71" wrote: > > Sorry I missed it, but what's the birthday list theory? Is there one > post I should start with to read about it? > Thanks > Carole > Tonks: It is a theory that folks here have suggested associated with the birthday greeting on Rowlings website. The idea is that if she was going to kill them off she would not wish them a Happy Birthday in 2005 or 2006, because they would have died in the books before that year. Tonks_op From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jun 29 04:57:34 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 04:57:34 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154558 > Alla: > > Like or dislike should not have to do anything with it, yes, but in > book reality the fact that guys that committed bad things are often > get punished IMO should matter, yes. > > Rape is such an unconscionable action that it cannot come into play > as carmic punishment at all, but what Marietta got? IMO very very > proportionate punishment IMO. > > You know - for Marietta to remember that to betray - equals bad > consequences, if her own conscience was not strong enough to tell > her that. Pippin: But Marietta can't remember anything, so what good is this punishment doing her? And disfigurement, the word canon uses, *is* unconscionable punishment -- that's why it went out of use in RL, except in places like Nazi concentration camps. In the Potterverse, facial disfigurement is associated with Harry's scar, Mad-eye Moody's injuries, and Bill's mauling by Fenrir, all inflicted by Death Eaters. Hermione is in bad company here. I hope that seeing what Bill is going through may get her to see that she should lift the curse if she can. Hermione did what was easy, enchanting the parchment to punish, instead of what was right -- letting the group decide what should be done about traitors. We, er, do believe in democracy, don't we? Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jun 29 05:03:26 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 05:03:26 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Ginny, Harry, Crushes, Love In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154559 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "fett_dfacto" wrote: > > > Ginny suddenly gets a real insight into the problems of Harry's > life, and now understands just what sort of person he is. He can be > insensitive, unthinking, stubborn, deceitful (Was Hermione really > convinced he had the egg under control?) and shallow. But he is also > honourable, talented, and never gives up regardless of how bad it > is. This is the moment when she truly opens her eyes, truly sees > Harry Potter the boy, and truly loves him. > > Is there a specific moment when it suddenly dawns, or is it a > gradual relaisation over the year? I'm not sure myself. If there is > one event, it'd be the aftermath of the Triwizard, but I don't think > she really sees enough of him to pick out the effects. > Pippin: Harry becomes a human instead of an idol in Ginny's eyes when he returns from his failed attempt to get a date for the Yule Ball in GoF. She doesn't quite speak to him -- but for the first time she laughs, and it's quite clear that she's realized he puts his robes on one sleeve at a time after all. Pippin From jmrazo at hotmail.com Thu Jun 29 05:19:36 2006 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 05:19:36 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154560 > Pippin: > > In the Potterverse, facial disfigurement is associated with Harry's scar, > Mad-eye Moody's injuries, and Bill's mauling by Fenrir, all inflicted by > Death Eaters. Hermione is in bad company here. Are you honestly comparing a pimple curse to a werewolf eating a man's face off? Please. If the pustules were so awful and unfair, wouldn't the kindly *charm* master who happens to be her head of house remove them? or hows about Grampa Dumbledore? Hermione is only a fifteen year old, no matter how smart. I doubt there's anything she could do that pair couldn't undo. > Hermione did what was easy, enchanting the parchment to punish, It wasn't a perfect plan, but it was understandable. the curse gives conclusive knowledge about who any traitors to the group might be so they can't do any further damage. Considering that they're risking expulsion and probably having their wand snapped, I think extreme measures are appropriate--that is unless you think they should have just been good little boys and girls for the new headmistress. > instead of what was right -- letting the group decide what should be > done about traitors. We, er, do believe in democracy, don't we? like I always tell my students, schools are not democracies. Hermione wasn't setting up a government in exile, she was running an illegal club. she and Harry can decide on whatever the hell requirements they want. Marrieta could have always said no. Phoenixgod2000, who wishes he could answer some of the other posts but has nowhere near the time. From aceworker at yahoo.com Thu Jun 29 05:31:39 2006 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (aceworker) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 05:31:39 -0000 Subject: Marietta's Brand and some related thoughts (Was Being Good and Evil) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154561 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > > Alla: > > > No, absolutely not. I do NOT judge Marietta based on > > how much I dislike her, I judge her based on her ACTION, > > that is why it matters to me very much what kind of > > person receives the punishment. > > > I would not as far as to say that Marietta is a completely > > horrible person, she is too minor character for that, but > > I absolutely think that her action is horrible. THUS because > > and ONLY because her action is horrible I think that she > > deserved everything she got. > > > houyhnhnm: > > Marietta did not betray the DAs for personal gain. She > was scared. She was deceiving her mother! She was going > against what she had been taught all her life to believe > was right--the authority of the Ministry of Magic. I > don't see Marietta as a despicable person at all. She > may have lacked the maturity to make her own decisions > about right and wrong. She may have lacked the moral > imagination to comprehend that there was a higher cause > to be served than obeying the Ministry and her mother. > She may, in fact, have been a moral simpleton, incapable > of seeing beyond her own selfish fear of getting in trouble. > But she didn't *deserve* to be scarred for life. > DA Jones A bit of a ramble, but this made me think. So Sorry! Why does Marietta still have her "mark in book 6". Maybe so in book 7 Cho has to take her to curse breaker Bill Weasley to get it removed. Maybe for some reason Cho and Marietta are at the wedding and Bill removes it then. And Percy is there. Maybe it is all JKR's set-up to get Percy and Marietta together. What a couple! :-). I'll think I'll start that ship! We do know one thing about her char. Marietta stands by her friend. At least initially JKR has her stand by and try to help a distraught friend. She attends something she is entirely opposed to for one and only one reason: Cho. Cho certainly seems to be abandoned by almost all of her friends. In GOF she travels in packs in HBP she certainly is described as being alone a lot more often (in-part in order to talk to Harry). The only other apparent friend post GOF of Cho is Michael Corner who actually picks a fight and breaks up's with Ginny (over Quidditch) to defend and date Cho. Marietta's decision to turn in the DA is a moral decision. Basically she agreed with her mother that what Harry was doing was wrong. Appar she did not beleive that Voldermort was back. Based on her belief system as portrayed it actually was the right decision. If you look at DD maxim to do the hard and right instead of the easy in, you can see that for a teenager it is often much harder to betray her friends then to listen to parents. Even if the parents are right. Here in order to do the right thing she betrays her friends, even Cho. Esp.Cho because by doing so she destroys Cho chance for a relationship with Harry. (So she does what she thinks is the Hard and right.) You have to base your decidion to do the hard and right on the info you have. If your info is wrong, even the right decision can be wrong. To use a real world example Iraq. Many Americans and Some Brits thought going into Iraq was right and it was the hard and right thing to do when we thought they had weapons of mass destruction. Know we know they didn;t so many think it was the wrong decision. Was the decision wrong? In hindsight yes, but not based on the info we had then. JKR has Marietta base her decision in a similar way on the wrong info. Marietta as JKR wrote her wasn't evil just misinformed. Cho said that Marietta was a good person and if she is present at all in book 7 tht she will prob be shown to be such a person. There is a quote somewhere by JKR that the Ravenclaws will have their day. This didn't happen in book 6 is it going to happen in book 7? From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jun 29 06:40:42 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 06:40:42 -0000 Subject: Tom Riddle's Birthday STRANGE Isn't it-- Was Happy Birthday list In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154562 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonya Minton" wrote: Tonya: > This is a good point and looking at Harry's Birthday in the Seventh Month we > already know that seven is the most magical number (HBP Chapter 23 I > believe). So that gives Harry strength, power. We know that in Mythology > there are Seven Wonders, Seven Sisters, Seven Horxruxes. There is even > physiology in humans behind the number seven, we remember things better in > sets of seven. So I think we can expect great thing from Mr. Harry Potter. > What do you think?? Geoff: But just to stir the cauldron a bit, does July acquire the magic of seven considering that it hasn't always been the seventh month? It was for a long time the fifth month. :-) Geoff Life member of IWHTLC - I want Harry to live Club From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Jun 29 07:45:25 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 07:45:25 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154563 phoenixgod2000: > Are you honestly comparing a pimple curse to a werewolf eating a > man's face off? Please. If the pustules were so awful and unfair, > wouldn't the kindly *charm* master who happens to be her head of > house remove them? or hows about Grampa Dumbledore? Hermione is only > a fifteen year old, no matter how smart. I doubt there's anything > she could do that pair couldn't undo. zgirnius: I haven't decided what exactly I think abotu Marietta, Hermione, and the Sneak Jinx, but I rather doubt that it could be removed easily by either Flitwick or Dumbledore. Because she STILL had the pimples the following year. This tells me wizarding world medical prefessionals were unable to solve the problem...surely her mother took her to the doctor over the summer? My theory is that Hermione did someting clever involving binding magical contracts which made the jinx so irreversible. Signing a paper is a common way of sealing a contract, and we know (GoF) that in the wizarding world, you do not necessarily have to know what you are agreeing to for the contract to be binding. From littleleah at handbag.com Thu Jun 29 08:12:54 2006 From: littleleah at handbag.com (littleleahstill) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 08:12:54 -0000 Subject: Marietta's Brand and some related thoughts (Was Being Good and Evil) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154564 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "aceworker" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > > > > > houyhnhnm: > > > > Marietta did not betray the DAs for personal gain. She > > was scared. She was deceiving her mother! She was going > > against what she had been taught all her life to believe > > was right--the authority of the Ministry of Magic. I > > don't see Marietta as a despicable person at all. She > > may have lacked the maturity to make her own decisions > > about right and wrong. She may have lacked the moral > > imagination to comprehend that there was a higher cause > > to be served than obeying the Ministry and her mother. > > She may, in fact, have been a moral simpleton, incapable > > of seeing beyond her own selfish fear of getting in trouble. > > But she didn't *deserve* to be scarred for life. > > > DA Jones > > A bit of a ramble, but this made me think. So Sorry! > > Why does Marietta still have her "mark in book 6". Maybe so in book 7 > Cho has to take her to curse breaker Bill Weasley to get it removed. > Maybe for some reason Cho and Marietta are at the wedding and Bill > removes it then. And Percy is there. Maybe it is all JKR's set-up to > get Percy and Marietta together. What a couple! :-). I'll think I'll > start that ship! > > > Marietta as JKR wrote her wasn't evil just misinformed. Cho said that > Marietta was a good person and if she is present at all in book 7 tht > she will prob be shown to be such a person. There is a quote somewhere > by JKR that the Ravenclaws will have their day. This didn't happen in > book 6 is it going to happen in book 7? Leah I was rather dismayed to find Marietta still scarred in HBP. I like the Percy/Marietta idea (where's Penelope?), but I've wondered whether the scarring might play out if Marietta's help is needed in some way with the Ravenclaw horcrux. I also wonder whether the continued scarring may be the result of a power in the jinx itself, that it doesn't relinquish its hold until the resolution of events that the betrayal has set in train. Whatever Marietta's motives, the betrayal of the DA resulted in the removal of DD from Hogwarts, which in turn enabled the attack on and exiling of Hagrid, the wounding of McGonagall, leaving Snape the only Order member at Hogwarts..... Perhaps more importantly for HBP, the removal of DD and appointment of Umbridge meant the twins' mischief making ran wild. This included the stuffing of Montague into a certain vanishing cabinet; we see the ramifications of that in HBP. I just wonder, if that is the case, how long it could go on for. Leah From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Thu Jun 29 09:19:42 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 09:19:42 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154565 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > 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. > > Betsy Hp > Gerry OK, lets see whar Draco knows until HBP: - He sees a group of DE's torment the muggles at the camping. Voldy is not involved, but his dad is, and of course this is all great fun. - Cedric gets killed. It is clear Draco knows Voldy is back, and was responsible for killing him. - There's a good chance that after CoS he found out that Daddy was responsible for what happened then, but hej, that was excellent what was happening then. Great things all. Who could possibly blame Draco not to be happy that this excellent saviour of the Wizarding race was back? Betsy: 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". - Well, lets see: preventing the return of LV in book 1, which the whole school knows. Granted, for Draco that would not be a plus then. - Slaying the monster in the Chamber of Secrets, again a minus because Draco loved what happened and actually hoped somebody died. No, really, nothing there for Draco to go by. Betsy > Generally, if you've branded someone's face, or tortured someone > significantly weaker than you, you're not wearing a white hat. Gerry - Who was tortured that Draco knows? - Who was branded? Marietta was not branded, she got pustules. What puzzles me is why nobody has taken them away yet. I don't believe Hermione is so powerful a charmer that she did something that Flitwitch could not remove. So why did her Head of House nothing? Did she not ask for help? Actually, Draco should admire that kind of thing. After all, he was the one who tried to set things up for Harry and Ron so they would be expelled in PS, so that is really his kind of thing. Gerry From MadameSSnape at aol.com Thu Jun 29 10:53:01 2006 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 06:53:01 EDT Subject: Horoscopes Get Deeper - Healing Signs Message-ID: <420.3d386ea.31d50b0d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154566 Okay - as someone who's been playing with astrology since the Johnson Administration (that's Lyndon, NOT Andrew!), I have to admit I check out every aspect I can think of. Now it's asteroids... I was looking into my Chiron sign - the "Healing Sign", where the asteroid named for Chiron, the wounded centaur healer of Greek mythology, is placed - when I realized how much it sounded like a particular Potions Master. Sure enough - whether he was born in 1959 or 1960, Chiron is in Aquarius: =============== Chiron in Aquarius If Chiron falls in Aquarius in your chart, you bear the pain of alienation, of isolation from those around you. No matter how you try to ingratiate yourself into a crowd -- through being yourself or acting the part of an insider -- it seems like you just can't fit in. At the heart of Aquarius is the need to belong to a group and feel part of some larger significant force. When Chiron is in Aquarius, you feel so outside of things, so eccentric and yet lost in the crowd that you may pull back completely, affecting aloofness when really you're yearning to approach people and share your energy. Rather than pulling away or pretending to be someone you're not, Chiron in Aquarius compels you to be yourself and cherish your eccentricity. Once you know that you have consequence and that you, as an individual, can make a difference, you open yourself (and your wound) up to the world and share what you have learned from your pain. Give your time to causes that encourage expression of individuality, like support groups for those dealing with their sexuality or to progressive causes that champion human rights. ================ As for Harry, his Chiron is in Taurus - a placement shared by Hermione AND Ron: Chiron in Taurus If Chiron falls in Taurus in your chart, you bear a pain of neglect or that what you have is never enough. This Chironic placement makes a person who -- because of a wound of neglect (perhaps your parents were stingy with affection or even completely closed off from you) or actual physical hunger -- bears a mental or physical pain that weakens the spirit and body. At the heart of Taurus is a yearning for security and the pleasure of sensory stimulation: food, physical affection, bodily nourishment. Taurus loves to indulge, but with Chiron in Taurus, you're never quite full; as your stomach can feel empty, so too can your heart. Rather than wallowing in the haze of your hunger for what you lack, Chiron in Taurus encourages you to appreciate what you have. By cherishing gifts you already possess, you can share what you've learned from your pain with others. Give your time to causes dealing with a lack of resources: homelessness, hunger, neglected children, or for those wanting for affection or sensory or material comfort. =========================== FWIW - I see that placement very clearly in the boys, but Hermione doesn't seem to me to be "neglected", unless her parents didn't support her intellectually (that's the obvious area where she has "never enough"). And JKR claims she doesn't know astrology! FWIW, Sherrie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From honeykissed246 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 29 03:49:41 2006 From: honeykissed246 at yahoo.com (honeykissed246) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 03:49:41 -0000 Subject: DD death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154567 > > Najwa wrote: > this is hurting my Snape had to kill Dumbledore for some heroic cause theory...Any Snape fans mind helping me back into thinking he's really a good guy after all again? > Cacaia wrote: > Yes, here's a Snape fan if there ever was one ;-) I, unfortunately, > don't have my book with me, but- do you recall the scene in which > Hagrid told Harry about what he overheard behind closed doors? > Dumbledore and Snape were having a pretty heated argument, in which > Dumbledore said something like "do your job" to Snape- could this > possibly mean he intended Snape to kill him, and Snape downright > refused? There's got to be something planned- Dumbledore, IMO, > intended to die- I don't know necessarily why he intended to > incriminate Snape, though- it's all very mysterious:-) Honeykissed: I also think Snape is innocent and playing for the DD side. I think DD used Snape because he knew that people (including LV) would buy it. Here is Snape, former DE, Potters killer, horrible attitude, all of a sudden he is remorseful, but no one but "old" DD trust him. But DD isn't telling anyone "why" he trust him. Not only that, if he shared this information with anyone else, he risked it getting out and destroying the entire plan. I am convinced that DD told Snape that he would have to kill him and made him promise (just like he did Harry in the cave scene). I don't think Snape wanted to do it but had to. Snape had a fairly decent job, was HOH and protected and he let all of that go for the sake of saving the WW (IMO). Now everyone thinks he is a murderer and playing for LV. I don't think this is the case and we will see how it plays out in book 7. Honeykissed :) From richter at ridgenet.net Thu Jun 29 11:57:37 2006 From: richter at ridgenet.net (Peggy Richter) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 11:57:37 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154568 Pippin wrote: In the Potterverse, facial disfigurement is associated with Harry's scar, Mad-eye Moody's injuries, and Bill's mauling by Fenrir, all inflicted by Death Eaters. Hermione is in bad company here. PAR: I think that somewhere in all this the issue of free will, which JKR said was important to her has been lost. Dudly CHOSE to greedily eat HARRY's Birthday cake before Hagrid gave him a pig's tail. (he chose to be a pig). Dudly chose again to disregard his diet and eat the ton toffee. The twins put the tempation in front of him but they didn't MAKE him eat it. Marietta CHOSE to betray the DA group. She could have told HHP that she didn't feel they were doing the right thing and should quit, she could have decided not to continue going. She agreed to abide by the groups' rules and then didn't. Nor has she ever approached Hermione to ask for help (theoretically she "forgot" based on an obliviate at DD's office but I'm not sure it wasn't actually an imperious)-- and in that she again CHOSE to continue helping Umbrige. Compare to the child Imperio'd into attempting to kill his parents. Or the DE's toying with the muggles. Or Cedric. or those hit by the "giant" hurricane, the bridge falling, even those killed by the "gas explosion" of PP's escape. These people did nothing to incur the suffering or death they went thru. There is a difference. Draco has CHOSEN to support the DEs. And yes, the same action taken for different motivations DOES make a difference. Unless of course one is truly arguing that a policeman who kills a criminal in the line of duty is a murderer the same as a person who kills another in a bank robbery would be. I don't think JKR is going with a "reverse Machiavell" -- that the ends NEVER justify the means. The world is not that black and white and neither is the world JKR has created. PAR. From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Thu Jun 29 12:02:15 2006 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 12:02:15 -0000 Subject: Who dies? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154569 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Um, I just saw the quote from JKR's today interview. It could be a > paraphrase, so please don't beat me up. > > But I think the gist is right. She says that in book 7 one character gets a reprieve, but two that she did nto intend to kill off ? die. > Brothergib; Haven't got time to read through all the replies to find if this has already been done. The exact quote is; "One character got a reprieve but I have to say two die that I did not intend to die." When asked if the dead characters were "much- loved ones", she replied: "A price has to be paid. We are dealing with pure evil here. They don't target extras, do they? They go for the main characters. . . well, I do." When I told my wife this she said that obviously the two death were Snape & Voldemort! Personally I would think that JKR perfectly intended to kill Snape & Voldemort right from the start. Therefore I am inclined to believe that the reprieve may be for Snape. Is it also more likely that the two she had not intended to kill, die at the same time? If that is the case, the most obvious pair would be Fred & George! Yes I can see Fred & George performing some ridiculous act of bravery and getting themselves killed. Brothergib (who still thinks that Snape would be an incredibly boring character if he were ESE!) From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jun 29 13:10:40 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 13:10:40 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154570 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Peggy Richter" wrote: > > Pippin wrote: In the Potterverse, facial disfigurement is associated > with Harry's scar, Mad-eye Moody's injuries, and Bill's mauling by > Fenrir, all inflicted by Death Eaters. Hermione is in bad company here. > > PAR: I think that somewhere in all this the issue of free will, which > JKR said was important to her has been lost. > Dudly CHOSE to greedily eat HARRY's Birthday cake before Hagrid gave > him a pig's tail. (he chose to be a pig). Pippin: Movie contamination! In the book Dudley is cowering against the wall, and gets a pig's tail because Hagrid is angry with Vernon. Maybe Hagrid winding up in Azkaban in Book Two is poetic justice for that, and maybe Sirius went to Azkaban as poetic justice for trying to kill Snape, and maybe Crouch Sr deserved to be murdered because he imprisoned Sirius unjustly, except that if Sirius deserved it then why should Crouch have been punished? It must have been because he was a bad father, yeah, that's it. So what did little Crouch do to deserve having a lousy dad? If you believed in Karma in the literal sense, you'd say it was because he'd been evil in a previous life, but I don't think JKR is going there. What she's telling us, is, I think, that this kind of thinking is one of the reasons flagrant injustice is ignored. Especially when it's being perpetrated by someone we would like to think is entirely admirable. PAR: > Dudly chose again to disregard his diet and eat the ton toffee. The > twins put the tempation in front of him but they didn't MAKE him eat > it. Pippin: The Twins knew that Dudley was on a diet and would be tempted more than normally by the candy -- what they did was, at least according to the ethical system I know best, wrong. Arthur agrees. PAR: > > Marietta CHOSE to betray the DA group. She could have told HHP that > she didn't feel they were doing the right thing and should quit, she > could have decided not to continue going. She agreed to abide by the > groups' rules and then didn't. Nor has she ever approached Hermione > to ask for help (theoretically she "forgot" based on an obliviate at > DD's office but I'm not sure it wasn't actually an imperious)-- and in > that she again CHOSE to continue helping Umbrige. Pippin: Huh? How does Marietta continuing to bear her punishment help Umbridge? And Marietta was not choosing to help DE's. She kept faith with the DA until they started studying how to defeat dementors. Even Arthur believed the dementors were loyal to the ministry. It would be the equivalent in RL of taking a self-defense course that suddenly morphs into learning how to disrupt the police. If you feared you'd gotten mixed up with a paramilitary anti- government group, would you try to explain that, gee, this wasn't what you had in mind when you joined? I'm not so sure the Twins wouldn't have stuffed her into the cabinet. Maybe Marietta was smart to go to Umbridge instead. PAR: > Compare to the child Imperio'd into attempting to kill his parents. > Or the DE's toying with the muggles. Or Cedric. or those hit by > the "giant" hurricane, the bridge falling, even those killed by > the "gas explosion" of PP's escape. These people did nothing to incur > the suffering or death they went thru. There is a difference. Draco > has CHOSEN to support the DEs. Pippin: But the curse on the parchment doesn't care about extenuating circumstances -- that's one of the things that's wrong with it. Umbridge could have fed Marietta veritaserum or used Imperius and forced her to talk, and the result would have been just the same. Pippin From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Jun 29 13:23:15 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 13:23:15 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione Was:Re: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154571 SSSusan, earlier: >>> Pippin gave a couple of examples of Hermione & Ron letting Harry down in "grand scale" ways. To those I'd also add Hermione's handling of the setup of Dumbledore's Army. I believe she REALLY handled that poorly, where Harry was concerned. She knew she was making it a much bigger group than she'd led Harry on to believe, and she also didn't prepare him at all for what she planned for that first gathering in the Hog's Head. It's like she knew what SHE wanted, and she didn't really care whether it's what Harry was comfortable with or wanted or not. She had her reasons for doing it as she did, but I think the simple truth is that she believed that Harry didn't know what was best and that she did. I find that obnoxious & arrogant, myself. Some listees may agree with her, but in terms of how **Harry** felt, I think he did feel quite let down by her. He was ANGRY with her in the Hog's Head, and I think he actually felt somewhat betrayed by what seemed to him as her conning him or setting him up. Or at least that's how I read the scene. Whether in the end it all worked out okay or not, in the MOMENT I think Harry really did feel let down by her. Hermione really put him in an awkward position, and he was forced into doing/saying things he really did not want to. <<< Jen D. wrote: > > SSSusan! > > Glad to see you back! But I think you are making way too much of > > the over-large crowd that greeted Harry at the first DA meeting. > > I know he was shocked, a little irritated but let down? I can't > > see it. Maybe surprised so many people wanted to learn DADA and > > from him. After all, he was just coming off being smeared by the > > Ministry. I will have to go back and read carefully, but wasn't > > he actually excited after the initial shock wore off? I recall > > him thinking about lesson plans and getting quite jazzed. > > Sometimes your friends do know what you need better than > > yourself. This is a fine example of Hermione's know-it-all > > behavior but not a let-down, not a failure to stand by or work > > for Harry's greater good. > > Jen D. (back herself from a time in another strange land and glad > > to be here...) SSSusan: Jen D., glad to see you back, as well! Harry *did* get jazzed, even before the group ever had its first meeting. He *did* think about lesson plans before Hermione even got back to him about doing the club. I would never argue that Harry didn't want to do the DA on some level, even when he expressed uncertainty. And Hermione & Ron are both right that the DA will be good for Harry. That's not the point I was trying to make, though. See below. :-) Annemehr: > *joins the party* > > I agree with Jen D. on this one. Only those really close to you, > who know you really well have the right and insight to do this, but > sometimes a friend just has to step in and do the right thing. > And as it turned out, the DA was the only thing that made Harry want > to go back to Hogwarts at all after spending Christmas at Sirius's > house. Not that a good outcome is in itself any excuse for sticking > your nose in where it doesn't belong, but I take this particular > good outcome as a sign that Hermione actually did know what she was > doing this time. SSSusan: *Always* good to have Annemehr join the party! :-) I think we're actually responding to this in slightly different ways. If we look back at my original post (and the phrasing is still there, above), what I was trying to say was keyed on *"in the moment"* as opposed to "as it turned out" or "in looking back." I totally agree with you both that the DA turned out to be a wonderful thing in the end ? for many people, not the least of whom was Harry. My point, though, which I don't think I made very well, was that at that moment in the HH, Harry *did* feel very let down by Hermione, and I think he had legitimate reason to feel that. NOT because she did something wrong in suggesting the DA in the first place but because of *how* she went about it, what she did and didn't tell Harry, and how she left him hanging. In short, I don't believe she thought hard enough about how BEST to do this for Harry's sake, and that is the way in which she let him down. Let's look back at the scene, if we could, so that hopefully I can make my position clearer. While Hermione had said *days previously* that she believed anyone who wanted to come should be allowed to come, just before anyone else arrives at the HH, this happens: ******************************************************************** "So, who did you say is supposed to be meeting us?" Harry asked . "Just a couple of people," Hermione repeated . First came Neville with Dean and Lavender, who were closely followed by Parvati and Padma Patil with (Harry's stomach did a back-flip) Cho and one of her usually-giggling girlfriends, then Luna Lovegood; then Katie Bell, Alicia Spinnet and Angelina Johnson, Colin and Dennis Creevey, Ernie Macmillan, Justin Finch-Fletchley, Hannah Abbott, a Hufflepuff girl with a long plait down her back whose name Harry did not know; three Ravenclaw boys he was pretty sure were called Anthony Goldstein, Michael Corner and Terry Boot, Ginny, closely followed by a tall skinny blond boy with an upturned nose whom Harry recognized vaguely as being a member of the Hufflepuff Quidditch team and, bringing up the rear, Fred and George Weasley with their friend Lee Jordan . "A couple of people?" said Harry hoarsely to Hermione. "A COUPLE OF PEOPLE?" "Yes, well, the idea seemed quite popular." Harry watched numbly until the horrible thought occurred to him that they might be expecting some kind of speech, at which he rounded on Hermione. "What have you been telling people?" he said in a low voice. "What are they expecting?" "I've told you, they just want to hear what you've got to say," said Hermione soothingly; but Harry continued to look at her so furiously that she added quickly, "You don't have to do anything yet, I'll speak to them first." "Well erm well, you know why you're here. Erm well, Harry here had the idea ? I mean" (Harry had thrown her a sharp look) "I had the idea ." Then Hermione goes on to explain that she thought the group was a good idea because Voldemort was back. Of course, then, several of those in attendance wanted PROOF of his return. It had just dawned on him why there were so many people there. He thought Hermione should have seen this coming. Some of these people ? maybe even most of them ? had turned up in the hopes of hearing Harry's story firsthand. "If you've come to hear exactly what it looks like when Voldemort murders someone I can't help you," Harry said. His temper, always so close to the surface these days, was rising again. "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." He cast an angry look in Hermione's direction. This was, he felt, all her fault; she had decided to display him like some sort of freak and of course they had all turned up to see just how wild his story was. [OotP, Canadian edition, pp. 301-304] SSSusan again: See, to me, there is no question that *in that moment* Harry was livid; he was furious with Hermione; he felt *let down* by her. Was the DA a good idea? Yes, in the end. Did Hermione PREPARE Harry as best she could? I would say absolutely not. Did she think through the best way to start up the group? I would argue absolutely not. Why not begin with a small group of people Harry *trusted* -- say, Neville, Ginny, the twins, Dean & Lavender, his Quidditch teammates? Presumably they would have been gentler in their questioning than people he only "vaguely" recognized or didn't even know, like the Hufflepuff girl! If I were Harry, I, too, would have been furious. How dare she allow people to come to an *opening, organizational* meeting, pretty much "cornering" Harry, and then attempt to pass the whole thing off as *Harry's* own idea? If Hermione had thought things through more fully, had been a little more empathetic concerning Harry, this could have gotten off to a much smoother start, Harry would not have felt so frustrated and angry (and not to mention that Marietta Edgecombe might never have become a part of the group). So I just can't back down from including this as a moment where Harry felt let down in a major way by Hermione, regardless of the fact that the DA *turned out* to be a good thing in the end. It was the way it developed, the way she kept Harry in the dark, the way she hadn't thought through what was likely to happen to him. I think it's pretty clear from JKR's writing that Harry felt that way, too. Siriusly Snapey Susan From minerva_523 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 28 16:53:48 2006 From: minerva_523 at yahoo.com (minerva_523) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 16:53:48 -0000 Subject: Nature of a Patronus / Snape's Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154572 SNIP > K wrote: > Snape and bats are mentioned at least four times. Snape and spiders, > at least twice, a rabbit and dragon at least once. As for Snape > being an illegal animagus, what's that compared to a murderer? ;-) > SNIP "Cacaia": Wow- That was an extensive list, K...it makes Snape's Patronus all the more difficult to guess. ;-) What do you suppose it might be? Cacaia From pam_rosen at yahoo.com Wed Jun 28 21:50:19 2006 From: pam_rosen at yahoo.com (Pamela Rosen) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:50:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Maybe Harry doesn't die??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060628215019.33208.qmail@web30808.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154573 UNIX4EVR wrote: Was just reading the Mugglenet interview. JKR says that Harry has already suffered enough -- does that mean he won't die? Pam: She also said "I never intended to kill off (Harry) before the end of the 7th book. Can that be read to mean "Harry will die at the end of the 7th book?" From tiamat at aapt.net.au Thu Jun 29 06:36:56 2006 From: tiamat at aapt.net.au (Fiona Brown) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:36:56 +1000 Subject: Tom Riddle's Birthday STRANGE Isn't it-- Was Happy Birthday list In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44A37508.6040806@aapt.net.au> No: HPFGUIDX 154574 > On 6/27/06, Phil Vlasak wrote: >> Here is my collected list of birthday wishes from Jo's site: >> Section: Unfortunate Birthday >> 31 december >> Tom Marvolo Riddle >> Note the December 31 date is exactly 6 months from Harry's birthday. Probably just picking nits here, but from 31 July to 31 December is actually 5 months. Fiona From unix4evr at yahoo.com Thu Jun 29 14:02:05 2006 From: unix4evr at yahoo.com (UNIX4EVR) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 14:02:05 -0000 Subject: Maybe Harry doesn't die??? In-Reply-To: <20060628215019.33208.qmail@web30808.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154575 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Pamela Rosen wrote: > > Pam: > She also said "I never intended to kill off (Harry) before the end > of the 7th book. Can that be read to mean "Harry will die at the end > of the 7th book?" > Nope, not quite. The real quote is: JK: No, I've never been tempted to kill him off before the end of Book 7 because I've always planned seven books; that's where I want to - I want to finish on seven books. TEMPTED Big difference between tempted and intended. She also goes on to say: JK: But I can completely understand the mentality of an author who thinks I'm going to kill him off because then there can be no non- author-written sequels, so they call it. ". . .THINKS I'm going to kill him off." From evangelist at ihug.co.nz Thu Jun 29 13:06:47 2006 From: evangelist at ihug.co.nz (Tim) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 01:06:47 +1200 Subject: Mirror of Erised In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44A3D067.1060004@ihug.co.nz> No: HPFGUIDX 154576 Tim I thrust the last two posts into one because bot replies came to me at the same time so here goes. And > Tim wrote: > Now the point is for me that JKR is using the Mirror of Erised to > illustrate the dependence some have on external thing (TV, et al.) > to remove them from reality into their desires > Mark: > Do you think the HP books could be considered one of these external > things? The HP books themsleves are like the mirror; everyone sees > what they want to in them (I think this list proves that) and it's > best not to spend all your time reading them. The HP books "give us > neither knowledge or truth. Men [and women] have wasted away before > [them], entranced by what they have [read], or been driven mad, not > knowing if what [the books] [say] is real or even possible." > > Those were definitely my feelings after HBP! Tim: In short yes. But the books give us understanding if we read them with the right filters. The content of the list shows us this; people debate the ethics of different actions in context. But to me it's stating the dangers of mirror of erised (tv etc) because people are not critically engaging with what they are seeing. Yes the HP books could be seen this way, yet to me the way people are engaging with the content of the HP series shows that this is slightly different as some people will always remove what is said, written, or displayed from the context intended and create catastrophe for those who don't. Why yes? Well, all mediums presented to the public offer a kind of alienation from reality. TV does it, movies doe it, books do it, most do. They set about creating a believable reality the audience can by into, and frequently believe. To me it all depends on the way an audience member interacts with what they are "seeing", we (on HPFGU) no matter how obsessed with the books generally strip the reality from the series and view it critically reflecting on the content rather than it possibly being a fantasy or possible for us. I think the illusion of MTV, Hollywood, movie star, is the most apt for what I see as an illustration of the mirror because of the illusion of possibility that is presented - an illusion that for many especially those of us from less than well off families will never know, and that illusion creates an obsession that becomes destructive. A destructive force that I don't personally think the HP books have because the illusion presented isn't as close to that presented by the everyday visual ones. > houyhnhnm: > > I see the Harry Potter books as being more like a Pensieve. > Thoughts about RL people and conflicts can be put into the > Potterverse, examined with greater objectivity and analyzed > with greater detachment. Then, hopefully, one comes out > with fresh insight. > > Like lately I have been thinking a lot about the > characteristics of the four Hogwarts houses, their > strengths and weaknesses, and why they don't get along. > In the real world (of an urban school)I don't have to > deal with Gryffindor, Slytherin, Ravenclaw, and Hufflepuff, > but I do have to deal with four cliques-Latin, Asian, > black, and white. The conflicts between them are very > similar to what occurs between opposing house members at > Hogwarts. Even the stereotypes that each group has about > the others are similar. I don't think it is time wasted at all. Tim: Personally I think what JKR is saying is that people have defined their lives around what they have seen on TV, and in various other media and it has kinda destroyed who they really are. Yes it the mirror (and tv etc) does create an opportunity to consider what is occuring around us - after all that is what many, if not most of the people involved believe they are doing, and independantly they are, yet cumulatively they are creating worlds that people escape where they are, who they are, alienating themselves from the reality that they are in (which is not necessarily a bad thing until it comes to dominate a persons identity). The parallel is I think, that sense of restraint, and caution, is required in out interaction with our interaction with such things. If we know what it truly is, what is actually showing us then we can better understand what is being presented to us. It is not the content but what we do with it that is being warned against. And in response to the conflicts: yes, I see similar ones as well. Being involved in a political party in New Zealand I see the Gryffindor, Slytherin, Ravenclaw, and Hufflepuff characteristics all the time. I myself swing between the Ravenclaw and Slytherin depictions of character most frequently, although most in my position do also. My question remains are there any other things displayed in the HP series that reflect things in RL that we could learn from? To me the HP books offer loads of allusions to RL scenarios, trends and issues. Tim From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Jun 29 14:33:12 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 14:33:12 -0000 Subject: Maybe Harry doesn't die??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154577 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "UNIX4EVR" wrote: > > JK: No, I've never been tempted to kill him off before the end of Book 7 because I've always planned seven books; that's where I want to - I want to finish on seven books. > > TEMPTED > > Big difference between tempted and intended. > > She also goes on to say: > > JK: But I can completely understand the mentality of an author who > thinks I'm going to kill him off because then there can be no non- > author-written sequels, so they call it. > > ". . .THINKS I'm going to kill him off." > Tonks: I just had a wild thought. There is an epilogue to the last book. So what if she doesn't kill him off at 17, but in the epilogue tells us that he married Ginny, had 12 kids, lived his life and died at 150. That way she can do both!! Tonks_op From MadameSSnape at aol.com Thu Jun 29 14:37:24 2006 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 10:37:24 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Maybe Harry doesn't die??? Message-ID: <326.68350a7.31d53fa4@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154578 In a message dated 6/29/2006 10:05:58 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, unix4evr at yahoo.com writes: She also goes on to say: JK: But I can completely understand the mentality of an author who thinks I'm going to kill him off because then there can be no non- author-written sequels, so they call it. ". . .THINKS I'm going to kill him off." ============== Sherrie here: Because of the discussion that follows this comment, I think there ought to be quotes (inverted commas) around that statement, as she's actually quoting what the author is thinking - i.e., "...an author who thinks, 'I'm going to kill him off...'." I believe this is the proper punctuation, because she then goes on to cite Agatha Christie killing off Hercule Poirot (in CURTAIN) - which Dame Agatha did for EXACTLY the reason cited. (She killed off Miss Marple for the same reason, in SLEEPING MURDER.) Read this way, it looks a little less hopeful for Harry, IMHO. Sherrie (who has fully expected since Book 1 that Harry would die in the end) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Thu Jun 29 14:27:06 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 14:27:06 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione Was:Re: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154579 -> SSSusan: > >>> Pippin gave a couple of examples of Hermione & Ron letting Harry > down in "grand scale" ways. To those I'd also add Hermione's handling > of the setup of Dumbledore's Army. I believe she REALLY handled that > poorly, where Harry was concerned. She knew she was making it a > much bigger group than she'd led Harry on to believe, and she also > didn't prepare him at all for what she planned for that first > gathering in the Hog's Head. It's like she knew what SHE wanted, and > she didn't really care whether it's what Harry was comfortable with > or wanted or not. Amiable Dorsai: Granted, that Hermione pulled a bit of a Gandalf, but she did it with Harry's permission: "Hermione shook her head exasperatedly and, ignoring Ron, who was continuing to watch her, said to Harry, `Well, what do you think? Will you teach us?' `Just you and Ron, yeah?' `Well,' said Hermione, looking a mite anxious again. `Well now, don't fly off the handle again, Harry, please but I really think you ought to teach anyone who wants to learn. I mean, we're talking about defending ourselves against V-Voldemort. Oh, don't be pathetic, Ron. It doesn't seem fair if we don't offer the chance to other people.' Harry considered this for a moment, then said, `Yeah, but I doubt anyone except you two would want to be taught by me. I'm a nutter, remember?' `Well, I think you might be surprised how many people would be interested in hearing what you've got to say' said Hermione seriously. `Look,' she leaned towards him - Ron, who was still watching her with a frown on his face, leaned forwards to listen too - `you know the first weekend in October's a Hogsmeade weekend? How would it be if we tell anyone who's interested to meet us in the village and we can talk it over?'" Harry does not disagree with Hermione's suggestion, nor does he set a limit on membership. For that matter, the number of invitees quickly spirals out of Hermione's control: "`Who are you?' said Ron, rather rudely. `Zacharias Smith,' said the boy, `and I think we've got the right to know exactly what makes him say You-Know-Who's back.' `Look,' said Hermione, intervening swiftly, `that's really not what this meeting was supposed to be about -' `It's OK, Hermione,' said Harry. It had just dawned on him why there were so many people there. He thought Hermione should have seen this coming. Some of these people - maybe even most of them - had turned up in the hopes of hearing Harry's story firsthand." (All quotes from "Order of the Phoenix") Aside from the people who showed up more out of curiosity than commitment, Ginny invited Michael Corner and his friends, and Cho dragged along Marietta. So Hermione got more people than she bargained for. Should she have warned Harry? Probably, but Harry had been imitating a skrewt with PMS all term, I can't say I blame her too much for not wanting to set him off yet again. Amiable Dorsai From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Jun 29 15:04:12 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 15:04:12 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione Was:Re: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154580 > > SSSusan again: > See, to me, there is no question that *in that moment* Harry was > livid; he was furious with Hermione; he felt *let down* by her. Was > the DA a good idea? Yes, in the end. Did Hermione PREPARE Harry as > best she could? I would say absolutely not. Did she think through > the best way to start up the group? I would argue absolutely not. > Why not begin with a small group of people Harry *trusted* -- say, > Neville, Ginny, the twins, Dean & Lavender, his Quidditch teammates? Hickengruendler: Who says, that this isn't what Hermione did? To me, it seems likely that it was a mouth-to-mouth thingy. Hermione told a few people, let's say Neville, Luna, Cho and Ernie, because they openly stood by Harry, plus Lavender, Parvati and Dean and of course the Weasleys. Then Ginny told her classmate Colin, who told his brother Dennis. Fred and George told it their Quidditch mates. Parvati told her twin sister, Cho told Marietta, and Ernie told his friends. Ginny probably also told her boyfriend Michael, who told his friends. And we knew that Zacharias overheard Hermione telling Ernie. IMO this makes more sense, then Hermione randomly telling people, she hardly knows, about a secret group. It was trust thing, and everybody told this a few more people they trusted with the secret. Hermione seemed as surprised by the number of people as Harry did. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Jun 29 16:55:38 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:55:38 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione Was:Re: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154581 Amiable Dorsai: > Granted, that Hermione pulled a bit of a Gandalf, but she did it > with Harry's permission: SSSusan: Yep, and I acknowledged in my last post that he did not argue against Hermione when she suggested that anyone who wanted to learn should be allowed to learn, when she brought it up days before the HH meeting. OTOH, either before they left Hogwarts that day, or right there in the Hog's Head when he asked how many were expected, she had the chance to tell him the number she expected. Even if more came than what she expected, she didn't have to say "A couple of people." She knew better than that and did Harry a disservice to not admit so, imho. Amiable Dorsai: > For that matter, the number of invitees quickly spirals out of > Hermione's control: > > "`Who are you?' said Ron, rather rudely. > > `Zacharias Smith,' said the boy, `and I think we've got the right to > know exactly what makes him say You-Know-Who's back.' > > `Look,' said Hermione, intervening swiftly, `that's really not what > this meeting was supposed to be about -' > > `It's OK, Hermione,' said Harry. > > It had just dawned on him why there were so many people there. He > thought Hermione should have seen this coming. Some of these > people - maybe even most of them - had turned up in the hopes of > hearing Harry's story firsthand." (All quotes from "Order of the > Phoenix") SSSusan: Not sure how you're sure it spiraled out of her control from that quote. Do we *know* that she didn't know how to contain the number? that she was totally surprised by how many came? Also, I guess I look at that bit at the end of the quote as support for why I think Harry FELT let down (whether he "should" have or not, I'm arguing simply that he DID). It says, "He thought Hermione should have seen this coming." IOW, he was annoyed that she did not see it coming. Hickengruendler: > To me, it seems likely that it was a mouth-to-mouth thingy. > > Hermione told a few people, let's say Neville, Luna, Cho and Ernie, > because they openly stood by Harry, plus Lavender, Parvati and Dean > and of course the Weasleys. Then Ginny told her classmate Colin, > who told his brother Dennis. Fred and George told it their > Quidditch mates. Parvati told her twin sister, Cho told Marietta, > and Ernie told his friends. Ginny probably also told her boyfriend > Michael, who told his friends. And we knew that Zacharias overheard > Hermione telling Ernie. IMO this makes more sense, then Hermione > randomly telling people, she hardly knows, about a secret group. It > was trust thing, and everybody told this a few more people they > trusted with the secret. > > Hermione seemed as surprised by the number of people as Harry did. SSSusan: But see, this is exactly where I think Hermione failed Harry. While I'm not convinced she was as surprised as Harry by the number, I do think things likely happened the way you suggested -- word of mouth, so & so inviting so & so. But what I'm saying she should have done is invited a select few (such as those you mentioned) and telling them that, FOR NOW, they were keeping it small -- no further invitations. Why couldn't she have done that for Harry? Surrounded him with those he knew & trusted, sorted out what they wanted to do, then *discussed* whom else to invite? I realize that I'm acknowledging Harry didn't tell her "NO! Don't invite anyone who wants to learn!" but it's also clear that Harry has reservations about the whole thing and that he's worried about too many people coming. He expected Hermione to handle things with HIM in mind, I think; to have thought things through; probably to have invited only people he knew & trusted -- that's clear from the text when he's angry with her and when he thinks that she should have seen this coming. Amiable Dorsai: > Should she have warned Harry? Probably, but Harry had been > imitating a skrewt with PMS all term, I can't say I blame her too > much for not wanting to set him off yet again. SSSusan: LOLOL! Now *that*, AD, is the *one* thing I've read which makes me seriously consider cutting her some slack here! I'm not surprised it came from you. ;-) Siriusly Snapey Susan From unix4evr at yahoo.com Thu Jun 29 16:55:32 2006 From: unix4evr at yahoo.com (UNIX4EVR) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:55:32 -0000 Subject: Maybe Harry doesn't die??? In-Reply-To: <326.68350a7.31d53fa4@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154582 The comments in the interview just make it impossible to know -- typical Jo! I don't want Harry to die -- but the biggest "hint" that he will comes from an early interview with JKR. At the time some fundamentalists were saying HP was anti-Christian (magic and all that). She commented that by the end of the series there would be no doubt that she was a Christian. Which to me reads "ultimate sacrifice" and a resurrection of sorts (not coming back to life, but perhaps going on to another realm where DD, his parents, etc. exist). More quotes (these from 1999): Is she a Christian? JKR ''Yes, I am,'' she says. ''Which seems to offend the religious right far worse than if I said I thought there was no God. Every time I've been asked if I believe in God, I've said yes, because I do, but no one ever really has gone any more deeply into it than that, and I have to say that does suit me, because if I talk too freely about that I think the intelligent reader, whether 10 or 60, will be able to guess what's coming in the books.'' From juli17 at aol.com Thu Jun 29 16:42:27 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 12:42:27 EDT Subject: Moral code of HP books (was Being Good and Evil) Message-ID: <4ba.2a55f4d.31d55cf3@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154583 Alla: No, absolutely not. I do NOT judge Marietta based on how much I dislike her, I judge her based on her ACTION, that is why it matters to me very much what kind of person receives the punishment. I would not as far as to say that Marietta is a completely horrible person, she is too minor character for that, but I absolutely think that her action is horrible. THUS because and ONLY because her action is horrible I think that she deserved everything she got. Julie: Marietta's action is wrong, but does Hermione compounding one wrong with another suddenly make it right? I realize that two negatives make a positive in mathematics, but I don't think it works that way in ethics. As the old saying goes, "two wrongs don't make a right." But the moral code of the HP books from all sides seems to be two wrongs DOES make a right. If someone hexes you hex 'em back worse. If someone betrays you, betray 'em back worse. So James and Snape hex each other back and forth, Hermione brands Marietta for telling on the DA, Lupin is willing to kill Peter for betraying the Potters, etc. In the HP world there are few wizards consistently taking the moral high ground, except for Dumbledore. And JKR considers him the epitome of goodness. That's not because he's perfect (as he isn't), but because he never answers a wrong with another wrong, not intentionally at least. (IMO) If JKR has any moral message in these books, I really think it will not be "an eye for an eye" but "do onto others as you would like them to do onto you" (for those who see the influence of JKR's Christian upbringing). And I think that is something Harry will have to learn, and maybe Gryffindor in general, if the "good" side is to win and if Hogwarts is to reunite it houses and survive. Julie, who is not disputing that Marietta's betrayal should have been revealed, but not in such a nasty (evil) way [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Jun 29 16:44:10 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:44:10 -0000 Subject: Gone a while - question about Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154584 > Carol responds: > I don't agree with the theory, either. (Sorry, Potioncat!) It makes > Dumbledore too culpable, and besides, why would he offer himself as > Secret Keeper if he *wanted* Voldemort to try to thwart the Prophecy > by marking Baby!Harry as the Chosen One? And he told Harry that Snape > was still a Death Eater reporting to his master at that point. I don't > think he would lie to Harry about that, especially when he wants Harry ?h to trust Snape. Potioncat: DD says of the intruder, "being in LV's employ, he reported at once." So either DD knew Snape was a DE at that time, or he found out later. But even if DD didn't know Snape was a DE, it's odd he'd just let him go after hearing the Prophecy. He must know that Snape's friends are DEs. It looks to me as if DD knows he'll need to protect Trelawney; he expects LV to find out. (I'm not suggesting DD ought to have Obliviated him--but one wonders why he didn't.) The possibilities are: 1. DD lets Snape leave, knowing Snape heard part of the Prophecy. He doesn't know Snape is a DE, but he does know how important this information would be to LV, and he knows Snape has DE contacts. It's a risk--Snape could tell the "Funny thing that happened at the Hog's Head" story while sharing a few brews with the old gang. DD hires Trelawney and waits. 2. DD knows Snape is a DE. Knows the information will get to LV, lets Snape go. DD hires Trelawney and waits. 3. After finishing Trelawney's interview, DD interviews Snape. Snape has come to talk to DD because Snape wants out of the DEs and knows DD will help him. For whatever reason Snape joined in the first place, he's now sorry and he needs help. Perhaps Regulus is already dead. DD needs someone to spy for him, and he knows Snape is a sneak. (Yeah, well, I can hardly deny that, can I?) So Snape agrees to spy for DD. DD suggests Snape take this bit of information back to LV and to keep DD informed of LV's plans. DD hires Trelawney and waits. I think the phrase "in his employ" implies that Snape was no longer a Death Eater at heart, but was obligated to continue serving. >Carol: > Nor do I think that the Prophecy would have been made as early as > September, as Potioncat suggests. I don't think even a Seer could > predict the "approach" of "one" who hadn't been conceived yet. I think > it would have been made on Halloween night (after the feast), which > would be Harry's conception date if we consider a pregnancy as being > exactly nine months long (as, of course, it wouldn't be in RL, but ?h this is the Potterverse). Potioncat: I like Halloween as the date. I really, really do. However, if you look at what Trelawney says and when she says it, she had to have made the Prophecy before Halloween. That is assuming that what she says is precise and JKR had done her math. (A lot to expect, I know.) She says to the class that 16 years of service has passed--then more time passes in the book before we are told it's November. So I'm betting Sep/early Oct. I considered the problem with the Prophecy happening before the conception. Then I thought about the most frequently debated parallel to HP---that story has a savior's birth being Prophesied long before the conception. (I don't want to start a new debate over that.) Carol: (BTW, I think that > Snape's reference in "Spinner's End" to sixteen years of information > on DD is a slip--he'd been working with and for DD for sixteen years, > but only fifteen as a Hogwarts teacher.) But even though he was loyal > to DD and regretted revealing the Prophecy to LV, the remorse didn't > fully kick in until after Godric's Hollow. I don't think he would have > felt that remorse if revealing the partial Prophecy to LV had been ?h part of a plan between DD and himself. Potioncat: It isn't a slip if LV sent Snape to spy on DD the night of the Prophecy. For example: LV wants someone at Hogwarts. Snape would be a good choice for DADA teacher, given his interest in the subject. He isn't openly a DE and his Half-Blood status would make him an unlikely member. So, on LV's orders, he goes to apply for the position. Trelawney thinks he's there for the job, so it's likely the DADA position hadn't yet been filled. DD turns him down, or he doesn't even get to apply, after the fiasco at the key hole, but he keeps applying and finally gets the job. This works whether or not Snape had "returned" yet. He could have been acting on LV's orders all along, and at some point used the chance to ask DD for help. Quotes are from memory--I know better--so I'm crossing my fingers and hoping I got it right. Potioncat, who will be very sad if Snape dies and/or is evil; but thinks whatever JKR works out will still be a very satisfying ending. This is the second attempt to post. Apologies if it comes up twice. Seems someone turned me into a ferret. I think I've found the counter- curse. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 29 17:25:22 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 17:25:22 -0000 Subject: DD death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154586 Honeykissed: > I also think Snape is innocent and playing for the DD side. I think > DD used Snape because he knew that people (including LV) would buy > it. Here is Snape, former DE, Potters killer, horrible attitude, > all of a sudden he is remorseful, but no one but "old" DD trust > him. But DD isn't telling anyone "why" he trust him. Not only > that, if he shared this information with anyone else, he risked it > getting out and destroying the entire plan. I am convinced that DD > told Snape that he would have to kill him and made him promise (just > like he did Harry in the cave scene). I don't think Snape wanted to > do it but had to. Snape had a fairly decent job, was HOH and > protected and he let all of that go for the sake of saving the WW > (IMO). Now everyone thinks he is a murderer and playing for LV. I > don't think this is the case and we will see how it plays out in > book 7. Carol responds: The Potters' killer? Possibly Harry thinks that (if "Kill me like you killed him!" relates to James, not dumbledore), but what he did is eavesdrop and reveal part of a prophecy made before he could possibly know who it referred to and which he must have regretted revealing or he would not have "returned" to Dumbledore and spied for him "at great personal risk." To state the obvious, "the Potters' killer" is Voldemort; their betrayer is Wormtail. The enitre WW knows the first part. After Harry's interview with Rita skeeter appeared in the Daily Prophet, they may know Wormtail's role as well. No one except the two Dumbledores (Albus and Aberforth), Snape himself, and now Harry knows Snape's role. (He gave a very inaccurate and abbreviated account to the Order, which I hope that Lupin or someone else will question.) Trelawney herself only knows that he eavesdropped on her job interview. It's unclear how much McGonagall and the other Order members knew, probably only that he had been a DE and was cleared of all charges after Dumbledore testified to Crouch that he was spying for their side. Later, of course, they would know that he was spying on the Death Eaters by pretending he was still loyal to LV. That, it seems to me, is the basis for McGonagall's statement that she only trusted him because Dumbledore did. I see no such attitude in the earlier books, where she seems to regard him chiefly as the Head of her House's chief Quidditch rival. Certainly, she follows his lead in dealing with Lockhart in CoS, as do the other HoHs. That said, I agree with your basic position: Snape didn't want to kill Dumbledore. I think he hoped until the last moment that the confrontation between Draco and Dumbledore would never happen. In any case, he knew that Dumbledore had given him the cursed DADA position expecting him to return to the DEs under cover at the end of the year. But he cannot have anticipated an incapacitated, wandless Dumbledore facing four DEs (not including Draco) on the tower. He must see that there's no way to save Dumbledore. He must know that Harry is there in his Invisibility Cloak because of the second broom. He must feel the UV about to kick in. He has only seconds to act, but he hesitates. Only after Dumbledore says "Severus" does his face contort in fury and revulsion, which Harry takes to be hatred (Why? What cause does Snape have to hate DD? And why, if he hates him, didn't he immediately kill him?) but which I take to be self-hatred and revulsion at what both he and DD know he must do. And only when DD says, "Severus, please" does he finally make his terrible choice, not to die with DD but to kill himself, send his body over the battlements so Greyback can't ravage it, and get Draco and the DEs off the tower, away from the invisible Harry so he can't come charging out to fight them in the confined space of the tower. There is, of course, the possibility that Snape didn't kill DD and somehow escaped the consequences of the UV (Pippin's view), but in any case, I think Snape did what was right and not what was easy. Whether he killed DD against his will or only appears to have done so, he must bear the resulting infamy and self-hatred and return to Voldemort's side. If indeed he is DDM! the truth *must* come out in Book 7. Whether he lives or dies, Harry and the reader will know, finally, that Snape's loyalties lie in exactly the same place as Harry's. I know I'm not alone in thinking that he's the main character that JKR originally sentenced to die and has now given a reprieve. He's the only besides Percy for whom that decision makes sense, and he's much more important than Percy. Carol, apologizing for repeating certain arguments and hoping that at least some list members have not encountered them before From phil at pcsgames.net Thu Jun 29 17:51:32 2006 From: phil at pcsgames.net (Phil Vlasak) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 13:51:32 -0400 Subject: -=Spam=- [HPforGrownups] Re: Tom Riddle's Birthday STRANGE Isn't it-- Was Happy Birthday list References: <44A37508.6040806@aapt.net.au> Message-ID: <012901c69ba4$b0f6e470$6600a8c0@phil> No: HPFGUIDX 154587 Phil said: 31 December >> Tom Marvolo Riddle >> Note the December 31 date is exactly 6 months from Harry's birthday. Probably just picking nits here, but from 31 July to 31 December is actually 5 months. Fiona Phil Again, Well maybe December 31 is six months from July 31 in the Wizard World? After all, September 1 is always on a Sunday in the Wizard world! Or maybe my maths are not too great! Or maybe there are 14 months in the Wizard calendar so Harry's birth will be exactly seven months from Toms! Phil [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From diznee_baby at yahoo.com Thu Jun 29 16:42:18 2006 From: diznee_baby at yahoo.com (diznee_baby) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:42:18 -0000 Subject: Maybe Harry doesn't die??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154588 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Pamela Rosen > wrote: > > Nope, not quite. The real quote is: > > JK: No, I've never been tempted to kill him off before the end of Book > 7 because I've always planned seven books; that's where I want to - I > want to finish on seven books. > > TEMPTED > > Big difference between tempted and intended. > > She also goes on to say: > > JK: But I can completely understand the mentality of an author who > thinks I'm going to kill him off because then there can be no non- > author-written sequels, so they call it. > > ". . .THINKS I'm going to kill him off." > Newbie here! I just thought I would include JKR's response in it's entirety(sp?): JK: But I can completely understand the mentality of an author who thinks I'm going to kill him off because then there can be no non- author-written sequels, so they call it. So, it will end with me. And, after I'm dead and gone, they won't be able to bring back the character and write a load of... Being from the US, I was unable, of course, to see the interview first hand. After reading and re-reading the transcript however, I'm thinking that she was improperly quoted. If you read her reponse like this: JK: But I can completely understand the mentality of an author who thinks, "I'm going to kill him off because then there can be no non- author-written sequels, so they call it. So, it will end with me. And, after I'm dead and gone, they won't be able to bring back the character and write a load of..." Notice the quotation marks. If this is, in fact, how she intended her reponse, then all we have is her communicating her understanding of what another author might do in her situation. NOT necessarily what she intends to do. So we are still back to Harry may, or may not, die. Personally, I'm hoping for the latter. DizneeBaby From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Jun 29 18:10:18 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 18:10:18 -0000 Subject: Gone a while - question about Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154589 >> Potioncat: > I like Halloween as the date. I really, really do. However, if you > look at what Trelawney says and when she says it, she had to have > made the Prophecy before Halloween. That is assuming that what she > says is precise and JKR had done her math. zgirnius: I think assuming Trelwney's statements to Umbridge in OotP about how long she had been working at Hogwarts are perfectly accurate is not reasonable. When a person says how many years they have been doing soemthing, they are not going to worry about a few months here or there. If she was hired in November after an Oct. 31 interview, she would have been working at Hogwarts for 15 years and some 10 to 11 months, depending when she made the statement. Rounding up to 16 seems reasonable. It would also be the 16th year in which she has taught at Hogwarts for at least part of the year. Finally, she was intimidated by Umbridge; I would tend to think that would make her try to claim longer tenure rather than shorter. > Potioncat: > It isn't a slip if LV sent Snape to spy on DD the night of the > Prophecy. For example: LV wants someone at Hogwarts. Snape would be a > good choice for DADA teacher, given his interest in the subject. He > isn't openly a DE and his Half-Blood status would make him an > unlikely member. zgirnius: It seems to me that the same characteristics that might make Snape a reasonable person to send to try and land a job at Hogwarts also make it more reasonable for Dumbledore to decide not to take action against Snape when he is caught listening at the keyhole. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 29 17:54:01 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 17:54:01 -0000 Subject: JKR borrows from heroic literature/ who dies? In-Reply-To: <44A34B26.3050108@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154590 Carol earlier: > > > In the same interview in which JKR talked about giving a character a reprieve she talked about the temptation of killing off the main character so that no one else could take him over and write more books about him (presumably after her death or the copyright has expired??), but I don't think she would do that. For one thing, we have "neither can live while the other survives." I think that means that the winner (clearly Harry) will finally be able to live, to be "Just Harry," to have normal relationships and finish school and get a job like any other young wizard (or Muggle). > KJ writes: > > The thing that seriously bothers me about this is that Harry has never had the chance to just be Harry. He has always been a child with no family, a child in the public eye. As a result, he has suffered from the ministry, the press, classmates, and even his budding social life is messed up. Do you really think that if he wins out over Voldemorte that he would ever have a chance at a "normal" life? I don't. He will never get a job because of his own abilities. He will be the Boy-Who-Lived-And- Defeated-Voldemorte. He will be even more in the hated limelight. This is why I tend to think that Harry may not survive, it would not be a great life for him. He hates the notoriety, the fawning, the gossiping, and the over-blown expectations of others. Carol responds: Yes, I absolutely believe that JKR intends to reward Harry with a normal life, the life he's tasted with the Weasleys and his brief fling with Ginny but never fully participated in because he's always been "a marked man" (or "marked boy"). He's learned to live with both fame and notoriety, even with infamy when he was regarded by most of his schoolmates as the Heir of Slytherin. And if he still wants a job as an Auror, fighting any Dark wizards who are still out there (I anticipate another Azkaban outbreak in Book 7, for one thing), he can qualify on his own merits (though I hope he wouldn't be given special privileges like being able to skip his last year at Hogwarts and the three years of training. Having to go through what every other Auror goes through would help to "normalize" him). And assuming that Ginny survives, he has what JKR considers to be his perfect future wife waiting for him (or sharing the battle with him). Killing Harry off during the battle with LV would be the easy way out. And unless JKR is a hypocrite, she'll do what is right rather than what is easy by allowing him to "live" rather than merely "survive" as he's done for most of his seventeen years (as of Book 7). JKR says that she worded the Prophecy carefully, and I'm sure she worded it so that, Dumbledore's skepticism to the contrary, it will come true in the end. I take "either must die at the hand of the other" to mean "either Harry or Voldemort must die at the hand of the other"--IOW, only one will die, and it won't be Harry. Carol, who is sure that JKR won't kill off her hero or his future wife or his best friend because she wants him to be rewarded and because by the end of Book 7, he will have suffered more than enough From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Jun 29 18:30:13 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 18:30:13 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154591 houyhnhnm: > > Marietta did not betray the DAs for personal gain. Alla: > Do we know that? Oh, Pshaw! Are you inventing a pony or something that Madam Edgecombe gave her for trying to be a tattletale? Alla: > For life - no, but for some time - to me she absolutely did. houyhnhnm: Marietta's nose and cheeks were "horribly disfigured by a series of close-set purple pustules". Close-set--the Muggle medical term is coalesced. Purple pustules. We're not talking about ordinary teenage zits here. I'm tempted to insert a link, but I won't. Just do an image search on "facial impetigo". More than four months later she still had them. So yes, I would say that without some kind of extraordinary magical intervention yet to occur, her face is disfigured for life. From evangelist at ihug.co.nz Thu Jun 29 17:54:40 2006 From: evangelist at ihug.co.nz (Tim) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 05:54:40 +1200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Moral code of HP books (was Being Good and Evil) In-Reply-To: <4ba.2a55f4d.31d55cf3@aol.com> References: <4ba.2a55f4d.31d55cf3@aol.com> Message-ID: <44A413E0.30405@ihug.co.nz> No: HPFGUIDX 154592 Julie: Marietta's action is wrong, but does Hermione compounding one wrong with another suddenly make it right? I realize that two negatives make a positive in mathematics, but I don't think it works that way in ethics. As the old saying goes, "two wrongs don't make a right." But the moral code of the HP books from all sides seems to be two wrongs DOES make a right. ... Hermione brands Marietta for telling on the DA, Lupin is willing to kill Peter for betraying the Potters, etc. Tim: Well you're right of course two wrongs do not make a right. But when has that ever worried justice systems worldwide? Punishment for crimes (whatever they are) are retaliatory acts, designed at setting the recipient up as an example, a deterrent through example. So this is not simply a WW thing but a RW thing as well it is just that most reasonable people hand over "that happy power" (severus in CoS) to those in privileged positions who generally know the most fitting reply. In that respect it is perfectly understandable to me that Hermione set up some kind of recourse for a situation that exposed the DA, especially over the people she could control - especially as no-one was to know about the DAs existence in the first place. I might be so bold as to remind you that in some cultures' ethics that two "wrongs" you say may not necessarily make a right, but they do bring closure to the situation for at least one side of the argument. However the issue of retaliation for me should always fall short of death or killing, no matter what the circumstance Julie: > In the HP world there are few wizards consistently taking the moral > high ground, except for Dumbledore. And JKR considers him the > epitome of goodness. That's not because he's perfect (as he isn't), > but because he never answers a wrong with another wrong, not > intentionally at least. (IMO) Tim: So true, that is why I loved DD. Especially his solutions to the problems he faced. > Julie, who is not disputing that Marietta's betrayal should have been > revealed, but not in such a nasty (evil) way Tim: It is only a facial blemish after all. And although it was backhanded and conniving I wouldn't call it evil. From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Thu Jun 29 19:25:04 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 19:25:04 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154593 > > > Betsy Hp: > > > > > Look, two characters get branded in OotP: Marietta and Harry. > > > We like Harry so it's Bad that he was branded. We don't like > > > Marietta so it's Good that she was branded. And that sort of > > > moralizing is ripe for abuse. Because you're not judging > > > someone by their actions or a set of rules. You're judging > > > them by how much you like them, and with your own sense > > > of righteousness. > > > > Lanval: > Keep in mind that she was well aware of another group of friends, > who paid dearly for having a traitor in their midst and not > realizing it. > > So here she is, trying to come up with a plan. The DA MUST be kept > secret. > > That having been said, it *was* cruel to let the effects of the > hex linger for so long. A few days, a week maybe, would have > served its purpose. aussie: (answering the last thing first) Who says that Marietta has to go to Flitwick, Bill, St Mungo's or anyone else except back to Hermione and appologise. Then the cure would be less than a week if Marietta just trusted Harry, et al. Especially after LV was confirmed being sighted in MOM, she should have sent an owl to Harry straight away. Forgiveness needs an appology to start with. Hermione had already shown a willingness to forgive with Rita. For Hermione, this was not school kid rivally, but war with LV returned which Umbridge violently (dementors and detentions) refused to accept. In Qudditch terms, she was a good seeker to catch that snitch. Betsy's comments haunted me though. Whether it is torture from "good" people or "bad" people, it doesn't matter. If you are on the receiving end, it still hurts. Not many of us would never find themselves in a position of trusting and supporting the wrong person at some time in our lives. I visited Jerusalem once and saw the museum for Holocost victims. The carnage initiated with 36 arrested communists. Because their execussion was deemed "justice", it didn't take too much more stretching of the imagination to add more and more unpopular groups until millions perished. Betsy's comments reminded me that "no-one is expendable". Marietta had a sentence carried out without trial or the chance to plead her reasons. From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Thu Jun 29 17:43:36 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 17:43:36 -0000 Subject: birthday In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154594 > Tonks: > It is a theory that folks here have suggested associated with the > birthday greeting on Rowlings website. The idea is that if she was > going to kill them off she would not wish them a Happy Birthday in 2005 > or 2006, because they would have died in the books before that year. > Ken: Except that since she has just said she's killed off two that she didn't originally intend to kill, everyone on the list is at risk again, even if the theory was true. There is likely to be another year before book 7 is released so nearly everyone's birthday should come up one more time. Even so I doubt she would be so transparent as to remove the two recently deceased characters from the birthday greeting list. 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. Ken From juli17 at aol.com Thu Jun 29 19:08:22 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 15:08:22 -0400 Subject: Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: <1151587739.3029.86379.m39@yahoogroups.com> References: <1151587739.3029.86379.m39@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <8C869C68623F325-D38-132D@FWM-M40.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154595 Alla: (speaking of Marietta) She may have been scared, yes, just as Peter may have been when Voldemort approached him ( if we believe Peter). But no matter what her motivations were, the end result for DA army, whom I see as fighters against Ubridge oppressive regime would have been all the same, they all would have been expelled but for Kingsley quick thinking. I am sure Marietta had her reasons, does it make her action better? Julie: It doesn't make her actions better, but more understandable. And her actions are certainly *not* comparable to Peter's. She might have gotten kids expelled from a school, which is something far less than betraying a family to be brutally murdered. Houyhnhm: I > don't see Marietta as a despicable person at all. Alla: Neither do I, I see her ACTION as despicable. Julie: Her action is wrong, but in the context of her conflicting loyalties, not completely despicable, IMO. Certainly not deserving of the punishment she got. Houyhhmmm: She > may have lacked the maturity to make her own decisions > about right and wrong. She may have lacked the moral > imagination to comprehend that there was a higher cause > to be served than obeying the Ministry and her mother. > She may, in fact, have been a moral simpleton, incapable > of seeing beyond her own selfish fear of getting in trouble. > But she didn't *deserve* to be scarred for life. Alla: For life - no, but for some time - to me she absolutely did. Julie: But it wasn't for "some time" in a reasonable definition of that term. If it had been for a week or two, maybe. But it's gone into the next school year and so far hasn't been removed. Can Hermione remove it, in fact, and if she can then why hasn't someone made her do so? Can the teachers at Hogwarts, can the *headmaster* all believe that Marietta deserves to have the curse continue indefinitely? I don't think so. Surely if it could be removed it would have been. And if Hermione invented a curse that has no countercurse, that's problematic to me also. Maybe this was partly an oversight on JKR's part that one of the "good" children (and they ARE children, while we're calling Marietta despicable in action and deserving of this so far neverending disfiguration) is capable of delivering this curse without qualm or desire to undo it. Or maybe she will address it later. I hope she does, because as it IS now (not the short lived curse that could have been acceptable to some) the whole situation makes me uneasy about how the WW defines what is good and what is bad, what is right and what is wrong. 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 willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Jun 29 19:08:26 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 19:08:26 -0000 Subject: Gone a while - question about Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154596 > zgirnius: > I think assuming Trelwney's statements to Umbridge in OotP about how > long she had been working at Hogwarts are perfectly accurate is not > reasonable. When a person says how many years they have been doing > soemthing, they are not going to worry about a few months here or > there. Potioncat: Oh, I agree. In addition, I don't Trelawney or JKR are very precise people. Yet, this is what I found in chpt 15 when Trelawney is answering Umbridge: "Now, you've been in this post how long, exactly?" After a slight pause in which she seemed to decide that the question was not so offensive that she could reasonably ignore it..."Nearly sixteen years." OK, at that point, I thought I would help Carol's Halloween theory. But when I kept reading, I saw Trelawney word things differently. Two or three weeks pass (as I read it. There are at least two as stated in chp 16) In chpt 17 in Trelawney's class--no Umbridge--and Trelawney says to the students, "I say nothing of 16 years devoted service...it has passed, apparently, unnoticed." There is talk of more time passing. Of Quidditch practices, then in chpt 19, October "extinguished itself in a rush of howling winds." So it seems Trelawney's 16 years happened before Halloween. However, if we think (and one could hardly argue against it) that Trelawney wasn't being precise, we could say Halloween is still within the time frame. > zgirnius: > It seems to me that the same characteristics that might make Snape a > reasonable person to send to try and land a job at Hogwarts also make > it more reasonable for Dumbledore to decide not to take action > against Snape when he is caught listening at the keyhole. Potioncat: Yes, it seems "listening at keyholes" is a trait admired by Dumbledore. > From distaiyi at yahoo.com Thu Jun 29 19:05:00 2006 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 19:05:00 -0000 Subject: JKR borrows from heroic literature/ who dies? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154597 I'm curious how anyone can believe that a Harry who had been the "Boy who lived" and is now "The man who killed Voldemort" can live anything even remotely resembling a normal life? Dark Wizards from everywhere will gun for him as he gets older. Other people will fear him because he is obviously more powerful than them (obviously being relative here). Others will hate him for being famous or for taking away their patron... I personally think JkR feels a need for him to die so he can be normal. Distaiyi From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 29 19:11:29 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 19:11:29 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil /Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154598 > houyhnhnm: > > > > Marietta did not betray the DAs for personal gain. > > Alla: > > > Do we know that? >houyhnhnm > Oh, Pshaw! Are you inventing a pony or something that > Madam Edgecombe gave her for trying to be a tattletale? Alla: If you don't mind, kindly explain what "pshaw" means. By "personal gain" I understand something that will benefit Marietta, being in Umbridge's good graces would benefit Marietta, no? So, I repeat my question. Do we know that Marietta did not want to be in Umbridge good graces? Umbridge would have expelled all of them, no? NOT bein expelled is a personal gain for Marietta, since getting an education is at least a way to get a better carrier than without such in WW, no? So, yes, I see plenty of POSSIBLE personal gain for Marietta to betray DA besides getting a pony. JMO, Alla From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Thu Jun 29 19:53:45 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 19:53:45 -0000 Subject: Dr Neil shuddered for ONE of them (Was: Who dies?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154599 > wrote: > > But I think the gist is right. She says that in book 7 one > character gets a reprieve, but two that she did not intend to kill > off ? die. > > > > Brothergib; > Haven't got time to read through all the replies to find if this > has already been done. The exact quote is; > > "One character got a reprieve but I have to say two die that I did > not intend to die." When asked if the dead characters were "much- > loved ones", she replied: "A price has to be paid. We are dealing > with pure evil here. They don't target extras, do they? They go > for the main characters. . . well, I do." > > Is it also more likely that the two she had not intended to > kill, die at the same time? If that is the case, the most obvious > pair would be Fred & George! Aussie: Don't miss the next few lines of the interview:- "R: We don't care about extras. You told your husband, obviously. You confided in him all things, and you told him. JK: Well, not everything, that would be reckless. 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. - The rest of the DA - made up of Gryffindor's Quidditch team and others singing, "Weasly is our King" - He definately made other friends last year. Right, "Won Won"? - Hermione has never been in a fire fight. She was uncontious for most of the MOM battle and took care of Flint in Snape's room at Hogwarts. With Ron as a casualty, she'd get into Slapping Mode. - Charlie and Percy would come back fighting if Ron was the victim. - and for Harry to understand LV's true evil, it has to be someone emotionally well connected to. JKR's hand is forced. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 29 19:38:58 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 19:38:58 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione Was:Re: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154600 SSSusan wrote: > My point, though, which I don't think I made very well, was that at > that moment in the HH, Harry *did* feel very let down by Hermione, > and I think he had legitimate reason to feel that. NOT because she > did something wrong in suggesting the DA in the first place but > because of *how* she went about it, what she did and didn't tell > Harry, and how she left him hanging. In short, I don't believe she > thought hard enough about how BEST to do this for Harry's sake, and > that is the way in which she let him down. > > Let's look back at the scene, if we could, so that hopefully I can > make my position clearer. > "Well erm well, you know why you're here. Erm well, Harry here > had the idea ? I mean" (Harry had thrown her a sharp look) "I had the idea ." > > It had just dawned on him why there were so many people there. He > thought Hermione should have seen this coming. Some of these people ? maybe even most of them ? had turned up in the hopes of hearing > Harry's story firsthand. > > "If you've come to hear exactly what it looks like when > Voldemort murders someone I can't help you," Harry said. His temper, always so close to the surface these days, was rising again. "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." > > He cast an angry look in Hermione's direction. This was, he felt, all her fault; she had decided to display him like some sort of freak and of course they had all turned up to see just how wild his story was. SSSusan again: > See, to me, there is no question that *in that moment* Harry was livid; he was furious with Hermione; he felt *let down* by her. Was > the DA a good idea? Yes, in the end. Did Hermione PREPARE Harry as > best she could? I would say absolutely not. Did she think through > the best way to start up the group? I would argue absolutely not. > If I were Harry, I, too, would have been furious. How dare she allow people to come to an *opening, organizational* meeting, pretty > much "cornering" Harry, and then attempt to pass the whole thing off > as *Harry's* own idea? If Hermione had thought things through more > fully, had been a little more empathetic concerning Harry, this could have gotten off to a much smoother start, Harry would not have felt so frustrated and angry (and not to mention that Marietta Edgecombe might never have become a part of the group). > > So I just can't back down from including this as a moment where Harry felt let down in a major way by Hermione, regardless of the fact that the DA *turned out* to be a good thing in the end. It was the way it developed, the way she kept Harry in the dark, the way she hadn't thought through what was likely to happen to him. I think it's pretty clear from JKR's writing that Harry felt that way, too. Carol responds: I snipped as much as I could of this post, but I wanted to retain the gist of SSS's argument and the relevant portions of the quoted text. I agree that this is an instance (like the jinx on the parchment and Hermione's Vanishing Harry's potion and the whole business of knitting hats and socks for house-elfs and taking Umbridge to the Centaurs) of Hermione taking matters into her own hands, rather arrogantly assuming that she knows best and not thinking things through, often with unfortunate consequences. (Yes, I know that she's sixteen in OoP and that she had to do *something* to rescue Harry from Umbridge, but nevertheless, Hermione does assume that she knows best rather often. But then, as we've established in another thread, so does Harry under different circumstances.) You're right that Hermione goes about the whole process in a rather dodgy or at least secretive manner and that she doesn't let Harry know what she's doing or anticipate his feelings. Nor does she anticipate that the Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs, who clearly have very little idea what happened in the third-floor corridor with Quirrell or the Chamber of Secrets with Diary!Tom and the Basilisk and even less idea of what happened in the graveyard with LV and Cedric, will want proof that LV is back and that Harry can teach them to defend themselves. But Harry, IMO, overreacts to her interference. He assumes that most of the people who have shown up have come to hear his story firsthand. That's certainly true of Zacharias Smith and may be true for the Ravenclaw boys and for Cho, who cared about Cedric, but it's not the primary motivation for Marietta (who's been dragged there by Cho) or Luna or Ernie or the Gryffindors, all of whom already believe Harry that LV is back. And, just as it was for Seamus earlier in the year, this desire to know what happened in the graveyard is quite understandable. Of course the others want to know how Cedric died, especially Cho and Cedric's fellow Hufflepuff Zacharias, and of course they want proof that Voldemort is back. Harry could have said that the subject is too painful to talk about, or that a Death Eater killed Cedric on LV's orders and then restored LV to his physical self using a potion, but instead he assumes the worst ("*of course* they had all turned up to see just how wild his story was" and Hermione "had decided to display him like some sort of freak"). Taking these assumptions as fact, he blows up at everyone, confirming both Zacharias's and Marietta's suspicions. I think what we're being shown here is not just Hermione's mishandling of the situation but Harry's tendency to judge people and assume the worst. If he had reacted more calmly and understood how little his fellow students really knew about what he had been through, that they had legitimate reasons for suspecting that LV hadn't really come back or at least hoping he hadn't, Harry could have forestalled the whole Marietta situation. In fact, he could have done so by confiding in Cho the details of Cedric's death that she so desperately wanted to know. But throughout OoP, Harry has trouble trusting people, even his friends, and doubts the competence of anyone but himself (except for Hermione's suerior knowledge of books and school subjects, on which both he and Ron lean too heavily). I'm not bashing Harry, who has suffered terribly in the graveyard scene and elsewhere, and who doesn't want to brag about his exploits. But this is another instance, like DD's refusal to tell Harry about Snape, of suppressed information having unfortunate consequences, and of Harry judging others unfairly (as he later misjudges Luna, Neville, and Ginny, and persistently misjudges Snape, IMO). On a side note, when Harry does confide in people, he often forgets to provide key information. As Pippin pointed out, he told DD about Draco's "whoop" but forgot to mention his throwing Trelawney out of the RoR. (His discovery that Snape was the eavesdropper puts this detail out of his mind and prevents Trelawney from going to DD with her story, with dire consequences.) And earlier, when he asks Mr. Weasley to search the Malfoy manor again, he forgets to mention the secret chamber beneath their drawing room (IIRC), where, I suspect, he would find something worse than Dark artifacts--Lucius Malfoy's sister-in-law, Bellatrix Lestrange. Carol, noting that suppressed or forgotten information is one of JKR's favorite devices for manipulating both the plot and the characters, not to mention her readers From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Jun 29 20:20:47 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 20:20:47 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154601 > aussie: (answering the last thing first) > > Who says that Marietta has to go to Flitwick, Bill, St Mungo's or > anyone else except back to Hermione and appologise. Then the cure > would be less than a week if Marietta just trusted Harry, et al. > Especially after LV was confirmed being sighted in MOM, she should > have sent an owl to Harry straight away. Forgiveness needs an > appology to start with. Hermione had already shown a willingness to > forgive with Rita. Magpie: Marietta's been memory charmed so wouldn't be able to make an honest apologize if she tried. I haven't seen any hint in canon that anyone's waiting for an apology from her. It seems like it's just a done deal. I think it's a bit odd to describe Hermione as showing a willingness to forgive with Rita. More like a willingness to punish and make a person to pay for their crimes. Cho shows a willingness to forgive Marietta. Hermione I don't think ever even shows any response to her disfigurement. aussie: > > For Hermione, this was not school kid rivally, but war with LV > returned which Umbridge violently (dementors and detentions) refused > to accept. In Qudditch terms, she was a good seeker to catch that > snitch. Magpie: But why does Hermione define what this was? Hermione set up a secret DA class because the current teacher wasn't teaching. If she actually meant to set up a cult requiring absolute loyalty she really should have been stricter about membership. I would never have suspected, had I been Marietta, that I was cursing myself for life when I reluctantly signed a parchment written by a girl in my class I'd never met before--a girl who herself had moments before referred to the DA as a "study group." Hermione's hex is amazingly pointless when you think about it. It doesn't stop anyone from talking, it doesn't alert anyone in the DA that they've been outed. She doesn't warn anyone that they've been hexed so that she can use it as a deterrant. One might say her own priorities hurt her. It's interesting to wonder just how cohesive a group the DA would be with that level of trust as well. I can't help but suspect that Marietta's disfigurement was mentioned again in HBP for the same reason Montague's condition continued to be mentioned in OotP, because it was one of those things that was going to turn around and bite Harry's side on the butt. This series has proved it knows very well how handing out casual justice can have consequences further down the line. I can't believe JKR thought it was just satisfying to show that Marietta was still hexed- -she has too few lines for readers to really want to see her punished, imo, like Montague did. So I lean towards thinking it's a set up. PAR: I think that somewhere in all this the issue of free will, which JKR said was important to her has been lost. Dudly CHOSE to greedily eat HARRY's Birthday cake before Hagrid gave him a pig's tail. (he chose to be a pig). Dudly chose again to disregard his diet and eat the ton toffee. The twins put the tempation in front of him but they didn't MAKE him eat it. Marietta CHOSE to betray the DA group. She could have told HHP that she didn't feel they were doing the right thing and should quit, she could have decided not to continue going. She agreed to abide by the groups' rules and then didn't. Nor has she ever approached Hermione to ask for help (theoretically she "forgot" based on an obliviate at DD's office but I'm not sure it wasn't actually an imperious)-- and in that she again CHOSE to continue helping Umbrige. Magpie: This is something that seems to happen a lot, that when people talk about free choice, and a character CHOOSING to do something, they so often mean that the character is responsible not only for what s/he did but for what other people did to him/her in response. I mean, the implication here in saying that Dudley CHOSE to eat the toffee is that he is then responsible for his tongue swelling, neatly side-stepping the fact that Dudley's tongue in fact swells because the twins CHOSE to create a Potion to swell the tongue and put it in candy. Tongue-swelling is not a foreseeable consequence of eating a piece of candy. Even if the movie scene had happened and Dudley was given a pig's tail for eating birthday cake, saying that he "chose to be a pig" is twisting the words the way a bully would, as if Hagrid's action is just a passive consequence of Dudley's. Even in the movie Dudley didn't choose to assume the physical form of a pig. He ate birthday cake and Hagrid decided to punish him in a way that made it clear he, Hagrid, considered this child a pig. 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. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 29 20:29:37 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 20:29:37 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione Was:Re: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154602 > SSSusan, earlier: < HUGE SNIP> >> So I just can't back down from including this as a moment where Harry > felt let down in a major way by Hermione, regardless of the fact that > the DA *turned out* to be a good thing in the end. It was the way it > developed, the way she kept Harry in the dark, the way she hadn't > thought through what was likely to happen to him. I think it's > pretty clear from JKR's writing that Harry felt that way, too. Alla: Wanted to reply to this in your earlier post, but may as well do it here. YES, I completely agree with you. Harry has EVERY reason to be furious with Hermione here, because of the way she handled situation, the way she PRESUMED she knows best, the way she did not insisted on the smaller group of people. I am with Harry totally, DESPITE that DA turned out to be very good thing for him. BUT precisely because DA turned out to be good thing for him, I want to backtrack a bit. The way I understood what Pippin originally wrote was that she was comparing Harry trusting Ron and Hermione for no special reason other than loving them, baluing their friendship and DD trusting Snape. Pippin also argued ( as I understood) that Ron and Hermione let Harry down just as badly as Snape did ( sorry if I misunderstood) and this I don't buy at all. Are you also arguing that Hermione handling DA the way she did equals what Snape did to Harry? Because that is what I don't see at all. I cannot put even close - a supernosy, bossy friend who IMO truly has your best intentions in mind, even when she acts bossy and interfering and ....Snape. If somebody did to me what Hermione did to Harry, I would have been furious with her means, but when I would have realised how much I like doing it, I would have forgiven my friend and loved her even more. And Snape .... well, you know how I feel about him :) JMO, Alla, who thinks that loyal friends' mistakes and the torments of bastards like Snape are not very comparable. From patriciah711 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 29 16:52:40 2006 From: patriciah711 at yahoo.com (Patricia Hurley) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 09:52:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Book 7 news In-Reply-To: <511.23f3aac.31d4565b@aol.com> Message-ID: <20060629165240.81914.qmail@web52809.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154603 > 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: > 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. Patricia: I disagree. I really think it's nice that she does little things for us. She gives us things to think out. Hints to help us try and get ahead of the books. She also does little things like the WOMBAT test, updates to her site, interviews that reveal tidbits. It makes it so that a truly dedicated potterfan who pays lots of attention can really almost be abe to guess what happens next. You don't really want her to tell you how it ends. And if we don't get any new information our forums get stale and people start coming up with the wildest theories and they complain about her. I think she really does a good job balancing everything she has to do (writing, raising kids, her charity work with MS and with the kids, appearances, living her life) 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. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 29 20:46:32 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 20:46:32 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154604 Tim wrote: It is only a facial blemish after all. And although it was backhanded and conniving I wouldn't call it evil. Carol notes: houyhnhnm answered this point beautifully and canonically in her response to Alla: > > Marietta's nose and cheeks were "horribly disfigured by a > series of close-set purple pustules". Close-set--the Muggle > medical term is coalesced. Purple pustules. We're not talking > about ordinary teenage zits here. I'm tempted to insert a > link, but I won't. Just do an image search on "facial impetigo". > > More than four months later she still had them. So yes, I > would say that without some kind of extraordinary magical > intervention yet to occur, her face is disfigured for life. Carol again: Harry is stared at merely for a lightning-shaped scar on his forehead. And note the way that everyone talks about Eloise Midgen's acne. She's a "Troll" that no boy would consider taking to the Yule Ball. Marietta's "purple pustules" are worse. She's "horribly disfigured," so disfigured that she hides behind a balaclava like a hag in a pub. Imagine the stares and whispered insults that Marietta must endure, and she can't even remember her "crime" because Kingsley Shacklebolt Obliterated the memory of it. Marietta is a sixteen-year-old schoolgirl, who is trying to follow the rules and obey her mother, a Ministry official. She has no reason to believe that Voldemort is really back; Harry has angrily refused to reveal what happened in the graveyard. As far as she knows, the Daily Prophet's stories that he's mentally unstable are true. (She sees him display his temper at the meeting in the Hog's Head.) Umbridge believes he's a liar, and Marietta probably believes it, too. I doubt that she believed that everyone in the group would be expelled; probably only Harry, the leader, and Hermione, the originator. No doubt the SNEAK jinx would have deterred her if she had known about it, but she didn't. So she had to choose between going to the new headmistress, who had announced to the school that she was trying to help them, and the Boy Who Told Lies and his illegal organization. We know in hindsight that she was wrong, but she had no way of knowing that she was not doing the right thing. Marietta is not a Death Eater. She's a Ministry supporter, and she believes (wrongly) that the Ministry is looking out for the best interests of the Hogwarts students and the WW. She's not a criminal. She isn't Bellatrix, the torturer of the Longbottoms and LV's faithful servant. She's a teenage girl who made a mistake. Dumbledore, the giver of second chances, protects her from Umbridge's anger. Almost certainly if he had remained at Hogwarts and she had come to him for help, he would have given it to her. Forgive us our trespasses. That's what Christianity is all about, and JKR is a Christian. Second chances and forgiveness and mercy. That's what Dumbledore is all about, and Dumbledore is "the epitome of goodness." For that reason, I can't understand why JKR hasn't had someone remove Marietta's disfigurement. It's too late for Dumbledore to do it now, and Madam Pomfrey failed in her attempt--as, presumably, did St. Mungo's. A few weeks would have sufficed as punishment for her wrong choice. Four months is much too long. A lifetime is unconscionable. Carol, hoping that Healer!Snape will restore Marietta's complexion in the Epilogue since Hermione seems unable or unwilling to help her From katbofaye at aol.com Thu Jun 29 19:37:02 2006 From: katbofaye at aol.com (katssirius) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 19:37:02 -0000 Subject: Harry&MoM/JKR&? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154605 I wonder if JKR's portrayal of the MoM approaching Harry in Book 6 and requesting his help with positive spin for the ministry is happening in her own life. I do not know JKR's politics but with her popularity and influence I would bet politicians would be trying to sign her on. Is she outing them in Book 6? Would the prime minister be courting JKR or are they discounting her readers as too young? Does anyone else have any ideas about this? katssirius From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 29 20:08:18 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 20:08:18 -0000 Subject: Gone a while - question about Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154606 Potioncat wrote: > Oh, I agree. In addition, I don't Trelawney or JKR are very precise > people. Yet, this is what I found in chpt 15 when Trelawney is > answering Umbridge: > "Now, you've been in this post how long, exactly?" > After a slight pause in which she seemed to decide that the question > was not so offensive that she could reasonably ignore it..."Nearly > sixteen years." > > OK, at that point, I thought I would help Carol's Halloween theory. > But when I kept reading, I saw Trelawney word things differently. > > Two or three weeks pass (as I read it. There are at least two as > stated in chp 16) In chpt 17 in Trelawney's class--no Umbridge--and > Trelawney says to the students, "I say nothing of 16 years devoted > service...it has passed, apparently, unnoticed." > > There is talk of more time passing. Of Quidditch practices, then in > chpt 19, October "extinguished itself in a rush of howling winds." > > So it seems Trelawney's 16 years happened before Halloween. However, > if we think (and one could hardly argue against it) that Trelawney > wasn't being precise, we could say Halloween is still within the time frame. Carol responds: Thanks for trying to help my theory, but don't give up yet. Note that Umbridge asks Trelawney to tell her *exactly* how long she's taught at Hogwarts. At this time it's apparently still September and she says "*nearly* sixteen years, indicating that, unlike Snape and most other teachers (McGonagall is another exception), she was not hired at the beginning of the school year. Dumbledore says that he had considered dropping the subject from the curriculum altogether, so he isn't hiring beginning-of-the-year teachers here; he's filling an unexpected vacancy (which he would have left unfilled if it weren't for the Prophecy, which turns Sibyll into a Protected Person). A few weeks later, and a few weeks closer to Halloween, Trelawney complains to her students of "sixteen years devoted service" going unrewarded. Here she's under no obligation to state "exactly" how long she's been teaching, and is free to round off the number to the nearest year. At any rate, I don't see how she could have made the Prophecy before Harry was conceived, which would have been right around Halloween, and given JKR's penchant for significant events happening on that date, it makes sense to me to propose Halloween (All Hallow's Eve) as the date of the Prophecy. IMO, it's no coincidence that so many events, including Harry's birthday, Tom Riddle's birthday, the Potters' and NHN's death dates, and I've forgotten what else, happens on the 31st of various months. It all starts with JKR's own birthdate of July 31, which she assigned to her hero, and builds form there. Carol, who thinks that JKR's fondness for the magical number seven may also stem from having been born as the seventh month dies From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 29 15:02:08 2006 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 08:02:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Speculating on the deaths Message-ID: <20060629150208.8814.qmail@web52705.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154607 Hi Everyone, I don't know about you all, but I have been in total panic mode forr the last 24 hours, trying to tell myself that everything will be ok, and Harry will indeed be left standing at the end. However, I've been thinking about it this morning, and I feel like the panic is subsiding. First of all, every death so far has been necessary and almost inevitable (with the exception of poor Cedric, cause who saw that coming?). So, I feel like JK wouldn't kill people without a clear purpose. This comforts me in many ways. First, 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. Even if he killed LV first, Harry's death would render the whole struggle purposeless. 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. One other thing entered my mind, and I believe someone else also brought this up - who says the deaths have to be at the end, in the final battle? Maybe McGonagall dies of old age, maybe Grawp turns on Hagrid, maybe Fred falls down a flight of stairs...not that I want any of that to happen, of course, but maybe all those who are left to ENTER the final battle, make it out alive. Just a thought. Anyway, as I see it, we have a whole YEAR to freak out about this, and we have so much to look forward to, especially OotP hitting theaters, I say why worry. JMHO, Katie From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Jun 29 21:23:59 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 21:23:59 -0000 Subject: Invisablity Cloaks Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154608 In HBP Harry on the train is under the invisibility cloak. When Tonks comes to his rescue she pulls the cloak off of him. How did she know he was there? The windows drawn would alert her, but how was she able to find the cloak? Can she see through them? From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Thu Jun 29 21:04:25 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 21:04:25 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione Was:Re: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154609 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Harry has EVERY reason to be furious with Hermione here, because of the way she handled situation, the way she PRESUMED she knows best, the way she did not insisted on the smaller group of people. I am with Harry totally, DESPITE that DA turned out to be very good thing for him. > Steven1965aaa: Hermione tends to "mother" Harry a bit, from time to time in the books. But Harry is aware that she does this out of love and for that reason among others he (properly) does not get too angry with her. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 29 22:07:00 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 22:07:00 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione Was:Re: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154610 > >>SSSusan: > > > In short, I don't believe she thought hard enough about how BEST > > to do this for Harry's sake, and that is the way in which she > > let him down. > > > > If I were Harry, I, too, would have been furious. How dare she > > allow people to come to an *opening, organizational* meeting, > > pretty much "cornering" Harry, and then attempt to pass the > > whole thing off as *Harry's* own idea? If Hermione had thought > > things through more fully, had been a little more empathetic > > concerning Harry, this could have gotten off to a much smoother > > start, Harry would not have felt so frustrated and angry (and > > not to mention that Marietta Edgecombe might never have become a > > part of the group). > > > >>Carol: > > I agree that this is an instance (like the jinx on the parchment > and Hermione's Vanishing Harry's potion and the whole business of > knitting hats and socks for house-elfs and taking Umbridge to the > Centaurs) of Hermione taking matters into her own hands, rather > arrogantly assuming that she knows best and not thinking things > through, often with unfortunate consequences. > > You're right that Hermione goes about the whole process in a rather > dodgy or at least secretive manner and that she doesn't let Harry > know what she's doing or anticipate his feelings. > > But Harry, IMO, overreacts to her interference. > > I think what we're being shown here is not just Hermione's > mishandling of the situation but Harry's tendency to judge people > and assume the worst. > Betsy Hp: Actually, I think Harry lets Hermione off the hook far too easily, with far reaching consequences. Hermione baldly lied to Harry about what she was trying to do. This wasn't just a feeling out meeting. And she wasn't going for a mere study group. Hermione came prepared with a jinxed parchment that would permanently disfigure anyone who spoke about the club. "So if you sign you're agreeing not to tell Umbridge -- or anybody else -- what we're up to." [OotP scholastic hardback p.346] Hermione crossed a line into full out war mode, without discussing it with Harry or Ron or any of the students who showed up. Her willingness to lie about whose idea the meeting was is indicitive, I think, of her deviousness, her "mother knows best" way of thinking. 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 From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Jun 29 21:42:24 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 21:42:24 -0000 Subject: Dr Neil shuddered for ONE of them (Was: Who dies?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154611 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hagrid" wrote: > >> 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. > (Snip)> - He definately made other friends last year. Right, "Won Won"? > - Hermione has never been in a fire fight. She was uncontious for > most of the MOM battle and took care of Flint in Snape's room at > Hogwarts. With Ron as a casualty, she'd get into Slapping Mode. > - Charlie and Percy would come back fighting if Ron was the victim. > - and for Harry to understand LV's true evil, it has to be someone > emotionally well connected to. Tonks: Well if Harry is slated for Death in the end, which I don't think that he is, but if he is then it will be Ginny. Her death will bring all the Weasleys into the fight as well. She is popular, other students might join in. On the other hand if Harry is going to live, so will Ginny. She is the 7th child and the only girl in many generations. There must be some reason for this. My fear is for Molly and Arthur and any of the kids. It could be Hagrid and his brother. It would be cruel for either of them to remain alive if the other dies. And while some of us will miss Hagrid, it would be easier than losing anyone else. We have all suffered enough. Tonks_op From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jun 29 22:04:44 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 22:04:44 -0000 Subject: Maybe Harry doesn't die??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154612 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "UNIX4EVR" wrote: > > The comments in the interview just make it impossible to know -- > typical Jo! > > I don't want Harry to die -- but the biggest "hint" that he will > comes from an early interview with JKR. At the time some > fundamentalists were saying HP was anti-Christian (magic and all > that). She commented that by the end of the series there would be > no doubt that she was a Christian. > > Which to me reads "ultimate sacrifice" and a resurrection of sorts > (not coming back to life, but perhaps going on to another realm > where DD, his parents, etc. exist). More quotes (these from 1999): > > Is she a Christian? > JKR ''Yes, I am,'' she says. ''Which seems to offend the religious > right far worse than if I said I thought there was no God. Every > time I've been asked if I believe in God, I've said yes, because I > do, but no one ever really has gone any more deeply into it than > that, and I have to say that does suit me, because if I talk too > freely about that I think the intelligent reader, whether 10 or 60, > will be able to guess what's coming in the books.'' 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. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 29 23:01:41 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 23:01:41 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154613 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > Look, two characters get branded in OotP: Marietta and Harry. > >>Lanval: > Really, Betsy -- "branded"? A bit sensational for my taste, that > choice of word. 'Marked', I'd call it. After all, it's not as if > Hermione held Marietta down, wielding a red-hot iron, lowering it > with a cruel smile, hissing, "Take that, Evil Traitor Wench!" :) > Correct me if I'm wrong, but the poor girl isn't described as > being in pain either, is she? Betsy Hp: I really wasn't trying to envoke the painful part of branding. It's the permanency I was looking towards. In RL I don't think there's a way to permanently mark someone's skin without a bit of pain, so any word choice is going to fall down a bit. I guess, as Carol points out, "disfigurement" (though again, usually done with brands, acid, knives, in RL) is the best word. The point is that for the rest of her life, Marietta will have the giant, purple word "SNEAK" written across her face. Just as Harry has the words, "I must not tell lies" etched into his skin. Hermione and Umbridge have similar methods for dealing with people they deem as trouble makers. Either their actions are good, or they are bad. > >>Lanvel: > Why does it seem so hard to understand that Hermione had very > little choice? > Betsy Hp: Because Hermione gives it little to no thought. She barely hesitates before getting everyone to sign the jinxed paper. She never flinches when confronted by Marietta. Hermione sees herself as good, therefore all of her actions are good. Just like Umbridge. > >>Lanval: > That having been said, it *was* cruel to let the effects of the > hex linger for so long. A few days, a week maybe, would have > served its purpose. I also wish Hermione had at least hinted at > this unpleasantness, before the others signed her contract. It > must have been clear to her that Marietta at least was a potential > problem. Betsy Hp: Ah, but to Hermione it's *not* cruel. It's justice. Permanently branding (marking, disfiguring) all those who dare cross her is righteous work. It is good. Because she is good. And she's knows best. > >>Amiable Dorsai: > > If Draco can't see that Harry's friends are the "good guys", it's > because he has no conception of the good. > Those of us not raised by a corrupt, racist, abusive, slave- > holding, boot-licking murderer may have a different view of life. Betsy Hp: Exactly! Anyone raised in the WW is going to see the ownership of house-elves as good. So owning one is not seen as being bad. As Ron proves. Anyone raised in the WW sees muggle-baiting as relatively harmless fun. So toying with them is seen as good or at least okay. As the twins prove. Choosing to serve a particular powerful wizard is seen as prudent behavior in the WW. As shown by both the Death Eaters and the Order. So Hermione starting SPEW, Harry facing off with the wizard Draco's family has chosen to serve, the incident at the Quidditch World Cup, none of that is going to convince Draco that his father is on the wrong side. Even if Draco has a twinge of doubt, he'll see it as a weakness on his part, not an indictment of his father. There's not a time where *Draco* sees the other side do something especially noble, while his side does something especially bad. *Until* HBP when Voldemort threatens Draco's family, and Dumbledore, completely unexpectedly, offers to save them. And suddenly there *is* a difference. Something Draco can look at and analyze. (Actually, I do think Cedric's death gave Draco a pause. Hence his odd behavior on the train ride home. But the reactions of Harry et al, though understandable on their part (except for the twins, who just like to bash things), did little to further the argument that perhaps the side Draco's family had chosen wasn't all that.) Gosh, even Harry failed to recognize the Death Eater behind Fake! Moody because the child Fake!Moody chose to torture was someone Harry disliked. Which tells me anyway, that Harry is good (at this point) because his parents were good. Not because he's morally more astute than Draco. Betsy Hp From unix4evr at yahoo.com Thu Jun 29 23:51:12 2006 From: unix4evr at yahoo.com (UNIX4EVR) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 23:51:12 -0000 Subject: Maybe Harry doesn't die??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154614 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > 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 Brilliant. Bloody brilliant. Thanks for posting that. > Life member of IWHTLC. > From pebbles104 at sbcglobal.net Thu Jun 29 21:48:41 2006 From: pebbles104 at sbcglobal.net (Kellie and Lady J) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 17:48:41 -0400 Subject: Being Good and Evil References: Message-ID: <007301c69bc5$c9c01870$6500a8c0@shannonn2zgd3u> No: HPFGUIDX 154615 >> Betsy Hp: >> 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". > > Amiable Dorsai: > Other than Ron's and Harry's rescue of a girl they didn't even like > from a rampaging troll, the Trio's quest to save the Philosopher's > Stone (however wrongheaded you may think it), the opposition and to > and eventual defeat of the Heir of Slytherin (You know, the one Draco > wanted to help commit murder), support for a teacher he (Draco) tries > to have sacked, Hermione's and Ron's attempt to help exonerate an > innocent animal Draco wanted destroyed, Harry's risking his life to > bring back Cedric's body, Harry and Hermione teaching a group of > students how to defend themselves, Hermione's opposition to slavery, > and, of course, the Sextet's rescue mission. > > Sadly, you're right--because none of this will impress Draco as good. > He likes the idea of murder right up until he tries to commit it in > person, when he finds he hasn't the stones for it. He thinks slavery > is just fine. He has no trouble taking revenge on an animal he > stupidly provoked. He wanted (and may still want) Muggleborns to > die--"mudblood" is his favorite word. He puts on the jackboots and > supports unjust authority. He vows revenge on Harry, because Harry > did not roll over and die when Draco's father led a group that tried > to ambush and murder him and his friends. > > If Draco can't see that Harry's friends are the "good guys", it's > because he has no conception of the good. > > Those of us not raised by a corrupt, racist, abusive, slave-holding, > boot-licking murderer may have a different view of life. Kellie now I have to agree with Amiable Dorsai on this. I am not saying that everything Harry and his friends did are right. Everyone makes mistakes, and if Harry had been portrayed as one who didn't make mistakes, I would have a problem with that. Draco however has gone out of his way to provoke Harry and his friends. Ok, you could argue that they should have just ignored him, and yes, they could have, but not everyone is able to do that. Draco always went out of his way to start something with Harry and get him in trouble. Harry often suspected Draco of things, maybe without evidence, like in Chamber of Secrets, but Malfoy did nothing to alter Harry's view of him. In fact, his actions and attitude only served to convince Harry and his friends even more that he was involved in the dark arts. All the examples that were mentioned above illustrate, the difference in Draco and Harry. I am not saying that Draco is all evil. In fact, as much as I don't like him, I am hoping that there is a chance that Draco can be helped. He has been raised in a family who are way in with LV and follow him. He only knows what he has seen all his life. And what he has seen, is that pure bloods are the best, dark arts are good, LV is good and has the right ideas, Dumbledore is bad, amongst other things. When he finally was placed in a position where he had to kill someone and he wasn't able to do it, maybe it was because he was examining himself. Dumbledore allowed him a choice, something he had never had before. Maybe now, he will choose to break away from the dark arts. I guess we won't know til book 7. From richter at ridgenet.net Fri Jun 30 01:47:03 2006 From: richter at ridgenet.net (Peggy Richter) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 01:47:03 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154616 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: >> But the curse on the parchment doesn't care about extenuating > circumstances -- that's one of the things that's wrong with it. > Umbridge could have fed Marietta veritaserum or used Imperius > and forced her to talk, and the result would have been just the same. > > PAR: Cannon for the parchment curse not caring about extenuating circumstances? From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Jun 30 02:09:45 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 22:09:45 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Being Good and Evil References: <007301c69bc5$c9c01870$6500a8c0@shannonn2zgd3u> Message-ID: <004b01c69bea$429632b0$f472400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 154617 >>> Betsy Hp: >>> 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". >> >> Amiable Dorsai: >> If Draco can't see that Harry's friends are the "good guys", it's >> because he has no conception of the good. >> >> Those of us not raised by a corrupt, racist, abusive, slave-holding, >> boot-licking murderer may have a different view of life. > > > > Kellie now > I have to agree with Amiable Dorsai on this. I am not saying that > everything Harry and his friends did are right. Everyone makes mistakes, > and if Harry had been portrayed as one who didn't make mistakes, I would > have a problem with that. Magpie: But--not speaking for Betsy on this, but you're looking at it from the pov of a reader who knows a lot more than Draco *and* is in Harry's pov. In our own lives don't most of us probably make stupid decisions or dislike great people--especially if we don't know they're the hero of the story? A lot of AD's examples don't even play the same way from Draco's pov, they're objective comparisons of two characters in the books based on things that Harry and the reader hold dear, as if that's objective--sometimes things Draco wouldn't even know about. If you really get into Draco's pov his own behavior, while I think still it's objectively bad (for instance, I don't think even from his pov he's doing something righteous in picking on Hermione), and may be forced to change or suffer, I don't think it always comes out as just him being intentionally evil and worse than Harry. Especially with the Voldemort part--Voldemort is their guy, the "savior" of the Purebloods quite possibly, from Draco's pov. It's not like he doesn't try to put his money where his mouth is on that "I want to help the Heir" thing. He does wind up helping the Heir, and learns first hand maybe that this is actually a bad thing. 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. So, that's a long way of saying, that I don't know if this is the point Betsy is making, but I don't think it's wrong to talk about how the good side should work to recruit somebody like Draco, and that stuff they do to confirm his bad opinions of them can't always just be dismissed at stuff he's too stupid to see as good. Although we don't see it we do hear that Voldemort's ideas are pretty prevalent in the WW, as Betsy pointed out as well. -m From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Jun 30 02:39:07 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 02:39:07 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione Was:Re: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154618 Alla: > YES, I completely agree with you. Harry has EVERY reason to be > furious with Hermione here, because of the way she handled > situation, the way she PRESUMED she knows best, the way she did > not insisted on the smaller group of people. > BUT precisely because DA turned out to be good thing for him, I > want to backtrack a bit. > Pippin also argued ( as I understood) that Ron and Hermione let > Harry down just as badly as Snape did ( sorry if I misunderstood) > and this I don't buy at all. > > Are you also arguing that Hermione handling DA the way she did > equals what Snape did to Harry? SSSusan: In a word, nope. I don't think what Hermione did re: the DA equals what Snape has done to Harry. But. I think Pippin's point was that sometimes you just trust people because... well... you DO. If someone is your friend, and you value that friendship, then you trust him/her, even if s/he has let you down at times. In response, then, I believe, you were making the point that the *degree* of letting down was different. (Am I right?) So I do think the ways in which Snape has let down or hindered or hurt Harry are different and worse than the ways in which Ron and Hermione have let him down. But I don't know that the issue was ever really a comparison of the letdowns of Ron/Hermie to Harry and Snape to HARRY. Rather, I think the comparison should be of the letdowns of Ron/Hermie to Harry and of Snape to DUMBLEDORE. I mean, wasn't Pippin saying that maybe DD trusts Snape just because he values his friendship, same as maybe Harry trusts R/H just because he values their friendship, even though each of those people may have let down their *respective* friends? So DD may trust Snape because of their friendship, even if Snape has let him down, just as Harry trusts Hermione because of their friendship, even though she has let him down. (And I was agreeing that Hermione *has* let Harry down.) Siriusly Snapey Susan, not sure she's made an ounce of sense here From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Jun 30 03:57:49 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 03:57:49 -0000 Subject: Corruption in the MoM Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154619 TOP SECRET for all undercover Aurors. It has come to my attention that there may be some serious corruption in the MoM and there may actually be members of the DE in our midst. This corruption may be all the way to the top. See my post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/154285 As you may know I think the Bones murder by LV was because Amelia suspected the corruption in her own department and higher. I also suspect that Stan Shunpike was falsely arrested as a DE because he really did overhear a conversation between DE members. I am not sure if what he heard was the plotting of the DD murder, other things that have already happened or something that has not happened yet. I am wondering if the murders of Vance and Abbott have a connection to the MoM as well. Do any of you have any suspicions or ideas that would further the investigation? Even far out ideas are worth exploring. What do you all think?? Please present any evidence that you may have found in your own undercover work. Thanks. Tonks_op From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 30 04:16:47 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 04:16:47 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil In-Reply-To: <004b01c69bea$429632b0$f472400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154620 > > Kellie now > > I have to agree with Amiable Dorsai on this. I am not saying that > > everything Harry and his friends did are right. Everyone makes mistakes, > > and if Harry had been portrayed as one who didn't make mistakes, I would > > have a problem with that. > > Magpie: > But--not speaking for Betsy on this, but you're looking at it from the pov > of a reader who knows a lot more than Draco *and* is in Harry's pov. In > our own lives don't most of us probably make stupid decisions or dislike > great people--especially if we don't know they're the hero of the story? A > lot of AD's examples don't even play the same way from Draco's pov, they're > objective comparisons of two characters in the books based on things that > Harry and the reader hold dear, as if that's objective--sometimes things > Draco wouldn't even know about. Alla: Um, not quite. I just don't buy the argument ( not necessarily yours) that seems to absolve Draco from all personal responsibility BECAUSE his parents are so bad. IMO everybody first and foremost learns their morality, their views from their parents and if Draco would have been raised in vacuum and have not encountered ANYBODY but his parents and friends, then I would have probably understood that argument. But he is NOT. He is not even going to Durmstrang, where arguably Dark Arts are more thriving, etc. He is going to Hogwarts and he has to be SO blind IMO to not see the difference between how Dumbledore behaves and how Voldemort behaves and by extension how Draco's parents behave. All the examples that were given are those that IMO Draco is VERY likely to hear about. For example I did not give the example of Harry being tortured at Graveyard, although I am thinking that Lucius could have described that to Draco in great details too, but Okay, Draco was not there, BUT Draco hears that Cedric was killed by Voldemort ( by Peter, but it is the same for purpose of the argument). Does that influence him somehow? Not that I noticed. MAgpie: > If you really get into Draco's pov his own behavior, while I think still > it's objectively bad (for instance, I don't think even from his pov he's > doing something righteous in picking on Hermione), and may be forced to > change or suffer, I don't think it always comes out as just him being > intentionally evil and worse than Harry. Especially with the Voldemort > part--Voldemort is their guy, the "savior" of the Purebloods quite possibly, > from Draco's pov. It's not like he doesn't try to put his money where his > mouth is on that "I want to help the Heir" thing. He does wind up helping > the Heir, and learns first hand maybe that this is actually a bad thing. Alla: He is worse than Harry precisely because he is on Voldemort side IMO, I am not even getting into his personality, because as I said I am not really tempted to look behind personality of the bigot unfortunately. It is a very low threshhold for me to overcome and Draco passes with flying colours. Draco was raised to believe in Voldemort, sure, he was, but how does that make his beliefs not worse? Does he not know that Voldemort at very least killed two people and left a baby an orphan? And I am assuming that Draco did not hear anything about Voldemort's first reign of terror, which is IMO not possible. He wants to help Heir of Slytherin commit murder, he has no problem with the mudbloods dying. Yes, I'd say that it makes him MUCH worse than Harry. And yes, he winds up helping the Heir, I do hope that this was the lesson that would stick with him, but what I am not buying is that Draco bears no personal responsibility because he was raised in the bad environment. As I said I am not sure that this is your argument. 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. Alla: I agree with the first part of your sentence. Magpie: > 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. Alla: You see, I am not sure I understand you. On one hand the argument acknowledges that Draco's side is objectively bad, on the other you do seem to imply that since this is the morality Draco was taught, he bears no responsibility for what he did? Could you please clarify? We all get our views from somewhere, as I said I think Draco SAW things that should have forced him to reflect upon it earlier before he tried to commit murders. I hold him responsible for not doing so. There are characters who do see that their prejudices are wrong , they evolve and grow. Ron snarks at Lupin "get away from me werewolf", so it seems to me that either Molly and Arthur shared to some extent this prejudice ( which I do not find very likely, but it is of course possible), OR Ron got it from some other source. I do not see anywhere in OOP from Ron's interactions with Lupin that he somehow prejudiced against him. Does Draco shows anything like that? As I said, I surely hope that he will, but the fact that he was raised by Lucius does not absolve him IMO. Magpie: >Although we don't see it we do hear that > Voldemort's ideas are pretty prevalent in the WW, as Betsy pointed out as > well. Alla: Dumbledore does his best to not make them prevalent in Hogwarts IMO. Does Draco listen? As I said, one example is that he employs Hagrid and Lupin. Hagrid, who was unjustly expelled and Lupin, who cannot get a job otherwise. Does that teach Draco any kind of lesson? Not IMO. JMO, Alla. From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 30 02:15:36 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 02:15:36 -0000 Subject: ESE! JKR ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154621 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > OK, Lupinlore where is your shredder? Not shredder, dear. Wood chipper. Both very useful tools but for different purposes. Besides, a standard shredder would take hours and hours to devour the books. With a good mulcher or wood chipper its just a few heave hos and you're done. I swear if JKR kills off any > more of my favorite people I am gonna use it! > > The more I think about it and wonder who it will be, the more > depressed I get. I want the last book to wrap things up and leave > us with a good feeling. The good guys win, the bad guys get their > due.. you know like an old time Western. > Well, JKR definitely has her neuroses. The death neurosis is a big one, and I agree it's annoying and badly overdone, as well as contributing to a slavishness toward the hackneyed and outworn "hero's journey" motif. But, it's easy for a writer to overdo things -- especially when they have their grand plan permanently before their eyes and tend to forget that everyone else does not. As I've said before, I think JKR, despite what she claims, very much cares if she has only six readers left when all is done. Her twists and turns, particularly with DD, bespeak someone who is very much concerned with getting a message across clearly. We will see if she succeeds, and what that message is. Personally, I rather fear it will be contemptible. But, we will see. Lupinlore From jmrazo at hotmail.com Fri Jun 30 05:39:54 2006 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 05:39:54 -0000 Subject: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154622 > Alla: > > Um, I am sure there can be found some incidents in canon where Ron > and Hermione let Harry down, but I would argue that yes, on the big > scale they never did. > > Ron did not treat Harry like garbage from the first time they met, > quite the contrary. I'm always amazed by the level of hate ron gets. He's cool. He's the Xander Harris everyman of the HP books and if you know who Xander harris is you are also cool ;) > I would leave out the question of why Harry trusts DD because that is > sometimes a puzzle for me. :) Am I the only one who kept wanting Harry to say "I'm my own man." every time someone asked if he was Dd's man in HBP? Phoenixgod2000 From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jun 30 06:44:08 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 06:44:08 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154623 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Magpie: > > But--not speaking for Betsy on this, but you're looking at it from > the pov > > of a reader who knows a lot more than Draco *and* is in Harry's > pov. In > > our own lives don't most of us probably make stupid decisions or > dislike > > great people--especially if we don't know they're the hero of the > story? A > > lot of AD's examples don't even play the same way from Draco's > pov, they're > > objective comparisons of two characters in the books based on > things that > > Harry and the reader hold dear, as if that's objective--sometimes > things > > Draco wouldn't even know about. > > Alla: > > Um, not quite. I just don't buy the argument ( not necessarily > yours) that seems to absolve Draco from all personal responsibility > BECAUSE his parents are so bad. > > IMO everybody first and foremost learns their morality, their views > from their parents and if Draco would have been raised in vacuum and > have not encountered ANYBODY but his parents and friends, then I > would have probably understood that argument. Geoff: But I suspect that Draco /was/ raised in a vacuum until he was eleven. I doubt very much whether he had any contact with non-Voldemort supporters until he came to Hogwarts. As you say, we all learn our morality, our views of the world and attitudes from family and friends when we are young. I think it was the Jesuits who said something along the lines of 'give us a child until he is six and then we reckon he's sorted' - a very loose paraphrase!!. I think that we all enter our teenage years seeing eveything in black and white - I think that is true of Harry for example - and it is only as we develop as young adults that we see that the world contains a spectrum of greys as well. I agree that Draco is a rather nasty little boy with an inflated ego when we first meet him but his ego has obviously received a number of jolts from Harry's ability to better him from time to time and certainly the Tower chapter in HBP shows that he is having an internal conflict with himself. I've often said that, speaking from a Christian point of view, Draco is not irredeemable. There are plenty of real world examples of people who dramatically changed their view of life. I suspect that Draco could never reach a position of friendship with Harry but could see that the "light" side of magic is the better way forward. I certainly wouldn't write him off, until I see what JKR has is store for him. From blink_883 at hotmail.com Fri Jun 30 09:56:01 2006 From: blink_883 at hotmail.com (whirledgirl) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 09:56:01 -0000 Subject: JKR borrows from heroic literature/ who dies? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154624 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "distaiyi" wrote: > I personally think JkR feels a need for him to die so he can be normal. > > I'm astounded you could think that! Well, no, I do understand why, but I'm more or less of the opposite opinion. A 'theme' I've noticed throughout the series is how ordinary people can make extraordinary choices. As an example in the first book, see Neville, standing up to the trio. For him, this was an extraordinary show of courage. Or Ollivander's words, something like "Oh yes, he {Voldie's} a terrible wizard Harry, but a great one". After all that, how could JKR kill Harry off?? Wouldn't that pretty much oppose what's happened so far in the books, and instead insinuate that "yeah, you can be extraordinary, but y'know... in the end, you won't get to enjoy your life anyway..." ?? And this is a magical world! Surely she can provide a conveniently off-radar island for Harry and friends/family to spend their future comfortably without being bothered by most of the rest of the world, if *nothing* else?? Do you think dark wizards will come after Harry after he's defeated Voldie? Well, Voldie didn't want to mess with DD, and IMO it's feasible that in future Harry will become a DD-like figure in the WW's society, so maybe they won't come pick a fight. Obviously, it's a bit of a 50/50 question, and one we can only speculate on. IMO, who chooses to believe Harry will live, chooses to put faith in JKR as an author of inspirational books, because how can you be inspired by a hero who dies? Unless...Ginny does too or something...but that would mean she'd have to elaborate on what happens after death, and i'm not sure she would, not after all the vagueness surrounding the nature of the Veil and Ghosts etc. Ok, I'm done lol, WG* - hoping that she wasn't too agressive in her response and if so apologises profoundly (but as a reason, well, HP does ignite a passion eh..*bashful*) From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jun 30 13:41:25 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 13:41:25 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione Was:Re: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154626 > Alla: > > > Pippin also argued ( as I understood) that Ron and Hermione let > > Harry down just as badly as Snape did ( sorry if I misunderstood) > > and this I don't buy at all. > > > > Are you also arguing that Hermione handling DA the way she did > > equals what Snape did to Harry? > > SSSusan: > In a word, nope. I don't think what Hermione did re: the DA equals > what Snape has done to Harry. > > > I mean, wasn't Pippin saying that maybe DD trusts Snape just because > he values his friendship, same as maybe Harry trusts R/H just > because he values their friendship, even though each of those people > may have let down their *respective* friends? So DD may trust Snape > because of their friendship, even if Snape has let him down, just as > Harry trusts Hermione because of their friendship, even though she > has let him down. (And I was agreeing that Hermione *has* let Harry > down.) Pippin: Yes! Thank you, SSSusan. IMO, Dumbledore trusted Snape the way Harry trusts his friends, in spite of their mistakes, because he values them. I think that Dumbledore was willing to chance that Snape joined Voldemort because he made a mistake, not because Snape was eeevil. But Dumbledore valued Snape for some deeper reason -- deep but not necessarily spectacular. I think we may veer off track looking for a spectacular reason why Dumbledore trusted Snape, just as we went off track looking for a spectacular reason why Voldemort wanted to kill Harry. At bottom, Voldemort wanted to kill Harry because Voldemort is a paranoid psychopath who places no value on human life and whose fantasies have become fixed on Harry Potter -- the prophecy was instrumental in that but only because LV is mad as a March hare. After all, there must be hundreds of other prophecies in the DoM concerning Dark Lords. Snape can only have known that Voldemort would want to hear of the prophecy. He had no way of knowing that Voldemort would fix on this prophecy as important beyond all others, or that he would decide that he needed to kill three specific people because of it. Nonetheless Snape accepted responsibility for his error, or so Dumbledore believed. Harry has no concept of what that means, because he has yet to accept responsibility for an error of that magnitude. He is still dodging his guilt over Sirius's death. That Snape was able to do so when he was little older than Harry speaks well for him. I think, as I said, that Dumbledore intended to tell Harry more of the story the night he died, but he was reluctant to do so because a) He had promised Snape that he wouldn't b) He didn't think Harry was going to be able to understand c) He thought Harry's misunderstanding was going to make things worse. There may be some spectacular unrevealed reason that Dumbledore valued Snape's friendship, but it might well have happened before Snape joined the DE's. (That would explain the "rejoined our side" in GoF). In that case it would do little to convince Harry of Snape's worth, and yet by HBP Snape had already saved Dumbledore at least once and Harry at least twice. If that wasn't good enough for Harry as a reason to value Snape, what would be? Pippin thinking that third time's the charm From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Fri Jun 30 13:41:44 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 13:41:44 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154627 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > Geoff: > I've often said that, speaking from a Christian point of view, Draco > is not irredeemable. There are plenty of real world examples of > people who dramatically changed their view of life. I suspect that > Draco could never reach a position of friendship with Harry but > could see that the "light" side of magic is the better way forward. > > I certainly wouldn't write him off, until I see what JKR has is store > for him. > When I read this I immediately thought of Saul the great persecutor of Christians who became Paul, the Apostle of Christ, on the road to Damascus. Draco's conversion would be no more dramatic if that is JKR's plan for him. And I don't think that Paul and Peter were ever the best of friends after his conversion so a "converted" Draco that still disliked Harry would fit the mold. What of Pettigrew? Is there hope for him too, or will he belatedly go hang himself? I suppose he could steal a page from *Tale of Two Cities* and do something that is far, far better than he has ever done. Ken From kljohnson7868 at gmail.com Fri Jun 30 14:06:52 2006 From: kljohnson7868 at gmail.com (kljohnson7868) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:06:52 -0000 Subject: SOURCE for quote (was Re: Maybe Harry doesn't die???) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154628 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "UNIX4EVR" wrote: > Is she a Christian? > JKR ''Yes, I am,'' she says. ''Which seems to offend the religious > right far worse than if I said I thought there was no God. Every > time I've been asked if I believe in God, I've said yes, because I > do, but no one ever really has gone any more deeply into it than > that, and I have to say that does suit me, because if I talk too > freely about that I think the intelligent reader, whether 10 or 60, > will be able to guess what's coming in the books.'' Can you please tell me from where that quote originated? I can't find the source and am curious.... Kathi From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 30 14:19:44 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:19:44 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154629 Pippin: > I think, as I said, that Dumbledore intended to tell Harry more > of the story the night he died, but he was reluctant to do so > because a) He had promised Snape that he wouldn't b) He didn't > think Harry was going to be able to understand c) He thought > Harry's misunderstanding was going to make things worse. > > There may be some spectacular unrevealed reason that Dumbledore > valued Snape's friendship, but it might well have happened before > Snape joined the DE's. (That would explain the "rejoined our side" in > GoF). In that case it would do little to convince Harry of Snape's worth, > and yet by HBP Snape had already saved Dumbledore at least once and > Harry at least twice. If that wasn't good enough for Harry as a reason to > value Snape, what would be? Alla: Well, Okay the only thing I can add then is that sure Dumbledore can trust Snape because he values his friendship. What Dumbledore can NOT do IMO is to expect Harry to trust Snape because Dumbledore values his friendship. Snape is guilty of too much towards Harry IMO and to expect Harry to share Dumbledore's trust in Snape, whom friendship Dumbledore may value, but who treated Harry like crap and who had a hand in making Harry an orphan is well... naive at the most charitable reading. That is why I think there IS a dramatic reason Dumbledore trusts Snape and besides, would not Dumbledore need the reason to trust former DE? I mean he can value his friendship, but wouldn't he need the evidence that Snape changed his ways? Although Dumbledore is of course Dumbledore. Alla, who also thinks that DD intended to say more because Harry as an agrrieved party deserved to know. From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Fri Jun 30 14:23:35 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:23:35 -0000 Subject: Invisablity Cloaks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154630 > "Tonks" wrote: > > In HBP Harry on the train is under the invisibility cloak. When Tonks > comes to his rescue she pulls the cloak off of him. How did she know > he was there? The windows drawn would alert her, but how was she able > to find the cloak? Can she see through them? > AUSSIE: Harry used his invisibility cloak to leave the Dursleys with Tonks at the start of OOTP. If she was looking for Harry, groping around for the cloak's material wouldn't be too hard in the confines of a conpartment. Barty Couch Sr found his son under a cloak after he was stunned at the Quiddich World Cup. An "Accio" would reveal the person hiding underneath as well, I suppose, as long as you knew or suspected he was there. But true, if the Maunderers Map can see through it, how vulnerable is Harry in Book 7 if he trusts it if he wanders down Knockturn Alley again. Snape, Wormtail and Draco know Harry has it. So it may begin to be a untrustworthy tool soon. From maria8162001 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 30 12:42:30 2006 From: maria8162001 at yahoo.com (Maria Vaerewyck) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:42:30 -0000 Subject: Dr Neil shuddered for ONE of them (Was: Who dies?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154631 > Aussie: > Don't miss the next few lines of the interview:- > > "R: We don't care about extras. You told your husband, obviously. > You confided in him all things, and you told him. > > JK: Well, not everything, that would be reckless. > > 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. maria8162001 here: This came back to my mind lately, does anybody still remember the first main character JKR chopped off in book 7. One of the character that she killed was not a new news to us. Remember a few months ago when she gave an interview(I can't remember which) she mentioned that she just killed one of the main characters in HP and her husband shuddered when he saw her doing that and he said, "no, not that one". And JKR mentioned in that interview that a lot of children's going to cry or brokenhearted and would hate her for doing that. So one of the chopped off character is definitely not a new one, one which she decided to chopped off at the beginning of this year. IMO, this main character that the children love and would hate JKR for chopping him/her off in book 7 could be one of these; Ron, Hermione,Neville, Ginny, Molly, Arthur, Lupin, Mcgonagall, Hagrid, Petunia, Percy? I didn't include Harry, Draco & Snape because, I don't think she's going to kill Harry,IMO of course. And she's not going to kill Snape and Draco because it's already a given by the end of HBP that we expect one of them to die in book 7 because of the UV and for killing DD. 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. Now if she kill snape or Draco we would all say, oh yeah, we saw that coming.So where's the thrill on that on JKR's part if she kill those we expect to die in book 7 because it was so obvious in book 6? Purely my opinion of course base on all the HP books we read(This would be a good news for the Snape fans:-).). We didn't expect Sirius to die by the end of book 4 and we also didn't expect DD to die by the end of book 5. I also didn't include dudley and Vernon because I don't think the younger /children readers are that fond of them so there would be not much tears shed for them the way JKR expect her younger readers to hate her about the first character she chopped off in book 7. Luna, and the other proffessors not so as well. On the other hand I include aunt Petunia because in book 5 she started to show her feelings to Harry even just for a brief moments before vernon interrupted their unspoken connection. If she dies protecting Harry and Dudley, a lot of young readers would cry for that and will surely hate JKR, IMO. The second death maybe also one of the main characters which include Tonks,Trelawney, other professors, Luna, Dean, Gran, Mrs.Figs,Filch, What do you think, any thoughts? From sherriola at earthlink.net Fri Jun 30 14:50:30 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 07:50:30 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dr Neil shuddered for ONE of them (Was: Who dies?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154632 maria8162001 here: I didn't include Harry, Draco & Snape because, I don't think she's going to kill Harry,IMO of course. And she's not going to kill Snape and Draco because it's already a given by the end of HBP that we expect one of them to die in book 7 because of the UV and for killing DD. 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. Now if she kill snape or Draco we would all say, oh yeah, we saw that coming.So where's the thrill on that on JKR's part if she kill those we expect to die in book 7 because it was so obvious in book 6? 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. I think he won the poll here, and just about every other fan anything I read predicted DD would die. I didn't think he would, because of the same thing you said above ... we expected him to die. 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. So, yes, I think she could kill off Snape or Draco, but she will do it again in such a way that we will still be shocked or horrified, depending on our view of those characters and the circumstances surrounding their deaths. In fact, at this point, I suspect she could kill off *anyone* and have no particular strong feelings about any of them. Except that I paraphrase Harry's first conversation with the sorting hat, and I think hard at JKR, not Harry! Please, not Harry! My guess on who got the reprieve might be Draco. I think Draco will never be best buddies with Harry and company, but I believe he will not return to Voldemort, that the end of HBP was showing us that Draco would have a change of heart, turn his coat and work to overthrow Voldemort for his own reasons. I never liked Draco in the past, especially since POA, but I do believe JKR showed us which direction he is going to go. And I like that, because the story is about the kids, so I'm glad to see one of the so-called bad guys among the younger characters, have a change of heart. Sherry From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jun 30 14:57:48 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:57:48 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154633 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > > > Geoff: > > I've often said that, speaking from a Christian point of view, Draco > > is not irredeemable. There are plenty of real world examples of > > people who dramatically changed their view of life. I suspect that > > Draco could never reach a position of friendship with Harry but > > could see that the "light" side of magic is the better way forward. > > > > I certainly wouldn't write him off, until I see what JKR has is store > > for him. Ken; > When I read this I immediately thought of Saul the great persecutor > of Christians who became Paul, the Apostle of Christ, on the road > to Damascus. Draco's conversion would be no more dramatic if > that is JKR's plan for him. And I don't think that Paul and Peter were > ever the best of friends after his conversion so a "converted" Draco > that still disliked Harry would fit the mold. Geoff: I was in fact thinking of St.Paul, among others, when I wrote this. I have made reference to Saul of Tarsus and his conversion several times before, in messages 131628, 137071 and 146801 when I have been commenting on the question of redemption, usually in respect of our dear friend Mr.Malfoy Jr. From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Fri Jun 30 14:13:24 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:13:24 -0000 Subject: ESE! JKR ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154634 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > Well, JKR definitely has her neuroses. The death neurosis is a big > one, and I agree it's annoying and badly overdone, as well as > contributing to a slavishness toward the hackneyed and > outworn "hero's journey" motif. But, it's easy for a writer to > overdo things -- especially when they have their grand plan > permanently before their eyes and tend to forget that everyone else > does not. > > As I've said before, I think JKR, despite what she claims, very much > cares if she has only six readers left when all is done. Her twists > and turns, particularly with DD, bespeak someone who is very much > concerned with getting a message across clearly. We will see if she > succeeds, and what that message is. Personally, I rather fear it > will be contemptible. But, we will see. > Ken: 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. More disturbing to me than the deaths are JKR's comments about them in interviews. Of course I never see/hear the interviews themselves, I only read the transcripts. Maybe her real attitudes don't come across well in the transcripts. The historical record is enough to establish LV's character. We would not need to see him killing anyone this time around unless he had returned openly and were claiming to have reformed. It may have been a more interesting turn of events if that had been the case. That ship has already sailed for a different port though, unless this is one of the twists in store for book 7. 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. I would not use the word contemptible yet I share your fear to the extent that I am bracing myself for a book 7 that could be deeply disappointing. I hope not, I really hope not. Yet it seems that she has left way, way too many loose ends to tie off in a convincing fashion in a single book of reasonable length. And I hate to tell her but killing Harry in an unsatisfying concluding book 7 will NOT prevent non-authorial extensions of the series after (or before!) her death. It will merely guarantee that the extension will start with a rewrite of book 7.... Ken From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Jun 30 15:25:24 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 15:25:24 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione Was:Re: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154635 SSSusan: >>>I mean, wasn't Pippin saying that maybe DD trusts Snape just because he values his friendship, same as maybe Harry trusts R/H just because he values their friendship, even though each of those people may have let down their *respective* friends? So DD may trust Snape because of their friendship, even if Snape has let him down, just as Harry trusts Hermione because of their friendship, even though she has let him down. (And I was agreeing that Hermione *has* let Harry down.)<<< Pippin: > Yes! Thank you, SSSusan. IMO, Dumbledore trusted Snape the way > Harry trusts his friends, in spite of their mistakes, because he > values them. I think that Dumbledore was willing to chance that > Snape joined Voldemort because he made a mistake, not because Snape > was eeevil. SSSusan: Yay!! I was hoping I'd paraphrased that accurately. Pippin: > But Dumbledore valued Snape for some deeper reason -- deep > but not necessarily spectacular. > > I think we may veer off track looking for a spectacular reason why > Dumbledore trusted Snape, just as we went off track looking for a > spectacular reason why Voldemort wanted to kill Harry. SSSusan: It is an interesting possibility, I think. I've been one holding out for something spectacular -- and I would still LIKE to see that -- but your original post gave me pause precisely because it made me stop and think, "Huh. Maybe it really IS just that he trusts him because... well... he just *does,* because he values him as a friend." And if *that* could be true, then so could it be true that the reason for the trust & friendship is something deeper but not necessarily HUGE by fandom standards. It will be one of the things I am most anxious to discover in book 7 (hopefully!). Pippin: > I think, as I said, that Dumbledore intended to tell Harry more > of the story the night he died, but he was reluctant to do so > because a) He had promised Snape that he wouldn't b) He didn't > think Harry was going to be able to understand c) He thought > Harry's misunderstanding was going to make things worse. SSSusan: I also like the possibility of d) He worried whether the information might be vulnerable to revelation to Voldy through Legillimency, Harry not being the best Occlumens at this point. Although, if Voldy got near enough to capture Harry & Legillimens him, I suppose he'd not mess around with that but would, instead, just go ahead & try to kill the kid. Oh, well. It was a thought. ;-) Siriusly Snapey Susan From pebbles104 at sbcglobal.net Thu Jun 29 21:18:48 2006 From: pebbles104 at sbcglobal.net (Kellie and Lady J) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 17:18:48 -0400 Subject: ESE! JKR ? References: <381552350.20060628014301@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <003101c69bc1$9caf5ed0$6500a8c0@shannonn2zgd3u> No: HPFGUIDX 154636 >> Dave: > > I feel the same way -- Who wants to be depressed by our leisure > reading? We have the RW for that! Haven't the good guys been > devastated enough? IMO, if Jo kills too many people we care about, > it will make the final victory seem pretty hollow. Kellie now I do have to agree with you on that. I hope that we don't lose characters that are dear to us. I don't know, I am trying to imagine who the ones who end up being killed are, but I just don't know. I love Dumbledore, and he was already taken out in book six. I was so upset and am only just now going to reread Half Blood Prince. I expected Dumbledore to die, but not until book 7. I seem to always like the character that dies in a book. I guess it is up to J. K. R. but I hope she doesn't devastate us to much with the outcome of book 7. I agree to that the good guys have had enough tragedy, it is time for the dark to pay, but I guess all we can do now is wait and see what happens. I hope that Harry is not the one however, who ends up dying, I just don't. To me, that would be completely unfair. Kellie From hpfgu.elves at gmail.com Fri Jun 30 16:31:55 2006 From: hpfgu.elves at gmail.com (hpfgu_elves) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 16:31:55 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: No top-posting, please Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154637 Hi, everyone; a bit of a rerun admin, but it's needed: Top-posting (replying to a message by putting your new comments at the top of the message leaving the quoted message to follow) is not allowed here. When a person top-posts, they virtually never snip the excess / irrelevant parts of the quoted message; we have a *lot* of members who read the messages in digest form, and it is a headache in the extreme to wade through acres of unsnipped posts. Also it can often be difficult to follow who is saying what and it's much easier to follow a discussion in the format of > List Member Bill: > Bill's quoted comments that you're replying > to. List Member Anne: New message replying to Bill. All members, new and old, should read through our posting rules; you've read quite a few pages of HP, you read lots of posts here, so spare a few minutes and read the rules: http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/Posting_Rules_09_Mar_06.html If anyone has any questions, feel free to contact your list elf, or the whole crew of elves at HPforGrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com. One last mention -- everyone, but especially our newer members, *make sure* to regularly check the email account you used to join this group; all too often the elves try to contact people but never hear back from them. So please, check your accounts and let us know you're seeing our messages, folks. Thanks! --The Elves From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Jun 30 16:28:15 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 16:28:15 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154638 > Alla: > > Um, not quite. I just don't buy the argument ( not necessarily > yours) that seems to absolve Draco from all personal responsibility > BECAUSE his parents are so bad. Magpie: I don't think that Draco's absolved of responsibility at all either. Every person has things that influence him, but also acts himself in response to those influences. As a character I don't think Draco's ever been let off the hook this way. Sure we know his Dad's a DE and he's been raised with certain beliefs, but it's not Lucius who feels the results of his behavior, it's Draco himself. I thought that was a lot of what HBP was about was Draco coming to a place where he was seeing the reality of this. If he goes through life acting a certain way, believing certain things, that's his life and no one else's. Alla:> > IMO everybody first and foremost learns their morality, their views > from their parents and if Draco would have been raised in vacuum and > have not encountered ANYBODY but his parents and friends, then I > would have probably understood that argument. > > But he is NOT. He is not even going to Durmstrang, where arguably > Dark Arts are more thriving, etc. He is going to Hogwarts and he has > to be SO blind IMO to not see the difference between how Dumbledore > behaves and how Voldemort behaves and by extension how Draco's > parents behave. Magpie: But he doesn't need a vacuum. He doesn't cling to the beliefs and feelings he was raised in because he has no idea there are other people who believe differently, he clings to them because of a combination of who he is, who he loves, how he sees them, what he holds dear and what he's experienced. I would guess that an objective moral judgment's probably pretty low down the scale a lot of the time for Draco, that he's more heavily influenced by the emotions he feels for the people involved. As Harry and others often do as well. Alla: > > All the examples that were given are those that IMO Draco is VERY > likely to hear about. For example I did not give the example of > Harry being tortured at Graveyard, although I am thinking that > Lucius could have described that to Draco in great details too, but > Okay, Draco was not there, BUT Draco hears that Cedric was killed by > Voldemort ( by Peter, but it is the same for purpose of the > argument). Magpie: Some of these things he would hear about and, with the bias he has, and be unlikely to look at them the way we do. He's not sitting off detached and making a rational judgment, he's reacting in the moment to different knocks and jolts. We are, I think, dealing with a kid far more influenced by his emotions about the people involved. Which is not supposed to be an excuse for his behavior either, it's just not surprising. > > Alla: > > He is worse than Harry precisely because he is on Voldemort side > IMO, I am not even getting into his personality, because as I said I > am not really tempted to look behind personality of the bigot > unfortunately. Magpie: But then you're you're not looking at the character. He's a bigot, so on a scale of bigots vs. non-bigots he fails. Alla: > It is a very low threshhold for me to overcome and Draco passes with > flying colours. Draco was raised to believe in Voldemort, sure, he > was, but how does that make his beliefs not worse? Magpie: Not at all! His story, imo, is very centered on just how bad his beliefs are. I think that's what the author is often interested in with him. A lot of fanfics are happy to have Draco switch sides for political, self-preservation reasons, but I don't think JKR is interested in letting him get away with that. His beliefs could very well kill him. Alla:> > Does he not know that Voldemort at very least killed two people and > left a baby an orphan? And I am assuming that Draco did not hear > anything about Voldemort's first reign of terror, which is IMO not > possible. Magpie: But lots of people passionately support causes and people who have done awful things like this, especially if it's for the "right" reasons. Draco's belief seems to center on the idea that it's *good* that Voldemort did these things. His belief system puts these horrible acts in a context that makes them at worst necessary evils. In fact I think all along there were signs that the important thing about Draco wasn't that he professed to believe these things but that this was, underneath, exactly what he had trouble with. According to his beliefs killing Dumbledore should have literally been glorious. First hand experience suggested that it wasn't, and perhaps neither was the murder of the Potters or Cedric or anyone else. Alla: > He wants to help Heir of Slytherin commit murder, he has no problem > with the mudbloods dying. Yes, I'd say that it makes him MUCH worse > than Harry. Magpie: Yes, I would never argue that Harry does not share any beliefs like thinking it's okay for a whole group of people should die. However, also remember that saying and doing are two different things (especially at 12). Ultimately Draco doesn't want to help the Heir of Slytherin commit murder, at least. Alla: > And yes, he winds up helping the Heir, I do hope that this was the > lesson that would stick with him, but what I am not buying is that > Draco bears no personal responsibility because he was raised in the bad environment. > As I said I am not sure that this is your argument. Magpie: Definitely not my argument. If Draco has no personal responsibility his story was meaningless and went nowhere. It seemed like a lot of what he was meant to learn had to do with personal responsibility. > Alla: > > You see, I am not sure I understand you. On one hand the argument > acknowledges that Draco's side is objectively bad, on the other you > do seem to imply that since this is the morality Draco was taught, > he bears no responsibility for what he did > > Could you please clarify? We all get our views from somewhere, as I > said I think Draco SAW things that should have forced him to reflect > upon it earlier before he tried to commit murders. I hold him > responsible for not doing so. Magpie: I'm not saying that he has no personal responsibility for what he does because of his family, but rather saying that you can't understand his actions without taking that into account. I just don't see anything that should have forced Draco to reflect upon this stuff earlier at all. In every book before HBP there's some reference to the fact that death isn't even real for Draco, much less something he's reflecting upon. It becomes real for him in HBP. Sure it would have been great for him to have reacted to Cedric's death by changing sides, but it doesn't bother me that he didn't. I find the character a lot more compelling the way he's written. Had he changed sides earlier, in fact, we would lose a lot of the punch of his personal responsibility because he would just have been an observer on the sidelines. Who cares which way the Malfoy kid leans unless the Malfoy kid is a player? Alla: > There are characters who do see that their prejudices are wrong , > they evolve and grow. Ron snarks at Lupin "get away from me > werewolf", so it seems to me that either Molly and Arthur shared to > some extent this prejudice ( which I do not find very likely, but it > is of course possible), OR Ron got it from some other source. > > I do not see anywhere in OOP from Ron's interactions with Lupin that > he somehow prejudiced against him. > > Does Draco shows anything like that? As I said, I surely hope that > he will, but the fact that he was raised by Lucius does not absolve > him IMO. Magpie: Interesting comparison, because Ron changes his mind about Lupin based on experience, doesn't he? It's through knowing Lupin that Ron comes to think werewolves aren't bad. Lupin has treated Ron really well up until that point--and the two of them aren't just teacher and student. Molly likes Lupin just fine, but is nervous around werewolves in general because they're contagious. (I believe she doesn't like Arthur sharing a ward with one in OotP.) In the end it still seems to turn on the same thing Draco does, which is personal relationships. > Alla: > > Dumbledore does his best to not make them prevalent in Hogwarts IMO. > Does Draco listen? As I said, one example is that he employs Hagrid > and Lupin. Hagrid, who was unjustly expelled and Lupin, who cannot > get a job otherwise. Does that teach Draco any kind of lesson? Not > IMO. Magpie: I'm not sure what Dumbledore's hiring of his personal favorite group would do one way or the other. Lupin was a great teacher, but Snape disliked him and I don't know if Draco had any thoughts about werewolves after he left. I can't imagine Hagrid doing much positive good on that score. I can very easily see how Hagrid comes across outside Harry's pov. Probably most kids in Harry's class went through classes with both these two with little or nothing changing about whatever personal prejudices they might have had. -m From tareprachi at yahoo.com Fri Jun 30 07:25:03 2006 From: tareprachi at yahoo.com (pforparvati) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 07:25:03 -0000 Subject: Corruption in the MoM In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154639 Tonks wrote: > > TOP SECRET > for all undercover Aurors. > > It has come to my attention that there may be some serious > corruption in the MoM and there may actually be members of the DE > in our midst. > As you may know I think the Bones murder by LV was because Amelia > suspected the corruption in her own department and higher. > PP now: Hey..surely there must be serious corruption in MOM... But about the Bones murder, I think SS took the credit for it while convincing Bellatrix about his loyalty to LV .. PP, just adding a knut as usual From coverton at netscape.com Fri Jun 30 14:38:22 2006 From: coverton at netscape.com (corey_over) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:38:22 -0000 Subject: Invisiblity Cloaks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154640 > AUSSIE: > But true, if the Maunderers Map can see through it, how > vulnerable is Harry in Book 7 if he trusts it if he wanders down > Knockturn Alley again. > > Snape, Wormtail and Draco know Harry has it. So it may begin to > be a untrustworthy tool soon. Corey: I think the cloak will still help Harry, even though Snape, Wormtail, and Malfoy know Harry have it. I think it can still help him cause it's been one of his greatest tools. Even people know he has it. I think he'll use it wisely. He's trying to survive, let's not forget--- From kmalone1127 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 30 16:00:11 2006 From: kmalone1127 at yahoo.com (kmalone1127) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 16:00:11 -0000 Subject: Dr Neil shuddered for ONE of them (Was: Who dies?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154642 > maria8162001 here: > I didn't include Harry, Draco & Snape because, I don't think she's > going to kill Harry, IMO of course. And she's not going to kill > Snape and Draco because it's already a given by the end of HBP > that we expect one of them to die in book 7 because of the UV and > for killing DD. > Sherry now: > I think she could kill off Snape or Draco, but she will do > it again in such a way that we will still be shocked or horrified, > depending on our view of those characters and the circumstances > surrounding their deaths. In fact, at this point, I suspect she > could kill off *anyone* and have no particular strong feelings > about any of them. I would just like to point out that JKR said that there would be two unintended deaths, not that those would be the only two. I personally feel that there will be a lot of death in book 7 plus these two originally unintended deaths. I don't mean to be a mood killer or sound pessimistic, but JKR has stated that death is a major theme in these books. It would stand to reason that with Voldemort walking and talking and killing again that there will be much more death, especially with DD gone. kmalone1127 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 30 17:08:41 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 17:08:41 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154643 Pippin wrote: > > > I think, as I said, that Dumbledore intended to tell Harry more> of the story the night he died, but he was reluctant to do so because a) He had promised Snape that he wouldn't b) He didn't think Harry was going to be able to understand c) He thought Harry's misunderstanding was going to make things worse. > > > > There may be some spectacular unrevealed reason that Dumbledore valued Snape's friendship, but it might well have happened before Snape joined the DE's. (That would explain the "rejoined our side" in GoF). In that case it would do little to convince Harry of Snape's worth, and yet by HBP Snape had already saved Dumbledore at least once and Harry at least twice. If that wasn't good enough for Harry as a reason to value Snape, what would be? > Alla responded: > Snape is guilty of too much towards Harry IMO and to expect Harry to > share Dumbledore's trust in Snape, whom friendship Dumbledore may > value, but who treated Harry like crap and who had a hand in making > Harry an orphan is well... naive at the most charitable reading. > > That is why I think there IS a dramatic reason Dumbledore trusts > Snape and besides, would not Dumbledore need the reason to trust > former DE? > Alla, who also thinks that DD intended to say more because Harry as > an agrrieved party deserved to know. > Carol responds: What we have here, IMO, is irony operating on a number of levels. Snape has saved Harry twice (SS/PS, HBP) and tried to save him or helped to save him at least three other times (POA, GOF, OoP), has saved DD once, has contributed to saving Ron (making sure that Harry knows about bezoars from day one), and so on, all because (IMO) he is trying to undo the damage that was done at Godric's Hollow. However, his attitude toward Harry (an arrogant little rule-breaker) and Harry's toward him (a sarcastic, unfair teacher) makes it impossible for them to come to an understanding, with or without Dumbledore, even before HBP. And as of the end of OoP, Harry is not only refusing to acknowledge his and his friends' debt to Snape for sending the Order to the MoM but is (intentionally) blaming Snape for Sirius Black's death because it "feels satisfying." He is letting the minor irritation of a sarcastic teacher prevent him from seeing Snape as a loyal Order member who has been trying to protect him, for whatever personal reasons, since SS/PS. Pippin said the other day that the DADA curse in HBP operates as it always does, by revealing the DADA teacher's secret, in this case, that he's the eavesdropper who revealed the Prophecy. I've been thinking about this remark, which at first didn't make sense to me because I've been thinking of the UV as the instrument of the DADA curse to figure out how Harry's knowing Snape's secret could lead to Snape's dismissal as DADA teacher. I've come up with the following chain of events (no doubt already clear to Pippin ;-) ): Harry encounters Trelawney, who has just been thrown out of the RoR. She tells him about the "whoop" and he persuades her to go to Dumbledore. She lets slip that Snape was eavesdropping on her job interview. Harry realizes that Snape is *the* eavesdropper who revealed the Prophecy to Voldemort and the curse strikes, changing the course of events from that point forward. Harry rushes angrily to DD's office, shunting Trelawney aside, so her story goes unheard. He tells DD what he has overheard and he mentions the whoop, but he neglects to mention that Draco threw Trelawney out of the RoR, a piece of information which, as Pippin pointed out earlier, would have required DD to take action or at least take what Harry had said seriously. With the curse still operating, DD chooses not to tell Harry the truth about Snape. They leave the school grounds as planned (with an interlude for the Felix Felicis), leaving the way open for the DEs to enter Hogwarts. They return with DD weakened, perhaps dying. Imperio'd Rosmerta shows them the Dark Mark, changing DD's plan of sending Harry for Snape, and they fly to the tower. Snape, shocked to learn that Draco's plan has succeeded but unaware of DD's condition, races to the tower and Doom falls. Snape has no choice but to kill Dumbledore, or pretend to do so, in order to save Harry and Draco and get the DEs out of Hogwarts. Harry sees his view of Snape as evil and treacherous confirmed by the murder before his eyes of Dumbledore. It seems as if the two can never be reconciled and Harry's hatred and anger never changed to forgiveness and understanding, all because of Trelawney's untimely and unwitting revelation of the eavesdropper's identity. (Is that how you see it, Pippin?) Irony piled upon irony. Secrets kept too long. Information that might have saved the day almost revealed but then suppressed or the revelation thwarted by something unforeseen. Actions that might have saved the day prevented. And the end of it all (so far) is a dead Dumbledore and a Harry who believes that Snape is his enemy. Misunderstanding has reached its peak. The tide must turn. 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). I believe that Harry must forgive Snape his trespasses and acknowledge that neither he nor Ron nor perhaps Hermione (the stretchers in PoA) would be alive if it weren't for Snape. Only then, when he has set aside his hatred and anger and embraced forgiveness and mercy can Harry fulfill his role as Chosen One, a burden that Snape unwittingly helped place upon him. (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.) 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 From thebookandtherose at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jun 30 17:32:05 2006 From: thebookandtherose at yahoo.co.uk (thebookandtherose) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 17:32:05 -0000 Subject: Barty Crouch Jr. the Loyal Supporter? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154644 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "durant_a2002 " wrote: when Harry sees Crouch Jr. in the Pensieve, he sees a man > who, at that point would clearly be willing to renounce Voldemort and > all the dark magic if it meant that he didn't have to go to Azkaban. > It was the other three who were with him who were the truly loyal > ones. Crouch was begging his father for forgiveness. > > BookishRose: That's the tragedy of Barty Crouch jr. He could have changed. He wasn't much more than a child, and I honestly believe it was after the trial that he became a fanatical maniac. Barty Jr. is possibly my favourite character because his story is just so sad I can't help wanting to defend him. I strongly disagree that he was acting in the trial, he was a scared kid who had probably only join Voldermort to rebel against his father and get some attention for once and ended up living a half life for it. He deserved some form of punishment, just not Azkaban. He could have been rehabilitated so easily. He was desperate to change. Punishment is supposed to reform the criminal, not to make him/her suffer needlessly. Barty was not reformed, rehabilitated, deterred, and the public were not protected from him, as his mother took his place it could be argued there was no retribution, as his father was shown only hostility after the trial there was no real vindication(which I've always considered the least valid reason for punishment). None of the six reasons for punishment were fulfilled. BookishRose...who is more coherent when she isn't upset. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 30 18:13:50 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 18:13:50 -0000 Subject: ESE! JKR ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154645 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). If the only deaths were of people we have met only briefly (Emmeline Vance, Amelia Bones) or relatives of minor characters (Hanah Abbott's mother) or people we read about in newspapers (a five-year-old boy killed by Fenrir Greyback), the war would not feel sufficiently real. The events outside Hogwarts (the bridge, the "hurricane," the murders, the false arrests) create the delusion that Hogwarts is a safe haven. At the same time, the evil of Voldemort creeps nearer as we see a character we know, Draco, actively working for Voldemort (and his mother's fears for him, which parallel Molly's for her children and husband). JKR must strike a balance between too many deaths, in which the book becomes a bloodbath (like too many films and books and video games these days) and too few deaths, which would detract from the realism, or rather, the verisimilitude. We must believe that a war is really happening and that it's getting worse, endangering our main characters. We must believe that one or more of them may not survive or there is no suspense. (Even the stupid Horcruxes must provide a real danger, though we know that neither the cup nor the locket will kill Harry.) As for the fox--interesting that you should bring up that seemingly insignificant detail. Unlike the fox in Fellowship of the Ring, which "never [finds] out any more about it" but returns to its normal life, this one is casually killed. Why? Is this a pointless death? I think it serves several purposes. First, it shows us exactly who we're dealing with in Bellatrix Lestrange. Previously, we've seen her (in the Pensieve) young and haughty and absolutely convinced that the Dark Lord will return and reward her loyalty. We know that she and her male followers are responsible for Crucioing the Longbottoms into insanity. We know that she's a fanatic and a sadist. In OoP, she seems to be insane herself, still fanatically loyal, still addicted to inflicting pain, but almost beside herself in her mockery and curse casting, to the point of forgetting their mission and having to be reprimanded by her brother-in-law (who has the advantage at that point of not having spent thirteen or fourteen years in Azkaban). In the fox scene, we see Bella in the company of her sister, whom she surprisingly cares about, but we also see her casually kill that fox. Why? There is no fanatical gleam in her eye at this point, but she suspects that it might be an Auror. We're reminded that Bella is at this point the most wanted criminal in the WW aside from LV himself, an escapee from Azkaban already under a life sentence and now wanted for a new crime, the MoM invasion. Like her cousin Sirius before her, she's in hiding and must watch every tree and bush for concealed pursuers. But to suspect a fox? Is she literally insane? Surely she would know if any Aurors were registered Animagi and no Auror would be unregistered. I think we're expected to see that Bellatrix is simultaneously paranoid and a cold-blooded, casual killer--a very dangerous person who nevertheless, as we see later in the chapter, has personal loyalties both to the Dark Lord (as we already knew) and to her family (though she's willing to sacrifice her nephew and her fortunately imaginary sons to the cause of Voldemort's victory). We're seeing, briefly and perhaps for the only time in the books, the war from the Death Eater's perspective. (Granted, we don't see inside Bellatrix's head, but she speaks her thoughts aloud and reveals her emotions openly; how that woman could teach Draco even the most rudimentary Occlumency is a mystery to me.) Bellatrix is a Woman Warrior (the literal meaning of her name), a soldier in Voldemort's (admittedly rather small) army, a fanatical terrorist who would do anything to serve the cause. The casual murder of the fox/Auror (which turns out to be just a fox), using a Killing Curse intended for humans (and apparently delivered nonverbally, as if she casts the curse as easily as Harry casts Levicorpus) shows us exactly who and what we're dealing with--casual evil that does not recognize itself as evil, murder perceived as a commonplace action comparable to swatting a fly. Carol, who suspects that Bellatrix is right to mistrust Snape, who clearly is not a Voldie fanatic From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jun 30 18:11:11 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 18:11:11 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154646 > Alla: > > > Well, Okay the only thing I can add then is that sure Dumbledore can > trust Snape because he values his friendship. > > What Dumbledore can NOT do IMO is to expect Harry to trust Snape > because Dumbledore values his friendship. Pippin: Where do you see Dumbledore expecting Harry to do this? The most I see Dumbledore asking is for Harry to accept that he, Dumbledore, trusts Snape. I agree that it would be asking a lot for Harry to trust Snape, because Harry does not have the maturity to set his personal feelings aside and realize that his life is more important than losing points or getting detentions that he doesn't deserve or being insulted in front of the Slytherins (who wouldn't like him anyway.) But I expect Harry will get there eventually, and at that point, whatever dramatic reasons there were for Dumbledore to trust Snape won't matter. Alla: > That is why I think there IS a dramatic reason Dumbledore trusts > Snape and besides, would not Dumbledore need the reason to trust > former DE? > > I mean he can value his friendship, but wouldn't he need the evidence > that Snape changed his ways? Pippin: If Dumbledore trusted Snape before, and accepted that Snape had made a mistake and was sorry for it, then he wouldn't need evidence any more than Harry needed evidence from Ron or Hermione. That would be saying, "I'll give you a second chance if you do so and so," which is not Dumbledore's way. 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? Pippin From kljohnson7868 at gmail.com Fri Jun 30 18:42:03 2006 From: kljohnson7868 at gmail.com (kljohnson7868) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 18:42:03 -0000 Subject: Harry's Death - could be "happy" ending? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154647 There are different types of happy endings...take the ending of the Narnia series, for example. Having Harry reunite with his parents is another take on the happy ending. It may not be the ending many people want, of course, but it *is* its own form of happiness. I keep thinking that the first chapter of the first book is called "The Boy Who Lived". Couldn't it be possible that either 1/ it foreshadows the very end of the series (he lives) or the polar opposite, 2/ the last chapter of the last book will read, "The Man Who Died"? The quote someone shared about JKR being Christian & that by the end of the series, it would be clear, makes me wonder if in fact Harry IS meant to die, as a sacrifice to save his friends' lives. Personally, I'm ok if she decides to end the series with his death... Kathi From thebookandtherose at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jun 30 16:40:42 2006 From: thebookandtherose at yahoo.co.uk (thebookandtherose) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 16:40:42 -0000 Subject: Crouch Sr. (the abbreviated version) (and jr.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154648 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lucky_kari" wrote in: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/37476 (SNIP)Crouch > is indeed a brilliant man. But he has more than that. A certain style, > a calmness in the most bizarre situations (the only time he loses his > temper is right at the very end of the trial scene), a methodical way > of going about things. BookishRose: I think that's precisly what I don't like about Crouch sr. I'm the sort of person that prides myself on following my heart, and to be honest I don't trust logic much at all. I'll admit it has its uses but it rarely takes into account the innate illogical quality in human beings; communism for example is logical on paper but it doesn't work in reality because reality itself is not logical; happiness and compassion and love are illogical, yet they drive almost everything we do. Communism makes the mistake of considering humans to be rational beings and therefore does not work. (I have nothing against communists btw it's a nice idea, it just doesn't work.) Due to this, I find Barty Crouch sr. and his cold, robotic application of logic unnerving. That and the fact the only emotion he shows is anger. > 3. On the House-elf front, dismissing Winky was a very bad move. BookishRose: *snort* I'll say. Crouch (who may be cold but could never be called stupid) must have realised that it was his son, not Winky who conjured up the dark mark, yet he still gave her clothes- something she shows no signs of recovering from even by book six. He sacrificed her for the sake of keeping his son a secret. Was he too far in to let Barty jr. be discovered? Maybe, but there was no need to be so harsh on Winky. > 4. Crouch did not sacrifice his son to his career ambition. This seems > to be a red herring in the plot. Crouch thought Barty Jr. was as > guilty as sin, and was quite justified in thinking so. BookishRose: Yes but he didn't have to send him to Azkaban did he? I'm being controversial here, but I'd like to think if I had a son and the decision of whether or not to send him to Azkaban was in my hands I would do everything within my power to stop him being sent away, no matter what he'd done. I couldn't live with myself otherwise. I'm not talking about the law here, I'm talking about love and loyalty and paternal instinct. What would you do if a member of your family was facing Azkaban and you had the chance to save him(/her)? The poor kid, (and he was a kid at nineteen) was pleading and actually screaming for his father, and what did Crouch sr. say; "I have no son". Jeez, model parent huh? I mean surely he could have asked someone else to oversee the trial. It was grossly inappropriate for him to be legally involved in his own son's trial, except as a character witness, even if he did do the legal thing. >(put up your hands if you > think Crouch Sr. was in Slytherin.) *BookishRose shudders at Crouch sr.'s ruthlessness, ambition and betrayal of his own son who was practically a child.(and I don't care what Barty jr. did it still was betrayal) thrusts her hand firmly into the air* > 6. Barty Jr. is an ungrateful b-eeeeeeeeeep. Don't care how unloving > he thought his father was. Being under Imperius curse was a heap nicer > than Azkaban, especially since he was guilty. BookishRose: I disagree. In the pensieve young Barty seemed like a kid who has gone waaay out of his depth, no matter how good his acting is. I think his fathers treatment of him was a large factor in his fanaticism. I think that when his father condemned him to Azkaban and then forced him to live practically as a ghost for about 15 years he transferred the role of 'father figure' to Voldermort. Hell, I can't imagine him having the best relationship with his dad even before he became a deatheater. I think that even a short stay in Azkaban, the guilt from his mother taking his place, the rejection from his father and the exclusion from the rest of the world were enough to push someone who has shown no signs of being a particularly strong character before the trial over the edge. The combination of frustration from confinment, disappointment from the Dark Lord's fall, resentment of his father's treatment of him and guilt for letting his mother take his place (which I don't think Crouch sr. would have let him forget) plus a whole range of emotions I'd need Hermione to explain would have been unbearable. So it's feasable to suggest that his fanaticism was a chanel for these emotions, stopping him going even madder and/or mad in a different way. Because as much as I love Barty jr. he is clearly at least a bit mad. What really saddens me about Barty's story is that he could have changed. I don't see how any judge could sentance a screaming kid the same as Bellatrix, who was defiant throughout the trial, openly claiming alligence to Voldermort. I honestly believe that if Barty had been acquitted he could have realised if maybe not the moral implications then at the very least the legal repecutions of his behavoir. > I loved Elkins's comparison of Barty Jr. to Boo Radley, however. BookishRose: Me too, it was pure genius. I think it was at that point Barty jr. became my favourite character. (Not when I saw David Tennant playing him in the film no matter what my sister might say or how much I loved his jacket.) > 7. Barty Jr. inherited his talent for acting from his father. Watch > how he manipulates Diggory in "The Dark Mark": down to the point where BookishRose: That's what intrigues me most though. He's intelligent even if he is unhinged and I just can't understand whats going on inside his head, which just makes me want to more. He's clearly having the time of his life inpersonating Moody; he even performs the cruciatus curse in front of Neville (and the Imperious in front of Ron if you buy into Imperioed!Arthur), almost everything he says has some nasty double meaning and he is just so convincing. I bet no one guessed for a minute it was him. I think somewhere during his confinment Barty jr. not only snapped but turned into an entirely different person. I don't think the kid at the trial is acting, I think he has so much yet to go through before he breaks completely. I don't think Barty jr. is brave or strong or even particularly likable judging on what I've seen. But he's practically a kid and to borrow an idea from Terry Prattchet to put him in a criminal justice system that turns redeemable first offenders into hardened criminals (not to mention maniacs) rather than one that turns hardened criminals into redeemed men and women is asking for trouble. He's nineteen-years-old for heavens sake, he deserves a second chance. > 9. J.K. Rowling said that it's the unhappy people who come back as > ghosts. I can't think of a person in all the books who dies more > unhappily than Crouch Sr. BookishRose: Mmmm agreed. But I can't think of anyone whose life sucks more than Barty jr's. BookishRose, who wants to defend Barty jr. because his father should have. From kljohnson7868 at gmail.com Fri Jun 30 18:51:36 2006 From: kljohnson7868 at gmail.com (kljohnson7868) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 18:51:36 -0000 Subject: Harry as Tragic Hero (was Re: JKR borrows from heroic literature) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154649 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "whirledgirl" wrote: > Obviously, it's a bit of a 50/50 question, and one we can only > speculate on. IMO, who chooses to believe Harry will live, chooses > to put faith in JKR as an author of inspirational books, because how > can you be inspired by a hero who dies? Because there ARE examples in literature of the hero as martyr. Aristotle described the "tragic hero", which fits Harry. Some characteristics of the tragic hero include: He must suffer more than he deserves. He must be doomed from the start, but bear no responsibility for possessing his flaw. He must be noble in nature, but imperfect so that the audience can see themselves in him. Physically or spiritually wounded by his experiences, often resulting in his death. Ideally, he should be a king or some sort of leader, so that his people experience his fall with him. I can see Harry fitting the description of the tragic hero... The wonderful think about the HP series is that it can go into so many different directions. I'm sure we could each successfully debate arguments for/against Harry's death. :-) Kathi From sherriola at earthlink.net Fri Jun 30 19:15:48 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:15:48 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's Death - could be "happy" ending? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154650 Kathi There are different types of happy endings...take the ending of the Narnia series, for example. Having Harry reunite with his parents is another take on the happy ending. It may not be the ending many people want, of course, but it *is* its own form of happiness. Sherry now: I would be gravely concerned with the message such an ending would send kids, especially teenagers. If you die you will be happy. Teenage suicide is already an epidemic and doesn't need anything to make troubled kids think they will find happiness by killing themselves or dying in general. Of course, I have no idea what kind of message JKR wants to send children or adults, but I hope that isn't the one. This is just my thought on the matter, of course. If Harry does dies--crosses fingers, knocks on wood and where's the salt to throw over my shoulder?--I hope it is seen as the tragedy it will be, not just a way for Harry to be happy at last. Maybe, according to Dumbledore, Death is indeed the next great adventure, but in my opinion, it's an adventure a 17-year-old boy should not want or be ready to take quite yet. I hope. Sherry From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 30 19:17:13 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 19:17:13 -0000 Subject: Corruption in the MoM In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154651 Tonks wrote: > > As you may know I think the Bones murder by LV was because Amelia > suspected the corruption in her own department and higher. > > > > PP responded: > Hey..surely there must be serious corruption in MOM... > But about the Bones murder, I think SS took the credit for it while > convincing Bellatrix about his loyalty to LV .. Carol notes: A small correction here. Voldemort himself killed Amelia Bones. Snape takes credit for providing information on fellow Order member Emmeline Vance (not for killing her or taking part in the killing)--probably, as you say, to convince Bellatrix of his loyalty. Of course as a double agent he had to provide information to maintain his credibility with Voldemort, and there was always the risk that such information would be used against an Order member. However, given that Snape constantly provides Dumbledore with information (on Harry's dreams of Voldemort, his own and Karkaroff's Dark Marks, and LV;s displeasure over Lucius Malfoy's diary blunder, for starters), it seems likely that he either informed DD of the information he had provided to LV or arranged with him in advance exactly which information to provide. Also, as I've pointed out in several posts, he also claims to have provided information leading to Sirius Black's death when we know that others (Kreacher and Wormtail) provided more crucial information, and since Snape can't reveal the location of Order HQ and Black was supposed to remain there, his claim to having a hand in Black's death is greatly exaggerated. I suspect that his claim regarding Vance's death is similarly suspect: yes, he provided information on her, but not enough to lead directly to her death. But, to return to my original point, he makes no such claim regarding Amelia Bones, who was not AFAWK an Order member but a Ministry official, one of the few we know of who seems to be above corruption. That in itself would be a reason for Voldemort's wanting her dead, and her apparently formidable powers were his reason for doing it himself. Carol, agreeing with Tonks that LV killed the formidable Madam Bones dead by his own hand because she was incorruptible and possibly because she was attempting to weed out corruption in the Department of Magical Law Enforcement From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jun 30 19:13:22 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 19:13:22 -0000 Subject: SOURCE for quote (was Re: Maybe Harry doesn't die???) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154652 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kljohnson7868" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "UNIX4EVR" wrote: Kathi: > > Is she a Christian? > > JKR ''Yes, I am,'' she says. ''Which seems to offend the religious > > right far worse than if I said I thought there was no God. Every > > time I've been asked if I believe in God, I've said yes, because I > > do, but no one ever really has gone any more deeply into it than > > that, and I have to say that does suit me, because if I talk too > > freely about that I think the intelligent reader, whether 10 or 60, > > will be able to guess what's coming in the books.'' > > Can you please tell me from where that quote originated? I can't find > the source and am curious.... Geoff: Max Wyman in the Vancouver Sun 26/10/00. This link should get you to the full interview: www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2000/1000-vancouversun-wyman.htm From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 30 18:36:36 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 18:36:36 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154653 > Pippin: > If Dumbledore trusted Snape before, and accepted that Snape had > made a mistake and was sorry for it, then he wouldn't need evidence > any more than Harry needed evidence from Ron or Hermione. That > would be saying, "I'll give you a second chance if you do so and so," > which is not Dumbledore's way. 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? > 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. 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? I am drawing a big blank right now, so I am sure you could help me with it. :) Did Wizengamot delivered a "non guilty" verdict to Snape? Is voting shown? Ugh, must reread that chapter. >From what I remember right now to me the implication was more like that Snape was given parole on DD word that he produced the evidence. In any event, YES, I think Harry deserves to know. JMO, Alla From kljohnson7868 at gmail.com Fri Jun 30 19:25:50 2006 From: kljohnson7868 at gmail.com (kljohnson7868) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 19:25:50 -0000 Subject: Harry's Death - could be "happy" ending? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154654 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" wrote: > I would be gravely concerned with the message such an ending would send > kids, especially teenagers. If you die you will be happy. Teenage suicide > is already an epidemic and doesn't need anything to make troubled kids think > they will find happiness by killing themselves or dying in general. There is a vast difference between killing oneself to end the "pain" of this world (ie, suicide) and sacrificing oneself for the better good (archetypical Christ figure). > If Harry does dies--crosses fingers, knocks on wood and > where's the salt to throw over my shoulder?--I hope it is seen as the > tragedy it will be, not just a way for Harry to be happy at last. It will be a tragedy, of course, because he is so young and has been through so much pain and sadness....and we hope that he would be having a much happier adulthood. But not every hero lives. But they can (and often do) find meaning in the suffering, a greater purpose, so to speak. Maybe, > according to Dumbledore, Death is indeed the next great adventure, but in my > opinion, it's an adventure a 17-year-old boy should not want or be ready to > take quite yet. While I agree with you, I still think it is acceptable to end the series with his death - even though I do hope that the first chapter of the first book in the series ("The Boy Who Lived") will be prophetic. Kathi From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 30 19:56:12 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 19:56:12 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil ( Draco and a bit of Ron)/Harry as DD man In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154655 > Magpie: > I don't think that Draco's absolved of responsibility at all > either. Every person has things that influence him, but also acts > himself in response to those influences. As a character I don't > think Draco's ever been let off the hook this way. Sure we know his > Dad's a DE and he's been raised with certain beliefs, but it's not > Lucius who feels the results of his behavior, it's Draco himself. I > thought that was a lot of what HBP was about was Draco coming to a > place where he was seeing the reality of this. If he goes through > life acting a certain way, believing certain things, that's his life > and no one else's. Alla: Okay, so far I completely agree with you :) > Alla: > > > > All the examples that were given are those that IMO Draco is VERY > > likely to hear about. For example I did not give the example of > > Harry being tortured at Graveyard, although I am thinking that > > Lucius could have described that to Draco in great details too, > but > > Okay, Draco was not there, BUT Draco hears that Cedric was killed > by > > Voldemort ( by Peter, but it is the same for purpose of the > > argument). > > Magpie: > Some of these things he would hear about and, with the bias he has, > and be unlikely to look at them the way we do. He's not sitting off > detached and making a rational judgment, he's reacting in the moment > to different knocks and jolts. We are, I think, dealing with a kid > far more influenced by his emotions about the people involved. > Which is not supposed to be an excuse for his behavior either, it's > just not surprising. Alla: See, the funny thing is that the way you put it, I do not have much disagreement with you again. :) I think I was reacting to Betsy statement ( I think and I hope I do not misinterpret it) that Draco does not see the good things that good guys do, that good guys do bad things and Draco, poor dear cannot distinguish between them or something ( again, Betsy please correct me if I am wrong) What you are saying makes total sense to me - Draco reacts often based on his emotions, BUT again it is not the same as to say that he sees bad things - he is unable to distinguish between them, sure, and your reasons seem plausible to me , especially since you do not state them as an excuse. Ugh, I guess the point I am trying to make that yes, it is NOT surprising, but it is still DRACO's problem that he cannot see that good guys ARE good guys and they do plenty of good ,decent things. They also make mistakes ( good guys, I mean), what I am strongly disagreeing with ( and now I am not sure if anybody even made this argument in the first place) that good guys are somehow at fault for Draco's behavior, that it is because of THEM Draco cannot see right from wrong. Makes sense? > Magpie: > Not at all! His story, imo, is very centered on just how bad his > beliefs are. I think that's what the author is often interested in > with him. A lot of fanfics are happy to have Draco switch sides for > political, self-preservation reasons, but I don't think JKR is > interested in letting him get away with that. His beliefs could > very well kill him. Alla: YES. Thank you. It is the greatest pleasure talking to you, even about Draco. You can TOTALLY make me see the reasonableness of your argument. I mean I will never be sympathetic to Draco ( although I guess never say never :)), but the story of the literary character who is forced to confront his beliefs, I can see. It is the justifications for his behavior I am not buying. :) > Magpie: > I'm not saying that he has no personal responsibility for what he > does because of his family, but rather saying that you can't > understand his actions without taking that into account. I just > don't see anything that should have forced Draco to reflect upon > this stuff earlier at all. In every book before HBP there's some > reference to the fact that death isn't even real for Draco, much > less something he's reflecting upon. It becomes real for him in > HBP. Sure it would have been great for him to have reacted to > Cedric's death by changing sides, but it doesn't bother me that he > didn't. I find the character a lot more compelling the way he's > written. Had he changed sides earlier, in fact, we would lose a lot > of the punch of his personal responsibility because he would just > have been an observer on the sidelines. Who cares which way the > Malfoy kid leans unless the Malfoy kid is a player? Alla: Ooo, you see that is very interesting for me again. For me JKR missed the moment where I would have felt sympathy for Draco. Let me try to explain. I was wondering for the longest time why hurt/comfort does not work for me in Draco's department. I mean, granted as I said I drew very specific RL associations with Draco bigotry, BUT hurt/comfort worked for me in Snape character for quite some time, because I saw in Snape the potential for change and I did not see ANYTHING indicating that Draco would change in five books. 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. What I mean by signs would be, I don't know, Harry noticing a tinge of guilt in Malfoy's eyes when he hears about Buckbeak execution, for example. It does not have to be for a long time. The next sentence could be that Harry thinks that he imagined all that or something. Or in the similar fashion narrator noticing that Malfoy was a bit upset when he hears about Cedric's death. SOMETHING small, but that indicates that there are "latent" good qualities in Draco. I mean you can argue that his age is the best signal that he would change and that is a good argument, but Draco as the same nasty bastard just went for too long for me. Am I making sense? At all? > Magpie: > Interesting comparison, because Ron changes his mind about Lupin > based on experience, doesn't he? It's through knowing Lupin that > Ron comes to think werewolves aren't bad. Lupin has treated Ron > really well up until that point--and the two of them aren't just > teacher and student. Molly likes Lupin just fine, but is nervous > around werewolves in general because they're contagious. (I believe > she doesn't like Arthur sharing a ward with one in OotP.) In the > end it still seems to turn on the same thing Draco does, which is > personal relationships. Alla: Actually, no that was not quite my point, although yes, of course Ron learns about it from experiences, but I was trying to show that it does NOT look that Ron learns that he should not be prejudiced against werewolves from his parents. he learns about it from his OWN experiences, maybe even contrary to what he had been taught at home. I was trying to say that Draco also had to be able to learn from his OWN experiences and maybe even contrary to what he learnt at home. Is it too much to demand of him? Not to me anyways. Phoenixgod2000: > Am I the only one who kept wanting Harry to say "I'm my own man." every > time someone asked if he was Dd's man in HBP? Alla: Believe me, you are not. :) JKR did an amazing job to restore my sympathy to DD's character in HBP, but oh my God, I HATED that line. Hey, I can still hope that this is what book 7 would be about partially - Harry coming into his own, and NOT becoming carboon copy of Dumbledore. :) I guess we can still hope that maybe when in book 7 Harry would do something differently in a good way than what Dumbledore would have done, he would say that to someone who would tell him that "Dumbledore would have done that", that I respect Dumbledore, but I am my own man. JMO, Alla. From thebookandtherose at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jun 30 16:57:28 2006 From: thebookandtherose at yahoo.co.uk (thebookandtherose) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 16:57:28 -0000 Subject: Barty Crouch, Jr? In-Reply-To: <009401c34d41$37e7b190$e2f3a986@caro> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154656 In reply to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/71391 > Carolin M?nkemeyer wrote: > > >I mean Voldermort can resurrect himself from vapor, could > > >he somehow restore Crouchs' soul and get his most faithful > > >servant back? > > 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. > > Finchen: > These are good theories. But now here's mine: > You become a Dementor when you've been kissed by one. It could > also be possible that some kind of shadow of your soul is still > inside you and that this makes you longing for good feelings for > this makes you desperate. It could also be that this longing is > so strong that you try to satisfy it by getting somebody other's > soul but it doesn't work and you try again and again.... I mean > that would explain their powers. This would mean that Crouch now > is a dementor and therefore he could be more dangerous.... BookishRose: While I want Barty jr. back more than anything else in the Potterverse (except maybe Imperiod!Arthur- yep, wearing my featherboa with pride) I don't think we're going to see him again outside a pensieve or a casual reference, if there. Lupin said there is no cure for the Dementors curse and didn't mention anything about victims becoming dementors (although I love the theory). I think Barty's gone, although I cling to the shreds of hope; a) Barty sr. was transfigured into a bone which Petrigrew used to return Voldermort's soul to his body. b)Before the trio ran into him in St Mungo's I thought Lockhart was gone for good too. I don't think the Crouch saga has ended even with the family line. c)Even if Barty doesn't return his past can be explored without breaking any rules. From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Fri Jun 30 20:19:54 2006 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 20:19:54 -0000 Subject: Dr Neil shuddered for ONE of them (Was: Who dies?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154657 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kmalone1127" wrote: > > I would just like to point out that JKR said that there would be > two unintended deaths, not that those would be the only two. I > personally feel that there will be a lot of death in book 7 plus > these two originally unintended deaths. I don't mean to be a mood > killer or sound pessimistic, but JKR has stated that death is a > major theme in these books. It would stand to reason that with > Voldemort walking and talking and killing again that there will be > much more death, especially with DD gone. > > kmalone1127 > Marianne: Agreed. I have not seen the whole transcript but I know she said something that clarified that she was *not* talking about killing off secondary characters. My heart sang, not because I'm a bloodthirsty gore-hound, but because I was afraid that there would be a lot of deaths of people that are peripheral to the story. We, the readers, would recognize the names, but not get that emotional kick in the guts you get when a more major character dies. My feeling has always been that, if JKR wants to show the horror of this type of war and the menacing threat of Vmort's type of evil, she's got to hit us where it hurts, by killing characters we care about. I still think that thicket of Weasleys will be thinned out a bit... Marianne From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 30 20:20:15 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 20:20:15 -0000 Subject: Crouch Sr. (the abbreviated version) (and jr.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154658 BookishRose wrote: > > Yes but [Barty Crouch Sr.]didn't have to send him to Azkaban did he? I'm being controversial here, but I'd like to think if I had a son and the decision of whether or not to send him to Azkaban was in my hands I would do everything within my power to stop him being sent away, no matter what he'd done. > > The poor kid, (and he was a kid at nineteen) was pleading and > actually screaming for his father, and what did Crouch sr. say; "I > have no son". Jeez, model parent huh? > > I mean surely he could have asked someone else to oversee the trial. > It was grossly inappropriate for him to be legally involved in his > own son's trial, except as a character witness, even if he did do > the legal thing. In the pensieve young Barty seemed like a kid > who has gone waaay out of his depth, no matter how good his acting > is. I think his fathers treatment of him was a large factor in his > fanaticism. Carol responds: Yes, it was a bad idea for Barty Sr. to oversee his son's sentencing (we're not seeing the trial itself), but given Barty Jr.'s later use of all three Unforgiveable Curses after twelve years of living under the Imperius Curse, I think he was a full-fledged DE when he was caught. Barty Sr. surely would not have sent his own son to Azkaban--a blot on the family name he was so proud of--unless he was absolutely certain of his guilt. His wand must have been shown by Priori Incantatem to have been used to cast the Cruciatus Curse, which carries a mandatory sentence of a life sentence to Azkaban. Barty Jr. at nineteen is a man by both WW and RL standards. He is responsible for his own actions and choices--to join the DEs in the first place and to help Bellatrix and the Lestrange brothers Crucio the Longbottoms into insanity in the hopes of finding out what had happened to their master. ("We alone tried to find him," says Bella, who surely would not credit Barty Jr. as part of the "we" if he had not been a full partner in the endeavor.) IMO, his begging for mercy in the Pensieve scene, while it does make his father look cold and cruel, primarlily demonstrates his cowardice. Unlike Bellatrix, he doesn't even have the courage of his convictions. (Or maybe it isn't courage in her case but a conviction of self-righteousness, but in any case, for him his own skin takes precedence over his otherwise fanatical loyalty, at least pre-Azkaban.) If Crouch Sr.'s madness in OoP is any indication of what really happened, he seems to have been proud of his son's twelve OWLs at the end of his fifth year. (He speaks of inviting the Fudges to dinner to celebrate, IIRC.) Exactly what happened between that time and his son's decision to join the DEs, we don't know. But joining forces with the likes of Bellatrix Lestrange to Crucio an Auror and his wife (or a pair of Aurors, if you prefer the revised version in OoP) cannot be justified by "Daddy didn't love me." It cannot, IMO, be justified for any reason. It's an act of pure evil and cruelty taken to sadistic extremes for the sake of finding out the whereabouts of the vaporized Dark Lord. How can such an action possibly be justified? The entire WW was outraged, and understandably so. Barty Sr.'s mistake, IMO, was not in sentencing his own (clearly guilty) son to Azkaban but in weakly agreeing to his dying wife's plan to impersonate their equally ill son. Had he not done so, trapping himself into rescuing and healing his Death Eater son, and then using the enemy's own Unforgiveable Curse to control him, he himself would not have been Imperio'd by Wormtail and AK'd by that same son, who not only placed Harry's name in the Goblet of Fire intending to turn him over to LV at the end of the year (and be "rewarded above all others" for his loyal service to the Dark Lord) but Imperio'd the real Moody and kept him in a trunk for nine months so he could impersonate him and Imperio'd the innocent Viktor Krum to make him Crucio Cedric Diggory, not to mention that Barty Jr. performed that same Unforgiveable Curse on his own students under the pretense of showing them what they were facing. No doubt he'd have Crucio'd them rather than merely performing that curse on the spider in front of the very boy whose parents he had helped to Crucio into insanity had he been able to get away with it. Unlike Regulus, who joined the DEs at about the same age and regretted his decision, facing death rather than remain with them and trying through the stolen Horcrux to destroy the Dark Lord who had seduced him into evil, Barty Jr. had no qualms about casting Dark curses (if Bellatrix's words about casting Unforgiveable are any indication, he enjoyed casting them) and developed a fanatical loyalty to the most evil wizard in the history of the WW. Carol, who feels no sympathy whatever for Barty Jr. and thinks that the Crouches, taken together, show that habitually performing the Unforgiveable Curses, for whatever reason, corrupts the soul From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Jun 30 20:41:52 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 20:41:52 -0000 Subject: Crouch Sr. (the abbreviated version) (and jr.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154659 Bookish Rose: > I don't see how any judge could sentance a screaming kid > the same as Bellatrix, who was defiant throughout the trial, openly > claiming alligence to Voldermort. I honestly believe that if Barty > had been acquitted he could have realised if maybe not the moral > implications then at the very least the legal repecutions of his > behavoir. zgirnius: We do not know the details for sure, but it seems to have been an open-and-shut case. Any sentence other than life in Azkaban would go against the law as it has been presented to us in canon. The crime of which he was found guilty was the use of an Unforgivable Curse (Cruciatus), a crime for which the automatic sentence is life in Azkaban, (unless, of course, it is done by Ministry employees who have been granted an exemption, a circumstance which certainly did not apply in his case). Now, if he didn't actually cast a single Crucio during the Longbottom attack, the judge might have had some wiggle room. But we have no indication that was the case. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 30 21:17:52 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 21:17:52 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154660 Alla wrote: > 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. Carol responds: Maybe not his intelligence so much as his wisdom? But I'm begining to wonder whether Pippin is right. I think he gave Snape a second chance without asking for proof of young Snape's contrition and then received the proof afterwards. Here's what I think happened, and I know that what I'm presenting is just conjecture. Ca. Oct. 31, 1979, Snape (then a twenty-year-old DE) overhears part of the Prophecy and reports it to Voldemort. Ca. July 31, 1980, he discovers that both the Potters and the Longbottoms have had baby sons who could fulfill the terms of the Prophecy and starts to worry. Some time afterwards, he discovers that Voldemort intends to attack one or both families, killing the child(ren) and if necessary the parents to thwart the Prophecy. Full of remorse and misgivings, he goes to Dumbledore and confesses what he's done. This act in itself convinces Dumbledore to give Severus a second chance. He sends him back to LV as a spy. Young Snape proves his loyalty and courage by spying for DD "at great personal risk." If young Snape asks for the DADA position at this time, and there's no evidence that he did so, DD turns him down. Ca. August 1981, young Snape applies for the DADA position, possibly on LV's orders, and DD gives him the newly vacated Potions position instead, knowing that the DADA position is cursed. On September 1, Snape begins teaching and probably assumes the HoH position as well at age 22. Around this time or earlier, one of DD's spies, probably Snape, reports that someone close to the Potters is giving LV information on the Order members. Worried for their safety, DD offers himself as Secret Keeper. James Potter refuses, keeping the idea but choosing his friend Sirius Black as SK instead. Whether Black actually becomes SK is unclear. Ca. October 24, Black convinces the Potters to make Pettigrew the Secret Keeper instead. October 31, Pettigrew betrays the Potters and they are murdered at Godric's Hollow. Voldemort is vaporized and Harry is "marked as his equal," given as yet unknown powers by the failed AK. At this point, we don't know what Snape did. IMO, he remained at Hogwarts and showed DD his faded Dark Mark. His remorse, if genuine, would be overwhelming and unmistakeable at this time. >From that point, Snape continues to teach Potions and to associate with "Death Eaters who walked free," probably providing DD information on their activities. September 1, 1991: Enter Harry and the events of the books. June 1995: Snape remains behind when the DEs return to the graveyard but afterwards reports to LV on DD's orders, again risking his life. >From that point on, he walks a tightrope. One false move and he's a dead man. If what I've outlined here is accurate, Snape expresses remorse at two points, one before GH when he first begins spying for DD and one afterwards, when their combined efforts have failed to prevent the Potters' deaths. 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. Based on all that, and on the information that Snape has provided DD throughout the books, I'd say that he has more than sufficient grounds to trust him, and, whatever may be the case with Snape's loyalties (which, IMO, lie with DD), Dumbledore's wisdom is not in question. Alla wrote: > Is there a reference that people are not allowed to talk about his > past after those GoF proceedings? > > Did Wizengamot delivered a "non guilty" verdict to Snape? Is voting > shown? Ugh, must reread that chapter. Carol responds: Snape was cleared of all charges, which means (I believe) that he has no criminal record. There was no trial. The Wizengamot was not originally involved; it was just DD and Mr. Crouch. DD speaks of it to the Wizengamot at Karkaroff's plea bargaining session, but only to inform them that "Severus Snape . . . is now no more a Death Eater than I am" and that he "turned spy for our side at great personal risk." I'm assuming that the Wizengamot would keep this information quiet to protect the life of the young man who had risked his life to spy for them. Note that the proceeding of the plea bargaining appear to be secret: Rita Skeeter is not present to report them, and Snape's name is not published in the Daily Prophet, unlike those of Malfoy, Macnair, Avery, Crabbe, Goyle, and Nott, all of whom had actual trials and pleaded innocent by reason of the Imperius Curse. Snape's DE past certainly is not common knowledge or the Daily Prophet would have included his name among the controversial hiring decisions it attributed to Dumbledore (Hagrid, Lupin, and Moody). Surely an ex-DE would have been even more sensational. And what non-Slytherin parent would send his children to Hogwarts if they knew that the Potions master/DADA instructor had been a DE? Carol, certain that Dumbledore is not "a foolish old man" as Draco thinks From rkdas at charter.net Fri Jun 30 21:14:30 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 21:14:30 -0000 Subject: Barty Crouch, Jr?/oddments of theoretical whims In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154661 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "thebookandtherose" wrote: > > SNIPPED > Lupin said there is no cure for the Dementors curse and didn't > mention anything about victims becoming dementors (although I love > the theory). I think Barty's gone, although I cling to the shreds of > hope; a) Barty sr. was transfigured into a bone which Petrigrew used > to return Voldermort's soul to his body. b)Before the trio ran into > him in St Mungo's I thought Lockhart was gone for good too. I don't > think the Crouch saga has ended even with the family line. c)Even if > Barty doesn't return his past can be explored without breaking any > rules. > Jen D. here letting slip her own wild and wacky idea that can't possibly be true: I always felt there was something fishy about the demise of BC Jr. Knowing what a strong and potent wizard he was, I reckoned some mayhem occurred when Fudge went in to interogate him with a dementor by his side. I wondered if the dementor (who's really only on his own side) could feel the presence of a much stronger and more evil will than Fudge's and perhaps decided to change sides in order to be under the command of a someone more likely to give him free reign, sort of a precursor to LV's return. 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. I've read it over and over and can not conclude when the person stops being Fudge and begins to be Moody/Crouch. I know how Jo plays with us and this would be a prime place to have contorted reality. Just two little thoughts... Jen D (not a theorist and does not play one on tv...) From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Fri Jun 30 21:36:26 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 21:36:26 -0000 Subject: Why are they even friends? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154662 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. Let's say you're Harry, why do you consider Ron a friend? He's annoying, sometimes?tends to run his mouth before engaging his brain. He's insecure, prickly and jealous--once he got so jealous he wouldn't talk you for weeks. You're rich, Ron's too poor to buy new clothes, Ron's tall?he kids you about being short. It bothers Ron when girls pay you attention, whether you want it or not. But then again, after your own family mocked and jeered and left you to your own devices, his mother showed you how to get through the barrier. His brothers helped you get your trunk on the train. Though your own very well-off family contemptuously sent you a 50 pence coin for Christmas, his mother sent you home-made fudge and a hand-knit sweater?probably the first item of clothing anyone's given you in ten years that was intended for you, not just an ill-fitting hand-me-down, and you know Ron had a hand in that. When your family locked you into a room with bars on the window and locks on the door, and fed you scraps though a cat-flap, he and his brothers stole their family car and broke you out of that prison. Then their mother, while still incoherently angry at them, cut you some bread and spread the butter extra-thick. He followed you and the spiders into the forest, though he's afraid of spiders, and, once, unarmed and battered, he stood up on a broken leg to get between you and a mass-murderer. Your family balked at taking to the zoo, but his father went to considerable trouble to take you to your first professional Quidditch match. When you needed to train for the Third Task, Ron was there, offering his own body for target practice. In fifth year, though you were a high-maintenance ass most of the time, he followed you to the Ministry, knowing that your vision couldn't possibly be true, but ready to guard your back, just the same. In between all this, of course, he tells you jokes, explains your new world to you, and is just, well, there for you. Why should you be friends with Hermione?fussy, bossy, pedantic Hermione? Maybe, it's because the uptight little rule-worshipper lied through her teeth to keep you out of trouble, helped you smuggle an inconvenient dragon out of the castle, and set a teacher on fire to try to save your life. Maybe it's the way she swiped ingredients and used them to brew a dodgy potion to help you find the real Heir of Slytherin. Maybe it's because you a like little help with your homework, a bowl of murtlap for a bloody hand, and support when no one else will give it. Perhaps you admire the gallantry of an acrophobe who will get on a hippogriff--or a thestral!?if that's what it takes to ride to the rescue or to guard your back. Could be that you appreciated the opportunity to finally tell your story to the world, and the witch that made it happen. Maybe it's because, like Ron, she's just there for you. Maybe the both of them consider you a friend for similar reasons, despite your tantrums and temper and thoughtlessness. And maybe, just maybe, a thousand nights in the common room, laughing and crying, playing and studying, and yes, arguing and apologizing, add up to something special, something that belongs to the three of you, something that goes beyond broomsticks and tantrums and misunderstandings, that can survive jealousy and slights and snits. And is way more important than who "let down" who. Amiable Dorsai From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 30 21:37:54 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 21:37:54 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil ( Draco and a bit of Ron)/Harry as DD man In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154663 > >>Magpie: > > Some of these things he would hear about and, with the bias he > > has, and be unlikely to look at them the way we do. He's not > > sitting off detached and making a rational judgment, he's > > reacting in the moment to different knocks and jolts. We are, I > > think, dealing with a kid far more influenced by his emotions > > about the people involved. Which is not supposed to be an excuse > > for his behavior either, it's just not surprising. > >>Alla: > See, the funny thing is that the way you put it, I do not have > much disagreement with you again. :) > I think I was reacting to Betsy statement ( I think and I hope I > do not misinterpret it) that Draco does not see the good things > that good guys do, that good guys do bad things and Draco, poor > dear cannot distinguish between them or something ( again, Betsy > please correct me if I am wrong) > 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!" 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. Though I'm also pointing out that the "good guys" are not actually shining examples of goodness (especially the students). They aren't really all that good at recruiting people to their side. I think Luna is their only real recruit (based on who was fighting at the end of HBP) and Luna *does* have the ability to divorce emotion from her judgements. 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. 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. 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). 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: > What you are saying makes total sense to me - Draco reacts often > based on his emotions, BUT again it is not the same as to say that > he sees bad things - he is unable to distinguish between them, > sure, and your reasons seem plausible to me , especially since you > do not state them as an excuse. > Betsy Hp: For me I *do* see Draco showing a certain discomfort over his father's activities (or the activities of his father's colleagues). I think Elkins is the one who pointed out Draco's almost feverish state whenever something bad is going down. Which is why I think that when Draco *does* start to question he turns it more to himself (I'm weak if this bothers me) than to his beloved father. > >>Magpie: > > I'm not saying that he has no personal responsibility for what > > he does because of his family, but rather saying that you can't > > understand his actions without taking that into account. I just > > don't see anything that should have forced Draco to reflect upon > > this stuff earlier at all. In every book before HBP there's some > > reference to the fact that death isn't even real for Draco, much > > less something he's reflecting upon. It becomes real for him in > > HBP. Sure it would have been great for him to have reacted to > > Cedric's death by changing sides, but it doesn't bother me that > > he didn't. Betsy Hp: I think it would have been unrealistic for Draco to change sides at that moment. Epecially since he's close to his parents. It seemed pretty obvious to me that Draco *was* shaken by Cedric's death (that scene on the train ride home just screams "boy on the edge" to me). But who is he going to turn to to ask, why? Who is Draco going to depend on to help him get a handle on what happened there? His family of course. I *like* the fact that JKR made sure Draco wasn't a second Sirius, just looking for a reason to rebel. That would have been the easy way out, IMO. Instead Draco has to go through this horrible process of realizing that his father *isn't* a god among men. That Lucius may have made a terrible choice that actually *endangered* his family (a massive Slytherin no-no, I think) rather than ensured their survival. > >>Magpie: > > I find the character a lot more compelling the way he's > > written. Had he changed sides earlier, in fact, we would lose a > > lot of the punch of his personal responsibility because he would > > just have been an observer on the sidelines. Who cares which > > way the Malfoy kid leans unless the Malfoy kid is a player? Betsy Hp: I agree. :) > >>Alla: > 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. > What I mean by signs would be, I don't know, Harry noticing a > tinge of guilt in Malfoy's eyes when he hears about Buckbeak > execution, for example. > Betsy Hp: Mm, but that wouldn't have made sense for the character. For one, death isn't real for Draco at this point. For another, Draco is no where around when Buckbeak is about to be killed. So there's not a moment where he could have had a "final realization" to feel guilty over. > >>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. Betsy Hp From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Jun 30 22:03:10 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 22:03:10 -0000 Subject: Why are they even friends? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154664 Amiable Dorsai 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. > And maybe, just maybe, a thousand nights in the common room, > laughing and crying, playing and studying, and yes, arguing and > apologizing, add up to something special, something that belongs > to the three of you, something that goes beyond broomsticks and > tantrums and misunderstandings, that can survive jealousy and > slights and snits. > > And is way more important than who "let down" who. SSSusan: Absolutely that adds up to something special! I may well have missed some posts that you were thinking of as you wrote this, but I know that I participated in the "letting down" thread, arguing about the creation of the DA and why I believe Harry felt let down by Hermione at that first meeting. And yet I totally agree with your conclusion, AD. In fact, I'd like to note that the *point* of that discussion, from where I joined in the thread anyway, was that sometimes people trust others precisely *because* they value their friendship so, in spite of times when they'd been (or felt they'd been) let down. As Alla mentioned in one post, it's often true that friends let each other down at times. Heck, it's part of being human! I don't think that pointing out such times where we see that in the text means that there's any questioning of the base of the friendship. Not at all! Like I said, the main point, for me anyway, was that the trust is there because the friendship is DEEP and REAL. And when the friendship is deep and real, then it survives the occasional letdown, even if it's a fairly major one. There are a couple members of this list, even, who have been let down by me and yet still remain my friends, thankfully. :-) Siriusly Snapey Susan From carodave92 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 30 22:12:49 2006 From: carodave92 at yahoo.com (carodave92) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 22:12:49 -0000 Subject: Barty Crouch, Jr? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154665 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "thebookandtherose" wrote: > >> BookishRose: > While I want Barty jr. back more than anything else in > the Potterverse (except maybe Imperiod!Arthur- yep, wearing my > featherboa with pride) I don't think we're going to see him again > outside a pensieve or a casual reference, if there. > > snip> Before the trio ran into > him in St Mungo's I thought Lockhart was gone for good too. I don't > think the Crouch saga has ended even with the family line. c)Even if > Barty doesn't return his past can be explored without breaking any > rules. > Now Carodave: I agree with you about the Crouch saga being part of Book 7. I believe that Neville will play a major role in the downfall of LV and that what happened to the Longbottoms will be further explored in Book 7 - that day at the Longbottoms has to be explained to us, right now it's a missing link. Since Bellatrix was the driving force behind that attack and Barty Jr was also there, I think we'll see more of him. Carodave From fairwynn at hotmail.com Fri Jun 30 22:33:09 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 22:33:09 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154666 > Carol said: > What we have here, IMO, is irony operating on a number of levels. > Snape has saved Harry twice (SS/PS, HBP) and tried to save him or > helped to save him at least three other times (POA, GOF, OoP), has > saved DD once, has contributed to saving Ron (making sure that Harry > knows about bezoars from day one), 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. Carol: And as of the end of OoP, Harry is not only refusing to > acknowledge his and his friends' debt to Snape for sending the Order > to the MoM but is (intentionally) blaming Snape for Sirius Black's > death because it "feels satisfying." wynnleaf JKR uses the narration to make particular note of this both in OOTP and HBP. We the readers are supposed to note it. Harry *wants* to hate Snape as much as possible, even long before DD's "death." Carol He is letting the minor > irritation of a sarcastic teacher prevent him from seeing Snape as a > loyal Order member who has been trying to protect him, for whatever > personal reasons, since SS/PS. 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. (Yes, I know, some people think he was terrible in not notifying the Order more quickly, but DD knew all about the timing and didn't seem to see anything wrong with it.) Remember that Harry's way of blaming Snape for Sirius' death was to focus on two or three lines of traded insults from 5 *months* before as the reason for Sirius leaving 12 Grimmauld Place -- rather than Harry's own actions of that very night. It's interesting that after OOTP, JKR still wanted to increase Harry's level of hate toward Snape. She seemed rather satisfied with the fact that Harry hates Snape even more at the end of HBP. Why does JKR want Harry to hate him even more? I doubt that it's because she thinks hate is productive and Harry needs to have more hatred. Far more likely it's because she has some plan for Harry to have to get over his hate and forgive, and making that hatred greater just makes Harry's process toward forgiveness all the more dramatic. Carol Harry rushes angrily to DD's > office, shunting Trelawney aside, so her story goes unheard. He tells > DD what he has overheard and he mentions the whoop, but he neglects to > mention that Draco threw Trelawney out of the RoR, a piece of > information which, as Pippin pointed out earlier, would have required > DD to take action or at least take what Harry had said seriously. wynnleaf Yet another example of where Harry allows his hatred of Snape to blind him to other needs. Similarly in OOTP when his hatred of Snape makes him unable to believe that Snape will deal with Harry's message about Sirius, or to trust what Snape said about Voldemort wanting to get in his mind and make him do things. 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. In Harry's mind, it seems that schoolroom nastiness utterly and completely outweigh a person being instrumental in saving your life, or the lives of your friends. Utterly. Carol > 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). > > I believe that Harry must forgive Snape his trespasses and acknowledge > that neither he nor Ron nor perhaps Hermione (the stretchers in PoA) > would be alive if it weren't for Snape. Only then, when he has set > aside his hatred and anger and embraced forgiveness and mercy can > Harry fulfill his role as Chosen One, a burden that Snape unwittingly > helped place upon him. (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.) 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. > 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 wynnleaf, Exactly. From imontero at iname.com Fri Jun 30 20:32:20 2006 From: imontero at iname.com (lunamk03) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 20:32:20 -0000 Subject: Dr Neil shuddered for ONE of them (Was: Who dies?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154672 > > Aussie: > > Don't miss the next few lines of the interview:- > > > > "R: We don't care about extras. You told your husband, obviously. > > You confided in him all things, and you told him. > > > > JK: Well, not everything, that would be reckless. > > > > 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. > Luna here: I believe that Dr. Neil shuddered also with Black's death (Harry's father figure). Now he does that again I think he would shudder if Mr. Weasley (again a father figure in the books) dies. Being a father, it would upset him very much to see the Weasleys' father die. Now for who'll die, I think we have to view this riddle from a Hermioneish point of view; that is: with logic. What do we know? We know that 2 main characters will die and one gets a reprieve. Main characters: Harry, Ron Hermione, Neville, Luna, Tonks, Lupin, Hagrid, Malfoy, Snape, any of the Weasleys and Voldemort of course. Goner for sure: -Voldemort: we know that Voldemort will die for sure. Jo intended him to die from page 1 book 1. This disqualifies Voldemort as one of the unintended deaths. No goners: -Neville: another comment in one of her interviews, Jo said that one of Harry's classmates / friends will become professor at Hoghwarts. I think this is Neville. I see him becoming Herbology professor. The fact that this is the only character besides Ron, Harry and Hermione who discusses about his OWLS in HBP points strongly to this direction. So, he's a no go. - Ron and Hermione: Jo, answering to one of the poll questions on her website some time ago regarding time travel, insinuated the idea that Ron and Hermione will have children in the future. And seeing how Ron and Hermione romance has been one of the most developed subplots in the books, I highly doubt either of them will be the one to kick the tin. She seems to already have decided what will happen to them. Of course, she said that a couple of main characters die that she didn't intend them to die. It could be both, Ron and Hermione. Somehow I don't see her killing one and leaving the other alive And she also said that these changes caused to modify just a little bit the final chapter. I think that Ron and Hermione's deaths could alter the final chapter greatly So, all in all, logically, I see them both alive at the end of the war. Probable goners - Hagrid: Although Jo has made clear that Hagrid has his giantess mother skin and this protects him, he is one of the main characters that certainly would make us cry our eyes out if he goes Hagrid could be one of the goners - The Weasley's: I think that Arthur is the one with more probabilities to die. Bill is already deformed and will marry Fleur Somehow it wouldn't make sense now having Bill die. The twins could be also good candidates. Somehow I see Ginny as a strong survivor; she will survive the war with or without Harry. Another strong probability is Percy. This could be a good twist to make Percy die to save a member of the family. In general, someone from the Wesley family will die for sure. - Harry: I am not 100% what will happen to him I see a 50% chances. Then again, if he dies, it was clear that Jo intended him to die also from day 1, so cannot count as one of the unintended deaths. - Luna, Tonks and Lupin: I have no clue, somehow I don't see the the use of having any of them die... Last minute goner or last minute no-go? - Malfoy: He could be the one Jo intended to die but was saved at the end. - Snape: He falls in the same category as Malfoy, although I have a strong feeling that he'll die at the end. Luna, who hopes Harry won't die... From njeridamalicampbell at hotmail.com Fri Jun 30 22:56:29 2006 From: njeridamalicampbell at hotmail.com (njeri-damali campbell) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 18:56:29 -0400 Subject: Being Good and Evil Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154674 That's a really good point, Magpie. Draco's just a kid. He knows nothing more than what he has experienced. For him, the dark side is normalized. I think Harry annoys and puzzles him because he just as innocently, and self-centredly (that's *so* not a word..) trusts the light. Harry and Draco are somewhat similar, once the whole good and evil thing gets out of the way. Both have potential for the opposite side, both trust in their own truths, and both are attempting to figure things out. I just think Harry's so much cooler. njeri-damali From marinacat06 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 30 16:44:13 2006 From: marinacat06 at yahoo.com (marina catalano) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 09:44:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: JKR borrows from heroic literature/ who dies? Message-ID: <20060630164413.3146.qmail@web37008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154677 I guess I'm with everyone else when I say I too am freaked out about all the speculation and the sense of dread I feel that JKR IS going to kill HP off in the end and with a year still left to wait, I'll have no fingernails left! I have given up (a little) on the notion that DD is not dead as sad as that makes me, and like Lupinlore on this site I too will use my wood chipper on all my HP books if she kills off anyone else dear to me! 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 From lilbluinsomniac at yahoo.com Fri Jun 30 20:56:09 2006 From: lilbluinsomniac at yahoo.com (christy callahan) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 13:56:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060630205609.69170.qmail@web32914.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154678 Pippin: > I agree that JKR is straightforward, or at least drops anvil-sized > hints, about some things, and that Voldemort will be defeated by > love is one of them. But other things are complicated. Isn't it > funny that we are attracted to Snape by the complexity of his > character, and yet expend all this bandwidth trying to reduce him > to some three-letter formula or other? :) Alla: > As to Snape, I can only speak for myself, but I absolutely think > that his complexiness is greatly exaggerated. I totally attracted > to his character (as in Love to hate him), but to me - I just want > to know his motives, meaning knowing the mystery of his backstory. Christy: I think you, Alla, had a good point when you said that Snape's complexity is very exaggerated. And only by the people. The book lays everything out clearly. Even the lines written are not using very complex words in a creative order. Snape is probably the biggest labyrinth in the story, but it could be simpler than we think. He might be linked to things that are not obvious and that have not been speculated. Perhaps Snape is good, and the argument that he had with Dumbledore was Snape refusing to kill him. The difference between Malfoy and Snape is that there is absolutely no question that Malfoy is a snake. But I have seen some of Alan Rickman's interviews and after someone asks him a question about why is Snape such a mystery...he hints at, 'you just have to wonder why he's saving their lives all the time, especially in Prisoner of Azkaban.' He has said before that JK has told him some details in the books to come. So.. with this evidence, I think Snape is good after all. From njeridamalicampbell at hotmail.com Fri Jun 30 23:10:57 2006 From: njeridamalicampbell at hotmail.com (wombknower) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 23:10:57 -0000 Subject: Queerness and HP: What about Professor Hooch? Was: Homosexuality in HP Series In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154680 > Leslie41: > And the fact that she's a member of the Church of Scotland (as > opposed to the Catholic Church or Southern Baptist, for example) > actually means she's a member of a church that is quite open > minded when it comes to homosexuals and homosexual behavior, and > even homosexual marriages and clergy. "wombknower": The first person I thought of was 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.