From AllieS426 at aol.com  Wed Mar  1 00:28:21 2006
From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 00:28:21 -0000
Subject: Mysteries of The Room of Requirement
Message-ID: <du2pr5+rktd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148936

In OoTP, regarding the Room of Requirement, Dobby says, "... it is a 
room that a person can only enter when they have real need of it.  
Sometimes it is there, and sometimes it is not, but when it appears, 
it is always equipped for the seeker's needs."  And he tells Harry 
to walk past the bit of wall 3 times, concentrating hard on what 
they need.

In desperate need, could the room become *more* than a room?  For 
example, if there were another battle at Hogwarts, and Harry ran 
past it thinking, "I need a way out of here" could it become a 
tunnel or a passageway?  

Alternatively, a lot of people have speculated that a Horcrux may be 
hidden inside this room when it functions as a hiding place.  It's 
unlikely to be found there, or if it is found, it's unlikely to be 
recognized for what it is.  Suppose that Harry was just wandering 
by, musing, "I need to find the last Horcrux," and a door suddenly 
appeared, would he realize the Horcrux was inside?  This thought 
actually occurred to me when I was reading about all the junk in the 
room when it functions as a hiding place.  (Aside - a blood-stained 
axe??  That struck  me as suspicious - when did a violent, bloody 
old-fashioned Muggle-type crime occur at Hogwarts and are we going 
to hear about it?)

Allie






From kking0731 at gmail.com  Wed Mar  1 01:00:43 2006
From: kking0731 at gmail.com (Kathy King)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:00:43 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape Survey
In-Reply-To: <du2nc6+pk33@eGroups.com>
References: <du2nc6+pk33@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a1ee8d580602281700v3a58c6fdqe08bbc1babe5c2d0@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148937

On 2/28/06, Luckdragon <luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> Luckdragon:
> Everytime I read my HP for Grownups email I see pages and pages of
> Snape. I don't think we will see the end of the "Is Snape ESE or ESG
> or OFH" until book seven is released; so, just for the sake of being
> able to tell each other "I told you so", let's tally up what we
> believe Snape is before we actually know, and see which way the
> majority of us are thinking. A brief paragraph is sufficient.
>
> Myself for example, I am somewhat like DD and just have to look for
> the good in people, so obviously I believe Snape will be found out to
> be ESG. Well maybe not good exactly, but neither ESE or OFH. Lupin
> said it well in book six; " It comes down to whether or not you trust
> Dumbledore's judgement. I do; therefore, I trust Severus." (Chpt 16)
>
> So in your Opinion, who's side is Snape on?
>
>
> Snow:




Can I choose another category because Snape isn't just DDM or OFH or ESE,
Snape is a combination of all of them, which is why he is talked about more
than the main character of the books, and no one seems to be quite
comfortable with any conclusion they come to. Snape was ESE and he has to
trust Dumbledore and be DDM in order to be OFH. The conclusion I came to is;
that Snape split his soul and wants to repair it to make himself whole.
Dumbledore informed Snape that he had a chance of accomplishing this mission
but he had to commit an act that would be worthy of at least the Order of
Merlin to repair the damage.



Just my summary of ESE Snape who became DDM in order to be OFH in the end



Snow


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




From belviso at attglobal.net  Wed Mar  1 01:00:50 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:00:50 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG
References: <du2f7n+9q1g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <007301c63ccb$962cbda0$44ba400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 148938

Sydney:
>> You know, looking at those two lines... I'm back to Suicidal!Snape (or
>> Kamikaze!Snape if you prefer).  It hits every point.  It has bang.  It
>> has irony.  It wouldn't be out of place in a Victorian novel.  It has
>> a lot of potential energy to drive cool scenes.  It can generate
>> motion from Harry.  It can connect in interesting ways to other
>> Unsolved Snape Mysteries like why Dumbledore trusts him so much and
>> ties into the remorse thing.  And, pace Lupinlore, it's not
>> excessively heroic.  Ladies and Gentlemen-- THE WINNNEEEER!
>>
>
> :-), it certainly isn't excessively heroic.  Having said that, Suicidal!
> Snape seems to be extraordinarily incompetent when it comes to getting
> what he wants.  He's wanted to kill himself for almost twenty years and
> STILL hasn't managed it?  Oh yes, he is determined to kill himself IN A
> PARTICULAR WAY, and only THAT WAY will do.  May I introduce my old
> friend, IrrationalObsession!Snape.

Magpie:
Actually, I don't think that's an obsession.  Sydney's alternate name of 
"Kamikaze" Snape makes all the difference.  A regular suicide may be someone 
who feels sorry for himself and hangs himself in despair hoping everyone 
will be sorry now.  But I think a different mindset goes into being a 
kamikaze (or a terrorist bomber).  That's someone wanting to die for a 
cause--or as a final gesture to the enemy.

Merope would be suicidal, while Regulus was perhaps more of a kamikaze. 
Snape strikes me as believable as the latter rather than the former.

-m 





From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca  Wed Mar  1 01:05:26 2006
From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:05:26 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Mysteries of The Room of Requirement
In-Reply-To: <du2pr5+rktd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060301010526.1147.qmail@web53314.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148939



allies426 <AllieS426 at aol.com> wrote:

Alternatively, a lot of people have speculated that a Horcrux may be 
hidden inside this room when it functions as a hiding place. It's 
unlikely to be found there, or if it is found, it's unlikely to be 
recognized for what it is. Suppose that Harry was just wandering 
by, musing, "I need to find the last Horcrux," and a door suddenly 
appeared, would he realize the Horcrux was inside? This thought 
actually occurred to me when I was reading about all the junk in the 
room when it functions as a hiding place. (Aside - a blood-stained 
axe?? That struck me as suspicious - when did a violent, bloody 
old-fashioned Muggle-type crime occur at Hogwarts and are we going 
to hear about it?)

Luckdragon:    I think the axe belongs to The Bloody Baron. I believe the horcrux is the tiara which belonged to Rowena Ravenclaw.






		
---------------------------------
Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos

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




From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  1 02:04:07 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 02:04:07 -0000
Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG
In-Reply-To: <du2680+fagd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du2ven+9mmn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148941


>
> Lupinlore
> 
> > What's wrong with a soup of denial and arrogance?  Sounds like a 
> > perfectly good explanation to me, and one completely in keeping with 
> > what we know of Snape and the situation at Hogwarts.  In other words, 
> > its utterly and completely believable. It's also completely in 
> > keeping with the realities of human thought and motivation.
> 
> Sydney:
> Right.  So, watches 14 years of profs go, including two card-carrying
> minions of Voldemort killed and soul-sucked respectively, ignores this
> because of his ferocious desire for the coveted DADA parking space. 

Neri:
A nice post, but I think you should consider not only quantity here,
but also quality. Out of the five DADA teachers we have met, Snape
seemed to feel towards at least three (Quirrell, Lockhart and
Umbridge) nothing but utter contempt. He would never *expect* them to
break a curse put by the Dark Lord himself. Lupin was much better than
them, but not in Snape's opinion, if to judge by the way he talks to
him or about him in PoA. So out of the five previous DADA teachers
we've seen, the only one that Snape may have felt a certain grudging
respect to was Crouch!Moody, but I still won't be surprised at all if
Snape thought himself much better than Crouch.

After all, we see in HBP that Snape *is* an expert in breaking Dark
curses, including one put by the Dark Lord himself on the ring
Horcrux, and I can quite see him convincing himself that he is better
than all the past DADA teachers put together, and only he can break
the DADA jinx. It would be very much in character. In fact, a jinx
everyone talks about for years and years but no one can break would
make Snape want the DADA post *more*, not less. Just think of the fame
and glory in proving to the whole WW that he is the only one who can
break it. It would be even better than winning an Order of Merlin,
which after all can be bought with mere gold. 

Neri







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  1 02:26:30 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 02:26:30 -0000
Subject: The bloody axe (Was: Mysteries of The Room of Requirement)
In-Reply-To: <20060301010526.1147.qmail@web53314.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <du30om+u6n2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148942

Allie wrote:
> Alternatively, a lot of people have speculated that a Horcrux may be
hidden inside this room when it functions as a hiding place. It's 
unlikely to be found there, or if it is found, it's unlikely to be
recognized for what it is. Suppose that Harry was just wandering  by,
musing, "I need to find the last Horcrux," and a door suddenly 
appeared, would he realize the Horcrux was inside? This thought 
actually occurred to me when I was reading about all the junk in the
room when it functions as a hiding place. (Aside - a blood-stained
axe?? That struck me as suspicious - when did a violent, bloody
old-fashioned Muggle-type crime occur at Hogwarts and are we going to
hear about it?)
> 
Luckdragon responded:
I think the axe belongs to The Bloody Baron. I believe the horcrux is
the tiara which belonged to Rowena Ravenclaw.

Carol adds:
Agreed on the tiara (which Harry might see if he looks into Mirror of
Erised when he wants to find the Ravenclaw Horcrux).

But the two characters I can think of specifically associated with
axes are Nearly Headless Nick, who died after something like fifty
strokes from a blunt axe, and Walden Macnair, ex-Slytherin, would-be
executioner of Buckbeak, emissary from Voldemort to the giants, and
current resident of Azkaban. Since I believe JKR has said on her
website that NHN was executed for failing to practice magic correctly
on a Muggle, it seems to me that Macnair is the more likely candidate
for association with the axe (not to mention that he's still alive and
potentially more interesting for that reason). He has appeared in
every book since PoA and has, I think, some role yet to play--*not*, I
hasten to add, as a candidate for redemption. Possibly a would-be axe
murderer, practicing on animals at Hogwarts and hiding the bloody
weapon to avoid getting caught?

The axe could, of course, just be an irrelevant detail thrown in with
the tiara (which I definitely think we'll see again because of Mrs.
Weasley's not-so-coincidental reference to an apparently different
tiara later in the book) as the music box is thrown in with the locket
that won't open in OoP to hide a Horcrux in plain sight (nods to
Nora). But I think we may hear more of specific Death Eaters,
especially the really evil ones now in Azkaban, and I predict that one
of those will be Macnair, who'll be given Muggle necks to hew. Or
maybe he'll slaughter a few Thestrals, which he would unquestionably
be able to see.

Carol, wondering if the hippogriff formerly known as Buckbeak will be
a casualty in Book 7






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  1 02:53:26 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 02:53:26 -0000
Subject: Is Snape good or evil? (longer)
In-Reply-To: <du3225+5aa7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du32b6+lrkc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148944

> 
> Dung:
> Certainly there's a necessary element of picking and choosing 
canon, 
> but there's still plenty of room to be inconsistent in your method 
> of doing so.
> 
> When evaluating evidence, I reckon asking ourselves the following 
> questions (in decreasing importance) should lead to some insight: 
> 
> 1. Is there a firm canonical reason to suspect that a character 
may 
> be lying, or wanting to conceal the whole truth? (Particularly 
> immediately obvious reasons, which do not rely on a re-read and a 
> theory.)
> 2. Does all or part of your chosen morsel factually conflict with 
> existing canon? 
> 3. Is there any conveniently missing piece of information of which 
> the readers are already aware in an otherwise comprehensive 
account?


Alla:

But this is YOUR method of evaluating canon evidence, no? It is 
certainly reasonable one, but how do you know that JKR will use the 
same way to hint at whether character is telling the truth or lying?

Let me say it again and I am hoping that I will be clear this time. 
I do NOT find your argument for support of Snape telling the truth 
about knowing Draco's task to be convincing, when you seem to be so 
sure that he is lying about his role in Sirius' death and Emmelyne 
Vance death.

Dung:
> If the answer to any of the above is yes, then you've got a good 
> basis for speculating that a character is lying.

Alla:

Ok, why? Even if the answers to those questions are YES, which I am 
not quite agree with, how does it stop Snape from lying about 
knowing Draco's task?

Dung:
> If the answer to all of the above is no, you can still speculate 
> that a character is lying, of course, but your argument is weaker. 
<SNIP of Dung's ranking of canonical evidence. Go UPTHREAD to read 
it>

Alla:

According to YOUR criteria. I am not sure that this is JKR's 
criteria.

Dung: 
> Number 1. Snape is a *known* double-agent (who immediately thought 
> on their first read through of Spinner's End "Aha! Firm evidence 
> that Snape's a traitor?" Very few, I'd bet, because it was nothing 
> like firm evidence.) 

Alla:

So, how does it prove that he is telling the truth about knowing 
Draco's task?


Dung:
> Number 2. There are two bits, actually:
> - "I was curious, I admit it, and not at all inclined to murder 
him 
> the moment he set foot in the castle" is certainly at odds with 
the 
> look Snape gives Harry at the start of term feast in PS, which 
gave 
> him the feeling that Snape "didn't like Harry at all", and of 
course 
> Snape's treatment of Harry in their first ever potions lesson. 
> - "...it certainly helped dispose of Sirius Black..." is blatantly 
> at odds with the canon we have in OotP.

Alla:

I am not sure where you see contradictions here, personally. Snape 
not inclined to murder Harry in my book is not in any kind of 
contradiction with Snape willing to mistreat Harry. I think that 
Snape at that point in time could have preferred Harry being alive 
while doing many nasty things to him.

And of course I see no contradictions in Snape claiming involvement 
in Sirius death. Kreacher went to Malfoys, sure. What stopped Snape 
doing the same thing - going to Malfoys or Voldemort and telling 
them how much Harry loves Sirius or vice versa? I think Kreacher and 
Snape could have easily BOTH contributed to the deed. Nope, not a 
contradiction in my mind.

Oh, and of course nothing in canon contradicts that Snape was 
involved in Vance's death, IMO.

Dung:
> Number 3. Why is there no mention *at all* of Snape having alerted 
> the Order and royally screwed up Voldy's plan to get the prophecy?

Alla:

You see, this is a very good example of why I find your criteria of 
weighing canon evidence to be flawed. How is Snape not mentioning 
that he warned the Order relevant to determination about whether 
Snape was telling the truth or lying to Black sisters about knowing 
Draco's task and being involved in the deaths of Sirius and Vance? 

Dung:
I'm arguing that my assumptions are better supported by canon 
> than Alla's. A fine distinction, but an important one.

Alla:

Dung, I am starting to get a feeling that you won't let it go till I 
say that your assumptions are better supported than mine. You use 
your OWN criteria and claim that according to THIS criteria your 
assumptions are better supported by canon.
 I don't know what else to say. It is your absolute right to think 
this way. Personally, I am still very puzzled why you choosing 
to believe ONE part of Snape's speech is better supported than me 
choosing to believe another part of his speech to the SAME parties, 
if I may say.

Thank you for interesting discussion.

Alla.




 








From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca  Wed Mar  1 02:56:18 2006
From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:56:18 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] The bloody axe
In-Reply-To: <du30om+u6n2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060301025618.77453.qmail@web53305.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148945


Luckdragon responded:
I think the axe belongs to The Bloody Baron. I believe the horcrux is
the tiara which belonged to Rowena Ravenclaw.

Carol adds:
Agreed on the tiara (which Harry might see if he looks into Mirror of
Erised when he wants to find the Ravenclaw Horcrux).

But the two characters I can think of specifically associated with
axes are Nearly Headless Nick, who died after something like fifty
strokes from a blunt axe, and Walden Macnair, ex-Slytherin, would-be
executioner of Buckbeak, emissary from Voldemort to the giants, and
current resident of Azkaban. Since I believe JKR has said on her
website that NHN was executed for failing to practice magic correctly
on a Muggle, it seems to me that Macnair is the more likely candidate
for association with the axe (not to mention that he's still alive and
potentially more interesting for that reason). He has appeared in
every book since PoA and has, I think, some role yet to play--*not*, I
hasten to add, as a candidate for redemption. Possibly a would-be axe
murderer, practicing on animals at Hogwarts and hiding the bloody
weapon to avoid getting caught?

The axe could, of course, just be an irrelevant detail thrown in with
the tiara (which I definitely think we'll see again because of Mrs.
Weasley's not-so-coincidental reference to an apparently different
tiara later in the book) as the music box is thrown in with the locket
that won't open in OoP to hide a Horcrux in plain sight (nods to
Nora). But I think we may hear more of specific Death Eaters,
especially the really evil ones now in Azkaban, and I predict that one
of those will be Macnair, who'll be given Muggle necks to hew. Or
maybe he'll slaughter a few Thestrals, which he would unquestionably
be able to see.

Carol, wondering if the hippogriff formerly known as Buckbeak will be
a casualty in Book 7


Luckdragon now:    Hmmm.. never even thought of MacNair...very disturbing thinking of him practising the killing of critters while attending Hogwarts. 
  As for NHN it just seemed too obvious since his story is already known.
  Now The Bloody Baron I could just see showing off his murderous weapon to Peeves to keep him in line, reminiscing about the massacre which led to his name. I've always figured Peeves knew how TBB got all that blood on him even if Jo has kept us wondering thus far. Maybe Peeves can help Harry out with a little info. about what is hidden in the ROR.
  I wonder if the Ghosts are able to leave the castle and ,if so, could a certain Slytherin ghost communicate with The Dark Lord about the happenings at Hogwarts?
   
  As for Buckbeak, I hope H & H did not save him from one horrible death so that he might suffer another.





		
---------------------------------
Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos

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




From AllieS426 at aol.com  Wed Mar  1 03:37:04 2006
From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 03:37:04 -0000
Subject: The bloody axe
In-Reply-To: <20060301025618.77453.qmail@web53305.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <du34t0+fkmb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148946

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bee Chase <luckdragon64 at ...> 
wrote:
>
> 
> Luckdragon responded:
> I think the axe belongs to The Bloody Baron. I believe the horcrux is
> the tiara which belonged to Rowena Ravenclaw.
> 

Allie again:

Ah, good thought!  I always assumed the Baron was covered in his own 
blood, but I guess it could be someone else's blood!  Is there any 
canon one way or the other?  An interview I've missed somewhere?  The 
Baron is on my list of "throwaway characters & information that could 
become something important."  Then again, even if the axe does belong 
to the Baron, that backstory might be buried somewhere in JKR's 
notebooks and never see the light of day.

Nods to Carol, who noted that Macnair has been in every book since 
PoA.  The Room of Requirement has ALSO been in every book since PoA 
(but wasn't actually in PoA).  Now I'm imagining a teenaged Macnair 
running around Hogwarts murdering things/people and then stowing his 
axe in the RoR!  The impression I got when reading the text was that 
the axe was OLD, though that doesn't have to be true (rusting swords 
are described immediately before it but the axe is only described as 
heavy and bloodstained).  









From brahadambal at indiatimes.com  Wed Mar  1 04:09:52 2006
From: brahadambal at indiatimes.com (latha279)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 04:09:52 -0000
Subject: Here's something to support my view
Message-ID: <du36qg+8ski@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148947

Hi people,

Here's something I found today to support an earlier view I had posted 
sometime back. It was about Snape knowing the entire Prophecy and 
having told Voldy only part of it. And that was the basis of DD's firm 
belief in Snape. 

http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/thenorthtower/nt42.shtml

Nothing to lose :)
Brady.









From sydpad at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  1 05:05:53 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 05:05:53 -0000
Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG
In-Reply-To: <du2ven+9mmn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du3a3h+qdmo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148948

Man, the challengers for round 2 are already lining up to kick poor
decrepit suicidal!Snape's behind!

Neri:
> After all, we see in HBP that Snape *is* an expert in breaking Dark
> curses, including one put by the Dark Lord himself on the ring
> Horcrux, and I can quite see him convincing himself that he is better
> than all the past DADA teachers put together, and only he can break
> the DADA jinx. It would be very much in character. In fact, a jinx
> everyone talks about for years and years but no one can break would
> make Snape want the DADA post *more*, not less. 

Oh, I think this is totally in character for Snape, which is why I
included it in the initial list-- it was lupinlore's 'denial what
curse I don't see any curse I'm a pasteboard villain so I don't make
sense but I'm so psychologically subtle at the same time that I also
don't make sense' version that was causing me the whiplash.  

Unfortunately, this theorylet runs into the difficulty that Snape is
still primarily a double-agent.  So he might think he can break the
curse, but he would have some 'splainin' to do the next time he saw
Voldemort.  Although I would adore a scene that went like, 

-- enter Snape, briskly

Snape:  Right boss, I finally got that DADA job, what do you want me
to do?  I mean, the first thing obviously was to get rid of that curse
some idiot put on it, but now that I've done that..
V-mort:  WHAT?! My beautiful curse!! 
Snape:  Oh, that was YOUR curse?

I didn't put that in the orignal 'cons' list because *cough*I didn't
think of it*cough*.  The ORIGINAL cons list was that it didn't add
anything to the Snape/Harry dynamic, it just goes to the illustration
of Snape's character, in which case I think JKR would have had a scene
where's Snape's attitude to the curse was made explicit, so we could
watch him fall with that in mind.  Arrogant!Snape would work so much
better that way, no?  

What else have we got?

Tonks: 
> Ok, how about this one:
> SS wants the DADA position because he knows the Dark Arts and would
> be a very good teacher of the subject.  And (due to the whole LV
> killed Lily and James and now I am a bitter and damned man) he hates
> LV and wants to teach the young wizards how to defend themselves
> against him.  "Don't be a fool like I was in my youth", "Don't fall
> for the Dark Lord's lure".  DD can't give the job to him because it
> would "out" Snape as DD's man.

JustCarol adds:
>DD's options have run out; Voldemort is back and he desperately needs
>Snape's expertise.
>Moreover, there really is no one else he can hire. At the same time,
>he needs Slughorn to take the Potions position so he can protect >*him*
a>nd get that memory (and have him available to act as HOH when Snape
>inevitably loses the position).
>IMO, they both know that the jig is up. They are out of options. And
>there's just the slightest hope that Snape can end the curse,
>returning as either DADA or Potions master the following year. 

My concern here is that this doesn't give sufficent weight to the
curse.  I mean, picture yourself at a job interview.  And the
interviewer is going on and on about this wonderful project, it's
right up your street, you're their A choice, there's this slight thing
with this curse that means you'll leave in disgrace and possibly
brain-damaged or dead after a year, but it's got this great parking
space and I think we can really make the most of your talents here. 
Now what part sort of popped out there?  

And I think JKR intends the curse to be at the forefront, because,
first, (sob!!) she hardly showed us any of Snape's DADA's classes, so
they can't have been that interesting, and second, she leaves
revealing the curse to getting on to the Big Second Act Turn, which to
me flags that this is Significant.  Not too long after this we see the
curse have Snape for breakfast.  So if (like me) you finished the book
and turned right back to the beginning and started again, all that
stuff about Snape wanting the DADA job takes on an ominous, ambiguous
note.

Now here comes a strong, silent, hulking brute of a theory: 
NothingToSeeHereFolks, the coverstory!Snape that Miles resurrected:

>-- Snape DOESN'T want the DADA job;  his yearly applications are just
>a front to give Dumbledore a chance to make a public display of not
>trusting Snape.

Sigh.  You know, I think this just has such a good chance of being the
correct theory.  Because there were so many reasons to give Snape the
job in book 6, whether he'd been after it before or not-- the UV, the
degenerative ring curse if you buy it, getting Slughorn there.. and, I
mean, how many people thought Snape ACTUALLY wanted the job before
that Umbrige scene?  And let's face it, Snape trots it right out on
cue in Spinners End.

Soooo... boring... can't... focus.. on theory....

Hey, speaking of Spinner's End-- did Snape get the DADA gig before or
after this scene?  Because if it was BEFORE, then we have the curse
acting in it's anti-felix felicis way.  But if it's AFTER-- which
there is good reason to believe, due to Snape riding that old 'd-dore
wont give me the DADA job' hobbyhorse-- if it's AFTER, then we can
pretty safetly connect Snape getting the job to him swearing the UV. 
Which is a good sign that, as I'd certainly always assumed, Snape told
D-dore all three parts of the Vow. *sticks tongue out at Alla*

*fondly punches Magpie in the arm*:

>Actually, I don't think that's an obsession.  Sydney's alternate name of
>"Kamikaze" Snape makes all the difference.  A regular suicide may be
someone
>who feels sorry for himself and hangs himself in despair hoping everyone
>will be sorry now.  But I think a different mindset goes into being a
>kamikaze (or a terrorist bomber).  That's someone wanting to die for a
>cause--or as a final gesture to the enemy.

Yeah, I'm sorry-- kamizake!Snape IS much more illustrative of what I
have in mind-- I mean, if Snape just plain wanted to off himself,
isn't he, like, one of the world's foremost experts on poisons or
something?  I think either he's made a promise to D-dore not to take
his own life, so he needs somebody else (or, like, a curse) to do it
for him, or it's a "dagnab it, just let me stop this spying crap and
take a run at these guys" thing (although a "they'll all be sorry when
they find out" element is irresistibly Snapey *hugs Snape*).  Bear in
mind, I'm not positing deathwish!Snape soley to cover the DADA thing,
I'm trying to find a Grand Unified Snape Theory so that all the
remaining stuff-- why d-dore trusts him, and what motivates him
generally-- can be summed up in one fell swoop, if only to spare the
poor old Snape-haters all that lingering lovingly over him.

Carol:
>But that the
>position is still cursed, and that both Snape and DD are its victims,
>is also, to me at least, abundantly clear.

On this, I think, we can almost all agree.

-- Sydney, on the brink of assembling coloured post-it notes for all
the theories!







From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Wed Mar  1 05:58:48 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 05:58:48 -0000
Subject: BANG! (Re: Is Snape good or evil?)
In-Reply-To: <du2j5g+tebe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du3d6o+ege5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148949

dung:
> Which is as good a point as any to ask you the question, Nora: Why
> do you always try to take the BANG out of everything? 

Nora: 
> Short answer: because as I've detailed elsewhere, I thought that 
> the end of HBP *was* BANGy, and I'm interested in how much of the
> fandom wants to deny this BANG and shunt off the actual BANGiness
> to the next book, when we get 'Another BANG, But One I Like The 
> Ramifications Of Better' in a perpetual delaying strategy.  

Jen: The tower without an explanation is like Crouch Jr. without the 
Veritaserum, Peter without the Shrieking Shack, the Prophecy without 
the...OK, bad example. I was floored with BANG from the tower, I 
just want the rest of it. It may or may not have an ending I like 
better but at least it will be complete. That's not asking so much, 
is it?!? It doesn't seem like denial or wishful thinking so much as 
noticing there's an awful lot JKR left to the imagination in HBP: 
How does the DADA curse *work*? Now that Dumbledore is gone who is 
going to Explain Things? Was Snape lying at Spinner's End, telling 
the truth, telling the partial truth, making it up as he went 
along....? Where in the heck was that Phoenix who is always in the 
right place at the right time? What was going on with Dumbledore in 
the cave and was that green goo killing him or ?? Why did he 
urgently demand Harry get Snape then freeze Harry before he could 
leave?  And on, and on.....

Jen R., who just wants the friggin' explanation handed to her on a 
silver platter so she can make peace with whatever outcome JKR has 
in mind.







From juli17 at aol.com  Wed Mar  1 06:23:14 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 01:23:14 EST
Subject: The blackened hand again
Message-ID: <df.26358691.313697d2@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148950

I've been thinking about this subject and wondering, if Voldemort  couldn't
kill Dumbledore in OotP--and he couldn't even get close, as  Dumbledore
was pretty much swatting him around like Snape was swatting around 
Harry at the end of HBP--then who *can* kill Dumbledore? Voldemort is
the most powerful wizard after Dumbledore, or so we've been told, and
he was no match. Certainly Draco is no match. And while we heard
Snape say he suspected Voldemort wanted him to "do it" in the end,
Snape's no match either, not for a healthy Dumbledore in  possession
of his full powers. 
 
And that's where I keep going back to my first read of HBP, and how
the constant mention of Dumbledore's injury had me thinking "What is
it with that stupid blackened hand anyway?! Why do we have to  keep
hearing about it?" And that's really what I thought! So why was it  being
regularly brought to our attention if it wasn't significant? 
 
I think it was significant. An injury that even the WW's greatest  wizard
can't overcome? That doesn't heal? A dead hand that remains part of
his living body--because it *can't* be removed and replaced with a
false hand like Wormtail's, or because Dumbledore doesn't want it
removed (or covered, which also seems odd)--which is it? Does 
Dumbledore really enjoy waving that thing around at every  opportunity,
or is JKR trying to hit us over the head with it?
 
Combine that dead hand with Dumbledore's actions from the beginning
of HBP--taking the Dursleys to task for their treatment of Harry  while
also asking them to take Harry in one more time (as if he can't  be sure
he'll have an opportunity to do either later), going after the memory
Slughorn has always had *now*, giving Snape the DADA position when
he knows Snape cannot overcome the curse (a normal wizard can't 
survive it intact, let alone a double-agent already walking a  tightrope),
and suddenly taking a direct role in teaching Harry everything he  can
about Tom's past and destroying horcruxes--it's as if Dumbledore 
knows he has limited time. And I think he does know, not  because
he expects Snape to kill him, but because he knew since Snape 
saved him from the ring curse--not cured him, but "saved" him--that
he was living on borrowed time.
 
Whether this means Snape used a draught of living death,  a stopper
death potion or some other magic to halt death, I don't know. But  it
does mean Dumbledore is dying from the beginning of HBP, and
he knows it. In a sense it's semantics, since we're all in the  process
of dying as soon as our lives begin. However long our time is,  it is
always shrinking, and it will run out some day. (Sorry to be so  grim,
but I think Dumbledore does see it in those terms, and his time  is
just running out perhaps a bit sooner than he'd expected, but  not
soon enough that he can't get some critical tasks  completed--like
preparing Harry as well as possible in the time left.) 
 
Some posters say they can't believe Dumbledore is planning his own
death. But that's not what he's doing, any more than someone with
advanced cancer who is given X months to live is planning  his own 
death by getting his affairs in order to make sure his family is well 
provided for. Dumbledore is getting his "affairs" in order in HBP,
knowing full well he can only last so long. Perhaps he hoped to
make it through the full school year, certainly he wanted to prevent
Draco from killing him to protect Draco's soul, and I suspect he
also hoped to avoid Snape having to kill him. But he was prepared
to die, knowing it was coming within a finite time, and he was also
prepared to make his death count for something. 
 
I don't hold with the theory of a defined plan on the Tower, BTW, 
just that Dumbledore was aware of every eventuality, including 
Snape being put in the position of having to fulfill his UV or die.
For both their sakes, I'm sure he hoped it wouldn't happen, but 
if it did happen, then he expected Snape to kill him, as he was
a dying man who would soon not be able to provide the level  of 
assistance to Harry that the younger, healthy Snape would. 
This I suspect was the subject of the argument Hagrid overheard
in the forest, Snape not wanting anything to do with fulfilling the
vow, and Dumbledore insisting Snape keep his promise (and I
think the promise refers to something between Dumbledore and
Snape, probably along the lines of Snape assisting Dumbledore  
to defeat Voldemort/help Harry in any manner Dumbledore deemed 
necessary). 
 
It all fits. 
 
IMO, of course ;-)
 
Julie 


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




From vuurdame at xs4all.nl  Wed Mar  1 07:13:20 2006
From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 07:13:20 -0000
Subject: Is Snape good or evil? (longer)
In-Reply-To: <dtsro7+t7qs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du3hih+l8so@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148951

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" <nrenka at ...> wrote:
> 
> If he now understands how Harry thinks, why is he trying to rub his 
> face further in it?  Is he equating Harry's actions towards Draco 
> (which he doesn't seem to even plumb in depth) with James and Sirius' 
> pranking during school?  That seems way off the mark to me, and it's 
> certainly not a constructive result.  No, this strikes me more 
> as "the cat is out of the bag--so now I feel free to point it out to 
> you at any opportunity possible".
> 
To me this makes clear that he does not understand Harry at all. I'm
sure Snape could never imagine that Harry would -not- find the scene
at the lake amusing. After all, Harry is just like his father. So what
he does here is make sure Harry sees James did this to lots of people,
in the hope that will make Harry see that James was a rotten bully. 


> I suspect there's been some kind of harm done to the cause by the 
> profound disarray which the white hats are in at the end of HBP.  And 
> they really are shocked there, aren't they?  I myself was a little 
> surprised at the depth of their dependency; I suppose that post-OotP 
> I had wanted to see the Order as a more engaged and equitable body 
> than that.
> 
Yes, I agree. I was especially shocked about how much out of her depth
McGonnagal was and how her first idea was that now the school would
close. No fighting spirit, no leadership there. I can't see her
convincing the gouvernors that the school needs to be open. She hardly
believes it herself. 

> I know many listies may vary on this, but I myself will be very 
> disappointed if it boils down to "See, Dumbledore was right all 
> along, and all you have to do (and what you should have done all 
> along, foolish child who thinks he knows more than he does) is just 
> trust in where he's leading you." 

Yes, that would be very disappointing. But it should not be about DD,
but about Snape. Apparently we have a bunch of people who did not
bother enough about their collegue and order member to form their own
opinion about him. He has his past, so they wondered and DD's trust
made them stop wondering. What kind of world is that, where mistakes
of the past haunt someone forever, only being stopped because someone
else says so? Not because people want to get their own opinion? To me
it would be equally disappointing if the outcome was "once a DE always
a DE" and everybody was right in assuming that without getting an
opinion about the man themselves.

Gerry

 






From hickengruendler at yahoo.de  Wed Mar  1 08:38:34 2006
From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 08:38:34 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey
In-Reply-To: <du2nc6+pk33@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du3mia+a5s9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148952

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Luckdragon" <luckdragon64 at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Luckdragon:
> Everytime I read my HP for Grownups email I see pages and pages of 
> Snape. I don't think we will see the end of the "Is Snape ESE or ESG 
> or OFH" until book seven is released; so, just for the sake of being 
> able to tell each other "I told you so", let's tally up what we 
> believe Snape is before we actually know, and see which way the 
> majority of us are thinking. A brief paragraph is sufficient.
> 
> Myself for example, I am somewhat like DD and just have to look for 
> the good in people, so obviously I believe Snape will be found out to 
> be ESG. Well maybe not good exactly, but neither ESE or OFH. Lupin 
> said it well in book six; " It comes down to whether or not you trust 
> Dumbledore's judgement. I do; therefore, I trust Severus." (Chpt 16)
> 
> So in your Opinion, who's side is Snape on?
>

Hickengruendler:

Dumbledore's man through and through.

A major theme of this book is to see good in everybody, see Hagrid and 
Lupin, who are trusted by Dumbledore in spite of being a half-giant and 
a werewolf. But Hagrid and Lupin, despite of the flaws they certainly 
have, are generally good people, who we can see do not deserve the 
distrust from society. Having Snape be on Dumbledore's side would IMO 
mean, that even those, who have a really disagreeable character deserve 
some chance to redeem themselves from their past sins.

That, and I think the climax from book 6 comes very close to destroy 
Dumbledore's character. Having him begging for his life would IMO make 
him a hypocrite and if he believed Snape's story without any further 
information, he would be nearly as foolish as Fudge. (Who simply 
believed Lucius Malfoy wasn't in league with Voldmeort, because he 
wanted to believe it). Therefore I come to the conclusion that there 
must be more to it than it seems.

Hickengruendler







From hickengruendler at yahoo.de  Wed Mar  1 08:47:05 2006
From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 08:47:05 -0000
Subject: The bloody axe
In-Reply-To: <du34t0+fkmb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du3n29+nlpp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148953

 
> Allie again:
> 
> Ah, good thought!  I always assumed the Baron was covered in his 
own 
> blood, but I guess it could be someone else's blood!  Is there any 
> canon one way or the other?  An interview I've missed somewhere?  

Hickengruendler:

Not that I know of.

But I, too, assumed, that he was covered in his own blood. Mostly 
because he is, well, dead. And I suppose the ghosts are wearing the 
clothes they wore, when they died. Therefore I assumed he died in 
this robes and that's were all the blood comes from.

Of course it doesn't have to be this way. Maybe he and someone else 
killed each other while fighting. Or he died on his way back after 
the killing, before he had time to change clothes. Or the blood is 
symbolical, and all ghosts, who in their life murdered somebody, have 
to wear it as some kind of mark.   







From jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl  Wed Mar  1 10:10:19 2006
From: jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl (Julia)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 10:10:19 -0000
Subject: The blackened hand again - why not covered?
In-Reply-To: <df.26358691.313697d2@aol.com>
Message-ID: <du3rub+e9fj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148954

Julie wrote:
[SNIP]
> I think it was significant. An injury that even the WW's greatest  wizard
> can't overcome? That doesn't heal? A dead hand that remains part of
> his living body--because it *can't* be removed and replaced with a
> false hand like Wormtail's, or because Dumbledore doesn't want it
> removed (or covered, which also seems odd)--which is it? Does 
> Dumbledore really enjoy waving that thing around at every  opportunity,
> or is JKR trying to hit us over the head with it?
[SNIP]

As i was reading your post an idea struck me... At first i thought that this blackened hand 
was foreshadowing DD's death, and that its role is only to show us (and Harry) that there is 
not much time left and that those horcruxes are really nasty things to destroy.
But then while reading your post i thought - why did DD even show his injury to anyone 
(except SS and HP)? We see him throughout the book practically showing off his black 
hand! Everybody in the whole school could have noticed that something is wrong with his 
hand - even the Slytherins... What if some student told their parents about DD's blackened 
hand and this information would have reached Voldemort ears (through DEs)? I don't think 
DD wanted Voldemort to know about his injury. It would ruin the whole plan of destroying 
the horcruxes without Voldemort ever knowing it! Surely if Voldemort knew about the 
hand he would also knew how it happened - it was him who put the curse on his horcrux - 
he would recognize the symptoms, he's not that stupid :) 
So here is my question - what was a real purpose of not covering the blackened hand by 
DD?  Is there something we have missed?

Julia






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Wed Mar  1 12:09:09 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 12:09:09 -0000
Subject: The blackened hand again - why not covered?
In-Reply-To: <du3rub+e9fj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du42t5+47jk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148955


> Julia wrote:
 I don't think 
> DD wanted Voldemort to know about his injury. It would ruin the 
whole plan of destroying 
> the horcruxes without Voldemort ever knowing it! Surely if 
Voldemort knew about the 
> hand he would also knew how it happened - it was him who put the 
curse on his horcrux - 
> he would recognize the symptoms, he's not that stupid :) 
> So here is my question - what was a real purpose of not covering 
the blackened hand by 
> DD?  Is there something we have missed?

Potioncat:
Snape reported it shortly after it happened. He told Bella and Cissy 
that DD had been injured because his reflexes were slowed...which I 
think he attributed to being weakened at the MoM battle. I thought DD 
wanted LV to think that he was weaker than he actually was.

He may have wanted LV to worry about his finding the horcruxes in the 
hopes LV would accidentally reveal one or two. (That just came to my 
mind and I haven't worked it out.)






From mudblood68 at yahoo.de  Wed Mar  1 11:47:37 2006
From: mudblood68 at yahoo.de (Claudia)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 11:47:37 -0000
Subject: The blackened hand again - why not covered?
In-Reply-To: <du3rub+e9fj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du41kp+mihc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148956

Julia:
> So here is my question - what was a real purpose of not covering 
the blackened hand by 
> DD?  Is there something we have missed?
> 

Claudia:
In Austria we have a retired politician whose hand was blown apart by 
a letter bomb. From that day on he always covered it in a piece of 
cloth, matching the colours of his tie. While I very well understand 
that he didn't want to show the remains of his hand to every Tom, 
Dick and Harry, the covering still seemed to me like a sign of 
weakness. As if he had to hide something. Or to be ashamed of 
something.
So I read the not-covering of DD's hand simply as a sign of his inner 
strength ? he doesn't have to hide anything. He can bear the people 
staring at it, whispering about it.

On the other hand, DD's being so evasive about how he obtained the 
injury was to me a clear sign that he was in fact dying from it.

Another sign that his time was running out was for me the briskness 
with which he treats Harry prior to their trip to the cave. I don't 
think he would have dismissed Harry's news about the celebrating 
Draco as curtly as he had, if he didn't feel he was running out of 
time.

Claudia








From willsonkmom at msn.com  Wed Mar  1 12:21:27 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 12:21:27 -0000
Subject: Prophecy, Snape, timeline (wasRe: Here's something to support my view
In-Reply-To: <du36qg+8ski@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du43k7+isng@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148957

Brandy wrote: 
> Here's something I found today to support an earlier view I had 
posted 
> sometime back. It was about Snape knowing the entire Prophecy and 
> having told Voldy only part of it. And that was the basis of DD's 
firm 
> belief in Snape. 
> 
> http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/thenorthtower/nt42.shtml


Potioncat:
I agree with the editorial's view that Snape "returned" a long time 
prior to starting work at Hogwarts. I actually think he may have 
already been working for DD when he took the prophesy to LV. But DD 
has been firm in his statements that the spy only heard part of the 
prophecy.

So, either there's something wrong with Trelawney's details; or Snape 
was unable to hear because he was arguing with Aberforth; or DD lied, 
or Snape was obliviated. Now...come to think of it, maybe I should 
look at DD's wording. Does he say the spy only heard or the spy only 
knew????

Just because Snape started at Hogwarts in '81, doesn't mean he hadn't 
been trying to get the job for a while. 






From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  1 07:56:04 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 07:56:04 -0000
Subject: The blackened hand again
In-Reply-To: <df.26358691.313697d2@aol.com>
Message-ID: <du3k2k+ed2j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148958

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at ... wrote:
>]]
>  
> Combine that dead hand with Dumbledore's actions from the beginning
> of HBP--taking the Dursleys to task for their treatment of Harry  
while
> also asking them to take Harry in one more time (as if he can't  be 
sure
> he'll have an opportunity to do either later), going after the 
memory
> Slughorn has always had *now*, giving Snape the DADA position when
> he knows Snape cannot overcome the curse (a normal wizard can't 
> survive it intact, let alone a double-agent already walking a  
tightrope),
> and suddenly taking a direct role in teaching Harry everything he  
can
> about Tom's past and destroying horcruxes--it's as if Dumbledore 
> knows he has limited time. And I think he does know, not  because
> he expects Snape to kill him, but because he knew since Snape 
> saved him from the ring curse--not cured him, but "saved" him--that
> he was living on borrowed time.

I agree that the Dead Hand is very significant.  It points to 
something about the DD/Snape relationship we haven't yet seen.  
Having said that, we also have to remember that DD isn't just any 
character, he is also a walking plot device.  He is used by JKR to 
give info dumps to the readers.  There was a lot of stuff JKR needed 
to get to the readers, and she knew that DD wouldn't be around 
anymore to do it.  The stuff with the Dursleys and Tom Riddle may 
have been no more than that (i.e. the author's knowledge that she was 
about to lose a plot device, not a character's knowledge that he was 
going to die).

This also runs afoul of the problem of a moronic Dumbledore.  
Dumbledore has already learned a hard lesson about witholding 
information from Harry.  Why is he witholding this important piece of 
information?  One would think he would want to be honest about this 
to prepare Harry for what is to come.  And one would especially think 
that, if DD knew he was going to die, he would want to work actively 
to repair the breach between Snape and Harry.  Of course, DD has 
acted like a moron before, so this may be just another example.

As I said above, I agree with your main point, that there is 
something going on here with the hand and DD's insistance on seeing 
Snape immediately on returning to Hogwarts.  It does seem likely that 
Snape is somehow stabilizing/helping DD.  But why the secrecy about 
that?  Why doesn't he just tell Harry, "Harry, you should trust 
Professor Snape because he used the 'x' ritual to save my life at 
great expense to himself?"  Why does Dumbledore constantly put off 
discussing the details of what happened and what Snape did?  Why not 
give Harry enough information to know, when push comes to shove, why 
it may be imperative for DD to get to Snape in certain situations?

One possibility is that Snape is not entirely glad about whatever it 
is he has to do.  Perhaps it is very dangerous for him?  Perhaps he 
sees this as yet another example of the way in which Dumbledore holds 
his life second to other concerns?  Perhaps this is what DD and Snape 
were arguing about? Perhaps the revulsion and hatred on Snape's face 
indicate he feels he has been misused?  It seems like a stretch, I 
know.  But I keep coming back to the question of why doesn't 
Dumbledore just be honest with Harry about this and give Harry a 
concrete reason to trust Snape?  Because he's afraid to blow Snape's 
cover if Voldy uses legilimency?  We're back to Manipulative!DD at 
that point, an image of the old man that hasn't done so very well the 
last little while.

I have to admit, I haven't run across an explanation for the argument 
in the woods that is entirely convincing, and the reason is this -- 
DD tells Snape he promised to do it, and he will do it, and now Snape 
is supposed to conduct the search within his own house.  If, as many 
people propose, they were talking about Snape killing DD, and if 
Snape had been totally honest about the UV, why the part about 
searching in his own house?  It's totally unnecessary, since they 
already KNOW where the danger almost certainly lies.  For that 
matter, the remark seems unnecessary regardless of what they were 
discussing and whether DD knew about the third clause of the UV.  The 
two of them are alone, they know about Draco's mission, and there is 
no reason for either of them to be coy.  Of course Snape is going to 
concentrate on his own house.  And there is no reason for Dumbledore 
not to come out and say "Especially keep an eye on Draco Malfoy."


Lupinlore


>










From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  1 08:11:51 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 08:11:51 -0000
Subject: MM as leader, Harry at Hogwarts (was Re: Is Snape good or evil?)
In-Reply-To: <du3hih+l8so@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du3l07+3bdr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148959

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "festuco" <vuurdame at ...> wrote:
>

> > 
> Yes, I agree. I was especially shocked about how much out of her depth
> McGonnagal was and how her first idea was that now the school would
> close. No fighting spirit, no leadership there. I can't see her
> convincing the gouvernors that the school needs to be open. She hardly
> believes it herself. 
> 

Well, in all fairness (and MM isn't one of my favorites among the 
adults) she was still in shock.  It's asking a little much for her, 
just off a pitched battle and undoubtedly exhausted, to absorb DD's 
death, Snape's treachery, Draco's complicity, and the damage to 
Hogwarts, assimilate all that within seconds, and rise to her feet with 
a resounding declaration of academic policy.  I suspect by the time she 
gets around to meeting the governors a much more confidant and 
confrontational Minerva will have emerged.

Having said that, I agree that DD's death has knocked the main prop out 
from under both Hogwarts and the Order.  This is about the only line of 
argument I can see leading to Harry returning to Hogwarts for his 
seventh year.  That is, the governors can only be persuaded to keep the 
school open if the Chosen One lends his PR support by agreeing to 
attend.  This is also the only scenario under which I could see Harry 
agreeing to be Head Boy (it's what DD wanted, keeping the school open, 
promoting house unity in the face of danger, etc.).

Of course, if Harry were to return for a seventh year, what about 
NEWTS?  I can't see him wasting the time.  Of course NEWTS may be 
cancelled for the duration -- such academic adjustments to wartime have 
ample precedent.  

Altogether, it really does seem more plausible that Harry would 
convince Ron and Hermione to return as Head Boy and Head Girl.  But 
how, as they have sworn to support him in his quest?  That would also 
disrupt the parallels between James and Harry, parallels that seem to 
be near and dear to JKR's heart.


Lupinlore










From harrygoldstien at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  1 09:37:20 2006
From: harrygoldstien at yahoo.com (harrygoldstien)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 09:37:20 -0000
Subject: Has anyone noticed this thing?
Message-ID: <du3q0g+odr3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148960

I was reading Harry Potter and trying to find something common in 
the names of those who died. And I did! Just notice this: most of 
the dead people have their first and last name starting with the 
same letter.
For Example:

CedriC Diggory
SiriuS Black
EmmelinE Vance
AmeliA Bones

So who else alive has a similar name??

SeveruS Snape

Can it be so much co-incidential?? I doubt it.


P.S. Check out this SITE I found while surfing: 
http://www.rowlingsucks.com/
I know its stupid, but its hilarious!! Check it
out.


Harry.







From enlil65 at gmail.com  Wed Mar  1 07:02:10 2006
From: enlil65 at gmail.com (Peggy Wilkins)
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 01:02:10 -0600
Subject: The blackened hand again
In-Reply-To: <df.26358691.313697d2@aol.com>
References: <df.26358691.313697d2@aol.com>
Message-ID: <1789c2360602282302n15fefee1h8f3459643914edde@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148961

Juli wrote:
<SNIP>
> And that's where I keep going back to my first read of HBP, and how
> the constant mention of Dumbledore's injury had me thinking "What is
> it with that stupid blackened hand anyway?! Why do we have to  keep
> hearing about it?" And that's really what I thought! So why was it  being
> regularly brought to our attention if it wasn't significant?

Peggy:
Good question.

Juli wrote:
> I think it was significant. An injury that even the WW's greatest  wizard
> can't overcome? That doesn't heal? A dead hand that remains part of
> his living body--because it *can't* be removed and replaced with a
> false hand like Wormtail's, or because Dumbledore doesn't want it
> removed (or covered, which also seems odd)--which is it? Does
> Dumbledore really enjoy waving that thing around at every  opportunity,
> or is JKR trying to hit us over the head with it?
>
> Combine that dead hand with Dumbledore's actions from the beginning
> of HBP--taking the Dursleys to task for their treatment of Harry  while
> also asking them to take Harry in one more time (as if he can't  be sure
> he'll have an opportunity to do either later), going after the memory
> Slughorn has always had *now*, giving Snape the DADA position when
> he knows Snape cannot overcome the curse (a normal wizard can't
> survive it intact, let alone a double-agent already walking a  tightrope),
> and suddenly taking a direct role in teaching Harry everything he  can
> about Tom's past and destroying horcruxes--it's as if Dumbledore
> knows he has limited time. And I think he does know, not  because
> he expects Snape to kill him, but because he knew since Snape
> saved him from the ring curse--not cured him, but "saved" him--that
> he was living on borrowed time.
>
> Whether this means Snape used a draught of living death,  a stopper
> death potion or some other magic to halt death, I don't know. But  it
> does mean Dumbledore is dying from the beginning of HBP, and
> he knows it... <snip>

Peggy:
There is another interpretation we should consider: perhaps this was
all for show.  What if Dumbledore wants people to believe he is
slowing down and weakening?  This perception starts subtly in book 4,
where Harry starts to note how old Dumbledore looks.  He sees the
lines in his face.  But his perception of Dumbledore's age is
fleeting--one moment Harry sees the usual strong Dumbledore, then a
moment later he sees age and weakness.  These perceptions seem to
waver back and forth.

By the time of HBP, Snape is actively spreading the report (at
Spinner's End) that Dumbledore's reflexes have slowed and he has
suffered an injury shortly after the MoM because of it.  (Note that he
doesn't reveal the cause of the injury; does he know?)  Dumbledore
makes no effort whatever to hide this at any time; does he want it
noticed?  Does he want rumors to spread?  Is Snape assisting in
spreading the word?

Harry continues to notice contradictions in his perceptions of
Dumbledore.  The instance I remember most clearly happens when they
are swimming to the cave, and Harry notes that Dumbledore isn't slow
at all and is a strong swimmer.  He doesn't seem like a dying man
here; at least not until he is weakened from drinking the potion.

Dumbledore seems to use people's perceptions to his advantage, and he
seems only too willing to allow rumors to spread.

--
Peggy Wilkins
enlil65 at gmail.com





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Mar  1 13:58:15 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 13:58:15 -0000
Subject: Of Souls and Death - Dumbledore's Intent
In-Reply-To: <00e601c63cbf$8335d080$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>
Message-ID: <du499n+eh9k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148962

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" <miles at ...> wrote:

Miles:

> Just to put another question into the discussion: Why don't we dive 
into the
> pensieve to listen to the prophecy? Why don't we hear any sounds 
apart from
> Trelawny's voice in the memory version Dumbledore presents to Harry 
(and to
> us)?

Geoff:
I often find that if I am concentrating on, say, a conversation in a 
noisy environment, I subconsciously filter out background noise and 
often don't even remember that a CD player or something of that ilk 
was blasting away behind me.

If Dumbledore was concentrating hard on what Trelawney was 
prophesying, he may have been doing the same. No clinking of empty 
glasses or bawdy bar-room songs from the main area, no thuds of 
bodies being ejected... Just Sybill holding forth.






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Wed Mar  1 14:37:59 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 14:37:59 -0000
Subject: Is Snape good or evil? (longer)
In-Reply-To: <du3hih+l8so@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du4bk8+uhm5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148963

Gerry wrote: 
> To me this makes clear that he does not understand Harry at all. I'm
> sure Snape could never imagine that Harry would -not- find the scene
> at the lake amusing. After all, Harry is just like his father. So 
what
> he does here is make sure Harry sees James did this to lots of 
people,
> in the hope that will make Harry see that James was a rotten bully.

Potioncat:
Snape does rub it in that Sirius and James are in this batch. But he 
isn't punishing Harry for being in the pensieve, he's punishing Harry 
for using a Dark Curse on Draco. Harry has done something very 
similar to what the teenagers James and Sirius did...he cursed 
someone. He also used a curse that he didn't understand. We don't 
know what Harry learned, if anything, from the punishments he copied.

 We didn't get much of a look at the cards to see what he should have 
learned. (Was I the only one who laughed at the punishment, 
a "double" detention for a hex that made someone's head swell 
to "twice" the normal size?) Another question came up once 
before, "Wasn't Snape in this batch? or did he never get caught?" 

I wonder if any other of the Half-Blood Prince's spells were used in 
the past and Harry might have seen a description of it in the cards?

I suspect, that  whether the act of reading and copying the misdeeds 
had any intent on Snape's part, his real goal was to keep Harry under 
his eye for a good period of time. It was a way of protecting Draco 
and possibly a way to attempt to learn more about how Harry learned 
the curse in the first place.
> 

> Gerry:
> Yes, that would be very disappointing. But it should not be about 
DD,
> but about Snape. Apparently we have a bunch of people who did not
> bother enough about their collegue and order member to form their 
own
> opinion about him. He has his past, so they wondered and DD's trust
> made them stop wondering. 

Potioncat:
The fact is, Snape was seen killing DD and there's little doubt about 
it. So now they are following human nature and looking for a reason. 
None of them know about the UV. The fact that Snape did have a past 
played a big part in how they reacted. 

But think about it. If it had been Lupin who killed DD, the same 
people would be saying, "Well, we wondered a bit about trusting a 
werewolf, but DD said he was safe." (Of course, Snape would have been 
saying, "I told him so.")

Or, if it had been Sirius who killed DD, the same people would be 
saying, "Well, we wondered about him, after all those years in 
Azkaban, but DD said he was stable." (Except Snape would have been 
saying, "I told him so.")

Or if it had been Hermione, the same people would have said somethig 
kind like, "Poor girl, she put herself under too much pressure and 
snapped." (Except Snape would have said, "Sirius and Lupin confunded 
her.")

At any rate, I didn't get the idea that his collegues hadn't trusted 
Snape, or had so much blindly trusted DD, as it was that they didn't 
fully know what he had done to initially convince DD.






From quigonginger at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  1 15:18:44 2006
From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 15:18:44 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP11, Hermione's Helping Hand
Message-ID: <du4e0k+l5j9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148964

CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: HArry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 
11, Hermione's Helping Hand

Thanks to Penapart Elf for the tense discussion (verb tenses, that is) 
and other suggestions.

We begin as the school year is in full swing.  Hermione's prediction 
that the sixth year would be harder has proven true.  Homework has been 
piled on, classes are harder, and nonverbal spells are now expected, 
not only in DADA, but also in Charms and Transfiguration, although they 
are still allowed to swear loudly at the Venomous Tentacula should it 
attack during Herbology.

The trio guiltily realizes that they have not yet been to see Hagrid, 
who has stopped coming to meals, and has ignored any greetings they 
have called to him in passing.  They resolve to go to see him on 
Saturday, after Quidditch tryouts.

Harry wonders why Quidditch is suddenly so popular.  Hermione explains 
that it is Harry, not the sport, that is popular.  People are now aware 
that he is the "Chosen One", that he was slandered by the Daily 
Prophet, and that he stuck to his story despite Umbridge's attempt to 
silence him with her Quill,  Ron notes that his scars from the brains 
are still visible.  Hermione ignores him and tells Harry that he has 
grown quite a bit over the summer.  Ron says that he is tall too, but 
to no avail.

They are interrupted by the arrival of the Owls bearing the morning 
post.  Harry receives his new Potions book, and switches the covers.  
Hermione does not approve.

In her perusal of the Daily Prophet, Hermione notes that Stan Shunpike 
has been arrested on suspicion of being a DE.  In the ensuing 
discussion, they note that several students have been withdrawn from 
school (Eloise Midgen and Hannah Abbot, whose mother was found dead), 
and more parents are coinsidering it (inclueing the Patil twins'), and 
that Dumbledore has been frequently absent.

Leaving the Great Hall, they see Parvati and Lavender in deep 
discussion.  Lavender gives Ron a wide smile, and Ron, fresh from being 
rebuffed by Hermione, takes note, and leaves the scene "strutting".

Quidditch tryouts are even more popular than Harry has anticipated.  
After weeding out the non-Gryffindors and those who can't fly, Harry 
first chooses the Chasers (Katie Bell, Ginny, and a new girl, Demelza 
Robins) and Beaters (Jimmy Peakes and Ritchie Coote) and moves on to 
Keeper tryouts.  He has hoped, for Ron's sake, that saving the Keepers 
for last would result in a smaller crowd, but the reverse turns out to 
be true. 

Cormac McClaggen, after approaching Harry at the beginning of tryouts, 
saves four out of five penalties.  On the fifth, he flies off in the 
wrong direction.  As Ron mounts his broomstick, Lavender shouts "Good 
luck" from the stands.  Ron saves all five, and is awarded the 
position, much to the displeasure of Cormac, who reminds Harry of an 
angry Uncle Vernon.

Hermione congratulates Ron on his performance, and the trio heads off 
to see Hagrid.  Ron relives his saves, and notes that Cormac appeared 
Confunded on the one he missed.  Harry notes that this brings a flush 
to Hermione's face.

Upon arrival at Hagrid's, Buckbeak gives them a typically formal 
Hippogriff greeting.  Hagrid is less warm to them.  After a bit, he 
allows them into his hut.  The trio insists that they would have taken 
COMC, but couldn't fit it in their schedules.  The real reason for 
Hagrid's distress soon comes to light:  Aragog is deathly ill.  
Hermione comforts Hagrid, and the trio leaves with their friendship 
with Hagrid restored.

Harry catches Hermione aside as they go into the Great Hall for supper, 
and confronts her gently on the Confunding of Cormac.  She admits that 
she did so, but defends herself by saying that Cormac was maligning Ron 
and Ginny, and that he isn't the sort Harry would want on the team, 
what with his temper and all.  Harry agrees, but can't resist teasingly 
chiding Hermione for her dishonesty despite her prefect status.

Slughorn approaches and invites Harry and Hermione to a little dinner 
party he is having that night.  He ignores Ron.  Harry declines on 
account of detention with Snape.  Later, in the Common Room, Hermione 
finds a copy of the Evening Prophet and sees that Arthur has again 
raided Malfoy Manor, but came up empty.  Harry acknowledges that he 
provided the tip.  Harry again fails to convince Ron and Hermione that 
Malfoy is up to something.  Demelza brings Harry a message that he is 
expected in detention with Snape.


Questions:

Although I first enjoyed this chapter for the humour, it struck me in 
my rereading that there is a plethora of foreshadowing.

Nonverbal spells are now expected, although Harry notes that others are 
having as much trouble as he is.  Could this be a part of the reason 
Snape is later annoyed by Harry's inability to cast them by the end of 
the book?  Did Hermione do her Confundus on Cormac nonverbally?  Do we 
ever see Ron do one?  What do you think of Hermione's casting the 
Confundus?

Stan Shunpike is arrested.  Other than the trio's say-so, do we have 
any evidence that he is actually innocent?  Their meetings with him 
have been brief, and the Dark Lord doesn't seem to have a pre-entrance 
IQ test for his minions.  It is pretty well accepted that this is JKR's 
way of showing the corruption/ineptitude of the WW government, but how 
do we, the readers, know that he isn't actually a DE?  How does the 
trio?  Are we all reacting merely on faith and the narrator's say so?

Cormac seems to expect that his Slug connections will help him with 
Harry.  He is also boastful of his abilities.  He says that he didn't 
try out last year due to eating a pound of doxy eggs on a bet and being 
hospitalized.  One of our brighter listees (and I wish I could remember 
who so I could give credit) wondered once if F&G hadn't made that bet 
to help Ron.  We did see them with doxy eggs, and it seems in their 
nature.  Do you think they did this?  Would Cormac have made the team 
last year instead of Ron?

There is lots of SHIPping foreshadowing in this chapter:  Ron/Lavender, 
Ron/Hermione, Cormac/Hermione.  I don't have any real questions, but 
feel free to comment, remembering to use the SHIP prefix if it is a 
SHIPping post as per our rules ;o)

Wouldn't Confunding Cormac be a great name for a band?

Feel free to comment on things not listed in this chapter and to add 
your own question if you choose.

I hope you all enjoy your discussion.  
Ginger

NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see
"HPfGU HBP Chapter Discussions" at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Mar  1 15:29:54 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 15:29:54 -0000
Subject: Is Snape good or evil? (longer)
In-Reply-To: <du2hm8+mt6a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du4eli+r1v9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148965

Lupinlore:
> Not infantilizing, necessarily, I don't think.  However, I DO think 
> that such a statement, without an attempt to explain the facts as 
> much as one can and to lay out one's reasons OTHER than sixteen 
> years, etc. is profoundly condescending.  It amounts to, "I know 
> better than you so shut up and do as you're told." 

Pippin:
It's one of those eternal dilemmas, I'm afraid. If there was an easy 
answer we'd have found it by now. :)

Doing it your way would condescend by expecting the
hypothetical youngster to be satisfied with an incomplete explanation
which moreover misrepresented one's priorities. Like  Dumbledore
with Minerva when she demanded to know why Harry was being
left at Privet Drive.  *That* was condescending, no? 

Dumbledore didn't mention the blood protection to McGonagall, probably
not least because it wouldn't be sealed until Petunia took Harry in. But without
it, the other reasons aren't nearly good enough. 

Lupinlore:
 But  in THIS particular instance, condescension is Dumbledore's downfall. 

Pippin:
It is? There seems to be a strain of what I can only call magical thinking
in this hypothesis (I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong.) If this is the
tragedy of Dumbledore's downfall, that if only he'd shared his reasons 
for trusting Snape he'd have realized how inadequate they were, then it
should be clear from the text that if he hadn't trusted Snape he might 
still be alive. 

There's a clear moment when Caesar should have listened
to the omens, Hamlet should have acted decisively, Juliet should have
gone for help, etc. But if Dumbledore had put an extra-heavy-duty
sleeping charm on Snape before heading out to the cave, he'd still
have ended up wandless, critically ill, facing four Death Eaters and his
 would-be assassin, with the Order trapped in a losing battle
below. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see that it greatly improves his
chances.  It looks like he'd still have died, either from the
poison, or because one of the DE's would have panicked and killed him
before help arrived.

Pippin:
 It might help if there were  someone who could mirror those 
feelings for him. I think that's a role Dumbledore hoped Harry could 
play in Snape's healing. 

Lupinlore: 
> Well, I think you are right.  The problem is, that means Dumbledore 
> is kind of like an idiot savant.  He's an absolute genius at some 
> things, but at other's he's so strangely blind and downright moronic 
> that you have to wonder if he hasn't suffered a series of small 
> strokes over the years.  

Pippin:
I hesitate to ask, but why moronic? People can change their values and
habits at any time of  life. They get religion, go on the wagon, change
their politics from hardcore conservative to liberal green, etc.

And Snape, I daresay, did change some in HBP. He's still a terror to Harry when
provoked, but it seemed to to take a lot more than previously to provoke him.
Harry no longer thinks that every class with Snape is sheer torture, and 
Neville doesn't seem to be troubled at all. 

It could just be that Snape did get something out of the occlumency
lessons. I don't think he really believed until then that Harry's life
with the Muggles could have been as bad as everyone said, because
if it was how could Harry possibly be so, well, normal?

 He couldn't copy Harry's coping strategy, because Harry seems able
to let go of things and Snape can't. But he might have realized that there
*are* coping strategies and you aren't weak or a coward if you use them.
While perhaps he couldn't  hide the memories themselves the way Harry can, 
he could, being an occlumens, hide from  the pain. It'd be dreadfully
ironic if it was some sign of progress like this that persuaded Dumbledore
to give him the DADA job.

Lupinlore:
> The scene in the cave is very interesting, all right.  But I'm not 
> sure what to make of it.  Was DD expressing his own emotions?  If so, 
> emotions over what?  Was he expressing someone ELSE's emotions?  If 
> so, whose and over what?  Could they be Snape's emotions?  Wormtail's?
> Did DD make a mistake and lose someone he loved?  Could this, as you 
> say, mean that Snape's remorse (genuine or not) resonates with him 
> profoundly?  Could this help explain his willingness to sacrifice 
> almost everything else to guard against possible threats to Harry?
> 

Pippin:
I'm almost sure they were Dumbledore's own emotions -- but I think
Dumbledore's ideal is that every life is precious.  Maybe he didn't 
understand that until whatever experience he relived in the cave.
Makes you wonder what was in that goo -- concentrated essence
of dementor?



Pippin






From sherriola at earthlink.net  Wed Mar  1 15:49:45 2006
From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 07:49:45 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Snape good or evil? (longer)
In-Reply-To: <dtvj95+q7og@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <E1FETaN-0004KW-Sz@smtpauth04.mail.atl.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 148966

> Pippin:
> Are you saying Harry didn't need to be punished?



sherry now:

I've been meaning to answer this with my own thoughts for several days but
between the flu and weird work schedule ... anyway, forgive me if the thread
has died out.  

actually, I think Harry should have been punished, but punishing him by
rubbing his father's misdeeds in his face was not the best way to do it, in
my opinion.  even if Harry can admit to himself, that his father and company
weren't always particularly nice, he's probably never going to admit that to
Snape.  In fact, the reaction I'd expect to that punishment would be to more
firmly bind Harry to defending his father.  You know, closing ranks to
defend his family sort of thing.  I've mentioned on this list in the past,
that my dad had some issues.  But he was my dad, and I would not allow an
outsider to bad mouth him to me, nor would my siblings.  If a teacher
thought to punish me by making me read all about my dad's behavior, it would
only serve to turn me more against that teacher and to be even more loyal to
my father.  even if I could admit to myself that he wasn't always very nice
in certain areas, I would never admit that publicly to someone who obviously
hated him.  In fact, it would completely harden me against the lesson that
person was trying to teach me.  Snape's hatred of James and inability to
separate Harry from him only makes his punishment seem petty and childish to
me.  

Of course, in the RW, Harry should be expelled for what he did, and I don't
know what the wizarding world should have done.  But a petty
look-at-how-rotten-your-precious-father was sort of punishment isn't the way
to do it.  It sure didn't seem to have any effect on Harry.

Sherry




From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Wed Mar  1 15:58:17 2006
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 10:58:17 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape Survey
In-Reply-To: <du2nc6+pk33@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY101-F6A0AB10BF71E9E7642B3B91F40@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 148967



Luckdragon:
>So in your Opinion, who's side is Snape on?

I don't think Snape is on anyone's side but his own.  He's got a huge ego as 
well as an almost obsessive need for respect so, should he be able to 
arrange to get both top Wizards (one very old man and one homicidal maniac) 
removed, then *he* would be the most powerful Wizard around...

I don't think his goal is to rule the world, he just wants the position of 
greatness he feels he's been denied.

PJ









Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/HBF_Text__MUST_READ

Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from 
posts to which you're replying!

Yahoo! Groups Links








From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Wed Mar  1 16:23:51 2006
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 16:23:51 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP11, Hermione's Helping Hand
In-Reply-To: <du4e0k+l5j9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du4hqn+fmsd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148968

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "quigonginger" 
<quigonginger at ...> wrote:
>
> Stan Shunpike is arrested.  Other than the trio's say-so, do we 
have 
> any evidence that he is actually innocent?  Their meetings with him 
> have been brief, and the Dark Lord doesn't seem to have a pre-
entrance 
> IQ test for his minions.  It is pretty well accepted that this is 
JKR's 
> way of showing the corruption/ineptitude of the WW government, but 
how 
> do we, the readers, know that he isn't actually a DE?  How does the 
> trio?  Are we all reacting merely on faith and the narrator's say 
so?

Great summary, Ginger!

Anything is possible, but we've seen Shunpike before in braggart 
mode. During the QWC, a group of young adult wizards brag to three 
veelas:

"A third young wizard, whose pimples were visible even by the dim, 
silvery light of the veela, now cut in, "I'm about to become the 
youngest ever Minister of Magic, I am."

Harry snorted with laughter. He recognized the pimply wizard:  His 
name was Stan Shunpike, and he was in fact a conductor on the triple-
decker Knight Bus." 

Scrimegour doesn't dispute Harry's assertion of Shunpike's innocence 
either. And while I agree that Voldemort doesn't have an DE IQ test, 
he does seem to require that those who serve him either be violent 
ruthless thugs, or highly placed enough to provide him with useful 
information. Shunpike fails to meet either criteria.

  - CMC








From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  1 16:30:47 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 16:30:47 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey
In-Reply-To: <du3mia+a5s9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du4i7n+ebtc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148969

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hickengruendler" 
<hickengruendler at ...> wrote:
>
 I don't think we will see the end of the "Is Snape ESE or ESG 
> > or OFH" until book seven is released; so, just for the sake of 
being able to tell each other "I told you so", let's tally up what 
we believe Snape is before we actually know, and see which way the 
> > majority of us are thinking. A brief paragraph is sufficient.
Snip)

 Lupin said it well in book six; " It comes down to whether or not 
you trust Dumbledore's judgement. I do; therefore, I trust Severus." 
(Chpt 16)


Tonks:

I am with that cute looking wolfy guy. ;-)  If DD says that he trust 
Snape, so do I!! I know some here think that it is stupid to put 
that much trust in the judgment of someone else, but it depends 
on "who" that someone else is. It is also stupid to put too much 
trust is what thing "appear" to be. If you go with what things 
appear to be on the surface you will be an easy mark for every con 
artist or serial killer around.

Like DD I am very intuitive. I trust that wee small inner voice over 
what things appear to be. I understand the flaws of human nature. I 
know that even the wisest among us make mistakes. DD is different 
than most.  I "see" the person that DD is in essence.  Having said 
that, I would trust DD with my life. He is not the moronic senile 
old man that some here seem to think. He is a very wise and holy 
man. He is my role model for holiness, wisdom and wholeness.  If 
someone ever said that I was just like him, what a complement that 
would be.

Tonks_op
DD's most loyal and faithful, forever. 







From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Wed Mar  1 16:31:16 2006
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 16:31:16 -0000
Subject: FILK: New Home for Lestrange
Message-ID: <du4i8k+ihtd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148970

New Home for Lestrange

To the tune of Home on the Range

Dedicated to Ginger

"While [Sirius'] will makes it perfectly plain that he wants you to 
have [Grimmauld Place], it is nevertheless possible that some spell 
or enchantment has been set upon the place to ensure that it cannot 
be owned by anyone other than a pureblood
..And if such an 
enchantment exists, then the ownership of the house is most likely to 
pass to the eldest of Sirius's living relatives, which would mean his 
cousin, Bellatrix Lestrange."

THE SCENE: Before 12 Grimmauld Place. The Order of the Phoenix, aware 
that Bellatrix Lestrange might show up on their doorstep at any 
moment, prepares to vacate the premises. 

THE ORDER:
We once had a home like an Edgar Poe poem
That we sublet from Sirius Black
He's no longer there, Bella may be the heir
And she can't hardly wait to unpack 

New home for Lestrange
Means the Order must move out of range
She'll arrive with the keys and she'll cancel our lease
And make this the HQ for AKs

Kreacher will celebrate over Bella's estate
For the purebloods are sure good, he said.
He'll joyfully slave till he reaches his grave
And he'll be interred without his head.

New home for Lestrange
Our mansion she will re-arrange
An extreme make-over and hostile take-over
Mother Black shall break out the champagne.

(An owl from Dumbledore arrives relating his discovery that Harry is 
indeed the new owner of 12 Grimmauld Place)

Dumble's message arrived straight from 4 Privet Drive
And we've conquered the powers of hate
Black has made his godson the Grimmauld Chosen One
Now we won't have to go to probate.

No home for Lestrange
We're revoking Bella's address change
Let's forevermore pledge
That we'll keep our mortgage
Far away from heavy-lidded dames. 

   -	CMC

HARRY POTTER FILKS
http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm
(updated today with 20 new filks)







From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  1 16:56:28 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 16:56:28 -0000
Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG
In-Reply-To: <du3a3h+qdmo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du4jns+c3a5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148971

> Sydney:
> Oh, I think this is totally in character for Snape, which is why I
> included it in the initial list-- it was lupinlore's 'denial what
> curse I don't see any curse I'm a pasteboard villain so I don't make
> sense but I'm so psychologically subtle at the same time that I also
> don't make sense' version that was causing me the whiplash.  
> 

Neri:
Well, this may have been Lupinlore's theory, although he may have
troubles recognizing it by now <g>, but it's certainly not my theory.

> Sydney:
> Unfortunately, this theorylet runs into the difficulty that Snape is
> still primarily a double-agent.  So he might think he can break the
> curse, but he would have some 'splainin' to do the next time he saw
> Voldemort.  

Neri:
I'm sure Voldemort didn't object to his agent at Hogwarts taking the
DADA post (he already had two previous agents in this post, so why not
Snape?). Maybe he didn't plan on Snape holding it for more then a
year, or maybe he just left it as a challenge for Snape to break the
curse, or maybe he actually told Snape how to avoid it, or maybe he
only gave him some pointers. There are many possibilities, but in any
case I don't think Snape was planning to make a public announcement
that he only succeeded in breaking the curse because he had the right
connections with the Dark Lord. If the whole WW continues to believe
that it's because Snape is a DADA genius, do you see Snape having any
problem with that?  

The thing is, we really know next to nothing about the DADA jinx and
how does it work, even now. It seems to have too few details to
consist of a proper mystery. But OTOH we do know a lot about the
characters involved, so I suspect the solution in this case will fit
the characters, rather than the characters going through an unexpected
reversal in order to fit some ingenious solution.    

> Sydney:
> I didn't put that in the orignal 'cons' list because *cough*I didn't
> think of it*cough*.  The ORIGINAL cons list was that it didn't add
> anything to the Snape/Harry dynamic, it just goes to the illustration
> of Snape's character, in which case I think JKR would have had a scene
> where's Snape's attitude to the curse was made explicit, so we could
> watch him fall with that in mind.  Arrogant!Snape would work so much
> better that way, no?  
> 

Neri:
It would, in a book named "Severus Snape and the DADA jinx". But in a
book named "Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince", arrogant!Snape
really doesn't require any more scenes to illustrate him. It would be
rather tedious, as he's already illustrated in practically each of his
DADA and potions lessons in the series, starting from the first. 

It seems to me that the BANG in the end of HBP was about Harry's
seeing Snape killing Dumbledore, not about arrogant!Snape getting what
he deserves for thinking he can break the DADA curse, and not even
about bringing any other Snape-and-the-DADA-jinx theory to its proper
culmination. From JKR's point of view, any of these theories can take
a number and wait for its turn to be sorted out in Book 7. While
giving us something to argue about in during the two years in between.

Neri







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  1 16:57:11 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 16:57:11 -0000
Subject: Disrupted NEWTs and OWLs (Was: MM as leader, Harry at Hogwarts)
In-Reply-To: <du3l07+3bdr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du4jp7+me45@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148972

Lupinlore wrote:
<snip> I agree that DD's death has knocked the main prop out 
> from under both Hogwarts and the Order.  This is about the only line
of argument I can see leading to Harry returning to Hogwarts for his 
seventh year.  That is, the governors can only be persuaded to keep
the school open if the Chosen One lends his PR support by agreeing to
attend.  This is also the only scenario under which I could see Harry
agreeing to be Head Boy (it's what DD wanted, keeping the school open,
promoting house unity in the face of danger, etc.).
> 
> Of course, if Harry were to return for a seventh year, what about
NEWTS?  I can't see him wasting the time.  Of course NEWTS may be 
cancelled for the duration -- such academic adjustments to wartime
have ample precedent.  
> 
> Altogether, it really does seem more plausible that Harry would
convince Ron and Hermione to return as Head Boy and Head Girl.  But
how, as they have sworn to support him in his quest? <snip>

Carol responds:
I like the idea of Harry returning to Hogwarts, but I'm not sure that
he's ready to promote House unity, especially regarding Slytherin. I
rather expect Ernie Macmillan to become Head Boy because he's more the
type and because Harry already has (more than) "enough to be going on
with." (I can't see Ron as Head Boy, either; Quidditch Captain,
maybe?) But Hermione will, of course, be Head Girl if they return.

Regarding NEWTs--and OWLs: I know this seems like a minor concern, but
the students who were in their fifth or seventh year in HBP, including
Ginny and Luna, were unable to take their exams because DD's death
disrupted everything. Many stayed in school long enough to attend his
funeral, but the exams weren't held. Any ideas as to what will happen
to these students? The fifth years could take their OWLs at the
beginning of their sixth year if Hogwarts remains open, but they will
have lost about three months of study time (DD is killed near the
beginning of June--incidentally, very close to Draco's seventeenth
birthday on June 5), so they'll be at a disadvantage, and the seventh
years won't be returning at all, so special arrangements would have to
be made for them.

Carol, worrying about imaginary students as if they were real kids






From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Wed Mar  1 17:31:44 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 17:31:44 -0000
Subject: Disrupted NEWTs and OWLs (Was: MM as leader, Harry at Hogwarts)
In-Reply-To: <du4jp7+me45@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du4lq0+4g0r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148973

Lupinlore:
*(snip)*
> > Of course, if Harry were to return for a seventh year, what about
> NEWTS?  I can't see him wasting the time.  Of course NEWTS may be 
> cancelled for the duration -- such academic adjustments to wartime
> have ample precedent.  

Carol responds:
*(snip)*
> Regarding NEWTs--and OWLs: I know this seems like a minor concern, 
but
> the students who were in their fifth or seventh year in HBP, 
including
> Ginny and Luna, were unable to take their exams because DD's death
> disrupted everything. Many stayed in school long enough to attend 
his
> funeral, but the exams weren't held. Any ideas as to what will 
happen
> to these students? The fifth years could take their OWLs at the
> beginning of their sixth year if Hogwarts remains open, but they 
will
> have lost about three months of study time (DD is killed near the
> beginning of June--incidentally, very close to Draco's seventeenth
> birthday on June 5), so they'll be at a disadvantage, and the 
seventh
> years won't be returning at all, so special arrangements would have 
to
> be made for them.

Ceridwen:
I think that arrangements could be made for these students to take 
their exams at the MoM or another suitable WW location during the 
summer.  And, some may have already taken their exams by the end of 
the book.  Students had been pulled out of the school before 
Dumbledore's funeral, and accomodations would have had to be made for 
them if not for anyone else.  If Lupinlore is correct and testing is 
suspended for the duration, then perhaps the exams will be available 
on a voluntary basis until the emergency passes.

Ceridwen.






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  1 17:33:02 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 17:33:02 -0000
Subject: Of Souls and Death - Dumbledore's Intent
In-Reply-To: <du499n+eh9k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du4lse+750i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148974

Miles wrote:
> > Just to put another question into the discussion: Why don't we
dive into the pensieve to listen to the prophecy? Why don't we hear
any sounds apart from Trelawny's voice in the memory version
Dumbledore presents to Harry (and to us)?
> 
Geoff responded:
> I often find that if I am concentrating on, say, a conversation in a
noisy environment, I subconsciously filter out background noise and 
often don't even remember that a CD player or something of that ilk
was blasting away behind me.
> 
> If Dumbledore was concentrating hard on what Trelawney was 
prophesying, he may have been doing the same. No clinking of empty 
glasses or bawdy bar-room songs from the main area, no thuds of 
bodies being ejected... Just Sybill holding forth.

Carol responds:
But the whole point of a Pensieve is that it presents an objective
record of a memory, including what the perceiver filtered out at the
time or has since forgotten, without any of the subconscious changes
that we make to our own memories when we recall them to ourselves.
IOW, it acts as a *sieve* to filter out subjectivity. So the figure of
Sibyll rising from the Pensieve has nothing to do with DD's level of
concentration and everything to do with what she really said and how
she really appeared.

However, to answer Miles's question, DD has made a conscious choice to
show *only* the Prophecy without its context. Rather than taking Harry
with him into the Pensieve, he uses the much more efficient method of
having Trelawney rise from the bowl (as Bertha Jorkins and SS do in
other scenes). Why? Because DD wants Harry to hear the Prophecy
without the distraction of seeing young Snape as the eavesdropper. DD
is withholding that information from Harry--and JKR is withholding it
from the reader.

I agree, however, that DD's version of what happened does not match
Trelawney's, and I have yet to hear a convincing explanation for young
Snape's presence to be known to Trelawney if he was evicted from the
bar halfway through the Prophecy as DD claims.

Carol, hoping that JKR will convincingly reconcile the two versions
without making DD a liar or implicating him in the Potters' deaths






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  1 18:54:39 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 18:54:39 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP11, Hermione's Helping Hand
In-Reply-To: <du4e0k+l5j9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du4qlf+40i9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148975

<snip great summary>
> Questions: 
<snip> 
> Nonverbal spells are now expected, although Harry notes that others
are having as much trouble as he is.  Could this be a part of the
reason Snape is later annoyed by Harry's inability to cast them by the
end of the book?

Carol:
Absolutely. Harry is supposed to excel at DADA, yet he's no better at
nonverbal spells at the end of the year than he is at the beginning?
Of course Snape is annoyed with him, just as he was annoyed with him
for not trying in Occlumency. After all, if Harry is the Chosen One
(and Snape surely knows that he is), he needs to learn nonverbal
spells, and fast.

  
> Did Hermione do her Confundus on Cormac nonverbally?  Do we 
> ever see Ron do one?  What do you think of Hermione's casting the 
> Confundus?

Carol:
Hmm. She could have whispered it and it would have gone unheard in all
the noise. If she's mastered nonverbal spells already, she's learned
them awfully fast, and the chapter implies that the rest of the class
is having as much trouble as Harry at this point. Also, of course,
DADA is (supposed to be) Harry's forte, not Hermione's. So I'd give a
tentative "no" to that one. And I don't remember Ron's successfully
casting a nonverbal spell at any point (his problems casting the spell
in this chapter provoke Snape into pointing his own wand at Harry,
resulting in the Protego that Snape criticizes for being verbal). And
Ron later has trouble learning Apparition (also nonverbal). But since,
unlike Harry, he's not hung up on whatever Draco is up to with Snape's
"help" in HBP, it's possible that he's mastered nonverbal defensive
spells by the end of HBP. (I'm sure that Hermione has!) 

As for Hermione's casting the Confundus Charm, it certainly wasn't
ethical, but she likes Ron and Cormac is a jerk, so her doing so is at
least understandable if not justifiable (and better for the team in
the long run, not that she cares about that). I suppose the Confundus
is Hermione showing her Slytherin side again (as she did with the
Polyjuice Potion back in CoS), a parallel to Harry showing his
Slytherin side in using the HBP's Potions hints and (later) getting
the memory from Slughorn. I don't approve, exactly, since it amounts
to the end justifying the means, but I like her caring enough about
Ron to help him get where he needs and wants to be. (I'm actually more
concerned about Harry's claiming credit for someone else's work. At
least in this instance, Hermione is helping someone other than
herself. I know, I know. Double standard here, and she's been helping
Ron and Harry with their homework all along, so she's a bit of a
hypocrite for criticizing Harry for using the HBP's improvements. I
guess all of them need to get their priorities straight--or would if
developing their Slytherin side weren't necessary in the war against LV.)
> 
> Stan Shunpike is arrested.  Other than the trio's say-so, do we have
any evidence that he is actually innocent?  <snip>

Carol responds:
What we've seen of Stan Shunpike seems to indicate that he's not very
bright, that he's star-struck (by Harry's celebrity status), and that
he's susceptible to manipulation (his reaction to the Veelas, which
seems to be shared by other young men, including, disturbingly, Ron),
but we certainly have no evidence of evil intentions on his part. Nor
have we ever seen him use a wand (speculation has it that he was never
educated at Hogwarts or flunked out early). I doubt that he has the
power or the will to cast an Unforgiveable Curse (unless being
Imperioed could give it to him, which I doubt but can't prove).
However, as CMC has pointed out, he *is* prone to exaggerated boasting
(under the influence of the Veelas' spell), so the Aurors probably did
overhear him making some highly suspicious remark. I'd say that JKR
chose to have Scrimgeour's men arrest the least likely "Death Eater"
she could think of to show how desperate they are to redeem themselves
after Fudge's blunder of maintaining that "Voldy-thing" had not
returned. So while I don't always trust the narrator, or Harry's
perspective, I don't see any reason to doubt them here.
> 
> Cormac <snip> says that he didn't try out last year due to eating a
pound of doxy eggs on a bet and being hospitalized.  One of our
brighter listees (and I wish I could remember who so I could give
credit) wondered once if F&G hadn't made that bet to help Ron.  We did
see them with doxy eggs, and it seems in their nature.  Do you think
they did this?  Would Cormac have made the team last year instead of Ron?
> 
Carol:
I do think that F and G tricked Mclaggen into eating the doxie eggs:
it's perfectly in character and they did have the doxie eggs in their
possession. (It's one of those little details that we're supposed to
remember, like young Severus Snape's handwriting or the unopenable
locket, planted into the narrative, only not as important.) But I
don't think that he would have made the team if he'd tried out because
either the Twins or Hermione or his own arrogance would have
undermined him. (Besides, JKR didn't want him messing up the plot.)

> There is lots of SHIPping foreshadowing in this chapter: 
Ron/Lavender, Ron/Hermione, Cormac/Hermione.  I don't have any real
questions, but feel free to comment, remembering to use the SHIP
prefix if it is a SHIPping post as per our rules ;o)

No SHIPing prefix here because it's just a hasty comment: I wouldn't
call Cormac/Hermione a SHIP. She's just using him to make Ron jealous
and he's just interested in, well, let's be nice and call it making
out. (Showing my age, sorry. "Snogging," to use the Briticism.) And
Ron/Lavender comes out of nowhere with the Fanged Frisbee incident.
(Wasn't it Parvati, not Lavender, who was supposed to "beware a
red-headed 'man'"?) As for Ron/Hermione, it's been foreshadowed since
GoF at least. I found it all very annoying, really.

Carol






From nrenka at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  1 19:11:50 2006
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 19:11:50 -0000
Subject: Is Snape good or evil? (longer)
In-Reply-To: <du3hih+l8so@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du4rlm+6qg6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148976

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "festuco" <vuurdame at ...> wrote:

> Yes, that would be very disappointing. But it should not be about 
> DD, but about Snape.

The problem for me there is the emphasis on things like Lupin's 
comments at Christmas: Dumbledore trusts, and we have to trust in 
him.  That's the horse that's flogged to death throughout the books, 
and I think it's flogged for a reason...

> Apparently we have a bunch of people who did not bother enough 
> about their collegue and order member to form their own opinion 
> about him. He has his past, so they wondered and DD's trust made 
> them stop wondering.

I get the feeling that, say, McGonagall had thought she knew him, as 
he was her student (pretty certainly) and then her colleague.  But 
that whole "I was a DE" thing must have then struck her for a real 
loop, as it wasn't common knowledge.  That's a pretty big revelation 
about someone's past and what they're capable of.  I brush off the 
invocation of Godwin's here because the author herself made the 
comparison, and say that having been a branded member of the DEs 
seems like having been in the SS.

> What kind of world is that, where mistakes of the past haunt 
> someone forever, only being stopped because someone else says so? 

One where the mistakes of the past are never brought forward into the 
light to be made open, discussed, and dealt with, but stay hidden 
under the aegis of a superior figure, who then simply states trust 
and seems to expect everyone to follow his lead.  (This seems to me a 
lesser version of the general WW modus operandi, which is: shove it 
under the rug and pretend it doesn't exist, demote some people, take 
some bribes.  Not saying that it's easy for Dumbledore to change 
things, but it is interesting to see where he can be a parallel.)

I can easily envision a number of members of the Order asking 
Dumbledore for some kind of proof or reassurance about Snape, given 
his past as a member of a group which was handily killing off Order 
members, only to be told "I trust him".  It's hard to see how anyone 
could have gotten to know Snape, as he doesn't strike me as the 
forthcoming type, and what he presents as a public face is not, I 
think, especially attractive.

-Nora wonders why it always comes back down to the nature of trust, 
for her






From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  1 07:07:35 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 07:07:35 -0000
Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG
In-Reply-To: <du3a3h+qdmo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du3h7n+fso1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148977

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" <sydpad at ...> wrote:
>
.  
> 
> Unfortunately, this theorylet runs into the difficulty that Snape is
> still primarily a double-agent.  So he might think he can break the
> curse, but he would have some 'splainin' to do the next time he saw
> Voldemort.  
> 

True, if there IS indeed a curse, it's hard to see how Snape could 
hope to  break it and not run afoul of Voldy.  It seems more likely 
that he would have thought that Voldy would have removed the curse 
voluntarily.  But then why was he applying during years when Voldy 
wasn't around to remove the curse?



> 
> And I think JKR intends the curse to be at the forefront, because,
> first, (sob!!) she hardly showed us any of Snape's DADA's classes, 
so
> they can't have been that interesting, 

Oh, I don't know.  I didn't think we saw much less of Snape than we 
ever had.  He is still up to his child-abusing ways.  I don't recall 
that we saw less of him as a DADA teacher than we ever had as a 
potions teacher.


> I mean, how many people thought Snape ACTUALLY wanted the job before
> that Umbrige scene?  And let's face it, Snape trots it right out on
> cue in Spinners End.
> 
> Soooo... boring... can't... focus.. on theory....

I'll agree it would be boring outcome.  It would also be so contrived 
and silly as to merit a Golden Rasberry (which differs from a regular 
rasberry primarily in color and slightly in texture).


> I'm trying to find a Grand Unified Snape Theory so that all the
> remaining stuff-- why d-dore trusts him, and what motivates him
> generally-- can be summed up in one fell swoop, if only to spare the
> poor old Snape-haters all that lingering lovingly over him.
> 

Good luck with that one.  It would be good to avoid the loving 
lingering looks, I admit.  I've never understood why anybody cares 
about the child abuser's motivations.  But I doubt a grand unified 
theory of Snape (GUTS, I suppose) is possible.  Like much else in the 
Potterverse, I suspect we will find much that seems to be 
contradictory is ... well... contradictory, and much that seems to be 
just plot holes will remain just plot holes.


Lupinlore









From farmerbil at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  1 13:12:09 2006
From: farmerbil at yahoo.com (farmerbil)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 13:12:09 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey
In-Reply-To: <du2nc6+pk33@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du46j9+9qf4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148978


> Luckdragon:
> <snip> 
> Myself for example, I am somewhat like DD and just have to look for 
> the good in people, so obviously I believe Snape will be found out to 
> be ESG. Well maybe not good exactly, but neither ESE or OFH. Lupin 
> said it well in book six; " It comes down to whether or not you trust 
> Dumbledore's judgement. I do; therefore, I trust Severus." (Chpt 16)
> 
> So in your Opinion, who's side is Snape on?

"farmerbil":
Have you ever noticed that the combined forces of the Order and the 
Ministry can't locate LV?  To get at him, LV had to come into the 
open.  To come out, LV had to be convinced that DD was dead.  So DD 
concocted this plan with Snape.  DD knew LV couldn't read Snape's 
mind, nor his.  But LV could read Harry's.  They had to convince 
Harry that DD was truly dead for LV to believe.  So the whole bit in 
the tower was an elaborate deception to convince LV that DD is gone 
and that he, LV, can come out of hiding, where the good guys can get 
at him.  DD is not dead and Snape is essentially good.  That's my 
story and I'm sticking to it!









From bbernard1945 at sbcglobal.net  Wed Mar  1 14:36:21 2006
From: bbernard1945 at sbcglobal.net (William Bernard)
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 08:36:21 -0600
Subject: Of Souls and Death - Dumbledore's Intent
References: <dtuai1+ob4k@eGroups.com> <00e201c63bf6$78c4b9f0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> <004101c63c73$af95e620$4101a8c0@COMPUTER1> <00e601c63cbf$8335d080$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>
Message-ID: <007601c63d3d$82fce8f0$4101a8c0@COMPUTER1>

No: HPFGUIDX 148979

  <big snip>
  Miles:
  Just to put another question into the discussion: Why don't we dive into the
  pensieve to listen to the prophecy? Why don't we hear any sounds apart from
  Trelawny's voice in the memory version Dumbledore presents to Harry (and to
  us)?

  Bill Here:
  I am sure that JKR didn't do that because it would have given away too much. Harry would have seen Snape outside the door then, rather than finding out, nearly a year later, that he was the one how overheard the prophecy.
  Also, it would likely resolve the question of whether or not Snape heard the whole prophecy or not. This could have a bearing on Snape's true motivations. He was still a presumably loyal DE when he heard the prophecy. As far as we know, he only told LV the first part. If he only knew the first part, this is consistent with simply telling the boss all you knew. If he knew it all, but only told part, the question is why?. Did he want to leave LV's orginization and hoped LV would be destroyed by whoever the prophecy was fortelling?

  Bill








From sugaranddixie1 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  1 15:02:41 2006
From: sugaranddixie1 at yahoo.com (sugaranddixie1)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 15:02:41 -0000
Subject: "Has anyone noticed this thing?"
Message-ID: <du4d2h+ml6m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148980



Harry:

..."I was reading Harry Potter and trying to find something common in
the names of those who died. And I did! Just notice this: most of
the dead people have their first and last name starting with the
same letter.
For Example:

CedriC Diggory
SiriuS Black
EmmelinE Vance
AmeliA Bones

So who else alive has a similar name??

SeveruS Snape

Can it be so much co-incidential?? I doubt it."




ET:

  After reviewing canon, can't help but think it's just a coincidence.
Here are a few examples of others who've died without meeting that
criteria-

AlbuS Dumbledore
BartY Crouch Sr.
JameS and LilY Potter
FranK Bryce
ToM Riddle (Voldemort's father)

So maybe SeveruS will be SafE... [;)]

ET



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






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Mar  1 19:51:20 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 19:51:20 -0000
Subject: Snape's lies was Re: Is Snape good or evil? (longer)
In-Reply-To: <du32b6+lrkc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du4tvp+aeof@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148981


> Alla:
>  I don't know what else to say. It is your absolute right to think 
> this way. Personally, I am still very puzzled why you choosing 
> to believe ONE part of Snape's speech is better supported than me 
> choosing to believe another part of his speech to the SAME parties, 
> if I may say.
> 

Pippin:
I can't tell for sure when Snape is lying in the Spinner's End chapter
and when he's not. But unless he can be absolutely sure Dumbledore
would never ask him for his memories, he would have to be out of his 
mind to lie to Dumbledore about anything he directly experienced. 
We know not even Riddle can counterfeit memories well enough to 
fool Dumbledore.

Since Snape spoke about the vow in the corridors where he could
be overheard, it's likely that Dumbledore knew all about it and also 
how much Voldemort had told Snape about the plan. Snape might lie 
about why he'd said something, but lying about anything that could 
be checked in the pensieve would be madness.

Pippin






From h2so3f at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  1 19:58:04 2006
From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 19:58:04 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey
In-Reply-To: <du46j9+9qf4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du4ucc+qmol@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148982

Luckdragon  wrote:  <SNIP>
"Just for the sake of being able to tell each other "I told you so", 
let's tally up what we believe Snape is before we actually know, and 
see which way the majority of us are thinking. A brief paragraph is 
sufficient."


CH3ed:
I am going with DDM!Snape. I was shaken by "Spinner's End" Chapter 
in HBP because the Snape there could belong to either DD's or LV's 
camp. But, strangely enough, while the argument Snape had with DD in 
the forest that Hagrid overheard added weight to Snape being ESE, it 
was his AKing DD on the Tower and his teaching and protecting of 
Harry during his flight that convinced me he is DDM. I'm convinced 
DD would never plead for his own life, and I don't think that DD 
loved Snape like he did Harry. So I think that had DD felt betrayed 
by Snape on the Tower he wouldn't have pleaded. I think he would 
have stayed silent on the outside while berating Snape loudly via 
ligilimency, but there would be no pleading. So IMO on the Tower DD 
pleaded with Snape to sacrifice DD to salvage the lousy situation 
they found themselves in and save Harry & Draco (and get the DEs 
away from Hogswart).

CH3ed :O)






From sydpad at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  1 20:50:33 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 20:50:33 -0000
Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG
In-Reply-To: <du4jns+c3a5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du51ep+d4eh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148983

Me:
>>it was lupinlore's 'denial what
 > > curse I don't see any curse I'm a pasteboard villain so I don't make
 > > sense but I'm so psychologically subtle at the same time that I also
 > > don't make sense' version that was causing me the whiplash.

 > Neri:
 > Well, this may have been Lupinlore's theory, although he may have
 > troubles recognizing it by now <g>

Me:
Oh, if Lupinlore has difficulty recognizing it, I would be MORE than
happy to provide the quotage <evil g>

Lupinlore:
>The kind of psychologically
>realistic take we are discussing might not be good on film, but at
>least some of us think that it is, at least occasionally, good in
>novels.  ...they just let irrationality be
>irrationality and self-destructive behavior be self-destructive
>behavior and they acknowledge that sometimes human motivation is
>neither logical nor meaningful for anyone other than the person being
>motivated.

and, also Lupinlore:

> Villains never really make sense, that's part
>of the reason they're villains.  Heroes or "good" characters,
>however, are supposed to make at least a surface kind of sense.

Just so you know, I'm going to cross-stitch that last one on a sampler
and hang it over my desk.

Neri:
> but it's certainly not my theory.

Sorry-- I'm assuming everyone is following the thread in general, not
conducting successive one-on-one conversations.  Am I mistaking the
etiquette?

 > Neri:
 > I'm sure Voldemort didn't object to his agent at Hogwarts taking the
 > DADA post (he already had two previous agents in this post, so why not
 > Snape?). Maybe he didn't plan on Snape holding it for more then a
 > year, or maybe he just left it as a challenge for Snape to break the
 > curse, or maybe he actually told Snape how to avoid it, or maybe he
 > only gave him some pointers.

If V-mort allowed the curse to destroy two of his other minions,
including 'his most loyal' Barty Jr., why on earth would he help Snape
with it?  Also a little tricky as he was Vapourmort for most of this
period?  And would Snape imagine that V-mort might get a kick out of
'challenging' his servants to defy him and break his spells?  This
just sounds vanishingly unlikely.

 >in any
 > case I don't think Snape was planning to make a public announcement
 > that he only succeeded in breaking the>
 > connections with the Dark Lord. If the whole WW continues to believe
 > that it's because Snape is a DADA genius, do you see Snape having any
 > problem with that?

It's VOLDEMORT'S problem with it that I was referring to.  Breaking
his curse would be an overt act of defiance and challenge to V-mort; 
and maybe Snape would enjoy that, but as he's making an effort to
remain undercover otherwise, I just can't see Snape thinking it would
be a bright idea for a fun summer project.

More objections to Curse-Breaking-Hubris-and-Fall Snape:

Me:
 > >it doesn't add anything to the Snape/Harry dynamic, it just goes
to the illustration
 > > of Snape's character, in which case I think JKR would have had a
scene
 > > where's Snape's attitude to the curse was made explicit, so we could
 > > watch him fall with that in mind.  Arrogant!Snape would work so much
 > > better that way, no?
 > > >
 > Neri:
 > It would, in a book named "Severus Snape and the DADA jinx". But in a
 > book named "Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince", arrogant!Snape
 > really doesn't require any more scenes to illustrate him.


I think you're confusing CLARITY in storytelling with INTEREST.  You
seem to think that by making the theoretical hubristic!Snape CLEAR,
JKR would be giving it more focus.  But I don't think this is true at
all-- if she had simply made it obvious that Snape thought he could
break the curse, it would pull LESS focus.  Why are half the threads
on this board about Snape?  Because he's ambiguous and therefore
interesting.  He's the half-hidden thing that we're all craning our
necks to get a better look at.  Rowling uses this all the time to keep
(or distract!) our attention-- we could have cleared up the Tonks
thing with one line of dialogue from Mrs. Weasley.  JKR could have
used the Umbrige scene in OoP to clear up the DADA job thing, instead
she used it to flag it and leave it open, with Snape's, "I suggest you
ask Dumbledore".  And, unlike the Tonks thing, it's NOT closed-- it's
more open than ever.  Why did Snape want so badly the thing that would
destroy him in such a dramatic fashion?

Motivations are really, REALLY important to JKR.  Look at Filch.  He
was working okay already as janitor-who-hates-troublemaking-kids
character, but she layered on the extra and more powerful motivation
of jealousy over their powers.  She didn't do it because Flich is a
fascinating guy who's going to take over the story.  She did because,
as a novelist, she's all about what makes people tick.

-- Sydney  






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Mar  1 20:55:07 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 20:55:07 -0000
Subject: Of Souls and Death - Dumbledore's Intent
In-Reply-To: <du4lse+750i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du51nb+ngsc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148984

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...> 
wrote:
 
Geoff:
> > I often find that if I am concentrating on, say, a conversation 
in a
> noisy environment, I subconsciously filter out background noise and 
> often don't even remember that a CD player or something of that ilk
> was blasting away behind me.
> > 
> > If Dumbledore was concentrating hard on what Trelawney was 
> prophesying, he may have been doing the same. No clinking of empty 
> glasses or bawdy bar-room songs from the main area, no thuds of 
> bodies being ejected... Just Sybill holding forth.
> 
> Carol:
> But the whole point of a Pensieve is that it presents an objective
> record of a memory, including what the perceiver filtered out at the
> time or has since forgotten, without any of the subconscious changes
> that we make to our own memories when we recall them to ourselves.
> IOW, it acts as a *sieve* to filter out subjectivity. So the figure 
of
> Sibyll rising from the Pensieve has nothing to do with DD's level of
> concentration and everything to do with what she really said and how
> she really appeared.

Geoff:
But you are creating a paradox. If the perceiver has filtered out 
items from their objective memory, then those memories are not there 
to be presented and the Pensieve cannot restore them.

The point I was trying (slightly humorously) to make was merely 
picking up on Miles' comment with reference to background noise etc. 
So I would take the view that Sybill rising from the Pensieve 
has /everything/ to do with Dumbledore's level of concentration.







From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  1 21:11:25 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 21:11:25 -0000
Subject: Of Souls and Death - Dumbledore's Intent
In-Reply-To: <du4lse+750i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du52lt+hloa@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148985

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...>
wrote:

>
> Miles wrote:
> > > Just to put another question into the discussion: Why don't
> > > we dive into the pensieve to listen to the prophecy? 
>  
> >Geoff responded:
> > I often find that if I am concentrating on, say, a conversation
> > in a noisy environment, I subconsciously filter out background 
> > noise and often don't even remember that a CD player or 
> > something of that ilk was blasting away behind me.
> > 
> > ...
> 
> Carol responds:
> But the whole point of a Pensieve is that it presents an objective
> record of a memory, including what the perceiver filtered out at 
> the time or has since forgotten, without any of the subconscious 
> changes....
>
> ... So the figure of Sibyll rising from the Pensieve has nothing
> to do with DD's level of concentration and everything to do with 
> what she really said and how she really appeared.
> 
> However, to answer Miles's question, DD has made a conscious 
> choice to show *only* the Prophecy without its context. Rather
> than taking Harry with him into the Pensieve, he uses the much
> more efficient method of having Trelawney rise from the bowl ...
> 
> Carol, hoping that JKR will convincingly reconcile the two versions
> without making DD a liar or implicating him in the Potters' deaths
>

bboyminn:

On no...the dreaded 'me too' post.

I think Carol has hit the nail right on the head. Note that Dumbledore
does NOT DIVE into the Penseive, but makes the memory come out to him.
When we are in, as in dive in, the Penseive, we are able to see
complete unbiased unfiltered memories including all conscious,
subconscious, unconscious knowledge, as well as all accumulated
knowledge about the environs, circumstances, and events. 

Note that when Harry is in Snape's Worst Memory, he listens to
aconversation that Snape could only have heard subconsciously.
Further, Harry is aware of, and able to see, his complete environment.
He see things that Snape is not actively looking at. So, Snape is
filling in the environment from his general knowledge and experience
in that environment. Not only does the Penseive memory remember the
precise event, it is able to flesh out the event with all the
accumulated knowledge of the owner of the memory to create a fully
realized three dimensional world.

This is not typicaly how Dumbledore uses the Penseive though. He
usually sits at his desk and brings out very precise details of a
memory. In a sense, this precise selective viewing allows him to
examine a memory minus all the clutter and distractions.

Regarding Carol's comment about resolving the different version of the
events surrounding the Prophecy; I don't see different versions of the
event. I see different version of /people's description/ of the events. 

As I've said many times before, people don't speak in absolutes, and
rarely do people give each and every minute detail when describing an
event. If that were true, we would all be subjected the endless
tedious boring descriptions of events filled with pointless and
irrelevant details to the point the speak is trying to make. 

Everything we say is a generalization driven by the needs and context
of the converstion immediately at hand. When Dumbledore said the
eavesdropper was 'caught and thrown', he is making a summary
generalization including only the details necessary to make the point
that the listener heard only part of the conversation. 

When Trelawney give her description of events, she has a different
context and different priorities in mind. So she generalizes out some
details and generalized in other details.

Now, however, in the Broom Storage Shed at the Weasley's, Dumbledore
says 'There are only two people in the world who know the full
contents of the Prophecy made about you and Lord Voldemort, and they
are both standing in this smelly, spidery broom shed'. In this case,
the context is not general summaries. I believe that is this case, in
this statement, Dumbledore is speaking in absolute truths. There is no
 context driven reason for Dumbledore to make such an unqualified
statement, and for it to be a generalization or an outright lie. That
simply makes no sense.

So, I have to take Dumbledore at his word. Only two people know the
exact contents of the Prophecy. All others relevant persons heard a
context driven 'short' version.

So, in summary, I agree with Carol.

Steve/bboyminn






From mudblood68 at yahoo.de  Wed Mar  1 21:12:25 2006
From: mudblood68 at yahoo.de (Claudia)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 21:12:25 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey
In-Reply-To: <du2nc6+pk33@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du52np+sgik@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148986

Here is another vote for DDM!Snape.

I read once about making a diet or to stop smoking, that this is not a 
decision you take and from the next day you are a different person, for 
whom it is easy to eat differently or to not smoke a cigarette, but 
that these are decisions you have to take anew every day. Some days 
it's easier and you don't even think about it and some days it's harder 
and you have to fight against yourself.
And this is how I picture Snape ? as DDM!, but at some days fighting 
hard to remain on the "right" side. (And I'm very afraid that in the 
7th book it will cost his life to prove this.)

Claudia








From Nanagose at aol.com  Wed Mar  1 22:18:49 2006
From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 22:18:49 -0000
Subject: The blackened hand again - why not covered?
In-Reply-To: <du42t5+47jk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du56k9+u2ov@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148987

> > Julia wrote:
> > Surely if Voldemort knew about the 
> > hand he would also knew how it happened - it was him who put the 
> > curse on his horcrux - he would recognize the symptoms, he's not 
> > that stupid :) So here is my question - what was a real purpose of
> > not covering the blackened hand by DD?  Is there something we have
> > missed?

> Potioncat:
> Snape reported it shortly after it happened. He told Bella and Cissy 
> that DD had been injured because his reflexes were slowed...which I 
> think he attributed to being weakened at the MoM battle. I thought 
> DD wanted LV to think that he was weaker than he actually was.

Christina:

Snape tells Cissy and Bella that Dumbledore "sustained a serious
injury."  I agree that he wanted LV to think DD weaker than he
actually was.  BUT, IIRC, he does not disclose the nature of the
injury.  Voldemort surely must know a thing or two about Horcruxes,
having made quite a few of them himself.  An "injury" may signal
simple weakness to Voldemort, but if charbroiling is a common injury
facing Horcrux-destroyers - well then, Dumbledore surely wouldn't want
Voldemort to know about *that*.  So...we're still left with the tricky
question as to why DD practically flaunts his injury all year,
although I suspect that JKR meant to put a lot of focus on the hand
simply as a clue to the reader.

Christina






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  1 22:27:04 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 22:27:04 -0000
Subject: Is Snape good or evil?
In-Reply-To: <du2mlt+h8eo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du573o+l6oa@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148988

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > But doesn't that deny a basic rule of story telling?  The climax 
> > happens at the *end* of the story, therefore the biggest BANG 
> > *will* be in the last book.

> >>Nora: 
> That conflates a climax with a BANG.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Well, yeah!  Every single Potter book has had a BANGy sort of 
climax.  That's JKR's style.

> >>Nora: 
> [As an aside, 'basic rules of storytelling' is also very much a   
> YMMV thing...]

Betsy Hp:
I should have said "classic", which isn't YMMV at all.  Some ancient 
Greek guy laid it all out (Plato?), and Western Civilization has 
pretty much followed those rules for a while now.  There have been 
writers who boldly break the rules and then there's the non-Western 
stuff, but JKR is pretty much governed by the rules of classic story 
telling, which do put the climax at the end.

> >>Nora: 
> Maybe I should elaborate; there are a lot of theories out there 
> looking to mitigate or explain away what makes the end of HBP so 
> devastatingly BANGy.  There was a plan, it wasn't a real AK curse 
> so Snape didn't do something deeply evil, Snape is now going to   
> help in the Horsluts hunt and be an inside agent, it'll all turn   
> out alright in the end.  All of these things work against the      
> impact of the HBP BANG, it seems to me: hence the comment         
> of "Another BANG, but one that I'm more comfortable with".
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Ah, this is one of those places where I doubt we'll see eye to eye 
<g>.  A DDM!Snape on the Tower strikes me as *more* BANGy.  Whereas 
an ESE! or OFH! Snape is pretty darn dull (clean kill, no gloating, 
no massacre of Order members, no torture of boy hero).  The only new 
information that would truly lessen the BANG of the Tower, IMO, is 
if Dumbledore didn't actually die.

But having a loyal and good Snape forced to kill his mentor/father 
figure to further the cause they both would sacrifice anything for 
strikes me as pretty darn angsty and BANGy.  Plus, there's all that 
delicious depth.

> >>Nora:
> That's not to mention that another BANG, if it happens, may simply 
> *not* deal with the same territory or material as the one at the   
> end of HBP.  You seem, if I read things correctly, to be looking   
> for another and larger BANG to reverse the effects of that one.

Betsy Hp:
Well, no.  There's nothing to take away the BANGy image of Snape 
killing Dumbledore.  No explanation could possibly compete with that 
image.  But *Harry* would certainly go through a massive shock, and 
that will provide the BANG, I think.  (Going by DDM!Snape.)

> >>Nora:
> But say we do get a BANG at the climax of the novel, which        
> involves Harry and Voldemort and some sudden revelation on Harry's 
> part of What He Has To Do.  This need not have anything to do with 
> the HBP BANG.

Betsy Hp:
But it'd sure make for a tidier tale if it did. <g>  And JKR has 
quite a deft hand at managing her various plot strings and having 
them turn into a cohesive whole at the climax.  I mean, the *diary* 
destroyed all the way back in book *two* suddenly becomes something 
upon which the entire means of destroying Voldemort hangs.  I cannot 
see the Tower Scene turning into an "oh, by the way".  But that's 
me. <g>

Betsy Hp







From mudblood68 at yahoo.de  Wed Mar  1 21:26:58 2006
From: mudblood68 at yahoo.de (Claudia)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 21:26:58 -0000
Subject: Nonverbal Spells (Re: CHAPDISC: HBP11, Hermione's Helping Hand)
In-Reply-To: <du4qlf+40i9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du53j2+tbp7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148989

Ginger:
> Nonverbal spells are now expected, although Harry notes that others
> are having as much trouble as he is.  Could this be a part of the
> reason Snape is later annoyed by Harry's inability to cast them by
> the end of the book?

Carol:
> Absolutely. Harry is supposed to excel at DADA, yet he's no better at
> nonverbal spells at the end of the year than he is at the beginning?
> Of course Snape is annoyed with him, just as he was annoyed with him
> for not trying in Occlumency. After all, if Harry is the Chosen One
> (and Snape surely knows that he is), he needs to learn nonverbal
> spells, and fast.


Claudia:

I only realized yesterday that Harry was in fact using nonverbal spells 
in HBP, when I read the "funny excerpts" section of "mugglenet". Sorry, 
don't have my book available right now, so I don't know where in the 
book it occurs, and I have to quote from mugglenet:
_________________

"Pointing his wand at nothing in particular, he gave it an upward 
flick and said Levicorpus! inside his head.

"Aaaaaaaargh!"

There was a flash of light and the room was full of voices: Everyone 
had woken up as Ron had let out a yell. Harry sent Advanced Potion-
Making flying in panic; Ron was dangling upside down in midair as 
though an invisible hook had hoisted him up by the ankle.

"Sorry!" yelled Harry, as Dean and Seamus roared with laughter, and 
Neville picked himself up from the floor, having fallen out of 
bed. "Hang on- I'll let you down-"

He groped for the potion book and riffled throught it in a panic, 
trying to find the right page; at last he located it and deciphered 
one cramped word underneath the spell: Praying that this was the 
counter-jinx, Harry thought Liberacorpus! with all his might.

There was another flash of light, and Ron fell in a heap onto his 
mattress.

"Sorry," repeated Harry weakly, while Dean and Seamus continued to 
roar with laughter.

"Tomorrow," said Ron in a muffled voice, "I'd rather you set the 
alarm clock.""
_________________

So we could say that Snape indeed managed to teach Harry a nonverbal 
spell! *g*

Claudia






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  1 23:06:01 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 23:06:01 -0000
Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG
In-Reply-To: <du3a3h+qdmo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du59cp+rf1r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148990

> >>Magpie:
> > <snip>
> > Sydney's alternate name of "Kamikaze" Snape makes all the       
> > difference.  A regular suicide may be someone who feels sorry    
> > for himself and hangs himself in despair hoping everyone
> > will be sorry now.  But I think a different mindset goes into    
> > being a kamikaze (or a terrorist bomber).  That's someone       
> > wanting to die for a cause--or as a final gesture to the enemy.

> >>Sydney: 
> Yeah, I'm sorry-- kamizake!Snape IS much more illustrative of what 
> I have in mind-- I mean, if Snape just plain wanted to off himself,
> isn't he, like, one of the world's foremost experts on poisons or
> something?  I think either he's made a promise to D-dore not to   
> take his own life, so he needs somebody else (or, like, a curse)   
> to do it for him, or it's a "dagnab it, just let me stop this     
> spying crap and take a run at these guys" thing (although         
> a "they'll all be sorry when they find out" element is            
> irresistibly Snapey *hugs Snape*).
> <snip>

Betsy Hp
The question this raises for me though, why apply *every single 
year*?  If Snape realizes that Harry is the key to totally 
destroying Voldemort why would he choose to pull his kamikaze move 
when Harry's like, six?  Wouldn't that be a waste of his sacrifice?  
If Snape doesn't know that Harry is the key, why make his move while 
Voldemort is vapor?  What purpose would his "ultimate sacrifice" 
serve?

Snape, while quite emotional at times, is also quite logical.  
Applying for the same job, year after year after year, strikes me as 
a more reasoned than passioned move.  So I suspect there's a strong 
*reason* for his consistency.  Not that his passions wouldn't be 
engaged too, but I don't think passion alone would keep him going 
for, what, sixteen years of submitting an application.

I'm avoiding answering the question, aren't I?  Hmm, how about, 
Healer!Snape realizes there's a curse, sees that it hurts everyone 
who takes the DADA job, and *reasons* out a way to stop the curse.  
*But* the way to heal the curse involves a major sacrifice of some 
sort, and Dumbledore won't allow Snape to take the risk.

PRO: *Healer!Snape* who I love.  Plus, Snape would see the logic in 
sacrificing himself to rid Hogwarts of such a manifestation of 
Voldemort's cruelty.  Which would also give Kamikaze!Snape a good 
reason to go all kamikaze.  There's the added benifit of Snape 
willing to sacrifice himself to achieve a good that would not bring 
him undying fame in the WW (I'm not a fan of "all about personal 
glory"!Snape as I don't see much to support it).

CON: Puppetmaster!Dumbledore willing to let the nameless masses of 
former DADA instructors feel the pain of the curse in order to keep 
his number one spy safe.  (Though that *could* help explain his 
green-goo influenced monologue.)  No real tie into Harry at all.  In 
fact, Snape would be side stepping the actual take down of Voldemort 
entirely in order to undo just *one* wrong of Voldemort's.

Eh.  I tried. <g>

Betsy Hp






From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  1 23:43:15 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 23:43:15 -0000
Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG
In-Reply-To: <du51ep+d4eh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du5bij+2dgc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148991

> Sydney:
> Sorry-- I'm assuming everyone is following the thread in general, 
not
> conducting successive one-on-one conversations.  Am I mistaking the
> etiquette?
> 

Neri:
In your answer to Lupinlore you made what seemed to me a rather 
unfounded assertion (that is, that the failure of the previous DADA 
teachers would discourage Snape rather than encourage him to apply). 
I waited for Lupinlore's answer and, since he didn't correct you on 
this, I did it myself. I wasn't aware that this was unethical, or 
that I'm allowed to do that only if I support Lupinlore's theory. 
 
> Sydney:
> If V-mort allowed the curse to destroy two of his other minions,
> including 'his most loyal' Barty Jr., why on earth would he help 
Snape
> with it?  Also a little tricky as he was Vapourmort for most of this
> period?  And would Snape imagine that V-mort might get a kick out of
> 'challenging' his servants to defy him and break his spells?  This
> just sounds vanishingly unlikely.
> 

Neri:
This is what I meant by saying that we know next to nothing about the 
DADA jinx. We don't know if Voldy *can* lift it now, and if so, if he 
couldn't lift it while he was Vapor!mort or Baby!mort. We don't know 
if you must be the DADA teacher in order to break it, or if there are 
other clauses. We don't know if Voldy can give his minions 
information about how to avoid it or how to break it. If he can, we 
don't know how much it still depends on the expertise of the minion 
himself. We don't know if Crouch and/or Quirrell tried to avoid the 
jinx and failed, was it because Voldy couldn't or wouldn't help them. 
We can't even be sure if what happened to Quirrell and/or Crouch 
and/or Snape is because of the jinx. It could have happened just as 
easily with no help from the jinx (and I'm assuming it does exist). 
There are so many unknowns here that I'd rather stick to what we do 
know. And I am fairly sure of several things: that Snape wanted and 
applied to the position for 14 years, that he is a Dark Arts expert 
and has been passionate about it since he was a student himself, that 
he'd want to prove that he's better than all the other teachers that 
took the job, and that he wouldn't take it without Voldemort's 
approval. Also, it seems to me rather idiotic, even for Voldy, to 
sacrifice his agent at Hogwarts just to keep his precious DADA jinx 
intact, when he could have easily kept them both by simply ordering 
Snape not to take the DADA position .    

> Sydney:
> <snip> Why are half the threads
> on this board about Snape?  

Neri:
Don't ask *me*. I believe Snape takes much less than half of the 
threads that I start. But funnily it's only my Snape threads that get 
answered. I honestly can't say why this is so, since personally I've 
never found him *that* interesting, and I suspect JKR doesn't either.

> Sydney:
> <snip> Why did Snape want so badly the thing that would
> destroy him in such a dramatic fashion?
> 

Neri:
It seems to me that JKR has made this pretty obvious. Snape has a 
powerful fixation on the Dark Arts. He is obsessed with fame, glory 
and status. This is precisely the kind of motivations that lead to 
dramatic self-destruction, both in stories and in RL.

> Sydney:
> Motivations are really, REALLY important to JKR.  

Neri:
Yep. Motivations and character. This is why my theory regarding the 
DADA jinx is motivation driven and character driven, rather than 
built on clues, of which we have very few in this case. 


Neri








From mrcbolt at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  1 21:46:55 2006
From: mrcbolt at yahoo.com (Chad Bolt)
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 13:46:55 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Leader of Order of the Pheonix
Message-ID: <20060301214655.83246.qmail@web60920.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148992

Mrcbolt:
   
I was wondering if anyone has thought about who is going to lead the Order now that Dumbledore is dead(maybe)? I would think that it would be Harry, but is everyone going to give him the respect that Dumbledore recieved, especially if he can't tell them about the horcruxes.  I believe that the order will be led by Harry and it will have a lot more members with the addition on the old DA (Dumbledore's Army) group.
If anyone has any thoughts on this please share them.

Mrcbolt.		





From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  1 22:54:33 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 22:54:33 -0000
Subject: Voldy's weaknesses as a villain WAS:Re: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG
In-Reply-To: <du51ep+d4eh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du58n9+jrqb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148993

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" <sydpad at ...> wrote:
>

> 
> and, also Lupinlore:
> 
> > Villains never really make sense, that's part
> >of the reason they're villains.  Heroes or "good" characters,
> >however, are supposed to make at least a surface kind of sense.
> 
> Just so you know, I'm going to cross-stitch that last one on a sampler
> and hang it over my desk.
> 


ROTFLMAO!! Be my guest!  I've never found that particular rule to lead 
me far wrong, in either life or fiction.  

But really, let's think about it. In that particular quote, as I 
recall, I said that whether kids get upset by Snape not making sense 
depends on what role Snape plays in the overall saga.  Villains, as I 
say, really aren't expected to make sense.  It's one reason that evil, 
in and of itself, is so boring.  It's ultimately senseless and self-
destructive. Voldemort is acknowledged by everyone as a villain.  Does 
anything about Voldemort make any sense?  The man's the most 
incompetent villain this side of Gargamel.  Let's see:

1) We could have had fake!Moody enchant a book as a portkey, call 
Potter down to his office, and say "Oh Potter, hand me that book, will 
you?" Later he could say, "No, I haven't seen Potter, Albus.  He's 
probably out watching the Tournament." Instead we go through this 
ridiculous and insanely complicated Rube Goldberg plot in which the 
person you want to kidnap is placed front and center under the gaze of 
wizards from three different nations.  That makes a lot of sense, yes 
indeed it does.

2)  We forget to warn our DEs "Oh, by the way, you can apparate, you 
know.  Try using that in the MoM to get behind the kids once they move 
away from the shelves.  And don't forget about those nice unforgivables 
you are supposedly so good with."

3)  For that matter, Voldy might have remembered that, as he is 
featured in the prophecy, he can take it down from the shelf as easily 
as Harry.  And since he evidently has no problem apparating right into 
the ministry in the dead of night, he could easily polyjuice himself, 
go in, and get it anytime he wants.  But no, we have yet another 
nonsensical and totally inept Rube Goldberg ploy designed to get Potter 
to take the prophecy down.

4)  We don't like the idea of dying, so we turn ourselves into a 
snake.  The man really needs to read the Evil Overlord's Handbook.

5) We manage to get a direct route into Hogwarts, so do we come ourself 
to deal with our most hated enemy.  No.  We send the same group who 
couldn't handle a half-dozen adolescents into a castle packed with 
adolescents.

6)  We had a strategy of legilimency that worked wonders last time.  
What do we do this time?  Oh, that love HURTS.  Makes you wonder how 
he's going to deal with it the first time he molts.

7)  The REALLY big one.  Voldy is afraid of dying.  Okay, fine.  Why 
doesn't he go off by himself, make his little horcruxes, and live 
unhappily ever after? What's getting in the way?  Because, for some 
reason, he wants to take over the Wizarding World.  Why?  What does 
taking over the wizarding world have to do with making horcruxes and 
living forever?  Nothing.  In fact, taking over the wizarding world is 
directly antithetical to his goal, as it draws attention to himself 
when he would be far better served by obscuring his goals and actions.  
So why does he want to rule the world.  Sigh.  For the same reason all 
villains want to rule the world -- he just WANTS to.  Some great and 
deeply revealing motivation that is, :-)).  

7b) A corollary to the above.  As has been pointed out further up the 
thread, why does he call attention to himself by using such NOTICEABLE 
objects for his horcruxes.  Does it have to do with the horcrux 
creating magic?  That would be plausible -- i.e. only exceptional 
objects have the correct arcane qualities to serve as a horcrux.  But 
no, its just because he WANTS to.  Chalk another one up as great and 
revealing motivation, :-)).


Lupinlore, who acknowledges that #7 occurs in real life, and thus 
points out that even in real life (Hitler, Stalin, the Kaiser) villains 
often don't make very much sense at all













From DaveH47 at mindspring.com  Thu Mar  2 00:47:41 2006
From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook)
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 16:47:41 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] MM as leader, Harry at Hogwarts (was Re: Is Snape good or evil?)
In-Reply-To: <du3l07+3bdr@eGroups.com>
References: <du3l07+3bdr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <910654725.20060301164741@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148994


Wednesday, March 1, 2006, 12:11:51 AM, lupinlore wrote:

l> Of course, if Harry were to return for a seventh year, what about 
l> NEWTS?  I can't see him wasting the time.  Of course NEWTS may be 
l> cancelled for the duration -- such academic adjustments to wartime have 
l> ample precedent.  

One of my arguments in favor of Harry returning to do his 7th year has
always been that I can't believe Jo would give us this whole set-up
about "Nastily Exhausting Wizarding Tests", and then not put Harry
through it.

I still say that with Time Turners, Harry, Ron, and Hermione can do
their 7th year *AND* hunt for the Horcruxes.

-- 
Dave




From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Thu Mar  2 01:24:11 2006
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 20:24:11 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Trusting Snape
In-Reply-To: <1789c2360602280822q3d544146tf14ec4e34b27b950@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY101-F342F43C5384433C6D4492291F50@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 148995



Peggy Wilkins:

The above is an interesting way of putting it, I think.

PJ:

But It's exactly the way I see it.  I can't imagine two such intelligent men 
thinking that Dumbledore's death by Snape's hand could further Harry's goal 
in any way.

First, Dumbledore hasn't taught Harry how to sense "where magic has been" or 
how to tell a horcrux from an old shoe.  There's so much left undone that 
needed to be done that they've actually put the mission in more danger of 
failing because Harry is very ill prepared.  Yes Harry knows all about 
Voldermort's backstory but that isn't going to destroy the horcruxes and I 
honestly don't believe LV will waste much time going after Harry now that 
his mentor is dead.

If Snape is caught by Aurors (or hiding from them) then he's of no use to 
Harry even if he is DDM!.  If Harry sees Snape and isn't given a detailed 
reason (no more "because I said so") why Dumbledore trusted Snape and what 
the big plan is before they meet, then either Harry or Snape could 
themselves be killed dueling!  End of ALL plans!  Voldermort wins by 
default.

If DDM!Snape is killed by Voldermort for butting in where he didn't belong 
then again, that's the end of it.

So please, tell me again what Dumbledore gained by having DDM!Snape AK him 
on the tower? I see no pros for a DDM!Snape to have done what he did but at 
least ESE or OFH!Snape gains notoriety and respect from the DE's and 
*possibly* a pat on the back from LV (once he's finished crucioing him 
awhile for saving Draco of course)...

Dumbledore was needed, Snape wasn't.  The wrong man died on that tower.

PJ





From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Thu Mar  2 01:32:49 2006
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 20:32:49 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Of Souls and Death - Dumbledore's Intent
In-Reply-To: <du2k61+n4sf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY101-F100D15E9BBED31410214D591F50@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 148996


zgirnius:
>I happen to think that Snape only heard part of the prophecy. I see
>no reason to suppose otherwise, I find the backstory hangs together
>just fine as Dumbledore tells it.

Then why isn't this memory from the pensieve the same as the others 
Dumbledore's shown Harry.  If he had nothing to hide they'd have tumbled 
into the memory per usual rather than just having ST pop up and twirl around 
a bit.

>He brought up the
>subject a different time which neither of you is addressing in this
>exchange, in Ch.4, HBP, where he told Harry:
>"There are only two people in the whole world who know the full
>contents of the prophecy, ".

Yes.  I'll be waiting for book 7 to find out which 2 people... Right now I 
don't know that Harry is one of them.  I'd be much more comfy about it if 
we'd seen that memory as we saw the others.

PJ





From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Thu Mar  2 01:52:05 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 01:52:05 -0000
Subject: Leader of Order of the Pheonix
In-Reply-To: <20060301214655.83246.qmail@web60920.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <du5j45+v31d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148997

> Mrcbolt:    
> I was wondering if anyone has thought about who is going to lead
> the Order now that Dumbledore is dead(maybe)? I would think that it
> would be Harry, but is everyone going to give him the respect that 
> Dumbledore recieved, especially if he can't tell them about the 
> horcruxes.  I believe that the order will be led by Harry and it
> will have a lot more members with the addition on the old DA
> (Dumbledore's Army) group.
> If anyone has any thoughts on this please share them.

Jen: I think it will be Lupin, myself. Harry will be off on the 
horcrux journey with Hr/R and possibly other students. Lupin blew 
his cover with Fenrir the night of the tower plus the new romance 
with Tonks can't bloom if he's still in exile at the werewolf camp. 

Leading the Order will be a way for Lupin to accomplish several 
things: On a sentimental note he'll pay Dumbledore back for all the 
chances he gave him throughout his life, and this time I don't think 
Lupin will back down from the challenge of conflict just to be 
liked. He also proved in OOTP he's good at working with a variety of 
different personalities under stressful situations. He may not be as 
powerful as Dumbledore, but he understands people and how to 
motivate them.

Pippin said something interesting and now I can't find it, but it 
was about Dumbledore leaving behind not one person who could do his 
job and know everything he knew, but several people who could work 
together to carry on his mission (paraphrasing with my own 
thoughts). So McGonagall will focus on Hogwarts because I do think 
it will open; it's just not HP without Hogwarts! And Lupin could 
take over the Order *and* assist Harry. I don't see Harry keeping 
the horcrux secret forever, he'll need all the help he can get and I 
think a cadre of trusted students and adults will support him along 
the way. Lupin could go with Harry to Godric's Hollow possibly, as 
the most likely person left who knew personal information about his 
parents. 

I think it would be a nice touch for one person from the Marauder 
generation to put the past behind him and move on.

Jen R, thinking as she borrowed Pippin's comments that P. would 
likely have more nefarious plans in mind for Lupin than personal 
growth <g>.






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  2 02:35:20 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 02:35:20 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey
In-Reply-To: <du2nc6+pk33@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du5ll8+r6ug@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148998

> Luckdragon:
> Everytime I read my HP for Grownups email I see pages and pages of 
> Snape. I don't think we will see the end of the "Is Snape ESE or ESG 
> or OFH" until book seven is released; so, just for the sake of being 
> able to tell each other "I told you so", let's tally up what we 
> believe Snape is before we actually know, and see which way the 
> majority of us are thinking. A brief paragraph is sufficient.

Alla:

Just to remind everybody there is a very nice poll, set up by Shorty 
Elf AKA SSSusan about "what we think about Snape" running here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/surveys?id=1916317


Oh, right. I should probably say what do I think which side Snape is 
on?  Should I? :-)

Alla






From celizwh at intergate.com  Thu Mar  2 03:10:37 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 03:10:37 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey
In-Reply-To: <du2nc6+pk33@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du5nnd+bmaf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 148999

I think Snape has been Dumbledore's man since he was a teenager at
Hogwarts.  It chafes him.  He resents it.  His defection to the Dark
Side, I suspect, was to punish Dumbledore as much as anything else. 
He may deny his committment to Dumbledore even to himself, but when he
has to choose, however grudgingly, however ungraciously he does it, he
acts for Dumbledore. 

I hope Rowling has something merciful in store for him in book 7.  I
suppose that something will occur to make Snape act for the cause of
Good, no longer half-hearted and grudgingly, but with his whole heart.
 Then he will sacrifice himself and die.

I would rather he didn't.  I would rather he were exonerated, returned
to Hogwart's to spend about 50 years or so learning that he really
does have a passion for teaching magic, and that you can catch more
flies with honey than with vinegar, and eventually succeed to the
headmastership (either that or become Chief of Staff at St. Mungo's).

houyhnhnm






From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  2 03:11:16 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 03:11:16 -0000
Subject: Of Souls and Death - Dumbledore's Intent
In-Reply-To: <BAY101-F100D15E9BBED31410214D591F50@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <du5nok+imbq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149000

PJ wrote:
> Then why isn't this memory from the pensieve the same as the others 
> Dumbledore's shown Harry.  If he had nothing to hide they'd have 
tumbled 
> into the memory per usual rather than just having ST pop up and 
twirl around 
> a bit.

zgirnius:
Well, he WAS hiding one hook-nosed, greasy-haired future Potions 
master. This seemed reason enough to me. Though of course, if we STILL 
don't know the whole prophecy, that would be another reason for 
showing the memory in this way. Snape just seems a sufficient reason.








From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  2 03:24:47 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 03:24:47 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP11, Hermione's Helping Hand
In-Reply-To: <du4e0k+l5j9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du5ohv+l8ep@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149001

ginger wrote: 
> Questions:
> 
> Although I first enjoyed this chapter for the humour, it struck me 
in 
> my rereading that there is a plethora of foreshadowing.
> 
> Nonverbal spells are now expected, although Harry notes that 
others are 
> having as much trouble as he is.  Could this be a part of the 
reason 
> Snape is later annoyed by Harry's inability to cast them by the 
end of 
> the book?  Did Hermione do her Confundus on Cormac nonverbally?  
Do we 
> ever see Ron do one?  What do you think of Hermione's casting the 
> Confundus?

zgirnius:
I think it is most likely that Hermione cast the Confundus 
nonverbally. She picks up this NEWT-level skill very quickly. (We 
saw her in "The Half-Blood Prince" already able to deflect a jinx 
nonverbally, in the first DADA class of the year). I believe we do 
not see Ron do a nonverbal spell.

Of course it was wrong of Hermione to cast the Confundus on 
McLaggen, but I found it touching. She really wanted Ron to get the 
position, I think.

> Stan Shunpike is arrested.  Other than the trio's say-so, do we 
have 
> any evidence that he is actually innocent? 

zgirnius:
I found Stan's innocence to be suggested by the times Harry brought 
him up to Scrimgeour. If there were solid evidence, I would have 
expected it to get mentioned. Not necessarily in terms of specifics, 
Harry's a kid and Scrimgeous the Miniter of Magic, but 
generally...'we can;t be letting such dangerous people out, you 
know, Harry,' or some such.

> Cormac seems to expect that his Slug connections will help him 
with 
> Harry.  He is also boastful of his abilities.  He says that he 
didn't 
> try out last year due to eating a pound of doxy eggs on a bet and 
being 
> hospitalized.  One of our brighter listees (and I wish I could 
remember 
> who so I could give credit) wondered once if F&G hadn't made that 
bet 
> to help Ron.  We did see them with doxy eggs, and it seems in 
their 
> nature.  Do you think they did this?  Would Cormac have made the 
team 
> last year instead of Ron?

zgirnius:
Great catch about the doxy eggs, whoever it was. I could definitely 
see the Twins doing something like that. Though if they really 
wanted to help Ron they could lay off him occasionally...

I suppose McLaggen probably would have made the team, unless 
Angelina really hated his personality.







From aorta47 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  2 04:00:51 2006
From: aorta47 at yahoo.com (aorta47)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 04:00:51 -0000
Subject: Snape: Beyond Good and Evil
Message-ID: <du5qlj+lpv1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149002

"What is done out of love always occurs beyond good and evil."

-Friedrich Nietzsche
 
So if you can argue that Snape acted out of a love (a hard argument to 
make), than his actions are beyond the ideas of "good" or "evil."

Mark
who admits he really just likes this thread title, but if someone wants 
to run with this idea, go ahead. 










From sydpad at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  2 06:22:20 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 06:22:20 -0000
Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG
In-Reply-To: <du59cp+rf1r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du62us+r2p2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149003


> Betsy Hp
> The question this raises for me though, why apply *every single 
> year*?  

*head... pounding...*  It's enough to make one cast furtive looks back
at boring-yet-reliable coverStory!Snape, isn't it? ;)

I think any way you slice it, the DADA application is about the
APPLICATION, not about actually getting the job.  It's something going
on BETWEEN Snape and Dumbleodore.  Whose inbox is the application
sitting in, after all?  It's not a message to anyone else (*stern look
at coverStory!Snape).   It has a sort of passive-aggressiveness about
it on both sides, no?   

Riffing off of Betsy's point here:

>If Snape realizes that Harry is the key to totally 
> destroying Voldemort why would he choose to pull his kamikaze move 
> when Harry's like, six?  Wouldn't that be a waste of his sacrifice?  
> If Snape doesn't know that Harry is the key, why make his move while 
> Voldemort is vapor?  

Oooh, here's one.  Maybe Snape DOESN'T think Harry is the key to
totally destroying Voldemort.  Why the heck should he?  Dumbledore
himself says the prophecy doesn't mean anything except what V-mort and
Harry MAKE it mean.  And what's Harry's big Secret Weapon?  LOVE?!? 
Dude, you're Snape, okay.  And this is all being explained to you. 
And you're like, WTF? Every idiot knows love is a big weakness that
will make you SUCCUMB to Voldemort!  You don't keep YOUR heart on your
sleeve where anybody can take a potshot at it!  Oh, this is just sooo
classic Dumbledore, all about the warm and fuzzies and understanding
and some sort of claptrap about V-mort not knowing Love.  Who cares! 
I'll tell you what destroying the Dark Lord is going to be about, old
man-- it's going to be about some seriously nasty, ugly s**t, okay,
and when it comes to that, you're the guy on speeddial. 

Okay, so some bizzare thing happened with the love the first time
around where V-mort got blown up.  But why is everyone going on about
HARRY?  It had nothing to do with that snot-nosed brat.  It was LILY
who sacrificed her life and used her awesome powers of
awesomeness...(here you start to mist up but quickly regain control)--
anyways, it wasn't the kid, that's for sure.  And if you're asking me
to wait around here being a godd**n [sorry, it's hard to write Snape
without swearing] nanny to a bunch of dunderheads for twenty years
waiting for Potter to attain sufficient luvvie-wuzziness for your Plan
before I'm allowed a shot at taking down these jokers, you got another
thing coming.  

Yeah, I KNOW there's a curse on the job that outs people's dark
secrets.  Do I look like an IDIOT?  Am I funny to you?  Funny like a
clown?  [wait.. wrong movie..] Don't you see where my dark secrets
coming out could be a good thing for our side?  Because, my friend,
when I bring it, I intend to cause some serious damage.  Yeah, I could
die.  Good.  Here's my application.

What?  You want me to stick to your Love plan and hang around Hogwarts
for another year to be a spy and protect Lily's kid, who, by the way,
is not showing notable signs of extraordinary lovingness?  Well you're
not the boss of me!  Oh, wait.

Repeat yearly, fourteen times.

It's, like, every theory together!  It's kamikaze!  It's arrogant! 
It's heroic!  It's DDM! but antagonistic to Harry at the same time! 
And it's all about the Harry!

It has a nice through-line, too, because it connects backwards--
explaining Snape's jealousy of Harry and his specialness-- and
forwards-- Snape is wrong, Love IS the key to defeating Voldemort.  It
has Snape's dispute with Dumbledore on a level Snape respects-- as a
general, whose orders he would obey.  And it works with a hunch I
have, that Harry in Book 7 will not only have to find a way to
reconcile with Snape, but to lead him in a better direction.  OR, if
you're the sort of person who wants to see Snape punished, there's
even room there for Snape stubbornly sticking to his non-Love plan for
bringing down v-mort and being destroyed by it, being a lesson to
Harry in overcoming the hatred and trusting in love.  

*admires theory*  

*is suddenly frightened Jo WILL kill poor Snape without letting him
have any peace"

*oooh, so it has suspense, too!*

Yay!  That's my theory!

-- Sydney











From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  2 07:02:52 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 07:02:52 -0000
Subject: Snape: Beyond Good and Evil
In-Reply-To: <du5qlj+lpv1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du65as+bbq3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149004

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "aorta47" <aorta47 at ...> wrote:
>
> "What is done out of love always occurs beyond good and evil."
> 
> -Friedrich Nietzsche
>  
> So if you can argue that Snape acted out of a love (a hard 
argument to  make), than his actions are beyond the ideas of "good" 
or "evil."
> 
> Mark
> who admits he really just likes this thread title, but if someone 
wants to run with this idea, go ahead.

Tonks:

Thanks for the Nietzsche quote. I like this idea and I think it 
could fit in with the idea of an ancient magic that is greater than 
good or evil.  LV says there is no good or evil only power and those 
too afraid to use it.  Maybe he is right up to a point. But 
the "power" that he thinks is the ultimate power is not. The Power 
that is beyond good and evil is indeed Love.

Tonks_op








From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  2 07:28:25 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 07:28:25 -0000
Subject: Of Souls and Death - Dumbledore's Intent
In-Reply-To: <BAY101-F100D15E9BBED31410214D591F50@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <du66qp+8lqs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149005

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "P J" <midnightowl6 at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> zgirnius:
> >I happen to think that Snape only heard part of the prophecy. I 
> >see no reason to suppose otherwise, I find the backstory hangs 
> >together just fine as Dumbledore tells it.

> PJ:
> 
> Then why isn't this memory from the pensieve the same as the 
> others Dumbledore's shown Harry.  If he had nothing to hide 
> they'd have tumbled into the memory per usual rather than just 
> having ST pop up and twirl around  a bit.
> 

bboyminn:

Again, context explains everything. In HBP, when Dumbledore shows
Harry many memories about Voldemort, his intent is full disclosure of
all the details of the events, so Harry is fully informed and can
reach his own conclusion, then compare those conclusions with
Dumbledore's.

At the end of OotP, Dumbledore's purpose is completely different. He
is attempting to reveal the specific contents of the Prophecy, and not
to clutter it up with unnecessary details. And, yes, at that stage he
is also hiding that it was Snape who eavesdropped. But still there is
a context, and that context is the contents of the Prophecy, that is
the subject under discussion. What the context and subject are NOT is
the full details of the events of the night the Prophecy was spoken.

Again, all those details are not the subject under discussion in that
moment, in that conversation, and they represent nothing but needless
distraction to revealing the contents of the Prophecy. 


> > zgirnius:
> > 
> >He brought up the subject a different time which neither of you
> >is addressing in this exchange, in Ch.4, HBP, where he told Harry:
> >"There are only two people in the whole world who know the full
> >contents of the prophecy, ".
> 
> Yes.  I'll be waiting for book 7 to find out which 2 people... 
> Right now I don't know that Harry is one of them.  I'd be much 
> more comfy about it if we'd seen that memory as we saw the others.
> 
> PJ
>

bboyminn: 

Well, if you read the full quote, who the two people are is obvious.

"Yes," said Harry again. "And now everyone knows that I'm the one ?" 

"No, they do not," interrupted Dumbledore. "There are only two people
in the whole world who know the full contents of the prophecy made
about you and Lord Voldemort, and they are both standing in this
smelly, spidery broom shed. ..."

Seems pretty clear to me. 

Just passing it along.

Steve/bboyminn






From ear at scn.org  Thu Mar  2 03:40:27 2006
From: ear at scn.org (Emily Anne Rude)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 03:40:27 -0000
Subject: Is Snape good or evil? (longer)
In-Reply-To: <du4rlm+6qg6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du5pfb+109tg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149006

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

> The problem for me there is the emphasis on things like Lupin's 
> comments at Christmas: Dumbledore trusts, and we have to trust in 
> him.  That's the horse that's flogged to death throughout the books, 
> and I think it's flogged for a reason...

Emily:
And I absolutely agree.  It is my opinion that if Snape turns out to
be no more than Voldemort's stooge, his whole character will crumble.
 Here is a short treatise on the subject I have put together, in
defense of Mr. Half-Blood Prince.

Reverse Dramatic Irony!!

Abstract

Hypothesis: 
Snape, contrary to popular belief, is justified in his actions. 
Obviously working independently of any organization other than the
Death Eaters, he seems to have designs contrary to his master's.  

	The motivation for this intensely delicate Dark Cloak-ism may seem
ambiguous at first, but there are several items which are difficult to
ignore.  Firstly, let us discuss Severus Snape's character so that we
may have a foundation to work from.  Simple altruism is out of the
sometime professor's scope. The only welfare he is concerned about is
his own, as far as we are concerned. He rarely allows himself to be
rash, but makes each move as calculatingly as Riddle himself? if not
more so.  He never underestimates and never boasts, except to Harry.
But it is clear as day to the reader that by no means is humility one
of his stronger qualities.  This is why I believe it unlikely that he
would pass by any opportunity to give his master the slip.  
	It can be said that Snape suffers from the same complex as the Dark
Lord does? a desire for power stemming from a traumatic childhood.  It
may be observed that both used a pseudonym in their youth that only
their closest confidantes knew.  Both were very scholarly, and both
intensely secretive.  However, the two figures differ from each other
in this key way: confidence.  The reason that Tom Riddle is now the
Dark Lord instead of Snape is a simple matter of self-esteem. 
Voldemort has many outlets for his feelings of rage and hatred
festering from childhood, but Severus has none.  The fact that his
position in the society he participates in relies on Voldemort's
acceptance must be agonizing to him, a man who must always be alone. 
We must keep in mind that Severus remains very human, no matter his
powers of self-control, and is subject to his emotions just like
anyone else.  Consequentially, it is unrealistic that Snape is
satisfied with his current status.
	In no way do I attempt to suggest that for an instant did Severus
enjoy being "Dumbledore's stooge".  However, it is equally absurd to
suggest that he enjoys being Voldemort's stooge, or anyone else's.  It
would be tragic if we found that Snape was nothing more than the pawn
of a greedy tyrant, his brilliant mind gone to waste on an
unprofitable end.

Points of Reason

     I.	Voldemort, by assigning the heavy task of murdering Dumbledore
to such a weak servant as Malfoy, indirectly indicated that he wanted
Malfoy dead and out of the way.  Narcissa believes this.

     II.	Snape swore to protect the same, thereby risking the wrath of
his master.  This was obviously a strategical move.  Also confirms
Narcissa's fears.

     III.	Dumbledore refused to tell why he trusted Snape.  After all
he tells Harry, why not this? Why would he not tell the members of the
order? One possibility is that trusting him to be good entailed
trusting him to carry out his own murder, which no one would knowingly
allow.

     IV.	Dumbledore told Harry, when the situation was getting tense,
to fetch Snape right away. Admittedly, at first read it seems that
this is a request for a revitalizing potion, but how would Snape know
what to bring?  Harry is not knowledgeable enough to assist there, and
does not trust Snape enough to describe the circumstance.  Simply
Snape's presence will not heal the old headmaster? there must be some
other reason.

     V.	If Dumbledore did not wish to die, he would not have
immobilized Harry.  Harry had proved his abilities time and time
again, and could very well have saved D., being invisible at that
time.  One could say that it was Dumbledore's love and concern for
Draco that caused him to restrain Harry.   However, Harry could have
easily retrieved Dumbledore's wand, or otherwise helped the situation
without hurting young Malfoy.

     VI.	In this same scene, D. tells Malfoy that it is his mercy M.
should worry about.  This implies that D. is perfectly able to defend
himself, and is placing himself in a completely open position on purpose.

     VII.	The expression of hatred and revulsion on Snape's face
before he commits the murder  I believe to absolutely genuine.  To
think that Snape ever remotely liked Dumbledore is foolish.  However,
we must consider why this is so.  I am of the opinion that Dumbledore
knew he as going to die in a fashion similar to what happened on the
tower, though he may not have known exactly when.  I am also quite
sure he was constantly touting the value of love to Snape at every
opportunity, which undoubtedly made Snape think he was dealing with an
idiot.  By the time Dumbledore was kneeling at his confidante's mercy,
I'm sure Snape felt there was plenty to revile in him.  After all,
what kind of idiot would lay himself open like that for love?  Also,
we must not rule out the likely possibility that Dumbledore put him in
a position where he had no choice but to kill him.  If Snape is evil
through and through, which I still stubbornly refuse to believe
entirely, he definitely will not like being a pawn in simultaneously
Voldemort and Dumbledore's plans.  Hence, the expression.

     VIII.	Snape's angry reaction to Harry calling him a coward
(unwise on his part, but fortunate for us) shows most clearly his true
intent.  He is angered by the fact that Harry, of all people, should
be calling him a coward when in fact Snape is risking most everything
for him.  For whatever reason, which will undoubtedly be disclosed
later, Snape has had to commit a murder that will barr him from
society forever, dashing any hopes of any kind of acceptance by
anyone, accept V.-- under whom there is not much advancement.  He's
already been through that.  It must be terribly painful for nothing
but hatred and blind misunderstanding to be pointed at him when he is
already under such duress.

     IX.	The Prophecy is by no means binding; Snape could have killed
Harry as he ran from the scene on the spot.  He was certainly angry
enough.  However, that particular action would be contrary to his
scheme.  He is not exclusively the agent of Voldemort, else Harry
would be dead.  

     X.	Bellatrix, the ultimate authority on dark doings, does not
trust Snape.  This should speak for itself.  She teaches Draco
occlumency for precisely this reason.

     XI.	Page 36? Snape seems to be uncomfortable about killing D.,
but has not much choice. The twitch is telling.

     XII.	I believe this is of dreadful importance: Snape did not have
any obligation to aid Narcissa. He decided to help her out of
compassion, and only compassion, for what could he possibly hope to
gain out of the promise?  He avoided making definite promises until
Narcissa requested the Unbreakable Vow, and even then there was slight
hesitation.  But, as you observe, compassion won out and he agreed to
help Narcissa.  Not Draco? Narcissa.  I will take this opportunity to
remark that the Binding both in arrangement and in wording remarkably
resembled a wedding ceremony.  Please refer to page 36.

     XIII.	THESE BOOKS ARE WRITTEN BY ROWLING.
          A.	Aside from all of this, we must keep in mind who is in
control of these characters. If Snape is just another Bellatrix, the
imbalance of good versus evil would be too much to sustain a strong
plot line.  

          B.	In addition, Snape's character has been developed more
than any other character in the book, at least within the text; for
him to turn out to be just one more piece of short sighted,
essentially two-dimensional cannon-fodder for Voldemort would incite
the masses to riot.  Rowling would be risking her own neck.

          C.	While not "good" like Hagrid or Minerva, Snape is not a
Mater Motley figure.  If Rowling knows her readers at all, she will
understand that to make Snape "evil" would be to deflect even more
reader hatred from Voldemort to Snape, making him the real villain. 
While she may allow him to be nasty, cruel and manipulative, complete
blind evil would imbalance the story, contradict the personality of
one of the most complex characters in literature, and destroy the
carefully cultivated image of a man most readers have come to revere.
 I mean that in the best possible way.  Unless Rowling is simply sick
of the whole affair and blights her story with moral wreck and ruin on
purpose, perhaps to punish the detested fangirl population, I think it
unlikely that Snape will in the end turn out to be a stooge of
Voldemort and nothing more.

Conclusion

	While I do not suggest that we shall find Severus discussing John
Lennon with Jimmy Carter any time soon, I do believe that he will
prove to be less of a disappointment than we may have momentarily
feared.  Taking his complex though familiar psyche into account along
with the circumstances that bred him as such, one can safely say that
by the end of the seventh book either he will die a miserably tragic
death or he will accomplish his peculiar ends and set his soul to rest
in peace.
	I, personally, am in favor of the latter.  But we the readers are
prey to the whim of the Story-keeper, and of course shall bear the
distress of not knowing until the story lays itself to rest for good
and all.








From enlil65 at gmail.com  Thu Mar  2 07:15:56 2006
From: enlil65 at gmail.com (Peggy Wilkins)
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 01:15:56 -0600
Subject: Trusting Snape
In-Reply-To: <BAY101-F342F43C5384433C6D4492291F50@phx.gbl>
References: <1789c2360602280822q3d544146tf14ec4e34b27b950@mail.gmail.com>
	 <BAY101-F342F43C5384433C6D4492291F50@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <1789c2360603012315k3b32c109o5b850f285211e7a7@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149007

On 3/1/06, P J <midnightowl6 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> So please, tell me again what Dumbledore gained by having DDM!Snape AK him
> on the tower? I see no pros for a DDM!Snape to have done what he did but at
> least ESE or OFH!Snape gains notoriety and respect from the DE's and
> *possibly* a pat on the back from LV (once he's finished crucioing him
> awhile for saving Draco of course)...
>
> Dumbledore was needed, Snape wasn't.  The wrong man died on that tower.

Peggy <enlil65 at gmail.com>:
The big issue that makes it very difficult to address this question is
that none of us knows yet what Dumbledore's plan is; all we know is
that he has talked of a plan, and has been working toward it for
Harry's entire lifetime.  I see Snape as one cog in this larger plan,
albeit a very significant, useful cog.  My personal reason for having
such faith in Snape is that I have a theory (don't we all? :) of what
Snape's role may be; however, that is another topic.

If it is crucial for Snape to be alive and present and playing his
role later on in the plan, then Dumbledore's death allows the plan to
proceed.  Since Draco did not fulfill his assigned task, if Snape
hadn't completed it himself he would have died as a result of his
Unbreakable Vow with Narcissa.  It's my belief that Snape's death
would have completely derailed the plan, making Harry's task much more
difficult if not impossible.  This task is something that Dumbledore,
as Voldemort's enemy, cannot perform.  Voldemort would never allow
Dumbledore to get within striking distance of a faceoff between
himself and Harry.  Voldemort's Death Eater Snape will be allowed to
be present, Voldemort will not fight him, and so he can do ...
whatever it is he's supposed to do according to Dumbledore's plan.

So my supposition of the plan is--Dumbledore can't do it; Snape can't
do it without Harry; and somehow Snape is essential to helping Harry
do it, whatever "it" is.

This all sounds very mysterious, but that's the problem: we just don't
know what the plan is.
--
Peggy Wilkins
enlil65 at gmail.com






From hubbada at unisa.ac.za  Thu Mar  2 11:39:52 2006
From: hubbada at unisa.ac.za (deborahhbbrd)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 11:39:52 -0000
Subject: Subject: Voldy's weaknesses as a villain
Message-ID: <du6li8+r5v3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149008

Lupinlore among other good stuff, said: 

7)  The REALLY big one.  Voldy is afraid of dying.  Okay, fine.  Why 
doesn't he go off by himself, make his little horcruxes, and live 
unhappily ever after? What's getting in the way?  Because, for some 
reason, he wants to take over the Wizarding World.  Why?  What does 
taking over the wizarding world have to do with making horcruxes and 
living forever?  Nothing.  In fact, taking over the wizarding world is 
directly antithetical to his goal, as it draws attention to himself 
when he would be far better served by obscuring his goals and actions.  
So why does he want to rule the world.  Sigh.  For the same reason all 
villains want to rule the world -- he just WANTS to.  Some great and 
deeply revealing motivation that is, :-)).  

7b) A corollary to the above.  As has been pointed out further up the 
thread, why does he call attention to himself by using such NOTICEABLE 
objects for his horcruxes.  Does it have to do with the horcrux 
creating magic?  That would be plausible -- i.e. only exceptional 
objects have the correct arcane qualities to serve as a horcrux.  But 
no, its just because he WANTS to.  Chalk another one up as great and 
revealing motivation, :-)).


Lupinlore, who acknowledges that #7 occurs in real life, and thus 
points out that even in real life (Hitler, Stalin, the Kaiser) villains 
often don't make very much sense at all

Deborah, now

Lupinlore is dead right except for one crucial point. Villains don't
make sense to us because we're not villains. (Well, speaking for
myself, anyway!) If you're a villain, it makes perfect sense to do
stuff because you want to, and you want to because whatever you want
has got to be not just good fun or morally sound or anything boring
like that, but just a question of *you*, the obvious centre of the
universe, taking precedence over everyone else. 

This works for Hitler (the German people are losing the war, therefore
they are unworthy of me, so I'll die and punish everyone); for Stalin
(what are a few million rebellious and/or wealthy and/or inconvenient
people more or less in a big country like this, headed by a big man
like me?); and for the Kaiser too (in my capacity as an absolute
monarch, it is my prerogative to make and wage war in the good,
old-fashioned way and not let weak-kneed modern notions about moral
standards and/or healthy doses of realism get in my way).  And the
common thread, seen also in various RL criminals of the serial killer
persuasion, is that sooner or later all these villains focus on the
details and perfect them but in so doing lose sight of the bigger
picture, which enables the knights on the white horses to gallop up
and defeat them, often by using their own weakness to do so; a
weakness that the villains ignore because with their tunnel vision
it's a logical impossibility.

And where does this leave Voldy? Certainly it seems that bits of the
big picture elude him ? the Order of the Phoenix is livelier than
first time round, his loyal and loving DEs are a bunch of clumsy
clodhoppers, Harry's run of luck, if that's what it is, shows no signs
of running out, and it is possible if risky to destroy Horcruces. He's
known that ever since the Diary got basilisk-fanged, but the
implications elude him. 

Harry spent quite some time in HBP learning to understand Tom Riddle,
and therefore LV. Understand as in: sympathise with as well as: know
about. But, as an embodiment of the power of love, he can't be
expected to get too far into a mind like that. Who can? Hmm, let's
see: we need a character who is unusually intelligent, duplicitous,
constitutionally nasty and/or a brilliant actor, a skilled wizard with
the ability to think on his feet ... rats! I just can't think of
anyone at the moment, but I know it'll come to me. Yes, and then he'll
just have to work with Harry, that's all! 


Deborah, wishing she wasn't hearing that Power Of Love song in her
head but admitting she brought it on herself







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Mar  2 12:21:22 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 12:21:22 -0000
Subject: Trusting Snape
In-Reply-To: <BAY101-F342F43C5384433C6D4492291F50@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <du6o02+2rqd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149009

-
> PJ:
> 
> But It's exactly the way I see it.  I can't imagine two such intelligent men 
> thinking that Dumbledore's death by Snape's hand could further Harry's goal 
> in any way.
> 
> First, Dumbledore hasn't taught Harry how to sense "where magic has been" or 
> how to tell a horcrux from an old shoe.  

Pippin:
Did Dumbledore know himself?
It looks like the ring curse caught him by surprise.
Going on about his slower reflexes and the small price he paid may have 
made us (and Voldemort) think  that it didn't, but do you
think he'd have *chosen* to sacrifice his wand hand in preference to 
the other?

Knowing where magic has been was useless in the case
of the cave. It obviously doesn't tell you where a horcrux is.

Why do you think Dumbledore involved Harry in the hunt for the horcruxes
anyway? Not for his knowledge of DADA or even his great desire to bring
Voldemort down. Harry has great reservoirs of magical power, but he
can't possibly know as much as  the aurors Tonks, Shacklebolt or Moody, 
not to mention DADA specialist Lupin. And not because of the prophecy, since 
Dumbledore gave little weight to it. 

But Dumbledore knew that Harry had managed to
find and destroy one horcrux without harm to himself. He may have 
thought that since Harry has some of Voldemort's powers, a thief's
curse on the horcruxes would mistake him for its caster and not strike.
He might have  hoped also that the Diary had not attracted Harry's
attention by chance. Harry did seem more interested in it than Ron,
even before he picked it up.

Snape is now in an excellent position to be a saboteur. Voldemort won't
trust him, but no one is going to suspect Snape spying for Dumbledore
anymore. And the other DE's will be jostling for Snape's support in their
endless internecine battles for Voldemort's favor and letting him know
all sorts of useful things about each other. You know, when Voldemort
is defeated, there will still be a whole lot of very dangerous people 
around. And Snape's going to know exactly who they are.

Pippin






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Mar  2 13:00:34 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 13:00:34 -0000
Subject: Is Snape good or evil?
In-Reply-To: <du573o+l6oa@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du6q9i+bkbt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149010

> Betsy Hp:
> Well, no.  There's nothing to take away the BANGy image of Snape 
> killing Dumbledore.  No explanation could possibly compete with that 
> image.  But *Harry* would certainly go through a massive shock, and 
> that will provide the BANG, I think.  (Going by DDM!Snape.)
> 
> > >>Nora:
> > But say we do get a BANG at the climax of the novel, which        
> > involves Harry and Voldemort and some sudden revelation on Harry's 
> > part of What He Has To Do.  This need not have anything to do with 
> > the HBP BANG.

Pippin:
I hate to let the facts get in the way of a good story, much less a good
argument. But barring Flints, it's conclusive  that an Unforgivable Curse didn't
kill Dumbledore (and thanks, Nora, for pointing out the thematic significance
of that.) The closed eyes and the blood are facts on the ground. Literally.  
The BANG on the tower has been undermined already, by JKR herself. 

Besides, if you allow Snape to be innocent, all sorts of interesting things
can happen. 

Harry, in siccing  the ministry on his hated but innocent enemy, 
repeats the error Snape made when he carried the prophecy to Voldemort,
which is in turn an echo of Snape being sent to the werewolf. 
I'm not a Christian or a scholar of Christianity, but isn't it a rather
prominent message that forgiveness should be granted to others because
we need it ourselves? 

The angsty  situation  about the loyal underling's  involvement
in the death of his mentor is transferred to the one
place JKR can really get her teeth into it, especially if Harry realizes
that if he hadn't dawdled over getting the memory from Slughorn, the
mission to the lake might have happened well before Draco got the
cabinet fixed. 

The apparent treachery on the tower becomes a possible foreshadowing
of the much bangier betrayal of Harry himself. 

I agree there's a message about trust. But if you are not going to
trust anybody who makes mistakes, then you are not going to trust
anybody. Trusting Dumbledore, not because he's Dumbledore, not
because he's perfect,  but because, for as long as you've known him, 
he's been trying to help you and protect you, seems to be a good bet. 

Trusting someone who went wrong once, but whose behavior over
sixteen years has been consistent,  if far from flawless, also seems 
promising. 

Trusting someone who's really nice, but who has let you down 
numerous times and never taken responsibility for the consequences?
Erm....

Pippin






From hickengruendler at yahoo.de  Thu Mar  2 13:42:32 2006
From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 13:42:32 -0000
Subject: Voldy's weaknesses as a villain WAS:Re: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG
In-Reply-To: <du58n9+jrqb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du6so8+82ui@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149011

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" <rdoliver30 at ...> 
wrote:
 
> 5) We manage to get a direct route into Hogwarts, so do we come 
ourself 
> to deal with our most hated enemy.  No.  We send the same group who 
> couldn't handle a half-dozen adolescents into a castle packed with 
> adolescents.

Hickengruendler:

I actually think that makes sense. Voldemort is afraid of Dumbledore, 
therefore he would not deliberatly go anywhere near him. That's why 
he sends his Death Eaters to do the job. He doesn't care for them and 
he does not see them as anything more than his servants. *They* can 
go and face "The only one he ever feared", (and if they should have 
failed again, likely would have gotten their punishment) but 
Voldemort himself stays in his lair not to risk anything. 
 
> 
> 7b) A corollary to the above.  As has been pointed out further up 
the 
> thread, why does he call attention to himself by using such 
NOTICEABLE 
> objects for his horcruxes.  Does it have to do with the horcrux 
> creating magic?  That would be plausible -- i.e. only exceptional 
> objects have the correct arcane qualities to serve as a horcrux.  
But 
> no, its just because he WANTS to.  Chalk another one up as great 
and 
> revealing motivation, :-)).

Hickengruendler:

I am not surprised about this. It might not be the most sensible 
thing to do, but I do find it in character for the old egomaniac. And 
I do think that real life villains would have done this as well. The 
part I am wondering about is why he doesn't make thousands of 
Horcruxes hiding them all over the world. It was explained within the 
text, that he thought 7 to be the most powerful number, but I have 
never seen him as superstious before, therefore this didn't make too 
much sense for me.
 
> 
> Lupinlore, who acknowledges that #7 occurs in real life, and thus 
> points out that even in real life (Hitler, Stalin, the Kaiser) 
villains 
> often don't make very much sense at all
>

Hickengruendler, who pities poor old Wilhelm, because even though the 
Kaiser was a blustering idiot and mainly responsible for the First 
World War, I do not think he deserves to be thrown in the same pot 
with Hitler and Stalin






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Thu Mar  2 13:52:48 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 13:52:48 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP11, Hermione's Helping Hand
In-Reply-To: <du4e0k+l5j9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du6tbg+e718@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149012

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

Ginger:
> CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: HArry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, 
Chapter 
> 11, Hermione's Helping Hand

<snip>

> Cormac McClaggen, after approaching Harry at the beginning of  
> tryouts, saves four out of five penalties.  On the fifth, he flies 
> off in the wrong direction. As Ron mounts his broomstick, Lavender 
> shouts   "Good luck" from the stands.  Ron saves all five, and is 
> awarded the position, much to the displeasure of Cormac, who 
> reminds Harry of an angry Uncle Vernon.
> 
> Hermione congratulates Ron on his performance, and the trio heads 
> off to see Hagrid.  Ron relives his saves, and notes that Cormac 
> appeared Confunded on the one he missed.  Harry notes that this 
> brings a flush to Hermione's face.

<snip>

> Harry catches Hermione aside as they go into the Great Hall for  
> supper, and confronts her gently on the Confunding of Cormac.  She 
> admits that she did so, but defends herself by saying that Cormac 
> was maligning Ron and Ginny, and that he isn't the sort Harry would 
> want on the team, what with his temper and all.  Harry agrees, but 
> can't resist teasingly chiding Hermione for her dishonesty despite 
> her prefect status.

Geoff:
This brought up a thought I have had in the past and never voiced.

Why did JKR introduce McClaggan into the book? To me, he doesn't seem 
to add anything valuable to the advancement of the story and seems to 
be a bit of a spare part.

Anyone agree?






From celizwh at intergate.com  Thu Mar  2 14:04:56 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 14:04:56 -0000
Subject: Is Snape good or evil?
In-Reply-To: <du6q9i+bkbt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du6u28+c30o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149013

Pippin:

> Harry, in siccing  the ministry on his hated but 
> innocent enemy, repeats the error Snape made when he 
> carried the prophecy to Voldemort, which is in turn 
> an echo of Snape being sent to the werewolf. I'm not 
> a Christian or a scholar of Christianity, but isn't it 
> a rather prominent message that forgiveness should be 
> granted to others because we need it ourselves?
 
houyhnhnm:

In OotP, Harry's draught of peace failed to turn out properly in 
potions class because he left out the hellebore.

After the discussion of asphodel and wormwood, I began looking at the 
symbolic meanings of other RL herbs mentioned in HP to see if 
anything interesting turned up.  In the language of flowers, 
hellebore stands for slander/calumny.  It didn't make much sense to 
me that a successful draught of peace would require the addition of 
slander or calumny.

However, I also discovered that an old name for hellebore is Christ 
herbe (because it blooms at Christmas).  Harry's failing to brew a 
successful draught of peace because he left out the *Christ* herb 
makes a lot of sense to me.

I am not a Christian either, that is I do not profess the dogma of 
Christianity, but I do accept the metaphorical truth of its message, 
as I see it.  If "Christ" is interpreted as the transcendent spirit 
of love and forgiveness, then Harry does indeed leave out the Christ 
herb in his relationship to Snape.  I believe the plot in book 7 will 
turn on this changing, perhaps suddenly and dramatically.






From hickengruendler at yahoo.de  Thu Mar  2 14:13:37 2006
From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 14:13:37 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP11, Hermione's Helping Hand
In-Reply-To: <du6tbg+e718@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du6uih+dfdf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149014

 
> 
> Geoff:
> This brought up a thought I have had in the past and never voiced.
> 
> Why did JKR introduce McClaggan into the book? To me, he doesn't seem 
> to add anything valuable to the advancement of the story and seems to 
> be a bit of a spare part.
> 
> Anyone agree?
>

Hickengruendler: 

Yes, I agree 100%.

As for the reason why she introduced him. She said that she saw the 
name Mclaggen somewhere and wanted to use it, because she liked it so 
much. But of course this doesn't mean that he had to be such a big 
character, instead of simply someone who was just mentioned in a 
passing reference.

Therefore I suppose the character existed already and she just decided 
to give him the name McLaggen. I personally can not find anything 
interesting or important about him, but I am biased, because he is 
connected with exactly the two things I find least interesting in Harry 
Potter: The romance storylines in HBP and Quidditch (which, thinking of 
it, might be another reason for why I do not much care for Ginny). I 
suppose he was introduced as a semi foil for Ron to stir some problems 
both with Ron's place in the Quidditch team and also with Hermione, but 
I found him really boring and unnecessary and everytime he appeared I 
kept thinking that we could have gotten a scene with Neville or 
McGonagall or Luna or a character I actually care about, instead.

Hickengruendler







From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com  Thu Mar  2 14:32:22 2006
From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin)
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 14:32:22 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: HBP11, Hermione's Helping Hand
In-Reply-To: <du6tbg+e718@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060302143222.13534.qmail@web86204.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149015


--- Geoff Bannister <gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk>
wrote:

> Why did JKR introduce McClaggan into the book? To
> me, he doesn't seem 
> to add anything valuable to the advancement of the
> story and seems to 
> be a bit of a spare part.

I can see two reasons:
1. The conflict around "Is Ron a bad keeper or is he
rubbish?" only works if there is some alternative out
there. So he was providing this alternative, otherwise
the whole storyline about loyalty of Harry and
Hermione towards Ron falls flat.

2. The story needed a "bad" Gryffindor, as much as a
"good" Slytherin or even more.

Irene

> 
> Anyone agree?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before posting to any list, you MUST read the
> group's Admin File!
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/HBF_Text__MUST_READ
> 
> Please use accurate subject headings and snip
> unnecessary material from posts to which you're
> replying!
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
>     HPforGrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 



	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com



From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  2 13:42:03 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 13:42:03 -0000
Subject: Is Snape good or evil?
In-Reply-To: <du6q9i+bkbt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du6snb+raev@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149016

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> 
wrote:
<SNIP>
> Harry, in siccing  the ministry on his hated but innocent enemy, 
> repeats the error Snape made when he carried the prophecy to 
> Voldemort, which is in turn an echo of Snape being sent to the 
> werewolf. I'm not a Christian or a scholar of Christianity, but 
> isn't it a rather prominent message that forgiveness should be 
> granted to others because we need it ourselves? 

Lupinlore:
Yes, it is.  But there is a difference between a well-balanced story 
about forgiveness and a tale that, at least in my opinion, would be a 
morally reprehensible approval of the abuse of children.  The problem 
with this scenario, I believe, is that it in effect makes Snape the 
hero of the tale, or at least its moral center, and thus approves of 
his unforgiveable (and I use that word quite deliberately) actions.


Pippin: 
> The apparent treachery on the tower becomes a possible foreshadowing
> of the much bangier betrayal of Harry himself. 

Lupinlore:
Well, I would say that Harry has been betrayed already, and several 
times.  I'm not sure how much more can be milked from that one.

Pippin: 
> I agree there's a message about trust. But if you are not going to
> trust anybody who makes mistakes, then you are not going to trust
> anybody. Trusting Dumbledore, not because he's Dumbledore, not
> because he's perfect,  but because, for as long as you've known 
> him, he's been trying to help you and protect you, seems to be a 
> good bet. 

Lupinlore:
Also turning a blind eye while people abuse you, witholding 
information from you, and generally behaving in a reprehensible and 
moronic way.  Oh yeah, I would definitely hold someone like that in 
high regard and see them as worthy of trust.

Pippin: 
> Trusting someone who went wrong once, but whose behavior over
> sixteen years has been consistent,  if far from flawless, also 
> seems promising. 

Lupinlore:
And who is, I believe, a reprehensible abuser of children whose 
behavior cannot be approved of, unless JKR wants to be an abominable 
and unspeakable moral failure.    Not, I think, a very promising way 
of doing things.

Pippin: 
> Trusting someone who's really nice, but who has let you down 
> numerous times and never taken responsibility for the consequences?
> Erm....

Lupinlore:
Sure.  What's wrong with that?  Niceness has its reward, and trust 
and good favor is one of them.


Lupinlore





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Mar  2 14:40:16 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 14:40:16 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP11, Hermione's Helping Hand
In-Reply-To: <du6tbg+e718@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du704g+1v5n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149017


> 
> Geoff:
> This brought up a thought I have had in the past and never voiced.
> 
> Why did JKR introduce McClaggan into the book? To me, he doesn't seem 
> to add anything valuable to the advancement of the story and seems to 
> be a bit of a spare part.
> 
> Anyone agree?

Pippin:
I think he's a bit of a plot device. Harry needed a reason to learn sectum
sempra, but if he'd learned it to use on Draco we wouldn't be so sure
that he'd never dreamed it was a serious spell. 

Pippin







From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  2 13:58:42 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 13:58:42 -0000
Subject: Voldy's weaknesses as a villain WAS:Re: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG
In-Reply-To: <du6so8+82ui@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du6tmi+32ll@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149018

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hickengruendler" 
wrote:
<SNIP>
> And I do think that real life villains would have done this as 
> well. 

Lupinlore:
Oh, I agree.  The point I was trying to make (perhaps badly) was that 
villains often don't make any sense in either life or literature.

Hickengruendler:
> The part I am wondering about is why he doesn't make thousands of 
> Horcruxes hiding them all over the world. It was explained within 
> the text, that he thought 7 to be the most powerful number, but I 
> have never seen him as superstious before, therefore this didn't 
> make too much sense for me.

Lupinlore:
I suppose his insistance on significant objects can be seen as a kind 
of superstition.  But I know what you mean.  If we are going with 
mystical numbers, wouldn't 13 horcruxes be safer?  For that matter, 
what counts as an object?  Do natural features?  How about making a 
horcrux out of the River Thames? Or the North Sea?  Or a mystical 
mountain in Wales?  Not only significant, but well-nigh 
indestructible.


> Hickengruendler, who pities poor old Wilhelm, because even though 
> the Kaiser was a blustering idiot and mainly responsible for the 
> First World War, I do not think he deserves to be thrown in the 
> same pot with Hitler and Stalin

Lupinlore, who agrees Wilhelm is in some ways to be pitied, although 
he did precipitate the deaths of at least 12 million people, even if 
you don't give him any responsibility for the indirect deaths from 
WWI. But in deference to your point, would you take Pol Pot?








From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  2 14:17:35 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 14:17:35 -0000
Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG
In-Reply-To: <du62us+r2p2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du6upv+2tl7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149019

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" <sydpad at ...> wrote:
> It has a nice through-line, too, because it connects backwards--
> explaining Snape's jealousy of Harry and his specialness-- and
> forwards-- Snape is wrong, Love IS the key to defeating Voldemort.  
> It has Snape's dispute with Dumbledore on a level Snape respects-- 
> as a general, whose orders he would obey.

Lupinlore:
Okay.  Now THIS I can easily see.  As you say, it allows Snape to be 
Snape and DD to be DD and Harry to be Harry without a lot of 
hypothesizing about hidden motivations and deep plots and people just 
*pretending* to be a certain thing when in fact they are something 
else.  It explains things rather nicely without relying on a lot of 
BANGS to reverse a great deal of what we already know.  It also 
accepts the facts as we know them without a lot of hypothesizing 
about DD telling lies to Harry or how Snape and DD are working 
together on some subtle and far-reaching plan in which Harry is 
merely a pawn.  You can have a Grey!Snape -- that is a Snape who 
combines some elements of DDM!Snape with true moral weakness and a 
genuine penchant for evil. You can even let some of Snape's speech 
in "Spinner's End" be true in spirit if not in letter (i.e. he really 
DOES believe that DD is naive and altogether too trusting in the 
powers of goodness and love). 


Sydney:
> And it works with a hunch I have, that Harry in Book 7 will not 
> only have to find a way to reconcile with Snape, but to lead him in 
> a better direction.  OR, if you're the sort of person who wants to 
> see Snape punished, there's even room there for Snape stubbornly 
> sticking to his non-Love plan for bringing down v-mort and being 
> destroyed by it, being a lesson to Harry in overcoming the hatred 
> and trusting in love.  
 
Lupinlore:
Well, there's really no reason you couldn't have both of these 
things.  That is you can have a Snape whose insistance on doing 
things his own way leads to the brink of utter disaster, and who is 
forced then to acknowledge (with a great deal of humiliation) that 
he's been totally in the wrong about all of this and who then has to 
follow Harry's lead.  He'd probably still end up dead -- let's face 
it, the character is entirely oriented toward the past and would be 
totally out of place in a Voldy-less world.  But he would go out with 
a nice aura of, if not exactly redemption, at least acknowledgment of 
sins.  A nice, neat, package that would pretty much satisfy everyone 
except for the most dedicated of Snapefans -- or at least that 
everyone but the most dedicated Snapefans would find acceptable with 
reservations.

My goodness.  I think this could actually work.


Lupinlore









From kchuplis at alltel.net  Thu Mar  2 14:48:43 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen)
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 08:48:43 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Snape good or evil?
References: <du6q9i+bkbt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <003d01c63e08$67255c40$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local>

No: HPFGUIDX 149020


  ----- Original Message ----- 

  Pippin:
  I hate to let the facts get in the way of a good story, much less a good
  argument. But barring Flints, it's conclusive  that an Unforgivable Curse didn't
  kill Dumbledore (and thanks, Nora, for pointing out the thematic significance
  of that.) The closed eyes and the blood are facts on the ground. Literally.  
  The BANG on the tower has been undermined already, by JKR herself. 



  kchuplis:

  I still don't see how this is "conclusive". We have absolutely no reference that a person, freshly killed by an AK, being dropped 100 feet (I believe it is canon that the astronomy tower is 100 ft tall, have to check that) would not have blood and eyes closed it nothing. I know routinely people have died with eyes open but in every case *we* know of they were AK'd suddenly. DD definitely knows what is coming and is apparently accepting and at peace with that. I think it is pretty dangerous to say this is "conclusive". 

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




From hickengruendler at yahoo.de  Thu Mar  2 15:35:57 2006
From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 15:35:57 -0000
Subject: Cormac McLaggen as "bad Gryffindor"/Voldy's weaknesses as a villain
In-Reply-To: <20060302143222.13534.qmail@web86204.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <du73ct+dlol@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149021

Irene Mikhlin (as an answer for the question about the purpose of 
Cormac McLaggen's character):

> 2. The story needed a "bad" Gryffindor, as much as a
> "good" Slytherin or even more.
  
Hickengruendler:

While that's true, I have a hard time seeing Cormac as a bad 
Gryffindor. A jerkish Gryffindor certainly, but not bad in the closer 
sense of the word. I would argue that we have at least two or three 
Gryffindors, who more fulfill this part than McLaggen does, namely 
Wormtail (obviously), Percy and even Romilda Vane. The later two, 
while (as far as we can currently tell) of course not as evil as the 
mass-murderer Wormtail, have commited some pretty ambigous actions, 
like leaving your family and completely ignoring your mothers 
attempts to a make up and browing love Potion. Cormac certainly has a 
big mouth and loves ordering everybody around on the Quidditch pitch, 
but I still don't think that qualifies him as a "bad" Gryffindor.

Lupinlore:

"For that matter,
what counts as an object?  Do natural features?  How about making a
horcrux out of the River Thames? Or the North Sea?  Or a mystical
mountain in Wales?  Not only significant, but well-nigh
indestructible."

Hickengruendler:

Yes, but I suppose it's similarly difficult or impossible to make 
them into Horcruxes, not because they don't count as objects, but 
because it's probably much easier to put a part of your in an amulet 
than in a mountain or a river. I guess as long as it is possible to 
put a piece of your soul into an object, it's also possible to 
somehow destroy this piece of soul. After all, the diary as an object 
wasn't completely destroyed either, just Riddle's essence which lived 
in it.

Lupinlore:

Lupinlore, who agrees Wilhelm is in some ways to be pitied, although
he did precipitate the deaths of at least 12 million people, even if
you don't give him any responsibility for the indirect deaths from
WWI. But in deference to your point, would you take Pol Pot?

Hickengruendler, in a (promised) very short off-topic comment:
 
I would say that they are comparable in that their deeds and 
decisions costed the life of millions of people, but that in 
Wilhelm's case it was due to his short-sightedness and many ways 
naivet? (many people from many countries in that time thought it 
would be a short war without thinking about the consequences or even 
that they might fall victim to it), while Stalin and Hitler 
deliberatly planned to kill millions of people.

Hickengruendler











From lebiles at charter.net  Thu Mar  2 15:45:26 2006
From: lebiles at charter.net (leb2323)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 15:45:26 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP11, Hermione's Helping Hand
In-Reply-To: <du6tbg+e718@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du73um+lvjm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149022

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" 
<gbannister10 at ...> wrote:
> This brought up a thought I have had in the past and never voiced.
> Why did JKR introduce McClaggan into the book? To me, he doesn't seem 
> to add anything valuable to the advancement of the story and seems to 
> be a bit of a spare part.


leb:
While reading and re-reading the book I got the idea that McClaggen is 
going to be the person who unwittingly helps out DEs in book 7.  If you 
think of Ludo Bagman's trial that we saw in the pensieve he describes 
passing information that helped the DEs when he thought he was helping 
the good guys the whole time.  McLaggen strikes me as the same kind of 
blustering easily fooled if you stroke his ego enough kind of guy.  Of 
course I'm still vaguely leaning toward ESE!Ludo so I'm not sure how 
innocent it all was!  








From belviso at attglobal.net  Thu Mar  2 15:58:43 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 15:58:43 -0000
Subject: Subject: Voldy's weaknesses as a villain
In-Reply-To: <du6li8+r5v3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du74nj+2cch@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149023

> Lupinlore > Lupinlore, who acknowledges that #7 occurs in real 
life, and thus 
> points out that even in real life (Hitler, Stalin, the Kaiser) 
villains 
> often don't make very much sense at all
> 
> Deborah, now
> 
> Lupinlore is dead right except for one crucial point. Villains 
don't
> make sense to us because we're not villains. (Well, speaking for
> myself, anyway!) If you're a villain, it makes perfect sense to do
> stuff because you want to, and you want to because whatever you 
want
> has got to be not just good fun or morally sound or anything boring
> like that, but just a question of *you*, the obvious centre of the
> universe, taking precedence over everyone else. 

Magpie:

"How can I be expected to know how a werewolf's mind works" is a 
denial that the werewolf's mind works like a human's.  Same with the 
minds of villains.  To them the actions of the good guys probably 
make just as little sense (as they might to us as well if we were in 
the villain's pov)--do you think Dumbledore's not telling Harry 
about the Prophecy makes sense to Voldemort?  His not killing Draco 
when he discovered he was trying to kill him?  Didn't the whole plan 
in LOTR rest on Sauron being unable to imagine someone trying to 
destroy the ring?  

Villains are supposed to make sense in fiction--that's why people 
laugh when they don't and criticize it.  But things like Voldemort 
coming up with a ridiculously convuluted plan do not speak to his 
motivation not making sense but his methods being flawed.  His 
motivation is perfectly sensible: kill Harry.  As is his motivation 
in trying to takeover the world, by human standards, since humans 
are not robots.  Voldemort is trying to destroy all threat to 
himself in the world and have power over his surroundings.  His 
desire to live forever grows out of that, not the other way around.  
Also the idea of destroying a race of people, far from going against 
the idea of eternal life, has actually always been linked to it.  
The idea is that the "unclean" people are like a disease--remove it 
from your kingdom and the kingdom will stand forever.  Even though 
the focus on killing these people almost always weakens the country 
rather than strengthening it.  Regular people make that same wrong 
choice all the time, so why would it not make sense when a villain 
does it?  I mean, if you apply to real life villains like Hitler--
obviously the man made a lot of sense to a lot of people at the time.

So yeah, someone doing something you wouldn't have done yourself 
doesn't mean their motivations don't make sense.  All the good guys 
have shot themselves in the feet plenty of times as well, because 
people always have more than one motivation at a time, and their 
different personalities are going to make them choose one thing over 
another.  

-m






From tifflblack at earthlink.net  Thu Mar  2 16:43:46 2006
From: tifflblack at earthlink.net (Tiffany Black)
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 08:43:46 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: HBP11, Hermione's Helping Hand
In-Reply-To: <du6tbg+e718@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <E1FEqt5-0000Qn-PH@smtpauth07.mail.atl.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 149024

quigonginger at ...> wrote:

Ginger:
> CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: HArry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince,
Chapter 
> 11, Hermione's Helping Hand

<snip>

> Cormac McClaggen, after approaching Harry at the beginning of tryouts, 
> saves four out of five penalties.  On the fifth, he flies off in the 
> wrong direction. As Ron mounts his broomstick, Lavender
> shouts   "Good luck" from the stands.  Ron saves all five, and is 
> awarded the position, much to the displeasure of Cormac, who reminds 
> Harry of an angry Uncle Vernon.
> 
> Hermione congratulates Ron on his performance, and the trio heads off 
> to see Hagrid.  Ron relives his saves, and notes that Cormac appeared 
> Confunded on the one he missed.  Harry notes that this brings a flush 
> to Hermione's face.

<snip>

> Harry catches Hermione aside as they go into the Great Hall for 
> supper, and confronts her gently on the Confunding of Cormac.  She 
> admits that she did so, but defends herself by saying that Cormac was 
> maligning Ron and Ginny, and that he isn't the sort Harry would want 
> on the team, what with his temper and all.  Harry agrees, but can't 
> resist teasingly chiding Hermione for her dishonesty despite her 
> prefect status.

Geoff:
This brought up a thought I have had in the past and never voiced.

Why did JKR introduce McClaggan into the book? To me, he doesn't seem to add
anything valuable to the advancement of the story and seems to be a bit of a
spare part.

Anyone agree?


Tiffany: I do. My best guess is that Mclaggen had to hit Harry over the head
so he'd go to the hospital wing and summon Kreacher and company to tail
Malfoy, although there are a hundred other times and places she could have
fit that in, so I have no idea why he's there.
Tiffany


Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/HBF_Text__MUST
_READ

Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from
posts to which you're replying!
 
Yahoo! Groups Links



 







From nrenka at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  2 16:47:48 2006
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 16:47:48 -0000
Subject: Is Snape good or evil?
In-Reply-To: <du6q9i+bkbt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du77jk+l9vl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149025

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> 
wrote:

> Pippin:
>
> I hate to let the facts get in the way of a good story, much less a 
> good argument. But barring Flints, it's conclusive  that an 
> Unforgivable Curse didn't kill Dumbledore (and thanks, Nora, for 
> pointing out the thematic significance of that.) The closed eyes 
> and the blood are facts on the ground. Literally.  The BANG on the 
> tower has been undermined already, by JKR herself. 

No, it's hardly *conclusive*.  It was also 'conclusive' that Snape 
was acting in the Shrieking Shack in order to set up the situation 
with Peter, and that's hardly played out, has it?

It is conclusive to *your* interpretation, which may or may not be 
true.  But to assert it as bald fact is to grossly overstate your 
position.  Unless by Flint you mean "Something which I consider to be 
a Flint, but may actually be the result of my incomplete knowledge of 
the mechanics of JKR's world, which she holds in reserve as do many 
authors, in order to be able to spring things on us."

-Nora admits to becoming irked at the assertion of interpretation as 
solid fact, obvious to all but the willfully blind unbelievers






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Thu Mar  2 18:26:47 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 18:26:47 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP11, Hermione's Helping Hand
In-Reply-To: <du6tbg+e718@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du7dd7+jfor@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149026

 
> Geoff:
> This brought up a thought I have had in the past and never voiced.
> 
> Why did JKR introduce McClaggan into the book? To me, he doesn't seem 
> to add anything valuable to the advancement of the story and seems to 
> be a bit of a spare part.
> 
> Anyone agree?

Potioncat:
McClaggan allowed her to add some tension for each of the trio. The 
biggest problem is that he was like a rabbit pulled out of a hat. Where 
did he come from? Someone who wanted to play Quidditch this badly would 
have appeared on Harry's radar a long time ago.

I think JKR loves creating new characters, dropping them in and out of 
the story as the mood hits. In a way it's great fun, but in some cases 
it's sort of disconcerting. McClaggan falls in the latter category.








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  2 18:39:50 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 18:39:50 -0000
Subject: Trusting Snape
In-Reply-To: <BAY101-F342F43C5384433C6D4492291F50@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <du7e5m+leje@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149027

PJ wrote:
<snip>
> So please, tell me again what Dumbledore gained by having DDM!Snape
AK him on the tower? I see no pros for a DDM!Snape to have done what
he did but at least ESE or OFH!Snape gains notoriety and respect from
the DE's and *possibly* a pat on the back from LV (once he's finished
crucioing him awhile for saving Draco of course)...
> 
> Dumbledore was needed, Snape wasn't.  The wrong man died on that tower.

Carol responds:
While we all agree that DD's death is a tragic loss, from JKR's
perspective, DD's work is done. Even if he were to miraculously
survive, what good would a sick and helpless DD (who, it seems, could
only have been saved by Snape, who in turn is trapped by the UV) be to
Harry or to anyone? JKR wants her young hero to go on without his
mentor, and he can only do so if that mentor is not dying but dead.
But Snape's work, whatever it is, is not done, and for the sake of the
plot, he had to live.

That aside, evidence cited elsewhere suggests that DD was dying from
the beginning of HBP from the combined effects of old age and the ring
curse, and almost certainly he was dying on the tower from the potion
he was force-fed (by Harry!) in the cave. Even the dim-witted Amycus
Carrow sees that DD has only a short time left to live. He is barely
holding on to life, sliding down the wall, weak, pale, helpless, and
wandless. If the potion doesn't kill him and Draco fails to do it, the
DEs will. Harry, pinioned to the wall by DD's spell, can't save him,
even if he could fight off four DEs by himself. DD's chances for
survival are slim to none unless he summons Fawkes, which he either
cannot do or chooses not to do. And surely Fawkes could have retrieved
DD's wand if he wished it? When has Fawkes failed to do DD's unspoken
bidding, even when DD was not present?

Enter Snape, who *cannot* have expected to see a helpless, wandless,
and apparently dying Dumbledore sliding down the wall. Nor, we know,
did he expect Draco to succeed in bringing DEs into Hogwarts. Like DD,
he knew nothing of the Vanishing Cabinet in the RoR. He sees the
second broom and, putting two and two together as only Snape can,
understands that Harry is hiding there in his Invisibility Cloak,
presumably immobilized since he's silent. He sees that Draco has
slightly lowered his wand, and one of the DEs informs him that the boy
can't kill DD. Snape is bound by his UV to save Draco and to "do the
deed" or die. He knows that the moment has come--perhaps he feels
invisible ropes of fire twining around his wrist--and still he does
not act. DD speaks his name and Snape looks at him. A look of hatred
and revulsion crosses his face, but still he does not raise his wand.
Only when DD whispers again, "Severus, please. . . ." does he cast the
spell that sends DD over the battlements.

We don't know what DD means by "Severus, please," but we do know that
DD is not afraid of death, so it can't be "Please don't kill me."
Moreover, Snape has not yet raised his wand, so "Don't kill me" makes
no sense. It's Snape who is in danger of dying at that moment. The vow
is kicking in; if it doesn't kill him for failing to act, either it or
the DEs will certainly kill him if he goes to DD's aid--which, in any
case, is futile as the poison seems close to finishing him off and the
DEs will kill him if the poison doesn't. DD is going to die no matter
what. Snape can die with him, accomplishing nothing, in which case the
freezing spell will fall away from Harry and the Chosen One will rush
out to fight four DEs and rescue DD's body from Fenrir Greyback, who
has already expressed a desire to eat DD for "afters." If Harry cna't
fight Snape alone, he is certainly no match for four DEs, one of whom
would happily eat him. And Draco, whom Snape has promised to protect,
will be killed either by the DEs or by Voldemort for failing to kill
DD. No Draco, no Snape, no DD, no Harry. That's what DD fears will
happen (IMO) if Snape does not fulfill his vow.

By allowing Snape to kill him (and send his body from the tower), DD
not only saves Snape from the third provision of the UV, enabling him
to maintain his cover and do whatever he's supposed to do to undermine
Voldemort later, he (DD) also enables Snape to save Draco and get the
DEs off the tower before Harry rushes out to fight them--four
desperate adults against one boy--with Draco also a near-certain
casualty. We later see Snape getting Draco to (temporary) safety
("Run, Draco! Run!"), getting the DEs off the grounds, saving Harry
from a Crucio, and giving him a last (Snapish) lesson in using
nonverbal spells and not using Unforgiveable Curses.

Had Snape not killed DD in exactly that way, sending his body from the
tower, DD would have died anyway, along with Snape, Draco, and Harry,
and the DEs would have had a free run through Hogwarts as the Felix
Felicis lost its power, maiming, killing, burning, and destroying at
will. And Voldemort would have no one to stop him because the Chosen
One would be dead (or kidnapped by the DEs, to be tortured and killed
by LV himself later).

What did DD have to gain by having Snape kill him? Everything. His
sacrifice saved not only Snape and Draco but the whole school, and
most notably Harry--as long as Snape continued to do his part and get
the DEs off the tower and out of the school. That accounts for the
peaceful expression of the sleeping portrait in what is now
McGonagall's office--DD's objectives were accomplished by having
Snape, and only Snape, kill him.

What did Snape have to gain by obeying DD? Nothing. Only his unhappy
life, with no job, no respect from anyone but the despised DEs (note
his attitude toward Bellatrix and Peter Pettigrew), no freedom, no
mentor except Voldemort (who, unlike DD, trusts no one), and with a
damaged soul to boot. Why do it, then? Why not die, futilely but
heroically, killed by the DEs or the accursed Unbreakable Vow?
Because, IMO, Snape, like Harry, had promised to do what Dumbledore
ordered at whatever cost to DD or himself, whatever it took to save
Harry and work toward the destruction of Voldemort. Because his
loyalties lie, tragically and ironically, with the man he was forced,
by that very loyalty, to kill.

That view of things--Snape's enforced sacrifice of his mentor's life
and his own future, not to mention his soul, as opposed to dying nobly
and accomplishing nothing--accounts for the look of hatred and
revulsion on Snape's face much better, IMO, than any supposed petty
resentment of Dumbledore for previous small slights, and for the look
of anguish on Snape's face when Harry calls him a coward. It also
accounts for his saving Harry from the Crucio and getting the DEs out
of Hogwarts ("on the Dark Lord's orders, of course," as Bellatrix
would say). Despite everything, IMO, Snape was and remains
Dumbledore's man through and through, and he accomplished Dumbledore's
will at great cost to himself. And Dumbledore's own sacrifice was very
far from being a waste of his life (which was already nearly over).
Together, they saved many lives, including and especially Harry's.

We know that Snape still has a role to play, whether it's his own
self-sacrifice or using his knowledge of the Dark Arts and Healing to
help Harry with the Horcruxes. He will, I have no doubt, contribute in
some indispensable way to the defeat of the Dark Lord, even if it's
only helping Harry learn that forgiveness and mercy are more powerful
than hatred and vengeance.

So, IMO, if someone had to die on the tower, better Dumbledore, whose
task was done, than Snape, whose actions saved Harry and others and
who still has something important left to do.

Carol, hoping that PJ will at least *understand* the DDM!Snape
position now even if he or she doesn't agree with it









From willsonkmom at msn.com  Thu Mar  2 18:41:48 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 18:41:48 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP11, Hermione's Helping Hand
In-Reply-To: <du4e0k+l5j9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du7e9c+p2qf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149028

Ginger asks:
> 
 Could this be a part of the reason 
> Snape is later annoyed by Harry's inability to cast them by the end 
of 
> the book?

Potioncat:
Harry does actually get one nvbl spell started,(at the end of the 
book) but Snape is aware of it and stops it. We're told that not 
everyone can work nvbl spells, but Snape certainly seems to expect 
most of the students to. In Harry's case, he wants him to work nvbl, 
legilimency-reistant spells.


>What do you think of Hermione's casting the 
> Confundus?

Potioncat:
Hermione casts a Confundus. She puts a hex on the DA contract. She 
conjurs birds that would make Alfred Hitchcock proud. The girl is a 
real witch. I think we forget that this isn't a story about kids who 
attend a quaint old school. JKR has kept bits and pieces of our 
folklore memories in her story. Witches have generally been spiteful, 
rather cruel creatures and from time to time we see it.
> 

> 
 One of our brighter listees (and I wish I could remember 
> who so I could give credit) wondered once if F&G hadn't made that 
bet 
> to help Ron.  We did see them with doxy eggs, and it seems in their 
> nature.  Do you think they did this?  Would Cormac have made the 
team 
> last year instead of Ron?


Potioncat:
I'd bet money the twins were involved, but I think it was to keep him 
off the team. Ron getting on was a bonus. But, really, you'd think 
McClaggan would have other chances to get on the team last year. 
IIRC, Umbridge kept creating openings for new players on the 
Gryffindor team.

Nice work Ginger! 
> 
> 







From exodusts at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  2 19:27:51 2006
From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 19:27:51 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey
In-Reply-To: <du2nc6+pk33@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du7gvn+q78j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149029

> Luckdragon:
>
> Everytime I read my HP for Grownups email I see pages and pages of 
> Snape. I don't think we will see the end of the "Is Snape ESE or ESG 
> or OFH" until book seven is released; so, just for the sake of being 
> able to tell each other "I told you so", let's tally up what we 
> believe Snape is before we actually know, and see which way the 
> majority of us are thinking. A brief paragraph is sufficient.
> 
> Myself for example, I am somewhat like DD and just have to look for 
> the good in people, so obviously I believe Snape will be found out to 
> be ESG. Well maybe not good exactly, but neither ESE or OFH. Lupin 
> said it well in book six; " It comes down to whether or not you trust 
> Dumbledore's judgement. I do; therefore, I trust Severus." (Chpt 16)
> 
> So in your Opinion, who's side is Snape on?


Exodusts:

The question would be best phrased: who's side is Snape NOT on? And the 
answer is: Voldemort's.

Snape had a rotten childhood. He grew up fascinated with the Dark side 
and determined to attain power of any kind, to have his revenge on the 
world. He would have been just another Slytherin DE goon (albeit a very 
senior and powerful one), but for one single redemptive curse - his 
forming of an attachment to Lily Potter.

This gnawed away at him, and he kept his options open by volunteering 
for the spying missions that his concealing nature made him perfect 
for. Whatever he thought he had decided, even if it just meant playing 
the good guys and the bad guys off against each other for his own 
benefit, Lily's death was the straw that broke the camel's back. He is 
determined to bring down Voldemort, and he doesn't care much how it is 
done. He despises most of the good guys, most of the bad guys, in fact 
nearly everyone in the world (except perhaps DD, who saw more clearly 
than he did where his true motivation lay).






From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca  Thu Mar  2 19:40:12 2006
From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 19:40:12 -0000
Subject: Voldy's weaknesses as a villain WAS:Re: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG
In-Reply-To: <du6so8+82ui@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du7hms+6fla@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149030

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hickengruendler" 
<hickengruendler at ...> wrote:
<snip>
> I am not surprised about this. It might not be the most sensible 
> thing to do, but I do find it in character for the old egomaniac. 
And 
> I do think that real life villains would have done this as well. 
The 
> part I am wondering about is why he doesn't make thousands of 
> Horcruxes hiding them all over the world. It was explained within 
the 
> text, that he thought 7 to be the most powerful number, but I have 
> never seen him as superstious before, therefore this didn't make 
too 
> much sense for me.

How is the number 7 superstitious? The book states it's the most 
magically powerfully number (I believe there was a wizarding card on 
this...about the person that discovered or proved it) so in a world 
with magic ignoring it would be just as stupid. I assumed that 7 was 
a key component of some from of magical physics or math (the 
wizarding version of pi or the golden ratio?). Voldemort has made 5 
more Horcrux then anyone that we know of so he's actually a 
trailblazer in the use of Horcruxs. 

Quick_Silver








From imontero at iname.com  Thu Mar  2 18:13:07 2006
From: imontero at iname.com (lunamk03)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 18:13:07 -0000
Subject: Snape: Beyond Good and Evil (long)
In-Reply-To: <du5qlj+lpv1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du7cjj+uhcb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149031

aorta47 wrote:
> "What is done out of love always occurs beyond good and evil."
> 
> -Friedrich Nietzsche
>  
> So if you can argue that Snape acted out of a love (a hard 
> argument to make), than his actions are beyond the ideas of "good" 
> or "evil."
> 
> Mark
> who admits he really just likes this thread title, but if someone 
> wants to run with this idea, go ahead.


Luna here:

I was planning to start a new thread called "Harry's eyes, Snape, 
Voldemort and DD: wrapping it all together"

But this phrase kind of summarizes my point...

This is my take on what I think will happen:

It has always been discussed what kind of "power" Harry has in his 
eyes that he might have inherited from Lily. I think that Jo has 
already started to give us some clues as to what the nature of 
this "power" in his eye is.

In Order of the Phoenix and in Half Blood Prince as well as in Jo's 
interview to Mugglenet and Leaky Cauldron, we learn that Lily was a 
very popular girl. We know that Slughorn had a weakness for her: she 
was a brilliant potion maker; he doesn't stop comparing 
Harry's "talent" for potions with his mother's. My guess is that he 
also chose Ginny for his club because somehow Ginny seemed to remind 
him of Lily, Jo did say that Lily was, like Ginny, a popular girl.

Evidence in PoA (book and film) points out to the possibility that 
James and Slughorn weren't the only ones to be more than fond of 
Lily.

We have Lupin, who was suspected at first by Sirius and probably by 
James himself of being Voldemort possible spy. Why Lupin? In PoA 
film, according to Jo herself, Cuaron seemed to have been toying 
around with something that gives us clues as to what's really going 
on. My guess is that she was talking about Lupin's conversation 
about Lily with Harry. According to him, Lily saw the beauty that 
some people were unable to see in themselves. I think that Lupin 
too, had developed feelings of love towards Lily, this might have 
caused some kind of mistrust from Sirius and James' side, this is 
the reason why they didn't choose him as their secret keeper.

Now, what about Snape?
How come that Snape's single worst memory involves him being 
humiliated in front of Lily? Then, it always clicked me as unusual 
that Voldemort didn't want to kill Lily at first. Why?
According to DD, Snape was devastated after learning about what 
happened to the Potters. Why? Why should he be devastated, he 
should've been celebrating James' death.
What did DD know about Snape that made him blindly believe in him? 
Also, we know that Lily and Snape might have been in the same year, 
probably studying Potions together. I can see Lily, defender of the 
underdogs, helping or wanting to help Snape. I can see a reluctant 
Snape developing feelings of love towards her but not being able (or 
knowing how) to express them other than insulting her or treating 
her badly, as we can see in his memory when she defends him from 
James. It also seemed to me that James knew that by attacking Snape, 
he would catch Lily's attention. James knew she would come to 
Snape's defense, which means that he was aware of Lily's protective 
attitude towards Snape. I wonder how many of Snape notes in his 
Potion books actually came from Lily's advices or discoveries.  
This might explain as well why Snape's major issues were with James, 
not with Sirius who was even worst to him than James, after all, it 
was Sirius who almost got Snape killed.

I can see Snape begging Voldemort not to kill Lily, as Voldemort's 
most appreciated follower and as an award for finding out about the 
prophecy, Voldemort agreed to kill only the child and James, not 
her. This would explain why he was telling Lily to clear out. At 
the end, she didn't give Voldemort the choice, he had to kill her.
This must have devastated Snape, he must have felt miserably guilty 
and broken hearted. DD knew about Snape's feelings, this is why he 
never doubted Snape. 
All these years, Snape has been seeing Harry as the portrait of his 
father, as the reminder of what he never had with Lily, but there 
is something that must be eating Snape away: And here is where we're 
coming back to the power in Harry's eyes: Harry has Lily's eyes and 
this is a detail that Snape won't be able to evade forever. 

My thesis is that Snape returned to Voldemort for vengeance, he 
wants to make Voldemort pay for Lily's death, his rage is so blind 
that he killed DD because at that point, DD was the only thing 
standing between Voldemort and him. He needed to get rid of DD in 
order to get as close as ever to Voldemort. The problem is that he 
doesn't have the power to kill Voldemort, Harry does.

The Power in Harry's eyes is having Lily's eyes to make the people 
who loved her help him. At one point, Snape will see Lily through 
Harry's eyes and this will ultimately break Snape down with the 
result of him joining forces with, or giving his live for Harry thus 
enabling Harry to continue and kill Voldemort. Deep down, Snape 
knows he'll need Harry to kill Voldemort, this is the main reason 
why Harry is still alive: i.e. Snape hasn't killed him and has 
indirectly protected him.
 
This is the power in Harry's eyes. In HBP we learn that the deepest 
and most powerful magic does not usually comes with big flashy 
tricks, it is deep down very simple, yet terribly powerful, as 
powerful as the feeling of someone who's lost probably the first 
person to stand up for him, to see in him the beauty that no one 
else saw (not even his own family, as we can see in Snape's other 
memories) and who's seen a flash of her soul in her son's eyes.

Luna








From mmmwintersteiger at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  2 18:43:19 2006
From: mmmwintersteiger at yahoo.com (Michelle)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 18:43:19 -0000
Subject: Trelawney
In-Reply-To: <dsoij2+8reb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du7ec8+9rd6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149032

Kchuplis wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/147854 :
> << The last time through OoTP and HBP I got the distinct impression
> that Trelawney's mutterings in the hallway while shuffling cards 
> etc. may show more "sight" than previously believed. >>

Catlady responded: 
> Yes! << snip quote >>
> 
> "A dark young man, possibly troubled, one who dislikes the 
> questioner" might or might not have anything to do with the knave 
> of spades, but it is Trelawney picking up Harry's presence 
> near. "The questioner" is herself, and Harry is troubled and does 
> dislike her. "Well, that can't be right" is because she refuses to 
> believe that anyone could dislike her.


michelle says:

I also believe this scene has more to it than what meets the "eye;" 
however I disagree with the "dark young man being Harry".  I think 
she is talking about Snape and the "questioner" he dislikes is LV.  
LV is always trying to get into Snape's head with Occlumancy, that's 
enough to dislike any questioner, whether or not Snape is ESE! or DDM!

michelle-who has been on hiatus due to an audit but is hopefully 
going to be able to catch up on posts now








From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Thu Mar  2 20:10:46 2006
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 15:10:46 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: HBP11, Hermione's Helping Hand
In-Reply-To: <du4e0k+l5j9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY101-F56DE8876C254977B7B34991F50@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 149033



Ginger:

>Nonverbal spells are now expected, although Harry notes that others are
>having as much trouble as he is.  Could this be a part of the reason
>Snape is later annoyed by Harry's inability to cast them by the end of
>the book?  Did Hermione do her Confundus on Cormac nonverbally?  Do we
>ever see Ron do one?

Snape is always annoyed with Harry.  It's just an oil and water pairing.

I think if anyone in the class manages to do a nonverbal spell it'd be 
Hermione first per usual.  And I do believe she'd do the Confundus as a NV 
spell since she would be afraid of being overheard.  I never noticed Ron 
doing one but I may have missed it.


>What do you think of Hermione's casting the Confundus?

It amazed me!  She's always the one who disapproves of breaking the rules 
and here she was casting a Confundus?  Guess she'll do anything for her guy 
- even if he doesn't know he is yet.  :)

>Stan Shunpike is arrested.  Other than the trio's say-so, do we have
>any evidence that he is actually innocent?  Their meetings with him
>have been brief, and the Dark Lord doesn't seem to have a pre-entrance
>IQ test for his minions.

At this point in the story we don't have any real proof but later in the 
story the MoM just about comes right out and admits Stan is no DE.


>Would Cormac have made the team last year instead of Ron?

He might've made the team but I don't think he would've remained a part of 
the team long.   He was so busy micromanaging everyone else's plays that he 
didn't keep his mind on his own position.  He's a lousy team player.

Oh, and I do believe the twins were the ones who made the bet on the doxy 
eggs.  It's just like them!  :)

>There is lots of SHIPping foreshadowing in this chapter:  Ron/Lavender,
>Ron/Hermione, Cormac/Hermione.  I don't have any real questions, but
>feel free to comment, remembering to use the SHIP prefix if it is a
>SHIPping post as per our rules ;o)

This was my least favorite book because of all the shipping in it.  I 
thought it took up way too much space that could've been used to snip other 
important threads.

>I hope you all enjoy your discussion.

Thankyou for putting this together for us.  Your job couldn't have been an 
easy one.  :)

PJ





From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Thu Mar  2 20:12:13 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 20:12:13 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP11, Hermione's Helping Hand
In-Reply-To: <du7dd7+jfor@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du7jit+487q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149034

Potioncat:
> McClaggan allowed her to add some tension for each of the trio. The 
> biggest problem is that he was like a rabbit pulled out of a hat. 
Where 
> did he come from? Someone who wanted to play Quidditch this badly 
would 
> have appeared on Harry's radar a long time ago.

Ceridwen:
Now I'm wondering if McLaggen is there to show how many people 
absolutely want to be in with Harry Potter?  McLaggen is unique to the 
rest of them in the story, because while they're all ready to fall all 
over Harry or offer themselves in some sort of lust sacrifice, McLaggen 
wants to best him.  McLaggen wants to be seen as Harry's right-hand 
man, and the only place he can do that is on the Quidditch pitch.  Ron 
and Hermione have his ear and both his arms all the rest of the time, 
and Ron still has his confidence issues with the Keeper position.  
Perfect fit for McLaggen if he can get it.

And, when he does, temporarily, become the Gryffindor Keeper, he makes 
a mess of everything.  He tries to get in good with Harry by constantly 
wanting to talk Quidditch plays, even when Harry is obviously doing 
other things, and he pulls his imagined rank (second-in-command) during 
a game, resulting in Harry being hospitalized and a few other foul-
ups.  He isn't a team player, so he's bad for the team.  He wants the 
reflected glory of somehow being Harry's lieutenant.

And, this way, he is an OTT representation of the switch in the WW's 
viewpoint about Harry since the beginning of OotP.

Maybe.

Ceridwen.






From patriciah711 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  2 18:47:25 2006
From: patriciah711 at yahoo.com (Patricia Hurley)
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 10:47:25 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Leader of Order of the Pheonix
In-Reply-To: <20060301214655.83246.qmail@web60920.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20060302184725.68309.qmail@web52807.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149035

Mrcbolt wrote:
   
I was wondering if anyone has thought about who is going to lead the Order now that Dumbledore is dead(maybe)? I would think that it would be Harry, but is everyone going to give him the respect that Dumbledore recieved, especially if he can't tell them about the horcruxes.  I believe that the order will be led by Harry and it will have a lot more members with the addition on the old DA (Dumbledore's Army) group.

If anyone has any thoughts on this please share them.


Patricia:
I can't see Harry wanting to lead it because there are so many gifted older, more experienced Wizards. Part of what made Dumbledore such an effective leader were his connections. The leader has to have some connections at the ministry so that they can gather information. Also it should probably be someone who has experience from the past rise of LV. I think the best person is Arthur. He is qualified. It will be interesting to see if anyone wants to take that role, becuase it is very dangerous and demanding. 

Patricia





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  2 20:46:34 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 20:46:34 -0000
Subject: Leader of Order of the Pheonix -Harry, Moody, Arthur, other
In-Reply-To: <20060302184725.68309.qmail@web52807.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <du7lja+t0jm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149036

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Patricia Hurley
<patriciah711 at ...> wrote:
>
> Mrcbolt wrote:
>    
> I was wondering if anyone has thought about who is going to lead
> the Order now that Dumbledore is dead(maybe)? I would think that
> it would be Harry, but is everyone going to give him the respect 
> that Dumbledore recieved, ...
> 
> 
> Patricia:
> I can't see Harry wanting to lead it because there are so many 
> gifted older, more experienced Wizards. Part of what made 
> Dumbledore such an effective leader were his connections. ... 
> Also it should probably be someone who has experience from the
> past rise of LV. I think the best person is Arthur. He is 
> qualified. It will be interesting to see if anyone wants to take 
> that role, becuase it is very dangerous and demanding. 
> 
> Patricia
>


bboyminn:

Patricia makes a valid point. I don't think Harry is in a position to
be the official leader of the Order. I further agree it has to be
someone old, wise, experienced, and someone with connections. While it
could be Arthur, for the moment I am going to vote for Mad-Eye Moody.

Yes, he is a bit off, but there probably isn't a better Dark Wizard
fighter in the group. He has strategic skill, is magically powerful,
is well respected (despite being a bit barmy), and has a strong
command presences. By command presence, I mean that people will defer
to him, they will obey his orders without question, they will trust
his judgement.

So, Moody will be the assigned leader, but as the story progresses and
as the directionless Order becomes aware that their greatest direction
 toward success is to help Harry achieve his goals, even if they don't
know what his goals are, they will start to follow Harry. He is at the
center of everything, and it seems natural that people will gravitate
towards him, and seek to assist him.

So, Moody will have the title of 'leader', but in function Harry will
become the de facto leader and the center around which the New Order
is formed.

I'm not against the new leader being Arthur, I just think Moody is
more qualified. Either way, regardless of who the appointed leader is,
I think functionally, people will turn toward Harry for direction.

Just a thought.

Steve/bboyminn







From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Thu Mar  2 20:52:25 2006
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 15:52:25 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Trelawney
In-Reply-To: <du7ec8+9rd6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY101-F1732060FC4D2397FAA839791F50@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 149037



michelle:

>I also believe this scene has more to it than what meets the "eye;"
>however I disagree with the "dark young man being Harry".  I think
>she is talking about Snape and the "questioner" he dislikes is LV.
>LV is always trying to get into Snape's head with Occlumancy, that's
>enough to dislike any questioner, whether or not Snape is ESE! or DDM!

PJ:
You could be right since we don't know if JKR has the first clue about Tarot 
but usually the Knave is a very young man - a page still in service.  The 
knight would better fit Snape age wise.

Also, from what I've read, spades and swords are interchangable depending on 
which deck you're using and seems to be one of the key symbols of 
Griffindore in this story.  If JKR did any research on this at all, then ST 
would most likely have been talking about Harry in that reading.

PJ






Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/HBF_Text__MUST_READ

Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from 
posts to which you're replying!

Yahoo! Groups Links








From kchuplis at alltel.net  Thu Mar  2 21:13:50 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen)
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 15:13:50 -0600
Subject: Getting it done
Message-ID: <005d01c63e3e$342b1150$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local>

No: HPFGUIDX 149038

As we have all suspected, 7 has a lot to get done (from JKR diary):

FEBRUARY 28th

This always happens. I make a plan, it looks nice and neat, then I get to
actually write the book and realise that Harry can't possibly do all that in
just one chapter. So what I thought were going to be two chapters have now
become four. I still don't think the book will be as long as 'Phoenix', but
if that keeps happening... no, it won't. I'm looking at the plan, and it
can't. Surely. Please.

Nothing else I can tell you at the moment. Well, there's LOADS I could tell
you at the moment, but I can't. Sorry.





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Thu Mar  2 23:14:32 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 23:14:32 -0000
Subject: Leader of Order of the Pheonix -Harry, Moody, Arthur, other
In-Reply-To: <du7lja+t0jm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du7u8o+nugi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149039

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Patricia Hurley
> <patriciah711@> wrote:

Mrcbolt:   
> > I was wondering if anyone has thought about who is going to lead
> > the Order now that Dumbledore is dead(maybe)? I would think that
> > it would be Harry, but is everyone going to give him the respect 
> > that Dumbledore recieved, ...

Patricia:
> > I can't see Harry wanting to lead it because there are so many 
> > gifted older, more experienced Wizards. Part of what made 
> > Dumbledore such an effective leader were his connections. ... 
> > Also it should probably be someone who has experience from the
> > past rise of LV. I think the best person is Arthur. He is 
> > qualified. It will be interesting to see if anyone wants to take 
> > that role, becuase it is very dangerous and demanding. 
 
> bboyminn: 
> Patricia makes a valid point. I don't think Harry is in a position 
to
> be the official leader of the Order. I further agree it has to be
> someone old, wise, experienced, and someone with connections. While 
it
> could be Arthur, for the moment I am going to vote for Mad-Eye 
Moody.

<snip>

> I'm not against the new leader being Arthur, I just think Moody is
> more qualified. Either way, regardless of who the appointed leader 
> is, I think functionally, people will turn toward Harry for 
> direction.

Geoff:
I hope that the suggestion in the last sentence will prove to be the 
final "truth". I am concerned that when the Order finds its feet that 
there should be no repeat of the scenario which obtained during OOTP.

In that case, Harry found himself being sidelined because some 
members thought him to be too young to be given all the information 
he needed despite his important role within the fight against 
Voldemort. Arthur was sympathetic to his needs but allowed himself to 
be overruled by Molly who uses her daunting personality to make sure 
that the Trio - who are now pretty well young adults - remain in her 
eyes as children who must be protected from falling over and bruising 
their knees. Personally, I would not favour seeing Moody as the head 
of the OOTP, not because I do not trust his loyalty but because I do 
not trust his paranoia.

Harry is now - or will be by the next school year - of age and can 
choose to go his own way. Hermione and Ron have already pledged their 
support but he may be wary of what the Order wants. I doubt that he 
will be their leader - either elected or de facto but I believe that 
Harry will have to be the driving force behind what they do rather 
than vice versa; the Order will therefore act as an arm of the 
campaign against Voldemort in backing him up.






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  2 23:16:55 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 23:16:55 -0000
Subject: Voldy's weaknesses as a villain WAS:Re: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG
In-Reply-To: <du58n9+jrqb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du7ud7+euj9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149040

> >>Lupinlore:
> > Villains never really make sense, that's part of the reason     
> > they're villains.  
> > <snip>
> I've never found that particular rule to lead me far wrong, in    
> either life or fiction.  
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
In RL that would put criminal psychologists out of job, wouldn't 
it?  In the Potterverse it would make all of Harry's lessons with 
Dumbledore in HBP a waste of time.  Voldemort is crazy, certainly, 
but he does seem to operate by a certain set of rules.  Dumbledore 
was observant enough to figure out a good deal of those rules, and 
he tried to pass that knowledge and ability on to Harry.  Here's 
hoping it worked. <g>

Though I will agree that villain's *goals* tend to be pretty much 
insane (e.g. "I think I'll make a suit out of girl skin, then I'll 
be as pretty as Mother!").  But the methodology of achieving those 
goals (learn tanning and tailoring skills, figure out how to nab 
women of the proper size, etc.), and even the underlying need 
beneath those goals (for Mother to love me) do make sense.  (I 
used "Silence of the Lambs" for my examples, fyi.) 

> >>Lupinlore:
> Voldemort is acknowledged by everyone as a villain.  Does 
> anything about Voldemort make any sense?  The man's the most 
> incompetent villain this side of Gargamel.  Let's see:
> 
> 1) We could have had fake!Moody enchant a book as a portkey, call 
> Potter down to his office, and say "Oh Potter, hand me that book, 
> will you?" Later he could say, "No, I haven't seen Potter, Albus.  
> He's probably out watching the Tournament." Instead we go through 
> this ridiculous and insanely complicated Rube Goldberg plot in    
> which the person you want to kidnap is placed front and center     
> under the gaze of wizards from three different nations.  That      
> makes a lot of sense, yes indeed it does.

Betsy Hp:
To a master of psychological terror?  Oh yes, it certainly does.  
Harry, while under the attention of the entire WW, while being 
actively protected by the most powerful wizard known to the WW, 
disappears.

Imagine you're sitting in the stands at the third task, four 
champions go in, you wait with eager anticipation, and only three 
champions come out.  The teachers, the adults, *Dumbledore* go 
hurtling into the maze, but no Harry.  They scour the grounds the 
school, the Forbidden Forest, but no Harry.  Aurors go on high 
alert, the Ministry assures everyone that everything is under 
control, but no Harry.  And quietly and inevitably rumors start 
spreading that *He* has returned....  

Or, his dead body suddenly appears, gripping the Triwizard Cup.  The 
picture of Harry's corpse would make front page news for weeks.  And 
then the whispers would start....

It makes perfect sense to me, if you take Voldemort's general M.O. 
(one that served him quite well in the past) into consideration.  I 
mean, come on, the guy's been missing for *years*, he's got to have 
his dramatic come back.

> >>Lupinlore:
> 2)  We forget to warn our DEs "Oh, by the way, you can apparate,   
> you know.  Try using that in the MoM to get behind the kids once   
> they move away from the shelves.  And don't forget about those    
> nice unforgivables you are supposedly so good with."

Betsy Hp:
Actually, I don't think you can apparate in the DoM.  Does anyone?  
The Order come pouring through the doorways, and Voldemort himself 
appears up where the floos are located.  Also, don't forget every 
single child was down and Harry was handing over the prophecy when 
the Order members appeared.  The kids did a good job of scuttling, 
but that was a holding action.  And it didn't really hold for too 
long.

(Obviously, the fact that no child died was a bit unrealistic, but I 
give JKR a pass since this is a children's book.)

> >>Lupinlore:
> 3)  For that matter, Voldy might have remembered that, as he is 
> featured in the prophecy, he can take it down from the shelf as    
> easily as Harry.  And since he evidently has no problem apparating 
> right into the ministry in the dead of night, he could easily     
> polyjuice himself, go in, and get it anytime he wants.  But no, we 
> have yet another nonsensical and totally inept Rube Goldberg ploy 
> designed to get Potter to take the prophecy down.

Betsy Hp:
Well, we know he couldn't apparate directly into the Prophecy room.  
I suspect he could only apparate into the MoM's foyer.  And he does, 
within Nagini, to do a bit of reconnaissance just before Christmas.  
Where he discovers that Dumbledore is expecting, no *hoping* for 
Voldemort to make just this sort of move so he can finally prove 
that Voldemort is actually back.

So Voldemort goes to plan B) Get the Potter brat to do it for him.  
And Harry obliges.  But two things occur that Voldemort couldn't 
have counted on: 

1) Potter's friends go with him.  Completely outside of Voldemort's 
realm of understanding is a friendship so loyal people would 
actually risk their own necks to protect and help someone who 
emphatically *doesn't* want protection or help.  (Harry really, 
really, really, wanted to go alone.  Voldemort would have known 
this, having been in Harry's head for so long.)

2) Snape is a spy.  Instead of cheerfully sending Potter off to his 
doom, Snape informed the Order who got there just in time to keep 
Malfoy from getting the Prophecy.  Voldemort did not, and probably 
still doesn't, know of Snape's key assist here.  

> >>Lupinlore:
> 4)  We don't like the idea of dying, so we turn ourselves into a 
> snake.  The man really needs to read the Evil Overlord's Handbook.

Betsy Hp:
Huh?  Voldemort's a snake?  Do you mean his red eyes and missing 
nose thing?  Because I think that's why he stopped at seven 
horcruxes.  Also, re: the Evil Overlord's Handbook, Voldemort *did* 
read it, and it let him down big time.  Specifically:

"73. If I learn that a callow youth has begun a quest to destroy me, 
I will slay him while he is still a callow youth instead of waiting 
for him to mature.

"130. I will not order my trusted lieutenant to kill the infant who 
is destined to overthrow me -- I'll do it myself."

From: http://www.sterlingtwilight.net/evil/handbook.html#top

I'm being tongue-in-cheek here, and obviously the long winded speech 
and decision to duel Harry in GoF are examples of bad villain 
behavior.  But I do think JKR has tried to make Voldemort as... 
dangerous as possible.  For a children's series, anyway.

Yes, he has his insane obsession with eternal life, and yes that 
obsession has lead him astray. (Tom Riddle could have become quite a 
powerful MoM if he'd so desired.  And I bet he could have pushed a 
*lot* of anti-Muggle and Muggle-born legislation through.)  But 
without the insane obsession you don't have a villain.  Hannible 
Lecter would have remained a brilliant doctor of, erm, something 
(psychology?) if not for his killing and eating people thing.  But 
there *is* a logic within the insanity.

(Strangely enough, without an insane obsession you don't get genius 
either.  I mean, what if Alexander the Great hadn't had his 
wanderlust?  Weird, huh?)

> >>Lupinlore: 
> 5) We manage to get a direct route into Hogwarts, so do we come   
> ourself to deal with our most hated enemy.  No.  We send the same 
> group who couldn't handle a half-dozen adolescents into a castle   
> packed with adolescents.

Betsy Hp:
And they kill our hated enemy.  So victory for Voldemort.  I'm not 
sure where he goes wrong here.

> >>Lupinlore:
> 6)  We had a strategy of legilimency that worked wonders last     
> time. What do we do this time?  Oh, that love HURTS.  Makes you    
> wonder how he's going to deal with it the first time he molts.

Betsy Hp:
I don't get this either.  What does Voldemort want out of Harry's 
mind after OotP that he can't get?  Do you think Voldemort could 
have made *Harry* kill Dumbledore?  I think that would have been 
seriously underestimating Harry, which *would* have been a mistake.

Or are you upset that Voldemort has a weakness?  *Everyone* has a 
weakness. I feel like I'm missing the point here.

> >>Lupinlore: 
> 7)  The REALLY big one.  Voldy is afraid of dying.  Okay, fine.    
> Why doesn't he go off by himself, make his little horcruxes, and   
> live unhappily ever after? What's getting in the way?  Because,    
> for some reason, he wants to take over the Wizarding World.  Why?  
> What does taking over the wizarding world have to do with making   
> horcruxes and living forever?  Nothing.  In fact, taking over the 
> wizarding world is directly antithetical to his goal, as it draws 
> attention to himself when he would be far better served by        
> obscuring his goals and actions.  
> So why does he want to rule the world.  Sigh.  For the same reason 
> all villains want to rule the world -- he just WANTS to.  Some    
> great and deeply revealing motivation that is, :-)).

Betsy Hp:
Villains are about chaos, I think.  They want to unmake the world as 
they know it, and though they say it's because they want to put a 
perfect world up in its place, it's the destruction that only ever 
seems to occur.  In fiction this is even more apparent.  I don't 
want to go to an extreme here.  Voldemort is a story-book villain, 
and he has story-book villain traits.  But seeing his background 
explained a lot to me.  There's a *reason* behind his madness.  And 
so far, his reason has served him quite well.

Of course his need to both live forever *and* control the universe 
fall right into the trap of the Fisherman's Wife.  But Voldemort 
came pretty darn close to having it all.  If he'd been able to 
ignore the prophecy, if he hadn't given Lily a choice....  The thing 
is, he *is* going after the impossible.  There's *always* going to 
be an "if".  It takes a certain amount of hubris to become an Evil 
Overlord.  And hubris makes some of the handbook's rules impossible 
to follow.  So cut the poor Evil Overlord some slack.  He's fighting 
an uphill battle here. <g> 

> >>Lupinlore:
> 7b) A corollary to the above.  As has been pointed out further up 
> the thread, why does he call attention to himself by using such   
> NOTICEABLE objects for his horcruxes.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
What noticable?  The diary was in an Order member's household for 
weeks, and then right under Dumbledore's nose for a year.  No one 
noticed it at all.  I don't recall any noise about the famously 
missing "Cup of Hufflepuff" or "Locket of Slytherin".  And who gave 
two thoughts to the Gaunt's missing ring?

Dumbledore, cleverest wizard of the WW, didn't even *consider* 
horcruxes until CoS, and he'd been fighting Voldemort for *years*.  
Malfoy didn't know what he had, and I don't think Voldemort should 
have expected one of his smarter minions to start treating his 
sacred stuff as fodder for personal vendettas.

For a story-book villain, I think Voldemort does pretty well for 
himself.  Except, of course, that he *must* fail.  He's not only 
working against the WW, Dumbledore and Harry.  The *author* is out 
to get him too.  Now *that's* a weakness. <g>

Betsy Hp, thrilled with the Alexander the Great thing, ticks it off 
her list







From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  3 00:29:50 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 00:29:50 -0000
Subject: Leader of Order of the Pheonix -Harry, Moody, Arthur, other
In-Reply-To: <du7u8o+nugi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du82lu+e5fi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149041

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister"
<gbannister10 at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Patricia Hurley
> > <patriciah711@> wrote:
> 
> Mrcbolt:   
> > > I was wondering if anyone has thought about who is going to
> > > lead the Order ...? ...
> 
> Patricia:
> > > I can't see Harry wanting to lead it because there are so 
> > > many  gifted older, more experienced Wizards.... I think
> > > the best person is Arthur. ...
>  
> > bboyminn: 
> > ... I don't think Harry is in a position to be the official 
> > leader of the Order. ... While it could be Arthur, for the 
> > moment I am going to vote for Mad-Eye Moody.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > I'm not against the new leader being Arthur, I just think Moody
> > is more qualified. Either way, regardless of who the appointed 
> > leader is, I think functionally, people will turn toward Harry
> > for direction.
> 
> Geoff:
> I hope that the suggestion in the last sentence will prove to be
> the final "truth". ... Personally, I would not favour seeing 
> Moody as the head of the OOTP, not because I do not trust his 
> loyalty but because I do not trust his paranoia.
> 
> Harry is now - or will be by the next school year - of age and
> can choose to go his own way. Hermione and Ron have already 
> pledged their support but he may be wary of what the Order 
> wants. I doubt that he will be their leader - either elected 
> or de facto but I believe that Harry will have to be the driving 
> force behind what they do rather than vice versa; the Order will 
> therefore act as an arm of the campaign against Voldemort in 
> backing him up.
>

bboyminn:

You may have been attempting to disagree with me, but your final point
is exactly the point I was trying to make. Harry will not be their
leader, but he will determine the direction and purpose of their actions.

I don't see this happening all at once. No one is going to say,
'Moody's in charge, but we follow Harry'. I see this all gradudually
and subtly falling into place. Right now the Order is lost. With out
Dumbledore and his grand plan and his grand planning, they are
directionless and purposeless. Let's face it, Dumbledore WAS The Order
of the Phoenix. Without him, I see the Order as ineffective. 

Yet these are determined dedicated individuals; they don't give up
easily. They are still all bound and determined to oppose Voldemort.
But how, when, and where? They will flounder for a while seeking some
systematic method of opposition. In the meantime, Harry will stuggle
along with his two friends trying to accomplish what is essentially an
impossible task on every front. At some point, he will realize that he
has to trust someone if he is to succeed. I believe that someone will
be Lupin. 

There after Lupin will assist Harry, yet the task will still be too
big. So, Lupin, devulging as little information as possible, will get
some of the Order to help him. Through this gradual process of
expansion, soon the entire Order will be working for Harry. Like I
said, Harry will give them new direction and purpose. And while Harry
will not be their formal leader, it will still be in his interest and
under his 'orders' that they act. 

Harry is at the center of everything. To act in Harry's interest, to
serve him, is to serve the greater good of the wizarding community,
and to further act against Voldemort.

As the Order gradually works more and more in Harry interests, the
pretense of an appointed formal leader will fade, and members will
defer to Harry. In a sense, I don't see Moody as a General, I see him
as a strict Drill Sargent. As I said, he has command authority, people
will defer to him, and follow his orders. But behind the scenes, it
will be Harry and Harry's needs that are directing those orders.

Without serving Harry, I see the Order stumbling around in the dark.
Once they are on board with Harry, they once again have direction and
purpose. Once again, they are a force to be reckoned with. So the
point I'm making is subtle. I don't see Harry controlling the Order
the way a General control his troops. I see Harry sitting at the side
of the table, not at the head. Yet, as discussion become deeper, and
plans become more complex, it will really be Harry that controls the
direction of things.

I do agree about Moody's paranoia being his biggest draw back, but he
is still the most senior member, and the most skilled, experienced,
and effective Dark Wizard fighter. I see him as carrying the title of
(sort of) 'General', but functionally, I see him as Harry Sargent in
command. He gives the orders and makes the assignments, but they are
all based on Harry's interests.

I see Arthur as having the brains and leadership skills, but I don't
see him as having the experience. Nor am I sure he has the 'command
authority' to get people to unswervingly and unquestioningly obey him.

Moody has the experience, but to some extent I think his greatest
Auror accomplishments were achieved as a loner, not as a leader. 

Lupin might be a nice choice, but he hasn't been the most decisive
person, and a leader must be decisive. Though, if the Head of the
Order, is simply an extension of Harry, then perhaps Lupin could
handle it. I think he would be good at planning and strategy, but less
apt at making the final decisive decision. Remove that one aspect, and
I think he would be very good.

I'm not sure I see anyone else that is trusted enough by Harry or by
the Order to take on the roll as leader.

Just a few thoughts.

Steve/bboyminn






From babyhrndz at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  2 20:39:41 2006
From: babyhrndz at yahoo.com (Amanda Shoffner)
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 12:39:41 -0800 (PST)
Subject: McLaggen under Imperio? WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP11, Hermione's Helping Hand
In-Reply-To: <du7jit+487q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060302203941.85916.qmail@web30807.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149042

Amanda:
  Ceridwen, there are quite a few things 
in your post that stuck me as interesting.
   
Ceridwen Wrote:
<snip>McLaggen is unique to the rest of 
them in the story, because while they're 
all ready to fall all over Harry or offer 
themselves in some sort of lust sacrifice,
McLaggen wants to best him. <snip>
   
<snip>McLaggen wants to be seen as Harry's
 right hand man, and the only place he can 
do that is on the Quidditch pitch. <snip>
<snip>He tries to get in good with Harry 
by constantly wanting to talk Quidditch 
plays, even when Harry is obviously doing 
other things, and he pulls his imagined 
rank (second-in-command) during a game, 
resulting in Harry being hospitalized and
 a few other foul-ups. <snip>
   
Amanda:
Does this bring to mind the imperious 
curse? Out of the blue comes this other
student who has never been mentioned 
before, forcing himself to be at Harry?s
side, trying to be on ?Harry?s team? and
being his <snip> ?right-hand man??<snip>
   
Amanda ~ Remembering that JKR doesn?t just
?throw? something into the storyline.
   

		





From babyhrndz at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  2 20:44:05 2006
From: babyhrndz at yahoo.com (Amanda Shoffner)
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 12:44:05 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Leader of Order of the Pheonix
In-Reply-To: <20060302184725.68309.qmail@web52807.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20060302204405.45126.qmail@web30802.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149043

Mrcbolt wrote:
   
I was wondering if anyone has thought about who is going to lead the Order now that Dumbledore is dead(maybe)? <SNIP>

Amanda~
   
  McGonagall comes to mind seeing that she was made headmistress after DD's "death". I think she could possess the strong personality of a leader, or one who will take the lead when nobody else will.
   
Amanda




		






From unlikely2 at btopenworld.com  Thu Mar  2 22:05:55 2006
From: unlikely2 at btopenworld.com (unlikelyauthor)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 22:05:55 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey
In-Reply-To: <du2nc6+pk33@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du7q83+6b41@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149044

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Luckdragon" <luckdragon64 at ...> 
wrote:
>
> who's side is Snape on?

unlikely2 now

Plenty has been written about chapter 2's fishing for information 
where it's the spinner of webs who becomes caught as well as Snape's 
distinct lack of options on the tower. Can I suggest another reason 
why I think that Snape is good?

When Harry nearly kills Draco, Snape saves him and it is the intimate 
manner of his doing so that I find interesting. Singing. Not a potion 
but something from and of himself. And it is the cure for his own 
damaging spell. It is this act that the sorrowful song of the phoenix 
brings to my mind. 

Why doesn't Jo just have him feed Draco something? Instead we are 
given this curious almost 'Pieta' like image with the healing coming 
from within Snape. To me this cannot be compatible with Snape as 
evil. At worst, there is conflict.

As Paxman said, 'a bit of a redemption thing going on' perhaps.

unlikely2










From rkdas at charter.net  Fri Mar  3 02:53:17 2006
From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003)
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 02:53:17 -0000
Subject: McLaggen under Imperio? WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP11, Hermione's Helping Hand
In-Reply-To: <20060302203941.85916.qmail@web30807.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <du8b2t+akp8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149045

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Amanda Shoffner <babyhrndz at ...> 
wrote:
>Snipped vigorously...
> Re: McLaggen's entrance into the story

> Amanda:
> Does this bring to mind the imperious 
> curse? Out of the blue comes this other
> student who has never been mentioned 
> before, forcing himself to be at Harry's
> side, trying to be on "Harry's team" and
> being his <snip> "right-hand man"?<snip>
>    
> Amanda ~ Remembering that JKR doesn't just
> `throw' something into the storyline.
>
Jen D. here with a little bit of back story that I mentioned a few 
weeks ago. Seems McLaggen didn't get to try out for keeper in year 5 
because he took a bet that he couldn't eat a pound of doxy eggs! Now, 
who'd suppose had access to doxy eggs? After cleaning out Sirius' 
house maybe??? I think the twins were looking out for ickle Ronnikins 
by removing McLaggen from the tryouts! He is the sort of macho dufus 
who'd take a crazy dare! 
Jen D. 








From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  3 02:53:04 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 02:53:04 -0000
Subject: Blood on DD face again WAS: Re: Is Snape good or evil?
In-Reply-To: <du6q9i+bkbt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du8b2g+mtn7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149046

> Pippin:
> I hate to let the facts get in the way of a good story, much less 
a good
> argument. But barring Flints, it's conclusive  that an 
Unforgivable Curse didn't
> kill Dumbledore (and thanks, Nora, for pointing out the thematic 
significance
> of that.) The closed eyes and the blood are facts on the ground. 
Literally.  
> The BANG on the tower has been undermined already, by JKR herself. 
> <SNIP>
>

Alla:

Conclusive? Sorry, but who determined with absolute certainty that 
Dumbledore's body who was just killed with Avada ( that is just my 
opinion of course) cannot bleed right after the fall. In fact, who 
determined that such thing never happens in RL? I am sorry, Pippin 
but to me it does not even come close to be any kind of 
conclusiveness. IMO this is just your interpetation, which is as 
valid as any other interpretation, but it is NOT a fact. I mean, 
blood on DD IS a fact, but that he was not killed by Avada is NOT a 
fact.

IMO of course,

Alla







From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Fri Mar  3 04:08:07 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 04:08:07 -0000
Subject: McLaggen under Imperio? WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP11, Hermione's Helping Hand
In-Reply-To: <20060302203941.85916.qmail@web30807.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <du8ff7+oujr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149047

Amanda:
> Does this bring to mind the imperious 
> curse? Out of the blue comes this other
> student who has never been mentioned 
> before, forcing himself to be at Harry's
> side, trying to be on "Harry's team" and
> being his <snip> "right-hand man"?<snip>
>    
> Amanda ~ Remembering that JKR doesn't just
> `throw' something into the storyline.

Ceridwen:
No, I think McClaggen (sp?) is more of a plot device, as others have 
said.  He serves the purpose of more than one - a jealousy conflict 
for Ron, a leadership conflict for Harry, and IMO, an OTT fan of HP, 
the sort that wants to become his hero in a way.  He wants to 'best' 
Harry in one way, step into his shoes and prove that he's as good 
as 'The Chosen One', but he also wants to show that he is the 'right-
hand man', a chosen of the Chosen One.  Maybe he'll get girls that 
way?  And, dating Hermione, one of Harry's two best friends, also 
makes me think there's a bit of identification with TCO there, too.

If he is Imperio'd, though, I would wonder why.  Just to trip Harry 
up?  Or to create a stumbling block so Harry won't be chasing Draco 
around as much?  Who would have done it?  What would you suggest?

And, too, could McClaggen become disillusioned with Harry in book 7 
and turn coat?  I never took psychology, but for anyone who has, 
would someone who has identified with/latched onto a 'star', turn 
against his idol?  The Incredibles and (not Hinkley, who was it who 
shot Lennon?) aside?

Ceridwen.






From whiggrrl at erols.com  Fri Mar  3 01:46:00 2006
From: whiggrrl at erols.com (j. lutz)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 20:46:00 -0500
Subject: McClaggan WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP11, Hermione's Helping Hand
In-Reply-To: <1141328421.2478.41656.m25@yahoogroups.com>
References: <1141328421.2478.41656.m25@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <44079FD8.1020403@erols.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149048

>>Geoff:
>>This brought up a thought I have had in the past and never voiced.
>>
>>Why did JKR introduce McClaggan into the book? To me, he doesn't seem 
>>to add anything valuable to the advancement of the story and seems to 
>>be a bit of a spare part.
>>
>>Anyone agree?
>>    


Perhaps in Book Seven McLaggan will turn out to be the Heir of 
Gryffindor -- if that's the case I can't imagine him willing to be 
helpful if Harry, Ron, and Hermione approach him for help. (According to 
this theory of mine, Zacharias Smith is the Heir of Hufflepuff and 
Marietta Edgecombe the Heir of Ravenclaw, and Book Seven will include 
persuading these people, all of whom have issues with Harry and company, 
to help unify Hogwarts and support the fight against Voldemort.)

As for the doxy eggs, when I read that I thought it was supposed to 
suggest that McLaggan is the sort of fool who would take stupid bets and 
dares, and can't be relied on to be ready on game day. (I know it's 
wrong to apply American culture to these very British books, but 
McLaggan reminded of the sort of sport-mad fraternity boy who would 
swallow live goldfish on a dare.)

j.lunatic






From sydpad at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  3 06:12:53 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 06:12:53 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice
In-Reply-To: <du2nc6+pk33@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du8mp5+f2qt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149049

> So in your Opinion, who's side is Snape on?

Dumbledore's.  Duh.  Anything else is so ludicrous to me, storywise, I
can't even get up the energy to argue it.  

Lupinlore,  re my really, truly, semi-final Snape-and-DADA-theory
(#149003):
>Okay.  Now THIS I can easily see.  As you say, it allows Snape to be
>Snape and DD to be DD and Harry to be Harry

And everyone embraces in one harmonious group hug! It's so thematic I
can't stand it!!  LOL... I'm telling you, there's one thing I'm pretty
sure of.  And that is, when Book 7 comes out, the Snape-lovers and the
Snape-haters will come together upon this neutral ground, and they
will say unto one another:  "See?!  It's just as I was saying all
along!!"  

Because, I have so much respect for Rowling as a plotter and as a
characterizer, I would start a website if there weren't already one
zillion.  She lays it out, and she lets it be as messed-up, as
ambiguous, as black-and-white, as grey, as obvious, as
un-agreeable-upon, as life itself.  It's like the 1-to-1 scale map of
the world in "Sylvie and Bruno".  

unlikely2:
>Snape saves him and it is the intimate
>manner of his doing so that I find interesting. Singing. Not a potion
>but something from and of himself. And it is the cure for his own
>damaging spell

There are so many lovely notes on this side of Snape-- he so full of
love, for magic (tell me this guy doesn't LOVE magic), for knowledge,
for something mysterious that had him wearing his heart on his
sleeve-- Lily?-- he's so on the brink of being this extraordinary
person, but so held back, at the same time, by his rage and hatred and
immaturity and inability to forgive himself.  He's a rubber band,
stretched out to to extremes; he could snap either way, there's so
much crazy energy in this character!  He's FABULOUS!  *hearts Snape*
*knits him scarf* 


Back to villany of the straightforward kind:  Lupinlore:
 >Villains never really make sense, that's part
> >of the reason they're villains.  Heroes or "good" characters,
> >however, are supposed to make at least a surface kind of sense.
(a few messages later,)
> I've never found that particular rule to lead
>me far wrong, in either life or fiction.

Hitler, Stalin, Voldemort and Pol Pot and brought up.  Am I to
understand that by 'villain' we're referring exclusively to
psychopaths and megalomaniacs?   Because otherwise this rule would
seem to leave one alarmingly vulnerable to underestimating the more
common or garden villans one might come across!  Not to mention, by
assuming they are irrational and stupid, being prone to not being
prepared for their evil schemes!  

*Sydney is downright concerned for poor innocent Lupinlore, so
defenseless against the patently sane, intelligent, and
all-too-motivated villains she comes across in daily life!*

Ooh, I am FAR to aware of my own potential for villany-- being very
attracted to money, power, and all the lovely things they bring-- to
make such a category mistake as to suppose my enemies are
fundamentally different than I am.  Sadly, my enemies also tend to be
less lazy than I am (pretty much anybody is less lazy than I am),
which generally tends to result in them winning.  


RE:  the whole issue of Dumbledore's preparedness to sacrifice his
life for strategic gain:

Ahem.  I can't BELIEVE nobody's brought this up:


"Yes..." said Ron softly, "It's the only way... I've got to be taken."

"NO!" Harry and Hermione shouted.

"That's chess!" snapped Ron. "You've got to make some sacrifices! I
take one step forward and she'll take me -- that leaves you free to
checkmate the king, Harry!"

"But --"

"Do you want to stop Snape or not?"

"Ron --"

"Look, if you don't hurry up, he'll already have the Stone!".

"There was no alternative.

"Ready?" Ron called, his face pale but determined. "Here I go - now,
don't hang around once you've won."

He stepped forward, and the white queen pounced."



Let me see, that would be the second-to-last move? Because for some
reason it seems strangely relevant <g>.  The hilariousness of Snape
being the "White Queen" aside, of course. With a little recasting:


"Yes..." said Dumbledore softly, "It's the only way... I've got to be
taken."

"NO!" Snape shouted.

"That's war!" snapped Dumbledore. "You've got to make some sacrifices!
When the time comes you'll take me -- that leaves you free to
checkmate Voldemort, Severus!"

"But --"

"Do you want to stop Voldemort or not?"

"Albus--"

"Look, if you don't hurry up, he'll already have won!".

"There was no alternative."



Well, Snape certainly didn't hang around.  Structure, people.  It's
all about the structure.

-- Sydney, feeling downright villainous after the perfect meal of rare
steak, a mess o'greens, and a dry martini






From theadimail at yahoo.co.in  Fri Mar  3 06:40:30 2006
From: theadimail at yahoo.co.in (theadimail)
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 06:40:30 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore returns
Message-ID: <du8ocu+2ltj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149050

Reading HBP again, I was stuck by a possibility. In the OOTP, Nearly 
Headless Nick told Harry that some poeple agree to stay on in this 
world and they become ghosts. Will Dumbledore do that? He knows he has 
died prematurely, leaving Harry all alone in a huge battle. No matter 
how brave Harry is, he is still a kid and is not an equal to 
Voldemort. So, will Dumbledore become a ghost and eturn to help Harry  
in his quest for horcruxes and more?
  I have noticed the difference between ghosts and the photographs. 
Eventhough photographs can move and seem to have the stamp of 
personality on them, their compass seems to be limited. Whereas ghosts 
seem to be the people themselves, with their entire characters in 
tact, except of course coporeality. So, by being a  ghost Dumbledore 
can aid harry better and will he return?

Bye
Adi






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Fri Mar  3 07:46:37 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 07:46:37 -0000
Subject: Leader of Order of the Pheonix -Harry, Moody, Arthur, other
In-Reply-To: <du82lu+e5fi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du8s8t+mj4n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149051

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister"
> <gbannister10@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn@> wrote:
  
bboyminn: 
 
> > <snip>
> > 
> > > I'm not against the new leader being Arthur, I just think Moody
> > > is more qualified. Either way, regardless of who the appointed 
> > > leader is, I think functionally, people will turn toward Harry
> > > for direction.
> > 
> > Geoff:
> > I hope that the suggestion in the last sentence will prove to be
> > the final "truth". ... Personally, I would not favour seeing 
> > Moody as the head of the OOTP, not because I do not trust his 
> > loyalty but because I do not trust his paranoia.
> > 
> > Harry is now - or will be by the next school year - of age and
> > can choose to go his own way. Hermione and Ron have already 
> > pledged their support but he may be wary of what the Order 
> > wants. I doubt that he will be their leader - either elected 
> > or de facto but I believe that Harry will have to be the driving 
> > force behind what they do rather than vice versa; the Order will 
> > therefore act as an arm of the campaign against Voldemort in 
> > backing him up.
> >
> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> You may have been attempting to disagree with me, but your final 
> point is exactly the point I was trying to make. Harry will not be 
> theirleader, but he will determine the direction and purpose of 
> their actions.

Geoff:
I don't see from where you get that impression. The /opening/ 
sentence of my reply is meant to be a firm underpinning of your view.

Steve: 

<snip>

> I see Arthur as having the brains and leadership skills, but I don't
> see him as having the experience. Nor am I sure he has the 'command
> authority' to get people to unswervingly and unquestioningly obey 
him.

Geoff:
I agree again. As I said earlier, my reading of his interaction with 
Molly suggests that he tends to back off things too easily if someone 
disagrees firmly with him.
 
Steve;
> Moody has the experience, but to some extent I think his greatest
> Auror accomplishments were achieved as a loner, not as a leader. 

Geoff:
That could well be true of Harry also. :-)
 
Steve:
> Lupin might be a nice choice, but he hasn't been the most decisive
> person, and a leader must be decisive. Though, if the Head of the
> Order, is simply an extension of Harry, then perhaps Lupin could
> handle it. I think he would be good at planning and strategy, but 
> less apt at making the final decisive decision. Remove that one 
> aspect, and I think he would be very good.

Geoff:
Hmm. I wonder whether the werewolf discrimination syndrome might 
raise its ugly head?






From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Fri Mar  3 08:08:05 2006
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (PJ)
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 08:08:05 -0000
Subject: Trusting Snape
In-Reply-To: <du7e5m+leje@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du8th5+hv3p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149052

Carol

> Carol, hoping that PJ will at least *understand* the DDM!Snape
> position now even if he or she doesn't agree with it

PJ:

Sorry, no.  

Trust me, it would be much *easier* to side with DDM!Snape since the 
non-DDM! folks are so badly outnumbered and you can't turn on the 
computer without tripping over 20 Ain't Snape Wonderful posts an hour, 
but I can't pretend to understand something that makes absolutely no 
sense to me.  

I've tried to see it from your(group you)point of view but all these 
intricate twists and turns ie: It wasn't a *real* AK that killed 
Dumbledore (huh??)or it was the *curse* rather than stupidity and 
hubris that made him take the UV, or even a smoldering passion for 
Cissy that just did the big guy in <sigh>.  All this to show him in a 
much better light than anything that's *actually written* on the pages 
by the author! I'm too old to start twisting myself into that kind of 
a pretzel.

I sincerely believe all his loyalty is reserved for himself and that  
you're all trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.  The 
embroidery, while pretty, still can't quite cover up the smell of pig.

I have bought a crow and a cookbook just in case I'm wrong.  We'll 
know in about a year if I need to defrost it.  :-) 

PJ (who is a she <grin>)








From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Fri Mar  3 12:38:19 2006
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius)
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 12:38:19 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore returns
In-Reply-To: <du8ocu+2ltj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du9dbr+tk7d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149053

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "theadimail" <theadimail at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Reading HBP again, I was stuck by a possibility. In the OOTP, 
Nearly 
> Headless Nick told Harry that some poeple agree to stay on in this 
> world and they become ghosts. Will Dumbledore do that? 

I think it's highly unlikely. NHN goes on to say that his decision 
was motivated by cowardice ("I was afraid of death") and one of 
Dumbledore's perennial themes is that "death is the next great 
adventure," not something to be feared. 

>   I have noticed the difference between ghosts and the photographs. 

But you're forgetting the portraits, which can communicate with those 
left behind. We've already seem Dumbledore's portrait slumbering 
peacefully in the Headmaster's office.


  - CMC







From kchuplis at alltel.net  Fri Mar  3 14:50:04 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen)
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 08:50:04 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice
References: <du8mp5+f2qt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001a01c63ed1$c1b0bc30$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local>

No: HPFGUIDX 149054


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Sydney 
  To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 12:12 AM
  Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape Survey, Snapeity, Dumbledore's sacrifice


  RE:  the whole issue of Dumbledore's preparedness to sacrifice his
  life for strategic gain:

  Ahem.  I can't BELIEVE nobody's brought this up:


  kchuplis:
  It's been brought up. Just not recently. And it is the reason I can't believe there is any doubt about DD and Snape on the tower. But *shrug* there you are. I'm glad you pointed it out again. Personally, I think it is exactly there for the purpose of this moment(Snape and DD on the tower). Forshadowing, 5 books ahead of time. 

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




From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com  Fri Mar  3 14:57:30 2006
From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1)
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 14:57:30 -0000
Subject: Lily's eyes (was handwriting (was Catlady's post))
In-Reply-To: <du00e3+jai2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du9lgq+51oo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149055

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "susanbones2003" <rkdas at ...> 
wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amanitamuscaria1" 
> <saraandra@> wrote:
> Ample and ruthless snipping
> 
> > AmanitaMuscaria now - <snip> I think,  between 
> > you all, that you've got the importance of Lily's eyes!
> > <snip>
> > Could there have been some leakage of the Levicorpus spell to a 
> > Marauder, leading to Snape's calling Lily mudblood?
> > Cheers. AmanitaMuscaria
> >
> Hi there! 
> Yes, there was some kind of passing around of Levicorpus because 
James 
> used it on Snape (from the pensieve memory) and although Hermione 
> hinted at it to Harry <snip> and even Lupin 
> admitted at Christmas that all sorts of people were using "levi" 
> during his time at Hogwarts, spells and things going in and out of 
> fashion and all...So while you don't have any canon for Lily 
spilling 
> th beans, levicorpus was widely known. <snip>
> Jen D.
>
AmanitaMuscaria again: That's what I was referring to. I presume 
Snape didn't tell any of the Marauders, so I'd guess it was someone 
who was close to him. It's a non-verbal, so couldn't have been 
overheard. I can't imagine one of Snape's Slyth compatriots letting 
the Gryffs have something like that. The only conduit we have any 
sort of hint about is Lily. Why would she tell any of the Marauders? 
I can't imagine, from what we've seen, that she'd approve of the 
spell. Unless Snape used it on, say, Lupin and Lily was trying to 
help him work out a counter-curse?
Cheers. AmanitaMuscaria






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Mar  3 15:55:04 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 15:55:04 -0000
Subject: Blood on DD face again WAS: Re: Is Snape good or evil?
In-Reply-To: <du8b2g+mtn7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du9oso+9hs8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149056

> > Pippin:
> > I hate to let the facts get in the way of a good story, much less 
> a good argument. But barring Flints, it's conclusive  that an 
> Unforgivable Curse didn't kill Dumbledore (and thanks, Nora, 
for pointing out the thematic significance of that.) 

The closed eyes and the blood are facts on the ground. 
> Literally.  
 The BANG on the tower has been undermined already, by JKR herself. 
> > <SNIP>

Nora:
It is conclusive to *your* interpretation, which may or may not be 
true.  But to assert it as bald fact is to grossly overstate your 
position.  Unless by Flint you mean "Something which I consider to be 
a Flint, but may actually be the result of my incomplete knowledge of 
the mechanics of JKR's world, which she holds in reserve as do many 
authors, in order to be able to spring things on us."

Pippin:
Um. Are you saying I shouldn't have used the word 'conclusive' 
because a future revelation about the mechanics of the Potterverse
could explain why the blood looked and behaved the way it did?

You're saying no matter how well a theory explains effects, one 
cannot know that the theory is true, since an omnipotent JKR has 
the power to produce the effects in some other way? 

E pur se muove. Besides, with that argument, I could bring
back vampire!Snape. <veg>

Alla:
> Conclusive? Sorry, but who determined with absolute certainty that 
> Dumbledore's body who was just killed with Avada ( that is just my 
> opinion of course) cannot bleed right after the fall. In fact, who 
> determined that such thing never happens in RL? 

Pippin:
Trouble is,  it wasn't right after the fall that Harry found him.

"Harry walked alongside him, feeling the aches and pains in his
face and his legs where the various hexes of the last half hour
had hit him, though in an oddly detached way, as if someone
was suffering near him." --HBP US p 608.

So, half an hour after Dumbledore supposedly was AK'd...

"Harry reached out, straightened the half-moon spectacles upon
the crooked nose, and wiped a trickle of blood from the mouth with
his own sleeve."

I ask you, how could the blood have dried if it's a  trickle?
How could it have dried if Harry wiped it with his sleeve?

It feels really strange to find a non-ambiguous
clue in the text, almost like cheating. But I just don't see any
any ambiguity there.

You could say that she meant a 'dried-up trickle' and that she 
forgot blood already dried in Dumbledore's beard wouldn't
wipe. Or that she forgot blood would dry in half an hour.
But that's Flinty, IMO. 

If  we allow empirical proofs from the text at all, then
Albus was living until just a moment or two before 
Harry found him. 

Or it wasn't real blood, and that's a whole 'nother kettle of newts. 

Not to mention that "as if someone was suffering near him"
reads differently if Dumbledore is in fact dying just as Harry
approaches. Harry did think that Dumbledore was still
alive as he fell, which seems odd if he'd seen DD close his eyes
and prepare for death. And Harry believed that if only he could 
get Snape and bring him to Dumbledore he could reverse
what happened. Ooooh!

Pippin






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  3 15:59:47 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 15:59:47 -0000
Subject: Trusting Snape
In-Reply-To: <du8th5+hv3p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du9p5j+kbgg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149057

> > Carol, hoping that PJ will at least *understand* the DDM!Snape
> > position now even if he or she doesn't agree with it
> 
PJ:
> 
> Sorry, no.  
> 
> Trust me, it would be much *easier* to side with DDM!Snape since the 
> non-DDM! folks are so badly outnumbered and you can't turn on the 
> computer without tripping over 20 Ain't Snape Wonderful posts an
hour, but I can't pretend to understand something that makes
absolutely no sense to me.  
> 
> I've tried to see it from your(group you)point of view but all these 
> intricate twists and turns ie: It wasn't a *real* AK that killed 
> Dumbledore (huh??)or it was the *curse* rather than stupidity and 
> hubris that made him take the UV, or even a smoldering passion for 
> Cissy that just did the big guy in <sigh>.  All this to show him in
a much better light than anything that's *actually written* on the
pages by the author! I'm too old to start twisting myself into that
kind of a pretzel.
> 
> I sincerely believe all his loyalty is reserved for himself and that  
> you're all trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.  The 
> embroidery, while pretty, still can't quite cover up the smell of pig.
> 
> I have bought a crow and a cookbook just in case I'm wrong.  We'll 
> know in about a year if I need to defrost it.  :-) 
> 
> PJ (who is a she <grin>)
>

Carol response:
Interesting response as you snipped my entire post, which does not
mention the possibility of a fake AK or Snape's reasons for taking the
UV, only the events on the tower and why DD might have wished to
sacrifice himself. And I certainly did not include a smoldering
passion for Cissy (I'm not a fan of ACID POPS or even LOLLIPOPS). I
would appreciate your looking at it again and answering the specific
points I made without snipping them or inserting points that were not
made in this particular post. What embroidery have I presented? You
haven't answered my arguments or presented any counterevidence.

Not that it really matters, as you seem to have made up your mind
already, but I would like some evidence that you have actually read
the post and some canon-based arguments against it. ("I don't agree"
does not constitute a valid argument on this list--or anywhere,
really. Nor does blithely snipping another poster's points without
presenting counterarguments.) You'll need to go upthread to find the
original arguments, which I would appreciate your not snipping, except
where they're redundant.

Think about what would or might have happened on the tower had Snape
not sent DD over the battlements with what we'll assume, for the sake
of argument, was a real AK.

Carol, too old to twist herself into a pretzel striving to make Snape
ESE! or OFH! when the evidence indicates otherwise






From ms-tamany at rcn.com  Fri Mar  3 16:08:00 2006
From: ms-tamany at rcn.com (Tammy Rizzo)
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 11:08:00 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Trusting Snape
In-Reply-To: <du8th5+hv3p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4qag60$692p5d@smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 149058

> PJ:
> 
> I've tried to see it from your(group you)point of view but all these 
> intricate twists and turns ie: It wasn't a *real* AK that killed 
> Dumbledore (huh??)or it was the *curse* rather than stupidity and 
> hubris that made him take the UV, or even a smoldering passion for 
> Cissy that just did the big guy in <sigh>.  All this to show him in a 
> much better light than anything that's *actually written* on the pages 
> by the author! I'm too old to start twisting myself into that kind of 
> a pretzel.

[Now Tammy says:] Aahhhh, NOW I see some of your problems with the
DDM!group, PJ.  NOW I understand what you were saying when you mentioned
'twists and turns'.  I see.  It seems that you think that *any and all* DDM
theorys MUST include the caveat of Innocent!Snape.  That couldn't be further
from the truth, PJ.  Please, don't group ALL of us DDMers with those
desperate few who need Snape to be Pure As The Driven Snow.  The man's a
jerk, a killer, a liar (well, obviously, since he's been fooling either DD
or LV for all this time about his loyalties), and is mean to kids.  He
probably kicks puppies, too.  Most likely, he really DID give the DEs
information that was helpful in the recent spate of attacks and murders.
There is NO question in my mind that he killed Dumbledore (though the AK he
threw at the old guy did behave rather differently than all the others we've
ever seen or heard of).
 
There is also NO question in my mind about Snape's loyalties.  He is
Dumbledore's man, through and through.  If I had to choose ONE reason, and
ONE reason alone, to explain WHY I believe this, I'd have to say that it's
because Dumbledore wouldn't kill a disloyal servant, and LV would.
Voldemort wouldn't hesitate to off Snape if he ever learned that Snape
wasn't really and truly loyal to him.  Heck, LV wouldn't hesitate to off
someone who WAS really and truly loyal to him, either, if they ever became
inconvenient, like if they were standing in the way and LV couldn't see the
TV through them -- that's just part of the megalomaniacal UberVillain breed.
LV doesn't value any life but his own, and his own life is paramount.
Dumbledore, on the other hand, values all life, but understands that
sometimes, a few must pay a great price in order to purchase a better life
for the many, and what's more, he's willing to pay that price himself, if
needed.  There's the man who would earn the true loyalty of any
double-agent, and Snape is a double-agent, reporting to both sides.
 
I hesitate to use the term 'delusional', but those who insist on
Innocent!Snape . . . well . . .  they do a great disservice to the entire
DDM world.  ;-)
 
Tammy Rizzo
ms-tamany at rcn.com


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




From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net  Fri Mar  3 16:21:32 2006
From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 16:21:32 -0000
Subject: Trusting Snape
In-Reply-To: <du8th5+hv3p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du9qec+5dmt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149059

> > Carol, hoping that PJ will at least *understand* the DDM!Snape
> > position now even if he or she doesn't agree with it
 
PJ:
> Sorry, no.  
> 
> Trust me, it would be much *easier* to side with DDM!Snape since 
> the non-DDM! folks are so badly outnumbered and you can't turn on 
> the computer without tripping over 20 Ain't Snape Wonderful posts 
> an hour, but I can't pretend to understand something that makes 
> absolutely no sense to me.  
> 
> I've tried to see it from your(group you)point of view but all 
> these intricate twists and turns ie: It wasn't a *real* AK that 
> killed Dumbledore (huh??)or it was the *curse* rather than 
> stupidity and hubris that made him take the UV, or even a 
> smoldering passion for Cissy that just did the big guy in <sigh>.  
> All this to show him in a much better light than anything that's 
> *actually written* on the pages by the author! I'm too old to start 
> twisting myself into that kind of a pretzel.


SSSusan butts in:
PJ, you've got every right to not see or like the DDM!Snape position, 
so, believe me, I'm not trying to convince you of anything which 
makes no sense to you.

That said, I will point out -- as I've been known to do other times 
in the past <g> -- that NOT all of us DDM!Snapers do all that 
convoluting, twisting & turning stuff!!  For some reason, there seems 
to be a tendency to speak of all DDM!Snapers as if they've claimed 
that Snape is OverallGoodGuy!Snape.  There *are* Snape apologists who 
do that or believe that, but there are also DDM!Snapers, like me, who 
[gasp!] ACKNOWLEDGE Snape's many deep & varied flaws!  

This does not mean, however, that I can't believe in a Snape who is 
*essentially* Dumbledore's man.  He may well be loyal to the MAN over 
the cause, or he may be committed to the defeat of Voldemort 
without "liking" or wanting to help Harry and while simultaneously 
despising many members of the Order.  He may have made some decisions 
or taken some actions which didn't fully support the Cause or DD or 
Harry because of his own failings or weaknesses or "issues," but that 
doesn't mean that, at the core, he isn't TRYING to do the "right 
thing" of remaining loyal to DD and DD's wishes/plans.

For me, I *don't* need to believe the AK was anything other than an 
AK to believe in DDM!Snape. For me, I *don't* have to believe that DD 
is still alive in order to believe in DDM!Snape.  For me, I'm willing 
to consider that Snape *did* do something stupid or ill-advised in 
taking the UV.  Not necessarily but possibly. (The possibility that 
it was the DADA curse or the knowledge that he'd be "outta there" 
anyway at the end of the year is an interesting thing, but definitely 
not canon.) 

For me, it all comes down to a belief in a Snape who's very loyal to 
DD and who, most of the time, manages to do what DD expects of him, 
even if he doesn't agree with it.  SOMEtimes his emotions or 
personality weaknesses interfere with this (I keep thinking of 
Occlumency or his general teaching "strategies" with Harry), but on 
the big stuff, I've always believed Snape was doing essentially what 
DD wanted -- trying to keep Harry protected, attempting to teach him 
Occlumency, etc.  In the big tower scene, I simply believe that DD 
communicated to Snape his desire to have Snape AK him.  Why?  For all 
the reasons stated here many times before: the belief that DD was 
dying anyway and if his death could be used to further the cause, it 
should be; that Snape would be able to convince Voldy of his loyalty 
by murdering DD; that Snape could ensure Draco didn't become a 
murderer and simultaneously take care of that pesky UV by doing the 
deed himself; that Snape could find a way to get the DEs out of 
Hogwarts before they wreaked any further havoc.

Now, all of that might STILL strike you as not your cuppa tea, P.J., 
and that's hunky dory.  But I don't believe it involves theories that 
are all twisted up like a pretzel or adding a bunch of "showing Snape 
in a better light than he's actually written." In fact, it allows 
Snape to be the nasty git he is, to have truly committed the deed re: 
DD's death, and to still be a flawed individual attempting to do what 
his mentor wanted him to do.  

Are there assumptions in there?  Sure.  Convoluted ones?  I don't 
think so.  It's really only the folks who maintain that Snape's a 
NICE guy or that his motivations and actions are actually ALWAYS pure 
who have the tough argument to back, imo.  Those of us who see him 
as -- for WHATEVER reason -- being loyal to DD and (probably) the 
Cause (loyal enough to do something he despised doing, natch) don't 
have that difficulty, because we acknowledge those times when he's 
been cruel or ineffective or selfish or whatever.  

To me it's not a stretch, really, to think of a person who has a 
basic, core belief or goal that s/he's committed to but who struggles 
mightily at times with everyday things or with the means of achieving 
the goal itself.  Isn't that a lot of us??

And in no way, also, do I find it a stretch to believe that DD would 
have been willing to do WHATEVER he felt was necessary, including 
sacrifice -- esp. *if* he was dying anyway -- to advance the cause.  
I point folks to Sydney's recent post 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149049 

wherein she pointed out the possible similarity between Ron's chess 
sacrifice and DD on the tower.  I also point people to DD's 
*requiring* Harry to promise to do WHATEVER DD instructed him to do 
on the cave trip.  It's so easy for me to see the possibility that he 
also did the same with Snape.


PJ: 
> I sincerely believe all his loyalty is reserved for himself and 
> that you're all trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.  
> The embroidery, while pretty, still can't quite cover up the smell 
> of pig.

SSSusan:
And you may well be right in the end -- that Snape's OFH and has been 
all along.  It's a distinct possibility, as is ESE!Snape.  OTOH, I do 
not consider myself as someone who's "trying" to make a silk purse 
out of a sow's ear; rather, I'm simply reporting the interpretation I 
have come to from reading and responding to what I've read.  The 
assumption that all DDM!Snapers are consciously, 
intentionally "forcing" or "trying to" fit things to some 
pretzelesque theory is objectionable to me.  I've never sat down and 
thought, "Damn! It looks bad for ol' Snapey. HOW can I take all this 
and MAKE it still fit DDM!Snape??"  Rather, the way I read the 
story... it just *does* fit that.

YMMV, of course. :-)


PJ:
> I have bought a crow and a cookbook just in case I'm wrong.  We'll 
> know in about a year if I need to defrost it.  :-) 

SSSusan:  
Me, too, PJ.  Me, too. :-)

Siriusly Snapey Susan








From kchuplis at alltel.net  Fri Mar  3 16:45:34 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen)
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 10:45:34 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Blood on DD face again WAS: Re: Is Snape good or evil?
References: <du9oso+9hs8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001d01c63ee1$e47f27a0$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local>

No: HPFGUIDX 149060


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: pippin_999 

  Pippin:
  Trouble is,  it wasn't right after the fall that Harry found him.

  "Harry walked alongside him, feeling the aches and pains in his
  face and his legs where the various hexes of the last half hour
  had hit him, though in an oddly detached way, as if someone
  was suffering near him." --HBP US p 608.

  So, half an hour after Dumbledore supposedly was AK'd...

  "Harry reached out, straightened the half-moon spectacles upon
  the crooked nose, and wiped a trickle of blood from the mouth with
  his own sleeve."

  I ask you, how could the blood have dried if it's a  trickle?
  How could it have dried if Harry wiped it with his sleeve?

  kchuplis:

  This is your conclusive proof? It's for the moment. For Harry to touch DD (which I don't think he ever got to do really when DD was alive except for apparating or when he was ill) with affection. It was an understated moment of trauma and affection. So what if, in RL, blood would have dried. I seriously doubt that is about anything other than dramatic liscense. And I don't begrudge it. It's a tear pulling moment. 

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




From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Fri Mar  3 17:54:26 2006
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (PJ)
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 17:54:26 -0000
Subject: Trusting Snape
In-Reply-To: <du9p5j+kbgg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du9vsi+rd4c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149061

Carol:
> Interesting response as you snipped my entire post, which does not
> mention the possibility of a fake AK or Snape's reasons for taking 
>the UV, only the events on the tower and why DD might have wished to
> sacrifice himself. 

PJ:
I read every word of your post - twice - and, while I appreciate you 
going to the trouble to type it all out, I saw nothing new that 
hasn't been discussed to death for the past year or so.  It all 
still hinges on DD knowing the 3rd provision of the UV and Snape 
being told that his job is to kill Dumbledore BY DUMBLEDORE! Two 
things I disagree with strongly.  And while you personally don't 
mention a fake AK, the curse or ACIDPOPS  it has been discussed 
several times on this list by "you GROUP" which is what I said.

>I would appreciate your looking at it again and answering the 
>specific points I made without snipping them or inserting points 
>that were not made in this particular post. What embroidery have I 
>presented? 

OK, the embroidery is in reading so much between the lines that you 
lose the actual lines themselves. No where does the author say more 
than Dumbledore trusts Snape-not even why.  She never says that 
Dumbledore knew the 3rd provision of the UV even while she hints 
that he knows about the vow itself.  No where does the author tell 
us that "Severus, please" can't just as easily be the stunned 
surprise of a man who's alarmed and saddened to see someone he 
trusts joining up with the very people he was so sure he'd abandoned 
ages ago. And no where does she say that it's Snape's job per DD's 
orders to save himself.  Those thoughts are all *I think* and *I 
surmise* based, I feel, on a need to make Snape better and 1,000 
times more noble than what the author has ever (in 6 books!)given us 
on the printed page. 

OFH!Snape doesn't need any reading between the lines at all.  No 
guesses, no surmises... A straight read from cover to cover exactly 
what the author has put down on paper. 

> Not that it really matters, as you seem to have made up your mind
> already, but I would like some evidence that you have actually read
> the post and some canon-based arguments against it. ("I don't 
>agree does not constitute a valid argument on this list--or 
anywhere, really. 

Thankyou for the posting pointers.  I will try to keep them in mind 
for any future posts, but the problem was, as I mentioned above, 
that while it was nice to see it all in one place and in one post, 
it's the same basic arguement that's been wandering around this list 
since shortly after HBP was released and I thought to save myself 
some typing at 3am.

> Think about what would or might have happened on the tower had 
>Snape not sent DD over the battlements with what we'll assume, for 
>the sake of argument, was a real AK.

What *might* have happened? Here it is...

If Snape were truly DDM! then he'd have taken Flitwick and a few 
Aurors/DA up to the tower (since he could get through the barrier)
and finally come out in the open as DDM!Snape before he died.  The 
vow would've allowed him to get that far since he was also on his 
way to rescue Draco as well as to see if he'd done the deed.  

The tower DE's would've died (including that nasty werewolf) Harry 
and Draco would've survived and could've worked it out between 
themselves (Harry was a witness to DD's promise of hiding Draco's 
family and could've convinced the order to honor that promise)since 
now Draco knew he wasn't cut out to be a DE and Harry knew Draco 
refused to kill DD even though it would mean his family would be 
killed.  A mutual respect may have had a chance to blossom.

Draco's soul as well as his future would've been saved, the Hogwarts 
houses would've been well on their way towards unity, and both kids 
could've worked together to end LV's reign since Draco most likely 
knows a few things about what Harry desperately needs information on 
considering who is family is.  

Dumbledore may have died anyway, but Snape didn't have to kill him.

PJ







From juli17 at aol.com  Fri Mar  3 18:57:13 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 13:57:13 -0500
Subject: Trusting Snape
In-Reply-To: <1141376243.1091.77556.m19@yahoogroups.com>
References: <1141376243.1091.77556.m19@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <8C80D0B6B2095AD-AA8-7863@MBLK-M39.sysops.aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149062

 
pj wrote:
I've tried to see it from your(group you)point of view but all these 
intricate twists and turns ie: It wasn't a *real* AK that killed 
Dumbledore (huh??)or it was the *curse* rather than stupidity and 
hubris that made him take the UV, or even a smoldering passion for 
Cissy that just did the big guy in <sigh>.  All this to show him in a 
much better light than anything that's *actually written* on the pages 
by the author! I'm too old to start twisting myself into that kind of 
a pretzel.

Julie:
Regarding the inticrate twists and turns it requires to make Snape DDM,
i.e., people not being what they seem, I just have to note that this
is what JKR *DOES*. I mean, we are all reading the same books, aren't
we? And that's the reason so many of us are reading them, and talking
about them. Because very *little* is what it seems in Harry Potter's
world. And everyone has secrets, some good, many bad. While I respect
the divergent opinions on whether Snape is DDM, ESE, OFH, or one of
a dozen other things, the one argument that is not valid in JKR's
world is that something must be so (Snape is ESE) simply because
it seems so. Far too many things aren't!
 
Julie 
 


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




From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net  Fri Mar  3 20:05:18 2006
From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 20:05:18 -0000
Subject: Trusting Snape
In-Reply-To: <du9vsi+rd4c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dua7hu+hd5e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149063

PJ:
> OK, the embroidery is in reading so much between the lines that you
> lose the actual lines themselves. No where does the author say more
> than Dumbledore trusts Snape-not even why.

SSSusan:
We *all* do this, though, don't we?  We're all trying to figure this 
thing out, trying to puzzle it together, trying to guess where things 
are going, trying to interpret what we've got, given that many pieces 
are missing.  

I've just been chatting with someone offlist about this bit about the 
author not saying WHY DD trusts Snape.  It could be that it's going 
to turn out to be a horrible failing on DD's part, that DD merely 
trusted Snape because he tended to believe in second chances and 
tended to trust people more than he should have.  That's a 
possibility, though even it requires guessing and assumption-making.  

Another possibility, which also requires guessing and assumption-
making, is that there IS a real, solid, strong reason for DD's trust 
but that the reason DD hasn't revealed it (damn it(!), because it 
would help Harry if he would have!) is that the author doesn't want 
to let her AUDIENCE know `til the final book!  

Isn't it possible that either is correct?  Why is one "reading so 
much between the lines" and the other not?


PJ: 
> No where does the author tell us that "Severus, please" can't just 
> as easily be the stunned surprise of a man who's alarmed and 
> saddened to see someone he trusts joining up with the very people 
> he was so sure he'd abandoned ages ago. And no where does she say 
> that it's Snape's job per DD's orders to save himself.  Those 
> thoughts are all *I think* and *I surmise* based, I feel, on a need 
> to make Snape better and 1,000 times more noble than what the 
> author has ever (in 6 books!)given us on the printed page.

SSSusan:
Of course she doesn't tell us what "Severus, please" does or doesn't 
mean!  Doesn't it speak volumes that, after SIX books, people are 
still scratching their heads and arguing about Severus Snape?  JKR 
has carefully set things up so that we WILL be wondering and puzzling 
and trying to figure out what we know and what we're assuming.  It's 
the beauty of it all!  

But to say that the particular thoughts you don't agree with are 
based on "a need to make Snape better and 1,000 times more noble" 
than what we've seen on the page is just not fair, imo.  It may be 
true that "Severus, please" *could* mean DD is just stunned and sad, 
but that's definitely interpretation, as is MY thought that it's DD 
imploring Snape to "listen" and do what needs to be done (i.e., kill 
him).  They're both interpretations.

I have NO need to make Snape into a better or more noble character 
than just what he is!  He is ambiguous.  He is snarky.  He is 
sarcastic and sometimes cruel.  He has thwarted Harry.  I accept all 
of that.  Yet I do also see that he saved Harry's life in SS/PS.  I 
see that he did attempt to teach Harry Occlumency.  I see that he did 
follow DD's instructions at the end of GoF and headed off on the 
dangerous mission DD set for him.  I see that he did pass along the 
message to the Order the night of the DoM battle.  These things can 
be argued as not being noble, I suppose, but they can also be argued 
as showing Snape's loyalty to DD/the cause of defeating Voldemort.  
It's not as if the man has done NOTHING, ever, that was noble or good 
or helpful!  


PJ:
> If Snape were truly DDM! then he'd have taken Flitwick and a few
> Aurors/DA up to the tower (since he could get through the barrier)
> and finally come out in the open as DDM!Snape before he died.  The
> vow would've allowed him to get that far since he was also on his
> way to rescue Draco as well as to see if he'd done the deed.
>
> The tower DE's would've died (including that nasty werewolf) Harry
> and Draco would've survived and could've worked it out between
> themselves (Harry was a witness to DD's promise of hiding Draco's
> family and could've convinced the order to honor that promise)since
> now Draco knew he wasn't cut out to be a DE and Harry knew Draco
> refused to kill DD even though it would mean his family would be
> killed.  A mutual respect may have had a chance to blossom.
>
> Draco's soul as well as his future would've been saved, the Hogwarts
> houses would've been well on their way towards unity, and both kids
> could've worked together to end LV's reign since Draco most likely
> knows a few things about what Harry desperately needs information on
> considering who is family is.


SSSusan:
Can you tell me how Snape would have known what was happening on the 
tower? that he was needed there? that he needed to gather 
reinforcements?  And assuming he did know all of that, why do we know 
that the tower DEs would have died?  Given that many Order members 
were already engaged in battle on other levels, how many would have 
been available to accompany Snape up to the tower, or could've 
escaped their current struggles to do so?  Without reinforcements the 
DEs, assuming Snape to be on their side, would allow his presence.  
With Order reinforcements and if he openly announced allegiance with 
the Order, the DEs would have, of course, turned on him.  I don't see 
how the survival of Draco, Harry & an openly DDM!Snape would have 
been assured at all.  


PJ:
> Dumbledore may have died anyway, but Snape didn't have to kill him.

SSSusan:
But that's rather the POINT of at least some of us DDM!Snapers' 
position. :-) If DD was dying anyway from the cave potion/lake water, 
then *he* was the one cognizant of that and thus "in control" of the 
dying up to the point of asking/ordering Snape to kill him, and thus 
the question to ask is, "What would have been gained from DD's just 
dying vs. from Snape's having KILLED him?"  

Certainly DD could have just died.  Draco wouldn't be a murderer, 
assuming he hadn't decided he had the balls for the job & killed DD 
after all.  Snape would be a *known* traitor to Voldy, with no DD 
around to protect him.  Harry would likely remain as distrustful of 
Snape as always.

If Snape killed DD, however, his cover as an agent for Voldy is 
maintained **and** strengthened by virtue of having done the 
wonderful favor of killing "the only wizard YKW ever feared."  Being 
trusted by the DEs, then, he would be in a position to instruct them ?
 to get them out of Hogwarts without killing others, to ensure they 
didn't kill Harry, etc.  Meanwhile, Draco is relieved of his burden, 
and the UV has been fulfilled.  Harry, of course, will be even more 
convinced of his distrust of Snape. :-)

Bottom line is, no one has to be convinced of any one way of viewing 
Snape.  My contention is that JKR has presented us with a character 
who's very purposely ambiguous, whose motives aren't yet known, and 
that she's probably thrilled to death with the ongoing arguments 
about this character.  Yet for any "side" to argue the other is 
reading too much between the lines, well, I would say that -- 
precisely because of what Jo's done -- we all are reading between the 
lines... have to, as a matter of fact!

I suppose it's natural to assume one's own preferred view is the most 
straightforward, but even OFH!Snape isn't totally, is it?  How does 
OFH!Snape explain Snape's saving Harry in the 1st year Quidditch 
match?  How does it explain Snape's informing the Order that Harry 
had taken off for the DoM?  How does it explain Snape's saving DD's 
life at the start of the year and then AKing him at the end of it?  
I'm not saying OFH!ers can't offer explanations for these; I'm simply 
saying that I suspect those explanations would include as 
much "reading between the lines" and assumption-making as the various 
explanations ESE!Snapers and DDM!Snapers must offer up to other 
questions.

Siriusly Snapey Susan








From belviso at attglobal.net  Fri Mar  3 20:49:27 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 20:49:27 -0000
Subject: Trusting Snape
In-Reply-To: <dua7hu+hd5e@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duaa4n+dotf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149064

> PJ: 
> > No where does the author tell us that "Severus, please" can't 
just 
> > as easily be the stunned surprise of a man who's alarmed and 
> > saddened to see someone he trusts joining up with the very 
people 
> > he was so sure he'd abandoned ages ago. And no where does she 
say 
> > that it's Snape's job per DD's orders to save himself.  Those 
> > thoughts are all *I think* and *I surmise* based, I feel, on a 
need 
> > to make Snape better and 1,000 times more noble than what the 
> > author has ever (in 6 books!)given us on the printed page.
 
> SSSusan:
> Of course she doesn't tell us what "Severus, please" does or 
doesn't 
> mean!  Doesn't it speak volumes that, after SIX books, people are 
> still scratching their heads and arguing about Severus Snape?  JKR 
> has carefully set things up so that we WILL be wondering and 
puzzling 
> and trying to figure out what we know and what we're assuming.  
It's 
> the beauty of it all!  


Magpie:
Actually, just from reading that scene I don't think "Severus 
please" works at all as the stunned surprise of a man who's alarmed 
and saddened to see someone he trusts joining up with the very 
people he was so sure he'd abandoned ages ago just because, as I 
think has been discussed before, there's no moment of recognition 
from DD.  If he's been trusting Snape all along and has just learned 
he made a horrible mistake--possibly the worst mistake he could have 
made--then that's got to get a dramatic beat in the scene.  Instead 
Dumbledore please as soon as Snape enters the room.  His 
first "Severus," the one that frightens Harry so much, is right 
after Snape enters.  Amycus is telling Snape Draco doesn't seem to 
be able to do it, and DD breaks in with his first 
pleading, "Severus..."  The "Severus, please..." seems a 
continuation of that, not a totally new, opposite idea.

So I just don't see how dramatically JKR has written this as DD 
having any horrible realizations or realizing anything at all.  One 
of the satisfying things about her writing is the way she lets you 
see stuff that people are doing, but sometimes only later you get 
the true motivation behind it and understand what was really going 
on in the scene.  Snape and DD have a lot unexplained moments--the 
sudden movement, some looks that cross Snape's face during the 
Occlumency lessons, Dumbledore's gleam, etc.  Here we've got a big 
clue on Snape's face, the look of revulsion.  But I think it would 
be cheating in the way JKR doesn't cheat to pass over Dumbledore's 
moment of horror where he realizes the very person he'd been 
trusting can't be trusted.  At the point when DD first begins 
pleading Snape has done nothing to indicate he's a DE, he's just 
entered the room and taken in the scene, which he would do as DDM as 
well.  Dumbledore would not be shocked at Amycus appealing to Snape 
for help, knowing that Snape is a double agent.  

It's still ambiguous.  One could say that perhaps DD knew that Snape 
had been wavering and had changed sides in his heart, so knew that 
when Snape entered the scene he'd want to kill DD, so was just 
counseling him not to do it, knowing Snape will know what he means. 
But I think that's weaker given the way it's written.  Whichever it 
is, what I don't think we've got is any change in DD, or any nasty 
shocks for him, because it's just not written there.  

-m






From papa at marvels.org  Fri Mar  3 21:26:58 2006
From: papa at marvels.org (Ralph Miller)
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 16:26:58 -0500
Subject: Moody  WAS:Leader of Order of the Pheonix -Harry, Moody, Arthur, other
In-Reply-To: <du82lu+e5fi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <42FD968C00045BFC@mta10.wss.scd.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149065

bboyminn: 
... I don't think Harry is in a position to be the official leader of the
Order. ... While it could be Arthur, for the moment I am going to vote for
Mad-Eye Moody.
 
Geoff:
I hope that the suggestion in the last sentence will prove to be the final
"truth". ... Personally, I would not favour seeing Moody as the head of
the OOTP, not because I do not trust his loyalty but because I do not trust
his paranoia.
 
bboyminn:
I do agree about Moody's paranoia being his biggest draw back, but he is
still the most senior member, and the most skilled, experienced, and effective
Dark Wizard fighter. 

Ralph:
Excuse me for being dense, and I don?t have the books handy, but does canon
say that Moody really is paranoid? It?s suggested by characters, but not
borne out by his actions. Remember we have to ignore all actions by the
fake Moody. It seems to me that he thought he might be attacked by DEs so
he took precautions by drinking from a flask etc. Seems to me, considering
what  did happen, that wasn?t paranoia, but foresight.





From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Fri Mar  3 21:31:56 2006
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J)
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 16:31:56 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Trusting Snape - Susan and Tammy
Message-ID: <BAY101-F124F28F748BA5C2B84B54391EA0@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 149066


SSSusan:
>That said, I will point out -- as I've been known to do other times
>in the past <g> -- that NOT all of us DDM!Snapers do all that
>convoluting, twisting & turning stuff!!  For some reason, there seems
>to be a tendency to speak of all DDM!Snapers as if they've claimed
>that Snape is OverallGoodGuy!Snape.  There *are* Snape apologists who
>do that or believe that, but there are also DDM!Snapers, like me, who
>[gasp!] ACKNOWLEDGE Snape's many deep & varied flaws!

PJ:

Maybe they're just the loudest voices and the most determined to "convert" 
others to their way of thinking?  While there may be actually more than a 
couple who see Snape as you see him, you tend to get drowned out by the 
"misunderstood, damaged but inherently good as gold Snape" group.  At least 
for me.  I sometimes sit here wondering if we're all reading the same books!

SSSusan:
><huge snip>on the big stuff, I've always believed Snape was doing 
>essentially what
>DD wanted -- trying to keep Harry protected, attempting to teach him
>Occlumency, etc.  In the big tower scene, I simply believe that DD
>communicated to Snape his desire to have Snape AK him.  Why?  For all
>the reasons stated here many times before: the belief that DD was
>dying anyway and if his death could be used to further the cause, it
>should be; that Snape would be able to convince Voldy of his loyalty
>by murdering DD; that Snape could ensure Draco didn't become a
>murderer and simultaneously take care of that pesky UV by doing the
>deed himself; that Snape could find a way to get the DEs out of
>Hogwarts before they wreaked any further havoc.

PJ:
And here, as I've said,  is where I lose any possibility of agreement on 
DDM!Snape in a *big* way.  I don't believe Snape tried to teach Harry 
occlumency as Dumbledore wished as even DD tells Harry (paraphrased) that he 
didn't count on old wounds getting in the way. and I don't believe 
Dumbledore would ever ask Snape to kill him on the tower.  Dumbledore is 
never said to have killed anyone... vanquished yes, but killed, no.  Why 
would he insist that someone, even an ex DE, do something he wasn't willing 
to do?  Especially if he were already dying?

And while Snape's actions on the tower physically got Draco off of it, it 
did nothing to ensure his *future* in the Wizarding World.  Quite the 
opposite actually.  Now they're both on the run and going to Azkaban if 
caught.  What was the purpose of saving Draco's life simply to see him spend 
it wasted in prison?  That would be so very cruel.

It also does nothing for the House Unity situation other than make the gulf 
between them wider still.  The entire WW will soon know, whether by word of 
mouth or Daily Prophet, that 2 Slytherin Death Eaters (and yes, it will be 
assumed they're both Death Eaters whether they are or not) have conspired to 
kill their beloved headmaster and put the future of Hogwarts in jeapardy.

SSSusan:
>I'm simply reporting the interpretation I
>have come to from reading and responding to what I've read.  The
>assumption that all DDM!Snapers are consciously,
>intentionally "forcing" or "trying to" fit things to some
>pretzelesque theory is objectionable to me.

PJ:

Sorry, I'm not trying to be objectionable at all.  I'm just trying to work 
out the story like everyone else.  :-)

Tammy:

>Aahhhh, NOW I see some of your problems with the
>DDM!group, PJ.  NOW I understand what you were saying when you mentioned
>'twists and turns'.  I see.  It seems that you think that *any and all* DDM
>theorys MUST include the caveat of Innocent!Snape.  That couldn't be 
>further
>from the truth, PJ.  Please, don't group ALL of us DDMers with those
>desperate few who need Snape to be Pure As The Driven Snow.

Sorry I wasn't clearer sooner but I have periodic cognitive difficulties and 
it takes me awhile sometimes to find a way to put my thoughts in order so I 
can get them out in an easily understood manner.  I thought I'd explained my 
thoughts fairly well as I didn't want to seem to be throwing out theory 
roadblocks just for the sake of doing it though that may have appeared to be 
the case anyway.  Believe me, it's frustrating for both of us.     :-)

And yes, I can better understand the basic Snape character both you and 
Susan have brought to the table and, to a degree I could even find points of 
agreement, just not the ones I've mentioned.  :)

PJ





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  3 21:39:20 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 21:39:20 -0000
Subject: Trusting Snape
In-Reply-To: <du9vsi+rd4c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duad28+ec73@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149067

PJ:
<snipped>
 No where does the author tell 
> us that "Severus, please" can't just as easily be the stunned 
> surprise of a man who's alarmed and saddened to see someone he 
> trusts joining up with the very people he was so sure he'd abandoned 
> ages ago. And no where does she say that it's Snape's job per DD's 
> orders to save himself.  Those thoughts are all *I think* and *I 
> surmise* based, I feel, on a need to make Snape better and 1,000 
> times more noble than what the author has ever (in 6 books!)given us 
> on the printed page. 

Carol responds:
"I feel" is not interpretation. It's just your emotional reaction to
an interpretation you don't like. Let's try to look at the actual
canon and interpret it, okay?

*Of course* JKR doesn't say that it's Snape's job to save himself
(which is not exactly what I said, but never mind). She's leaving the
events on the tower, and the conversation in the forest, ambiguous. We
aren't supposed to know (yet) the exact relationship between Snape and
DD, or why DD trusted him, or whether he was right to do so.

*Of course* "Severus, please" could mean what you interpret it to
mean. I said in my original post (which you snipped)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149027
that we don't know what DD means by those words. *Any* interpretation
of "Severus, please" is "*I think* and *I surmise* based," whether the
interpretation supports DDM!, OFH!, or ESE!Snape. We can't get inside
either Snape's or DD's head, only inside Harry's, and he, too, sees
only from the outside. We do, however, know *from canon* that DD is
not afraid of death, which makes it most unlikely, as I said in my
original post, that he's begging Snape not to kill him. We also know,
as I said in my original post, that Snape's wand was not raised when
DD spoke those words. (I can provide an actual quotation with page
number to prove this assertion if you need it.) So, again, it *seems*
most unlikely, not to mention illogical, that DD is asking Snape not
to kill him.

The appellation "DDM!Snape" is not synonymous with "good Snape," It
reflects *only* Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore--nothing else. Please
don't assume that we're all trying to make Snape "1,000 times more
noble" than JKR has shown him to be. Siriusly Snapey Susan has cited
examples of his courage and loyalty to Dumbledore in the text itself.
The OFH! and ESE!Snapers are faced with the necessity of explaining
these away. All interpretations of Snape--yours and mine included--are
based on evidence that is anything but self-explanatory, and all of us
are trying to figure out what it means. All of us are making
assumptions based on our interpretation of the text, drawing tentative
conclusions based on what we have read in the books. The belief that
he's out for himself is just as much an assumption as the belief that
he's Dumbledore's man. What matters is the *canon evidence* for each
position, which I tried to present in my original post and am still
hoping to see from you.

PJ: 
> OFH!Snape doesn't need any reading between the lines at all.  No 
> guesses, no surmises... A straight read from cover to cover exactly 
> what the author has put down on paper. 

Carol responds:
For example? Can you illustrate using the events on the tower? Since
you didn't go upthread as I requested, let me quote my version of what
actually happened so you can explain how it differs from yours:

"Enter Snape, who *cannot* have expected to see a helpless, wandless,
and apparently dying Dumbledore sliding down the wall. Nor, we know,
did he expect Draco to succeed in bringing DEs into Hogwarts. Like DD,
he knew nothing of the Vanishing Cabinet in the RoR. He sees the
second broom and, putting two and two together as only Snape can,
understands that Harry is hiding there in his Invisibility Cloak,
presumably immobilized since he's silent. He sees that Draco has
slightly lowered his wand, and one of the DEs informs him that the boy
can't kill DD. Snape is bound by his UV to save Draco and to "do the
deed" or die. He knows that the moment has come--perhaps he feels
invisible ropes of fire twining around his wrist--and still he does
not act. DD speaks his name and Snape looks at him. A look of hatred
and revulsion crosses his face, but still he does not raise his wand.
Only when DD whispers again, "Severus, please. . . ." does he cast the
spell that sends DD over the battlements."

What do you see here to disagree with, and why? And please note the
"perhaps" in the reference to the "invisible ropes of fire," which I'm
deriving from "Spinner's End," and which are, of course, only
speculation on my part.

PJ: 
> Thankyou for the posting pointers.  I will try to keep them in mind 
> for any future posts, but the problem was, as I mentioned above, 
> that while it was nice to see it all in one place and in one post, 
> it's the same basic arguement that's been wandering around this list 
> since shortly after HBP was released and I thought to save myself 
> some typing at 3am.

Carol:
You're welcome. And I'd suggest not posting at 3 a.m. unless your
brain works more efficiently at that hour than mine!
> 
PJ: 
> What *might* have happened [on the tower]? Here it is...
> 
> If Snape were truly DDM! then he'd have taken Flitwick and a few 
> Aurors/DA up to the tower (since he could get through the barrier)
> and finally come out in the open as DDM!Snape before he died. 

Carol responds:
*Snape* could have gotten through the barrier, but both Tonks and
Lupin tried and failed. I doubt that Flitwick and the Aurors could
have gotten through even if Snape were with him. Moreover, Snape
didn't know what he would find on the tower, only that his time was
short if the UV was about to be activated. Why would he endanger
Flitwick, whom we have seen flying across the room as the result of a
mere banishing spell cast by a student, by bringing him into a room
full of DEs, much less endanger DA members by ordering them to come
with him? Whatever Snape's motives in stupefying Flitwick, Flitwick's
life and those of Hermione and Luna, whom Snape ordered to tend him,
may well have been saved by Snape's action. And note that he didn't
*kill* any of them, as ESE!Snape would certainly have done, and
OFH!Snape might also have done. (Exactly what OFH!Snape has to gain
from anything in "The Lightning-Struck Tower" and "Flight of the
Prince" is unclear to me, but perhaps you can explain what you think
he accomplishes in terms of benefitting himself.)


PJ: The 
> vow would've allowed him to get that far since he was also on his 
> way to rescue Draco as well as to see if he'd done the deed.  

Carol:
Would it? How do you know? Aren't you assuming here? And how is he
supposed to rescue Draco if he arrives accompanied by Order members?
Wouldn't the DEs have murdered him as a traitor on the spot if the UV
didn't kill him?
> 
PJ:
> The tower DE's would've died (including that nasty werewolf)

Carol:
What, Snape would have killed them all off? Or the Order members, who
had already been fighting other DEs, would have defeated the DEs on
the tower, who had not yet been involved in a battle? How do you know?
I think, based on canon evidence, that the Order members could not
even have gotten through the barrier, and if they had, Snape would
have been killed as a traitor the moment he showed his face. Fenrir
Greyback, who had already expressed a desire to kill the weakened
Dumbledore, would have seized that moment to viciously murder him.
After all, that was the job the DEs had been sent to do. Speculation,
of course, but at least as likely as your scenario, which seems to be
entirely based on wishful thinking.

 Harry 
> and Draco would've survived and could've worked it out between 
> themselves (Harry was a witness to DD's promise of hiding Draco's 
> family and could've convinced the order to honor that promise)since 
> now Draco knew he wasn't cut out to be a DE and Harry knew Draco 
> refused to kill DD even though it would mean his family would be 
> killed.  A mutual respect may have had a chance to blossom. <snip>

Carol:
Wishful thinking again. Remember that the moment DD died, Harry would
have been released from his freezing spell and rushed out (as he
always does) to defend the fallen Dumbledore. Do you really think that
the DEs would not have immediately turned their attention on him and
killed him? And what would have kept them from murdering Draco for not
killing Dumbledore himself as ordered? Remember, there's no Snape in
this scenario. He would be dead at this point, either from the vow or
the DEs. So you have maybe Mad-Eye Moody, Flitwick, and Neville or
Luna to fight Fenrir Greyback, the Carrows, and the brutal-faced DE.
Draco, if he were still alive, would probably be frozen with fear and
confusion. We've seen no evidence of his courage and plenty of
evidence of his fear for his life and his enmity toward Harry.

PJ: 
> Dumbledore may have died anyway, but Snape didn't have to kill him.

Carol:
I agree that DD might, and indeed probably would, have died anyway.
But Snape's killing him insured that Draco's soul was undamaged, that
Draco and Harry survived, and that the DEs were removed from the
school--on Snape's orders. What better outcome could be hoped for--for
everyone except Snape himself? DD's sacrifice combined with Snape's
has, as I see it, saved many lives. At any rate, you can't deny that
Snape (whatever his motives) ordered the DEs off the grounds,
preventing them from commiting additional murder and mayhem, and that
Snape saved Harry from the Crucio.

And Snape, as I said earlier, is now deprived of employment, the trust
of the Order and his former colleagues, the freedom to move about in
the WW without being arrested. He has his life, for what it's worth.
But unless he intends to use it to help destroy Voldemort, I don't see
what he has gained *for himself* by saving it.

OFH!Snape is anything but obvious, and I am still waiting for canon
evidence to support it.

Carol, with apologies for repeated posts to the same thread






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  3 21:49:52 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 21:49:52 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP11, Hermione's Helping Hand
In-Reply-To: <du4e0k+l5j9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duadm0+cbec@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149068

> >> Ginger:
> CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: HArry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince,      
> Chapter 11, Hermione's Helping Hand
> <snip of summary>
> Questions:
> <snip>
> Nonverbal spells are now expected, although Harry notes that      
> others are having as much trouble as he is.  Could this be a part 
> of the reason Snape is later annoyed by Harry's inability to cast 
> them by the end of the book?

Betsy Hp:
I think part of Snape's frustration is that of a teacher towards a 
gifted but lazy student.  Harry *should* be able to do nonverbal 
spells by the end of the year.  Plus, as the one expected to take on 
Voldemort, it's a bit disconcerting that Harry can't do this one 
little (respectively) thing.  Personally, I think Harry is blocked 
on the nonverbals like he was on the Accio in GoF.  He just needs to 
work until he breaks through the block.

> <snip>
> What do you think of Hermione's casting the Confundus?

Betsy Hp:
Ooh, I *hated* it! For a couple of reasons. First, it was incredibly 
hypocritical of Hermione to out and out cheat, especially after 
praising Harry for being such an awesome truth teller earlier in the 
chapter.  Second, and this is the big one, she totally and 
completely disrepects Ron here.  Actually, leading into the try outs 
Hermione is *terrible* to Ron.  She either treats him with disdain 
or ignores him.  Ick, not good behavior on her part.  And it leads 
right into Ron's anger when she openly expresses her opinion that 
he's crap at Keeping.

The interesting thing to me is that the Confundus was completely 
unecessary.  Ron *is* a good Keeper.  He proved it in OotP (when 
Harry and Hermione were off on their "Grawp" adventure), and he 
proves it again when Ginny (and I appreciate this about her here) 
gives him a difficult save.

Actually, Hermione disrespects Harry here as well.  She undermines 
his ability as captain to figure out who'd be best on his team.  
Hermione, unfortunately, has bought into her hype.  She's so 
confident in her own cleverness she overlooks the abilities of her 
boys.  Not a good side of Hermione being shown here at all, IMO.

> Stan Shunpike is arrested.  Other than the trio's say-so, do we   
> have any evidence that he is actually innocent?  Their meetings   
> with him have been brief, and the Dark Lord doesn't seem to have a 
> pre-entrance IQ test for his minions.  It is pretty well accepted 
> that this is JKR's way of showing the corruption/ineptitude of the 
> WW government, but how do we, the readers, know that he isn't      
> actually a DE?  How does the trio?  Are we all reacting merely on 
> faith and the narrator's say so?

Betsy Hp:
We don't know about Stan really. We do have to take a bit on faith 
so JKR could write a big twist where Stan turns out to really  be 
guilty.  But I think that would add an extra story line where one is 
not really needed, so I think it's reasonably safe to see Stan as an 
unfortunate scapegoat of the Ministry.  

> <snip>
> He is also boastful of his abilities.  He says that he didn't try 
> out last year due to eating a pound of doxy eggs on a bet and      
> being hospitalized.  One of our brighter listees (and I wish I    
> could remember who so I could give credit) wondered once if F&G   
> hadn't made that bet to help Ron.  We did see them with doxy eggs, 
> and it seems in their nature.  Do you think they did this?  Would 
> Cormac have made the team last year instead of Ron?

Betsy Hp:
I can *totally* see Fred and George placing that bet, though *not* 
to help Ron.  (Did they even know Ron was going to try out?  IIRC 
Ron kept it a secret from most everyone.)  I think they'd do it just 
to keep Cormac off the team.

I'm not sure how necessary that was, however, because Angelina is 
quite open about choosing based on personality as well as talent.  I 
doubt she'd have wanted Cormac on the team either.  Even if he were 
a gifted Keeper, he's not a good team player.

> There is lots of SHIPping foreshadowing in this chapter:          
> Ron/Lavender, Ron/Hermione, Cormac/Hermione.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
It was nice to see Ron being fangirled for a change.  I thought JKR 
handled this relationship rather well.  The giggling and whispering 
and sort-of flirting from Lavender, the confusion and dawning 
appreciation from Ron.  Pretty realistic I thought.

The Ron/Hermione was pretty realistic too, unfortunately.  Hermione 
made the rather common mistake of taking Ron for granted.  I hated 
to see it, but it reads true, I think.

Good questions, Ginger!

Betsy Hp






From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Fri Mar  3 21:58:03 2006
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J)
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 16:58:03 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Trusting Snape
In-Reply-To: <duaa4n+dotf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY101-F2723FEC170E523CB5BCBCB91EA0@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 149069



 > SSSusan:
 > Of course she doesn't tell us what "Severus, please" does or
>doesn't mean!  Doesn't it speak volumes that, after SIX books, people are
 > still scratching their heads and arguing about Severus Snape?

PJ:
<smile>  Yes.  She's having a lot of fun with us.

Magpie:
>Instead Dumbledore please as soon as Snape enters the room.  His
>first "Severus," the one that frightens Harry so much, is right
>after Snape enters.  Amycus is telling Snape Draco doesn't seem to
>be able to do it, and DD breaks in with his first
>pleading, "Severus..."  The "Severus, please..." seems a
>continuation of that, not a totally new, opposite idea.

You're 100% right.  The first "Severus" was, to my mind, relief from a very 
weakened man that now things are ok.  Snape is on the scene and will take 
care of everything.  This works just fine if, as I expect, Dumbledore 
doesn't know about the 3rd provision in the UV.

The second "Severus... please" is where he's expressing his realization that 
no, things are definitely NOT ok and that the man he's trusted and defended 
to everyone for so long is, after all, going to betray him.

Magpie:
><snipped> Here we've got a big
>clue on Snape's face, the look of revulsion.  But I think it would
>be cheating in the way JKR doesn't cheat to pass over Dumbledore's
>moment of horror where he realizes the very person he'd been
>trusting can't be trusted.

Revulsion can be a sign that he's looking at a man who's pulled his strings 
for too many years.  A visible sign that he despises Dumbledore for his 
"weakness" of trying to find the good in everyone and the tendency of seeing 
what he wants to see even if it never existed.

No need for Dumbledore's moment of horror, just a deep abiding sadness in 
his own folly

Magpie:
>It's still ambiguous.

PJ:

Yes, but thankyou for having an open mind about the possibility.    :-)


PJ (3rd and last post for the day)





From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net  Fri Mar  3 22:36:40 2006
From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 22:36:40 -0000
Subject: Trusting Snape - Susan and Tammy
In-Reply-To: <BAY101-F124F28F748BA5C2B84B54391EA0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <duagdo+v4js@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149071

SSSusan earlier:
> > but there are also DDM!Snapers, like me, who [gasp!] ACKNOWLEDGE 
> > Snape's many deep & varied flaws!
 
PJ:
> Maybe they're just the loudest voices and the most determined 
> to "convert" others to their way of thinking?  While there may be 
> actually more than a couple who see Snape as you see him, you tend 
> to get drowned out by the "misunderstood, damaged but inherently 
> good as gold Snape" group.  At least for me.  

SSSusan:
Fair enough.  And as I'm not about trying to convert anyone, maybe I 
don't speak loudly enough. ;-)  Just remember, if you would, that 
there ARE some of us DDM!Snapers out here who don't believe in 
Angelic!Snape!


PJ:
> And here, as I've said,  is where I lose any possibility of 
> agreement on DDM!Snape in a *big* way.  I don't believe Snape 
> tried to teach Harry occlumency as Dumbledore wished as even DD 
> tells Harry (paraphrased) that he didn't count on old wounds 
> getting in the way. 


SSSusan:
I guess I *do* believe that Snape TRIED with Occlumency.  Did he 
succeed?  Nope.  Was Harry at least partly to blame for the 
failure?  I believe so.  But Snape, imo, came as close as we'd ever 
seen to that point in the series to actually attempting to answer 
some questions for Harry, to actually explaining things somewhat, 
and to even **almost** complimenting him (as close as Snape could 
likely ever come! <g>).  So, yeah, it was a failure, and I think it 
speaks to one of those failings of character in Snape that I 
mentioned before, that he was unable to set aside those old 
wounds... but in my view the evidence points to Snape's actually 
*trying* to do DD's wishes... at least at first.


PJ:
> and I don't believe Dumbledore would ever ask Snape to kill him on 
> the tower.  Dumbledore is never said to have killed anyone... 
> vanquished yes, but killed, no.  Why would he insist that someone, 
> even an ex DE, do something he wasn't willing to do?  Especially 
> if he were already dying?

SSSusan:
Yes, this is where a lot of people get "tripped up" on the DDM!Snape 
position (hi, Alla! :-)).  My response is always the same:  remember 
that DD *did* confirm to Harry, when Harry asked, "Does this mean 
that one of us has to kill the other?" that the answer was, in his 
opinion, YES.  I fully believe that DD is pragmatic when it comes to 
war.  One must make the right choice, even if it is horrendously 
difficult, and war certainly often presents us with horrendously 
difficult choices. I think he might well have believed that in war 
killing *is* necessary... and, for the reasons I already spelled out 
previously, might have seen in his own death an opportunity for the 
cause to be advanced, even at the awful cost of his own life.

(And for those who really strongly desire to see Snape punished, 
I've always pointed out that, if he *is* DDM and truly cared about 
the man, and truly wanted to leave behind his DE days, DD's 
presenting him with this awful choice might be just the 
painful "comeuppance" or punishment that Snape "deserved!")


PJ:
> And while Snape's actions on the tower physically got Draco off of 
> it, it did nothing to ensure his *future* in the Wizarding World.  
> Quite the opposite actually.  Now they're both on the run and 
> going to Azkaban if caught.  What was the purpose of saving 
> Draco's life simply to see him spend it wasted in prison?  That 
> would be so very cruel.

SSSusan:
At the risk of sounding trite, the purpose would have been to save 
Draco's SOUL, even if it put his LIFE at risk.  

I believe that DD believed that Draco was not yet a lost cause, that 
there was a chance he could be stopped from going down the path his 
father had taken.  Saving Draco's life, even if he would still be in 
danger, would be worth it if, in the process, Draco "saw the light" 
and elected not to go down the DE path.


PJ:
> It also does nothing for the House Unity situation other than make 
> the gulf between them wider still.  The entire WW will soon know, 
> whether by word of mouth or Daily Prophet, that 2 Slytherin Death 
> Eaters (and yes, it will be assumed they're both Death Eaters 
> whether they are or not) have conspired to kill their beloved 
> headmaster and put the future of Hogwarts in jeapardy.

SSSusan:
Yep, I'll grant you this one.  AND the fact that Harry's farther 
away than ever from being willing to listen to Snape and/or to work 
with him.

Again, all I can say is that, presented the options in that moment, 
I think DD went with what he saw as the best, if still imperfect, 
choice.

 
PJ:
> Sorry, I'm not trying to be objectionable at all.  I'm just trying 
> to work out the story like everyone else.  :-)

SSSusan:
Yep, that's what we all come down to. :-)

Siriusly Snapey Susan, wondering just HOW LONG before JKR puts us 
out of our misery.








From belviso at attglobal.net  Fri Mar  3 22:40:20 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 22:40:20 -0000
Subject: Trusting Snape
In-Reply-To: <BAY101-F2723FEC170E523CB5BCBCB91EA0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <duagkk+6t42@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149072

> PJ:
> You're 100% right.  The first "Severus" was, to my mind, relief
from a very
> weakened man that now things are ok.  Snape is on the scene and
will take
> care of everything.  This works just fine if, as I expect,
Dumbledore
> doesn't know about the 3rd provision in the UV.
>
> The second "Severus... please" is where he's expressing his
realization that
> no, things are definitely NOT ok and that the man he's trusted and
defended
> to everyone for so long is, after all, going to betray him.
...

> No need for Dumbledore's moment of horror, just a deep abiding
sadness in
> his own folly

Magpie:
But I think it does have to be there.  If Dumbledore thinks the
Snape who's come through the door is going to save him, and then
realizes, based on the look of revulsion and horror on Snape's face,
that in fact he's going to betray him, then we're talking about
probably one of the worst moments and most tragic mistakes of
Dumbledore's life.  I just don't think there's any way those two
lines can contain such a huge moment between them with no sign of it
from Dumbledore.  Dramatically, it's a huge shift in the scene.  I
imagine it would be very hard for an actor to play it this way
without clearly showing the betrayal.  The first "Severus..." isn't 
relief, it's already pleading.  The second "Severus, please..." has 
no description, no change in tone noted.

So I do think JKR has purposefully left the door open to an
interpretation where Snape is a DE (it's Harry's interpretation,
after all), I don't think she'd just have the moment of DD's
realization happen "offscreen" to also leave the door open to the
DDM!Interpretation. Her way of writing peoples' motivations and the
signs of those motivations has always been very clear and
straightforward.  She sometimes makes something look like one thing
when it really is something else, or throws in things that aren't
explained (Snape's sudden move, DD's gleam, etc.) but I don't think
she'd cheat by leaving it out.  This scene, to me, is written as
intentionally ambiguous from Harry's pov.  Without knowledge of the
true relationship between DD and Snape Harry can't really know
what's going on before his eyes here, and I think one of the reasons
for that is that what's going on seems to point to DD being wrong
about Snape, but DD not quite acting like that's what's going on
while Snape seems intentionally neutral in all his actions, strictly
business except for that look of hatred.  (And in the past I think
Snape has been established as someone who would take the opportunity
to speak up if he was really betraying DD here.)

-m







From miles at martinbraeutigam.de  Fri Mar  3 23:07:17 2006
From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles)
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 00:07:17 +0100
Subject: Blood on DD face again WAS: Re: Is Snape good or evil?
References: <du8b2g+mtn7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00b301c63f17$381c3c10$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>

No: HPFGUIDX 149073

dumbledore11214 wrote:
> Conclusive? Sorry, but who determined with absolute certainty that
> Dumbledore's body who was just killed with Avada ( that is just my
> opinion of course) cannot bleed right after the fall. <snip> I mean,
> blood on DD IS a fact, but that he was not killed by Avada is NOT a
> fact.

Miles:
I agree with Alla here. We have no idea of the way the AK works. For
example, it could simply stop the function of the brain - which would have
the effect, that the heart will would several times after the AK If so, the
dead body of a person that has been killed by an AK could bleed, for example
right after falling down a tower.

My personal impression is, that the blood on Dumbledore's face is on his
face to enable Harry to wipe it off, which is a very impressive detail in
this scene.

Miles




From miles at martinbraeutigam.de  Fri Mar  3 23:11:23 2006
From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles)
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 00:11:23 +0100
Subject: re DID Snape want the DADA job
References: <du2m8k+bvpf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00c101c63f17$cae6aa30$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>

No: HPFGUIDX 149074

Miles:
> <snip>
> But your solution - Suicide!Snape - is not supported by any
> single bit of canon, it is just a possible solution for the
> mystery of Snape taking the DADA job - but only if you forget the
> most obvious solution:  Snape never applied for the job, and DD
> never refused to give it to him.

> Betsy Hp:
> Then how did Umbridge get the information onto her little clip-board
> of doom?  I was under the impression she was going by a tangible
> paper-
> trail.

Miles:
Ahm, why shouldn't she just have her own notes on her clipboard? Every
single student in Hogwarts seems to "know" about 'Snape wants the DADA job',
and she interviewed several students, especially Slytherins. No surprise
that she "knows" about Snape's career plans.

Miles




From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  3 17:22:04 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 17:22:04 -0000
Subject: Blood on DD face again WAS: Re: Is Snape good or evil?
In-Reply-To: <du9oso+9hs8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du9tvs+kqbm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149075

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:

> 
> I ask you, how could the blood have dried if it's a  trickle?
> How could it have dried if Harry wiped it with his sleeve?
> 
> It feels really strange to find a non-ambiguous
> clue in the text, almost like cheating. But I just don't see any
> any ambiguity there.
> 
> You could say that she meant a 'dried-up trickle' and that she 
> forgot blood already dried in Dumbledore's beard wouldn't
> wipe. Or that she forgot blood would dry in half an hour.
> But that's Flinty, IMO. 
> 

Hmmm.  I don't find anything strange about it.  It may well be that 
this isn't very much in keeping with how blood acts/dries/whatever in 
the real world.  But I'm not very knowledgable about how fast blood 
dries, under what circumstances one would or would not expect blood to 
be expelled from a very recently dead body, or how easy it is or is 
not to wipe blood in a particular stage of coagulation from human 
hair.  And here's the thing, I very seriously doubt that JKR is 
knowledgable on these issues, either.  She isn't a mystery writer in 
the police-procedureal subgenre, who might reasonably be expected to 
have knowledge of modern forensics.

Here's a related issue:  What can be fairly called a Flint?  I would 
say that a Flint is "a fault or contradiction of fact that any 
reasonably careful and knowledgable person would see as a fault or 
contradiction."  I would argue that a Flint is NOT "a fault or a 
contradiction requiring specialized or unusual knowledge to 
appreciate, nor is it a fault or contradiction that requires 
extraordinarily careful reading to appreciate."  Sort of a "reasonable 
man standard" to invoke a legal analogy.  Thus the fact that a 
character is described as a seventh year student two years in a row is 
a Flint.  The fact that Harry relinquishes the Marauder's Map in one 
book and suddenly has it back in the next is a Flint.  The facts that 
some of JKR's spells are not phrased in grammatically correct Latin, 
that the speed of owls varies tremendously from one message to 
another, or that blood does not act in forensically correct ways are 
not, I think, Flints as all require specialized knowledge or 
extraordinarily careful readings to catch.


Lupinlore









From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  3 17:04:40 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 17:04:40 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice
In-Reply-To: <du8mp5+f2qt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du9sv8+t1g4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149076

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" <sydpad at ...> wrote:
<SNIP>
> 
> And everyone embraces in one harmonious group hug! It's so 
thematic I
> can't stand it!!  LOL... I'm telling you, there's one thing I'm 
pretty
> sure of.  And that is, when Book 7 comes out, the Snape-lovers and 
the
> Snape-haters will come together upon this neutral ground, and they
> will say unto one another:  "See?!  It's just as I was saying all
> along!!"  
> 

I doubt it.  I think you may be right that the MAJORITY of people 
will be able to accept this kind of outcome, with reservations here 
and there.  But there are a lot of people -- not the majority, but a 
lot -- who are deeply invested in the idea of some kind of final 
BANGS that will reveal much of what we've been told as being 
smokescreen or misdirection -- that is, Snape didn't REALLY kill 
Dumbledore, Snape doesn't REALLY hate Harry it's all an act, Snape 
isn't REALLY an unfair teacher its just Harry's POV, Dumbledore 
didn't REALLY make mistakes it's all part of his brilliant master 
plan,  Dumbledore and Snape don't REALLY disagree about love it's 
just good cop/bad cop, etc.  Those people probably would not find 
this solution congenial.


> *Sydney is downright concerned for poor innocent Lupinlore, so
> defenseless against the patently sane, intelligent, and
> all-too-motivated villains she comes across in daily life!*

Why thank you, :-).  But I don't come across any villains most days -
- and as I've worked for the Dept of Defense for quite some time, 
and for academia before that, that's saying a lot.  And here is 
where we come to the question of semantics.  Ask twelve people for 
the definition of a villain, and you'll get at least 48 answers, and 
maybe 96 depending on the phase of the moon.    


Lupinlore, who now must get back to faxing some forms to support 
some people who support some people who support some people who kill 
some people providing its their turn in the rotation













From deeoblockedo at yahoo.co.uk  Fri Mar  3 10:46:44 2006
From: deeoblockedo at yahoo.co.uk (Dervla ONeill)
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 10:46:44 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Secret Keeper for Leader of Order of the Pheonix
In-Reply-To: <du82lu+e5fi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060303104644.94603.qmail@web86915.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149077

Hi all
   
  I was just thinking - who will know be the secret keeper for OOtP HQ?  Now that Dumbledore is dead can Snape (or anyone else for that matter) now reveal its whereabouts to a DeathEater or Voldemort?  Or does the role of Secret Keeper be passed down through generations in a will like Sirius'?  If so who do you think Dumbledore would pass on the duty too?
   
  Dervla - thinkin that its time she started to do some work

		






From maria8162001 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  3 12:20:37 2006
From: maria8162001 at yahoo.com (Maria Vaerewijck)
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 04:20:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Leader of Order of the Pheonix -Harry, Moody, Arthur, other
In-Reply-To: <du7lja+t0jm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060303122037.5294.qmail@web53209.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149078

Steve wrote:    
 While it
could be Arthur, for the moment I am going to vote for Mad-Eye Moody.
I'm not against the new leader being Arthur, I just think Moody is
more qualified. Either way, regardless of who the appointed leader is,
I think functionally, people will turn toward Harry for direction.

maria8162001:
   
I will go for Mad Eye Moody too or MM and I'm also not 
against Arthur becoming the new leader but the question 
is would Molly want him take the position as the new leader
of the OOTP? We know Molly she's so afraid about her family's
safety, aading the fact with what had happened to Bill. So I 
don't think even if Arthur would want it, Molly would talk him
out of it. She knows being a leadr of the OOTP is dangerous. 
Just my thought.
   
  


 



		





From enlil65 at gmail.com  Fri Mar  3 19:21:14 2006
From: enlil65 at gmail.com (Peggy Wilkins)
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 13:21:14 -0600
Subject: Trusting Snape
In-Reply-To: <du9vsi+rd4c@eGroups.com>
References: <du9p5j+kbgg@eGroups.com> <du9vsi+rd4c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1789c2360603031121y514f4479xa15120f24da9baf2@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149080

PJ <midnightowl6 at hotmail.com> wrote:

> What *might* have happened? Here it is...
>
> If Snape were truly DDM! then he'd have taken Flitwick and a few
> Aurors/DA up to the tower (since he could get through the barrier)
> and finally come out in the open as DDM!Snape before he died.  The
> vow would've allowed him to get that far since he was also on his
> way to rescue Draco as well as to see if he'd done the deed.
[snip]
> Dumbledore may have died anyway, but Snape didn't have to kill him.

Peggy wrote:
You are saying DDM!Snape didn't have to kill (or rather, wouldn't have
killed) Dumbledore.  The inevitable result of this is that DDM!Snape
would have died because of his vow.  Aren't you making the assumption
that Harry can defeat Voldemort without Snape, then, because Snape is
at this point dead?

I fall in the DDM!Snape camp, and there is only one reason that I do:
because I believe that Snape is part of Dumbledore's plan to defeat
Voldemort, and that Snape must be there to help Harry in the end, in
Voldemort's presence.  Dumbledore can't do that because he is
Voldemort's enemy.  Snape can do it because he is accepted by
Voldemort as being on Voldemort's side.  This makes Snape's presence
in Voldemort's camp both strategic, and required.  This is why
Dumbledore would be expendable, and why Snape is not (at this point,
yet) expendable.

Surely there's some reason that Snape has been written to appear so
ambiguous, and I think this makes for a very good reason.

--
Peggy Wilkins
enlil65 at gmail.com





From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Sat Mar  4 01:23:49 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 01:23:49 -0000
Subject: Leader of Order of the Pheonix -Harry, Moody, Arthur, other
In-Reply-To: <20060303122037.5294.qmail@web53209.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <duaq75+ftgh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149081

Steve wrote:    
>  While it
> could be Arthur, for the moment I am going to vote for Mad-Eye Moody.
> I'm not against the new leader being Arthur, I just think Moody is
> more qualified. Either way, regardless of who the appointed leader is,
> I think functionally, people will turn toward Harry for direction.

maria8162001:
>    
> I will go for Mad Eye Moody too or MM and I'm also not 
> against Arthur becoming the new leader but the question 
> is would Molly want him take the position as the new leader
> of the OOTP? *(snip)*

Ceridwen:
I'm leaning in the direction of the members acting as an equal 
coalition, with each member stepping up to direct whenever his or her 
speciality is needed.  I think I read this, or a version of it, on Red 
Hen, and it seemed reasonable to me.  Who could take Dumbledore's place?

Ceridwen.







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  4 02:00:12 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 02:00:12 -0000
Subject: Trusting Snape
In-Reply-To: <8C80D0B6B2095AD-AA8-7863@MBLK-M39.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <duasbc+71gu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149082

> Julie:
<SNIP>
> While I respect
> the divergent opinions on whether Snape is DDM, ESE, OFH, or one of
> a dozen other things, the one argument that is not valid in JKR's
> world is that something must be so (Snape is ESE) simply because
> it seems so. Far too many things aren't!

Alla:

Well, yeah, some things aren't what they seem, but don't you think 
that things that supposedly can be at the heart of the final 
resolution indeed ARE what they seem?

I think Nora brought up Prophecy recently. I know I was definitely 
among those people who said "That's it? That is why Voldemort is 
after Harry?" Don't get me wrong, I was most definitely NOT 
dissapointed as to how JKR went more into " Prophecy matters only 
because Voldemort chose to believe it" in HBP, but after I read OOP 
I was definitely having "that's it" moment.

What saved Harry in the MoM? His heart. What is this mysterious 
power that will help him defeat Voldemort? Love, just love, simply 
love and nothing else. Remember how many intricate speculations were 
offered as to what this power is before HBP?

And while I AM very happy that this is just love and nothing else, I 
was certainly thinking that maybe it will be something more 
convoluted than that.

What I am trying to say? That IMO if Harry/Snape conflict indeed 
will be one of those things that will lead us to final resolution of 
the books then things could be indeed pretty much how they seem.

I mean, we will learn Snape's motivations, sure, but I think that 
what played out on the Tower would be mainly what we saw.

 SSSusan butts in:
<SNIP>
> That said, I will point out -- as I've been known to do other 
times 
> in the past <g> -- that NOT all of us DDM!Snapers do all that 
> convoluting, twisting & turning stuff!!  For some reason, there 
seems 
> to be a tendency to speak of all DDM!Snapers as if they've claimed 
> that Snape is OverallGoodGuy!Snape.  There *are* Snape apologists 
who 
> do that or believe that, but there are also DDM!Snapers, like me, 
who 
> [gasp!] ACKNOWLEDGE Snape's many deep & varied flaws!  

Alla:

Yes, dear, I know YOU don't do that. Haven't I told you in the 
recent past that I will be able to live with your version of DD!M 
Snape? :-)  No, it won't be my favorite outcome, but at least there 
are indeed no twists and turns in your position to make Severus a 
Saint one :-)

You know, the noble teacher, who suffers a lot to teach this 
ungrateful brat Harry, A LOT, I mean. Oh, and he of course had no 
clue what prophecy meant when he reported it to Voldemort. You know, 
THAT kind of Snape I REALLY despise because I think he does not 
exist in canon. Just my opinion of course.

Now, if only I could hypnotise myself into believing that DD could 
ask Snape to kill him and I can accept your position for the most 
parts :-)

IMO of course,

Alla







From babyhrndz at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  3 17:58:40 2006
From: babyhrndz at yahoo.com (Amanda Shoffner)
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 09:58:40 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Dumbledore returns
In-Reply-To: <du8ocu+2ltj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060303175840.11228.qmail@web30808.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149083

Adi:
<snip>In the OOTP, Nearly Headless Nick told 
Harry that some people agree to stay on in this
world and they become ghosts. Will Dumbledore 
do that?<snip>
  <snip>
the difference between ghosts and

photographs:
photographs can move and seem 
to have the stamp of personality on them,
their compass seems to be limited. Whereas
 ghosts seem to be the people themselves, 
with their entire characters in tact, except
 of course corporeality. <snip>

Amanda:
I think a way of getting around the inability
of the painting to go wherever Harry goes without
removing the painting from Hogwarts would be to 
utilize the mirrors Sirius? mirrors and place one
mirror in front of DD?s picture and HP carry the 
other.
IMO I think we have not heard the last of DD either
it be through him not truly being dead, ghost, 
painting, or something else JR gives us.
IMO we will be seeing a lot of those mirrors 
in book 7
~Amanda
   

		






From kchuplis at alltel.net  Sat Mar  4 02:52:05 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen)
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 20:52:05 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Blood on DD face again WAS: Re: Is Snape good or evil?
In-Reply-To: <du9tvs+kqbm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <DD864382-AB29-11DA-8E1C-000393B04DDE@alltel.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 149084


On Friday, March 3, 2006, at 11:22 AM, lupinlore wrote:

>  The fact that Harry relinquishes the Marauder's Map in one
> book and suddenly has it back in the next is a Flint.

kchuplis:

I've never understood why this is a bone of contention either. The map 
was in fake!Moody's office. Like DD wouldn't have that returned to 
Harry, just like the cape? Just because it is not shown in a scene does 
not mean it is a mistake.




From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  4 03:23:19 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 03:23:19 -0000
Subject: Trusting Snape - Susan and Tammy
In-Reply-To: <duagdo+v4js@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dub177+gvat@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149085

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" 
<susiequsie23 at ...> wrote:
<SNIP>
> 
> 
 So, yeah, it was a failure, and I think it 
> speaks to one of those failings of character in Snape that I 
> mentioned before, that he was unable to set aside those old 
> wounds... but in my view the evidence points to Snape's actually 
> *trying* to do DD's wishes... at least at first.

I do think that, when looking at Occlumency, you have to go farther 
than just Snape and Harry.  Some people argue for Sirius having some 
guilt via his confrontation with Snape.  I suppose that might be so, 
but any guilt Sirius might have is minor indeed.  I think Dumbledore 
is correct in that most of the blame certainly belongs to him.  But 
it is likely he goes too far.  In trying to take all the blame, he 
only piles annoyance and frustration onto the situation.  There is no 
way that Harry is going to release Snape from part of the blame, nor 
should he.  Dumbledore seems doomed to constantly bumble in this 
regard, managing only to add frustration and annoyance to the 
Snape/Harry dynamic.  Harry will not trust Snape on DD's say-so, and 
Snape will not meekly accept his assignment with regard to Harry 
simply because DD tells him it's necessary.



> 
> (And for those who really strongly desire to see Snape punished, 
> I've always pointed out that, if he *is* DDM and truly cared about 
> the man, and truly wanted to leave behind his DE days, DD's 
> presenting him with this awful choice might be just the 
> painful "comeuppance" or punishment that Snape "deserved!")

Oh, no, no, and not only no but H*ll no! IMO, Snape's situation from 
killing Dumbledore no more amounts to an appropriate punishment for 
his abuse of Harry and Neville than Voldy's unpopularity is an 
appropriate punishment for his abuse of the two boys.  If JKR is not 
to avoid speaking tacitly in favor of the abuse of children, Snape's 
punishment for his treatment of Harry and Neville must be clear, 
unequivocal, and directly linked to his reprehensible actions.
> 

Lupinlore











From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  4 04:10:55 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 04:10:55 -0000
Subject: Trusting Snape - Susan and Tammy
In-Reply-To: <dub177+gvat@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dub40f+l2c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149086

SSSusan wrote:

> > (And for those who really strongly desire to see Snape punished, 
> > I've always pointed out that, if he *is* DDM and truly cared 
about 
> > the man, and truly wanted to leave behind his DE days, DD's 
> > presenting him with this awful choice might be just the 
> > painful "comeuppance" or punishment that Snape "deserved!")

Lupinlore: 
> Oh, no, no, and not only no but H*ll no! IMO, Snape's situation 
from 
> killing Dumbledore no more amounts to an appropriate punishment 
for 
> his abuse of Harry and Neville than Voldy's unpopularity is an 
> appropriate punishment for his abuse of the two boys.  If JKR is 
not 
> to avoid speaking tacitly in favor of the abuse of children, 
Snape's 
> punishment for his treatment of Harry and Neville must be clear, 
> unequivocal, and directly linked to his reprehensible actions.

Alla:

You know me, Lupinlore. I am a BIG fan of carmic punishment too :-). 
But I think there is one scenario under which Snape is DD!M and 
Dumbledore's death can work as  carmic punishment.

Now, I am putting aside for a second my general disagreement with DD 
asking Snape to kill him. 

I am sure it was advanced before ( after all it seems like all 
possibilities had been raised and hopefully JKR will surprise us 
with totally new one at the end :-)), but I don't remember the 
author and in any event, I sort of thought about it too.

Now, Dumbledore is dead in this scenario, really and truly dead and 
Snape killed him. Actually Snape can kill him either on DD's orders 
or not ( Severely Siguine story), just because he thought that he is 
more valuable for the cause alive.

So, what does this Snape want most of all? Completely DD!M Snape of 
course? To get rid of Voldemort and who can give him the possibility?

Harry obviously can, but erm... how very likely Harry is to do that, 
after watching Snape murder his beloved mentor? How very likely 
Harry is to trust Snape AT ALL? How very likely Harry is to LISTEN 
to the man, who seems to be mixed into worst, most traumatic events 
of his life?

Let's count - Snape helped to set Voldemort after Potters, Snape MAY 
be mixed into Sirius' death and Snape AKed (IMO of course) 
Dumbledore. Oh, and from the moment Harry showed up in Hogwarts, 
Snape did not treat him erm...well. 
Yep, just the person Harry will be inclined to trust easily, NOT.

Lupinlore, don't you think that Snape trying to CONVINCE Harry to 
trust him, to trust him that he is really loyal to the Light would 
be very nice carmic punishment which is quite nicely tied into years 
of abuse (IMO) Snape dished at him, since because of those years 
Harry will not be inclined to cut Snape a slack, loyal to DD or not? 
How is DD death plays into it? Well, obviously there is no 
Dumbledore to vouch for Snape to Harry anymore and Snape has to do 
the convincing all on his own.

Yep, I think I will even take this conversation as carmic punishment 
for Snape. Not that this would be my favorite one, but I think it 
can play out nicely too.

JMO,

Alla






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sat Mar  4 05:22:40 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 05:22:40 -0000
Subject: Flints (was Blood on DD face again WAS: Re: Is Snape good or evil?
In-Reply-To: <DD864382-AB29-11DA-8E1C-000393B04DDE@alltel.net>
Message-ID: <dub870+74g3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149087


> kchuplis:
> 
> I've never understood why this is a bone of contention either. The 
map 
> was in fake!Moody's office. Like DD wouldn't have that returned to 
> Harry, just like the cape? Just because it is not shown in a scene 
does 
> not mean it is a mistake.


Potioncat:
It's a flint if it's a mistake. I wouldn't call the map a flint. It 
would be a flint if we saw Crouch!Moody destroy it in one book, but 
Harry had it in another. The fact that we didn't see him get it doesn't 
make it a flint. Poor transition, perhaps.

The flints that I can think of, have more to do with dates and ages. It 
seems like the membership of the Slytherin gang involve a flint because 
the ages don't work out. The real age of the oldest Weasley sons is a 
flint because the events and their ages don't work out together. (At 
least I think that was the general conclusion, I long ago gave up on 
Weasley ages.)

The Black family tree has a number of flints.

Has anyone actually made a list of flints? 

Potioncat








From tropicwhale at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  3 23:32:45 2006
From: tropicwhale at yahoo.com (Kristin Hessenauer)
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 15:32:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Whose side is Snape on, anyway?
Message-ID: <20060303233245.13141.qmail@web33201.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149088

unlikely2:

>> <snip> Can I suggest another reason why I think that Snape is good?

When Harry nearly kills Draco, Snape saves him and it is the intimate 
manner of his doing so that I find interesting. Singing. Not a potion 
but something from and of himself. And it is the cure for his own 
damaging spell. It is this act that the sorrowful song of the phoenix 
brings to my mind. <snip> <<

   
  I've never considered that as an option, it is interesting, and 
singing is how Fawkes healed so why not Snape as well. In Celtic and 
other mythologies "chants" are used to dregged up power and 'stop' 
death. Although, one must consider why Snape created the "Sectumsempra" 
spell to begin with..."use on enemies" the note said so who was the 
spell meant for?
   
  _Tropic_

		





From h2so3f at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  4 05:41:14 2006
From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f)
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 05:41:14 -0000
Subject: Disrupted NEWTs and OWLs (Was: MM as leader, Harry at Hogwarts)
In-Reply-To: <du4lq0+4g0r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dub99q+kp46@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149089

Carol wrote:  <SNIP> 
"Regarding NEWTs--and OWLs: The students who were in their fifth or 
seventh year in HBP, including Ginny and Luna, were unable to take 
their exams because DD's death disrupted everything. Many stayed in 
school long enough to attend his funeral, but the exams weren't 
held. Any ideas as to what will happen to these students? "


Ceridwen wrote: <SNIP>
"I think that arrangements could be made for these students to take 
their exams at the MoM or another suitable WW location during the 
summer. And, some may have already taken their exams by the end of 
the book. Students had been pulled out of the school before 
Dumbledore's funeral, and accomodations would have had to be made 
for them if not for anyone else." 


CH3ed:
I agree with Ceridwen that Ministry could arrange for the NEWTs and 
OWLs to take place at one of the MoM's rooms later. The White Tomb 
begins with; "All lessons were suspended, all examinations 
postponed." (HBP American Hardback p.633), so we know the exams were 
put off until further noticed but not canceled. Besides, if NEWTs 
are like OWLs in that they are administered by non-Hogswart 
instructors, then the closing of the school shouldn't cause more 
than a change of exam venue and date, I think. Perhaps we will get 
to hear about Ginny and Luna taking their OWLs and having a chat 
with Prof. Marchbanks about how DD used to do things... or perhaps 
hear her comment about how the brilliant Tom Riddle, Jr did things, 
which could give Harry more clue about how to look for traces of LV 
magic?

CH3ed is slowly catching up with post volume.... one at a time. ;O)







From sydpad at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  4 05:59:21 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 05:59:21 -0000
Subject: Villains in Storytelling, WAS Snape Survey
In-Reply-To: <du9sv8+t1g4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dubabp+5muq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149090



Sigh. Well, here goes another hour of my life I really ought to spend
doing something productive...  

In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" <rdoliver30 at ...> wrote:

>Ask twelve people for 
> the definition of a villain, and you'll get at least 48 answers, and 
> maybe 96 depending on the phase of the moon.    
Yes, you may well.  You may also get that many answers for the
definition of 'lasagna'.  However, we were speaking of something 
very specific, which is villains in stories, specifically children's
stories, which happens to be not an idle question for me.  
In fact, there are years on end when villains in children's stories
are my bread and butter.  I'm in animation, see, and many's the day I
have to ask myself, what do we talk about when we talk about villains?

A villain is an antagonist that the structure of the story demands the
hero destroy, neutralize, or otherwise exile from the community in
order for the story to finish.  By definition, that's a character that
can't be reconciled with the hero, or allowed to continue to have any
power at all, because the story cannot come to a rest until he is
stopped, period.  By no means all stories have villains.  What all
stories DO have is antagonists-- which, to also get technical, are
characters that provide an opposing force to hero and so cause him or
her to generate action back.  Different kinds of antagonists create
different story dynamics, obviously, which have different sorts of
effects on their hero.

To go back a bit:  a story is a series of forces, which are generally
emotions expressed as actions, that follow one upon the other until
they result in a satisfactory state of rest.  Creating a composition
of these forces that is dynamic, clear, powerful, and satisfying, is
needless to say so unbelievably difficult that the film industry
manages to produce one good story aproximately every ten years.  This
is why usually we just steal them from other people. 

Now any story (classically speaking) is about Our Hero, the
protagonist, who, for the sake of telling this story for a reason,
begins in a state which is stable but incomplete.  We wish to make him
UNstable, so that he will do something.  Naturally when you want to
make life unpleasant for somebody, the very first thing that comes to
mind is to create an unpleasant person whose sole goal in life will be
to push our hero around and make our story happen. Enter the Villain.
 And sure enough, if writers are lazy, stupid, or most likely,
sensibly just phoning it in while they check their stock options, they
just leave it at that.  The Villain will keep pushing the Hero, until
the Hero takes whatever action results in a very cool explosion at
some point, and then we have to drop the Villain off a cliff or
something because seeing as his basic and only purpose in life is to
make the hero miserable, otherwise he's just going to keep going like
a tin toy with energizer batteries and the story can't end.

Now if we go so far as to call a meeting about this guy, we'll
probably try to artfully arrange some fig leaves around so as to
create an illusion that he has motivations of his own.  Often this can
actually work really well, at least in so far as making a very
entertaining story.  One of the characteristics of a villain, after
all, is that they are not restrained by social conventions, otherwise
they'd leave our poor hero alone out of sheer embarassment.  So you
can go crazy and create big personalities, like Cruella de Vil, and
who would want to live in a world without her?  To me that's a perfect
villain-- she's crazy fun, she creates great situations, and she's got
this bizzare yet utterly simple and logical motivation of really,
really wanting a puppy-skin coat.  Which is problematic if you're a
puppy.  That story tells itself!

There's a problem with villains though, and that's that they can be a
waste of a really good antagonist. 

Did you know that when "Toy Story" was in early development, it was
about this heroic space toy Bud Lightyear, whose life in Andy's room
was made miserable by a villainous cowboy toy who was jealous of him?
 No, really.  But the more the story guys worked on claryifing Woody's
motivations, the more they started to see where he was coming from,
the more they identified with his anxieties about being replaced by
someone younger and cooler-- a constant keep-up-at-nighter for people
in animation, let me tell you.  Suddenly he stopped feeling like a
villain.  He became--gasp!-- an actual character!  They took it so far
as to actually change protagonists, but anyways they wound up with
what to me makes a real story that you can sink your teeth into, where
protagonist and antagonist push and pull on each other, creating rich
and ambiguous situations.  You can take a protagonist in far more
interesting directions when you open up the possiblity of
RECONCILIATION, rather than DEFEAT of the antagonist, because it pulls
a great deal more out of the hero internally.  The forces of the story
have to reach a balance, rather than one just plain pushing the other
one out of the picture.  "Toy Story" was the first animation
screenplay to be nominatated for an Oscar, and altough I enjoyed
"Usual Suspects", as far as I'm concerned, "Toy Story" was robbed of
the prize. 

What were we talking about?  Oh, yeah!  Harry Potter!

I actually read "Philosopher's Stone" for work-- at Warner's, as a
matter of fact, when it was distributed to our departement as The Next
Big Thing and More of This Please.  I thought it was okay-- certainly
very imaginative, but I'd read many a better children's fantasy.  And
then I hit the bit where the villain WASN'T Snape.  And boy did that
get my attention, because it wasn't just a way of delivering a random
shock ending-- it was saying, 'this story isn't villain-driven.  It's
antagonist-driven'.  Going back to the beginning and reading it that
way, it woke me up to all the different levels that were going on, and
it totally hooked me.  Five books later, it's not
jusantagonist-driven, it's one of the unique and original
antagonist-protagonist relationships I've ever seen, which may perhaps
explain all the suspiciously Snape-like antagonists that are going to
start popping up the movies as stuff that got develped round about
when PoA came out starts hitting the screens. 

To make this post REALLY long.. when I first complained about
villain-driven stories on this board a few weeks ago, several people
sensibly asked, what about Voldemort?  I started and stopped several
posts, but I couln't find a good place to start, but this is actually
a pretty good place, so I'll just go on...

Basically, I don't think Voldemort is a villain at all, at least what
I define as a Villain.

There's another type of antagonist who is something beyond a Villain,
and that is the Monster.  Monster stories are very, very ancient and
far predate even the classical Greek story structure, which is the one
we still essentially follow today.  You can tell a story with a
monster in it because, while a lot or even most of the scenes are
perfectly normal, when the monster appears a nightmarish sense of
inevitabilty and helplessness seems to sink into everything.  The
monster always, ALWAYS has supernatural powers, even if this is
unacknowledged in the story itself.  There was a very gritty,
verite-style serial-killer show I saw in London, for example, that
while priding itself in it's psychological realism, nevertheless had a
killer who committed crimes which really were simply impossible
provided the victims even tried to defend themselves.  If you've seen
'7' you probably know what I mean-- the killer is amazingly
intelligent, comes and goes everywhere without being seen, never
leaves a clue except those he intends, etc., etc..  Teen slasher
movies are more honest about what they're talking about, I think--
essentially, the monster is certainly not a human being, but an
embodiment of some primoridal, eternal, unkillable evil-- an evil we
all know intimately if we can remember our nightmares.  Monsters
always live in caves (or at least, basements with Oscar-nominated Art
Direction), and can be defeated only by a hero Pure of Heart, and not
in a conventional fight but in a strange dreamlike moment of catharsis
using spiritual tools.  Even then, we know that the evil has not been
permanently vanquished;  it still waits, in some regenerated form,
down in it's cave, for the next cycle to begin.   

Jung and Freud and everybody and his kid brother had a theory about
what the Monster represents, and I do think to some extent the monster
fills the role some sort of psychological darkness in the audience
themselves.  I also think people deal with primordial evil in the real
world, in the shape of diseases and natural disasters and man's
inexplicable inhumanity to man and death itself.  Raising and
defeating the monster in any case fills some primitive need;  and true
monster stories exist somewhat outside the classical storytelling
tradition, like horror movies exist outside the classical movie
tradition.  Voldemort IMO is plainly a monster, not a villain, which
is why his scenes seem to enter into a dreamlike state that stand
outside of the main narrative. The horcruxes are a great extension of
this, in that they allow Harry to confront bits of this monstrous soul
(like a traditional monster, Voldemort keeps his heart outside of his
body), without having to make Voldemort come out so often as to become
too solid.  

HP has a LOT of characters.  Some of them are clearly Cruela de
Vil-style villains, like Lockhart or Umbrige.  Some are more
sophisticated villains like Pettigrew, who is a marvellous, very-well
motivated character that I'm not sure where Rowling is taking! 
Voldemort is a monster whose principal role is in the symbolic
psychodrama, and I expect his eventual defeat will have the same sort
of un-reality to it as the freakiness with the wands in GoF.

But the most interesting stuff to me are the reconcilable antagonists,
Slytherin and Snape and Draco.  Because they take Harry in the most
interesting direction!  

-- Sydney, wrapping this up before she winds up writing a book












From sophierom at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  4 06:08:30 2006
From: sophierom at yahoo.com (sophierom)
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 06:08:30 -0000
Subject: Snape: Beyond Good and Evil (long)
In-Reply-To: <du7cjj+uhcb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dubasu+cra4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149091

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lunamk03" <imontero at ...> wrote:
> 
> Luna here:
 <snip>   
> My thesis is that Snape returned to Voldemort for vengeance, he 
> wants to make Voldemort pay for Lily's death, his rage is so blind 
> that he killed DD because at that point, DD was the only thing 
> standing between Voldemort and him. He needed to get rid of DD in 
> order to get as close as ever to Voldemort. The problem is that he 
> doesn't have the power to kill Voldemort, Harry does.
> 
> The Power in Harry's eyes is having Lily's eyes to make the people 
> who loved her help him. At one point, Snape will see Lily through 
> Harry's eyes and this will ultimately break Snape down with the 
> result of him joining forces with, or giving his live for Harry thus 
> enabling Harry to continue and kill Voldemort. Deep down, Snape 
> knows he'll need Harry to kill Voldemort, this is the main reason 
> why Harry is still alive: i.e. Snape hasn't killed him and has 
> indirectly protected him.
>  
> This is the power in Harry's eyes. In HBP we learn that the deepest 
> and most powerful magic does not usually comes with big flashy 
> tricks, it is deep down very simple, yet terribly powerful, as 
> powerful as the feeling of someone who's lost probably the first 
> person to stand up for him, to see in him the beauty that no one 
> else saw (not even his own family, as we can see in Snape's other 
> memories) and who's seen a flash of her soul in her son's eyes.

Sophierom:

Luna, very eloquent theory to explain Snape's behavior. It takes into
account his moral ambiguity, his motives for turning from LV, and his
motives for killing Dumbledore.  It also takes into account several of
Jo's own statements about Snape and Harry.  You've already mentioned
the quote about Harry's eyes. I love the idea that Harry's greatest
power might be emotional rather than magical.  

Your post also works with some of Jo's other statements. In the 1999
interview (NPR, "The Connection"), someone asks about Snape in love. 
It's a well-quoted quote, but here it is again for reference:

**
Interviewer:
One of our internet correspondents wondered if Snape is going to fall
in love. 

JKR: (JKR laughs) Who on earth would want Snape in love with them?
That's a very horrible idea.

I:There's an important kind of redemptive pattern to Snape

JKR: He, um, there's so much I wish I could say to you, and I can't
because it would ruin. I promise you, whoever asked that question, can
I just say to you that I'm slightly stunned that you've said that and
you'll find out why I'm so stunned if you read Book 7. That's all I'm
going to say.
**

Yes, Snape in love is a "very horrible idea" in Luna's scenario. 

I do have one question regarding this theory of a Snape motivated
by love and vengeance: How do you explain Dumbledore's interactions
with Snape in HBP (both in the forest and in on the tower)? Is
Dumbledore pleading for his life? Was his trust in Snape ultimately
misplaced? Did he underestimate Snape's desire for vengeance? Or did
Dumbledore understand what was happening in Snape's mind? 

In other words, I think the idea of a Snape "beyond good and evil" is
brilliant, but I also think it might neglect other characters' agency
and motives. 

Sophie







From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sat Mar  4 07:58:37 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 07:58:37 -0000
Subject: Moody  WAS:Leader of Order of the Pheonix -Harry, Moody, Arthur, other
In-Reply-To: <42FD968C00045BFC@mta10.wss.scd.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dubhbd+rq19@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149092

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ralph Miller" <papa at ...> wrote:
>
> bboyminn: 
> ... I don't think Harry is in a position to be the official leader 
of the
> Order. ... While it could be Arthur, for the moment I am going to 
vote for
> Mad-Eye Moody.
>  
> Geoff:
> I hope that the suggestion in the last sentence will prove to be 
the final
> "truth". ... Personally, I would not favour seeing Moody as the 
head of
> the OOTP, not because I do not trust his loyalty but because I do 
not trust
> his paranoia.
>  
> bboyminn:
> I do agree about Moody's paranoia being his biggest draw back, but 
he is
> still the most senior member, and the most skilled, experienced, 
and effective
> Dark Wizard fighter. 
> 
> Ralph:
> Excuse me for being dense, and I don?t have the books handy, but 
does canon
> say that Moody really is paranoid? It?s suggested by characters, 
but not
> borne out by his actions. Remember we have to ignore all actions by 
the
> fake Moody. It seems to me that he thought he might be attacked by 
DEs so
> he took precautions by drinking from a flask etc. Seems to me, 
considering
> what  did happen, that wasn?t paranoia, but foresight.

Geoff:

I think there is enough evidence in canon which supports the view 
that Moody is perceived as paranoid and also that he /is/ paranoid. 
Look at a handful of references to him:

`Amos Diggory's head was sitting in the middle of the flames like a 
large bearded egg. It was talking very fast, completely unperturbed 
by the sparks flying round it and the flames licking its ears.
"
 Muggle neighbours heard bangs and shouting, so they went and 
called those what-d'you-call-`ems ? please-men.  Arthur, you've got 
to get over there ?"
"Here!" said Mrs.Weasley breathlessly, pushing a piece of parchment, 
a bottle of ink and a crumpled quill into Mr.Weasley's hands.
"- it's a real stroke of luck I heard about it," said Mr. Diggory's 
head. "I had to come into the office early to send a couple of owls 
and I found the Improper Use of Magic lot all setting off ? if Rita 
Skeeter gets hold of this one, Arthur ?"
"What does Mad-Eye say happened?" asked Mr.Weasley, unscrewing the 
ink bottle, loading up his quill and preparing to take notes.
Mr. Diggory's head rolled its eyes. "Says he heard an intruder in his 
yard. Says they were creeping towards the house butt hey were 
ambushed by his dustbins."
"What did the dustbins do?" asked Mr.Weasley, scribbling frantically.
"Made one hell of a noise and fired rubbish everywhere, as far as I 
can tell," said Mr. Diggory. "Apparently one of them was still 
rocketing around when the please-men turned up ?"
Mr.Weasley groaned. "And what about the intruder?"
"Arthur, you know Mad-Eye," said Mr. Diggory's head, rolling its eyes 
again. "Someone creeping into his yard at the dead of night? More 
likely there's a very shellshocked cat wandering around somewhere, 
covered in potato peelings."'
(GOF "Aboard the Hogwarts Express" pp.141-42 UK edition)

`"Did someone say Mad-Eye?" Bill asked. "What's he been up to now?"
"He says someone tried to break into his house last night," said 
Mrs.Weasley.
"Mad-Eye Moody?" said George thoughtfully, spreading marmalade on his 
toast. "Isn't he that nutter ? "
"Your father thinks very highly of Mad-Eye Moody," said Mrs.Weasley 
sternly.
"Yeah, well, Dad collect plugs, doesn't he:" said Fred quietly as 
Mrs.Weasley left the room. "Birds of a feather
"
"Moody was a great wizard in his time," said Bill.
"He's an old friend of Dumbledore's isn't he?"  said Charlie.
"Dumbledore's not what you'd call normal, though, is he?" said 
Fred. "Imean, Iknow he's a genius and everything
"
"Who is Mad-Eye?" asked Harry.
"He's retired, used to work at Ministry," said Charlie. "I met him 
once when Dad took me into work with him. He was an Auror ? one of 
the best
 a Dark-wizard-catcher," he added, seeing Harry's blank 
look. "Half the cells in Azkaban are full because of him. He made 
himself loads of enemies though
 the families of people he caught, 
mainly
 and I heard  he's really paranoid in his old age. Doesn't 
trust anyone any more. Sees Dark Wizards everywhere.""
(ibid. p.143-44)

`The stranger at down, shook his mane of dark grey hair out of his 
face, pulled a plate of sausages towards him, raised it to what was 
left of his nose and sniffed it. He then took a small knife out of 
his pocket, speared a sausage on the end of it and began to eat. His 
normal eye was fixed upon the sausages but the blue eye was still 
darting restlessly around in its socket, taking in the Hall and the 
students. `
(GOF "The Triwizard Tournament" p.164 UK edition)

`The real Mad-Eye Moody was at the staff table, his wooden leg and 
his magical eye back in place. He was extremely twitchy, jumping 
every time someone spoke to him. Harry couldn't blame him; Moody's 
fear of attack was bound to have been increased by his ten-month 
imprisonment in his own trunk.'
(GOF "The Beginning" p.624 UK edition)

His reputation is obviously based on events and his behaviour here ? 
and in various other scenes in GOF and OOTP which I have not quoted 
underline his over-reaction of events. This is why I have suggested 
that he would not be a suitable leader for the Order because is 
experiences mean that he has developed a "shoot first, ask questions 
afterwards" attitude of mind whereas the order needs a calmer, more 
calculated approach to the war against Voldemort.







From sydpad at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  4 08:28:16 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 08:28:16 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice
In-Reply-To: <du9sv8+t1g4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dubj30+l2dj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149093

Me:
> >when Book 7 comes out, the Snape-lovers and the
> > Snape-haters will come together upon this neutral ground, and they
> > will say unto one another:  "See?!  It's just as I was saying all
> > along!!"  
> > 
Lupinlore:
> I doubt it.  I think you may be right that the MAJORITY of people 
> will be able to accept this kind of outcome, with reservations here 
> and there.  But there are a lot of people -- not the majority, but a 
> lot -- who are deeply invested in the idea of some kind of final 
> BANGS that will reveal much of what we've been told as being 
> smokescreen or misdirection -- that is, Snape didn't REALLY kill 
> Dumbledore, Snape doesn't REALLY hate Harry it's all an act, Snape 
> isn't REALLY an unfair teacher its just Harry's POV, Dumbledore 
> didn't REALLY make mistakes it's all part of his brilliant master 
> plan,  Dumbledore and Snape don't REALLY disagree about love it's 
> just good cop/bad cop, etc.  Those people probably would not find 
> this solution congenial.

Most bizarrely, I tend to think the louder and more outraged howls
will come from those who expect Snape to have simply killed Dumbledore
because he's the Bad Guy, and that he's not simply going to be killed,
imprisoned, or run out of town and good riddance.  Because pretty much
all your other points would require a booming authorial voice to come
from On High like a badly adjusted Pensive, declaring that "Snape
hates Harry and it's as simple as that.  Yes you're right, Snape was a
Bad Teacher.  This is exactly how you're supposed to feel about
everything."  Whether Snape is a good or a bad teacher or even a good
or a bad person is never, ever, ever, never going to be a settled
question, because it simply isn't a settleable question, it's a matter
of opinion of what you value in teachers or people.  Vive la
difference, says I.

Just on a general note for the Snape survey-- I have to say, when I
finshed HBP, I said to myself, "Wow, that was AWESOME, I'm sorry that
JKR made it a wee bit too obvious that Snape is a good guy, but it
still works."  I'm really in a bit of shock that that many people
didn't see it coming.  Personally I spent the whole last half of the
book with my hands pressed to mouth going "I can't BELIEVE she's going
to FORCE SNAPE TO KILL DUMBLEDORE.  I can't BELIEVE it!!"  I know it's
ambiguous, in the sense that there are two clear and contradictory
interpretations, but I mean, COME ON.  Well, let me try to phrase that
more respectfully.  No, I just can't.  I honestly have no idea how the
tower scene can be read in any other way (after, I suppose, the
initial shock if you didn't expect it) than that Dumbledore is
pleading with Snape to follow through with some plan and kill him. 
The only argument against it I've heard-- the only argument that deals
with the fact that the FIRST BLOODY THING DUMBLEDORE DOES WHEN SNAPE
ENTERS THE SCENE IS START PLEADING-- is that JKR didn't think it was
important what Dumbledore was feeling here.  I can't come up with any
response to that but.. wha...?!  No, really, what?!?  Rowling.. didn't
care.. what Dumbledore was feeling.. when Snape betrayed and killed
him.  What?!?  

Anyways, I think I have enough clues to pinpoint the REAL killer of
Dumbledore.  Only ONE person could have created a magical barrier to
the scene of the crime that allowed Snape and no one else up at the
critical moment.  Only ONE person could have arranged for a pack of
Death Eaters to show up at Hogwarts, something previously thought
impossible, and not only that, on the VERY NIGHT and at the VERY HOUR
that Dumbledore was severly incapacitated!  Incapacitated, I say, by a
hideous poison that he simply HAD to drink-- FORCED to drink, by the
very same villanous person!!  And I sense the hand of this heartless
fiend, controlling events, back to that Fatal Night, when Snape
stumbled haplessly into the web spun by none other than...

*Sydney spins, accusing finger pointing steadily at....*  

Joanne K. Rowling!!!    http://www.answers.com/topic/j-k-rowling

Looks like butter wouldn't melt in her mouth, doesn't she?  DON'T BE
FOOLED!

Wow, I really DID have the energy to argue against Evil!Snape!

 
> > *Sydney is downright concerned for poor innocent Lupinlore, so
> > defenseless against the patently sane, intelligent, and
> > all-too-motivated villains she comes across in daily life!*
> 
> Why thank you, :-).  But I don't come across any villains most days -
> - and as I've worked for the Dept of Defense for quite some time, 
> and for academia before that, that's saying a lot.


-- Sydney, unsurprised to discover those of us working in the
entertainment industry are more experienced with villany than the
department of defense







From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  4 09:14:40 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 09:14:40 -0000
Subject: Trusting Snape
In-Reply-To: <dua7hu+hd5e@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dublq0+10a53@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149094

> SSSusan:

<big snip>
> I suppose it's natural to assume one's own preferred view is the most 
> straightforward, but even OFH!Snape isn't totally, is it?  How does 
> OFH!Snape explain Snape's saving Harry in the 1st year Quidditch 
> match?  How does it explain Snape's informing the Order that Harry 
> had taken off for the DoM?  How does it explain Snape's saving DD's 
> life at the start of the year and then AKing him at the end of it?  
> I'm not saying OFH!ers can't offer explanations for these; I'm simply 
> saying that I suspect those explanations would include as 
> much "reading between the lines" and assumption-making as the various 
> explanations ESE!Snapers and DDM!Snapers must offer up to other 
> questions.
> 

Neri:
I'd say LID!Snape explains all the above with practically no reading
between the lines. Faith wouldn't have supported it otherwise <g>. 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/145024

Now, since the question of the occlumency lessons came up again, it's
worth checking if LID can explain Snape's behavior there. I limit
myself now to the most straightforward reading, the way Faith would
like it. 

So what are LID!Snape's straightforward motivations? Well, he isn't
Dumbledore's man if he killed him (pretty much straightforward
reading, I believe) but he only killed him when he had no other way to
save himself from the UV terms (straightforward reading) so he isn't
ESE either. Accepting almost everything Snape said in Spinner's End as
true (straightforward reading) he's most likely to be OFH. What he
really wanted was to continue his double-agent game as long as
possible in order to come out on top in the end, whichever side wins.

However, LID!Snape has one additional problem that OFH!Snape doesn't
have: he must save Harry's life and get rid of his Life Debt
(straightforward reading of Dumbledore's words in the end of SS/PS).
Until he manages this he's not free to choose Voldemort's side. But he
has to save Harry's life without Voldemort realizing that he did,
because Voldemort isn't likely to forgive Snape such a thing. If Voldy
discovers that Snape saved Harry's life, the double-agent game is over
and Snape (even if he manages to avoid Voldemort's immediate
retaliation) is stuck forever in Dumbledore's side, which might end up
the losing side. Now, this starts to look like a problem worthy of Snape.

So in OotP Dumbledore asks Snape to teach Harry occlumency. What
should LID!Snape do? If he agrees and manages to teach Harry
occlumency, this is likely to thwart Voldemort's plan and save Harry
from running to the DoM and being captured by Voldemort, so Snape
would pay his Life Debt and free himself to choose whichever side that
has better chances. But if Snape agrees to teach Harry occlumency and
yet Harry fails to learn it, he might betray the existence of the
lessons to Voldemort. So LID!Snape is ambivalent about this. If Harry
can learn occlumency very quickly ?- mission accomplished! But if he
can't, Snape is in big trouble.   

But LID!Snape would also have another motivation here. He'd want to
find out which side has the better chances to win. On which side must
he bet in the end ? this is the most critical question for LID!Snape.
Well, he had heard the first half of the prophecy, which asserts Harry
has the power to vanquish Voldemort, but he can't be sure the prophecy
is true, and anyway *having* a power and *using* it are two different
things. Direct observation tells him that Harry is not even close to
the Dark Lord, that he's lousy at potions and can't match Snape's own
abilities at a similar age. And yet Snape knows that Harry somehow
survived Voldemort several times, that he speaks parseltongue and that
he has shown an ability to resist the Imperius curse. So occlumency
lessons would be Snape's golden opportunity to study Potter up close
and find out once and for all if he is really (as he says to Bellatrix
in Spinner's end, again straightforward reading) "a great Dark wizard,
which is how he survived the Dark Lord attack."   

And what do you know, from the first occlumency lesson Snape digs as
deep as he can into Harry's mind, mining it for the most secret and
painful memories. And quickly he finds out that Harry has no flair for
occlumency, that he can't control his emotions and discipline his
mind, and that he has no hidden powers that Snape can see. As Snape
tells Bella in Spinner's End (again straightforward reading): "it
became apparent to me very quickly that he had no extraordinary talent
at all. He has fought his way out of a number of tight corners by a
simple combination of sheer luck and more talented friends. He is
mediocre to the last degree". Snape realizes that Potter has no chance
against the Dark Lord, and that he'd better find a reason to terminate
this fiasco in a hurry, before Voldy finds out about the lessons and
accuse him of helping the enemy.

But LID!Snape still has to find a way to save Harry's life before he
can bet on Voldemort's side, and he still has to do that without
Voldemort finding out and before the double-agent game is over. And
now Snape's rather questionable behavior during the night of the MoM
battle suddenly starts to look straightforward too. But it's now very
late so I leave this for another post.


Neri







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Mar  4 14:32:40 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 14:32:40 -0000
Subject: Villains in Storytelling, WAS Snape Survey
In-Reply-To: <dubabp+5muq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duc8e8+5bkp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149095

Sydney:
> HP has a LOT of characters.  Some of them are clearly Cruela de
> Vil-style villains, like Lockhart or Umbrige.  Some are more
> sophisticated villains like Pettigrew, who is a marvellous, very-well
> motivated character that I'm not sure where Rowling is taking! 

Pippin:
Aw, c'mon Sydney, you're almost there.  I'll bet you can't figure out where
Rowling's taking Pettigrew  because he's not a villain, sophisticated or 
otherwise.

He's a stooge. He used to be a stooge for James, then he was stolen
and became a stooge for Voldemort. I suspect he'll get tired of his
stoogeyness one day and take a hand, pun intended. I keep thinking 
the hand of the other must be him, somehow.

That leaves a  villain-shaped gap in our story, and who would fit better 
than ESE!Lupin? He's not an antagonist to Harry, and furry 
little problem aside, he's no monster. But  tearing at the fabric 
of society because it's strangling him to death? Yeah, I can definitely
see that. And he'll have to be stopped.

Pippin






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  4 15:00:40 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 15:00:40 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice
In-Reply-To: <dubj30+l2dj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duca2o+ee5f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149096

> Lupinlore:
> > I doubt it.  I think you may be right that the MAJORITY of 
people 
> > will be able to accept this kind of outcome, with reservations 
here 
> > and there.  But there are a lot of people -- not the majority, 
but a 
> > lot -- who are deeply invested in the idea of some kind of final 
> > BANGS that will reveal much of what we've been told as being 
> > smokescreen or misdirection -- that is, Snape didn't REALLY kill 
> > Dumbledore, Snape doesn't REALLY hate Harry it's all an act, 
Snape 
> > isn't REALLY an unfair teacher its just Harry's POV, Dumbledore 
> > didn't REALLY make mistakes it's all part of his brilliant 
master 
> > plan,  Dumbledore and Snape don't REALLY disagree about love 
it's 
> > just good cop/bad cop, etc.  Those people probably would not 
find 
> > this solution congenial.

Alla: You know, frankly I don't know how after HBP "Snape is just 
acting in his relationship with Harry and does not really hate him" 
can be looked upon as anything, but incredibly weak. IMO of course.

"You and your filthy father" speaks volumes to me.

Sydney: 
> Most bizarrely, I tend to think the louder and more outraged howls
> will come from those who expect Snape to have simply killed 
Dumbledore
> because he's the Bad Guy, and that he's not simply going to be 
killed,
> imprisoned, or run out of town and good riddance.  Because pretty 
much
> all your other points would require a booming authorial voice to 
come
> from On High like a badly adjusted Pensive, declaring that "Snape
> hates Harry and it's as simple as that.  Yes you're right, Snape 
was a
> Bad Teacher.  This is exactly how you're supposed to feel about
> everything."  Whether Snape is a good or a bad teacher or even a 
good
> or a bad person is never, ever, ever, never going to be a settled
> question, because it simply isn't a settleable question, it's a 
matter
> of opinion of what you value in teachers or people.  Vive la
> difference, says I.

Alla:

Erm... I am completely with LL on this one. But it is an interesting 
thought about accepting different outcomes in Snape and Harry 
confrontations.

You know, Sydney, I really AM open to many different outcomes, well 
except one of them of course, but I think if well written almost 
anything could satisfy me at the end ( not as much as I would want 
to, but still).

For example - I most certainly want Snape to suffer in book 7 A LOT -
 physically, emotionally, if it would be both, it would be better, 
although I certainly prefer emotional suffering for him.

But I happen to think that one way or another JKR WILL show it, no 
matter what outcome will be.

SO, while I would LOVE to see Snape at the end of the story in the 
Azkaban cell for life (without dementors present, I would not wish 
Dementors even on Snape) with Harry watching Aurors taking dear 
Snapey into custody, I would take ANY versions of Snape suffering, 
even if they are very short termed, so to speak.

Would I love Snape to have a lifedebt to Harry at the end of the 
story? Sure I would, but since my main wish is to see Snape 
powerless in Snape/Harry confrontation, I would take five minutes 
and few sentences of such confrontation and will be a completely 
happy reader, if such confrontation is written well.

So, you see Sydney, it is not necessarily will be neutral ground, 
but seeing different ways for your favorite idea to come true at the 
end. To me anyways.


There is for example one thing which I am pretty sure will not 
happen in book 7 in Snape/Harry relationship. My crow is right here, 
ready to be cooked, but I am going to make a prediction - Harry will 
NOT be apologising to Snape for anything, no matter what side Snape 
is going to end up on. There are way too many things that Snape 
wronged Harry for, so I happen to think that Harry will be in charge 
in book 7. I fully suspect that at some point of book 7 Harry will 
throw at Snape some variation of Dumbledore "it is not your mercy 
that matters, it is mine"

Would I prefer Harry to punish Snape instead of forgiving him? Sure, 
I would, but as long as Harry is in charge and Snape for at least 
few sentences is powerless and is uncapable of doing anything to 
Harry, but be at his mercy, I will be very happy.
Now, this is something that I both don't want to happen and think 
that it won't happen. 


 
Sydney:
<SNIP>
> The only argument against it I've heard-- the only argument that 
deals
> with the fact that the FIRST BLOODY THING DUMBLEDORE DOES WHEN 
SNAPE
> ENTERS THE SCENE IS START PLEADING-- is that JKR didn't think it 
was
> important what Dumbledore was feeling here.
 I can't come up with any
> response to that but.. wha...?!  No, really, what?!?  Rowling.. 
didn't
> care.. what Dumbledore was feeling.. when Snape betrayed and killed
> him.  What?!?  
> 

Alla:

Not not important, but Harry looks at the scene, Harry's observation 
(or narrator observation) is that for the first time in his life DD 
was pleading. Frankly, I felt all the shock that could be there.

Now, we don't know what DD was pleading for, this is true, but as I 
said if DD was pleading "don't betray me", the remark is there.

Oh, if DD resigned himself to his fate ( and as I said many times, 
DD of course won't plead for his life usually, but knowing that 
Harry is here, half trained and with Horcruxes in front of him, I 
sure  can see DD abandoning his old habits) and pleaded with 
Snape "Please not Harry kill me instead", I also think that Harry is 
shocked enough from DD's pleading , just as some of the readers 
were. :)

So, Sydney, we shall see, we shall see. :-)

JMO,

Alla






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Mar  4 15:23:05 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 15:23:05 -0000
Subject: Flints (was Blood on DD face again WAS: Re: Is Snape good or evil?
In-Reply-To: <dub870+74g3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ducbcp+ge60@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149097

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> > kchuplis:
> > 
> > I've never understood why this is a bone of contention either. The 
> map  was in fake!Moody's office. Like DD wouldn't have that returned to 
Harry, just like the cape? Just because it is not shown in a scene 
 does  not mean it is a mistake.
> 
> 
> Potioncat:
> It's a flint if it's a mistake. I wouldn't call the map a flint. It 
> would be a flint if we saw Crouch!Moody destroy it in one book, but 
> Harry had it in another. The fact that we didn't see him get it doesn't 
> make it a flint. Poor transition, perhaps.

Pippin:
It might have been intentional, to set up a situation where we'll
take it for granted that Harry must have recovered his invisibility 
cloak from the tower in HBP, so that we discover he doesn't have
it at the same time he does.

Potioncat:
> The flints that I can think of, have more to do with dates and ages. It 
> seems like the membership of the Slytherin gang involve a flint because 
> the ages don't work out. The real age of the oldest Weasley sons is a 
> flint because the events and their ages don't work out together. (At 
> least I think that was the general conclusion, I long ago gave up on 
> Weasley ages.)
> 
> The Black family tree has a number of flints.
> 
> Has anyone actually made a list of flints? 
> 

Pippin:
The lexicon has lists of edits and changes for each book. Rowling has 
actively been correcting the text. I would say for the older books, 
anything obviously inconsistent which has not been corrected is 
intentional -- either a mystery yet to be resolved, or an instance of 
poetic license. 


Interestingly, though she has corrected  the  order in which the 
characters emerge from the whomping willow in PoA, the moon 
still makes an appearance before Lupin transforms:

"The moon drifted in and out of sight behind the shifting clouds" --
PoA ch 21

Like the blood on Dumbledore's face, this is a straightforward 
occurrence that if taken literally would seriously undermine Harry's
interpretation of events. 

Pippin
still ROTFLMAO over Lupinlore's assertion that Rowling would
need to have done forensic research to know  about wiping up 
blood. Vive la difference...







From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Sat Mar  4 17:06:26 2006
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J)
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 12:06:26 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Trusting Snape
In-Reply-To: <dublq0+10a53@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY101-F321337BFA3B18465B8E5D791EB0@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 149098



Neri:
>I'd say LID!Snape explains all the above with practically no reading
>between the lines. Faith wouldn't have supported it otherwise <g>.
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/145024

Dumbledore says "Professor Snape could not bear being in your father's 
debt... I do believe he worked so hard to protect you this year because *he 
felt* that would make him and your father even.  Then he could go back to 
hating your father's memory in peace..." (SS pg 300 US - and emphasis mine)

So, as I read this there is really nothing concrete to this debt since the 
man he owed it to is dead. We're told "he FELT" rather than he owed... This 
was one man's decision to rid himself of his Potter curse and not a 
magically enforceable thing at all.   Dumbledore's "I do believe" tells us 
that much since if it were a magical reality he'd have told Harry so just as 
he did with Pettigrew.

I will grant you that I prefer this theory over Lollipops though.  That one 
always made my flesh crawl.  :-)

>So what are LID!Snape's straightforward motivations? Well, he isn't
>Dumbledore's man if he killed him (pretty much straightforward
>reading, I believe) but he only killed him when he had no other way to
>save himself from the UV terms (straightforward reading) so he isn't
>ESE either. Accepting almost everything Snape said in Spinner's End as
>true (straightforward reading) he's most likely to be OFH. What he
>really wanted was to continue his double-agent game as long as
>possible in order to come out on top in the end, whichever side wins.

Naturally I agree but why accepting "almost" everything?  What exactly do 
you think he lied about?

>However, LID!Snape has one additional problem that OFH!Snape doesn't
>have: he must save Harry's life and get rid of his Life Debt
>(straightforward reading of Dumbledore's words in the end of SS/PS).

We are told that Snape had a life debt to *James* due to the prank but we're 
also being told that Snape *chose* to unofficially transfer this debt from 
father to son as a matter of honor... of sorts. (yes, I think Snape has 
honor within his own personal moral confines)  So he actually owes Harry 
nothing.


>But LID!Snape would also have another motivation here. He'd want to
>find out which side has the better chances to win. On which side must
>he bet in the end  this is the most critical question for LID!Snape.

I believe this to be the most critical question for OFH!Snape but see no 
reason for LID!Snape to worry about it since the there is no debt owed in 
the legal sense of the word.

>As Snape tells Bella in Spinner's End (again straightforward reading): "it
>became apparent to me very quickly that he had no extraordinary talent
>at all. He has fought his way out of a number of tight corners by a
>simple combination of sheer luck and more talented friends. He is
>mediocre to the last degree". Snape realizes that Potter has no chance
>against the Dark Lord, and that he'd better find a reason to terminate
>this fiasco in a hurry, before Voldy finds out about the lessons and
>accuse him of helping the enemy.

But he has to find a way to do it that won't alienate Dumbledore either.  
Engineering a way to make Harry at fault was brilliant but then I've never 
heard anyone say Snape was stupid. :-)  He played Harry like a violin and 
got Snape off the hook with both Dumbledore and Voldermort.

So far I can't see any canon for a life-indebted Snape (other than the 
UNofficial debt Snape takes  on himself) at all.  What I see is a real good, 
first class explanation of OFH!Snape's motivations.  ;-)


PJ





From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  4 17:13:38 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 17:13:38 -0000
Subject: Snape and the Hope of Redemption
Message-ID: <duchs2+erms@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149099

Oh poor, poor Snape.  Part of his eternal punishment will be to have 
us, members of the jury, argue over his guilt or innocents for all 
of eternity.  The trial that never ends!  And by the look of things 
I think that we will still be debating this long after book 7 until 
we are each as old as DD!  lol.  Day after day, at least it is not 
boring!
 
So for my two knuts. 

Snape is a bitter, tainted by sin, tragic, damned, doomed and 
depressed man.  He is not Saint Snape.  He may be sometimes 
misunderstood, but not to the point that he is the "sweet guy we 
just don't understand".  Snape is the sinner.  Snape is the betrayer 
to all who see him.  Snape is Judas.  And only Snape knows what is 
really in his heart.  He still has a heart somewhere.  It has been 
stomped on, broken and wrenched from his soul, he thinks beyond 
repair, but it is still in him somewhere. 

Snape is the soul that has been so damaged by the world that he has 
given up on Love.  Unlike LV who has never loved and therefore does 
not understand Love, Snape has loved and does understand.  And the 
one who has loved and knows the depth of love also knows a desperate 
despair that LV can never know.  LV had never been broken by Love.  
Snape has. 

I think that where JKR is going with Snape is to show us that the 
most vile, bitter, beaten and damaged among us can be redeemed by 
the very Love that we have give up on.  If someone like Snape can be 
redeemed by Love, so can we, so can I.  

These books were written for children, but they also speak to 
adults.  They are books that act as a guide to us (at whatever age) 
on the path to spiritual growth.  Maybe the children can not 
identify with Snape, but the adults among us can.  Who among us, I 
ask you, can really cast the first stone at Snape?  Who among us has 
not been bitter or hateful at sometime in our life?  Who among us 
have not been so beaten by the world that we have, even for a 
moment, thought that Love was for fools? 

We can never have hope for the redemption of our own miserable souls 
if Snape is really the goody-two-shoes, totally misunderstood, good 
guy.  Snape is the sinner's sinner. He is the epitome of all the 
desperate brokenness of humanity.  Our only hope and his are in the 
words of DD on the tower - "it is my mercy that matters now".  

Tonks_op
Proud member of the Sinner Snape is DD's Man camp.







From mgrantwich at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  4 17:41:53 2006
From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich)
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 09:41:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape Survey
In-Reply-To: <du4ucc+qmol@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060304174153.26433.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149100

> Luckdragon  wrote:  <SNIP>
> "Just for the sake of being able to tell each other "I told you
> so",let's tally up what we believe Snape is before we actually 
> know,and see which way the majority of us are thinking. A brief 
> paragraph is sufficient."


He's DDM!Snape all the way.  None of the ESE/OFH theories make sense
to me.  Chapter Two "Spinners End" simply proved that he was good, as
far as I'm concerned.

Magda

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  4 17:29:07 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 17:29:07 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice
In-Reply-To: <duca2o+ee5f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ducip3+3kg5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149101

Sydney wrote:
>
<SNIP>

  Because pretty 
> much
> > all your other points would require a booming authorial voice to 
> come
> > from On High like a badly adjusted Pensive, declaring that "Snape
> > hates Harry and it's as simple as that.  Yes you're right, Snape 
> was a
> > Bad Teacher.  This is exactly how you're supposed to feel about
> > everything."  Whether Snape is a good or a bad teacher or even a 
> good
> > or a bad person is never, ever, ever, never going to be a settled
> > question, because it simply isn't a settleable question, it's a 
> matter
> > of opinion of what you value in teachers or people.  Vive la
> > difference, says I.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Erm... I am completely with LL on this one. But it is an 
interesting 
> thought about accepting different outcomes in Snape and Harry 
> confrontations.
> 
> You know, Sydney, I really AM open to many different outcomes, well 
> except one of them of course, but I think if well written almost 
> anything could satisfy me at the end ( not as much as I would want 
> to, but still).
> 
<SNIPPETY-SNIP>
> But I happen to think that one way or another JKR WILL show it, no 
> matter what outcome will be.
> 


You know, I think JKR's authorial voice IS pretty strong sometimes.  
Not always, of course, but sometimes -- and most especially when she 
drops in long speeches by her three avatars: Lupin, DD, and 
Hermione.  No, I don't mean that EVERY speech by those three 
characters is a message from the author (e.g. Hermione's jealous 
rants about Potions in HBP is, I think, just the author poking some 
fun at the character).  But she isn't above using them that way.  For 
all JKR's proclaimed horror of preaching, I think she gets quite a 
bit of satisfaction from the practice.  She is not, indeed, above 
doing exactly what Sydney talks about:  i.e. saying "Now this is 
this, that is that, here's what you're supposed to think and let's 
move on."

This practice pretty much blossoms in HBP, particularly with 
Dumbledore's speeches.  Dumbledore's confrontation with the Dursleys 
amounted to "Okay folks, here's the deal with this situation and 
here's what you're supposed to think about it so let's put this one 
to bed and move along."  Dumbledore's long, almost lyrical, "Ode to 
Harry" in Chapter 23 was another (it almost got Biblical at points -- 
I was expecting clouds to part and a phoenix to come down while a 
booming voice said "Behold my beloved Harry, with whom I am well 
pleased.")

JKR has said that she regards her job in the final go-round to be 
giving answers -- and I, for one, tend to take her at her word.  
Despite the love of greyness and ambiguity you find in some readers, 
I suspect in the end things will be more clear and well-defined than 
not -- if only because JKR has made it abundantly clear that she 
wants to end the HP series for good, and one very efficient way of 
doing that is to make herself pretty clear on all the major points of 
theme and character.

In fact, I think the problem arises not so much from JKR intending to 
be grey or ambiguous, but from the fact that she is often rather 
naive about the messages people read into her books.  For instance, I 
think she was honestly flabbergasted by the shipping wars -- she 
thought she had made it very clear for several books where all that 
was headed.  Thus the situation in the infamous Leaky Cauldron 
interview, where she tacitly agreed that some of her readers were 
just plain deluded. Similarly, I think she tends to be very honest 
when she says she just doesn't understand fan reaction to certain 
characters -- that is she just doesn't understand why Snape and Draco 
are so popular.  She doesn't understand why Ron is so maligned and 
denigrated in some quarters.  She doesn't understand why Hermione and 
Ginny get paired up with the most obviously unsuitable people.   And 
she really doesn't understand why the characters she regards as most 
interesting and absolutely central, Voldemort and Harry, get pushed 
aside in favor of supporting cast, even if one of said supporting 
cast IS a "gift of a character." 

So, I wouldn't be surprised if there are many howls of dismay, as 
Sydney says, for one thing or another -- actually over many things 
from many people on many sides.  And I wouldn't be surprised if JKR's 
response was is a rather plaintive, "But WHEN did I ever say THAT?"

Lupinlore












From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  4 18:14:30 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 18:14:30 -0000
Subject: Trusting Snape/Life debt again
In-Reply-To: <BAY101-F321337BFA3B18465B8E5D791EB0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <ducle6+u4bi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149102

> Neri:
> >I'd say LID!Snape explains all the above with practically no 
reading
> >between the lines. Faith wouldn't have supported it otherwise <g>.
> >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/145024

PJ wrote: 
> Dumbledore says "Professor Snape could not bear being in your 
father's 
> debt... I do believe he worked so hard to protect you this year 
because *he 
> felt* that would make him and your father even.  Then he could go 
back to 
> hating your father's memory in peace..." (SS pg 300 US - and 
emphasis mine)
> 
> So, as I read this there is really nothing concrete to this debt 
since the 
> man he owed it to is dead. We're told "he FELT" rather than he 
owed... This 
> was one man's decision to rid himself of his Potter curse and not 
a 
> magically enforceable thing at all.   Dumbledore's "I do believe" 
tells us 
> that much since if it were a magical reality he'd have told Harry 
so just as 
> he did with Pettigrew.

Alla:

Oh, PJ I afraid I probably have to disagree with you. I think that 
there is a VERY big reason why we don't know how exactly magical 
Lifedebt works and whether it can be transferred from father to son, 
etc. I think it will play a very significant role at the end. As to 
Dumbledore saying " I believe", well, I will be the first one to say 
that Dumbledore made many mistakes through the books, but those are 
IMO mistakes based on emotions either because DD had no clue how to 
deal with the emotions of others or his own emotions, BUT IMO DD 
pretty much does not make factual mistakes. His "I believe" reminds 
me of "from this point forth, we shall be leaving the firm 
foundation of fact and journeying together through the murky marshes 
of memory into thickets of wildest guesswork. From here on in, 
Harry, I may be as woefully wrong as Humphrey Belcher, who believed 
the time was ripe for cheese cauldron" - HBP, p.,197.

DD thinks he is guessing here, but didn't JKR say that DD guesses 
are never too far of the mark?

I view the quote you brought up in the same light. I think DD is 
correct here, but that is IMO of course.


 
PJ:
> We are told that Snape had a life debt to *James* due to the prank 
but we're 
> also being told that Snape *chose* to unofficially transfer this 
debt from 
> father to son as a matter of honor... of sorts. (yes, I think 
Snape has 
> honor within his own personal moral confines)  So he actually owes 
Harry 
> nothing.

Alla:

But do we KNOW for sure that what Snape did was "unofficial" so to 
speak? Maybe mechanics of the Life debt do require to transfer 
unpaid Life debt to family member otherwise you will die or 
something like that?


PJ: 
>> So far I can't see any canon for a life-indebted Snape (other 
than the 
> UNofficial debt Snape takes  on himself) at all.  What I see is a 
real good, 
> first class explanation of OFH!Snape's motivations.  ;-)

Alla:

But LID!Snape and OFH!Snape can coexist rather peacefully. Right, 
Neri? I was so sure of it, but I don't want to misinterpret you.

JMO,

Alla







From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Sat Mar  4 18:37:31 2006
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 18:37:31 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <dubj30+l2dj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ducmpb+eel5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149103

"Sydney" <sydpad at ...> wrote:

> I honestly have no idea how the tower
> scene can be read in any other way after,
> I suppose, the initial shock if you didn't
> expect it) than that Dumbledore is pleading
> with Snape to follow through with some
> plan and kill him.

To me the obvious explanation is that Dumbledore was pleading with
Snape to tell him he had not been a fool for 17 years. I've heard some
tortuous reasons to explain away Snape's expression of Hate as he was
killing Dumbledore but none of them make a lot of sense to me, and
nobody, absolutely positively nobody, has managed to come up with a
plausible explanation of why Snape murdering the best wizard the good
guys possessed helps the good guys. That has not aided the good Snape
theory. Nor can anybody explain why nobody informed Harry of this
incredibly loopy plan so he would not hate a "good" Snape with as much
intensity as he hates Voldemort, and probably put as much effort into
killing Snape as Voldemort.  JKR is a wonderful writer but nobody
could make a good book 7 out of that bilge.

It's not a prediction but it's possible that Harry will dispose of
Voldemort half way through the book and for the rest of the book he's
after Snape. Snape murdered Dumbledore and that in my book forever
puts him in the evil camp; however I do think in book 7 we will for
the very first time find examples of Snape doing good things, perhaps
very good things. I, like many others, think Snape loved Lilly;
perhaps the reason that Snape Hates Harry is not because he resembles
James but because he blames Harry for Lilly's  death. After all, if
Harry had never been born Lilly would still be alive. 

Eggplant
 

 







From belviso at attglobal.net  Sat Mar  4 18:15:49 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 13:15:49 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice
References: <ducip3+3kg5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <008601c63fb7$aac12eb0$518c400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 149104

Lupinlore:
> In fact, I think the problem arises not so much from JKR intending to
> be grey or ambiguous, but from the fact that she is often rather
> naive about the messages people read into her books.  For instance, I
> think she was honestly flabbergasted by the shipping wars -- she
> thought she had made it very clear for several books where all that
> was headed.  Thus the situation in the infamous Leaky Cauldron
> interview, where she tacitly agreed that some of her readers were
> just plain deluded. Similarly, I think she tends to be very honest
> when she says she just doesn't understand fan reaction to certain
> characters -- that is she just doesn't understand why Snape and Draco
> are so popular.  She doesn't understand why Ron is so maligned and
> denigrated in some quarters.  She doesn't understand why Hermione and
> Ginny get paired up with the most obviously unsuitable people.   And
> she really doesn't understand why the characters she regards as most
> interesting and absolutely central, Voldemort and Harry, get pushed
> aside in favor of supporting cast, even if one of said supporting
> cast IS a "gift of a character."

Magpie:
I think she understands a lot of these things a lot more than she pretends. 
If she thinks Voldemort is so central why does she make Snape more central 
to the story?  If she doesn't get why Snape and Draco are popular why does 
she, too, seem to give them more important stories than the other 
characters?  I can see her not being down with Ron being maligned, but it's 
not like she's diving in to write compelling stories about Ron.  He's just a 
nice guy.  Meanwhile for all her claims that she doesn't get why people want 
to see stuff about Snape and Draco she seems to be writing the same type 
stories herself. Snape's got the most mysterious, juicy past--he is a gift 
of a character.  And Draco, when he finally gets a story, gets one that 
resembles not the kind favored by the people who for years had been telling 
us they were reading the character the way the author wanted, but something 
straight out of H/D's greatest hits.  Not that she was writing Draco as the 
hero or writing H/D, but it turned out all those cliches that were supposed 
to be the mark of a deluded fangirl were a lot closer to where the author 
was going than the ones previously considered canon.  Ron and Hermione are 
given things to keep them busy, but it's Snape and then Draco's storylines 
that are plugged into the main plot and Harry's fight.

In interviews I think JKR plays a role.  "Who would want Snape to love 
them?" and "You're all getting entirely too fond of Draco, the darkness is 
coming!"  But I think underneath she's perfectly gleeful knowing what's 
coming.  I mean, think about Book VI here.  Now that we know what the story 
in that book was, do you really think Rowling saw people interested in Draco 
and thought, "Oh no, this is a bad thing.  They're going to hate what's 
coming."  No, I think she was thrilled knowing that their boy was going to 
get put through the wringer for his sins and knowing they were going to love 
every minute of it.  Her warnings about seeing Draco as too nice after HBP, 
imo, show that while she doesn't want people to simplify his story and make 
him just a victim (the bad fanfic version) she does, imo, understand the 
hurt/comfort factor--as if we didn't know that already.

And then with Snape, well, there's her goldmine of a character.  Voldemort's 
whole story can be just told flat out in a couple of Pensieve trips--and the 
Pensieve, I think, was used to make the story more interesting, because on 
its own it really just isn't. The Merope/Tom Sr. union might have had the 
interesting twist of the love potion, but Tom was born bad (even as a baby), 
and then just continued to be bad.  There's no conflict for him in his 
story, he just grew worse and worse.

Snape's story on the other hand--whoa.  He's far more central than 
Voldemort.  And every book he becomes more so.  First he's Harry's hated 
teacher--then he's also his protector!  And he's his father's nemesis--wait, 
he's Harry's father's victim!  Then he's an actual Death Eater--but he's a 
reformed Death Eater!  Under mysterious circumstances!  Then there's the 
scene in the Pensieve where Harry's actually siding with him. And he's a 
child in an unhappy household.  Then he's Harry's new best friend possibly 
leading him down the primrose path to evil.  Oh, and it turns out he's the 
very one personally responsible for Harry's being an orphan and being the 
Boy Who Lived.  Then he kills Dumbledore, who trusts him completely.

It's Voldemort (the monster--thanks, Sydney!) who hovers around the edge of 
the story.  It's Snape who's right there in the center.

-m 





From belviso at attglobal.net  Sat Mar  4 18:57:03 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 13:57:03 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
References: <ducmpb+eel5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <009501c63fbd$6d5629d0$518c400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 149105

eggplant:
> To me the obvious explanation is that Dumbledore was pleading with
> Snape to tell him he had not been a fool for 17 years.

Magpie:
But WHY is he pleading with him to tell him he had not been a fool for 17 
years? Dumbledore has steadfastly maintained that he trusts Snape.  That's 
where the "fool" bit comes in, right?  So if he trusts him, why would he 
plead for Snape not to betray him just because Snape has entered the room? 
Snape has done nothing to give Dumbledore any reason at that point to think 
he's going to be betrayed, so why is he pleading with him?  Unless he never 
really trusted him.  I can certainly see a story about that kind of 
relationship between two men, but I don't think it fits the way the scene 
plays out.

eggplant:
I've heard some
> tortuous reasons to explain away Snape's expression of Hate as he was
> killing Dumbledore but none of them make a lot of sense to me, and
> nobody, absolutely positively nobody, has managed to come up with a
> plausible explanation of why Snape murdering the best wizard the good
> guys possessed helps the good guys.

Magpie:
Personally, I see nothing tortured (in the sense you're using the word) 
about Snape's look of hate being about what he's being made to do *if* he 
doesn't really want to do it.  Especially after I just had a scene where 
Harry was hating having to feed Dumbledore evil potion but doing it anyway. 
But I have no trouble with not knowing how Snape killing Dumbledore helps 
the good guys exactly yet, because I'm patiently awaiting more explanation 
for exactly what their relationship was and what was going on in the tower. 
If Snape walked in, took in the situation and decided he couldn't protect 
Dumbledore without risking his own life and so decided to kill him, that 
still doesn't seem like what's being played out there.  In terms of the 
story, obviously Dumbledore's number is up.  His role ends before the 
climax, Snape's role, imo, is more bound up in the finale.

eggplant:
That has not aided the good Snape
> theory. Nor can anybody explain why nobody informed Harry of this
> incredibly loopy plan so he would not hate a "good" Snape with as much
> intensity as he hates Voldemort, and probably put as much effort into
> killing Snape as Voldemort.  JKR is a wonderful writer but nobody
> could make a good book 7 out of that bilge.

Magpie:
Nope, I've got no explanation at all.  I'm thinking any explanation as to 
what was happening between Snape and Dumbledore in the tower will be in Book 
VII. Dumbledore has a habit of making plans that don't involve Harry knowing 
what's going on in just this way.  Drives Harry crazy.:-)

eggplant:>
> It's not a prediction but it's possible that Harry will dispose of
> Voldemort half way through the book and for the rest of the book he's
> after Snape.

Magpie:
I have a hard time thinking Voldemort, the personification of evil, will be 
disposed of in favor of Snape once Snape to kills somebody Harry cares 
about.  That seems like an inversion of priorities there--though I think 
you've argued in favor of that inversion.  Imo, there's a reason Voldemort 
is more difficult to kill, and in fact was killed once but lives on in many 
forms.  Snape is one man, Voldemort symbolizes something more abstract.

-m 





From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Sat Mar  4 20:13:25 2006
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J)
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 15:13:25 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Trusting Snape/Life debt again
In-Reply-To: <ducle6+u4bi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY101-F29A30B48B9CAB75BD4717A91EB0@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 149106

Alla:
>Oh, PJ I afraid I probably have to disagree with you. I think that
>there is a VERY big reason why we don't know how exactly magical
>Lifedebt works and whether it can be transferred from father to son,
>etc. I think it will play a very significant role at the end.

PJ:

That's ok.  lol! I totally agree with the idea that the life debt will play 
a significant role in the end with Pettigrew.  Not sure about a huge role 
with Snape.   But as I read Dumbledore's statement to Harry, it's something 
Snape's chosen to continue with rather than something he was magically 
forced to accept once James dies.  And I really hate having to say that 
since I dislike the mental image of noble Snape in any way.  It's enough to 
give me hives.   :-)

>I view the quote you brought up in the same light. I think DD is
>correct here, but that is IMO of course.

Ok... I'm not sure what we disagree on.  Dumbledore never says that Snape 
owes *Harry* a life debt just that he's worked hard to protect Harry because 
that would make Snape and *James* even and Snape couldn't bear being in 
James' debt.   I don't see where we differ since we both seem to believe 
what Dumbledore is saying as a straight read - or don't we?

Alla:
>But do we KNOW for sure that what Snape did was "unofficial" so to
>speak? Maybe mechanics of the Life debt do require to transfer
>unpaid Life debt to family member otherwise you will die or
>something like that?

What Dumbledore says is that once James died Snape was stuck owing a life 
debt to his enemy and because he didn't want to owe James anything - and 
would rather hate his memory in peace - he's been protecting Harry.  While 
it *could* be an official transfer there's no canon for it that I can see... 
I hope I end up wrong though.  lol!

Alla:

>But LID!Snape and OFH!Snape can coexist rather peacefully. Right,
>Neri? I was so sure of it, but I don't want to misinterpret you.

I know.  They do go well together and I've liked the way it helped answer 
pesky little questions  since the first time I read it but wonder if it 
works the same regardless of whether the life debt is magically  or self 
imposed?  If so then I have no problem with it so far.  Let's see if it 
holds up as we go along.

PJ





From sydpad at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  4 20:30:50 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 20:30:50 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <ducmpb+eel5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ductdq+756u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149107


> "Sydney" <sydpad@> wrote:
> > I honestly have no idea how the tower
> > scene can be read in any other way after,
> > I suppose, the initial shock if you didn't
> > expect it) than that Dumbledore is pleading
> > with Snape to follow through with some
> > plan and kill him.
Eggplant:
> To me the obvious explanation is that Dumbledore was pleading with
> Snape to tell him he had not been a fool for 17 years.

Me again:

Okay.  Look.  Here's the text, right?  I'm even going type out every
darn word for you:



"Draco, do it or stand aside so one of us--" screeched the woman, but
at that precise moment, the door to the ramparts burst open once more
and there stood Snape, his wand clutched in his hand as his black eyes
swept the scene, from Dumbledore slumped against the wall, to the four
Death Eaters, including the enraged werewolf, and Malfoy.

"We've got a problem, Snape" said the lumpy Amicus, whose eyes and
wand were fixed alike on Dumbledore, "The boy doesn't seem able--"

But somebody else had spoken Snape's name, quite softly.

"Severus..."

The sound frightened Harry beyond anything he had experienced all
evening.  For the first time, Dumbledore was pleading.

Snape said nothing, but walked forward and pushed Malfoy roughly out
of the way.  The three Death Eaters fell back without a word.  Even
the werewolf seemed cowed [OMG he's so cool.. cough.. moving on].

Snape gazed for a moment at Dumbledore, and there was revulsion and
hatred etched in the harsh lines of his face.

"Severus... please..."

Snape raised his wand and pointed it directly at Dumbledore.

"Avada Kedavra!"



Now, just, what, a couple of hours before this? JKR plugs once again
Dumbledore's opinion of Snape-- "I am sure.  I trust Severus Snape
completely."  Now, lets not even ask ourselves if he has a good reason
or anything.  

JKR had to insert only ONE LINE that would make me finish the book
saying, rats, Snape was a villain after all.  Here we go:



"Draco, do it or stand aside so one of us--" screeched the woman, but
at that precise moment, the door to the ramparts burst open once more
and there stood Snape, his wand clutched in his hand as his black eyes
swept the scene, from Dumbledore slumped against the wall, to the four
Death Eaters, including the enraged werewolf, and Malfoy.

"We've got a problem, Snape" said the lumpy Amicus, whose eyes and
wand were fixed alike on Dumbledore, "The boy doesn't seem able--"

But somebody else had spoken Snape's name, quite softly.

"Severus..."  Dumbledore began.  Then he stopped.  

"Severus..." he said again, but his voice was different this time. The
sound frightened Harry beyond anything he had experienced all evening.
 For the first time, Dumbledore was pleading.



Can you spot the difference?

You need the transition.  You. Need. The. Transition.  YOU NEED THE
TRANSITION.  If you don't have a beat for Dumbledore to CHANGE, the
Dumbledore that is pleading with Snape IS THE SAME DUMBLEDORE THAT
TRUSTS HIM COMPLETELY.  (suddenly I'm thinking the reason JKR uses
capslock so much is that she hasn't figured out how to do italics in
her word processor).

Or she could even have left it ACTUALLY ambiguous, where you really
could go either way:  



"Draco, do it or stand aside so one of us--" screeched the woman, but
at that precise moment, the door to the ramparts burst open once more
and there stood Snape, his wand clutched in his hand as his black eyes
swept the scene, from Dumbledore slumped against the wall, to the four
Death Eaters, including the enraged werewolf, and Malfoy.

"We've got a problem, Snape" said the lumpy Amicus, whose eyes and
wand were fixed alike on Dumbledore, "The boy doesn't seem able--"

But somebody else had spoken Snape's name, quite softly.

"Severus..." said Dumbledore.

Snape said nothing, but walked forward and pushed Malfoy roughly out
of the way.  The three Death Eaters fell back without a word.  Even
the werewolf seemed cowed [OMG he's so cool.. cough.. moving on].

Snape gazed for a moment at Dumbledore, and there was revulsion and
hatred etched in the harsh lines of his face.

"Severus... please..."

The sound frightened Harry beyond anything he had experienced all
evening.  For the first time, Dumbledore was pleading.

Snape raised his wand and pointed it directly at Dumbledore.

"Avada Kedavra!"




Now this really would be 'ambiguous'.  

Or, you know, mabye Rowling is just not a very good writer!  Maybe she
just, you know, forgot!  It happens to everybody!

[scene:  interior.  day.  March 2006.  JKR is doing her ironing]
JKR:  Do dee do dee do...
[suddenly, she freezes]
JKR:  OMG!! I forgot to write the transition from Dumbledore trusting
Snape to realizing he's going to kill him!!
[slaps forehead]
[forgets she's holding iron]
JKR:  GHAAAA!!!

[scene:  interior.  day.  burn ward]
Doctor:  So what exactly happened, ma'am?
JKR:  I don't. Want. To talk about it.

-- Sydney, eyeing growing stack of undone work.  eyeing lovely day
outside.  eyeing internet.  ghaaaaaa...






From vuurdame at xs4all.nl  Sat Mar  4 21:28:14 2006
From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco)
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 21:28:14 -0000
Subject: Snape again
In-Reply-To: <du23rc+j5ks@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dud0pe+70le@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149108

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Arlene" <arlenegustave at ...> wrote:

> However, just to throw a wrench into it.... Snape has been in Harry's 
> face for 5 years now, you'd think "his eyes" would have done 
> something to him by now.

Gerry
Well, I think up til now Harry's eyes rubbed it in that James had won.
But I can see that when it really matters he will remember Lily, and
finally acknowledge that Harry is not just his farher's son, but also
his mother's son. And that will make the difference. 

Gerry, still hoping that JKR is not going there.







From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sun Mar  5 00:28:57 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 00:28:57 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <ducmpb+eel5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dudbc9+e3lt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149110

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" <eggplant107 at ...>
wrote:
>
> "Sydney" <sydpad@> wrote:
> 
> > I honestly have no idea how the tower
> > scene can be read in any other way after,
> > I suppose, the initial shock if you didn't
> > expect it) than that Dumbledore is pleading
> > with Snape to follow through with some
> > plan and kill him.
>
> EggPlant:
> 
> To me the obvious explanation is that Dumbledore was pleading 
> with Snape to tell him he had not been a fool for 17 years. ...
>  but none of them [other explanations] make a lot of sense to me,
> and nobody, absolutely positively nobody, has managed to come up 
> with a plausible explanation of why Snape murdering the best 
> wizard the good guys possessed helps the good guys. That has not 
> aided the good Snape theory. 

bboyminn:

Yet, you offer no alternative scenario, and neither does anyone else.
At least none that take all the fact into consideration.

Yes, I'm sure the obvious alternative scenario is for Snape to 'fight
and win'. But you can't really say that. You can say 'fight', but
Dumbledore is too weak to stand, Harry is frozen, and Snape is
surrounded by vicious malicious murderous Death Eaters. So, again, you
can propose 'fight' as an alternative, but the greatest likelihood of
outcome is 'lose'. Now Dumbledore and Snape are dead, and a great
likelihood that Harry is too.

Is that really a better outcome than what actually happened? I don't
think so.

So, maybe Snape says, 'Oh, just forget about Dumbledore, forget the
whole Hogwarts invasion/murder plan, and let's just go have a drink or
two'. Again, not a very likely scenario. 

> EggPlant:
>
> Nor can anybody explain why nobody informed Harry of this 
> incredibly loopy plan so he would not hate a "good" Snape 
> with as much intensity as he hates Voldemort, and probably 
> put as much effort into killing Snape as Voldemort. JKR is a 
> wonderful writer but nobodycould make a good book 7 out of 
>that bilge.
> 

bboyminn:

Again, you are assuming there was a grand elaborate detailed
pre-conceived plan. I suspect there was NOT. Once again, I point out
the absurdity of any 'grand plan' that involves the precise
cooperation of your deadly and slightly deranged sworn enemy. I
suspect they had a general idea of the general contingencies and
priorities. When Dumbledore pleads with Snape, I suspect he is
pleading for Snape to remember what their priorities are and to do
what must be done; terrible as it is to do.

Others see Dumbledore as having been murdered in cold blood. But I
suspect Dumbledore and Snape (and myself) see him as a casualty of
war; a terrible, horrible, gut-wrenching casualty of war. It's no
wonder Snape face expressed hatred and revultion. He was doing a hated
and revolting thing, yet, it was none the less, the terrible thing
that must be done. 

> EggPlant:
>
> It's not a prediction but it's possible that Harry will dispose
> of Voldemort half way through the book and for the rest of the 
> book he's after Snape. Snape murdered Dumbledore and that in my
> book forever puts him in the evil camp; ...

bboyminn:

Is there really any aspect of war that feels grand, noble, and heroic
to those in the trenches? To the freezing, mud-spattered, poorly lead,
poorly feed, poorly supplied, cannon fodder? Is there any aspect of
war that lives up to any concept of heroism in any place other than
history books? War is a terrible, horrible afront to humanity. As I
have said before it is mankinds greatest failing. But as long as the
Voldemort's of the world exist, as long as the irrational deranged
power-hungry fanatics of the world can convince people to follow them,
the greatest failing of mankind will continue. And when it comes, we
simply have to face it with all it's horror, violation, and atrocity.

> Eggplant:
>
> ...however I do think in book 7 we will for the very first time
> find examples of Snape doing good things, perhaps very good 
> things. I, like many others, think Snape loved Lilly; perhaps 
> the reason that Snape Hates Harry is not because he resembles
> James but because he blames Harry for Lilly's  death. After all,
> if Harry had never been born Lilly would still be alive. 
> 
> Eggplant
>

bboyminn:

People frequently make that mistake of thinking that someone who is
'good' is someone who is 'nice'. That a good leader is a pleasant
leader. That a good hero is a pleasant hero. Sadly, and rightly, that
is not true. As we see from Dumbledore's example, it is lonely at the
top. A good leader must be cold and ruthless. There is only room for
compasion after the fact. In the moment of decision, when a General
must spend the lives of his men like they were nothing but toy
soldiers being removed from a game board, that general does not have
room for compassion. Of course, he also has no room for impulsive or
irrational acts. It is one thing to spend the lives of men, but quite
another to waste them.

Snape is that General faced with that decision. He must weigh the cost
of each course of action, and choose the one with the least damage and
the greatest long term good. In that moment, the objective wipes
compassion from his mind. When the war is won, there will be time for
quiet reflection and compassion, but in the moment, he has an instant
to decide on a course of action, and then to act. Like any
dispassionate General, Snape has no choice but to remove the tin
soldier labeled 'Dumbledore' from the game board. It is a horrible act
by a nasty person, but a necessary act, and one in which few to no
alternatives were available.

Just passing it along.

Steve/bboyminn







From greatraven at hotmail.com  Sun Mar  5 02:29:18 2006
From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski)
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 02:29:18 -0000
Subject: Leader of Order of the Pheonix -Harry, Moody, Arthur, other
In-Reply-To: <duaq75+ftgh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dudidu+tn57@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149111

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" <ceridwennight at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Steve wrote:    
> >  While it
> > could be Arthur, for the moment I am going to vote for Mad-Eye 
Moody.
> > I'm not against the new leader being Arthur, I just think Moody 
is
> > more qualified. Either way, regardless of who the appointed 
leader is,
> > I think functionally, people will turn toward Harry for 
direction.
> 
> maria8162001:
> >    
> > I will go for Mad Eye Moody too or MM and I'm also not 
> > against Arthur becoming the new leader but the question 
> > is would Molly want him take the position as the new leader
> > of the OOTP? *(snip)*
> 
> Ceridwen:
> I'm leaning in the direction of the members acting as an equal 
> coalition, with each member stepping up to direct whenever his or 
her 
> speciality is needed.  I think I read this, or a version of it, on 
Red 
> Hen, and it seemed reasonable to me.  Who could take Dumbledore's 
place?
> 
> Ceridwen.

Sue here: 

Is the real Mad-Eye stable enough to lead? Barty Crouch Jnr, in his 
Mad-Eye capacity, maybe :-) - but what we have seen of the real Mad-
Eye suggests that he's a lot more away with the fairies than he was 
all those years ago. Lupin, perhaps - or, why not Arthur?

Just my 2-cents' worth.
>







From greatraven at hotmail.com  Sun Mar  5 02:33:37 2006
From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski)
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 02:33:37 -0000
Subject: Whose side is Snape on, anyway?
In-Reply-To: <20060303233245.13141.qmail@web33201.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dudim1+4pbd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149112

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kristin Hessenauer 
<tropicwhale at ...> wrote:
>
> unlikely2:
> 
> >> <snip> Can I suggest another reason why I think that Snape is 
good?
> 
> When Harry nearly kills Draco, Snape saves him and it is the 
intimate 
> manner of his doing so that I find interesting. Singing. Not a 
potion 
> but something from and of himself. And it is the cure for his own 
> damaging spell. It is this act that the sorrowful song of the 
phoenix 
> brings to my mind. <snip> <<
> 
>    
>   I've never considered that as an option, it is interesting, and 
> singing is how Fawkes healed so why not Snape as well. In Celtic 
and 
> other mythologies "chants" are used to dregged up power and 'stop' 
> death. Although, one must consider why Snape created 
the "Sectumsempra" 
> spell to begin with..."use on enemies" the note said so who was 
the 
> spell meant for?
>    
>   _Tropic_

Sue here:

I suspect Sectumsempra is the sort of spell you'd expect from the 
young Snape we saw in OOP, the one with few friends and probably no 
real ones, despite the gang of Slytherins he hangs out with. He's a 
loner, and probably one who resents his fellow-students. Unlike most 
of us, who just fantasise about revenge, he is bright enough to be 
able to do it - or maybe he came up with it and never really used 
it ... unless that was the spell he was starting on James 
in "Snape's Worst Memory"? But it doesn't mean he would use it as an 
adult.
>








From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Mar  5 03:40:15 2006
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 03:40:15 -0000
Subject: Snape/Snape/Ghosts/SHIP/Hermi/Condescen/Cormac/SpideryBroomshed/Ghosts/Levic
Message-ID: <dudmiv+5odi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149113

Pippin wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148822 :

<<Nora [wrote]: << What connects it thematically for me is that Snape
certainly does like to sit on some things, and pull them out at times
which he thinks they're going to do some damage.  That's how I read
the whole "See what a bastard your father and friends were" scene
which he gives as punishment for the bathroom.  It certainly does
nothing to help Harry realize 'what he's done wrong', but does smack
of attempted gloating after the fact.>>

But how can it?  It won't be a painful experience for Harry unless
he's ashamed of what James and Sirius were up to -- one imagines that
Fred and George would be delighted to discover that their old Dad had
been in one scrape after another. What it bespeaks is that Snape no
longer assumes Harry would think his father was an "amusing man." In
fact, Snape's attitude towards Harry must have changed significantly
since OOP. >>

*If* Snape chose that punishment with a eye toward gloating about
detention cards of James and Sirius hurting Harry's feelings, his
intention may have been that Harry would see the beloved names and
'remember' that Snape killed them and hate Snape all the more for it.

I like some clever listie's suggestion that Snape's whole plan for
those detentions was to Legilimens Harry in order to figure him out,
in which case gloating had nothing to do with it, and hurting Harry's
feelings was a mere side-effect of leading him to think about James,
Sirius, hexes, rules, whatever Snape was trying to Legilimens him
about. And (your own words from later in the thread): "Of course it's
snide, this is Snape we're talking about. :)"

Luckdragon wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148932 :

<< let's tally up what we believe Snape is before we actually know,
and see which way the majority of us are thinking. A brief paragraph
is sufficient. >>

Since the end of PS/SS, where Snape is revealed to be on Dumbledore's
side, I never doubted that Snape was on DD's side, until he killed DD.
My immediate response was: "Wow! JKR is *good*! Now no one can tell
which side Snape is on!"

I don't like the pattern running from DD tells Draco that killing is
not as easy as the innocent believe through Draco is too weak to force
himself to kill DD despite opportunity and encouragement to Snape
kills DD without dithering much about it. Even tho' I believe Snape
has personally killed before, I don't believe he has personally killed
someone he loves before. So for him not to have any difficulty doing
it, contrasting with Draco right there failing under the difficulty,
comes off as a display of super strength. I don't think JKR meant to
depict killing as proof of strength. 

Luckdragon wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148945 :

<< I wonder if the Ghosts are able to leave the castle and ,if so,
could a certain Slytherin ghost communicate with The Dark Lord about
the happenings at Hogwarts? >>

I don't actually *know* that the ghosts can leave the Castle, but I
think they can, because ghosts from elsewhere can come to the Castle,
like the guests at NHN's deathday party in CoS. Moaning Myrtle was out
and about harassing Olive Hornby until Olive got a restraining order
against her. Some have interpreted Myrtle's statement: "so I had to
come back here and live in my toilet." as meaning that the restraining
order forbade her to leave Hogwarts (or forbade her to leave her place
of death, same thing), but I think it means there was nowhere else she
wanted to go.

Anyway, it never occured to be that the Bloody Baron could be against
Dumbledore's side.

Ginger summarized Chapter 11 in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148964 :

<< Hermione explains that it is Harry, not the sport, that is popular.
(snip)  Ron notes that his scars from the brains are still visible. 
Hermione ignores him and tells Harry that he has grown quite a bit
over the summer.  Ron says that he is tall too, but to no avail. >>

This bit never made sense to me. On first read, it sounded like
Hermione fancied Harry. So, Ron, who fancies Hermione, tried clumsily
to call her favorable attention to him, but Hermione ignored these
blatant efforts. But it turned out that Hermione never fancied Harry
and fancied Ron all along. So why'nhell didn't she respond to him? She
has too much dignity to swoon into his arms saying: "Oh, Ron, you're
making an effort to make a good impression on me! I'm so pleased that
you care whether my opinion of you is high!" But IIRC she had no
reason to be particularly angry at him at that moment, so it would
have been a natural ploy for her to pretend his stupid remarks were an
attempt at flirtation and respond flirtatiously. One non-commital
flirtatious reply would be, in uber-patient tone of voice: "Ron, you
don't *tell* people you have scars, you wait for them to notice on
their own." I mean, she knows how he feels, so if she really wants him
to be her sweetie, she ought to be able to lead the conversation to
the point where he says: "I care what you think of me, not what other
people think." Then we could skip the Ron/Lavender subplot.

<< Leaving the Great Hall, they see Parvati and Lavender in deep
discussion.  Lavender gives Ron a wide smile, and Ron, fresh from
being rebuffed by Hermione, takes note, and leaves the scene
"strutting". >>

I felt there should have been a sentence somewhere explaining how
Lavender went from despising Ron last term to being infatuated this
term. Maybe someone overhearing someone say that Lavender was so
totally boring this sumer, all she would talk about was Ron's heroic
save that won the Quidditch Cup for Gryffindor. (I am deeply familiar
with a teen-age girl being infatuated (ie obsessively in love) with a
boy who doesn't like her and is only using her for sex, and it could
be any boy, but to me there is always a reason: "he's so handsome",
"he's so smart", "he said something nice to me", "he plays the guitar")

<< What do you think of Hermione's casting the Confundus? >>

More of her Slytherin tendencies, like the whole CoS Polyjuice Potion
scenario: fraudulent access to the Restricted Section, stealing potion
ingredients, drugging Crabbe and Goyle... from someone who's such a
goody two-shoes or Miss Priss about other people following the rules.
Hyprocrisy is the easy word, but sometimes I wonder if she suffers
from a touch of Multiple Personality Disorder, the rulebreaker
personality and the rule follower personality.

Pippin wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148965 :

<< Doing it your way would condescend by expecting the hypothetical
youngster to be satisfied with an incomplete explanation which
moreover misrepresented one's priorities. Like  Dumbledore with
Minerva when she demanded to know why Harry was being left at Privet
Drive.  *That* was condescending, no? >>

No, that was protecting classified information, It was not viewing
McGonagall as incapable of understanding, but as unworthy of being
trusted. Quite different.

Zgirnius wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149001 :

<< I suppose McLaggen probably would have made the team, unless
Angelina really hated his personality. >>

Angelina's a pretty girl, so he's probably tried to feel her up
sometime. Angelina's a tough cookie, so she probably kicked him in the
crotch when he didn't take No for an answer.

steve bboyminn wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149005 :

<< Well, if you read the full quote, who the two people are is
obvious. "Yes," said Harry again. "And now everyone knows that I'm the
one ?" "No, they do not," interrupted Dumbledore. "There are only two
people in the whole world who know the full contents of the prophecy
made about you and Lord Voldemort, and they are both standing in this
smelly, spidery broom shed. ..." Seems pretty clear to me. >>

Yes, pretty clear that Harry doesn't know the full prophecy yet, but
will learn it from DD's ally the spider Animagus.

Caius Marcius wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149053 :

<< I think it's highly unlikely. NHN goes on to say that his decision
was motivated by cowardice ("I was afraid of death") and one of
Dumbledore's perennial themes is that "death is the next great
adventure," not something to be feared. >>

I don't think DD will become a ghost, either, but I do think there are
other reasons for becoming a ghost than fear of death. I.E. it seems
obvious to me that Myrtle became a ghost out of spite (against Olive
Hornby). 

Personally, I think it possible that a witch/wizard could become a
ghost out of protectiveness, sticking around to protect a person or
place. The counter-argument, of course, would be that James, Lily, and
Sirius, who all died to protect Harry, would have chosen to stay as
ghosts to protect him if they had the option.

Amanita Muscaria wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149055 :

<< I can't imagine one of Snape's Slyth compatriots letting the Gryffs
have something like that [Levicorpus]. >>

I suppose a Slythie girl told her 'Claw boyfriend, who told his best
friend / dorm mate, who told many other 'Claws, one of whom told his
'Puff study partner from Advanced Potions, who told all the other
'Puffs, and one of the 'Puff prefects told the Head Boy or Girl, who
happened to be a Gryffie and told all the other Gryffies.






From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Sun Mar  5 03:41:38 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 03:41:38 -0000
Subject: Hand of the Other (was Re: Villains in Storytelling,)
In-Reply-To: <duc8e8+5bkp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dudmli+4gfq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149114

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> 
wrote:
Snip)
Pettigrew (snip> He's a stooge. He used to be a stooge for James, 
then he was stolen and became a stooge for Voldemort. I suspect 
he'll get tired of his stoogeyness one day and take a hand, pun 
intended. I keep thinking the hand of the other must be him, somehow.
> 


Tonks:

I am sure that this like everything else has been talked to death 
sometime here, but reading this just got me to thinking about the 
whole "hand of the other" thing.

PP gave his right hand, correct?  I assume that LV is right handed. 
(If he is left handed this would mess up the whole idea.) But what 
does it mean if the right hand that is now part of LV's body is his 
wand hand? And when PP gave his hand did it become LV's right hand 
or just an aid in making his body? If it became LV's right hand and 
LV is right handed, what does this do to the prophesy?  Do you think 
it would be that literal?  I don't think I can get my mind to ponder 
this at the moment, but maybe there is something to the fact that 
possibly LV's wand hand is not his own.  ???

If there is a good post about this whole thing, please lead me to 
it. Thanks.

Tonks_op








From quigonginger at yahoo.com  Sun Mar  5 03:53:22 2006
From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger)
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 03:53:22 -0000
Subject: FILK:  Who Put the Fun?
Message-ID: <dudnbi+61tj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149115

I cried out for a muse, and SSSusan came to my rescue.  I had 
asked "Wouldn't 'Confunding Cormac' make a good name for a band?" and 
she suggested I filk it.  This grew from that.  

I'd also like to thank Steve and his excellent Lexicon for putting 
the spells (with correct spelling) at my fingertips.  (I learned a 
lot of interesting things on that spells page, and I highly recommend 
it.)

To Steve and SSSusan

Midi at:
http://www.norbert26.com/midi_2/#UZ

To the tune of Who Put tht Bomp by Barry Mann

A first solo for Adalbert Waffling, author of "Magical Theory"

Adalbert writes the prologue for his book.  He sings:

I'd like to thank the witch
And wizard, too,
Who made the spells that
Have enamoured me.

Who put the Fun 
In Confun Confundus fun?
Who was the Imp behind
Imp Imperious?
Who was the Pro 
Who cast Pro Pro Protego?
All of these things 
Make me so curious.

How did they know
I'd like to Accio?
They put the Lumos 
Into life for me.

First time that I heard
"Levi Levi 
Levi Levianimus"*
Every word sent flight to my heart.
And when I heard them laughing:
"Ricta Ricta Ricta Ricta
Ricta Rictusempra",
I knew this book I had to start.

Who put the Fun 
In Confun Confundus fun?
Who was the Imp behind
Imp Imperious?
Who was the Pro 
Who cast Pro Pro Protego?
All of these things 
Make me so curious.

How did they know
I'd like to Accio?
They put the Lumos 
Into life for me.

Each time that I am cold,
Incendi Incendi Incendi 
Incendi Incendi Incendio
Sets my fireplace all aglow.
And when I make a mess I
Scourgi Scourgi Scourge
Scourgi Scourgify and
It cleans so well, my wife won't know.

Who put the Fun 
In Confun Confundus fun?
Who was the Imp behind
Imp Imperious?
Who was the Pro 
Who cast Pro Pro Protego?
All of these things 
Make me so curious.

How did they know
I'd like to Accio?
They put the Lumos 
Into life for me.

Using a nifty background music spell, Adalbert causes the chorus to 
repeat itself, and speaks over it:

Students: Aloha, Aloha to Alohamora. And my learners: Colloportus to 
ignorance forever.  And when I say Enner Ennervate your minds, I mean 
it to the Finite Finite Finite Incantatum.

Background music continues and fades.


Ginger, sure that Confundus would be fun.

*I made that one up:  I think it means "lift your heart".  Or I could 
be wrong. 








From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Sun Mar  5 03:41:39 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 22:41:39 EST
Subject: Snape Survey
Message-ID: <19f.4698c90d.313bb7f3@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149116

> Luckdragon:
> Everytime I read my HP for Grownups email I see  pages and pages of 
> Snape. I don't think we will see the end of the "Is  Snape ESE or ESG 
> or OFH" until book seven is released; so, just for the  sake of being 
> able to tell each other "I told you so", let's tally up  what we 
> believe Snape is before we actually know, and see which way the  
> majority of us are thinking. A brief paragraph is sufficient.

I hope I am doing this right.  I felt I had to post my  opinion because it 
would be interesting to see the results if more than the  regular posters 
respond.  (I guess I am a lurker?) I vote for ESG for  several reasons.  If he is 
ESE or OFH, he is strangely ineffective for a  powerful and knowledgable wizard. 
 I also doubt that DD, who has  known him since he was 11 years old, could be 
fooled so completely.  For  plot development, the deliberate ambiguity JKR 
uses with Snape, would have no  purpose if he were bad.  Snape is Bad!  Would 
that be a  shock?.  Snape is Good really has a bite to it.
 
Nikkalmati









From quigonginger at yahoo.com  Sun Mar  5 04:50:32 2006
From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger)
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 04:50:32 -0000
Subject: SHIP/Hermi (from CHAPDISC)
In-Reply-To: <dudmiv+5odi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dudqmo+spdm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149117

I (Ginger) wrote, in the chapter summary:

> << Hermione explains that it is Harry, not the sport, that is 
popular.
> (snip)  Ron notes that his scars from the brains are still visible. 
> Hermione ignores him and tells Harry that he has grown quite a bit
> over the summer.  Ron says that he is tall too, but to no avail. >>

To which Rita (Catlady) responded:
> This bit never made sense to me. On first read, it sounded like
> Hermione fancied Harry. So, Ron, who fancies Hermione, tried 
clumsily
> to call her favorable attention to him, but Hermione ignored these
> blatant efforts. But it turned out that Hermione never fancied Harry
> and fancied Ron all along. So why'nhell didn't she respond to him? 

Ginger now: 
I think she got it all too well and was playing hard to get.  The 
problem was that Ron, having the emotional range of a teaspoon, 
didn't see it, and took a detour down Lavender Lane.

Rita also wrote: 
> I felt there should have been a sentence somewhere explaining how
> Lavender went from despising Ron last term to being infatuated this
> term. Maybe someone overhearing someone say that Lavender was so
> totally boring this sumer, all she would talk about was Ron's heroic
> save that won the Quidditch Cup for Gryffindor. (snip)

Ginger:
Having been a girl, I am painfully aware of how easily one can go 
from being oblivious to his existance to planning one's wedding.  I 
think it is typical of high school.  How many times did we say "she's 
going out with him?  When did that happen?"

RE:  Hermione's casting the Confundus, Rita wrote:
> 
> More of her Slytherin tendencies, like the whole CoS Polyjuice 
Potion
> scenario: fraudulent access to the Restricted Section, stealing 
potion
> ingredients, drugging Crabbe and Goyle... from someone who's such a
> goody two-shoes or Miss Priss about other people following the 
rules.
> Hyprocrisy is the easy word, but sometimes I wonder if she suffers
> from a touch of Multiple Personality Disorder, the rulebreaker
> personality and the rule follower personality.

Ginger says:  
I see it as an extention of her rule-following, in an odd way.  She 
sees that rules are there for a reason, thus she enforces them as a 
Prefect and generally follows them, as she is the type that likes 
order; but she also realizes that there are times when they need to 
be broken for the greater good, although as an exception, not as a 
general way of life.  Due to her intelligence, she thinks she has the 
wisdom to know when and how they should be broken.  IOW, she is like 
a parent who says "Do as I say, not as I do".  I'm sure she sees her 
own rulebreaking in a different light than the rulebreaking of 
others'.  Don't we all ;0)

Ginger, thanking those who have participated in this discussion and 
those who have warmed my heart with nice comments.






From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar  5 07:21:02 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 07:21:02 -0000
Subject: Snape again
In-Reply-To: <dud0pe+70le@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <due3gu+8tk2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149119

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "festuco" <vuurdame at ...> wrote:
>
> Gerry:
> Well, I think up til now Harry's eyes rubbed it in that James had won.
> But I can see that when it really matters he will remember Lily, and
> finally acknowledge that Harry is not just his farher's son, but also
> his mother's son. And that will make the difference. 
> 
> Gerry, still hoping that JKR is not going there.
>

Okay, that's fine.  But why would this be so much worse than other 
possibilities?  I mean, I grant that it would be incredibly cheesy.  
But I don't see why that would be any more cheesy than a dozen other 
scenarios that got frequently batted around -- like an intricate plot 
between DD and Snape or some kind of legilimency conversation on the 
tower or a DDM!Snape writhing in agony over having to kill his mentor 
on the tower.  Highly cheesy and faintly ludicrous all, but no more or 
less so than the "Harry's eyes" scenario.


Lupinlore









From enlil65 at gmail.com  Sun Mar  5 07:30:12 2006
From: enlil65 at gmail.com (Peggy Wilkins)
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 01:30:12 -0600
Subject: Whose Vanishing Cabinets?
Message-ID: <1789c2360603042330r1ba0a6f5lc86b695b9741d38d@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149120

In "The Lightning-Struck Tower" chapter of HBP, Dumbledore asks Malfoy
how he got the Death Eaters into Hogwarts (pp.586-587):

DD: ".... So tell me, while we wait for your friends ... how did you
smuggle them into here?  It seems to have taken you a long time to
work out how to do it."

DM: "... I had to mend that broken Vanishing Cabinet that no one's
used for years.  The one Montague got lost in last year."

DD: "Aaaah.... That was clever....There is a pair, I take it?"

DM: "In Borgin and Burkes, and they make a kind of passage between
them.  Montague told me that when he was stuck in the Hogwarts one, he
was trapped in limbo but sometimes he could hear what was going on at
school, and sometimes what was going on in the shop, as if the cabinet
was traveling between them...  I was the one who realized there could
be a way into Hogwarts through the cabinets if I fixed the broken
one."

The broken Vanishing Cabinet is no doubt the very one that Peeves
crashed onto the floor above Filch's office, that got Harry out of
trouble in CoS.  Oh, the dire implications of a pair of cabinets
making an unknown passageway between Borgin and Burkes and Hogwarts! 
Who could have put it there, and when?  Who knew about it?  And was
anyone using it before it was broken?  The most natural explanation is
that Tom Riddle could have put it there: he worked at Borgin and
Burkes after leaving Hogwarts.  What if he had access to Hogwarts for
years?  That's a horrid thought; but I think there is a less sinister
explanation.

This Vanishing Cabinet in Hogwarts can't have been too secret, because
Filch knew about it.  When it is crashed over his office, he states
that the "vanishing cabinet was extremely valuable!" (CoS, p.128). 
Who else knows it is a Vanishing Cabinet?  We aren't given any further
information.  Well, how do you get large furniture into Hogwarts?  Who
can get that accomplished? Probably the Headmaster and the other
Professors can do it, but why would they want to?  I doubt students
are allowed their own furniture. Well, what about Filch himself?  In
HBP, Filch intercepts everything coming in to Hogwarts, and only
things that he approves get in. So it would seem that Filch can get
anything he wants into Hogwarts.

Does he have a motivation for using a Vanishing Cabinet from inside
Hogwarts?  I think he does: he is a Squib!  A Vanishing Cabinet would
allow him to effectively apparate without requiring him to be able to
apparate: something that could be very useful for him. (You can't
apparate from inside Hogwarts anyway.)  So we could now ask, if he
bought a pair of Vanishing Cabinets and moved one inside Hogwarts,
where would he put the other one?  It's useless to put the second one
inside Hogwarts, because he's already there.  Most other possible
locations would put the cabinet in danger of discovery or destruction
from people running across it and wondering why it was there.  Where
would it be safe?  The clear answer: leave the second one inside
Borgin and Burkes, where he bought it from.  It could be marked as not
for sale, and he could pay Mr. Borgin a rental fee for storing it for
him.  Now he can go to Borgin and Burkes easily anytime he wants,
without being able to apparate, and without being seen entering the
store or going into Knockturn Alley.  I can imagine a Squib would have
many uses for Dark objects of the type one could buy from Borgin and
Burkes.  This gives him free access anytime he wants.

So I would definitely point my finger at Filch!

I posted this idea regarding the Vanishing Cabinets on cosforums about
a month ago, and was quite surprised that it didn't prompt a single
remark, either for or against... so I hope it prompts a little more
interest over here!

--
Peggy Wilkins
enlil65 at gmail.com





From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar  5 07:31:34 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 07:31:34 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice
In-Reply-To: <008601c63fb7$aac12eb0$518c400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <due44m+9bj4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149121

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" <belviso at ...> wrote:


> 
> In interviews I think JKR plays a role.  

Hmmm.  I wouldn't call this playing a role.  I would call deliberate 
misleading of readers being an out and out liar.  And that would be 
reprehensible beyond belief.  But we shall see.


Lupinlore










From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar  5 07:36:02 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 07:36:02 -0000
Subject: Flints (was Blood on DD face again WAS: Re: Is Snape good or evil?
In-Reply-To: <ducbcp+ge60@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <due4d2+835q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149122

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:
>

> 
> Pippin
> still ROTFLMAO over Lupinlore's assertion that Rowling would
> need to have done forensic research to know  about wiping up 
> blood. Vive la difference...
>

Why?  I grew up around policeman and have no idea how hard or easy it 
is to wipe blood off human hair.  I went to medical school and have no 
idea how hard or easy it is to wipe blood off human hair.  In other 
words, IMO this is a clue to absolutely, positively, nothing, and is 
not obvious even to someone who HAS been medically trained, much less 
someone who hasn't.


Lupinlore








From MadameSSnape at aol.com  Sun Mar  5 12:25:21 2006
From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 07:25:21 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape and the Hope of Redemption
Message-ID: <156.60fd6a90.313c32b1@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149123

 
In a message dated 3/4/2006 12:14:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,  
tonks_op at yahoo.com writes:

Proud  member of the Sinner Snape is DD's Man camp.


=====================
Is there room on that company street for my tent, Tonks?  This is  exactly 
the way I see Severus - and it's why I find him such a sympathetic  character, 
having spent a large part of my life living in a very similar  "skin".  I'm 
also a member of the "coup de gras" camp regarding  Dumbledore's death, having 
spotted him as DMW the moment the hand was brought  out - when I first read the 
tower scene, my first thought was that I  hoped there would be someone to do 
that for me, should that time ever  come.  (Hopefully, Albus left a living will 
somewhere...or whatever the  wizard equivalent is!)
 
Sherrie  
"Accept no one's definition of your life. Define yourself."
-  Harvey Fierstein



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




From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Sun Mar  5 12:56:08 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 12:56:08 -0000
Subject: Whose Vanishing Cabinets?
In-Reply-To: <1789c2360603042330r1ba0a6f5lc86b695b9741d38d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <duen58+t2eh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149124

Peggy:
> Does he have a motivation for using a Vanishing Cabinet from inside
> Hogwarts?  I think he does: he is a Squib!  A Vanishing Cabinet 
would
> allow him to effectively apparate without requiring him to be able 
to
> apparate: something that could be very useful for him. (You can't
> apparate from inside Hogwarts anyway.)  So we could now ask, if he
> bought a pair of Vanishing Cabinets and moved one inside Hogwarts,
> where would he put the other one?  It's useless to put the second 
one
> inside Hogwarts, because he's already there.  

Ceridwen:
Actually, it would even help him out in Hogwarts.  He has to go all 
over a castle that has several different areas, the towers, where he 
would have to go back downstairs to go back upstairs, and he's 
getting on in years.  I don't know if Squibs have the same long life 
as wizards, but any way you look at it, it would certainly save him 
steps.

Peggy:
> Most other possible
> locations would put the cabinet in danger of discovery or 
destruction
> from people running across it and wondering why it was there.  

Ceridwen:
That would depend on where he put it.  He might store it with a WW 
friend - another Squib, perhaps, or family.  Which would make sense 
as well, for holidays.

Peggy:
> Where
> would it be safe?  The clear answer: leave the second one inside
> Borgin and Burkes, where he bought it from.  It could be marked as 
not
> for sale, and he could pay Mr. Borgin a rental fee for storing it 
for
> him.  Now he can go to Borgin and Burkes easily anytime he wants,
> without being able to apparate, and without being seen entering the
> store or going into Knockturn Alley.  I can imagine a Squib would 
have
> many uses for Dark objects of the type one could buy from Borgin and
> Burkes.  This gives him free access anytime he wants.

Ceridwen:
Leaving it in either Diagon Alley or Knockturn Alley would make 
sense, yes, since I imagine Filch needs to do shopping now and then, 
not just personal, but for the things he needs to do his job.  I 
suppose he could owl, I haven't seen where Squibs can't use owls.  
They differ from Muggles in that they're part of the WW.

There's one problem.  When Draco is talking to Borgin, HBP, US, p. 
125, Borgin asks Draco,  "Perhaps you'd like to take it now?"  Draco 
responds on p. 126 that he wouldn't, but that Borgin should not sell 
it.  So it does not belong to Filch, unless he has authorized B&B to 
act as his agent if a high enough offer came through.  Which I doubt, 
it if is so useful to Filch to have it at B&B.

But, that brings up another question.  Dumbledore, in the passage you 
cite, asked about there being another vanishing cabinet.  Why would 
anyone want a single vanishing cabinet and not a pair?  Why would 
someone want to stick their things into a cabinet that will disappear 
them to Merlin-knows-where?  I can think of all sorts of ideas for a 
pair to be bought by friends, lovers, and conspirators.  But nothing 
is coming to mind for someone buying one alone when they won't know 
where their stuff is coming out.  And, Dumbledore should have known 
that, unless he assumed that the other cabinet was destroyed or 
otherwise missing.

And, who did own the pair to begin with?

Ceridwen.







From rkdas at charter.net  Sun Mar  5 13:20:53 2006
From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003)
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 13:20:53 -0000
Subject: Whose Vanishing Cabinets?
In-Reply-To: <duen58+t2eh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dueojl+9s7h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149125

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" <ceridwennight at ...> 
wrote:
SNIPPED WITH VIGOR!
> Ceridwen wrote:
> There's one problem.  When Draco is talking to Borgin, HBP, US, p. 
> 125, Borgin asks Draco,  "Perhaps you'd like to take it now?"  
Draco 
> responds on p. 126 that he wouldn't, but that Borgin should not 
sell 
> it.  So it does not belong to Filch, unless he has authorized B&B 
to 
> act as his agent if a high enough offer came through.  Which I 
doubt, 
> it if is so useful to Filch to have it at B&B.
> 
> But, that brings up another question.  Dumbledore, in the passage 
you 
> cite, asked about there being another vanishing cabinet.  Why 
would 
> anyone want a single vanishing cabinet and not a pair?  Why would 
> someone want to stick their things into a cabinet that will 
disappear 
> them to Merlin-knows-where?  I can think of all sorts of ideas for 
a 
> pair to be bought by friends, lovers, and conspirators.  But 
nothing 
> is coming to mind for someone buying one alone when they won't 
know 
> where their stuff is coming out.  And, Dumbledore should have 
known 
> that, unless he assumed that the other cabinet was destroyed or 
> otherwise missing.
> 
> And, who did own the pair to begin with?
> 
> Ceridwen.

Hi there Cabinet fans!
As a maven of possibly useless HP trivia, I have been thinking for a 
while that Harry actually hid in the Vanishing Cabinet when he 
accidentally ended up in Borgin and Burkes' premises in COS. And 
when the trio are talking about what Draco wanted to be kept for him 
to the oily clerk, during their surveillance of said jr. DE, they 
mentioned they couldn't see what he was indicating because of a 
cabinet! I do believe JKR loves to hide in plain sight which should 
be a lesson to us, no doubt!
Jen D.
>







From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sun Mar  5 14:55:06 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 14:55:06 -0000
Subject: FILK:  Who Put the Fun?
In-Reply-To: <dudnbi+61tj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dueu4a+u7uv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149126

 Ginger:
> Who put the Fun 
> In Confun Confundus fun?
> Who was the Imp behind
> Imp Imperious?
> Who was the Pro 
> Who cast Pro Pro Protego?
> All of these things 
> Make me so curious.

Potioncat:
It has a good beat and is easy to dance to. I'd rate it a 10.

As for the spell page at the lexicon....it crossed my mind that a 
spelling dictionary would be a different type of book for witches than 
for muggles. As would spell-check....

Potioncat, trying to keep this on topic, and not a one liner.








From quigonginger at yahoo.com  Sun Mar  5 17:49:39 2006
From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger)
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 17:49:39 -0000
Subject: Whose Vanishing Cabinets?
In-Reply-To: <duen58+t2eh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duf8bj+dgcc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149127

> Ceridwen:
> There's one problem.  When Draco is talking to Borgin, HBP, US, p. 
> 125, Borgin asks Draco,  "Perhaps you'd like to take it now?"  
Draco 
> responds on p. 126 that he wouldn't, but that Borgin should not 
sell 
> it.  So it does not belong to Filch, unless he has authorized B&B 
to 
> act as his agent if a high enough offer came through.  Which I 
doubt, 
> it if is so useful to Filch to have it at B&B.

Ginger (who snipped big time):
I thought that the thing that Draco bought that he didn't want to 
take with him was the necklace he used to poison Katie (meant for DD, 
of course).  I thought the vanishing cabinet was a red herring that 
turned out to be a Holy Mackerel!  (Or something fishy).

Ceridwen: 
> But, that brings up another question.  Dumbledore, in the passage 
you 
> cite, asked about there being another vanishing cabinet.  Why would 
> anyone want a single vanishing cabinet and not a pair?  Why would 
> someone want to stick their things into a cabinet that will 
disappear 
> them to Merlin-knows-where?  I can think of all sorts of ideas for 
a 
> pair to be bought by friends, lovers, and conspirators.  But 
nothing 
> is coming to mind for someone buying one alone when they won't know 
> where their stuff is coming out.  And, Dumbledore should have known 
> that, unless he assumed that the other cabinet was destroyed or 
> otherwise missing.

Ginger:
Now *that* is a very good question.  One could ask the same of B&B.  
Why did they have a cabinet in their store if they didn't know where 
its mate was?  One would think they would have popped into it just to 
see where it went.  I'm sure as fully-trained wizards, and with Dark 
Art experience, they'd have been able to handle the situation should 
the other have been broken.  They'd have been able to apparate out 
anyway.  Montegue was just lucky he didn't splinch himself or end up 
at B&B's.  

Ginger, glad the Slyths got the full Monty in the end.






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sun Mar  5 18:22:49 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 18:22:49 -0000
Subject: Whose Vanishing Cabinets?
In-Reply-To: <duf8bj+dgcc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dufa9p+9sgs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149128

 
> Ceridwen: 
> > But, that brings up another question.  Dumbledore, in the passage 
> you 
> > cite, asked about there being another vanishing cabinet.  Why 
would 
> > anyone want a single vanishing cabinet and not a pair?  Why would 
> > someone want to stick their things into a cabinet that will 
> disappear 
> > them to Merlin-knows-where?  I can think of all sorts of ideas 
for 
> a 
> > pair to be bought by friends, lovers, and conspirators.  But 
> nothing 
> > is coming to mind for someone buying one alone when they won't 
know 
> > where their stuff is coming out.  And, Dumbledore should have 
known 
> > that, unless he assumed that the other cabinet was destroyed or 
> > otherwise missing.

Potioncat:
But what the heck "is" a Vanishing Cabinet? I thought it was 
something like a trash compactor. But why would you need such an 
applinace if "evanesco" is so easy? It certainly isn't intended as a 
transportation device, even if it does work well as one.

Is it like a water closet? Which, come to think of it, if you don't 
know what is, sounds really strange...why would you put your water in 
a closet?

Or is it like vanishing cream? And if you put vanishing cream on 
strawberry shortcake, would the calories vanish?

> 
> Ginger:
 Montegue was just lucky he didn't splinch himself or end up 
> at B&B's.  
> 
> Ginger, glad the Slyths got the full Monty in the end.

Potioncat:
Good one Ginger! 









From mgrantwich at yahoo.com  Sun Mar  5 19:32:00 2006
From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich)
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 11:32:00 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: HBP11, Hermione's Helping Hand
In-Reply-To: <20060302143222.13534.qmail@web86204.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20060305193200.67110.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149129

> --- Geoff Bannister <gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> Why did JKR introduce McClaggan into the book? To
> me, he doesn't seem 
> to add anything valuable to the advancement of the
> story and seems to be a bit of a spare part.


I can see him becoming a DE recruit in the next book.  The kind of
self-absorbed full-of-himself guy who can't understand why everything
isn't falling into his lap just because he wants it to.  And who has
a grudge against all three members of the Trio.

If he does turn into a Voldy recruit it would also remind readers
that Voldemort does have the ability to charm people into doing what
he wants them to do by making them feel special, by giving the
impression that only he can appreciate their true worth.  Remember
Fake!Moody's explanation to Harry at the climax of GOF, when he tells
him how he (F!M) and the Dark Lord had so much in common.  

There's bound to be someone in the current generation who is
attracted by the Dark Side, and McClaggan strikes me as more likely
than some of the other names mentioned over the years (Colin Creevey,
for instance).

Magda

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From mgrantwich at yahoo.com  Sun Mar  5 19:55:42 2006
From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich)
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 11:55:42 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Leader of Order of the Pheonix -Harry, Moody, Arthur, other
In-Reply-To: <du7u8o+nugi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060305195542.86377.qmail@web53113.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149130

> Mrcbolt:   
> I was wondering if anyone has thought about who is going to
> lead the Order now that Dumbledore is dead(maybe)? 


Before we can answer this question, another one has to be asked:

What is the role of the Order, now that Dumbledore is (definitely)
dead?

For all of Lupin's comments in OOTP about the Order being in a
stronger position than during the first war, it's still not exactly
clear what the Order spends its time doing.  Especially now that they
won't have Snape to feed them information from the DE camp so that
they can take pre-emptive action.

Magda

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Mar  5 19:57:46 2006
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 5 Mar 2006 19:57:46 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 3/5/2006, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1141588666.12.42057.m34@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149131


 Reminder from the Calendar of HPforGrownups
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal

Weekly Chat
Sunday March 5, 2006
1:00 pm - 1:00 pm
(This event repeats every week.)

Notes:
Don't forget, chat happens today, 11 am Pacific, 2 pm Eastern, 7 pm UK time. Chat times do not change for Daylight Saving/Summer Time. Chat generally goes on for about 5 hours, but can last as long as people want it to last.

To get into Chat, just go to the group online:  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups and click on "Chat" in the lefthand menu.  If you have problems with this, go to http://www.yahoo.com and in the bottom box on the left side of the page click on "Chat".  Once you're logged into any room, type /join *g.HPforGrownups ; this should take you right in.  If you have an


Set up birthday reminders!
 http://us.rd.yahoo.com/cal_us/rem/?http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal?v=9&evt_type=13

Copyright 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All Rights Reserved.
 http://www.yahoo.com

Privacy Policy:
 http://privacy.yahoo.com/

Terms of Service:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20060305/3733f6e5/attachment.html>

From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Sun Mar  5 22:06:08 2006
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 22:06:08 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <009501c63fbd$6d5629d0$518c400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <dufncg+ornh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149132

"Magpie" <belviso at ...> wrote: 

> if he trusts him, why would he plead
> for Snape not to betray him just 
> because Snape has entered the room? 

If you're incapacitated and prostrate on the floor and your tormentors
speak to your "friend" as an ally as he enters the room and your
"friend" has a look of extreme hatred as he looks at you and then your
"friend" takes out a weapon and aims it at you then it may be time to
reevaluate your friendship.   

> I see nothing tortured (in the sense 
> you're using the word) about Snape's
> look of hate being about what he's 
> being made to do *if* he doesn't 
> really want to do it.

You are on a jury, the defendant admits to shooting a man but claims
self defense, the prosecution says he killed the man for personal
reasons. You happen to have a photograph of the man's face the instant
he pulled the trigger and it clearly shows a look of hatred. Do you
conclude the man must be innocent because he "hated" doing it? I think not

> Especially after I just had a scene 
> where Harry was hating having to
> feed Dumbledore evil potion but
> doing it anyway. 

If you looked at Harry's face at that instant I believe you would see
sadness and fear and shame and revulsion, but would you see hatred
etched in the harsh lines of his face? I think not. 

> Dumbledore has a habit of making plans that don't involve Harry
knowing what's going on in just this way.  Drives Harry crazy.:-)

No, not in this way. This is very very serious business because it
could quite literally drive Harry crazy, and I include no smiley face.
Keeping this plot secret from Harry could lead to the death of a good
Snape and turn a very kind and very decent young man into a murderer.
Dumbledore has made mistakes before, but not of this magnitude.

"Sydney" <sydpad at ...> wrote: 

> Dumbledore's opinion of Snape-- "I am sure.  I trust Severus Snape
completely."  Now, lets not even ask ourselves if he has a good reason
or anything.  

I believe Dumbledore did have a good reason for trusting Snape
completely, just not good enough. I believe that 16 years ago Snape
made an Unbreakable Vow to Dumbledore to do everything he could to
protect the life of Harry Potter. 

> mabye Rowling is just not a very good writer!

I think Rowling is a great writer and if she manages to produce both a
good book 7 and a good Snape then she is a transcendental genius
because I certainly can't figure out a way. I mean, if JKR can do that
then Shakespeare would be in awe of her.
 
Me:
>>Nobody, absolutely positively nobody, has managed to come up with a
plausible explanation of why Snape murdering the best wizard the good
guys possessed helps the good guys. 

"Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:

> Yet, you offer no alternative scenario 

Yes I have, Snape wants to be number one and to do that he must
eliminate the 2 wizards ahead of him. Half the job is done and Snape
is counting on Harry to take care of the other half, he knows he's up
for the job because he heard the prophecy.

> you can propose 'fight' as an alternative

And I do.

> but the greatest likelihood of outcome is 'lose'.

Although Snape was outnumbered he was clearly far more powerful than
any of the other Death Eaters, they were scared to death of him, even
the mighty werewolf. And Snape had the element of surprise on his
side, the other Death Eaters wouldn't be expecting him to attack them.
If he killed them he could tell Voldemort that Dumbledore had done it.
And if Snape failed, well
., death is better than betraying your friends. 

>War is a terrible, horrible afront
> to humanity. [
] we simply have to
> face it with all it's horror, 
> violation, and atrocity. 

I could not agree with you more, that's why I had such little patience
when people were horrified the Harry in book 5 raised his voice at his
friends a few times. As you say this is WAR and is no time to be
squeamish. In the next book I want to see Harry do something REALLY
controversial, I want to see the self appointed guardians of the
nations morals do the only thing they do well, be outraged. In short I
want to see Harry Potter turn into Dirty Harry.

Eggplant   









From rkdas at charter.net  Sun Mar  5 22:13:27 2006
From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003)
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 22:13:27 -0000
Subject: Leader of Order of the Pheonix -Harry, Moody, Arthur, other
In-Reply-To: <20060305195542.86377.qmail@web53113.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dufnq7+j4nh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149133

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich 
<mgrantwich at ...> wrote:
>
> > Mrcbolt:   
> > I was wondering if anyone has thought about who is going to
> > lead the Order now that Dumbledore is dead(maybe)? 
> 
> 
> Before we can answer this question, another one has to be asked:
> 
> What is the role of the Order, now that Dumbledore is (definitely)
> dead?
> 
> For all of Lupin's comments in OOTP about the Order being in a
> stronger position than during the first war, it's still not exactly
> clear what the Order spends its time doing.  Especially now that 
they
> won't have Snape to feed them information from the DE camp so that
> they can take pre-emptive action.
> 
> Magda

You bring up a very important point. The Order operates (or 
operated) like an internal resistance movement while the Ministry 
was in deep denial. It also seemed the first year to exist to 
protect Harry at points. Now that it's official that LV is back, the 
Order's underground work seems somewhat unclear, esp. as you mention 
that DD is not going to be around. If the Order is to be a force in 
defeating LV, they need a clearer mission. There's still plenty of 
scope for the Order to be part of defeating LV given the Ministry's 
distressing ineptitude. Any potential role does seem tenuous and 
threatening to the MOM. 
Do you or anyone out there think that the Ministry may be going at 
the task so badly because LV sympathizers exist in the ranks? 
(Lucius was very effective at hiding in plain sight to a point) I 
have wondered that. I apologize if this is a subject you've taken up 
recently. Impossible to read all these many and interesting posts!
Jen D.






From enlil65 at gmail.com  Sun Mar  5 16:07:17 2006
From: enlil65 at gmail.com (Peggy Wilkins)
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 10:07:17 -0600
Subject: Whose Vanishing Cabinets?
In-Reply-To: <duen58+t2eh@eGroups.com>
References: <1789c2360603042330r1ba0a6f5lc86b695b9741d38d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <duen58+t2eh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1789c2360603050807v6055ce01j7e1011677a0cb30c@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149134

> Peggy:
> > ...  if he [Filch]
> > bought a pair of Vanishing Cabinets and moved one inside Hogwarts,
> > where would he put the other one?  It's useless to put the second one
> > inside Hogwarts, because he's already there.
>
> Ceridwen:
> Actually, it would even help him out in Hogwarts.  He has to go all
> over a castle that has several different areas, the towers, where he
> would have to go back downstairs to go back upstairs, and he's
> getting on in years.  ... it would certainly save him steps.

True that a pair of Vanishing Cabinets within Hogwarts could offer a
great convenience, but I was thinking more along the lines of how
useful Dark objects would be to Filch as a Squib, and that it fits his
character.  Filch repeatedly remarks how he wants to string students
up by their ankles in chains as a punishment--this suggests someone
who would be interested in the Dark Arts,  and his favored punishment
sounds very much like a strong wish to perform Levicorpus.  Such a
person must find Borgin and Burkes as compelling and exciting as Ron
finds Honeydukes.

> Peggy:
> > Most other possible
> > locations would put the cabinet in danger of discovery or destruction
> > from people running across it and wondering why it was there.
>
> Ceridwen:
> That would depend on where he put it.  He might store it with a WW
> friend - another Squib, perhaps, or family.  Which would make sense
> as well, for holidays.

Does Filch have any friends aside from Mrs. Norris?  :)  Well, I have
to wonder...

> Peggy:
> > Where would it be safe?  The clear answer: leave the second one inside
> > Borgin and Burkes, where he bought it from.  It could be marked as not
> > for sale, and he could pay Mr. Borgin a rental fee for storing it for
> > him. <snip>
>
> Ceridwen:
> Leaving it in either Diagon Alley or Knockturn Alley would make
> sense, yes, since I imagine Filch needs to do shopping now and then,
> not just personal, but for the things he needs to do his job.  I
> suppose he could owl, I haven't seen where Squibs can't use owls.
> They differ from Muggles in that they're part of the WW.

That is a good suggestion for another possible use for the Cabinet
pair: owl in an order, get immediate delivery through the Cabinets.

> There's one problem.  When Draco is talking to Borgin, HBP, US, p.
> 125, Borgin asks Draco,  "Perhaps you'd like to take it now?"  Draco
> responds on p. 126 that he wouldn't, but that Borgin should not sell
> it.  So it does not belong to Filch, unless he has authorized B&B to
> act as his agent if a high enough offer came through.  Which I doubt,
> it if is so useful to Filch to have it at B&B.

I am guessing that Filch has stopped paying the rental fee after the
Hogwarts cabinet broke, since a broken cabinet would have become
useless to him.

> But, that brings up another question.  Dumbledore, in the passage you
> cite, asked about there being another vanishing cabinet.  Why would
> anyone want a single vanishing cabinet and not a pair?

Easy disposal, perhaps.  Everyone doesn't know about the Room of
Requirement as a place to ditch unwanted objects.

Ceridwen:
> And, Dumbledore should have known that, unless he assumed that the
> other cabinet was destroyed or otherwise missing.

I presume he was leading Draco to tell him about the Hogwarts cabinet's brother.

--
Peggy Wilkins
enlil65 at gmail.com






From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Sun Mar  5 15:03:04 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 10:03:04 EST
Subject: Horcrux!Harry Redux  WAS: Re: Small choice in rotten apples
Message-ID: <20e.13390007.313c57a8@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149135

Dungrollin wrote:
><snip>
> 
> I won't repeat all  the evidence for Horcrux!Harry, except to say 
> that I don't know what  else could have happened at Godric's Hollow 
> to tie up so many loose  ends. Basically, this theory relies on 
> Horcrux!Harry, as well as Anne's  theory, ok?
> 
<snip>

Neri:
As a supporter of  Horcrux!Harry I have considered this solution too.
You don't say it  explicitly, so let me see if we are thinking about
the same thing: When Harry  will kill Voldemort, Harry's soul will
split "at the seams", he will lose the  part of his soul that was
originally Voldemort's, and Voldemort (who would be  vapor again at
that point) will die completely.

<snip>

Nikkalmati:
My question is:  If Harry is a Horcrux ( a sort of external Horcrux,  that 
is, the soul piece is encased in the scar) - Does Voldemort know  this?  I see 
no sign in Potterverse that Voldy has any idea he would be  destroying his own 
soul piece by killing Harry.
 
Nikkalmati







From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sun Mar  5 22:49:45 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 22:49:45 -0000
Subject: Outraged Harry ( was:  Snape ...  Dumbledore's sacrifice)
In-Reply-To: <dufncg+ornh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dufpu9+nt1l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149136

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" <eggplant107 at ...>
wrote:
> > bboyminn:
> >
> > War is a terrible, horrible afront  to humanity. [
] we simply
> > have to face it with all it's horror, violation, and atrocity. 

> Eggplant:
> 
> I could not agree with you more, that's why I had such little
> patience when people were horrified the Harry in book 5 raised
> his voice at his friends a few times. As you say this is WAR and
> is no time to be squeamish. In the next book I want to see Harry
> do something REALLY controversial, I want to see the self 
> appointed guardians of the nations morals do the only thing they
> do well, be outraged. In short I want to see Harry Potter turn 
> into Dirty Harry.
> 
> Eggplant
>

bboyminn:

Well, we finally agree on something. I too found no problem with
CapsLock!Harry. In fact, I can't see any other logical response to the
situation. How could he NOT be angry and frustrated? 

As to the next book, once again, I too see DirtyHarry!Harry. I see him
marching into the Ministry and demanding that they work with him on
HIS terms. No posters boy public relations symbol; you tell me
everthing you know and give me full access and full cooperation, and
in return, I will tell you what I think you need to know when I think
you need to know it. 

I don't think the Minister will take kindly to being treated in such a
blunt way. But I think once Harry explains that either the Ministry is
for him or they are against him, and if they are against him then they
are for Voldemort, and if the Minister doesn't like that, then perhaps
it's time for Harry to publish another article exposing how inept,
uncooperative, and dangerous the Ministry's attitude is.

In a sense, Harry will blackmail the Ministry into cooperation; 'Do as
I say, or suffer the consequences'.

Maybe it will happen that way and maybe it won't, but I can certainly
see Harry getting fed up with the bureaucratic and political posturing
and ineffective token actions, and finally deciding it's time to KICK
SOME BUTT.

In general, the thing that amazes me, and worries me, is that on every
front Harry is facing an impossible task. At this stage, without
Dumbledore's help, I don't see how Harry can possibly find all the
Horcruxes. A wizard could spend the rest of his life on that job and
never finish it. At this stage, without Dumbledore's help, I don't see
how Harry has or can every have sufficient magical skill to defeat
Voldemort. Snape stomped all over Harry in their 'great escape' duel,
and it reasonable to assume that Voldemort is more powerful than
Snape. Again, from our limited perspective, Harry could train for the
rest of his life, and perhaps not reach the dueling skill level of
Voldemort. 

Further, I don't want to hear any crap about 'love conquers all'.
While it may be true that doesn't help Harry. He can't sit around
doing nothing to perpare on the assumption that in the final battle he
can just give Voldemort a hug and a kiss, and everything will be fine.

>From Harry's current perspective, he has A LOT to learn, and little
time to learn it. He has to find the Horcruxes, and by the time he
finds them, he has to learn how to destroy them. Compound that by the
fact that learning how to find them, to spot magic residue, and
learning how to destroy them is a massive feat in and of itself. Then
once he learns all that, he actually has to find them. Then to
complicate thing further, he has to gain the skill to effectively
fight a powerful, dark and dangerous wizard. 

It seems that JKR has book 7 planned out, so she knows how she is
going to deal with all these impossible problems. Given that fact that
she has worked very hard to paint Harry into an impossible corner, any
reasonable rational solution is bound to be stunning, and if by some
stroke of magic, she has a wonderfully imaginitive solution to all
this, so much the better for us all.  

So, on this last point, the situation is so impossible that any
solution is bound to be good, but the potential exists for a solution
what will leave us stunned and talking for years to come.

For what it's worth.

Steve/bboyminn








From belviso at attglobal.net  Sun Mar  5 23:07:17 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 18:07:17 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
References: <dufncg+ornh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00e601c640a9$8cdaad70$239e400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 149137

"Magpie" <belviso at ...> wrote:

> if he trusts him, why would he plead
> for Snape not to betray him just
> because Snape has entered the room?

eggplant:
If you're incapacitated and prostrate on the floor and your tormentors
speak to your "friend" as an ally as he enters the room

Magpie:
You wouldn't if your "friend" was a double agent you know perfectly well you 
are running.  Why would Dumbledore be surprised to hear the Death Eaters 
speak to Snape in the role the Dumbledore himself places him in?  He 
wouldn't.

eggplant:
and your
"friend" has a look of extreme hatred as he looks at you and then your
"friend" takes out a weapon and aims it at you then it may be time to
reevaluate your friendship.

Magpie:
Again, Dumbledore starts pleading when Snape walks in the room.  If he is 
reevaluating his friendship due to Snape's look of hatred, JKR did not write 
that beat into the scene, and she has him pleading before it, not after.

eggplant:
You are on a jury, the defendant admits to shooting a man but claims
self defense, the prosecution says he killed the man for personal
reasons. You happen to have a photograph of the man's face the instant
he pulled the trigger and it clearly shows a look of hatred. Do you
conclude the man must be innocent because he "hated" doing it? I think not

Magpie:
I'm not on a jury. I'm reading a particular work of fiction which has 
provided a context in which this reading is simply not that tortured.

Magpie:
> Especially after I just had a scene
> where Harry was hating having to
> feed Dumbledore evil potion but
> doing it anyway.

eggplant:
If you looked at Harry's face at that instant I believe you would see
sadness and fear and shame and revulsion, but would you see hatred
etched in the harsh lines of his face? I think not.

Magpie:
I didn't say I would see a look of hatred on Harry's face in that scene.  I 
said that scene was one in which Dumbledore made Harry promise to do 
something that would hurt him.  Now this is Snape in a different scene.  The 
situation he's potentially in and his character makes his look of revulsion 
and hatred a very reasonable reaction, imo.

eggplant:
No, not in this way. This is very very serious business because it
could quite literally drive Harry crazy, and I include no smiley face.
Keeping this plot secret from Harry could lead to the death of a good
Snape and turn a very kind and very decent young man into a murderer.

Magpie:
Not knowing what Dumbledore was thinking yet, I don't yet feel we can make a 
judgment on the consequences and what he was thinking.

eggplant:
Dumbledore has made mistakes before, but not of this magnitude.

Magpie:
We don't know yet what it was, much less a mistake of a magnitude Dumbledore 
hasn't made before.  Which is an odd description anyway because in your 
scenario no matter what happened Dumbledore made a mistake of a greater 
magnitude than he ever has before.  Why is it okay for him to rely on a 
Death Eater but not okay to realistically keep something important from 
Harry?  He's made that mistake in the past.

eggplant:
Yes I have, Snape wants to be number one and to do that he must
eliminate the 2 wizards ahead of him.

Magpie:
I have to say, I don't see this working in any way.  It's not like the spot 
of "number one" is a literal job with Snape third in line behind Dumbledore 
and Voldemort.  If he gets rid of both of them he's an unemployed Potions 
teacher with a lot of enemies and that's it.

-m 





From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Mar  5 23:58:13 2006
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 23:58:13 -0000
Subject: Vanishing Cabinet(s)/ Blood / Spell-Check
Message-ID: <duftul+5jhm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149138

Peggy Wilkins wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149120 :

<< Oh, the dire implications of a pair of cabinets making an unknown
passageway between Borgin and Burkes and Hogwarts! Who could have put
it there, and when?  Who knew about it?  And was anyone using it
before it was broken? >>

Your theory that it was Filch's pair of cabinets is very clever, but I
somehow thought the cabinets were older than Filch.

Long ago, I floated a theory (which sank without reply) that the pair
of Vanishing Cabinets dated back to a previous Headmaster (maybe
Phineas Nigellus), who put one in hiser office or bedroom and the
other at hiser boyfriend/girlfriend's house, or maybe hiser illegal
Dark Arts laboratory or gambling den. The next Headmaster had no use
for a Vanishing Cabinet in hiser quarters and ordered it removed. The
heirs of the cabinet at the other end had no use for a Vanishing
Cabinet and sold it to Borgin and Burke's. My implication is that no
one except the two people who installed the pair of cabinets knew that
they were connected. Everyone else just thought that things put into
one cabinet just vanished, not travelled.

So I wonder whether they're really named Vanishing Cabinets, or that
name was applied under a false impression of what they did. 

Because I think Vanishing things is destroying them, not transporting
them nor making them invisible. (In OoP. they learned Vanishing
Spell(s) in Transfiguration (why not Charms?), practising on mice and
kittens, and some listie said that Vanishing must be transportation
rather than destruction or else Hermione is a kitten-killer. Well, she
is. The wizarding folk have no idea of opposing cruelty to animals.) 

The problem with that is also in OoP, where Bill uses 'Evanesco' to
dispose of a bunch of scrolls before Harry can see what's on them. If
he wanted to destroy them, why did he bother rolling them up and
trying to carry them away first? I think that was a Flint and he was
really supposing to use a Banishing Spell (taught in Charms) rather
than a Vanishing Spell.

Ceridwen wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149124 :

<< Why would anyone want a single vanishing cabinet and not a pair? 
Why would someone want to stick their things into a cabinet that will
disappear them to Merlin-knows-where? >>

To destroy evidence. To murder inconvenient people (like Montague).
Presumably that's why it was in a Dark Arts shop.

Lupinlore wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149122 :

<<Pippin [wrote:] << still ROTFLMAO over Lupinlore's assertion that
Rowling would need to have done forensic research to know  about
wiping up blood. Vive la difference...>>
Why?  I grew up around policeman and have no idea how hard or easy it
is to wipe blood off human hair.  I went to medical school and have no
idea how hard or easy it is to wipe blood off human hair.  In other
words, IMO this is a clue to absolutely, positively, nothing, and is
not obvious even to someone who HAS been medically trained, much less
someone who hasn't. >>

I thought it was obvious from 'vive la difference' that she was
speaking of menstrual blood. But my recollection of long-ago Human
Anatomy and Physiology class (undergraduate) is that menstrual blood
is different from other shed blood because it has already clotted and
unclotted.

Potioncat wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149126 :

<< it crossed my mind that a spelling dictionary would be a different
type of book for witches than for muggles.>> 

Do they ever say 'spelling' instead of 'casting spells'?

<< As would spell-check.... >>

JKR didn't take advantage of the pun. Ron had a spell-checking quill
in HBP. 

Two relevant passages: p114 at Weasley's Wizard Wheezes, there were
"boxes of quills, which came in Self-Inking, Spell-Checking, and
Smart-Answer varieties. A space cleared in the crowd, and Harry pushed
his way toward the counter, where a gaggle of delighted ten-year-olds
was watching a tiny little wooden man slowly ascending the steps to a
real set of gallows, both perched on a box that read: Reusable hangman
- spell it or he'll swing!" 

and  p421 "How do you spell 'belligerent'?" said Ron, shaking his
quill very hard while staring at his parchment. "It can't be B ??? U ??? M ???" 
"No, it isn't," said Hermione, pulling Ron's essay toward her. "And
'augury' doesn't begin O ??? R ??? G either. What kind of quill are you
using?" 
"It's one of Fred and George's Spell-Check ones, but I think the charm
must be wearing off." 
"Yes, it must," said Hermione, pointing at the title of his essay,
"because we were asked how we'd deal with dementors, not 'Dug-bogs',
and I don't remember you changing your name to 'Roonil Wazlib??? either." 

Has JKR had problems with spell-checkers changing her correct
spellings to incorrect ones, maybe auto-changing her name to Rolling?






From sydpad at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  6 00:00:42 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 00:00:42 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <dufncg+ornh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dufu3a+t7vk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149139


> "Magpie" <belviso@> wrote: 
> 
> > if he trusts him, why would he plead
> > for Snape not to betray him just 
> > because Snape has entered the room? 
> 

Eggplant:
> If you're incapacitated and prostrate on the floor and your tormentors
> speak to your "friend" as an ally as he enters the room and your
> "friend" has a look of extreme hatred as he looks at you and then your
> "friend" takes out a weapon and aims it at you then it may be time to
> reevaluate your friendship.   

Sydney:

Please, my dear, PLEASE go AND READ THE PASSAGE.  Read it SLOWLY.  I
quoted it in it's entirety.  If you don't trust me, haul out your own
copy of HBP.

The PLEADING COMES FIRST, AS SOON AS SNAPE COMES IN.  

First of all, Dumbledore is hardly going to be shaken merely by the
DE's 'speaking to Snape as an ally'.  Snape is a DOUBLE-AGENT. 
Dumbledore freakin' sent him HIMSELF to BE ONE.  And he didn't wait
for the DE to even finish what he was saying.  Snape does not even fix
his glance on Dumbledore before Dumbledore says his name. This is what
we have:  "... the door to the ramparts burst open once more and there
stood Snape, his wand clutched in his hand as his black eyes swept the
scene, from Dumbledore slumped against the wall, to the four Death
Eaters, including the enraged werewolf, and Malfoy."  Then Amycus gets
his short line, which is interrupted.  THAT'S when Dumbledore say's
"Severus..." in a pleading tone.  If Snape's wearing a look of hatred
at this point (or anything but a look of panting, LOL), Dumbledore
would not be able to immediately associate it with Snape looking at HIM.

Dumbledore begins pleading immediately upon Snape entering the scene
and taking it in.  Snape's been up there for, what, 5-7 seconds?   Act
it out yourself.  Go ahead.  Take a stopwatch.  Rember to start at a
run, like Snape.  I won't laugh.  I've done it myself a couple of
times for the sake of this post, and generally I hit around 4.3
seconds, but let's be generous.  How long does it take you to enter a
room and have a quick stock-taking look-- and it's quick, we're told
his eyes 'swept' the scene?  Snape doesn't even know what's going on
at this point-- he's just sprinted up from the dungeons because he
knows Death Eaters are in the castle.  Now, let's suppose you're
EVIL!Snape who's trying to take over the world.  Once he had figured
out that his rival Dumbledore was incapacitated, then he could drop
the mask and make a decision to kill him.  But he has to figure out
what's going on first. How long does THAT take?  I tend to measure
time in 24ths of a second, and you would be amazed how long a real
change of thought and expression takes.

Now, still with the acting out, because sometimes in complicated
scenes like this it's helpful.  You are Dumbledore.  You are
surrounded by enemies, you're sick as a dog from this potion thing. 
And in comes Snape.  Who you believe to be your ally, right?  What's
the FIRST THING YOU FEEL?  Relief?  HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE YOU REALIZE
THAT SOMETHING IS WRONG?   Honestly now.  Even if you're 150 years old
and the cleverest guy in the world.  It takes waaaay more than 7
seconds.  It takes way more than seeing Snape coming in at a dead
run-- A DEAD RUN, mind you, this all happens very quickly-- coming to
a stop, and scanning around trying to figure out what he's looking at.
 You need a CUE from Snape that something is wrong.  But Snape has not
yet had time to give any such cue.  He has only had time to think,
"What's all this then?".  

Dumbledore's PLEADING NECESSARILY PRECEDED SNAPE MAKING ANY SORT OF
DECISION.  IT'S IN THE TEXT.  I'm sorry for the caps, but for the love
of mike, this is not THAT HARD.

*presses fingers to temples*  

Dumbledore says Snape's name pretty much as soon as he sees him--
interrupting the DE who's saying something, not waiting to see what
course of action his double-agent is going to choose.  I would be
totally with you on the ambiguity if he was not described as
'pleading'-- and 'pleading' in such a way as to chill Harry's blood. 
Without that descriptor, maybe the "Severus..." could be to give an
instruction, or to buy some time, whatever.  But we are specifically
told that Dumbeldore is pleading-- to reiterate-- AS SOON AS HE SEES
SNAPE.  He knows, even before Snape has a chance to asses the
situation, that he had to ask Snape to do something that he really,
REALLY is not going to want to do, something that even Dumbledore is
very unsure that he IS going to do.

Dumbledore at this point trusts Snape, right?  RIGHT?  He asked Harry
to go and get him when the returned to the castle, after Dumbledore
was already extremely ill, so it's not like, I dunno, this is the
version of Harry Potter where Dumbledore actually doesn't really trust
Snape, but keeps insisting that he does to people because, I don't
know why.  I mean, let's say that D-dore knows all about the 3rd part
of the Vow (as I certainly think), but let's say that he thinks Snape
will 90% not break the vow, and kill D-dore when the time comes, and
D-dore is against this.  Then his 'I trust Snape' reassessment comes
waaaaay before Snape comes up that tower, and then THAT doesn't make
sense with Dumbledore asserting to Harry that he trusts Snape
completely 2 hours before this scene and sending Harry to go fetch
Snape and no one else, when he knows he's sick from the poison and
Snape will be antsy about letting Dumbledore die through any other
means than Snape killing him.

So I'll say it again.  The Dumbledore who is pleading with Snape is
the same one who trusts him completely.  The only alternative is a
typo that transposed the line where Harry is frightened by
Dumbledore's pleading voice to the wrong part of the passage, to
before Snape could have formed an evil plan or Dumbledore could have
anticipated it. You are free to theorize such a typo, or you are free
to theorize a JKR who was simply careless and forgot to put the
pleading in the logical place. Or you are free to say, 'at the expense
of what the text clearly says, I'm going assume, because of what
happens afterwards, that Snape gave some sort of cue to Dumbledore
that he had switched sides, and that Dumbledore absorbed this cue and
did a 180 on his assesment of what Snape was likely to do-- BEFORE
SNAPE HAS DONE ANYTHING OTHER THAN ENTER THE SCENE. And neither
Snape's 'I'm evil' cue, nor Dumbledore's change of mind, are in the
text or even given a reasonable vacuum to exist in the text, but this
is fine with you.  If you just say that, then I'll leave you alone. <g>

The scene on the Tower works brilliantly (and economically!  until I
typed it out I'd totally forgotten how short it was!), because it's
written first for HARRY, who is essentially an audience member at this
point.  It's written so that to HARRY-- who never trusted Snape, who
didn't respect Dumbledore's trust for him, who is in shock-- to Harry
there is no doubt what he is seeing.  It works for the casual reader
because it goes by so fast, and the reader is likely to be in Harry's
same mental space.  

It ALSO works if, like me, you had anticipated the Curse, the Vow,
Dumbledore's character, and Snape's character, colliding in just such
a way as that OF COURSE Dumbledore is at some point going to have to
plead with Snape not to break the Vow.  

And it works, if you'll give it a chance, if you read it the first
time thinking, OMG Snape killed Dumbledore, the bastard!!  and then
when you read it more slowly and carefully and logically, and say--
wait, something's hinkey here-- DUMBLEDORE trusts Snape, even if I
never did-- why does he start pleading right away?  Where's the bit
where he realizes he's been wrong?  

I'm spending this much time laying this out because I LOVE all the
levels this scene works at I just can't stand anyone missing out on
it.  Because it's FANTASTIC.  


> > but the greatest likelihood of outcome is 'lose'.
> 
> Although Snape was outnumbered he was clearly far more powerful than
> any of the other Death Eaters, they were scared to death of him, even
> the mighty werewolf. 

I know, isn't he COOL?  But he'd be inconvenienced by the handicap of
being DEAD.  Unbreakable Vow?  Remember that?  The one that says if he
doesn't complete Draco's task if Draco seems unable to, that he'll
drop dead?

-Sydney








From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  6 00:17:08 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 00:17:08 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <00e601c640a9$8cdaad70$239e400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <dufv24+ai8j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149140

> eggplant:
<SNIP>
> Yes I have, Snape wants to be number one and to do that he must
> eliminate the 2 wizards ahead of him.
> 
> Magpie:
> I have to say, I don't see this working in any way.  It's not like 
the spot 
> of "number one" is a literal job with Snape third in line behind 
Dumbledore 
> and Voldemort.  If he gets rid of both of them he's an unemployed 
Potions 
> teacher with a lot of enemies and that's it.

Alla:

Not that I am dead set upon the reasons for Snape's actions to be 
the desire to be the most powerful wizard in the world ( although I 
DO think this would be VERY IC reason for Snape to kill DD, but I do 
see other possible reasons), BUT Magpie, why are you so sure that if 
Snape gets rid of both DD and Voldemort, he is just an unemployed 
Potions master. IMO we clearly see that DE on the Tower respect 
Snape and defer to him. Do I think he can lead this bunch if he so 
desires in the absense of Voldemort? I sure do, I think he can 
handle them.

JMO,
Alla.






From belviso at attglobal.net  Mon Mar  6 00:41:38 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 19:41:38 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
References: <dufv24+ai8j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <013501c640b6$bbc0d440$239e400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 149141

>> Magpie:
>> I have to say, I don't see this working in any way.  It's not like
> the spot
>> of "number one" is a literal job with Snape third in line behind
> Dumbledore
>> and Voldemort.  If he gets rid of both of them he's an unemployed
> Potions
>> teacher with a lot of enemies and that's it.
>
> Alla:
>
> Not that I am dead set upon the reasons for Snape's actions to be
> the desire to be the most powerful wizard in the world ( although I
> DO think this would be VERY IC reason for Snape to kill DD, but I do
> see other possible reasons), BUT Magpie, why are you so sure that if
> Snape gets rid of both DD and Voldemort, he is just an unemployed
> Potions master. IMO we clearly see that DE on the Tower respect
> Snape and defer to him. Do I think he can lead this bunch if he so
> desires in the absense of Voldemort? I sure do, I think he can
> handle them.


Magpie:
He may be the coolest, most badass DE to our eyes, but he has never been 
shown to inspire the kind of respect, love and fear Voldemort (or 
Dumbledore) have.  Not even close.  He is far easier to kill, given that as 
far as we know he has no horcruxes.  No one is afraid to say the name 
"Severus Snape."  He's been humiliated and insulted plenty of times in 
canon.  He's had multiple meltdowns over not being respected.  The DEs may 
be in awe for one beat in the scene (greatly due to Dumbledore and the 
situation, imo, not just Snape personally scaring them--they know the 
history between Snape and Dumbledore) but they in no way respect him the way 
they do Voldemort.  They quite possibly defer to him because of Voldemort's 
faith in him, not because none of them would challenge him without 
Voldemort's backing.  The two most loyal DEs are Bellatrix and Barty Crouch. 
Bellatrix claims Snape slithers out of action.  Barty Crouch openly provokes 
him in GoF.  Lucius seems to like him a lot, but doesn't seem to defer to 
him (Sirius calls Snape Lucius' lapdog).  Karkaroff seems to treat him more 
like an old colleague than a superior.

If you're going to tell me that somebody could step into Voldemort's shoes 
it's going to have to be due to a lot more than his being a competent 
wizard.  That's not what Voldemort is about.

-m






From kking0731 at gmail.com  Mon Mar  6 01:31:52 2006
From: kking0731 at gmail.com (Kathy King)
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 20:31:52 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: Vanishing Cabinet(s)/ Blood / Spell-Check
In-Reply-To: <duftul+5jhm@eGroups.com>
References: <duftul+5jhm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a1ee8d580603051731p88856a9k239e48a84df02539@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149142

<<Pippin [wrote:] << still ROTFLMAO over Lupinlore's assertion that
Rowling would need to have done forensic research to know  about
wiping up blood. Vive la difference...>>

Catlady :

Why?  I grew up around policeman and have no idea how hard or easy it
is to wipe blood off human hair.  I went to medical school and have no
idea how hard or easy it is to wipe blood off human hair.  In other
words, IMO this is a clue to absolutely, positively, nothing, and is
not obvious even to someone who HAS been medically trained, much less
someone who hasn't. >>


I thought it was obvious from 'vive la difference' that she was
speaking of menstrual blood. But my recollection of long-ago Human
Anatomy and Physiology class (undergraduate) is that menstrual blood
is different from other shed blood because it has already clotted and
unclotted.





Snow:



Hmmm?I took Pippin's statement at face value. I must say I agree with her
that a half an hour would present difficulty in simply wiping off dried
blood. If the AK killed Dumbledore instantly, as it should have if it were
real, then any blood from said fall would have dried within the half hour
time frame till Harry's arrival because the heart had stopped pumping blood.




As far as blood drying within the time frame of the supposed AK and fall, a
personal thought came to mind involving my Dad falling splitting his ear to
the point of stitches and within a half of an hour of the fall I could not
get the dried blood cleaned up from his face and beard even with very warm
water. This is of course an external bleeding experience compared to an
internal bleeding experience that would provoke bleeding from the mouth. But
again if it were internal bleeding that began as a result of the fall, would
Dumbledore continue to bleed once his heart had stopped previous to the fall
due to the AK? If you throw a dead body a hundred feet would fresh blood
bleed from the mouth for a half an hour? If it were not fresh blood then I
would highly suspect that it could not be removed by simply wiping it.



Snow


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




From AllieS426 at aol.com  Mon Mar  6 01:39:59 2006
From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 01:39:59 -0000
Subject: role of Order of the Phoenix
In-Reply-To: <20060305195542.86377.qmail@web53113.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dug3tf+ghb3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149143

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich <mgrantwich at ...> 
wrote:

> Before we can answer this question, another one has to be asked:
> 
> What is the role of the Order, now that Dumbledore is (definitely)
> dead?
> 
> For all of Lupin's comments in OOTP about the Order being in a
> stronger position than during the first war, it's still not exactly
> clear what the Order spends its time doing.  Especially now that they
> won't have Snape to feed them information from the DE camp so that
> they can take pre-emptive action.
> 
> Magda
> 

Allie (now very angry that her first post was eaten by cyberspace!!):

I've been thinking for a while that the Order, while not incompetent 
like the DE's, really doesn't seem to be very effective at... 
anything!  Harry was attacked by Dementors, the prophecy was almost 
stolen (ok Dumbledore's fault but let's not slander the dead), 
Dumbledore was murdered in his own school, etc. etc.  It's also not 
cler to me that the DE's were going to do ANYTHING once they broke 
into the school besides attempt to murder Dumbledore, and he would 
normally be more than competent to take them all on.  I think the 
presence of the Order may actually have made things worse.  Ginny, 
Neville, Luna, etc wouldn't have been involved at all if there hadn't 
been a raging battle.  I'm sure Fenrir Greyback would have eaten some 
children if he could have, but unless the DE's were planning on 
breaking into the dorms and murdering the children in their sleep 
(which I admit is possible), the children weren't really in danger.  
I'm not saying that the Order should have left the school unprotected, 
but I don't see how they helped anything.  (I'm leaving Snape out 
because he's such a wild card.)

We also have very little canon of anything that the Order has done to 
stall Voldemort.  Maybe that's why I really don't care for book 5.  
(Enter an army of giants, werewolves, and disgruntled Ministry 
employees to prove me wrong!)

(Sorry if this posts twice.)







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  6 02:00:48 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 02:00:48 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <dufu3a+t7vk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dug54g+uoh4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149144

Sydney:
<SNIP>
> So I'll say it again.  The Dumbledore who is pleading with Snape is
> the same one who trusts him completely.  The only alternative is a
> typo that transposed the line where Harry is frightened by
> Dumbledore's pleading voice to the wrong part of the passage, to
> before Snape could have formed an evil plan or Dumbledore could 
have
> anticipated it. You are free to theorize such a typo, or you are 
free
> to theorize a JKR who was simply careless and forgot to put the
> pleading in the logical place. Or you are free to say, 'at the 
expense
> of what the text clearly says, I'm going assume, because of what
> happens afterwards, that Snape gave some sort of cue to Dumbledore
> that he had switched sides, and that Dumbledore absorbed this cue 
and
> did a 180 on his assessment of what Snape was likely to do-- BEFORE
> SNAPE HAS DONE ANYTHING OTHER THAN ENTER THE SCENE. And neither
> Snape's 'I'm evil' cue, nor Dumbledore's change of mind, are in the
> text or even given a reasonable vacuum to exist in the text, but 
this
> is fine with you.  If you just say that, then I'll leave you 
alone. <g>

Alla:

No, sorry, I disagree. First of all, it is NOT a fact that JKR is 
obligated to describe in details DD change of mind about Snape's 
loyalties. Yes, yes, I know rules of storytelling, etc. I don't 
think that JKR is obligated to follow all rules of storytelling, if 
such rules exist.

Second of all, even if JKR wanted to show DD shock, she as I said in 
the earlier post IMO she had shown it VERY clearly, through Harry's 
eyes. You may think it is not enough for you, you may think it 
breaks some rules of storytelling, but IF the shock that Harry feels 
from DD pleading is genuine, it is quite enough for me to see DD 
shock even if through Harry's eyes.

So, no, I don't think it is a typo, I think Harry's frightening of 
DD voice is where it is supposed to be and YES, I read the text 
several times.

And yes, I think it can easily point to guilty Snape.


Sydney: 
>> I know, isn't he COOL?  But he'd be inconvenienced by the 
handicap of
> being DEAD.  Unbreakable Vow?  Remember that?  The one that says 
if he
> doesn't complete Draco's task if Draco seems unable to, that he'll
> drop dead?

Alla:

How do you know when exactly the UV kicks in? There is no time frame 
in it, so maybe it would let Snape to start fighting, thinking that 
Snape would complete Draco's task eventually in an hour or something 
after showing on the Tower.

Since, I don't think that by starting fight Snape would necessarily 
starts suicide, I do think that Snape did own it to Dumbledore to 
try.

Ala wrote earlier:
IMO we clearly see that DE on the Tower respect
> > Snape and defer to him. Do I think he can lead this bunch if he 
so
> > desires in the absence of Voldemort? I sure do, I think he can
> > handle them.
> 
> 
> Magpie:
> He may be the coolest, most badass DE to our eyes, but he has 
never been 
> shown to inspire the kind of respect, love and fear Voldemort (or 
> Dumbledore) have.  Not even close.  He is far easier to kill, 
given that as 
> far as we know he has no horcruxes.  No one is afraid to say the 
name 
> "Severus Snape."  He's been humiliated and insulted plenty of 
times in 
> canon.  He's had multiple meltdowns over not being respected.  The 
DEs may 
> be in awe for one beat in the scene (greatly due to Dumbledore and 
the 
> situation, imo, not just Snape personally scaring them--they know 
the 
> history between Snape and Dumbledore) but they in no way respect 
him the way 
> they do Voldemort.  They quite possibly defer to him because of 
Voldemort's 
> faith in him, not because none of them would challenge him without 
> Voldemort's backing.  <snip>
Alla:

Erm.... Now I am confused. Why do you think that only wizard of 
Voldemort's caliber can lead DE? I mean, sure, Snape is no 
Voldemort, although there are plenty of possible parallels in canon 
between two of them, IMO.

Personally as I said many times I think that JKR did a much more 
effective job portraying Snape as a villain than Voldemort, but sure 
so far Voldemort is more powerful in general ( not that Snape lacks 
potential IMO)

BUT IMO Snape does not HAVE TO be just as powerful as Voldemort is, 
in order to be in charge of DE. All that he needs is respect of the 
DE and as I said IMO it is clear that they do respect him from the 
Tower scene.

It is irrelevant IMO that they may not respect him as much as they 
respect and fear Voldemort. All that is needed for Snape to take 
Voldemort's place is to be sure that DE does not respect anybody 
else more than Snape AFTER Voldemort is gone.

You said that Snape was humiliated in canon. Sure he was, but not by 
DE. I don't think that the majority of them even know about Snape's 
humiliations. All that they know is that Snape had become 
Voldemort's right hand, most trusted man, no? I'd say it is enough 
reason to respect and fear Snape. 

And IMO it will not be hard task to achieve for Snape. After all 
Dumbledore is gone already, and either Harry will kill Voldemort and 
then Snape will make a move on Harry or Voldemort will kill Harry 
and then Snape will try to take Voldemort on.

So, yeah, I think it is possible scenario that Snape wants to get 
rid of both DD and Voldemort and that is why he needs Harry alive.

Speculative? Sure it is. Out of realm of possibilities, I don't 
think so.

JMO,
Alla, who thinks that it is just as likely that Snape just want to 
join the winning side without taking Voldemort's place.








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  6 02:40:26 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 02:40:26 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice
In-Reply-To: <008601c63fb7$aac12eb0$518c400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <dug7eq+dki6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149145

Magpie wrote:
<snip>
> If she thinks Voldemort is so central why does she make Snape more
central to the story?  If she doesn't get why Snape and Draco are
popular why does she, too, seem to give them more important stories
than the other characters?  <snip> Meanwhile for all her claims that
she doesn't get why people want to see stuff about Snape and Draco she
seems to be writing the same type stories herself. Snape's got the
most mysterious, juicy past--he is a gift of a character. <snip> Ron
and Hermione are given things to keep them busy, but it's Snape and
then Draco's storylines that are plugged into the main plot and
Harry's fight.
><snip> And then with Snape, well, there's her goldmine of a
character.  Voldemort's  whole story can be just told flat out in a
couple of Pensieve trips--<snip> There's no conflict for him in his
story, he just grew worse and worse.
> 
> Snape's story on the other hand--whoa.  He's far more central than
Voldemort.  And every book he becomes more so.  First he's Harry's
hated teacher--then he's also his protector!  And he's his father's
nemesis--wait, he's Harry's father's victim!  Then he's an actual
Death Eater--but he's a reformed Death Eater!  Under mysterious
circumstances!  Then there's the scene in the Pensieve where Harry's
actually siding with him. And he's a child in an unhappy household. 
Then he's Harry's new best friend possibly leading him down the
primrose path to evil.  Oh, and it turns out he's the very one
personally responsible for Harry's being an orphan and being the Boy
Who Lived.  Then he kills Dumbledore, who trusts him completely.
> 
> It's Voldemort (the monster--thanks, Sydney!) who hovers around the
edge of the story.  It's Snape who's right there in the center.

Carol responds:
And, of course, in HBP, Snape is doubly central as the Half-Blood
Prince and as the man Harry thinks is aiding Draco in his
Voldemort-assigned mission. There's the irony of Harry identifying
with and learning from the HBP even as his hatred of Snape intensifies
(in part because he's scapegoating Snape for Sirius Black's death and
in part because he learns, at the worst possible moment, that Snape
was the eavesdropper). We see double-agent Snape dealing with Death
Eaters, including the newly recruited Draco, but we also hear about,
and in one instance, actually see, Healer!Snape saving DD from the
ring Horcrux, Katie Bell from the cursed necklace, Draco from Harry's
Sectum Sempra, and even, indirectly, Ron from the poisoned mead since
if it hadn't been for the HBP's Potions book and Snape's initial
lesson on bezoars in SS/PS, Ron would be dead. We have DD's increased
(and even defiant) trust in Snape--based at least in part in his
knowledge of the Dark Arts (which is surely why DD at last gave Snape
the DADA post--he needed Snape and only Snape in that position). 

A sidenote about DD and Snape on the tower: DD has been trying to get
Harry to run to Snape both in Hogsmeade and on the tower. When Snape
shows up, having done nothing more than look around to assess the
situation, DD speaks his name. Snape has not raised his wand or even
looked closely at Dumbledore at this point, and yet there's a pleading
note in Dumbledore's voice. It can have nothing to do with begging
Snape not to kill him, as Snape has made no move to do so. Almost
certainly he's reminding him of the UV, which is about to kick in.
Whatever DD wants Snape to do must be done now. Time is running out.

So, yes, Snape is at the center of the story, much more so than
Voldemort. And the complexities and apparent contradictions that we've
seen throughout the books intensify in what amounts to Snape's book,
HBP. Healer and Dark Arts expert, the perfect person to teach DADA in
this critical year, curse or no curse--Death Eater and Dumbledore's
most trusted man.

As Sydney so usefully points out, Snape is not the villain but Harry's
chief antagonist, and his destruction, unlike Voldemort's, is not
necessary to the plot. JKR has something very important up her sleeve
for him, and I for one interpret the interview in which she claimed to
be "stunned" (by what I take to be a reader's question partially read
by the interviewer) to mean that what's in store for Snape in Book 7
is redemption. 

Carol, who can't wait to hear Rickman!Snape chanting a healing spell
over Draco in the HBP movie






From celizwh at intergate.com  Mon Mar  6 02:41:32 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 02:41:32 -0000
Subject: Vanishing Cabinet(s)/ Blood / Spell-Check
In-Reply-To: <a1ee8d580603051731p88856a9k239e48a84df02539@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <dug7gs+79oi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149146

Snow:

But again if it were internal bleeding that began as a result of the
fall, would Dumbledore continue to bleed once his heart had stopped
previous to the fall due to the AK? If you throw a dead body a hundred
feet would fresh blood bleed from the mouth for a half an hour? If it
were not fresh blood then I would highly suspect that it could not be
removed by simply wiping it.

houyhnhnm:

>From the text, we know that Harry can see Dumbledore's face, but
except for "the strange angle of his arms and legs", we are not told
anything about the attitude of the body. If his head were tilted to
one side or if the ground were sloping away, blood would drain by gravity.

I agree that there are a lot of suspicious circumstances surrounding
DD's death, but I don't think the blood on his face is one of them.  I
mean, from the shamefully little I remember about hemostasis from my
days as a med tech, I don't see the trickle of blood as being
inconsistant with a successful AK, although I personally lean toward a
failed AK myself (or even a faked one), for other reasons.







From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  6 02:40:27 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 02:40:27 -0000
Subject: Blood 
In-Reply-To: <a1ee8d580603051731p88856a9k239e48a84df02539@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <dug7er+r98n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149147

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kathy King" <kking0731 at ...> 
wrote:
> 
But
> again if it were internal bleeding that began as a result of the 
fall, would
> Dumbledore continue to bleed once his heart had stopped previous to 
the fall
> due to the AK? If you throw a dead body a hundred feet would fresh 
blood
> bleed from the mouth for a half an hour? 

Good forensic points.  I would not think it would be unusual for a 
dead body to expel a small amount of fresh blood after being dropped 
a hundred feet.  I agree that it would be unusual for it to bleed for 
half an hour.  Having said that, I don't think such issues came 
anywhere close to crossing JKR's mind.  Just as she doesn't bother to 
work out the speed of owls, so she did not, I think, care in any way 
whether she was being realistic about blood drying.


Lupinlore












From lealess at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  6 03:11:43 2006
From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 03:11:43 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <dug54g+uoh4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dug99f+j0g9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149148

--- "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> > Magpie:
> > He may be the coolest, most badass DE to our eyes, but he has 
> > never been 
> > shown to inspire the kind of respect, love and fear Voldemort (or 
> > Dumbledore) have.  Not even close.
> ><SNIP>
> > They quite possibly defer to him because of  Voldemort's 
> > faith in him, not because none of them would challenge him without 
> > Voldemort's backing.  <snip>
> 
> Alla:
> <SNIP>
>
> BUT IMO Snape does not HAVE TO be just as powerful as Voldemort is, 
> in order to be in charge of DE. All that he needs is respect of the 
> DE and as I said IMO it is clear that they do respect him from the 
> Tower scene.
> 
> <SNIP>

Just a couple of things.  Even someone who was raised to look up to
Snape didn't think much of him during HBP -- treated him with
disrespect, hid thoughts from him, refused his help.  That person was
Draco.  If Draco looked upon Snape as weak, then no matter how much
Voldemort endorsed Snape or how cool many of us think Snape is, the
fact is that he couldn't convince a teenage boy who adored him only a
few years before, someone he had supported for years.  As to why Draco
soured on him, aside from Draco's hankering after "glory"... it was
probably just an adolescent phase.  But if a kid's self-assertion is
all it takes to make Snape fold, then Snape is going to make a lousy
Dark Lord.  Look how ineffectively he dealt with Draco!  Now imagine
Draco trying the "back off, loser" routine on Voldemort.  He tried it
on Dumbledore, and was finally convinced to lower his wand.

And yes, the DEs did seem to respect Snape on the tower, probably
because he had the the ear of Voldemort, or those particular DEs were
a bunch of clueless dolts.  Notably, when Snape had a chance to lead
that group of DEs, he led them away from Hogwarts, not towards DE
glory.  If he wanted to establish his street fighting cred, there was
his chance.  He could have taken down a few people on the way out, let
his "followers" have some fun, but he stepped into a leadership role
and said no.  He slithers out of action -- so what is he going to do
with a cadre of DEs?  Probably the same thing he did with Draco, watch
their backsides in bewilderment as they walk out the door.

And Snape gets no respect, love or fear from his former Order and
Hogwarts colleagues, either... 

lealess






From sydpad at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  6 03:19:02 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 03:19:02 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <dug54g+uoh4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dug9n6+60l8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149149


> Sydney:
> <SNIP>
> > So I'll say it again.  The Dumbledore who is pleading with Snape is
> > the same one who trusts him completely.  The only alternative is a
> > typo that transposed the line where Harry is frightened by
> > Dumbledore's pleading voice to the wrong part of the passage, to
> > before Snape could have formed an evil plan or Dumbledore could 
> have
> > anticipated it. You are free to theorize such a typo, or you are 
> free
> > to theorize a JKR who was simply careless and forgot to put the
> > pleading in the logical place. Or you are free to say, 'at the 
> expense
> > of what the text clearly says, I'm going assume, because of what
> > happens afterwards, that Snape gave some sort of cue to Dumbledore
> > that he had switched sides, and that Dumbledore absorbed this cue 
> and
> > did a 180 on his assessment of what Snape was likely to do-- BEFORE
> > SNAPE HAS DONE ANYTHING OTHER THAN ENTER THE SCENE. 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> No, sorry, I disagree. First of all, it is NOT a fact that JKR is 
> obligated to describe in details DD change of mind about Snape's 
> loyalties. Yes, yes, I know rules of storytelling, etc. I don't 
> think that JKR is obligated to follow all rules of storytelling, if 
> such rules exist.
> 
> Second of all, even if JKR wanted to show DD shock, she as I said in 
> the earlier post IMO she had shown it VERY clearly, through Harry's 
> eyes. You may think it is not enough for you, you may think it 
> breaks some rules of storytelling, but IF the shock that Harry feels 
> from DD pleading is genuine, it is quite enough for me to see DD 
> shock even if through Harry's eyes.

Okay, I'm sorry, was my post not clear?  I can't figure out where I'm
going wrong here.  My point is not that JKR doesn't show Dumbledore
'showing shock'.  My point is that Snape doesn't do anything for
Dumbledore to be shocked ABOUT, before Dumbledore beings pleading.  
Comprende?  Snape does not do anything but come through the door,
stop, and look around-- and he does this all QUICKLY.  He runs.  He
bursts.  He sweeps.  Then Dumbledore begins pleading with him.  Harry
is shocked and frightened BECAUSE Dumbledore is pleading.   Sequence
of events:  Snape, in. leads to,  Dumbledore, pleading.  leads to,
Harry, frightened.  

*presses fingers to temples and contemplates making a martini.  Better
make that a double*

How is this my asking Rowling to "describe in details DD change of
mind about Snape's loyalties"? I typed the whole passage out, at great
personal risk to my fingers, showing how you COULD make the passage
read ambiguously without even ADDING a line, by moving the descrption
of Dumbledore's pleading a couple of lines forward.  I'm not asking
for detail.  I'm asking for basic logic. Like, "Colin Creevy fell in
the lake and then was wet" as opposed to  "Colin Creevy was wet and
then he fell in the lake".   I honestly don't care how wet he is, how
lovingly it's described, how Harry is getting wet from his proximity
to Colin's wetness.  I'm asking for the bit where Colin falls into the
d**n lake to come BEFORE the bit where he's wet.

This is not a rule of storytelling.  THIS IS A RULE OF FREAKIN' MAKING
SENSE.  Not just story sense, ANY kind of sense. Like, getting through
the day remembering that your trousers go on over your underwear
sense.  Saying that we're shown enough by having Harry's shock, is
like saying, we are, for the sake of this scene, ignoring the
principle of CAUSE AND EFFECT.  Harry CANNOT BE SHOCKED BY
DUMBLEDORE'S SHOCK UNTIL DUMBLEDORE IS, IN FACT SHOCKED.  Is he
shocked by Snape coming in in an Evil fashion?  Is Snape wearing an
"I'm Evil!  Ask me how!" button that we're not told about?  Did he
foolishly leave his Evil!Socks on? Did Dumbledore, some time before
telling Draco that he trusts Snape, LIKE 3 PAGES AGO, get a
timeturner, go forward in time, witness his murder, then go back to
where he was, so that he would have the appropriate emotion when Snape
came in? Or maybe, JKR for the purposes of this scene, is doing a
DADAist experiment in narrative inversion!  'Cause we're all
avant-garde and not about the rules of storytelling or even logic or
any of that square stuff!  

Or, gee, here's a shock-- maybe Dumbledore's not shocked at all. Maybe
he's pleading for a reason unconnected to shock.  Because, to be
shocked, you have to surprised, right?  Maybe, as I said in the post
that just possibly you didn't absorb fully:

" The Dumbledore who is pleading with Snape is
the same one who trusts him completely. "


I take it, then, that you're admitting:

>> neither
> > Snape's 'I'm evil' cue, nor Dumbledore's change of mind, are in the
> > text OR EVEN GIVEN A REASONABLE VACUUM TO EXIST IN THE TEXT, but 
> this
> > is fine with you.  If you just say that, then I'll leave you 
> alone. <g>

I'll copy/paste just the important bit for you, so you don't miss it:

OR EVEN GIVEN A REASONABLE VACUUM TO EXIST IN THE TEXT

--Sydney, taking the gin out of the freezer






From belviso at attglobal.net  Mon Mar  6 03:28:40 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 22:28:40 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
References: <dug54g+uoh4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <016201c640ce$10d89d70$239e400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 149150

> Alla:
>
> No, sorry, I disagree. First of all, it is NOT a fact that JKR is
> obligated to describe in details DD change of mind about Snape's
> loyalties.

Magpie:
She didn't say JKR had to describe it in detail at all.  She said it had to 
happen, or at the very least (being very generous) have a place to happen, 
which it does not in this scene.  This is not even just the rules of 
storytelling but the rules of life.  We do not see Dumbledore's shock 
through Harry's eyes or anyone else's eyes.  We know Harry is in shock to 
hear Dumbledore pleading (as soon as Snape enters the room) and that's it. 
Harry is shocked by Dumbledore pleading.  Dumbledore begins to plead as soon 
as Snape enters the room.  Harry has reason to be shocked (Dumbledore is 
pleading).  Dumbledore has no reason to be shocked.  Snape's been entering 
rooms for years.  Why is it suddenly a betrayal for him to do so?

> Alla:
>
> Erm.... Now I am confused. Why do you think that only wizard of
> Voldemort's caliber can lead DE? I mean, sure, Snape is no
> Voldemort, although there are plenty of possible parallels in canon
> between two of them, IMO
> BUT IMO Snape does not HAVE TO be just as powerful as Voldemort is,
> in order to be in charge of DE. All that he needs is respect of the
> DE and as I said IMO it is clear that they do respect him from the
> Tower scene.> Speculative? Sure it is. Out of realm of possibilities, I 
> don't
> think so.

Magpie:
I said that yes, Snape is certainly competent enough to come up with a plan 
some of the DEs (not all) would listen to if Voldemort was defeated.  That 
does not make him Voldemort Redux or the number 1 wizard in the world.  The 
DE as a group of people temporarily under the direction of Snape or Lucius 
Malfoy or any other DE is a totally different kettle of fish than the DE as 
Voldemort's minions.  Snape's even asserting authority through Voldemort in 
that scene, reminding them of what the Dark Lord wants and having to yell at 
them.

lealess:
As to why Draco soured on him, aside from Draco's hankering after "glory"... 
it was probably just an adolescent phase.  But if a kid's self-assertion is
all it takes to make Snape fold, then Snape is going to make a lousy Dark 
Lord.  Look how ineffectively he dealt with Draco!  Now imagine Draco trying 
the "back off, loser" routine on Voldemort.  He tried it
on Dumbledore, and was finally convinced to lower his wand.

Magpie:
Exactly.  Snape's human and Voldemort is inhuman.  I think Draco actually 
still adores Snape, but just as Harry went through a phase of being angry 
and disrespectful of DD, so is Draco challenging his father figure (with 
Lucius in jail).  And not only is Snape not able to command respect, he 
doesn't seem to have too much of a problem with Draco's disrespect.  Perhaps 
because he's not a megalomaniac.  Not only do I not see any way for Snape to 
realistically rule the WW, I honestly see no signs that this is his goal at 
all.

-m 





From kjones at telus.net  Mon Mar  6 03:50:15 2006
From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones)
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 19:50:15 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <dug9n6+60l8@eGroups.com>
References: <dug9n6+60l8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <440BB177.5060205@telus.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 149151

Sydney wrote:

> Or, gee, here's a shock-- maybe Dumbledore's not shocked at all. Maybe
> he's pleading for a reason unconnected to shock.  Because, to be
> shocked, you have to surprised, right?  Maybe, as I said in the post
> that just possibly you didn't absorb fully:

> --Sydney, taking the gin out of the freezer


KJ writes:

    I must say that I agree with Sydney's take on the tower scene and 
believe that we have been led to the same conclusion by at least 
portions of the book.  We know that Snape and Dumbledore have had an 
argument over something that Snape is being forced to do. We also know 
that Dumbledore has told Harry that he knows more of what is going on 
with Snape's UV than Harry. We know that DD drank something "that would 
not kill him immediately" and we also know that Snape is the only person 
that Dumbledore wanted. It seems clear to me that the pleading was a 
continuation of the argument in the forest, that Snape, who was well 
able to see how events were about to unfold, was forced into the same 
action that DD had been pressuring him to do. The tower scene is not a 
stand alone scene. This scene is what the whole story has been leading 
to since GoF. The ambiguity about Snape is what all reasonable people 
feel about spies. Can you trust him? Dare you trust him? DD did for a 
reason.

KJ




From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  6 03:05:35 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 03:05:35 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice
In-Reply-To: <dug7eq+dki6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dug8tv+seeq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149153

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...> 
wrote:
<SNIP>
> 
> As Sydney so usefully points out, Snape is not the villain but Harry's
> chief antagonist, and his destruction, unlike Voldemort's, is not
> necessary to the plot. JKR has something very important up her sleeve
> for him, and I for one interpret the interview in which she claimed to
> be "stunned" (by what I take to be a reader's question partially read
> by the interviewer) to mean that what's in store for Snape in Book 7
> is redemption. 

Possible.  Of course, what is "redemption?"  Does it involve seeing 
Snape as a secondary hero -- thus making a hero out of a child abuser 
and failing in a particularly reprehensible way?  Does it 
involve "cleansing by fire," which would imply a different kind of 
redemption, one that acknowledges that Snape bears stains that can only 
be burned off at the most fearsome of costs?  Does it imply a 
redemption via forgiveness, where the emphasis is not on cleansing 
Snape but on showing compassion for his pain, while still, perhaps, 
punishing his very real faults?  Or does redemption belong not to 
Snape, but to other characters, perhaps Wormtail (now THAT would be 
worth it just to hear the howls!)

> 
> Carol, who can't wait to hear Rickman!Snape chanting a healing spell
> over Draco in the HBP movie
>

Lupinlore, who thinks that one shouldn't bet on any scene making it 
into the movie, as Snape's key scenes mostly don't make it, and who is 
also pondering Sidney's Hollywood Theory of Civilization, by which 
progress accelerates the more you can trick villains into the 
entertainment industry and away from anything important.









From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  6 04:05:23 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 04:05:23 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <dugbnq+4kds@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dugce3+hd36@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149154

> > Alla:
> >
> > No, sorry, I disagree. First of all, it is NOT a fact that JKR is
> > obligated to describe in details DD change of mind about Snape's
> > loyalties.
>
> Magpie:
> She didn't say JKR had to describe it in detail at all.  She said
it had to
> happen, or at the very least (being very generous) have a place to
happen,
> which it does not in this scene.

Alla:

Right, sorry, my bad. But she did say that Dumbledore's shock HAS to
happen, correct? I did not misunderstand that part? So, what I am
saying that it is EITHER unnecessary since for me it makes enough
sense without DD showing shock OR what
Harry saw was enough for me to feel DD shock.


Magpie:
<SNIP>
    We do not see Dumbledore's shock
> through Harry's eyes or anyone else's eyes.  We know Harry is in
shock to
> hear Dumbledore pleading (as soon as Snape enters the room) and
that's it.

Alla:

Right, but that is the thing. For me it is enough. From Harry being
shocked by DD pleading I can imagine that DD was being shocked
because of "for the first time in his life" part. It is unnecessary
for me for JKR to insert the part of "DD was looking shocked", etc.
Makes sense?

Magpie:
> Harry is shocked by Dumbledore pleading.  Dumbledore begins to
plead as soon
> as Snape enters the room.  Harry has reason to be shocked
(Dumbledore is
> pleading).  Dumbledore has no reason to be shocked.  Snape's been
entering
> rooms for years.  Why is it suddenly a betrayal for him to do so?

Alla:

For example so much had been argued ( not you, I am just saying in
general) in the past that DD and Snape communicated by legilimency.
I do not think that it had been wordless communications, but we KNOW
that legilimenc can pick up feelings, no? Who knows, maybe DD does
not need an eye contact to pick up Snape's emotions, maybe he sensed
betrayal the moment Snape entered the room. Just speculating here,
but IMO JKR can give us that and it can make total sense, to me
anyway.


> Magpie:
> I said that yes, Snape is certainly competent enough to come up
with a plan
> some of the DEs (not all) would listen to if Voldemort was
defeated.  That
> does not make him Voldemort Redux or the number 1 wizard in the
world.

Alla:

And what I am saying is that Snape does not NEED to be Voldemort's
redux or Number 1 Wizard in the world to lead DE. All he need is the
ability to keep DE under control and IMO he certainly has it.

Magpie:
  The
> DE as a group of people temporarily under the direction of Snape
or Lucius
> Malfoy or any other DE is a totally different kettle of fish than
the DE as
> Voldemort's minions.
<SNIP>

Alla:

Sure, they would be different, because instead of Voldemort as boss,
they will have Snape as a boss. Snape can have some other things
other than what Voldemort wanted in mind if he becomes a boss, sure
why not?

I just don't think that Voldemort is the ONLY one who can lead them,
that is all.

JMO,

Alla








From juli17 at aol.com  Mon Mar  6 04:26:15 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 23:26:15 EST
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
Message-ID: <243.801757b.313d13e7@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149155

 
Sydney:
<SNIP>
> So I'll say it again.  The Dumbledore  who is pleading with Snape is
> the same one who trusts him  completely.  The only alternative is a
> typo that transposed the  line where Harry is frightened by
> Dumbledore's pleading voice to the  wrong part of the passage, to
> before Snape could have formed an evil  plan or Dumbledore could 
have
> anticipated it. You are free to  theorize such a typo, or you are 
free
> to theorize a JKR who was  simply careless and forgot to put the
> pleading in the logical place. Or  you are free to say, 'at the 
expense
> of what the text clearly says,  I'm going assume, because of what
> happens afterwards, that Snape gave  some sort of cue to Dumbledore
> that he had switched sides, and that  Dumbledore absorbed this cue 
and
> did a 180 on his assessment of what  Snape was likely to do-- BEFORE
> SNAPE HAS DONE ANYTHING OTHER THAN ENTER  THE SCENE. And neither
> Snape's 'I'm evil' cue, nor Dumbledore's change  of mind, are in the
> text or even given a reasonable vacuum to exist in  the text, but 
this
> is fine with you.  If you just say that,  then I'll leave you 
alone. <g>

Alla:

No, sorry, I  disagree. First of all, it is NOT a fact that JKR is 
obligated to describe  in details DD change of mind about Snape's 
loyalties. Yes, yes, I know rules  of storytelling, etc. I don't 
think that JKR is obligated to follow all  rules of storytelling, if 
such rules exist.

Second of all, even if  JKR wanted to show DD shock, she as I said in 
the earlier post IMO she had  shown it VERY clearly, through Harry's 
eyes. You may think it is not enough  for you, you may think it 
breaks some rules of storytelling, but IF the  shock that Harry feels 
from DD pleading is genuine, it is quite enough for  me to see DD 
shock even if through Harry's eyes.

So, no, I don't  think it is a typo, I think Harry's frightening of 
DD voice is where it is  supposed to be and YES, I read the text 
several times.

And yes, I  think it can easily point to guilty Snape.
 
 
Julie now:
I still don't quite understand your POV, Alla, so I'm asking for a
bit more elucidation. We all seem to agree that Snape enters
the scene and Dumbledore almost immediately says his name
in a pleading tone. I think we also agree that Snape and Dumbledore
have not made direct eye contact, and that Harry (our narrator for  the
scene, who describes Snape scanning the scene before him) does
not see any particular expression on Snape's face at that early 
moment (it is later that the hate and revlusion appears). Can we
also agree there would be no reason for Dumbledore to consider
the DE's informing Snape of Draco's failure to have any bearing on
Snape's true alliegance, as Snape has on Dumbledore's own orders
been pretending to be a DE, and thus it would be expected that the
DEs would address Snape as one of their own?
 
Now, this leads me to my question for you, and anyone who interprets
Dumbledore's pleading tone when he first says "Severus" as indicative
of him suddenly realizing that Snape has turned (or is about to turn)  on
him. *What* was the cue that caused Dumbledore to so very quickly
come to this conclusion? After all, only hours earlier he had for  about
the hundreth time in the book insisted that he trusted Snape  absolutely.
 
So, why, with nothing more obvious than Snape walking into the scene,
would Dumbledore without any forethought almost immediately suspect 
betrayal? Was it Legilimency--he read Snape's mind and discovered his
real intentions (though this doesn't explain why he couldn't do so  before)?
Or maybe he lied and never trusted Snape (which gives us  a Dumbledore
lying repeatedly on the subject for no discernable reason at all)?  Or
is there something I'm missing, some clue I misread? 
 
Julie 


 


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




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  6 04:36:14 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 04:36:14 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <dugce3+hd36@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duge7u+en1p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149156

Alla wrote:
> 
> Right, but that is the thing. For me it is enough. From Harry being
shocked by DD pleading I can imagine that DD was being shocked because
of "for the first time in his life" part. It is unnecessary for me for
JKR to insert the part of "DD was looking shocked", etc. Makes sense?

Carol responds:
But, Alla, can you please explain why Dumbledore, who has been asking
Harry to fetch Snape up to the point when he had to freeze him, would
be shocked by Snape's running into the room and looking around? (It's
*Harry* who's shocked, and his shock comes from DD's pleading voice.)

So, no, it doesn't make sense. And note your use of "imagine" when
Sydney and Magpie are talking about the words on the page.

"Pleading" does not equal "shock."

Carol






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  6 05:00:44 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 05:00:44 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <dugf07+qu56@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dugfls+vndt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149158


> Carol responds:
> But, Alla, can you please explain why Dumbledore, who has been
asking
> Harry to fetch Snape up to the point when he had to freeze him,
would
> be shocked by Snape's running into the room and looking around?
(It's
> *Harry* who's shocked, and his shock comes from DD's pleading
voice.)

Alla:

Why Dumbledore can be shocked? Of course I can only speculate at
this point. I just speculated about legilimency. Note that I am not
contradicting myself since in the past I argued that we don't know
that legilimency can pick up direct conversations, but IMO it is
likely that legilimens can pick up emotions and IMO the wizard as
powerful as DD may not need to look in Snape's eyes to pick his
moods.

Why else DD can be shocked? Maybe because Snape does not rush in to
the battle right away and DD expects him too?

Carol:
> So, no, it doesn't make sense. And note your use of "imagine" when
> Sydney and Magpie are talking about the words on the page.

Alla:
It does not make sense for you, for me it does.

Carol:
> "Pleading" does not equal "shock."

Alla:

Yes, pleading does not necessarily equal shock, but since I am very
willing to entertain the idea that Snape may not be an innocent
party, a dutiful soldier who takes DD out on his orders, but instead
a self-serving individual who finally realised that it makes no
sense to stick to DD side, because DD is well...seems to loose at
the moment,
then IMO pleading may very well be BECAUSE the person is shocked
from the most ultimate betrayal of his trust.

JMO of course,

Alla












From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Mon Mar  6 05:43:28 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 05:43:28 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice
In-Reply-To: <dug7eq+dki6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dugi60+89s7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149159

> Magpie wrote:
<snip>
> If she thinks Voldemort is so central why does she make Snape more
> central to the story? <snip> And then with Snape, well, there's
> her goldmine of a character.  Voldemort's  whole story can be just
> told flat out in a couple of Pensieve trips--<snip> There's no 
> conflict for him in his story, he just grew worse and worse.
 
> Snape's story on the other hand--whoa.  He's far more central than
> Voldemort.  And every book he becomes more so.  

> Carol responds:
> And, of course, in HBP, Snape is doubly central as the Half-Blood
> Prince and as the man Harry thinks is aiding Draco in his
> Voldemort-assigned mission.
<snipped list of Snape's role in HBP, see upthread > 
> So, yes, Snape is at the center of the story, much more so than
> Voldemort. And the complexities and apparent contradictions that
> we've seen throughout the books intensify in what amounts to
> Snape's book, HBP. 

Jen: I'm not counting out Voldemort to move into the forefront in 
book 7, and for the sun to set on Snape's role. Along with Snape's 
legitimate part in the plot of all the books, he's also served as a 
diversion for Harry from the much more onerous and amorphous task of 
dealing with Voldemort. Since Harry won't be able to continue to 
divert attention from Voldemort and the horcruxes, Snape could 
easily follow Sirius as having a grand plot moment, followed by a 
few more pivotal scenes in the grand finale and the curtain call. 

Just the act of how to include him in book 7 from Harry's POV will 
limit his page time. Harry may hear news about him from others, and 
there will likely be a Pensive scene or other means to learn about 
the Prank. I think most of Snape's story will happen off-stage and 
will be much more about Harry coming to terms with him, the tower, 
etc., than Snape in the present.
 
My reading of HBP was there was a treasure trove of possibilities in 
the story of Voldemort for how Harry will both find and destroy the 
horcruxes and defeat Voldemort in the end. Maybe I'm taking a page 
out of Sherry Gomes book here to say I think the end will be about 
the kids and if there's a conflicted role for Harry to deal with now 
it will likely be Malfoy and perhaps Slytherins as a whole. Much as 
I hate to think of it, the Marauder story is coming to a close. We 
need to know a few more puzzle pieces for the past to fall into 
place, and likely Godric's Hollow will be the biggest dramatic 
moment. Lily will finally get her day and perhaps her story does 
involve Snape to a certain extent, although likely he was not a 
focal point of her life.

justcarol:
> As Sydney so usefully points out, Snape is not the villain but
> Harry's chief antagonist, and his destruction, unlike Voldemort's,
> is not necessary to the plot. JKR has something very important up 
> her sleeve for him, and I for one interpret the interview in which
> she claimed to be "stunned" (by what I take to be a reader's 
> question partially read by the interviewer) to mean that what's in 
> store for Snape in Book 7 is redemption. 

Jen: Well, I thought he *was* redeemed when he turned back to 
Dumbledore. Do you mean public redemtption or redemption in the eyes 
of Harry after the tower? I wonder if Snape didn't sacrifice that 
possibility and that's his real story. It would be a huge deal for 
him, wouldn't it, to live out his life in infamy or die an 
inglorious death rather than get the recognition he craved? To me 
that would be a real change if Snape chose to do something which 
didn't allow him to slither out of action and also closed the door 
on public glory. He could finally be redeemed to himself, seems like.

Jen R.






From kchuplis at alltel.net  Mon Mar  6 06:40:01 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen)
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 00:40:01 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Outraged Harry ( was:  Snape ...  Dumbledore's sacrifice)
In-Reply-To: <dufpu9+nt1l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <09D36C19-ACDC-11DA-A66B-000393B04DDE@alltel.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 149160


On Sunday, March 5, 2006, at 04:49 PM, Steve wrote:
>
>
> bboyminn:
>
> Well, we finally agree on something. I too found no problem with
> CapsLock!Harry. In fact, I can't see any other logical response to the
> situation. How could he NOT be angry and frustrated?
>
> As to the next book, once again, I too see DirtyHarry!Harry. I see him
> marching into the Ministry and demanding that they work with him on
> HIS terms. No posters boy public relations symbol; you tell me
> everthing you know and give me full access and full cooperation, and
> in return, I will tell you what I think you need to know when I think
> you need to know it.
>
> I don't think the Minister will take kindly to being treated in such a
> blunt way. But I think once Harry explains that either the Ministry is
> for him or they are against him, and if they are against him then they
> are for Voldemort, and if the Minister doesn't like that, then perhaps
> it's time for Harry to publish another article exposing how inept,
> uncooperative, and dangerous the Ministry's attitude is.
>
> In a sense, Harry will blackmail the Ministry into cooperation; 'Do as
> I say, or suffer the consequences'.
>
> Maybe it will happen that way and maybe it won't, but I can certainly
> see Harry getting fed up with the bureaucratic and political posturing
> and ineffective token actions, and finally deciding it's time to KICK
> SOME BUTT.

kchuplis:

I agree and see some foreshadowing of this. In OOP (Scholastic 
paperback pg. 737:

"Even through his  anger and impatience Harry recognized Hermione's 
offer to accompany him into Umbridge's office as a sign of solidarity 
and loyalty."

I found that choice of wording "a sign of solidarity and loyalty" to be 
extremely interesting. It really sounded as though we could almost 
begin to pinpoint this as the beginning of Harry as Leader. We go on to 
see it in the "rescue mission". We get more of a hint of it at the 
funeral in HBP. And Harry's extreme calm in the very last paragraph of 
that book rather reminds me of when he gathers himself in the graveyard 
and decides to come out fighting on his own terms. It seems to me that 
we will see a very determined!Harry, if not dirtyharry!harry in 7.  And 
a Harry with at least a small version of his own Order of the Phoenix. 
He doesn't seem to be letting the real OOP in on the horcrux situation 
(which could certainly change in 7) but that is not to say he won't be 
utilizing his own little army that he trained pretty thoroughly in OOP.




From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  6 06:49:54 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 06:49:54 -0000
Subject: Outraged Harry ( was:  Snape ...  Dumbledore's sacrifice)
In-Reply-To: <dufpu9+nt1l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dugm2i+50rn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149161

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:
>
> As to the next book, once again, I too see DirtyHarry!Harry. 
(snip)

> In general, the thing that amazes me, and worries me, is that on 
every front Harry is facing an impossible task. At this stage, 
without Dumbledore's help, I don't see how Harry can possibly find 
all the Horcruxes. A wizard could spend the rest of his life on that 
job and never finish it. At this stage, without Dumbledore's help, I 
don't see how Harry has or can every have sufficient magical skill 
to defeat Voldemort. Snape stomped all over Harry in their 'great 
escape' duel, and it reasonable to assume that Voldemort is more 
powerful than Snape. Again, from our limited perspective, Harry 
could train for the rest of his life, and perhaps not reach the 
dueling skill level of Voldemort. 
> 
> Further, I don't want to hear any crap about 'love conquers all'.
> While it may be true that doesn't help Harry. He can't sit around
> doing nothing to perpare on the assumption that in the final 
battle he can just give Voldemort a hug and a kiss, and everything 
will be fine.

Tonks:
Well maybe a hug and kiss with kill him off from a heart attack. ;-)

Snape has told us that Harry is only a mediocre wizard.  He gets by 
with "luck" and the help of his more talented friends.  I think that 
this is true, and I don't think that this will change anytime soon. 
Yes, I know that he was able to manage a Patronus at a young age, 
but Harry is no DD.  Harry is going to need some serious HELP.  And 
I think that he will get that help.  He will get it from Snape, 
which no one, not even Harry expects.  He will get it from his 
friends.  He may in someway get it from Sirius on the other side. 
And Harry may somehow, someway, get help from DD, or at least from 
Fawkes who will return if DD does not return.

If children are to identify with Harry, Harry has to be like them.  
He can not be the superhero.  He is the regular guy who is a nice 
guy, a good person, doing his best to live up to his potential.  
Children can see themselves in him.  If he is superman, they will 
not identify with him.  And I think that JKR wants kids to identify 
with Harry and learn from and along with Harry.

Again the series is about the triumph of Love over Death.  This, I 
believe is the reason that JKR wrote the series.  Her mother's death 
was a catalyst to the series.  So Love, in its highest and most 
ancient form will save Harry.  Just "how" this will be carried out 
is anybodies guess, but that is where JKR is going with this.  I am 
sure of it.

Tonks_op








From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Mon Mar  6 06:52:59 2006
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 06:52:59 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <dufu3a+t7vk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dugm8b+112h8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149162

 "Sydney" <sydpad at ...> wrote:

> Unbreakable Vow?  Remember that?

Yes indeed I remember that vow! Using that vow to excuse Snape's
behavior is like saying it's not my fault I ran over your grandmother
in my SUV because I was drunk.  Even before Snape made that dreadful
vow I never liked the man, but after it one thing became crystal
clear, Snape is either an evil bastard or Snape is a brainless idiot;
there is simply no third choice. I don't believe even JKR can make an
interesting book out of a Forrest Gump Snape, but a wonderfully evil
mustache twitching brilliant Snape in another mater entirely. 

Eggplant   







From juli17 at aol.com  Mon Mar  6 07:24:34 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 07:24:34 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <dugfls+vndt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dugo3i+jf2q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149163

<snip>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Yes, pleading does not necessarily equal shock, but since I am very
> willing to entertain the idea that Snape may not be an innocent
> party, a dutiful soldier who takes DD out on his orders, but instead
> a self-serving individual who finally realised that it makes no
> sense to stick to DD side, because DD is well...seems to loose at
> the moment,
> then IMO pleading may very well be BECAUSE the person is shocked> 
from the most ultimate betrayal of his trust.
> 

Julie:
We're back to reallystupid!Dumbledore, who's known Snape for most of
Snape's life, sixteen years of that as colleagues, and several years 
closely aligned in a spy operation, yet misjudged him so badly that 
he went from full and absolute trust to blindsided shock in a matter 
of seconds. I just don't buy that version of Dumbledore. Yes, he 
makes mistakes, but he's smarter than that. 

Also, while Legilimency might be a possible way Dumbledore came to 
his sudden realization of Snape's betrayal *before* Snape actually 
did anything, it presents several problems.

1. If Dumbledore used legilimency to ferret out Snape's true 
feelings/intentions, why didn't our narrator, Harry, note some 
reflection of this in Snape's expression? Why did it take so long for 
Snape to look at Dumbledore with hatred and digust if he came onto 
the scene "broadcasting" his feelings and intent strongly enough for 
Dumbledore to read them?

2. Why didn't Dumbledore use legilimency earlier--far earlier--to 
learn that Snape was vacillating on the loyalty issue--or at least so 
he could recognize that Snape's commitment wasn't in the "I can trust 
him *absolutely*" category, but more in the "I hope I'm right about 
him, but I'd better watch my back" category? 

3. Why do many ESE!/OFH!Snape advocates reject the notion of 
legilimency between Dumbledore and Snape on the Tower while they're 
INTENTLY STARING at each other, but are willing to accept legilimency 
when they aren't even *looking* at each other if it will support the 
theory that Dumbledore's pleading "Severus..." was an indication of 
his shock at Snape's betrayal? (As we have read that legilimency 
requires eye contact.) It seems the latter would be much more of 
a "convoluted twists and turns" flimsy-canon type of support than the 
former ;-)

I just added that third one to point out that ESE and OFH require 
their own questionable leaps of logic, not because anyone has stated 
it in such bald terms!

Julie 






From richter at ridgenet.net  Mon Mar  6 06:17:10 2006
From: richter at ridgenet.net (richter_kuymal)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 06:17:10 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice
In-Reply-To: <dugi60+89s7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dugk56+5osb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149164

I've been reading the various posts and perhaps someone can explain 
a bit better for me.  In HBP, we have (American edition, page 583) 
DD telling HP "Go and Wake Severus" -- this is AFTER they have seen 
the Dark Mark and after arriving at the tower.  In other words, DD 
does NOT expect to find SS up and about.  In any scenario of an DE 
attack on Hogwarts, would DD expect Snape to be present? No. If he 
fights for the Order, he's outed.  If he fights for the DEs, he 
could be captured, injured, killed and certainly would look guilty 
of being a DE.  So DD's expectation would be that if there is 
trouble with DEs, Snape will "stay in your room".  
  So Snape showing up at the tower AT ALL would be shocking to DD -- 
because one way or the other Snape has been "outed".  And since it 
was never in his plans that Snape be outed in such a fashion and 
Snape certainly hasn't acted as his ally in the arrival, he realizes 
Snape has betrayed him.
  Draco tells DD "they met some of your guards.  They're having a 
fight down below..."  Harry hears the "sounds of the Death eater's 
distant fight" (page 585) - so DD has to know that in order to get 
to the tower in the first place, Snape has to be "outed" (by either 
fighting for or against the order).  
  So I can see Lupinlore's point in feeling that the pleading by DD 
is indeed DD realizing Snape has betrayed him.

PAR


 








From little_scottie6 at hotmail.com  Sun Mar  5 09:47:58 2006
From: little_scottie6 at hotmail.com (Victoria Scott)
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 20:47:58 +1100
Subject: Whose Vanishing Cabinets?
In-Reply-To: <1789c2360603042330r1ba0a6f5lc86b695b9741d38d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY109-F2A6D55485A83CFA492895D9E80@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 149165

> Peggy:
>In "The Lightning-Struck Tower" chapter of HBP, Dumbledore asks 
>Malfoy how he got the Death Eaters into Hogwarts (pp.586-587):
> <snip>
>DM: "... I had to mend that broken Vanishing Cabinet that no one's
>used for years.  The one Montague got lost in last year." <snip>
>
>DM: "In Borgin and Burkes, and they make a kind of passage between
>them.  Montague told me that when he was stuck in the Hogwarts one, 
>he was trapped in limbo but sometimes he could hear what was going 
>on at school, and sometimes what was going on in the shop, as if the 
>cabinet was traveling between them...  I was the one who realized 
>there could be a way into Hogwarts through the cabinets if I fixed 
>the broken one."


G.C. adds:

The previous conversation follows my opinion about the vanishing cabinet.

I think that the vanishing cabinet in Borgin and Burkes could have 
been a member of the goods that Lucius Malfoy wanted to sell. This 
allows Malfoy to get as much information from his father as he likes, 
given that he could go to Azkaban? I dunno, just a thought.






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  6 08:24:06 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 08:24:06 -0000
Subject: Outraged Harry - Love Conquers All or Not
In-Reply-To: <dugm2i+50rn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dugrj6+827f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149166

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" <tonks_op at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn@> wrote:
> >
> > As to the next book, once again, I too see DirtyHarry!Harry. 
> > ...
> > 
> > Further, I don't want to hear any crap about 'love conquers 
> > all'. While it may be true that doesn't help Harry. He can't
> > sit around doing nothing to perpare on the assumption that in
> > the final battle he can just give Voldemort a hug and a kiss,
> > and everything will be fine.
> 
> Tonks:
> Well maybe a hug and kiss with kill him off from a heart attack.
> 
> ...edited...
> 
> Again the series is about the triumph of Love over Death.  This,
> I believe is the reason that JKR wrote the series.  Her mother's 
> death  was a catalyst to the series.  So Love, in its highest and 
> most ancient form will save Harry.  Just "how" this will be 
> carried out is anybodies guess, but that is where JKR is going 
> with this.  I am sure of it.
> 
> Tonks_op
>

bboyminn:

It seems reasonable clear AS A READER that Love does and will conquer
all. I have no doubt in the final moment something will occur to Harry
or some unexpected event will transpire that will prove that. It could
be Harry sacrificing himself for the good of others. It could be
others sacrificing themselves for the good of Harry. 

I have speculated in the recent past, that perhaps in that final show
down, one or more of Harry's friends will be willing to or actually
will sacrifice themselves for Harry. They will throw themselves in
front of him and shield him from Voldemort. 

In that moment Harry will realize how deeply he must be loved for so
many people to willingly and eagerly sacrifice themselves for him. In
that moment of realization, he will understand that he is invincible
to Voldemort's attack because he is shielded by the willing
sacrificial love of his friends. And it goes on from there....

However, **FROM HARRY'S PERSPECTIVE** things are quite different. He
has absolutely no way of knowing nor any way of believing that somehow
the power of love will save him in the end. He is facing impossible
tasks, and somehow he has to be ready for them. To not at least try to
get ready for them is unrealistic writing. So, I have to believe that
Harry will, in the next book, concentrate on improving his skill for
every task he faces; magical detection, curse breaking, Horcrux
destroying, Dueling, etc.... 

And that is the part that bothers me. Even if Harry tries to improve
his skills, the tasks are too great, the load is too heavy, but JKR
says she has a plan. She claims she knows how she will get Harry past
all these obsticals. 

Still as a READER, JKR's task seems almost as impossible as Harry's.
So much has to be learned, so much has to be done, so many subplots
and characters have to be resolved. It seems impossible to accomplish
it in one book, even if that book is the size of a library dictionary.
Still she has a plan. Even though she has painted Harry into the
darkest bleakest most desperate and hopeless of corners, she seems to
have a way out. I just wish I knew what it was.

That's why I say that even a moderately satisfying solution to the
story is still a monumental accomplishment. And if by some chance, JKR
can pull off a truly inspired solution to everything, well that is
nearly a miracle.

In a sense, regarding 'love conquers all', it matters whether you use
an internal or external perspective. External to the story, as a
reader, yes, I can see that happening even if I don't know how. But
internal to the story, from the perspective of Harry and the other
characters, the concept of 'love conquers all' is worthless because
there is no clear way to train for it and know way of knowing how to
apply it. It seems unrealistic for Harry to move forward in the story
depending on 'love' for the solution. The only logical internal
solution is long hard training and detailed specific study. 

I'm not sure where this is going, but none the less, there it is.

Steve/bboyminn







From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  6 09:12:35 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 09:12:35 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice
In-Reply-To: <dugk56+5osb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dugue3+2fn1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149167

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "richter_kuymal" <richter at ...> 
wrote:
>
> I've been reading the various posts and perhaps someone can 
explain a bit better for me.  In HBP, we have (American edition, 
page 583) DD telling HP "Go and Wake Severus" -- this is AFTER they 
have seen  the Dark Mark and after arriving at the tower.  In other 
words, DD  does NOT expect to find SS up and about.  In any scenario 
of an DE  attack on Hogwarts, would DD expect Snape to be present? 
No. If he  fights for the Order, he's outed.  If he fights for the 
DEs, he  could be captured, injured, killed and certainly would look 
guilty of being a DE.  So DD's expectation would be that if there is 
> trouble with DEs, Snape will "stay in your room".  
>   So Snape showing up at the tower AT ALL would be shocking to DD -
- because one way or the other Snape has been "outed".  


Tonks:

Ok, Auror here, investigating the murder scene.  Let's look at the 
facts in the case.

1. DD trust Snape. This has been proven time and time again.  DD 
says it all the time.
2. Lupin trust DD's trusting Snape, therefore also trust Snape.
3. Hagrid also trust DD's trust of Snape.  We don't know why.
4. Snape and DD have a disagreement over something Snape does not 
what to do.
5. Harry is the most important person necessary to vanquish LV.
6. DD says that Harry is more important then even he is.
7. Snape has protected Harry, has saved Harry at least once and does 
so again at the end of this book.
8. DD has drunk the poison and is close to death and needs Snape to 
cure him.
9. There is no way that Snape can help DD with DE watching.
10. DD tries to save Draco.
11. DD says to Draco "it is my mercy that matters now"

>From this we must assume that Snape must maintain his cover as a DE 
to help Harry.  Otherwise all of those years of being a spy will be 
for nothing.

Snape is told that DE are in the castle.  He knows why they are 
there.  Snape is a man of action, He is not going to sit in his 
dungeon while the DE and OP battle it out.  On the other hand, he is 
not rash either, like Harry might be.  Snape may have thought about 
this moment and what he would do if and when it came.  On the other 
hand, he did not know what Draco was doing so he may have been 
surprised to hear that the DE were there.
(Side note: He does not have to worry about the Order and running 
past them to find Draco because the Order members know that he is a 
double agent and will not expect him to fight on there side.  They 
will expect him to get the DE out of the castle and maybe cast a few 
pretend spells in their direction in the process.) 

In order of importance Snape must:  Protect Harry. Keep his own 
cover.  Protect Draco.  Get the DE out of the castle.  And if 
possible do all of this with out messing up the curse of the vow.  
Last on this list, last of all would be helping DD. 

DD is dying from the burnt hand and the poison.  It will only add to 
Snape's cover if DD dies at Snape's hand. 

Snape has taken the vow.  We don't know when it will go into effect 
if he does not kill DD now, but it doesn't matter. Snape must kill 
DD or his cover is blown.  His ability to help Harry is blown.  And 
he will be a dead man either way, because LV will kill him or the DE 
will for being the traitor that he is.

Now here is a leap..  You have to mean the curse that you do. Bella 
taught us that.  So let's assume that Snape must feel hate in order 
for the AK to work.  Like a method actor he has to pull it from 
himself somehow.  Perhaps he doesn't need to feel the hate for the 
person before him, just needs to feel hate period.  That is why we 
see a look of hate on his face.  Maybe he is thinking of his father, 
maybe he is thinking of LV, we don't know.  He probably just needs 
to have a good dose of hate engery in his body for the spell to work.

As Steve said, this is war.  Sometimes you have to do what you have 
to do, like it or not.  Snape did not take the easy way and neither 
did DD.  They both knew what had to be done and did it.  All for 
Harry.  All to vanquish LV.  All for Draco.  All for the fate of the 
Wizarding World and for the Muggle World.  It was bigger that DD, 
bigger that Snape, and even bigger that Harry.  And what a price 
they both paid, what a terrible price. 

Tonks_op









From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Mon Mar  6 10:21:17 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 10:21:17 -0000
Subject: Blood
In-Reply-To: <dug7er+r98n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duh2et+uhed@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149168

Lupinlore:
> Good forensic points.  I would not think it would be unusual for a 
> dead body to expel a small amount of fresh blood after being dropped 
> a hundred feet.  I agree that it would be unusual for it to bleed for 
> half an hour.  Having said that, I don't think such issues came 
> anywhere close to crossing JKR's mind.  Just as she doesn't bother to 
> work out the speed of owls, so she did not, I think, care in any way 
> whether she was being realistic about blood drying.

Ceridwen:
But, she was pretty good about Harry's dried blood when Draco stomped 
his nose.  Hermione had to use her wand to syphon it off his face.

Also, Dumbledore was on his back, IIRC.  Blood rising without being 
pumped by the heart or pushed out by air from the lungs?  If he was 
already dead when he hit, the hit would have pushed the blood out by 
expelling the last of the air from his lungs.  But, half an hour 
later?  Did anyone think 'Dragon's Blood Ampule Between The Teeth'?

Since everyone's putting in personal experience, anyone with kids would 
know about dried blood, on skin and in the hair.  Kids get some nasty-
looking cuts and scrapes in the most inconvenient places.  I have four 
kids, JKR has two or three (though the new one doesn't count for OMG!
BloodEverywhere!).  My best friend's eldest used to get some horrific 
nosebleeds, which got in his hair.  She had a heck of a time wiping it 
out, even when it was fresh.

Ceridwen, who is not really a doctor, but who has played Dr. Mom on 
occasion.






From kchuplis at alltel.net  Mon Mar  6 14:53:32 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen)
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 08:53:32 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Outraged Harry ( was:  Snape ...  Dumbledore's sacrifice)
References: <dugm2i+50rn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000901c6412d$bd0987d0$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local>

No: HPFGUIDX 149169


  Tonks:
  Snape has told us that Harry is only a mediocre wizard.  He gets by 
  with "luck" and the help of his more talented friends.  I think that 
  this is true, and I don't think that this will change anytime soon. 
  Yes, I know that he was able to manage a Patronus at a young age, 
  but Harry is no DD.  Harry is going to need some serious HELP.  And 
  I think that he will get that help.  He will get it from Snape, 
  which no one, not even Harry expects.  He will get it from his 
  friends.  He may in someway get it from Sirius on the other side. 
  And Harry may somehow, someway, get help from DD, or at least from 
  Fawkes who will return if DD does not return.

  If children are to identify with Harry, Harry has to be like them.  
  He can not be the superhero.  He is the regular guy who is a nice 
  guy, a good person, doing his best to live up to his potential.  
  Children can see themselves in him.  If he is superman, they will 
  not identify with him.  And I think that JKR wants kids to identify 
  with Harry and learn from and along with Harry.

  kchuplis:

  To me, this has been rather the point all along though. It's the reason DD always has Harry let his best friends in on the info. It's shouted at the school houses. He's told again and again to keep his friends with him. I think the point (or one of) is that you don't have to, and you really can't triumph without help. Community, solidarity, friendship, loyalty, love....all those recurring themes are tied up in this. But Harry is the focus. He's the lynchpin and it can't be done without him either. This is where I see Harry becoming THE leader figure and he will win, but he has to get there with his friends. I don't think I'm nuts thinking this is one of the main "lessons" in the stories, am I?

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




From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  6 15:09:46 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 15:09:46 -0000
Subject: Trusting Snape/Life debt again
In-Reply-To: <ducle6+u4bi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duhjbq+jpdt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149170

PJ wrote:
> Dumbledore says "Professor Snape could not bear being in your father's 
> debt... I do believe he worked so hard to protect you this year
because *he 
> felt* that would make him and your father even.  Then he could go
back to 
> hating your father's memory in peace..." (SS pg 300 US - and
emphasis mine)
> 
> So, as I read this there is really nothing concrete to this debt
since the 
> man he owed it to is dead. We're told "he FELT" rather than he
owed... This 
> was one man's decision to rid himself of his Potter curse and not a 
> magically enforceable thing at all.   Dumbledore's "I do believe"
tells us 
> that much since if it were a magical reality he'd have told Harry so
just as 
> he did with Pettigrew.
> 
<snip>

> We are told that Snape had a life debt to *James* due to the prank
but we're 
> also being told that Snape *chose* to unofficially transfer this
debt from 
> father to son as a matter of honor... of sorts. (yes, I think Snape has 
> honor within his own personal moral confines)  So he actually owes
Harry 
> nothing.

Neri:
This objection depends on a distinction between a moral debt and
magical Debt. But we can't be sure what exactly this distinction is,
or even if JKR wants to make this distinction at all. In SS/PS we had
no reason to think that Snape's debt to *James* was anything more than
a point of honor. Did you think, when first reading it, that
Dumbledore was meaning anything magical by "he couldn't bear being in
your father's debt"? I didn't. Even the way Dumbledore speaks about
Pettigrew's debt in PoA can be interpreted as mainly a moral issue.
Potterverse magic in "its deepest, most impenetrable" is always linked
very closely with moral (or immoral) issues: the protection of love,
the protection of blood, Fidelius, the Unforgivables, the Horcruxes.
Do you see Snape taking a part (even inadvertently) in the death of a
person he has a Life Debt to and still getting off the hook in regard
to his orphan? What kind of lousy magic would that be??? 

Actually, I'd stake considerably more on this simple moral argument
than on some very convincing "clues". If Snape indeed had some kind of
a Debt to James, then he got to have a similar kind of Debt towards
Harry. In fact, this moral/thematic content is one of the main
advantages of LID!Snape over OFH!Snape. But if you want "a clue" ?
here is one: Dumbledore had trusted Snape completely for 15 years
after James had died. He staked his life on this trust. If you don't
believe in LOLLIPOPS, how do you explain it? 

But I concede that strictly speaking it isn't completely
straightforward from Dumbledore's words that Snape owes a *magical*
Life Debt to Harry. Which is actually a nice thing, since at this
point the strongest objection against LID would probably be that it's
*too much* straightforward <g>.

PJ:
> Naturally I agree but why accepting "almost" everything?  What
exactly do 
> you think he lied about?
> 

Neri:
Oh, I was just exercising standard caution with my assertions <g>. Of
the top of my head I can't think of anything I believe Snape lied
about in Spinner's End, but I'm too lazy to read the whole chapter
again just to make sure.  

PJ: 
> I believe this to be the most critical question for OFH!Snape but
see no 
> reason for LID!Snape to worry about it since there is no debt owed in 
> the legal sense of the word.
> 

Neri:
Erm
 are you absolutely sure there isn't? I can understand a claim
that this debt isn't straightforward reading, but how can you be sure
it doesn't exist? Because Dumbledore didn't tell us outright that it
does? 

PJ:
> But he has to find a way to do it that won't alienate Dumbledore
either.  
> Engineering a way to make Harry at fault was brilliant but then I've
never 
> heard anyone say Snape was stupid. :-)  He played Harry like a
violin and 
> got Snape off the hook with both Dumbledore and Voldermort.
> 

Neri:
Personally I tend to think that leaving Harry alone with the memories
in the pensieve wasn't actually engineered (because it saves me an
argument with Faith) but it certainly came very handy as an excuse for
Dumbledore. In any case it isn't critical for the theory if it was
engineered or not.

PJ:
> So far I can't see any canon for a life-indebted Snape (other than the 
> UNofficial debt Snape takes  on himself) at all.  What I see is a
real good, 
> first class explanation of OFH!Snape's motivations.  ;-)
> 

Neri:
Thanks, glad to be of service.

I don't know if you'd call it canon, but LID explains several big
mysteries that OFH doesn't explain very well, like (as I wrote above)
why did Dumbledore trust Snape and why did Snape saved Harry from
being crucio'ed after Dumbledore was already dead.

> Alla:
> 
> But LID!Snape and OFH!Snape can coexist rather peacefully. Right, 
> Neri? I was so sure of it, but I don't want to misinterpret you.
>

Neri:
Well, I guess you can view LID as OFH + Life Debt, but I think this
would be a bit superficial. LID generally posits that the Life Debt is
the main key to almost all the Snape mysteries. In addition, the
predictions of these two theories for Book 7 are very different. LID
assumes that the whole Snape subplot has been a build-up for Snape
finally managing to save Harry's life and repaying his Debt in a
critical moment in Book 7. 

Neri








From belviso at attglobal.net  Mon Mar  6 15:28:52 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 15:28:52 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <dugce3+hd36@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duhkfk+erh0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149171

> Alla:
> 
> Right, sorry, my bad. But she did say that Dumbledore's shock HAS 
to
> happen, correct? 

Magpie:
She's not saying that shock, specifically has to happen.  She's 
saying that if Dumbledore trusts Snape 100% he needs to change from 
trusting him to seeing him as a betrayer, and that there is no sign 
of a change in Dumbledore, no catalyst for a change in Dumbledore 
and no time for a change in Dumbledore between the moment Snape runs 
into the room and the moment he pleads with him. 

Alla:
I did not misunderstand that part? So, what I am
> saying that it is EITHER unnecessary since for me it makes enough
> sense without DD showing shock OR what
> Harry saw was enough for me to feel DD shock.

Magpie:
It makes sense for you the same way it makes sense for Harry, but 
does not fit the actual events of the scene.  You and Harry already 
have a narrative in your mind where Snape betrays Dumbledore so 
Dumbledore not showing any sign of seeing it is either unimportant 
or explained away.  But the fact remains that Harry being shocked at 
Dumbledore's pleading in no way says Dumbledore was shocked at 
anything.  I think all the signs point to Dumbledore shocking Harry 
by revealing something that was already going on, not changing.

> Alla:
> 
> Right, but that is the thing. For me it is enough. From Harry being
> shocked by DD pleading I can imagine that DD was being shocked
> because of "for the first time in his life" part. It is unnecessary
> for me for JKR to insert the part of "DD was looking shocked", etc.
> Makes sense?

Magpie:
Yes, it makes sense--but only in terms of explaining how you are re-
imagining the scene.  It still doesn't fit the facts that happen in 
front of us. It's Harry who immediately sees Snape as a threat in 
the scene--and he has a catalyst for it: Dumbledore's pleading.  If 
Dumbledore is going to have an even bigger realization and change, 
he needs a catalyst too, and a beat for him to change.  He doesn't 
get either.

> Alla:
> 
> For example so much had been argued ( not you, I am just saying in
> general) in the past that DD and Snape communicated by legilimency.
> I do not think that it had been wordless communications, but we 
KNOW
> that legilimenc can pick up feelings, no? Who knows, maybe DD does
> not need an eye contact to pick up Snape's emotions, maybe he 
sensed
> betrayal the moment Snape entered the room. Just speculating here,
> but IMO JKR can give us that and it can make total sense, to me
> anyway.

Magpie:
I should just say I don't buy any Legilimancy theories.  The only 
time I buy it's happening is when one person is looking intently 
into another's eyes--we've been told you have to do that.  Here 
Dumbledore has no time to do that. Plus if he was doing that we'd 
still need to see a beat where he "heard" or "saw" that Snape was 
not the man he thought he was moments ago.  There would still be a 
change in Dumbledore that would take a moment.

> Alla:
> 
> And what I am saying is that Snape does not NEED to be Voldemort's
> redux or Number 1 Wizard in the world to lead DE. All he need is 
the
> ability to keep DE under control and IMO he certainly has it.

Magpie:
But the theory here was not that Snape was going to lead the DEs, 
but that he was making himself the #1 wizard of the world by killing 
DD and letting Harry kill Voldemort.  Managing a ragtag group of 
criminals does not qualify for that.  Also I gave you examples in 
canon where the DEs are not that respectful of Snape.  Yes, they 
stand back in this one scene, but as I said I think that's due to 
the situation more than Snape's threat--especially Snape's threat to 
them.  Snape himself has to yell at them to tell them to follow 
orders (the Dark Lord's orders--he appeals to their master).  If 
Voldemort died Snape would, imo, still have to appeal to the idea 
they were doing the Dark Lord's wishes.  Plus, as I said in another 
post, I see no signs that Snape's goal is to take over the world.  
He's a lot of things, but he doesn't seem like a megalomaniac.  If 
he wanted to lead the DEs he could have attempted it earlier.

Alla:
> Sure, they would be different, because instead of Voldemort as 
boss,
> they will have Snape as a boss. 

Magpie:
Voldemort is not their boss.  Voldemort is their Lord.  Without him 
they're just a bunch of free agents, not a gang looking for a boss.  
If Snape was going to attain the level of respect and power 
Dumbledore or Voldemort had, it would take years.

richter_kuymal:
So Snape showing up at the tower AT ALL would be shocking to DD --
because one way or the other Snape has been "outed".  

Magpie:
There's a battle going on in the school.  There is nothing shocking 
about Snape showing up to it.  There is no canon that Dumbledore has 
ordered Snape that if DEs ever attack the castle he has orders to 
stay in his room and pretend to be asleep (presumably even when 
people come to wake him up as they would).  Dumbledore probably 
didn't even have a plan for what to do if DEs got into the school, 
because he thought it was impossible.

richter_kuymal:
And Snape certainly hasn't acted as his ally in the arrival, he 
realizes Snape has betrayed him.

Magpie:
Once more with feeling: SNAPE HAS NOT ACTED IN ANY WAY INCONSISTENT 
WITH BEING AN ALLY OF DUMBLEDORE IN THE ARRIVAL, NOR AT ALL AT THE 
POINT DUMBLEDORE PLEADS WITH HIM.  Not only that, but Dumbledore 
doesn't even have time to decide Snape hasn't acted as an ally in 
his arrival and so think he should plead with him to not betray 
him.  

Snape's arrival is dramatic because everyone in the room thinks 
Snape is an ally who has also convinced the other people he is an 
ally.  

-m






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Mar  6 15:31:53 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 15:31:53 -0000
Subject: Blood
In-Reply-To: <duh2et+uhed@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duhkl9+5ute@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149172

> Lupinlore:
> > Good forensic points.  I would not think it would be unusual for a 
> > dead body to expel a small amount of fresh blood after being dropped 
> > a hundred feet.  I agree that it would be unusual for it to bleed for 
> > half an hour.  Having said that, I don't think such issues came 
> > anywhere close to crossing JKR's mind.  Just as she doesn't bother to 
> > work out the speed of owls, so she did not, I think, care in any way 
> > whether she was being realistic about blood drying.
> 
> Ceridwen:
> But, she was pretty good about Harry's dried blood when Draco stomped 
> his nose.  Hermione had to use her wand to syphon it off his face.

Pippin:
There's a motif of  blood  running through the last two books. 
Umbridge's quill and Katie's noseblood in OOP, then in HBP the dragon's 
blood, Harry's nosebleed, Dumbledore's cut to enter the cave, Harry's cut, 
then the trickle in question. Not to mention Dumbledore's cryptic statement
that Harry's blood is more precious than his. 

BTW, forensic information isn't hard to find at all -- a
google  on blood wipe hair produced this site: 

http://www.aaronelkins.com/forensictidbits.htm

which also has interesting information about death by falling

At least we all seem to agree that the blood as described has
not coagulated and shouldn't  be there half an hour 
after death.

The trouble with arguing that it was a Flint, or artistic 
license, or cosmic disregard for logic, is that you can 
use those arguments to dispose of any evidence that you find
inconvenient for your theories. You might as well argue that
Harry is going to wake up back in the cupboard and find
that it was all a dream.

Pippin
who was indeed thinking that between menstruation and careless children
it'd be the rare mother who hasn't cleaned blood off all sorts of things







From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  6 12:52:40 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 12:52:40 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <dug9n6+60l8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duhbao+v7hi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149173

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" <sydpad at ...> wrote:
>


> 
> Okay, I'm sorry, was my post not clear?  I can't figure out where 
I'm
> going wrong here.  My point is not that JKR doesn't show Dumbledore
> 'showing shock'.  My point is that Snape doesn't do anything for
> Dumbledore to be shocked ABOUT, before Dumbledore beings pleading.  
> Comprende?  

Oh, your point is perfectly understandable, I think.  It just isn't 
all that convincing with regard to what was or was not going on atop 
the tower, or what was or was not going on with Snape during HBP.  I 
mean, DDM! Snape, IMO, would be cheesy, more than faintly ludicrous, 
and extremely poor and unbelievable writing.  Now, I'm perfectly 
willing to allow that JKR would actually sink to that level, but 
perhaps others are not.  And for those who are not yet willing to 
believe that JKR would pull a, IMO, cheap trick like DDM!Snape, there 
is nothing in your argument that is overwhelming.  Snape did nothing 
in that instant, it is true.  But the events on the tower take place 
in the context of all of HBP.  There is plenty that has happened 
during that time to have given DD second thoughts about Snape, 
whether he acknowledged them to Harry or not.


Lupinlore








From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  6 13:10:40 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 13:10:40 -0000
Subject: Outraged Harry - Love Conquers All or Not
In-Reply-To: <dugrj6+827f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duhccg+8af0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149174

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:
But
> internal to the story, from the perspective of Harry and the other
> characters, the concept of 'love conquers all' is worthless because
> there is no clear way to train for it and know way of knowing how to
> apply it. It seems unrealistic for Harry to move forward in the 
story
> depending on 'love' for the solution. The only logical internal
> solution is long hard training and detailed specific study. 
> 


But training and detailed specific study just isn't Harry.  It's 
never been Harry and never will be Harry.  Here is where JKR is, I 
think, a character theorist -- and really not very concerned with the 
logic or believability of her story (face it, it doesn't take much of 
a hard look for the whole thing to come apart like tissue paper long 
before this juncture).  She is interested in showing the virtues of 
certain character traits, in this case, love.  Harry is the avatar of 
love in the series, so that is the trait that will see him through, 
doubtless in ways he does not anticipate.  As the avatar of love, 
Harry approaches these problems in his own way.  JKR just isn't 
interested in showing another way -- i.e. training and specific 
study.  If she was interested in showing that way, she would have 
made Hermione the hero.  


Lupinlore










From richter at ridgenet.net  Mon Mar  6 14:09:31 2006
From: richter at ridgenet.net (richter_kuymal)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 14:09:31 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice
In-Reply-To: <dugue3+2fn1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duhfqr+5h6k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149175

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" <tonks_op at ...> wrote:
>> 1. DD trust Snape.  <snip>  2. Lupin trust DD's trusting Snape, 
therefore also trust Snape. 3. Hagrid also trust DD's trust of 
Snape.  
 PAR: sorry, but in RL there are cases of well trusted high security 
folk who are moles for more than 20 years.  These were "trusted by 
all" and had security checks. And they were still bad guys. That DD 
trusted Snape *can* be a mistake on DD's part.  Sometimes people 
blow their "second chance".  That DD was trusted regarding Snape 
only points out that believing because someone ELSE says so is not 
always wise.   .

.
> 4. Snape and DD have a disagreement over something Snape does not 
> what to do.
PAR: which could be anything from watching Malfoy, to helping Harry, 
to continuing to spy, to staying at Hogwarts.  

> 5. Harry is the most important person necessary to vanquish LV.
PAR: a nonsequitur. Harry's importance remains regardless of Snape 
being ESE, OFH, DDM or LID. In and of itself, Harry's importance 
proves nothing one way or the other regarding Snape's actions on the 
Tower.

> 6. DD says that Harry is more important then even he is.
PAR: same as #5 above.

> 7. Snape has protected Harry, has saved Harry at least once and 
does  so again at the end of this book.
PAR: I don't believe that Snape has actually ever "saved" Harry, 
although I agree he's made the effort and may believe he has. The 
difference is if Harry might have managed without Snape.  And LID 
answers Snapes' actions or even an UV that "I'll keep Harry alive to 
fight LV". So again, this doesn't answer as to Snape and DD, only 
Snape and Harry.

 8. DD has drunk the poison and is close to death and needs Snape to 
> cure him.
== and again, this had occured regardless of ESE, OFH or DDman.  So 
it doesn't prove anything. It's not evidence.

> 9. There is no way that Snape can help DD with DE watching.
== sure there was. 
1. he could use a "levicorpus" variant combined with some other 
verbal action and LOWER DD over the tower.  This is the man that 
presumably created hexes as a kid.  (turns to the other DE's:"I've 
been saving that one JUST for DD!). Finds DD on the ground and tries 
to help him. Even if DD dies anyway, Snape has tried to HELP.

2. Destroys the barrier -- either Malfoy or one of the other DEs put 
it up. He's the "DADA teacher".  Leads OOP members to help DD. 

3. Takes out the 4 DEs himself. None of them are aiming at him. 

4. Or follows his orders and stays in his room until summoned. -- 
It's silly to condemn Sirius and others for failing to do what DD 
tells them and then let Snape do it.  

10. DD tries to save Draco. 11. DD says to Draco "it is my mercy 
that matters now"

PAR: again, irrelevant to the Snape issue.  Would DD do anything 
different if Snape were OFH, ESE, DDM or whatever? No, because DD is 
acting on what he believes to be the facts, not what Snape is (or 
isn't) in reality.

 From this we must assume that Snape must maintain his cover as a DE 
> to help Harry.  Otherwise all of those years of being a spy will 
be for nothing.

PAR and staying OUT of the fight altogether is the best way to do 
that.  "LV told me not to interfere" works well.  Even the lie "I 
was fighting Flitwick" works.  Getting involved in the fight AT ALL 
puts the chances of being outed one way or the other to unreasonable 
levels. And if he has to be outed, doing so in a way that will 
virtually ensure Harry will NEVER trust him is not intelligent if 
the plan was for Snape and Harry to work together.  Even the idea of 
Fawkes being on Snape's shoulder (which I find silly) wouldn't do 
it. Fawkes is, when all is said and done, an animal and would no 
more be able to verify truth than a dog.  

 Snape is told that DE are in the castle.  He knows why they are 
> there.  Snape is a man of action, He is not going to sit in his 
> dungeon while the DE and OP battle it out.

PAR: I see. So Snape is doing what he condemned Sirius for? After 
Sirius got killed doing exactly the same thing? After he's SEEN how 
that turns out?  After he's avoided doing things timely (like 
arriving at the DE rally at the graveyard late, etc)? 

the Order members know that he is a 
> double agent and will not expect him to fight on there side.

PAR: actually, they DID expect him to fight on their side.  And they 
were shocked when he didn't.  THEY thought Snape was there to help.
But again, if you are going to out yourself as a double agent by 
showing up, then continuing to act as a double agent is stupid. The 
jig is up the moment Snape shows up at the battle at all. so if he 
comes to the battle, helping the OOP folk won't do any worse damage 
that hasn't already been done by showing up in the first place.

"In order of importance Snape must:  Protect Harry. Keep his own 
> cover.  Protect Draco.  Get the DE out of the castle.  And if 
> possible do all of this with out messing up the curse of the vow.  
> Last on this list, last of all would be helping DD. "

PAR: keeping his cover isn't an issue. He's already blown it one way 
or the other.  If protecting Harry is that critical, he doesn't do 
much for him during the fight downstairs (greyback for example. I 
believe it was Neville who Harry has to thank). And no one made him 
take that vow (or for that matter, rewording the last section 
either. He could have slithered out of it with "If my master wants 
me to", leaving it unclear if DD or LV was his "master" but giving a 
wording neither Bella nor Narcissa could really argue with.
 
> DD is dying from the burnt hand and the poison.
==PAR: lots of people are "dying" and are saved. it does NOT add to 
Snapes cover to kill DD. It destroys his cover because his "spying" 
will no longer be of value.  

PAR: who thinks the look of hate on Snape's face is exactly what it 
appears to be.  The etimology for "Snape" is :snape (v.)  
"to be hard upon, rebuke, snub," c.1300, from O.N. sneypa "to 
outrage, dishonor, disgrace." And Snape does commit "severe outrage".

PAR









From saberbunny at yahoo.ca  Mon Mar  6 15:45:44 2006
From: saberbunny at yahoo.ca (catherine higgins)
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 10:45:44 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Outraged Harry ( was:  Snape ...  Dumbledore's sacrifice)
In-Reply-To: <000901c6412d$bd0987d0$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local>
Message-ID: <20060306154544.87504.qmail@web37014.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149176


    
  Tonks said:
  Snape has told us that Harry is only a mediocre wizard.  He gets by 
  with "luck" and the help of his more talented friends.  I think that 
  this is true, and I don't think that this will change anytime soon. 
  
  kchuplis replied:

  To me, this has been rather the point all along though. It's the reason DD always has Harry let his best friends in on the info. It's shouted at the school houses. He's told again and again to keep his friends with him. I think the point (or one of) is that you don't have to, and you really can't triumph without help. 
   
  Catherine adds:
   
  Actually, I don't think Harry is a mediocre wizard, and I don't even think Snape thinks Harry is a mediocre wizard. I believe Snape is downplaying Harry's talent so as the DE's don't take him very seriously, so that they underestimate him.
   
  As for canon for Harry's true power:
   
  Harry not only produced a Patronus at the age of 13, he produced a very powerful patronus that charged away 100's of Dementors at the age of 13. That's a big difference. It shows a very powerful magic deep inside Harry that he can use in a moment of fear, and to save 2 people he really loves. (And himself!)
   
  Personally, I believe that Harry's strongest magic is fueled by love, and not actually love. 
  In the MoM, Voldemort couldn't posess Harry because of Harry's love for Sirius.
   
  In the graveyard, Harry outpowered Voldemort when their wands connected. It was Harry's power and concentration that pushed that ball of light into Voldemort's wand. He had no help from ANYONE at that time, he was exhausted from the Maze in the TWT, and shocked by the death of his fellow student. And he still managed to overpower Voldemort! How can anyone see that as mediocre? He was lucky to get away with the help of the shadows, but he managed all the other stuff alone. And he was just as confused about the wands connecting as Voldemort was, he had no advantage in that scene, and was at a significant disadvantage, being surrounded by DE's and exhausted to boot. (I know the Phoenix song stregthned him, but again that's because it's tied in with love, where his strongest powers lie)
   
  In any scene where they are fighting DE's, Harry always manages to stun, freeze or hit them with other spells at a much higher ratio than any of the other students (including Hermione).He's always the last one standing (with Neville, usually) After the Tower scene, he's the one who stuns how many DE's while chasing Snape? 
   
  When Harry is at his weakest, is when he feels hatred. That's why Snape so easily gets the better of him. That's why it's so important for Harry to control his anger and hatred, why Harry has to remain pure of heart. Also, Snape and Harry have a history, Voldemort and Harry do not. I think it will be easier for Harry to defeat Voldemort, than Snape. 
   
  Harry is a mediocre student with extrordinary depth of power, skill and talent. He just doesn't believe it yet. Kind of like Neo in "The Matrix" , he will reach the peak of his powers when he surrenders himself to them and starts to believe in himself.
   
  Catherine






From kchuplis at alltel.net  Mon Mar  6 16:38:26 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen)
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 10:38:26 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Outraged Harry - Love Conquers All or Not
References: <duhccg+8af0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002f01c6413c$649753c0$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local>

No: HPFGUIDX 149177


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: lupinlore 
  But training and detailed specific study just isn't Harry.  It's 
  never been Harry and never will be Harry.  

  kchuplis:

  He sure put a ton of time in learning stuff for the triwizard final challenge. If I recall, McGonnagall got so sick of running into them practicing all over that she gave them a classroom of their own. He can crack down when he needs to. It also seems that once you get it you get it (at least for him). I just think that is not a correct assesment to say training isn't Harry. No, he isn't going to sit down with a book and learn the theory, but the practical? He can be as tough as they come, and especially if it isn't "formal" training.

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




From kchuplis at alltel.net  Mon Mar  6 16:43:40 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen)
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 10:43:40 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Outraged Harry ( was:  Snape ...  Dumbledore's sacrifice)
References: <20060306154544.87504.qmail@web37014.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <003d01c6413d$1feacd50$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local>

No: HPFGUIDX 149178


  Catherine adds:
   
  Actually, I don't think Harry is a mediocre wizard, and I don't even think Snape thinks Harry is a mediocre wizard. I believe Snape is downplaying Harry's talent so as the DE's don't take him very seriously, so that they underestimate him.
   
  <snip of good stuff>
   
  Harry is a mediocre student with extrordinary depth of power, skill and talent. He just doesn't believe it yet. Kind of like Neo in "The Matrix" , he will reach the peak of his powers when he surrenders himself to them and starts to believe in himself.
   

kchuplis:

Oh, I agree with this. I just think that the idea is that everyone needs friendship, loyalty, and community to really succeed. Even really good wizards (read: people).  LV has servants, not friends and very little real loyalty, just service from fear or envy or greed - which can go wrong from many directions. Harry has real loyalty from his friends and it is, IMO, what will tip the scales. It's a more powerful framework by far than the tryannical fear in LV's camp.




(I promise, no more posts today elves. Just finally had something to say and couldn't keep to three posts.)

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




From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Mon Mar  6 17:08:02 2006
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 12:08:02 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Trusting Snape
In-Reply-To: <du6o02+2rqd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY101-F397318B2E7F226A120B7EA91E90@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 149179



Pippin:
>Did Dumbledore know himself?
>It looks like the ring curse caught him by surprise.
>Going on about his slower reflexes and the small price he paid may have
>made us (and Voldemort) think  that it didn't, but do you
>think he'd have *chosen* to sacrifice his wand hand in preference to
>the other?

PJ:
Y'know.... when you put it that way it does make me wonder.

Pippin:
>But Dumbledore knew that Harry had managed to
>find and destroy one horcrux without harm to himself. He may have
>thought that since Harry has some of Voldemort's powers, a thief's
>curse on the horcruxes would mistake him for its caster and not strike.
>He might have  hoped also that the Diary had not attracted Harry's
>attention by chance. Harry did seem more interested in it than Ron,
>even before he picked it up.

PJ:
This is my belief as well.  That because of the powers that LV transferred 
that night he has the ability to destroy the horcruxes without coming to 
harm.

Problem is the Inferi were going to hurt him in the cave until DD made the 
light and Harry was dying through diary Riddle's hand when he destroyed the 
diary.  Maybe he doesn't have as much protection as we hope?

Pippin:
>Snape is now in an excellent position to be a saboteur.

PJ:
In order to have put him in an "excellent position", Dumbledore would have 
had to reveal his grand plan - as well as Snape's part in it- to someone, 
preferably someone in the Order, so that this plan could continue once he is 
dead.  Book 6 ends with no one coming forward with any important information 
that would help get Snape off the hook though and, without trust, Snape's 
value as DDM!, if he ever had any, died with Dumbledore on that tower.

He's a dead man walking, we just don't know which side will get to him 
first.



PJ





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Mar  6 17:19:00 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 17:19:00 -0000
Subject: Trusting Snape
In-Reply-To: <BAY101-F397318B2E7F226A120B7EA91E90@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <duhqu4+uqi4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149180


> Pippin:
> >Snape is now in an excellent position to be a saboteur.
> 
> PJ:
> In order to have put him in an "excellent position", Dumbledore would have 
> had to reveal his grand plan - as well as Snape's part in it- to someone, 
> preferably someone in the Order, so that this plan could continue once he is 
> dead.  Book 6 ends with no one coming forward with any important information 
> that would help get Snape off the hook though and, without trust, Snape's 
> value as DDM!, if he ever had any, died with Dumbledore on that tower.

Pippin:
This part I don't understand. Snape can rejoin Voldemort, and
since nobody, Order or Ministry, has been able to find Voldemort, they shouldn't
be able to find Snape either. He doesn't need to be able to get information
to the Order to sabotage Voldemort's plans. There are plenty of ways to
put a spanner in the works from within, especially for an expert potion
maker. And if he's with Voldemort when Harry arrives for the kill, then
Harry may have an unexpected ally.

Pippin






From hickengruendler at yahoo.de  Mon Mar  6 17:49:25 2006
From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 17:49:25 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice
In-Reply-To: <duhfqr+5h6k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duhsn5+ptgf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149181

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "richter_kuymal" <richter at ...> 
wrote a lot about what Snape should or could have done that fateful 
night, and this:
  
> PAR: who thinks the look of hate on Snape's face is exactly what it 
> appears to be.   

Hickengruendler:

I wrote a pretty long post as an answer to yours, but then I 
accidentily hit the back button without saving anything. I don't have 
the energy to write something to every point again. Generally, I found 
most of your examples of what Snape should have done very far fetched. 
Particularly the idea of him taking out four Death Eaters at once. Yes, 
they were not aiming at him, but that surely would have changed once he 
had taken out the first one. Also, I suppose a "Levicorpus" spell is 
much slower, therefore the Death Eaters very likely would have 
recognized the difference between it and Snape smashing Albus from the 
tower. And maybe Dumbledore simply expected Snape to be in his rooms 
because there was a high possibility that Snape didn't know anything. 
Like 95% percent of the school. Therefore I don't think there's any 
proof that Dumbledore ordered Snape to stay to in his room until he 
gets orders to do otherwise. It might be possible, but there's no 
reason to treat it as a fact.

But I do want to talk a bit more about the part I quoted above, namely 
the expression of hatred. The question I have for everybody, who 
thinks, that this hatred his directly aimed against Dumbledore as a 
person: Why should Snape feel this way? Or why should JKR write it this 
way? Dumbledore was kind to Snape, gave him a second chance, pretty 
much ignored or at least understood his nasty temper. Dumbledore showed 
faith in Snape when nobody else did. I cannot see the reason, why an 
evil (as in loyal to Voldemort or only loyal to himself) Snape should 
hate Dumbledore. A short sneer: "Well, fooled you all this years", or a 
short look, that might say the same. Or maybe even a very short guilty 
conscience, which he tried to surpress. Yes, all of that would be 
plausible reasons. But hatred? Why? This doesn't seem logical to me. I 
find the idea that Snape either hated what he had to do or hated 
Dumbledore for asking him to do it much more plausible.

And it's not that it simply is JKR's style to have a villain show 
hatred without a reason, when he kills somebody. Did Voldemort hate 
James Potter or Frank Bryce? Did Wormtail hate Cedric Diggory? So for 
which reason should Snape hate Dumbledore, instead of simply secretly 
laughing about the old fool, if he were evil?

Hickengruendler  







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  6 17:52:04 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 17:52:04 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <duhbao+v7hi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duhss4+te62@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149182

Lupinlore wrote:
> Oh, your point is perfectly understandable, I think.  It just isn't
all that convincing with regard to what was or was not going on atop 
the tower, or what was or was not going on with Snape during HBP.  I
mean, DDM! Snape, IMO, would be cheesy, more than faintly ludicrous,
and extremely poor and unbelievable writing.  Now, I'm perfectly 
willing to allow that JKR would actually sink to that level, but 
perhaps others are not.  And for those who are not yet willing to
believe that JKR would pull a, IMO, cheap trick like DDM!Snape, there
is nothing in your argument that is overwhelming.  Snape did nothing 
in that instant, it is true.  But the events on the tower take place
in the context of all of HBP.  There is plenty that has happened 
during that time to have given DD second thoughts about Snape, whether
he acknowledged them to Harry or not.


Carol responds:
How disappointing, Lupinlore. I thought you'd gotten beyond "what I
don't like is bad writing" (not to mention "reprehensible" or
"cheesy"). Canon, please? What has happened to give DD second thoughts
about Snape, and why, if that's the case, is his insistence that he
trusts Snape stronger than ever in this book? Why does DD order Harry,
both in Hogsmeade and on the tower, to fetch "Severus," not Madam
Pomfrey, if he's having second thoughts about Snape?

You've conceded that Snape does nothing on the tower to cause
Dumbledore to look shocked. That must also mean that you disagree with
Alla and concede that Dumbledore is *not* shocked. He has been wanting
Snape to show up all this time. Now Snape appears. How can the
whispered name "Severus" indicate shock? It can't. And if DD has been
having second thoughts about Snape, why has he been asking (or
ordering) Harry to go and get him?

Just, please, explain why you think Sydney's point isn't convincing by
actually examining her points in light of the quoted text (upthread).

Carol, who has seen Lupinlore actually explore canon and is sad to see
him slipping back into his old ways







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Mar  6 18:07:49 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 18:07:49 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <duhkfk+erh0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duhtpl+acqg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149183

 
> Magpie:
> But the theory here was not that Snape was going to lead the DEs, 
> but that he was making himself the #1 wizard of the world by killing 
> DD and letting Harry kill Voldemort.  Managing a ragtag group of 
> criminals does not qualify for that.  Also I gave you examples in 
> canon where the DEs are not that respectful of Snape.  Yes, they 
> stand back in this one scene, but as I said I think that's due to 
> the situation more than Snape's threat--especially Snape's threat to 
> them.  Snape himself has to yell at them to tell them to follow 
> orders (the Dark Lord's orders--he appeals to their master).  If 
> Voldemort died Snape would, imo, still have to appeal to the idea 
> they were doing the Dark Lord's wishes.  Plus, as I said in another 
> post, I see no signs that Snape's goal is to take over the world.  
> He's a lot of things, but he doesn't seem like a megalomaniac.  If 
> he wanted to lead the DEs he could have attempted it earlier.

Pippin:
He certainly could. The DE's were leaderless after Voldemort's fall,
looking for someone to rally around, according to Snape. If he wanted 
to be that person, why didn't he step forward? He could have disposed
of Dumbledore at any time in the last fifteen years -- all it would take
is a few drops of something in the evening pumpkin juice and DD'd go 
quietly to sleep and never wake up again. Why wait until Voldemort
has returned and control of the ministry has passed from Fudge to 
the much more dangerous Scrimgeour? 


For Dumbledore to feel betrayed when he is pleading, he would have had
to have expected Snape to do something differently the moment he
arrived. But that opens the door to legilimency and/or  a prior arrangement,

Alla's argument that Dumbledore would have expected to fight for him
seems to carry with it an unstated premise: that there was  a prior agreement
or understanding that if Snape had a choice between fighting for the Order
and blowing his cover, he would blow his cover.

But I am not sure that any such understanding existed. Dumbledore knew
there might be trouble, yet he didn't have Snape on patrol.  Dumbledore
froze Harry so he couldn't fight. Hagrid said straight out that Snape
would have had to preserve his cover.  Wasn't the understanding just as
likely to be the opposite, that Snape must preserve his cover even if it
meant not fighting for Dumbledore?

Dumbledore did say that to defeat Voldemort, someone must be prepared
to fight what seems to be a losing battle. But *Voldemort* was not on the
tower. If Dumbledore thought Snape would be needed for the final 
battle, why throw his life away on the tower?

Pippin






From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  6 18:15:43 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 18:15:43 -0000
Subject: Blood
In-Reply-To: <duhkl9+5ute@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duhu8f+cu1q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149184

 
> Pippin:
> BTW, forensic information isn't hard to find at all -- a
> google  on blood wipe hair produced this site: 
> 
> http://www.aaronelkins.com/forensictidbits.htm
> 

Neri:
I'm forcefully reminded here of certain prominent listies trying to
convince me that the several hours it took Snape to notify the Order
about Harry's disappearance in OotP are most probably a flint. At one
point I mentioned that JKR wouldn't need an almanac to find when does
the sun rise and set, since this information can be found very easily
by Googling "Edinburgh", "sunset" and "sunrise". It was Pippin who
informed me that JKR wouldn't be internet-savvy enough to know that
<g>. It seems that the criteria for what can be a flint are pretty
flexible, depending on whether this flint would help Snape's case or not.

> Pippin:
> At least we all seem to agree that the blood as described has
> not coagulated and shouldn't  be there half an hour 
> after death.
> 

Neri:
Erm... I'm not sure I agree on anything that isn't obvious in "Harry
wiped a trickle of blood from the mouth with his own sleeve". It isn't
obvious to me, for example, if it means that the trickle was from the
mouth or did Harry wipe it from the mouth. That is, was the blood on
the lips, on the skin of the face or on hair? It seems that wiping
blood from wet lips, for example, should be considerably easier than
wiping it from hair. It isn't even obvious if Harry wiped it off
*completely*, and not if it was liquid or a dry-up trickle. I'd say
it's much easier for me to buy a flint consisting of half-a-sentence
ambiguous description than to buy a flint of several hours delay
consisting of several repeated and quite unambiguous descriptions.

Neri







From celizwh at intergate.com  Mon Mar  6 18:20:47 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 18:20:47 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice
In-Reply-To: <dugk56+5osb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duhuhv+lrbj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149185

PAR:

> I've been reading the various posts and perhaps someone can explain 
> a bit better for me.  In HBP, we have (American edition, page 583) 
> DD telling HP "Go and Wake Severus" -- this is AFTER they have seen 
> the Dark Mark and after arriving at the tower.  In other words, DD 
> does NOT expect to find SS up and about.  In any scenario of an DE 
> attack on Hogwarts, would DD expect Snape to be present? No. If he 
> fights for the Order, he's outed.  If he fights for the DEs, he 
> could be captured, injured, killed and certainly would look guilty 
> of being a DE.  So DD's expectation would be that if there is 
> trouble with DEs, Snape will "stay in your room".  

houyhnhnm:

I think it is a considerable leap of the imagination from DD's 
telling Harry "Go and wake Severus" to DD's having told Snape to stay 
in his room, one for which I see no canon support whatsoever.

However, as long as we are indulging in pure speculation, it makes me 
think of something I hadn't thought of before, a very small 
refinement on the theory put forth by others--namely, that the 
argument in the forest and DD's pleading on the tower are related, 
and that they both have to do with Snape's continuing to look out for 
Harry.  What if DD's insistance on fetching Snape isn't really for 
the purpose of bringing Snape to Dumbledore at all?  What if it is 
simply a ruse to get Harry to Snape?  As per previous [reluctantly] 
agreed upon plan that, if worse comes to worst, you will protect 
Harry. 

We know that Harry would never put himself under Snape's protection 
willingly; he would run to join his friends fighting the DEs.  So DD 
must use a strategum to get Harry to Snape.

Perhaps DD did tell Snape to stay in his room and wait for Harry, in 
the case of the castle security being breached, but Harry doesn't 
show up, so Snape has no choice but to come out and find him.  This 
is a possible scenario in which DD would expect Snape to be present.  







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  6 18:22:41 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 18:22:41 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice
In-Reply-To: <duhfqr+5h6k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duhulh+2dla@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149186

Tonks <hugely snipped>:
> > 9. There is no way that Snape can help DD with DE watching.

PAR <ditto>
> == sure there was. 
> 1. he could use a "levicorpus" variant combined with some other 
> verbal action and LOWER DD over the tower.  This is the man that 
> presumably created hexes as a kid.  (turns to the other DE's:"I've 
> been saving that one JUST for DD!). Finds DD on the ground and tries 
> to help him. Even if DD dies anyway, Snape has tried to HELP. <snip>

Carol responds:
Exactly. Note the way that the supposed AK behaves: It sends DD over
the wall, but first, for a fleeting moment, DD floats limply like a
rag doll. While I've theorized that the green spell (which includes no
rushing sound or blinding flash) could be an Impedimenta, your
modified Levicorpus works just as well and would be in character for
Snape. It's *his* spell, he invented hexes as a teenager and
presumably can still do so, he's an expert at nonverbal spells. Maybe
that's exactly what he's done (minus the gloating, which suits
ESE!Snape but not DDM!Snape). 

Note also that the bleeding Pippin keeps mentioning is not the only
clue that the spell is not a real AK. Even if the bleeding implies a
lack of forensic research (as Lupinlore suggests), what about the
closed eyes, which JKR must know are inconsistent with every other AK
she has depicted in the books? DD doesn't have time to close his eyes
and compose himself before Snape casts the supposed AK. He must have
closed them and reconciled himself to death (from the poison, not the
fall) as Snape was *floating* him over the wall. How else can we
account for the rag doll image, the closed eyes, and the "wise old
face" that looks as if it's asleep, oddly resembling the peacefully
sleeping DD of the portrait?

I realize that DDM!Snape doesn't depend on a faked or failed AK, but I
can't get past all the differences between this supposed AK and all
the others we've seen, in combination with Snape's astonishing
abilities and Dumbledore's trust in him. The peacefully sleeping
protrait does not suggest a DD who has been betrayed but a DD who has
died accomplishing some good thing.

Carol, noting that Snape could not have found DD on the ground and
tried to help him because he had to get Draco and the DEs out of Hogwarts









From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Mon Mar  6 20:53:57 2006
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 20:53:57 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <duhss4+te62@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dui7h5+2fde@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149188

"justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:

> Canon, please? What has happened to
> give DD second thoughts about Snape

We know that Dumbledore and Snape had a heated argument about
something. And just seconds before Snape entered the room with murder
in his eyes Draco tells him that Snape made an unbreakable vow to his
mother, Dumbledore didn't believe him or rather didn't want to believe
him "Of course that is what he would tell you, Draco, but".

I think that bit of information shocked Dumbledore more than he let
on, shocked him to the core.

pippin_999" foxmoth at ... Wrote:

> The DE's were leaderless after Voldemort's fall,
> looking for someone to rally around, according
> to Snape. If he wanted to be that person,
> why didn't he step forward?

Because Snape knew that sooner or later Voldemort would be back, and
that's why he took such good care of Harry. 

> He could have disposed of Dumbledore at
> any time in the last fifteen years 

Could he? Attacking a wizard that powerful is going to be extremely
dangerous, better to wait until he's unarmed and half dead.   

Eggplant








From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Mar  6 20:59:37 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 20:59:37 -0000
Subject: Outraged Harry ( was:  Snape ...  Dumbledore's sacrifice)
In-Reply-To: <dufpu9+nt1l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dui7rp+cnp4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149189

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:

Steve/bboyminn:
> Further, I don't want to hear any crap about 'love conquers all'.
> While it may be true that doesn't help Harry. He can't sit around
> doing nothing to perpare on the assumption that in the final battle 
he
> can just give Voldemort a hug and a kiss, and everything will be 
fine.
 
Geoff: That comment reminded me of a previous post. I quote from way 
back in the days when the world was young, to be precise message 
129890, when I was replying to a post from eggplant.
 
<quote> 
"niekycrins: 
> > why would this room, containing a force that is needed to conquer 
> > VM, be closed and apparently protected?mWhy not "unleash" it on 
> > LV while he was in the DOM? 

Eggplant: 
> I hope it's more than just love, otherwise the story could get so 
> sweet we'd all get diabetes. Love probably has something to do with 
> it but there must be something more than that because Dumbledore 
> says it is not only more wonderful than death it is more terrible 
> too. 

<snip> 

Geoff: 
No, we won't all get diabetes because it's real, deep love which /is/ 
more wonderful than death. 

Back in January 2004, I posted message 89069 which was in a thread 
about the locked room where I said that the room could contain both 
truth and love; the following is part of what I wrote: 

"Turning to Love. The problem with "love" is that, certainly in the 
English language, it is a word which has a wide range of meanings and 
is often used very loosely. It can range from "I love chocolate ice- 
cream" (which is really expressing a liking) to "I love you, my 
darling" to the altruistic love which can show itself in self- 
sacrifice ? Lily protecting Harry as an example. I have on two 
occasions at least referred to C.S.Lewis' "The Four Loves" in which 
he writes on the four Greek words for love ? eros, philos, agape and 
the one which always slips my memory(!)**; each one looking at a 
different facet of love. 

The deepest love ? at least in my opinion as a Christian ? is agape 
which is, I suppose, best described as the altruistic, serving, love 
which is not seeking anything in return but seeks only the best 
interest of its recipient." 

Jesus said "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his 
life for his friends" (John 15:13 New International Version). 

That is not solely a Christian prerogative; we see it often in the 
world today. I am not suggesting this either as the only way in which 
Harry can harness the power of the locked room. 

**Just for completeness, the missing word was "storge" - this was 
before the word had emerged in a possible title for Book 6." 
</quote> 

I think some posters are assuming a very shallow interpretation 
of "love" rather than the deepest one. An easy misunderstanding in 
these days when, as I said above, one word has to cope with a 
multiplicity of meanings. 

Changing the subject, I was delighted to see that, during today, on 
three occasions, we managed to get two consecutive messages which did 
not have the name Snape in the thread title. 

Anybody like to lay odds on getting three messages without his name?

Egad, sir, can there possibly be a dawning of light at the end of the 
tunnel? 
:-)) 

I'm glad I don't live in Snape.








From bawilson at citynet.net  Mon Mar  6 04:48:54 2006
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 23:48:54 -0500
Subject: Things in RL that remind you of HP
In-Reply-To: <1141613131.2092.43526.m26@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAzrAa/5uW8EmFd8uvobk/+QEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 149190

I did a search on the web about the Danish cartoons that started all 
the fuss in the Islamic world, and that search lead me to a series of 
pictures of the Queen of Denmark's recent state visit to Japan.

Her Danish Majesty, I would imagine, when young was a very beautiful 
woman.  Even at her present age she is quite distinguished-looking; 
she is certainly tall.

The pictures in question included one of her standing next to the 
Emperor of Japan.  Now, His Imperial Japanese Majesty is not exactly 
short by Japanese standards; yet, seeing him standing beside a 
Scandinavian woman, my first thought was, "Mme. Maxime & Dumbledore!"

Have any of you had the experience of seeing something in real life 
which immediately made you think of something in HP?

BAW







From belviso at attglobal.net  Mon Mar  6 21:18:29 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 21:18:29 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <dui7h5+2fde@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dui8v5+ansi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149191

egplant:
And just seconds before Snape entered the room with murder
> in his eyes 

Magpie:
Snape does not enter the room "with murder in his eyes."

"...at that precise moment the door to the ramparts burst open once 
more and there stood Snape, his wand clutched in his hand as his 
black eyes swept the scene, from Dumbledore slumped against the 
wall, to the four Death Eaters, including the enraged werewolf, and 
Malfoy."

Nothing about him having "murder in his eyes."  On the contrary, 
he's just looking around the scene and doesn't even focus on his 
intended victim.

eggplant:
Draco tells him that Snape made an unbreakable vow to his
> mother, Dumbledore didn't believe him or rather didn't want to 
believe him "Of course that is what he would tell you, Draco, but".> 
> I think that bit of information shocked Dumbledore more than he let
> on, shocked him to the core.

Magpie:
Malfoy says nothing about any Unbreakable Vow.  He says, in response 
to Dumbledore saying Snape has been watching Draco under his 
orders, "He hasn't been doing your orders, he promised my 
mother..."   That's it.  He promised his mother to look after him.

Dumbledore tells him that "of course that's what he would tell 
you."  Draco insists Snape's a double-agent working for the DEs.  
Dumbledore says they must agree to differ on that because he happens 
to trust Professor Snape--so moments before Snape enters there's DD 
again declaring his trust in the man.  Draco then goes on to claim 
that Snape has been trying to "get in on the action" to "steal his 
glory."

Nothing about the Unbreakable Vow. 

Dumbledore *does* hear about the Unbreakable Vow earlier--much 
earlier--when Harry tells him that Snape claims to have made an 
Unbreakable Vow to Narcissa months before this scene.  There's 
absolutely nothing that Draco says on the Tower that would shock 
Dumbledore at all.  Even if he had referred to the UV instead of 
just saying he "promised," Dumbledore's already heard Snape made one 
regarding Draco's protection, which is what Draco is referring to 
here.  And his response to Draco telling him this is to once again 
affirm he trusts Snape.  The only nasty surprise for Dumbledore from 
Draco we know of is that he's gotten DEs into the castle, which was 
a surprise to Snape too.

-m







From imontero at iname.com  Mon Mar  6 20:51:25 2006
From: imontero at iname.com (lunamk03)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 20:51:25 -0000
Subject: Snape: Beyond Good and Evil (long)
In-Reply-To: <dubasu+cra4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dui7cd+mkek@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149192

<snip>   
Sophie <sophierom at ...> wrote:
>> I do have one question regarding this theory of a Snape motivated
by love and vengeance: How do you explain Dumbledore's interactions
with Snape in HBP (both in the forest and in on the tower)? Is
Dumbledore pleading for his life? Was his trust in Snape ultimately
misplaced? Did he underestimate Snape's desire for vengeance? Or did
Dumbledore understand what was happening in Snape's mind?

In other words, I think the idea of a Snape "beyond good and evil" is
brilliant, but I also think it might neglect other characters' agency
and motives. <<


Luna here:

Thanks for your message Sophie!

To answer your questions:

Dumbledore knew about Snape's feelings. He was more aware of his 
story than anyone else.

To a certain extent, I think that DD believed, or wanted to believe, 
that Snape was over his desire to revenge Lily himself. Snape's 
sincere desire for revenge was the reason why DD trusted Snape in 
the first place. What DD didn't want Snape to do was to allow 
himself to be consumed by his hate to the extent to go and do a 
foolish thing as to attempt to kill Voldemort by himself. DD knows 
that Snape doesn't have the power to kill Voldemort, in consequence, 
he knows that Snape will be killed in the attempt.

In a way, DD made the same mistake with Snape as he did with Sirius 
and Harry in OOTP. He tried to shut them down in order to protect 
them, but he cannot make them go against their nature. He has been 
doing this with Snape for the last 16 years, it was a matter of time 
before Snape blew up on his face. 

DD's interaction with Snape in the forest is an example of this. It 
sounded to me as a parent that is giving orders to his child because 
he knows better and when the child protests, the parent 
responds 'you do as I say.' DD wants to protect everything and 
everyone, his worst fear is to have people die because he didn't do 
enough to protect them, this is at least what I get from his 
reaction to the poison in the cave. 

I also believe that DD, after realizing about his mistake at the end 
of OOP, might have decided to finally give Snape the DADA job as a 
way to lower the control level he's been putting on Snape during all 
these years. 

In the tower scene, DD wasn't pleading for his life. I believe it 
would be very out of character for DD to do so. He is aware that 
there are more terrible things than death. DD pleaded Snape not to 
go down the hate road and attempt to kill Voldemort himself. I 
believe that in that scene, Snape opened his mind to DD. Snape was 
full of resentment against DD for having him shut down for so many 
years, for being in his way to finally achieve his ultimate act. 
This explains Snape's expression on his face. This also explains why 
he got so angry when Harry called him a coward. As Snape is seeing 
it, he's actually about to give his own life to revenge Harry's 
mother, so being called a coward by Lily's son is pretty much enough 
to make anyone who's going to revenge her, angry, mad, mad, mad, to 
say the least. 

As I see it, this scenario does not neglect other characters' agency 
and motives. On the contrary, it explains and reinforces them.

As an add on, this also explains why Snape made the magical promise 
to Narcissa; When she kneeled down and cried for his help, she 
reminded Snape of Lily begging for her son's life. This was a 
turning point for Snape, this was the moment that moved him into 
action towards his desire to revenge Lily himself.  

Luna, who apologizes for her English (my mother tongue is Spanish) 










From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  6 23:02:38 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 23:02:38 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice
In-Reply-To: <duhfqr+5h6k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duif2e+df6q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149193

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "richter_kuymal" <richter at ...> 
wrote:
>
Snips most of post, people can go upthread> 
> 
> > 9. There is no way that Snape can help DD with DE watching.
> == sure there was. 
> 1. he could use a "levicorpus" variant combined with some other 
> verbal action and LOWER DD over the tower.  This is the man that 
> presumably created hexes as a kid.  (turns to the other DE's:"I've 
> been saving that one JUST for DD!). 

<snips ways that Snape can help DD> > 

 Even the idea of Fawkes being on Snape's shoulder (which I find 
silly) wouldn't do it. Fawkes is, when all is said and done, an 
animal and would no more be able to verify truth than a dog.  
> 
Tonks:
Fawkes can come to Harry's aid as he has done before. I don't 
understand your point here. And Snape can help Harry without Harry 
and him working as a team.

Basically I want to respond to your post to say that you have 
misunderstood what I was doing there.  I laid out all of the facts 
and then attempted to put them together in a plausible way that 
would fit the lot.  Not each one, one by one.  I was probably not 
clear.

The whole problem with Snape saving DD is that JKR did not write it 
that way for a reason.  We have to have DD die, now, under the sign 
of the skull.  More specifically "at the place of the skull".  If 
you understand what JKR is doing you will understand why.  Remember 
she said in an interview "these are not secular books".

So the real question is:  Was Judas still a disciple of Christ or 
was he a traitor?  Some say that he never meant for the events to 
happen the way that they did.  He was a member of the Zealots and he 
expected the Kingdom of God to be an earthly one.  He expected a 
revolution.  He misunderstood. Others say that he was JC's man to 
the end; that the two of them discussed the upcoming events and JC 
told Judas to "what you are going to do, do quickly". Others say 
that JC sent Judas to do something else with those words.  Now don't 
these arguments sound familiar to you?  They are the same sort of 
things we are debating here, only about Snape. If you understand 
that Snape is in this scene in the role of Judas then you will 
understand the rest. Was he still a disciple of DD, or was he a 
traitor?  I say he is DDM to the very end of the series. Hopefully 
he doesn't go hang himself like Judas did.

Tonks_op










From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Mar  6 23:17:50 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 23:17:50 -0000
Subject: Five hours again was Re: Blood
In-Reply-To: <duhu8f+cu1q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duifuu+na2j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149194

> > Pippin:
> > BTW, forensic information isn't hard to find at all -- a
> > google  on blood wipe hair produced this site: 
> > 
> > http://www.aaronelkins.com/forensictidbits.htm
> > 
> 
> Neri:
> I'm forcefully reminded here of certain prominent listies trying to
> convince me that the several hours it took Snape to notify the Order
> about Harry's disappearance in OotP are most probably a flint. At one
> point I mentioned that JKR wouldn't need an almanac to find when does
> the sun rise and set, since this information can be found very easily
> by Googling "Edinburgh", "sunset" and "sunrise". It was Pippin who
> informed me that JKR wouldn't be internet-savvy enough to know that
> <g>. It seems that the criteria for what can be a flint are pretty
> flexible, depending on whether this flint would help Snape's case or not.

Pippin:
Or hurt it? I suppose I deserved that. <g> But since when did the
internet become the only way to get information? There are reference
books and libraries and Asking Someone Who Would Know. Besides
which, JKR has clearly become more internet savvy in the last couple
years.


 But actually my new theory can account for the missing hours. I'll call it 
HP!Snape, for Highest Priority.

Suppose Dumbledore is sure that Harry will need Snape at the final 
showdown. What for? Because when Voldemort is cornered, he scarpers, 
as we saw in the MoM, and AFAWK only someone with a Dark Mark can find
him. 

If Snape's help will be needed for the final showdown, it becomes 
necessary that Snape survive that long. Dumbledore would therefore 
order Snape to do whatever was necessary to preserve his cover until
that time, even if it meant letting other Order members fight alone, 
unless Harry was in immediate danger from Voldemort. Dumbledore
would explain that he believed that only Harry would have the power
to defeat Voldemort, and Snape would have agreed at first
because of the prophecy, and  later because of the unique abilities
he himself witnessed.

The explanation for the missing hours, then, is that Snape followed
Dumbledore's orders and didn't inform the Order that Harry might
have gone to the MoM until he'd convinced himself the situation 
was dire enough to break cover for. If there was another spy in the
Order, that spy then knew whose side Snape was really on. But
would Voldemort trust the other spy? Not necessarily. He'd 
try to arrange a test.


Snape would fear, after unmistakably intervening on Harry's 
side by informing the Order, that Voldemort would test him.
He couldn't afford to do anything that even hinted of disloyalty
to LV.  He took the vow, not expecting the third provision. 

After the attempt on Dumbledore's life that nearly killed Ron,
Snape tried to back out of his agreement with Dumbledore,
saying that maybe he didn't want to do it any more. But 
Dumbledore refused to release him.

Pippin







From rkdas at charter.net  Tue Mar  7 00:56:35 2006
From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 00:56:35 -0000
Subject: Things in RL that remind you of HP
In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAzrAa/5uW8EmFd8uvobk/+QEAAAAA@citynet.net>
Message-ID: <duilo3+higp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149195

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Alan Wilson" 
<bawilson at ...> wrote:
>
SNIPPED here
> 
> The pictures in question included one of her standing next to the 
> Emperor of Japan.  Now, His Imperial Japanese Majesty is not exactly 
> short by Japanese standards; yet, seeing him standing beside a 
> Scandinavian woman, my first thought was, "Mme. Maxime & Dumbledore!"
> 
> Have any of you had the experience of seeing something in real life 
> which immediately made you think of something in HP?
> 
> BAW

Hi Bruce,
This isn't exactly a real life situation but I was struck by the 
similarities between the Christmas interview with Rufus Scrimgeour and 
Harry and the interview between Lizzie and Lady Catherine de Bourg 
in "Pride and Prejudice." Both interviews took place in the garden, on 
days that were not really fit for strolling outside. Both elder 
parties were trying to extract something from the younger parties. 
Thank goodness the younger parties were both very tough in their own 
ways! I know this wasn't RL but it just seems to be a little nod 
towards Jane Austen.
Jen D.
>







From michaelsgdec at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  6 22:15:12 2006
From: michaelsgdec at yahoo.com (Michael)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 22:15:12 -0000
Subject: Why didn't Dumbledore bring backup? (Harry doesn't count)
Message-ID: <duic9g+ucle@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149196

Going to a secluded cave to retrieve/destroy one of Voldemort's
horcruxes seems to be a pretty dangerous task, even for Dumbledore.
Why didn't he consider bringing another OP member along? (maybe
Snape?) Even if this person could not fit on the boat, it would have
been the safe thing to do. Why wasn't Harry surprised or concerned
that he would be acting as Dumbledore's backup?

Michael.








From humiliatedgrape126 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  7 00:50:45 2006
From: humiliatedgrape126 at yahoo.com (humiliatedgrape126)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 00:50:45 -0000
Subject: New arrival at Hogwarts!
Message-ID: <duild5+llfm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149197

Hello everyone, 

I'm Sarah, I'm 16 (yes I know this is for grown-ups, but I think I 
can handle it. *wink* Obviously I'm here for Harry Potter 
discussion, because it's probably my favorite thing to talk about. 
I just started joining Yahoo groups, so forgive me if I make any 
mistakes as to how this works, I'll learn quickly enough. 

Personally I have complete trust in Snape. I actually wrote a very 
lengthy theory on it at a Harry Potter board I moderate. (Three-Tasks.
com refer Luna Lovegood if ya go! *wink*) (Link: 
http://www.three-tasks.com/showthread.php?t=538 ) 

So, now if we're talking about shipping, I'm totally a R/Hr and H/G 
shipper, and other also include Remus/Tonks, Neville/Luna, Fred/
Angelina, Snape/Sinistra, and the cuteness of Dobby/Winky. And as for 
slash, Remus/Sirius, Harry/Draco, Draco/Ron, and Harry/Cedric. Most 
of my slash pickings are from really great fanfics that I've read. 

Anyway, I think that's probably enough about me for the time. But I 
do have a few questions I'm sure someone can answer, It says in my 
info e-mail (to here) that the 'elvs' can edit my posts when I'm new 
and add a signiture. I know what a signiture is, but I don't know how 
it works in these groupings, you see, so if someone can point that 
out to me, it would be immensely helpful of you. :)

- Sarah









From humiliatedgrape126 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  7 01:03:44 2006
From: humiliatedgrape126 at yahoo.com (humiliatedgrape126)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 01:03:44 -0000
Subject: Whose Vanishing Cabinets?
In-Reply-To: <BAY109-F2A6D55485A83CFA492895D9E80@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <duim5g+ith3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149198

> G.C. <little_scottie6 at ...>:
> <snip> I think that the vanishing cabinet in Borgin and Burkes 
> could have been a member of the goods that Lucius Malfoy wanted to 
> sell. This allows Malfoy to get as much information from his father
> as he likes, given that he could go to Azkaban? I dunno, just a 
> thought.


I don't really think so, it really would make much sense because that 
was the cabinet that Harry was hiding in when he saw the Malfoys 
come in in CoS (when he saw Draco playing with the Hand of Glory, 
etc). Therefore it couldn't be because Malfoy wanted Borgin (or 
Burke, I don't remember which one, but it really don't matter very 
much) to come the the Malfoy Mansion and pick up the items. 

- Sarah









From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  7 03:05:22 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 03:05:22 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <duhbao+v7hi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duit9i+3o2r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149199

Juli:
<SNIP>
> Also, while Legilimency might be a possible way Dumbledore came to 
> his sudden realization of Snape's betrayal *before* Snape actually 
> did anything, it presents several problems.
<SNIP>
> 3. Why do many ESE!/OFH!Snape advocates reject the notion of 
> legilimency between Dumbledore and Snape on the Tower while 
they're 
> INTENTLY STARING at each other, but are willing to accept 
legilimency 
> when they aren't even *looking* at each other if it will support 
the 
> theory that Dumbledore's pleading "Severus..." was an indication 
of 
> his shock at Snape's betrayal? (As we have read that legilimency 
> requires eye contact.) It seems the latter would be much more of 
> a "convoluted twists and turns" flimsy-canon type of support than 
the 
> former ;-)
> 
> I just added that third one to point out that ESE and OFH require 
> their own questionable leaps of logic, not because anyone has 
stated 
> it in such bald terms!

Alla:

I cannot speak for anybody else (by the way, I cannot give you 
statistical data of course how many lurkers share ESE! /OFH! Snape 
argument, but if I were to count more or less regular posters, off 
the top of my head I am not sure I will need fingers on my both 
hands to count them, so no there does not appear to be too many of 
us on the list, unfortunately :-)), but I said upthread, that I 
don't think that my position about Legilimency on the Tower is 
contradictory.

I absolutely argued in the past about Legilimency conversation being 
a stretch BUT , my main objection to the means ( conversation 
itself) was that we don't know that two legilimences could 
communicate by words.

I certainly have a problem with SUBJECT of such conversation, but if 
DD and Snape exchanged something more subtle, why not?

I think Zara offered that DD showed images to Snape. I still had 
problems with him doing it in the first place, but if he DID, I can 
totally see it. And there is another thing why I think DD picking up 
emotion of betrayal from Snape is significantly less stretch that 
concrete conversation - it does not require much time, if any, why 
whole conversation is much more time consuming, IMO.

Am I making sense to you, Julie?

Lupinlore:
<SNIP>
 And for those who are not yet willing to 
> believe that JKR would pull a, IMO, cheap trick like DDM!Snape, 
there 
> is nothing in your argument that is overwhelming.  Snape did 
nothing 
> in that instant, it is true.  But the events on the tower take 
place 
> in the context of all of HBP.  There is plenty that has happened 
> during that time to have given DD second thoughts about Snape, 
> whether he acknowledged them to Harry or not.

Alla:

You know  what I find interesting and indeed a  possible clue that 
MAYBE, just maybe DD indeed listened to Harry and despite him 
stubbornly insisting that he trusts Snape, his trust may have 
started wavering before the Tower and maybe because of that DD did 
not need much to figure out that Snape betrayed him when Snapey 
showed up.

Remember in "Seer overheard" when Harry confronts DD about Snape 
overhearing the Prophecy?

"But he is a very good Occlumenc, isn't he, sir?" said Harry, whose 
voice was shaking with the effort of keeping it steady. "And isn't 
Voldemort convinced that Snape's on his side, even now? Professor... 
how can you be sure Snape's on our side?"
Dumbledore did not speak for a moment; he looked as though he was 
trying to make up his mind about something. At last he said, "I am 
sure, I trust Severus Snape completely" - HBP, p.549.

Now the most widespread interpretation of this scene in DD!M Snape 
camp ( and I am speaking in general here too) is that Dumbledore 
hesitates whether to tell Harry about the reasons why he trusts 
Snape, right?

I think the EQUALLY valid interpretation would be that Dumbledore 
hesitates because he is actually NOT as sure in his trust of Snape 
as he claims to be.

JMO,

Alla








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  7 04:16:16 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 04:16:16 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <duit9i+3o2r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duj1eg+tfno@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149200

Alla wrote:
> <snip>
> "Dumbledore did not speak for a moment; he looked as though he was 
> trying to make up his mind about something. At last he said, "I am 
> sure, I trust Severus Snape completely" - HBP, p.549.
> 
> Now the most widespread interpretation of this scene in DD!M Snape 
> camp ( and I am speaking in general here too) is that Dumbledore 
> hesitates whether to tell Harry about the reasons why he trusts 
> Snape, right?
> 
> I think the EQUALLY valid interpretation would be that Dumbledore 
> hesitates because he is actually NOT as sure in his trust of Snape 
> as he claims to be.

Carol responds:
Then why does DD answer, "I am sure. I trust Severus Snape completely"
(HBP Am. ed. 549). Is he lying to Harry, saying that he's "sure" when
he's not, that the trusts him "completely" when his trust is
incomplete? Why in the world would Dumbledore do that? 

And note that his trust in Snape is reiterated repeatedly in the
following chapter. When Harry and DD return after DD has drunk the
potion, we have:

"It is . . . Professor Snape whom I need" (580, ellipsis in original).

and

"'Severus,' said Dumbledore clearly. 'I need Severus . . .'" (same
page, ellipsis in original).

On the tower, just before Draco appears, we have:
"'Go and wake Severus,' said Dumbledore faintly but clearly. 'Tell him
what has happened and bring him to me. Do nothing else, speak to
nobody else, and do not remove your cloak. I shall wait here.'
"'But--'
"'You swore to obey me, Harry. Go!'" (583)

And in the conversation with Draco, after DD says that Snape has been
watching over Draco on his (DD's) orders, Draco says:
"He's a double agent, you stupid old man, he isn't working for you,
you just think he is!" and DD responds, "We must agree to differ on
that. It so happens that I trust Professor Snape--" (588).
 
This is DD's last reference to Snape, who disappears from the
conversation until Dumbledore speaks his name when he appears on the
tower and looks around.

No evidence anywhere that Dumbledore's trust in Snape has in any way
diminished, or that Snape has given him any reason to distrust him. On
the contrary, Snape has saved three lives directly and one indirectly
in the course of that school year--surely cementing DD's trust rather
than the reverse. 

Carol, noting that when no canon is available to support a position,
there's no disgrace in conceding defeat







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  7 04:39:06 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 04:39:06 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <duj1eg+tfno@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duj2pa+ckhs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149201


> Carol responds:
> Then why does DD answer, "I am sure. I trust Severus Snape 
completely"
> (HBP Am. ed. 549). Is he lying to Harry, saying that he's "sure" 
when
> he's not, that the trusts him "completely" when his trust is
> incomplete? Why in the world would Dumbledore do that? 

Alla:

The way I read it Dumbledore may have tried to convince himself and 
sort of decided that he indeed convinced.


Carol: 
> And note that his trust in Snape is reiterated repeatedly in the
> following chapter.
Carol:
> And note that his trust in Snape is reiterated repeatedly in the
> following chapter. When Harry and DD return after DD has drunk the
> potion, we have:
> 
> "It is . . . Professor Snape whom I need" (580, ellipsis in 
original).
> 
> and
> 
> "'Severus,' said Dumbledore clearly. 'I need Severus . . .'" (same
> page, ellipsis in original).

Alla:

Dumbledore may NEED Snape, but he does not say that he TRUSTS Snape 
here. But even if he does, I am not saying that his trust in Snape 
dissappeared completely, all that I am saying is that it is possible 
based on DD looking as if he tried to make up his mind is that 
maybe, just maybe Harry's doubts got to him and he started having 
doubts too.


Carol:
> No evidence anywhere that Dumbledore's trust in Snape has in any 
way
> diminished, or that Snape has given him any reason to distrust 
him. On
> the contrary, Snape has saved three lives directly and one 
indirectly
> in the course of that school year--surely cementing DD's trust 
rather
> than the reverse. 

Alla:

Carol, I just brought canon example which could be interpreted as DD 
indeed wavering his trust in Snape. You are not persuaded, that is 
your right, but to me there is a possible evidence of DD hesitating 
about his trust.

 
> Carol, noting that when no canon is available to support a 
position,
> there's no disgrace in conceding defeat
>

Alla, very politely pointing that she does not need lecturing when 
to accept defeat and when not. Disregarding canon I brought is your 
prerogative, telling me how to conduct a debate is NOT.






From brahadambal at indiatimes.com  Tue Mar  7 04:29:07 2006
From: brahadambal at indiatimes.com (latha279)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 04:29:07 -0000
Subject: Snape's Love Interest
Message-ID: <duj26j+or12@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149202


Hi,

Was reading HBP again, and the Spinner's End Chapter struck me that 
Snape's love interest could be Narcissa! But the Blacks being so hung-
ho about the pure blood thing, may not have approved of a Half-Blood 
for a son-in-law and so Narcissa may have been forced to marry Lucius 
instead! That may also explain the "dung-under-her-nose" expression. 
Just wondering. Snape himself would not have changed so much to go 
from "MudBlood" to "oh My darling" about Lily. It just isn't in his 
nature to undergo drastic changes. If so, he would have been able to 
forgive the Prank instead of holding it as one sore point of his life. 

Just wondering and trying to see at other red herrings.
Brady.








From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  7 04:58:10 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 04:58:10 -0000
Subject: Why didn't Dumbledore bring backup? (Harry doesn't count)
In-Reply-To: <duic9g+ucle@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duj3t2+8al6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149203

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Michael" <michaelsgdec at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Going to a secluded cave to retrieve/destroy one of Voldemort's
> horcruxes seems to be a pretty dangerous task, even for Dumbledore.
> Why didn't he consider bringing another OP member along? (maybe
> Snape?) Even if this person could not fit on the boat, it would 
have
> been the safe thing to do. Why wasn't Harry surprised or concerned
> that he would be acting as Dumbledore's backup?
> 

Tonks:
DD goes alone because it is "his" mission, and Harry is the 
witness.  It is not something that the Order can do as a group.  
Each order member has their own job to do in the downfall of LV.  
Lupin does what he must do, alone.  Snape is the most alone of them 
all.  Each order member has a part to play and that part is done 
alone. At the same time they work as a whole.  I can not explain 
this well, but there is a way that a team works together while at 
the same time each member of that team has a separate job to do. 
Symbolically I think it says that each of us must do our part to 
overcome the Dark Lord in the depth of our own heart and that work 
is done in darkness and alone.

Tonks_op








From gbethman at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  7 04:35:23 2006
From: gbethman at yahoo.com (Gopal B)
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 20:35:23 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice
In-Reply-To: <1141679930.2922.49732.m11@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060307043523.63712.qmail@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149204

Hi,

'Dumbledore's sacrifice' just struck me hard on the
head. I think when Harry and DD were discussing
horcruxes, DD was willing to bet a few fingers (and
not even a hand) that Nagini was a horcrux. The
implication is that if he found Nagini alone, he will
not trade his hand for nagini's life.

Now, why would DD trade his life for Snape's cover. It
may sound like a good master strategy but is against
DD's character; sacrifice for destroying horcrux is
better than sacrifice for Snape's cover. The whole
idea of Snape killing DD could not be planned by DD
and Snape. If DD was sacrificing himself for Snape,
why did he not act similarly for many OOP I and II
members, sure he does not love Snape.

Probably, the green liquid made DD re-live his past
and he felt suicidal, hence stood defenceless against
Draco/ pleaded Snape to kill him. Maybe Snape will
regret what he did and help Harry.

LV personally went to the cave to drop a horcrux,
because DD recognizes LV's traces. was the green
liquid created by LV or RAB? If it was created by LV,
then how did it refill after RAB took the locket? 

Before drinking the liquid, DD says that LV would want
to know what person has reached this stage before
showing the horcrux. How does the liquid achieve that,
does it have a hidden brain like Diary/ sorting hat?
Or is it a dark-mark gateway?

Gopal who still thinks Snape ends up in Azkaban and DD
did not sacrifice a la Lily.






From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Tue Mar  7 05:25:24 2006
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 05:25:24 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <dui8v5+ansi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duj5g4+9ulr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149205

"sistermagpie" <belviso at ...> wrote:

> Dumbledore *does* hear about the 
> Unbreakable Vow earlier--much earlier
> when Harry tells him that Snape claims
> to have made an Unbreakable Vow to
> Narcissa months before this scene.  

That is true but from Dumbledore's remark (Of course that is what he
would tell you, Draco, but) it's clear that up to that point he didn't
think Snape had actually done it. We readers know he had done it and I
don't understand why a loyal and smart Snape would ever make such a
vow under ANY circumstances, and I don't understand why a loyal and
smart Snape would forget to tell Dumbledore this rather interesting
bit of information, it's been almost a year. 

Eggplant 









From A.E.B.Bevan at open.ac.uk  Tue Mar  7 11:52:10 2006
From: A.E.B.Bevan at open.ac.uk (Edis)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 11:52:10 -0000
Subject: Wizard ages
Message-ID: <dujs5a+cs6v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149206

Just a small niggle that I havent seen covered as yet...

It seems to be Canon that wizards have longer lifespans than Muggles. 

But on her Website Jo celebrates the Wizard of the Month ... and the 
WsOTM as listed dont have really longer lifespans than expected of 
Muggles...

So just a sliver of flint or what???











From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Mar  7 12:09:52 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 12:09:52 -0000
Subject: Things in RL that remind you of HP
In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAzrAa/5uW8EmFd8uvobk/+QEAAAAA@citynet.net>
Message-ID: <dujt6g+ntun@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149207

Bruce wrote:
> 
> Have any of you had the experience of seeing something in real 
life 
> which immediately made you think of something in HP?



Potioncat:
What, you mean more than once a day?

The worst case was in church singing a hymn, and the words had to do 
with something, something and fen...and I thought, "It's the Sorting 
Hat's song!" I actually went home pulled up the  words to the hymn 
and the words to the Sorting Hat song and compared them.

Unless 'fen' is more common in the UK, I wouldn't be surprised if 
JKR hasn't sung the same hymn at some time.


On a different topic, I'm all for cheering along with Geoff and 
creating some more posts that have nothing to do with...what's his 
name...the teacher Harry doesn't like.








From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Mar  7 14:36:03 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 14:36:03 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <duj2pa+ckhs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duk5ok+c3ma@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149208

> Alla:
> 
> The way I read it Dumbledore may have tried to convince himself and 
> sort of decided that he indeed convinced.

Pippin:
Sort of? He has a sort of decided he had a firm belief?  I think there's 
a contradiction inherent in your position, Alla, and it's coming out 
in your choice of words.

Canon doesn't show Dumbledore being shocked, so you account
for that by saying he feared Snape would turn on him.
But if you stroll out on a shaky bridge, telling yourself that hey, 
it just looks like those ropes are rotten, and it collapses, you'd be shocked 
because you were wrong. 

And why should Dumbledore think because Snape argued with
him that he was plotting treachery? Dumbledore tells his employees
they are free to speak ill of him, even call him a barmy old codger
if they wish.

As this thread is still titled Snape Survey, let me say for the 
record that I think Snape is DDM. He's a mean sarcastic bastard,
but he's Dumbledore's mean sarcastic bastard. He's anti-Potter,
anti-Gryffindor, and anti-dunderhead, but he hates Voldemort
far more, and would like to be rid of him so that he can go back
to being anti-Potter, anti-Gryff and anti-dunderhead in peace. 

Pippin







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Mar  7 14:40:34 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 14:40:34 -0000
Subject: Finding the horcruxes
Message-ID: <duk612+nhto@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149209

In CoS, Harry was able to get Gryffindor's sword from the Hat because
he was a true Gryffindor. Would a true Hufflepuff be able to recover the
Cup and a true Slytherin be able to find the Locket in the same way?

It's almost too easy. But it could work. And it fits with uniting the Houses.

Pippin






From bartl at sprynet.com  Tue Mar  7 15:03:42 2006
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 10:03:42 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Sorting Hat's Song
In-Reply-To: <dujt6g+ntun@eGroups.com>
References: <dujt6g+ntun@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <440DA0CE.2040002@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149210

potioncat wrote:
> The worst case was in church singing a hymn, and the words had to do 
> with something, something and fen...and I thought, "It's the Sorting 
> Hat's song!" I actually went home pulled up the  words to the hymn 
> and the words to the Sorting Hat song and compared them.
> 
> Unless 'fen' is more common in the UK, I wouldn't be surprised if 
> JKR hasn't sung the same hymn at some time.

	Or, it could be just basic music theory; the human brain is wired so 
that certain kinds of music and meters react well.

	Try taking any popular song, and putting the words to the music of the 
theme from Gilligans Island.

	Bart




From belviso at attglobal.net  Tue Mar  7 15:11:12 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 15:11:12 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <duj5g4+9ulr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duk7qg+7q2v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149211

eggplant107:

> That is true but from Dumbledore's remark (Of course that is what 
he
> would tell you, Draco, but) it's clear that up to that point he 
didn't
> think Snape had actually done it....I don't understand why a loyal 
and
> smart Snape would forget to tell Dumbledore this rather interesting
> bit of information, it's been almost a year. 

Magpie:
It certainly is not clear from that remark that DD doesn't think 
Snape's actually done it.  DD's line is completely unremarkable if 
he knows about the UV--he's just saying that yes, Snape may have 
told you he's watching you because he made a vow to your mother, but 
I've given him orders to watch you.  It's true, DD has given Snape 
orders to watch Draco.  He's revealing to Draco here that Snape is a 
double agent, not that Snape only works for him so any claims he 
makes about UVs and promises to Narcissa are just a cover story.  

If, as you say, DD has never before believed in the vow, why would 
Draco's simply repeating what Harry told Dumbledore Snape said 
earlier make him change his mind?  He already knows at the very 
least that Snape has *told* Draco that he made a UV, so why would 
Draco saying Snape made a UV be new information? It's not.  We have 
canon that Dumbledore is told that Snape claims to have made a UV to 
Draco.  I don't see how that can become canon that Dumbledore is 
unaware of the vow, or doesn't believe it's true, or that Snape 
hasn't also told DD himself--especially since when Harry tells 
Dumbledore that Snape has made a UV Dumbledore says he already knows 
more about it than Harry does.

-m






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Mar  7 15:22:56 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 15:22:56 -0000
Subject: Why didn't Dumbledore bring backup? (Harry doesn't count)
In-Reply-To: <duic9g+ucle@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duk8gg+ieen@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149212

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Michael" <michaelsgdec at ...> wrote:
>
> Going to a secluded cave to retrieve/destroy one of Voldemort's
> horcruxes seems to be a pretty dangerous task, even for Dumbledore.
> Why didn't he consider bringing another OP member along? (maybe
> Snape?) Even if this person could not fit on the boat, it would have
> been the safe thing to do. Why wasn't Harry surprised or concerned
> that he would be acting as Dumbledore's backup?
>

Pippin:
Dumbledore seems to regard even the knowledge of horcruxes as 
dangerous and corrupting. I don't think he wants that knowledge
to spread, especially among his warriors.

I don't think Harry thought of himself as Dumbledore's backup --
he asked to go with Dumbledore because he considered himself
the natural person to share in this task. IMO, of course.

Pippin






From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net  Tue Mar  7 15:29:27 2006
From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 15:29:27 -0000
Subject: Secular books? (was: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice)
In-Reply-To: <duif2e+df6q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duk8sn+5lbe@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149213

Tonks wrote:
> The whole problem with Snape saving DD is that JKR did not write it 
> that way for a reason.  We have to have DD die, now, under the sign 
> of the skull.  More specifically "at the place of the skull".  If 
> you understand what JKR is doing you will understand why.  Remember 
> she said in an interview "these are not secular books".
<snip>
> If you understand that Snape is in this scene in the role of Judas 
> then you will understand the rest. Was he still a disciple of DD, 
> or was he a traitor?  


SSSusan:
Erm... well... I think you're clearly into the realm of 
interpretation there, even though you're stating things most 
emphatically.  And here's the EXACT quote, which is different in 
essence from what you just offered up as a Jo quote:

"Um. I don't think they're that secular," she says, choosing her 
words slowly. "But, obviously, Dumbledore is not Jesus."
[from Time magazine, July 17, 2005]

Now, I'm actually doing a unit on Harry Potter at my church right 
now, so I'm not unwilling to consider what might or might not 
be "Christian" about the books.  However, I think one has to be 
pretty darn careful to distinguish between pointing out what's 
*compatible* with or in *alignment* with Christian 
themes/symbols/stories and stating outright "These are not secular 
books."  'Tis not what she said.

Siriusly Snapey Susan









From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Tue Mar  7 15:54:44 2006
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 15:54:44 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <dui8v5+ansi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dukac4+6lkm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149214

Dumbledore:

Of course that is what he would tell you, Draco, but

"sistermagpie" <belviso at ...> wrote:

> he's just saying that yes, Snape may 
> have told you he's watching you because
> he made a vow to your mother, but
> I've given him orders to watch you.

I'm sorry but that just doesn't any sense. If Dumbledore had thought
Snape really had made an unbreakable vow to watch over Draco there
would be no point in giving orders to watch over Draco. The only
interpretation I can come up with is that until a few minutes before
his death Dumbledore didn't think Snape had really made the vow; after
all, he would have to be a complete fool to trust someone he knew had
made an Unbreakable Vow to aid the enemy and murder him.

Eggplant     
 







From homeboys at adelphia.net  Tue Mar  7 16:01:39 2006
From: homeboys at adelphia.net (homeboys at adelphia.net)
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 11:01:39 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Digest Number 6928
Message-ID: <15942923.1141747299933.JavaMail.root@web12.mail.adelphia.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 149215

In HPforGrownups Digest Number 6928, "Tonks" <tonks_op at yahoo.com> wrote:

Remember she said in an interview "these are not secular books".

Adesa:

Could you give a reference for this quote? I'd not heard this one before.

TIA~
Adesa in Harrisonburg, VA



From belviso at attglobal.net  Tue Mar  7 16:29:01 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 16:29:01 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <dukac4+6lkm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dukccd+55q9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149216

eggplant:
> I'm sorry but that just doesn't any sense. If Dumbledore had thought
> Snape really had made an unbreakable vow to watch over Draco there
> would be no point in giving orders to watch over Draco.
 The only
> interpretation I can come up with is that until a few minutes before
> his death Dumbledore didn't think Snape had really made the vow; 

Magpie:
First, if DD knows about the vow he would still give Snape 
instructions on watching and handling Draco.  In fact, Dumbledore 
could have given him those orders BEFORE Snape made the Unbreakable 
Vow (but after Snape learned of Draco's task).  Which would mean 
Dumbledore is being even more straightforward--no, he is not watching 
out for you because he made the UV, he made the UV because he had 
orders to watch over you.  

But even if we take it as a given that Dumbledore did not know about 
the UV you still haven't explained the most obvious question: if 
Dumbledore didn't know about the UV, and when Harry told him about it 
he dismissed it as just Snape making up a story for Draco, then WHY 
would he suddenly start to doubt himself just because Draco, the 
person to whom he knows Snape told this story, tells him Snape is 
watching over him due to a promise to his mother?  Not only is there 
no sign there that Dumbledore is distressed by Draco's words (and JKR 
constantly shows outward signs of inward distress--she's doing it 
throughout the scene), but there is no reason for Dumbledore to find 
Draco's words any more believable than he found Harry's.

All this, then, seems to be about giving Dumbledore some arc that 
leads to him realizing when Snape comes in that Snape has betrayed 
him.  But again you've given no reason for Dumbledore to suddenly 
grasp this when he hasn't before.  It's totally arbitrary.  If 
Dumbledore didn't believe Harry's story about Snape making an 
Unbreakable Vow, he's got no reason to believe Draco's story of the 
same Unbreakable Vow.  And Snape does nothing before Dumbledore starts 
pleading with him to make him change his mind either.

So it basically comes down to Dumbledore's motivations being 
completely random and invisible throughout the book--his saying he 
trusts Snape completely sometimes means he trusts him, sometimes that 
he doesn't quite trust him, sometimes that he's on his way to not 
trusting him--all without us having any clear idea as to why he'd be 
changing his attitude.  He can hear the same information three times 
from equally (un)reliable sources and believe or not believe it 
according to his mood.  It just sounds like the basis of all of this 
is more this:

eggplant:
after
> all, he would have to be a complete fool to trust someone he knew had
> made an Unbreakable Vow to aid the enemy and murder him.

Magpie:
Which is your conviction, not necessarily Dumbledore's.  It seems like 
Dumbledore must not believe in or know about the UV because you can't 
reconcile his claims to trust Snape with it, so Dumbledore's actions 
must then be made to fit that storyline.  Just as the moment before 
Dumbledore's pleading must be made to fit the storyline where Snape 
betrays him.  That just doesn't seem like JKR's style to me.  To me it 
seems like she usually lays things out very clearly so you can see it 
step by step--only you need all the information to do that.

-m 







From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  7 17:05:38 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 17:05:38 -0000
Subject: Digest Number 6928
In-Reply-To: <15942923.1141747299933.JavaMail.root@web12.mail.adelphia.net>
Message-ID: <dukeh2+fqit@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149217

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, homeboys at ... wrote:
>
> In HPforGrownups Digest Number 6928, "Tonks" <tonks_op at ...> wrote:
> 
> Remember she said in an interview "these are not secular books".
> 
> Adesa:
> 
> Could you give a reference for this quote? I'd not heard this one 
before.
> 

Tonks:

Ah.. well..(blushing).. Pippin pointed out that I had not remembered 
it correctly and I checked and she is right, much that I hate to 
admit ever being wrong about anything. ;-) I went to Quick Quotes 
Quill and found the exact wording. Here it is and the link to it:

 http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-time-
grossman.htm

It says: (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.")

So I am reading "cagey" as not wanting to tell us everything. And 
the part about DD not being Jesus is interpreted by John Granger and 
others, including myself as not meaning that DD isn't a Christ 
figure. 

Now I hear you asking 'how can DD not be Jesus and yet be seen as 
Christ?'  My answer to that is that DD is the human who has been 
transformed..  or more specific to the books "transfigured" into the 
image of Christ.  There is a concept in Christianity which is that 
each of us can be transformed into Christ.  Jesus is one thing, 
Christ is another. Some people think that Christ was Jesus' last 
name, but that is not correct.  Jesus was "the Christ".  I don't 
want to get off on a tangent here about Christian theology.  I just 
want to point out that some of us see many, many Christian symbols 
in the HP books.  And I think that the symbols all come together 
more and more as they lead up to the death of DD.  

Here is another quote from JKR, cut and pasted directly from Quick 
Quill Quotes: 

"Rowling, aware of the protest, said she couldn't answer the 
questions about the book's religious content until the conclusion of 
book seven. "

and this one:

"JK: I do believe in God. That seems to offend the South Carolinians 
more than almost anything else. I think they would find it
well that 
is my limited experience, that they have more of a problem with me 
believing in God than they would have if I was an unrepentant 
atheist.
E: You do believe in God.
JK: Yeah. Yeah.
E: In magic and

JK: Magic in the sense in which it happens in my books, no, I don't 
believe. I don't believe in that. No. No. This is so frustrating. 
Again, there is so much I would like to say, and come back when I've 
written book seven. But then maybe you won't need to even say 
it 'cause you'll have found it out anyway. You'll have read it."

Tonks_op









From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Tue Mar  7 18:38:25 2006
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:38:25 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <dukccd+55q9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dukjv1+q1fe@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149218

"sistermagpie" <belviso at ...> wrote:

> if Dumbledore didn't know about the UV, 
> and when Harry told him about it he 
> dismissed it as just Snape making up a
> story for Draco, then WHY would he suddenly
> start to doubt himself just because Draco,
> the person to whom he knows Snape
> told this story

Draco tells Dumbledore that Snape is a double agent and has been
helping him with his project all year long, we know for a fact
Dumbledore was astonished Draco was so successful and had actually
managed to get Death Eaters into the school. Dumbledore may have
wondered if Draco could have done it all by himself and started to
suspect he had inside help, so when he mentioned the Unbreakable Vow
again he took it more seriously than the first time he heard it; and
if not then he did when Snape entered the room looking mean.  

And you have not explained why a loyal Snape would fail to tell
Dumbledore he made that vow even after a year. Shame at admitting
doing something so incredibly stupid? 

Eggplant 
 








From belviso at attglobal.net  Tue Mar  7 19:54:55 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 19:54:55 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <dukjv1+q1fe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dukoef+g5gv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149219

eggplant107:

> Draco tells Dumbledore that Snape is a double agent and has been
> helping him with his project all year long, we know for a fact
> Dumbledore was astonished Draco was so successful and had actually
> managed to get Death Eaters into the school. Dumbledore may have
> wondered if Draco could have done it all by himself and started to
> suspect he had inside help, so when he mentioned the Unbreakable 
Vow
> again he took it more seriously than the first time he heard it; 
and
> if not then he did when Snape entered the room looking mean.  

Magpie:
Nothing in this elaborate scenario except DD being surprised at 
Draco's success is in the text.  Draco does not tell Dumbledore that 
Snape has been helping him with his project all along.  He tells 
Dumbledore that Snape has been "offering [him] all kinds of 
help," "trying to get in on the action" and "steal all the glory" 
for himself.  He's a "double agent" in that he's only pretending to 
work for DD while being a DE.  Draco is specifically telling 
Dumbledore that Snape *didn't* help him because Draco wouldn't allow 
it, wouldn't tell him about the RoR, and so Draco has "beaten" him.  
It was Harry, months earlier, who told Dumbledore that *he* thought 
Snape was helping Draco, or trying to help him, only Harry too saw 
Draco refuse to let him. Draco is confirming here that he continued 
to refuse to let Snape help him and kept him in the dark.  

eggplant: 
> And you have not explained why a loyal Snape would fail to tell
> Dumbledore he made that vow even after a year. Shame at admitting
> doing something so incredibly stupid? 

Magpie:
I didn't explain why a loyal Snape would fail to tell Dumbledore he 
made that vow even after a year because it's not canon, just a "what 
if?" exercise.  Canon suggests Dumbledore did know about the vow.  I 
only assumed for the sake of argument that Snape hadn't told DD to 
demonstrate how little I thought Dumbledore having any reason to 
change his mind about his belief in the Vow during the Tower scene 
was supported by the text. It's assumptions piled on top of 
assumptions: first assume Snape hasn't told Dumbledore about the 
vow, then assume lots of stuff is going on in later scenes following 
from that first assumption. It's all reading against the text with, 
imo, no reason to do that.  

The more you pile on the further it gets from canon.  Dumbledore now 
needs to be thinking, in the Tower scene, that Draco could not have 
done this himself.  Then he needs to figure Draco's got inside help. 
Then he's got to think Snape was his inside help, which makes him 
remember hearing about the UV he dismissed earlier, and start taking 
it seriously.  All while actually having a completely different 
conversation that never hits any of these points or shows any sign 
of this going on.

Oh, and Snape ought to have been helping Draco too so that Snape 
knew about the cabinet plot and hid it from Dumbledore, opening up 
another can of worms that probably need more assumptions. And, as 
always, Snape's just got to come into that room wearing some sign of 
betrayal.  No matter how many times the text is quoted showing 
Snape's eyes sweeping around the room, here he is again with murder 
in his eyes or looking mean--at Dumbledore. In my head I can't help 
but think of most of the scenarios in this extended thread under the 
umbrella nickname W.D.H.I.T.T.-"What didn't happen in the Tower." 

-m







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  7 20:13:34 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 20:13:34 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <dukjv1+q1fe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dukphe+qncs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149220

Eggplant wrote: 
> Draco tells Dumbledore that Snape is a double agent and has been
> helping him with his project all year long, we know for a fact
> Dumbledore was astonished Draco was so successful and had actually
> managed to get Death Eaters into the school. Dumbledore may have
> wondered if Draco could have done it all by himself and started to
> suspect he had inside help, so when he mentioned the Unbreakable Vow
> again he took it more seriously than the first time he heard it; and
> if not then he did when Snape entered the room looking mean.  
> 
> And you have not explained why a loyal Snape would fail to tell
> Dumbledore he made that vow even after a year. Shame at admitting
> doing something so incredibly stupid? 


Carol responds:
Harry told not only Dumbledore but Lupin and Mr. Weasley (in "A Very
Frosty Christmas") that Snape had made an Unbreakable Vow. Not one of
them considered it a reason to doubt Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore.

You are interpreting the "but--" in "Of course that is what he would
have told you, Draco" to fit your view that Snape is a traitor. But we
don't know what it means. As I see it, Dumbledore is right. *Of
course* Snape would have told Draco about the part of the UV that
related to his protection and used that as his reason for watching
over Draco, concealing the second reason, that he was acting under
DD's orders. That's how a double agent operates, using partial truths
suited to the listener and concealing inconvenient truths. (See
"Spinner's End," where Snape conceals the nature of DD's injury and
his role in healing it, among other things.)

So "Of course that is what he would have told you, but--" is not in
itself evidence that Snape didn't tell Dumbledore about the
Unbreakable Vow. *Harry* told Dumbledore what he had overheard in the
conversation between Draco and Snape, including that Snape had made a
UV to protect Draco (HBP 323). It's inconceivable that DD would not
have asked Snape about it if Snape had not already told him, and DD's
remark to Harry that he knows more about the situation than Harry does
indicates that he does know about the UV and its possible dire
consequences for both himself and Snape--just as he knows that the
DADA position is cursed but has given it to Snape despite near-certain
dire consequences to them both. (The DADA curse, IMO, was always
intended as revenge against Dumbledore.)

And note that Snape has *not* been helping Draco with his project all
year long. Draco has refused to tell him what it is, as DD know from
Harry's information if not from Snape's. So Dumbledore, who knows more
than Draco about Snape's role as double agent, deftly turns the
conversation from Snape to Draco's real helper, whom he discovers is
the Imperio'd Madam Rosmerta.

And Snape does not "enter the room looking mean." He enters the room
and looks around to see what's happening. He does not look angry and
full of revulsion until *after* Dumbledore speaks his name and
exchanges a look with him, and even then he doesn't raise his wand
until Dumbledore says "Severus, please."

We see these events from the outside, as Harry does, and colored by
his emotions and reactions. But what's important is what's left
*unsaid.* I could argue that DD's "but" means "but that's not the only
reason he was watching you," but I'm not going to argue that. We quite
simply don't know what Dumbledore left unsaid. All we can do until
Book 7 is published is supply words that fit our own interpretation of
events. Those words fit mine. I don't expect you to agree with them,
but they are certainly consistent with the canon that we do
have--Dumbledore knew what Snape had told Draco in their unproductive
little interview and he trusted Snape completely. Draco is telling him
nothing he doesn't already know, and in fact, is not quite accurate in
what he reveals. 

The interview occurs just before Christmas. Snape's "help" at this
point consists of trying to get Draco to talk to him and putting him
in detention. During the interview, he advises him not to use
"amateur" tactics like the cursed necklace and to be careful. It's too
late to stop the poisoned mead from nearly killing Ron, but at least
Draco makes no more attempts of this sort, so possibly Snape's words
have had some effect. There is no evidence of further conversations
between the two (Draco is still asserting rather feebly that Snape is
trying to steal his glory, an idea that also derives from the
Christmas party interview), and it's clear that Snape had no more idea
than Dumbledore what Draco was doing--Draco uses easily detectable
Occlumency to prevent him from knowing. The only "help" we know for
certain that Snape gives to Draco in HBP is saving his life from
Harry's Sectum Sempra curse--which is consistent both with the UV
provisions to help and protect Draco and with DD's orders to keep an
eye on the boy. Snape heals Draco and gives Harry multiple detentions
but does not expel him even though McGonagall states that he had
grounds to do so. Surely these events are consistent with Snape being
Dumbledore's Man and with Dumbledore's continued trust in him.

Carol, who finds Snape's skills as a Healer the most interesting
revelation in HBP






From mgrantwich at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  7 21:17:56 2006
From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich)
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 13:17:56 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <dugbnq+4kds@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060307211756.41403.qmail@web53114.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149221


> Alla:
> 
> Right, but that is the thing. For me it is enough. From Harry being
> shocked by DD pleading I can imagine that DD was being shocked 
> because of "for the first time in his life" part. It is unnecessary
> for me for JKR to insert the part of "DD was looking shocked", etc.
> Makes sense?
> 


No it doesn't make sense.  You're projecting your own preferences
onto a character so that you get the result you want (ie, Snape is
BAD).  Just because you want it that way doesn't mean you get to
ignore indications to the contrary, especially when other listers go
a great deal of effort to provide detailed documentation for their
own interpretations. 

I had a colleague once who dealt with things she didn't want to hear
by closing her eyes, sticking her fingers in her ears and saying
"LALALALALA" in a loud voice for a minute.  She thought it was
amusing.  (She was wrong, which is one of the reasons she's a former
colleague.)

I would respectfully suggest that there's a fair amount of LALALA-ing
on this particular subject.  

Magda (who thinks that Sydney's detailed interpretations make sound sense)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From mauranen at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  7 21:21:27 2006
From: mauranen at yahoo.com (jekatiska)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 21:21:27 -0000
Subject: Leader of Order of the Pheonix
In-Reply-To: <du5j45+v31d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duktgn+ll51@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149222

> Jen: I think it will be Lupin, myself. Harry will be off on the 
> horcrux journey with Hr/R and possibly other students. Lupin blew 
> his cover with Fenrir the night of the tower plus the new romance 
> with Tonks can't bloom if he's still in exile at the werewolf 
camp. 
> 

> Pippin said something interesting and now I can't find it, but it 
> was about Dumbledore leaving behind not one person who could do 
his 
> job and know everything he knew, but several people who could work 
> together to carry on his mission (paraphrasing with my own 
> thoughts). So McGonagall will focus on Hogwarts because I do think 
> it will open; it's just not HP without Hogwarts!

Jekatiska:

Yes, Lupin does seem the type. He's the right leader personality, 
calm, sensible, respected. Importantly, unlike Arthur, he was also  
in the Order the first time round and thus more experienced. 
However, this could also turn against the Order, as he may be 
clinging to the old ways at a crucial moment - he does have a bit of 
the inactive or conservative about him. Lupin would be an 
interesting choice because he is so throughly human. And thus also 
makes mistakes and errors of judgement.

I also agree with McGonagall running Hogwarts. On the other hand it 
is not Dumbledore's legacy that determines the next head, but the 
school governors - or did the Educational Decrees in OotP change 
this? What if they get Umbridge all over again? (Not necessarily in 
the person of Umbridge of course, it could be anyone.)

Jekatiska







From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  7 21:56:24 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 21:56:24 -0000
Subject: Remus Lupin: Good man doing nothing (long!)
Message-ID: <dukvi8+oqt6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149223

Enough about Snape, let's tackle the real mystery man of the series, 
Remus Lupin.  For over a week I've been pouring through the books 
(this site was particularly helpful: 
http://www.geocities.com/willowsevern/ ) trying to get an accurate 
overview of the man.  It wasn't easy.  And yes, there were times I 
thought my brain was going to explode. Because Lupin is slippery.  
He's so very polite and sensitive and a wonderful teacher and yet 
he's remarkably laissez-faire  with Harry's physical and emotional 
well being.  So how to respond to this seeming dichotomy?  There's a 
classic quote that I think sums up Lupin quite nicely: 

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do 
nothing." ?Edmund Burke

Remus Lupin is a good man.  But he's an expert in doing nothing.

The first two books Lupin does such a good job at doing nothing we 
don't even hear about him.  He may possibly be one of the "friends" 
Hagrid contacted to create the photo album he gives to Harry in 
PS/SS, chapter 17.  But if he *was* one of those friends he ignored 
the colossal hint that Harry was out and about in the WW and curious 
about his parents.  Instead, he ignores Harry for an entire year.  
(Actually, as a friend of James, he's been ignoring Harry for ten 
years.  We have nothing in canon suggesting Lupin asked about or 
even cared what happened to James' orphaned son.)		 

So, nothing substantial until he arrives on the scene in PoA.  And 
when we meet him he's sleeping.  Not merely napping, he is sleeping 
*hard*.  He misses the near confrontation between Harry and Draco 
[80], and the rather loud confrontation between Crookshanks and 
Scabbers (which causes an even louder one between Ron and Hermione) 
[78].  Ron even worries for a moment that Lupin might be dead, and 
rather than dismissing him out of hand, Hermione checks to make sure 
Lupin is breathing [79].		

Lupin doesn't wake up until the dementor arrives, and his moment of 
action is a bit late.   "But the door slid slowly open before Lupin 
could reach it." [83]  He tries to talk the dementor down and when 
that doesn't work *finally* uses a bit of magic. [85]

It's an interesting introduction, I think.  Lupin sleeps through 
everything and when the children are confronted by an evil they 
can't fight, he's late at chasing it off and Harry suffers.  The 
reason I focus on this is because this is Lupin's method of 
operation throughout the rest of PoA and most of the series.

He's reluctant to teach Harry the Patronus spell [189], he's slow to 
tell Harry about his connections with his father [241].  He *never* 
steps forward to tell Dumbledore about Sirius being an animagus, 
even after it looks like Sirius came frighteningly close to killing 
Harry [265-268].  (Sirius is the one to finally tell Dumbledore 
[428]).  Unless he's forced to it, it seems that Lupin would much 
prefer to sink unnoticed into a corner.  Even if he's needed.  Even 
if good people suffer from his inaction.

In GoF, Lupin doesn't appear once.  He doesn't write a single letter 
to Harry, he doesn't have a single conversation.  Sirius risks his 
freedom and possibly his soul to see or talk to Harry [335,521] and 
Lupin, who'd have made a handy go-between, doesn't help.

But then something changes.  In OotP, Lupin *gets involved*.  He 
volunteers for [50] and actually appears to *lead* the mission to 
collect Harry from the Dursleys.  He takes part in discussions [89-
97] to the point of taking control at times [90].  He's efficient, 
decisive and forceful when he needs to be.  Had I been wrong?  Was 
the Lupin of the past books an inaccurate view of the man?

Enter Snape's worst memory.  (No really, dive on in.  You need to 
see this.) *Here's* the Lupin we know and love and have a hard time 
getting a handle on.  

Interestingly enough, he mirrors Snape in this scene.  Snape 
is "stringy, pallid" and concentrating on his exam [640-641]; Lupin 
is "pale and peaky" and "absorbed in the exam" [642].  Compare them 
to Sirius and James, grinning, finished, totally confident, totally 
at ease [642].  (Peter, or "Wormtail" as Harry calls him, is doing 
his own thing (one of these boys just doesn't belong?).[642])

But get the boys out into the sunlight and our Lupin of past books 
is quite apparent.  The bullying of Snape begins.  JKR pulls no 
punches; she gives us no out.  James and Sirius gang up on and 
overpower a non-provoking (in this scene) Snape.  Lupin doesn't like 
it; he doesn't like it from the get go [645].  Lupin is a Prefect.  
His friends are breaking the rules, and they're engaging in behavior 
he disapproves of, and Lupin does.... nothing.  He is a perfect 
example of Edmund Burke's good man passively allowing evil to 
triumph.  If James was stopped in his intention of showing Snape's 
genitals to whomever cared to look, Lupin was not the person who 
stopped him.

Harry, very properly I think, is horrified.  When he talks to Sirius 
and Lupin about what he'd seen Sirius is, again quite properly, "not 
proud of it" [670].   Strangely enough, Lupin doesn't seem all that 
bothered by his own behavior.  He does admit that he never told 
James or Sirius to "lay off Snape" [671], but he seems to take 
Sirius's excuse that Lupin did manage to shame them from time to 
time as valid.  That disturbs me a bit.  Because Sirius gives Lupin 
a pass and Lupin seems to take it.  But the thing is Lupin saw a 
wrong being committed and quietly let it happen.  That's... not 
good.  And I'm not sure Lupin realizes this.

Although...  after this little scene, Lupin seems to slip back into 
sleep again.  Though he says he's going to get Harry's Occlumency 
lessons back on again, there's no indication he took any action at 
all.  (Even his statement reads as vague: "If anyone's going to tell 
Snape it will be me!" [672] doesn't mean Snape is going to be told 
anything by anyone.)  Perhaps Lupin isn't as comfortable with the 
reminder of past mistakes as he appears to be and that causes him to 
regress back into his old passive ways. 

Lupin does take part in the battle at the DoM, but he's strangely 
inactive.  At least, as per the text.  It makes sense that he's 
participating in the battle, but the reader sees him only twice.  
Sirius is the great warrior here.  He takes on several of the Death 
Eaters at different times.  Lupin shields Neville and Harry from 
Malfoy once [804], and then drags Harry back from running through 
the veil after Sirius.  At which point Lupin shares what might 
possibly be his personal motto: "There's nothing you can do..." 
[806].  

There's a moment, at the end of OotP, where it seems that Lupin has 
woken up again.  He joins with Arthur, Mad-Eye and Tonks to confront 
the Dursleys at the train station.  But Arthur, not Lupin, seems to 
be in charge now [868].   Lupin goes along with it, but he doesn't 
appear to have initiated the confrontation.

By HBP Lupin seems to be fully back to old tricks.  We neither see 
nor hear from Lupin until Christmas.  (Not like Harry would have 
appreciated a note or anything, right, Lupin?).  At our first 
glimpse of him he's lost in a daze, staring into the fire [330].  He 
perks up when Harry shares his suspicions regarding Snape and Draco 
with Arthur, but then he takes a strange turn.

Lupin launches into a speech about the need to blindly and 
unquestionably trust Dumbledore [332].  Where does this come from?  
He didn't trust Dumbledore blindly before.  Throughout PoA Lupin 
rarely if ever turned to Dumbledore for help or advice. (We *know* 
he shared no information with Dumbledore.)  And now suddenly it's 
like he's joined a cult.  Must not question Dumbledore, must not 
dislike Snape.

Then there's the way he talks about being with his "equals" and his 
bitterness about becoming a spy among the werewolves [334].  Lupin 
does not appear to be very happy with Dumbledore.  And while he's 
able to suck it up and engage a bit more fully with Harry, there's 
definitely something going on.  Lupin doesn't attempt to contact 
Harry again.

So what changed from GoF to OotP and then changed again by HBP?  
Tonks could be the answer for the first change, love of a good woman 
and all that.  Only that doesn't explain why Lupin shut her out so 
completely by the opening of HBP.  The death of Sirius could provide 
an explanation for Lupin's shut-down in HBP, both his renewed 
passivity and his dismissal of Tonks.  But I'm not sure that Sirius 
has any hand in Lupin waking up for the bulk of OotP.  Why didn't 
Sirius's return affect Lupin in GoF?  Did Tonks wake him up in OotP, 
but then couldn't help him once Sirius died? 

I suspect there's a tie into Dumbledore somewhere in there.  Mainly 
because of Lupin's weird take on Dumbledore as his (and everyone's) 
personal moral compass.  And then there's his strange reaction when 
he's told of Dumbledore's death in HBP.

"No!" Lupin looked wildly from Ginny to Harry, as though hoping the 
latter might contradict her, but when Harry did not, Lupin collapsed 
into a chair beside Bill's bed, his hands over his face.  Harry had 
never seen Lupin lose control before; he felt as though he was 
intruding upon something private, indecent." [614]		

Lupin is having a rather noticeable breakdown.  Why?  Why Lupin more 
than any other character?  It's like Dumbledore's death is one more 
thing piled on top of an already heavy load.  But what is that heavy 
load?  Does Lupin feel somewhat responsible for Sirius's death?  
Does he feel that he acted too slowly in PoA, or should have acted 
when the Occlumency lessons stopped in OotP?  Or did he have some 
information on Snape that he chose not to share?

Honestly, I have no idea.  Lupin is a bundle of contradictions.  
It's easy to see how his behavior can seem suspicious enough to 
grant him the ESE moniker.  It's also easy to see why he's 
considered such a wonderful person.  Frankly, I think Lupin lacks 
the sort of initiative required to become ESE.  And I also believe 
his pleasant passivity hides a wealth of pain.  Snape referred to 
him as weak, and he is.  (As he'd admit to you, himself.)  But he 
doesn't have to be.  We've seen Lupin take action and he's good at 
it, a natural leader.  He is a good man.  Now if only he'd *do* 
something.

[All page numbers refer to Scholastic hardback editions of the 
books.]

Betsy Hp, sooo glad to be done with this!







From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  7 22:09:02 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 22:09:02 -0000
Subject: Wizard ages
In-Reply-To: <dujs5a+cs6v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dul09u+l41f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149224

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Edis" <A.E.B.Bevan at ...> wrote:
>
> Just a small niggle that I havent seen covered as yet...
> 
> It seems to be Canon that wizards have longer lifespans than 
> Muggles. 
> 
> But on her Website Jo celebrates the Wizard of the Month ... and
> the WsOTM as listed dont have really longer lifespans than 
> expected of Muggles...
> 
> So just a sliver of flint or what???
>

bboyminn:
Keep in mind that there is a difference between Maximum Lifespan and
average life expectancy. In the real world the Maximum Lifespan is
about 125 years. Though I will note that in one particular area of
Russia noted for its longevity, people are active and generally
healthy at a claimed age of over 130. However, all that said, the
Average life expectancy is about 70 years. That's a big gap.

Further, in the middle ages an exceptionally old person could live to
be age 70 or 80 years, yet the average life expectancy was probably
closer to 40. 

Magical people do have more advanced health care than muggles, and
they seem to have a resilience to injury and illness, BUT they also
have several (many?) magcial diseases that Muggles don't have to worry
about, like Dragon Pox. And they seem to live pretty rough and tumble
lives, so the risk level is somewhat higher.

The current Wizard of the Month -

Daisy Dodderidge
1467 - 1555.
First landlady of the Leaky Cauldron.

You will note that in the 1500's she managed to live to an age of 88
years. In that time in history, that was a VERY OLD age. That's
roughly the equivalent of a modern person living to the age of approx.
 118 years.

Many of us, well specifically me and a couple others, believe that the
Maximum age difference is about double, disregarding the first 18
years in which wizards develop normally.

So here is the formula-

WA = Wizards Age
MA = Muggles Age
ME = Muggle Equivalent Age
WE = Wizard Equivalent Age

ME = ((WA - 18)/2) + 18

WE = (MA - 18)*2) + 18

Examples:

Dumbledore-

ME = (150-18)/2 + 18 = 84

So, functionally, at real age 150, Dumbledore functions like an 84
year old Muggle.

Further, I suspect that JKR thought wizards living longer was such a
minor point in the overal story, that it never occurred to her that
people would work it out in detail. So, some error or some degree of
illogical results can certainly creep into the story. But that
shouldn't really matter if it doesn't distract from our enjoyment of
the stories in the moment.

Just a thought.
STeve/bboyminn









From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  7 21:41:35 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 21:41:35 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <20060307211756.41403.qmail@web53114.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dukumf+10bmt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149225

Magda Grantwich <mgrantwich at ...> wrote:
>
> I had a colleague once who dealt with things she didn't want to 
> hear by closing her eyes, sticking her fingers in her ears and 
> saying "LALALALALA" in a loud voice for a minute.  She thought 
> it was amusing.  (She was wrong, which is one of the reasons 
> she's a former colleague.)


A Snape-lover, no doubt.  Sorry, couldn't resist that one.  You are 
quite right that there is a very large amount of LALALA-ing going 
on, but it is scarcely confined to one side of the issue.  The 
extreme effort being expended to explain that Snape didn't REALLY 
kill Dumbledore, doesn't REALLY hate Harry, etc., often amounts to a 
vast cacaphony of denial.  But that is human nature, and won't stop 
on any side of the question.

But, perhaps it does give us an insight into many characters in the 
Potter series.  Snape -- "I don't here nothin' bout no stinkin' DADA 
curse, LALALALA,"; Hermione -- "Just trust Dumbledore, LALALALALA,"; 
Lupin -- "Just trust Dumbledore, LALALALALALA,"; Dumbledore --
 "Everybody repeat after me, I trust Severus Snape, 
LALALALALALALA,"; Voldemort -- "I look good in black, 
LALALALALALALA."


L(alalalalalala)upinL(alalalalalala)ore











From rkdas at charter.net  Tue Mar  7 23:40:46 2006
From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 23:40:46 -0000
Subject: Remus Lupin: Good man doing nothing (long!)
In-Reply-To: <dul5fl+au5j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dul5lu+l7mc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149227

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "susanbones2003" <rkdas at ...> 
wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" 
> <horridporrid03@> wrote:
> >
> >." 
>  SNIPPED
> 
> > By HBP Lupin seems to be fully back to old tricks.  We neither 
see 
> > nor hear from Lupin until Christmas.  (Not like Harry would have 
> > appreciated a note or anything, right, Lupin?).  At our first 
> > glimpse of him he's lost in a daze, staring into the fire 
[330].  
> 
> Jen Interjects:
> Dear Betsy,
> A very thorough job, analyzing Lupin. He is a bundle of moral 
> contradictions, I'd go so far as to say. I don't much like how it 
> all adds up. Just one thing I think you'd benefit by re-thinking. 
> No, Lupin didn't contact Harry after the confrontation with the 
> Dursleys at the end of OOTP, but he does have a reasonable 
> explanation at Christmastime: spying on the werewolves seems to 
> preclude correspondence with "The Chosen One."
> SNIPPED AGAIN
> He 
> > perks up when Harry shares his suspicions regarding Snape and 
> Draco 
> > with Arthur, but then he takes a strange turn.
> > 
> > Lupin launches into a speech about the need to blindly and 
> > unquestionably trust Dumbledore [332].  Where does this come 
> from?  
> > He didn't trust Dumbledore blindly before.  Throughout PoA Lupin 
> > rarely if ever turned to Dumbledore for help or advice. (We 
*know* 
> > he shared no information with Dumbledore.)  And now suddenly 
it's 
> > like he's joined a cult.  Must not question Dumbledore, must not 
> > dislike Snape.
> 
> Jen again:
> This too, puzzled me more than anything about Lupin, a blind 
trust. 
> I believe this little bit of "rah-rah" was to convince himself 
more 
> than anything. As Pippin has pointed out, he's face-to-face with 
> creatures who have been badly treated by the WW, he's more ragged 
> than ever, obviously suffering too. It would be only natural to be 
> bitter but then to change tack so completely, it just doesn't add 
up 
> and it's got to be more for his own benefit than Harry's, a boy 
> who's never fully understood how certain decisions made by DD have 
> affected his life. 
> 
> SNIPPED again!
> 
> 
> snipped


> > I suspect there's a tie into Dumbledore somewhere in there.  
> Mainly 
> > because of Lupin's weird take on Dumbledore as his (and 
> everyone's) 
> > personal moral compass.  And then there's his strange reaction 
> when 
> > he's told of Dumbledore's death in HBP.
> > 
> > "No!" Lupin looked wildly from Ginny to Harry, as though hoping 
> the 
> > latter might contradict her, but when Harry did not, Lupin 
> collapsed 
> > into a chair beside Bill's bed, his hands over his face.  Harry 
> had 
> > never seen Lupin lose control before; he felt as though he was 
> > intruding upon something private, indecent." [614]		
> > 
> > Lupin is having a rather noticeable breakdown.  Why?  Why Lupin 
> more 
> > than any other character?  It's like Dumbledore's death is one 
> more 
> > thing piled on top of an already heavy load.  But what is that 
> heavy 
> > load?  Does Lupin feel somewhat responsible for Sirius's death?  
> > Does he feel that he acted too slowly in PoA, or should have 
acted 
> > when the Occlumency lessons stopped in OotP?  Or did he have 
some 
> > information on Snape that he chose not to share?
> > 
> > Honestly, I have no idea.  Lupin is a bundle of contradictions.  
> > It's easy to see how his behavior can seem suspicious enough to 
> > grant him the ESE moniker.  It's also easy to see why he's 
> > considered such a wonderful person.  Frankly, I think Lupin 
lacks 
> > the sort of initiative required to become ESE.  And I also 
believe 
> > his pleasant passivity hides a wealth of pain.  Snape referred 
to 
> > him as weak, and he is.  (As he'd admit to you, himself.)  But 
he 
> > doesn't have to be.  We've seen Lupin take action and he's good 
at 
> > it, a natural leader.  He is a good man.  Now if only he'd *do* 
> > something.
> > 
> > [All page numbers refer to Scholastic hardback editions of the 
> > books.]
> > 
> > Betsy Hp, sooo glad to be done with this!
> 
> Jen here, finally,
> You've done a fine job of fence-sitting but you seem to swing, 
> unconciously maybe, towards a Pippinesque scenario. A good man who 
> does nothing is not a good man. I began to feel Lupin was not what 
I 
> wanted him to be when he sat by and watched James and Sirius 
torment 
> Snape. His dismissal, when talking to Harry, of the use of 
Levicorpus 
> seemed in keeping with his unfortunate ability to gloss over the 
> failings of others and himself. He even smiled, thinking of it. 
> Never wanted to be too hard on James. Not much of a friend, what? 
> Thanks for your hard work putting it all together. 
> Jen D.
> >
>







From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca  Wed Mar  8 00:13:45 2006
From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase)
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 19:13:45 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's Love Interest
In-Reply-To: <duj26j+or12@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060308001345.80210.qmail@web53306.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149228



latha279 <brahadambal at indiatimes.com> wrote:    
Hi,

Was reading HBP again, and the Spinner's End Chapter struck me that 
Snape's love interest could be Narcissa! But the Blacks being so hung-
ho about the pure blood thing, may not have approved of a Half-Blood 
for a son-in-law and so Narcissa may have been forced to marry Lucius 
instead! That may also explain the "dung-under-her-nose" expression. 
Just wondering. Snape himself would not have changed so much to go 
from "MudBlood" to "oh My darling" about Lily. It just isn't in his 
nature to undergo drastic changes. If so, he would have been able to 
forgive the Prank instead of holding it as one sore point of his life. 

Just wondering and trying to see at other red herrings.
Brady.
   
  Luckdragon:
  Actually it is Sibyl Trelawney whom Snape Loves. Remember her complaint about bed bugs at the Hogs Head Inn? That was Snape in his animagus form. When DD arrived he thought he'd better scoot, but was caught in the hall by Aberforth. After relating what he overheard of the prophecy to LV, he realized his love was in danger and turned to DD to ensure her safety. He then acquired a job at Hogwarts where he could watch over her himself. The Tarot card reading in HBP was done at Snape's request and was concerning Harry(dark young man who dislikes the questioner(Snape). Sibyl is totally blind to Snapes infatuation with her though as he is too insecure about expressing his love. 






__________________________________________________
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 AllieS426 at aol.com  Wed Mar  8 00:18:52 2006
From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 00:18:52 -0000
Subject: Things in RL that remind you of HP
In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAzrAa/5uW8EmFd8uvobk/+QEAAAAA@citynet.net>
Message-ID: <dul7tc+jce6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149229

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Alan Wilson" 
<bawilson at ...> wrote:
>
> Have any of you had the experience of seeing something in real life 
> which immediately made you think of something in HP?
> 
> BAW
>

Allie:

Of course!  While still in school I wrote an essay for our newsletter 
called, "Why Vet School is Like Harry Potter."  Our genius professor 
and "Accio Brain!" figured prominently.  :)









From juli17 at aol.com  Wed Mar  8 00:30:37 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 00:30:37 -0000
Subject: Remus Lupin: Good man doing nothing (long!)
In-Reply-To: <dul5lu+l7mc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dul8jd+mlus@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149230

<snipping Betsy's excellent and thought-provoking points about Lupin's
dichotomy of character>

Jen:
> > Jen here, finally,
> > You've done a fine job of fence-sitting but you seem to swing, 
> > unconciously maybe, towards a Pippinesque scenario. A good man 
who 
> > does nothing is not a good man. I began to feel Lupin was not 
what 
> I 
> > wanted him to be when he sat by and watched James and Sirius 
> torment 
> > Snape. His dismissal, when talking to Harry, of the use of 
> Levicorpus 
> > seemed in keeping with his unfortunate ability to gloss over the 
> > failings of others and himself. He even smiled, thinking of it. 
> > Never wanted to be too hard on James. Not much of a friend, what? 
> > Thanks for your hard work putting it all together. 
> > Jen D.
> > >
> >
>

Julie now:
I too have felt that Lupin is not what I want him to be, and what I 
think he *could* be if he would just shake himself out of his apathy. 
We've discussed the mental states of various characters, and Lupin 
seems to me a man perptually in the throes of depression, not so deep 
that he can't act at all, but everpresent in the sense that he can't 
bring himself to care enough about the things he should nor rouse 
himself to *do* something. It's easier for him to wallow in self-pity 
and self-hatred, rather than push himself into action. (I think Lupin 
and Snape are very much alike in their capacity for self-hatred, they 
simply express it differently, Snape outwardly on others and Lupin 
inwardly on himself.)

I don't buy the Pippinesque scenario though, because, again, it 
requires too much energy from Lupin to be ESE! And since I do believe 
Lupin is a good man inside (even while he's doing nothing), my hope 
for Book 7 is that he'll find a way to gather his inner strength and 
finally ACT on his convictions. 

Also, with Sirius and Dumbledore gone Lupin is the only adult 
mentor/father-figure left whom Harry can depend on, even if he's been 
undependable in that role so far. Yep, I really want to see Lupin 
pull it together, and I'm hoping he survives, so when Harry goes on 
with his post-Voldemort life, he'll still have one father-figure to 
advise him and guide him. After everyone he's lost, Harry deserves 
that much. So get your ass off that fence and support our boy the way 
he deserves, Lupin--or prove that Snape was right about you all 
along. Which will it be? ;-)

Julie 












From agdisney at msn.com  Wed Mar  8 00:39:36 2006
From: agdisney at msn.com (Andrea Grevera)
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 19:39:36 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The bloody axe
References: <du3n29+nlpp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY108-DAV11F5AA17D12EC824CC0533CFEF0@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 149231





  > Allie again:
  > 
  > Ah, good thought!  I always assumed the Baron was covered in his 
  own 
  > blood, but I guess it could be someone else's blood!  Is there any 
  > canon one way or the other?  An interview I've missed somewhere?  

  Hickengruendler:

  Not that I know of.

  But I, too, assumed, that he was covered in his own blood. Mostly 
  because he is, well, dead. And I suppose the ghosts are wearing the 
  clothes they wore, when they died. Therefore I assumed he died in 
  this robes and that's were all the blood comes from.

  Andie:

  I wondered if the blood on the Bloody Baron was unicorn blood.

  SS (US) pg 124, 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.
  pg. 250, "Look there," said Hagrid, "see that stuff shinin' on the ground? 
  Silvery  stuff?  That's unicorn blood."

  It makes sense to me.

  andie






  Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File!
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/HBF_Text__MUST_READ<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/HBF_Text__MUST_READ>

  Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying!
   
  Yahoo! Groups Links



   




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




From katbofaye at aol.com  Tue Mar  7 22:18:50 2006
From: katbofaye at aol.com (katssirius)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 22:18:50 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped, or at least slapped
Message-ID: <dul0sa+fm8j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149232

There are two articles on this subject which I recommend as more 
thoroughly covering this issue.  One is in Red Hen 
Publications "Rita Skeeter and other enemies" 
http://www.redhen-publications.com/Skeeter.html and the other is 
at Mugglenet, the North Tower, Editorial #43 
http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/thenorthtower/nt43.shtml .  

Has anyone else noticed that Hermione has strayed away from 
cautiously advising Ron and Harry to follow the rules in Books 1 
through 3 and has become the judge of their actions and the actions 
of the children and adults around them?  I hope JKR is playing on 
our love of the characters and willingness to forgive them anything 
and is simply delaying the lesson of what happens when one person 
makes themselves judge and jury for Book 7.  Crouch Sr. was an 
excellent example in Book 4 and in Book 5 Umbridge who believes the 
ends justify the means gives us another example of where it can lead 
(to attempted soul loss in Chapter 1).  

Hermione has used magical beings that she dismissed as horses to 
attack Umbridge.  She was judge, jury, and warden for Rita Skeeter 
at the age of 14.  Hermione knows what is right for house elves in 
spite of the up close example of Winky.  She permanently disfigured 
a girl for reporting students who were breaking school rules.  Let 
me repeat "the children were breaking school rules and she reported 
it".  This could have been Hermione in any other year.  Hermione 
consistently dismisses Luna until she can use her.  She makes 
harassing Harry a part time job in Book 6.  I was shocked by the 
level of ends justifying the means that Hermione was willing to 
engage including confunding McLaggen and attacking Ron with birds 
when he kissed Lavender.  She threatens Harry and Ron for using 
Felix Felicis before a game but it is okay for her to decide who is 
on the team.  This was not a struggle between good and evil where 
great sacrifices are made for great good.  Hermione just wanted her 
own way.  Her vindictiveness in Potions when Harry out performed her 
and unwillingness to accept his help or the possibility that her way 
was not the best way showed a belief in her own undisputed reign as 
the smartest know-it-all in Hogwarts, Great Britain?.  

JKR based Hermione on herself when she was in school.  So she may 
share our blind spot in regards to Hermione's dealing out justice.  
Unfortunately Hermione's justice is starting to look like vengeance 
to me.

"katssirius"







From glykonix at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  7 22:44:33 2006
From: glykonix at yahoo.com (Adriana)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 22:44:33 -0000
Subject: Things in RL that remind you of HP
In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAzrAa/5uW8EmFd8uvobk/+QEAAAAA@citynet.net>
Message-ID: <dul2ch+ahhp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149233

Bruce wrote:
>
> Have any of you had the experience of seeing something in real
> life which immediately made you think of something in HP?

Glykonix:
Yes I most certainly have. I've met Snape while on the bus. 
Last year, I was coming home from a bookshop, where I had just bought 
FB and QttA, and on the bus, there was this man, with a shallow face, 
a big hooked nose, black, greasy sholder length hair and all dressed 
in black. I'm telling you it was Snape, just like in the book even his 
eyes were very dark and his expression wasn't friendly either. 
I was with my best friend (also a Harry Potter fanatic) and we 
couldn't stop giggling all the way. I even asked him if his name was 
Severus Snape. But he either didn't hear me (it was a little crowded) 
or he simply ignored me.

Other then that I have seen some ladies dressed a bit funny, there was 
this one that looked as if she was dressed in a purple robe, you could 
swear she was part of the Wizengamot.










From little_scottie6 at hotmail.com  Tue Mar  7 23:39:08 2006
From: little_scottie6 at hotmail.com (Victoria Scott)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 10:39:08 +1100
Subject: Exiting and entering the school - FLINT
In-Reply-To: <dukjv1+q1fe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY109-F140423A4438967DF4B2204D9EE0@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 149234

G.C./Vic:
I was just reading the PS/SS again and it struck me that Charlie's 
friends come and take Norbert off the Astronomy tower, so they fly 
into Hogwarts. Another example is Fred and George exiting the school 
on brooms. How are those two things possible if the enchantments are 
encircling the school, or is it just another flint from JKR?

Vic








From little_scottie6 at hotmail.com  Tue Mar  7 23:50:42 2006
From: little_scottie6 at hotmail.com (Victoria Scott)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 10:50:42 +1100
Subject: Leader of Order of the Phoenix
In-Reply-To: <duktgn+ll51@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY109-F25E11A870EEFAA5DE3DEE3D9EE0@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 149235

> > Jen: I think it will be Lupin, myself. Harry will be off on the
> > horcrux journey with Hr/R and possibly other students. Lupin blew
> > his cover with Fenrir the night of the tower plus the new romance
> > with Tonks can't bloom if he's still in exile at the werewolf
> > camp. <snip>

> Jekatiska:
> Yes, Lupin does seem the type. He's the right leader personality,
> calm, sensible, respected. Importantly, unlike Arthur, he was also
> in the Order the first time round and thus more experienced.
> <snip>


G.C./Vic:
I think Arthur should be the leader of the OotP, because throughout 
the books, JKR has detailed Arthur as being situated poorly in the 
Ministry of Magic, never striving to be at the top, but happy doing 
the things he feels happy with i.e. Muggles! And also, there is the 
tension between him and Lucius. With Arthur leader, I think we will 
be able to see a more determined side of Arthur and also see him do 
some more extrordinary magic than we have during the books. As we 
already know, Arthur would not need to use highly advanced magic 
when reversing regurgitiating toilets etc, but that doesn't mean he 
doesn't or can't use advanced magic.

So, I think Arthur would be a great choice as leader of the OotP. 
He is skilled and motivated and byt he time Voldemort is dead, he 
can get the recognition from the Ministry of Magic that he deserves!

Vic









From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca  Wed Mar  8 00:52:35 2006
From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Luckdragon)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 00:52:35 -0000
Subject: The bloody axe
In-Reply-To: <BAY108-DAV11F5AA17D12EC824CC0533CFEF0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <dul9sj+rjhd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149236


>   Andie:
> 
>   I wondered if the blood on the Bloody Baron was unicorn blood.
> 
>   SS (US) pg 124, 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.
>   pg. 250, "Look there," said Hagrid, "see that stuff shinin' on 
the ground? 
>   Silvery  stuff?  That's unicorn blood."
> 
>   It makes sense to me.
> 
Luckdragon:
I always assumed the BB blood was looked silver because he was 
transparent. If it is Unicorn Blood, perhaps it was the BB who gave 
LV the idea of consuming unicorn blood to stay alive.






From hickengruendler at yahoo.de  Wed Mar  8 01:15:48 2006
From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 01:15:48 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped, or at least slapped
In-Reply-To: <dul0sa+fm8j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dulb84+31fv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149237

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "katssirius" <katbofaye at ...> 
wrote:
  
> 
> Hermione has used magical beings that she dismissed as horses to 
> attack Umbridge.  

Hickengruendler:

And she learned her lesson. Because she underestimated them, the 
centaurs attacked her and Harry. This is IMO exactly the wake-up call 
she eneded in this case. Granted, they got away because of Grawp, but 
still. JKR did not let Hermione simply away in this case. Also, IMO 
Hermione needs to be given some slack in this situation. It was a 
life or deathd ecision and Harry's sanity was in danger. Nobody else 
thought about anything in this case. What else should she have done? 
She didn't have her wand, and the centaurs were still among the 
leastd angerous beasts in the forest. Would it have been better if 
she led Umbridge to Grawp or Aragog? (In other words, while her 
dismissing the centaurs was certainly bad and arrogant, her using any 
means to get rid of Umbridge was IMO completely justified. It was 
Umbridge or Harry).

She was judge, jury, and warden for Rita Skeeter 
> at the age of 14.  Hermione knows what is right for house elves in 
> spite of the up close example of Winky.  

Hickengruendler:

I cannot blame her for blackmailing Rita. Sorry, maybe I'm an old 
cynical, but Rita was deliberatly destroyng othe rpeople's lives with 
half trues and outright lies. What I do think went to far is 
capturing rita and purring her in a jar. That was harsh by Hermione, 
but completely in line with the punishment other characters get. See 
for example the treatment of the Dursleys by Fred and George or 
Hagrid. I do think this is less Hermione's deed, but I think here is 
rather JKR's sense of humour at work. But who knows, maybe there will 
be some consequences, after all, the twins got theirs in HBP.
 
> She permanently disfigured 
> a girl for reporting students who were breaking school rules.  Let 
> me repeat "the children were breaking school rules and she reported 
> it".  This could have been Hermione in any other year.  

I'm curious. When did Hermione ever report somebody who was breaking 
rules? She may have threatened to do it, but I can't remember her 
ever having done this. She did tell McGonagall about Harry's new 
broom. But that was because she feared for his safety, not because he 
broke any school rules. About Marietta. My sympathy for her is 
limited. She knew very well, that everybody could have been expelled, 
including Cho, and she still told Umbridge. I can understand her not 
wanting to be a part of the group, but then she simply needn't have 
to come. Besides, she told Umbridge half a year after the group was 
founded, when she knew that they weren't doing anything dangerous.

Also, the way you are reasoning is pretty similar to how many people 
argue in dictatorships, for example the Third Reich. "It is 
forbidden, to hide a Jew into your cellar, therefore I had the right 
to tell the Gestapo what my neighbour was doing." Obviously it 
doesn't go as far in Marietta's case, because the situation was far 
less directly dangerous. But still, Umbridge's rules are clearly 
senseless, and there's no need to follow them like a sheep, just 
because they are rules. I am still not happy about what Hermione did, 
because I think it would have been both more effective and less 
vindictive, if she, instead of bewitching the list to mark a possible 
betaryer, had done something to warn the group instead. And while I 
was gleeful, when Marietta was marked in the beginning, I did not 
like at all, that she was still wearing a balaclava at the end of 
OotP, therefore that there's a possibility that she is marked for 
life, because of her mistake. But in HBP, the spots seem to go away 
and Marietta was able to hide them under make-up. Therefore while it 
did take unnecessarily long, I guess they vanishe din the end.

Hermione 
> consistently dismisses Luna until she can use her.  

Hickengruendler:

Yes, she did. And she changed her behaviour. See the last chapter of 
OotP, where she is friendly and more respectful to Luna. Admittingly, 
it took it's time, but it's not that Hermione still reacts the same 
way towards Luna as in the beginning. In fact, in HBP they seem on 
pretty friendly terms, and I can't remember Hermione saying anything 
disrespectful towards Luna or dismissing her. Therefore her 
constantly doing it, is IMO an exegeration. She did it first and 
later changed.

Anyway, I think at least in this case it is clear, that JKR is as 
much on Luna's side as she is on Hermione's.

She makes 
> harassing Harry a part time job in Book 6. 
 
And boy, did he deserve it. 

I was shocked by the 
> level of ends justifying the means that Hermione was willing to 
> engage including confunding McLaggen and attacking Ron with birds 
> when he kissed Lavender.  

I agree. But quite frankly, she was not the only one I disliked 
during the middle of HBP. I hate all those chapters involving 
Quidditch or shipping in HBP, because I found all the protagonists 
awfully unsympathetic. Harry, Ron, Hermione and Ginny seemed to have 
become their own close knitted group, who did not seem to care much 
about the feelings of anyone outside. Which is annoying, because I 
cannot remember them being that way (at least to that extreme, in the 
earlier books). It still was Ginny, who I disliked the most, because 
I have the impression that it is not Hermione, but *her*, who gets 
applauded by the author no matter what she does.

Hickengruendler







From darqali at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  8 01:13:14 2006
From: darqali at yahoo.com (darqali)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 01:13:14 -0000
Subject: Exiting and entering the school - FLINT
In-Reply-To: <BAY109-F140423A4438967DF4B2204D9EE0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <dulb3a+ifsf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149238

> G.C./Vic:
> I was just reading the PS/SS again and it struck me that Charlie's 
> friends come and take Norbert off the Astronomy tower, so they fly 
> into Hogwarts. Another example is Fred and George exiting the 
school 
> on brooms. How are those two things possible if the enchantments 
are 
> encircling the school, or is it just another flint from JKR?
> 


I think not!

Both examples given happened prior to the very intense increase in 
security measures undertaken at Hogwarts  the year in which we see 
Dumbledore having to deal with anti-broom magic so that he and Harry 
can  fly into the school grounds.

When Tonks escorts Harry to the gates after having rescued him from 
the train, where Draco had left him helpless under his I. Cloak, 
Harry says he can climb a wall to get into the grounds.

"No, you couldn't," Said Tonks flatly.  "Anti-intruder jinxes on all 
of them.  Security's been tightened a hundredfold this summer."

I assume therefore that the anti-broom measures were very recent 
additions to school grounds security, so that Charlie & his friends 
had no trouble in Harry's first year, nor Fred & George leaving in 
Harry's 5 th year.

Darqali










From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  8 01:41:43 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 01:41:43 -0000
Subject: Five hours again was Re: Blood
In-Reply-To: <duifuu+na2j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dulcon+k0cd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149239

> > 
> > Neri:
> > It seems that the criteria for what can be a flint are pretty
> > flexible, depending on whether this flint would help Snape's case
or not.
> 
> Pippin:
> Or hurt it?

Neri:
Tut, tut (as Kneasy would have said), I should remind you that when I
first reconstructed the timeline of the OotP climax, many months
before HBP, I was merely accusing Snape of irresponsibility. I thought
he was DDM at the time, and I certainly did not expect him to AK
Dumbledore off the astronomy tower. As things are standing now, it's
hard to find a theory of the Missing Five Hours that would hurt Snape
more than JKR already did.

> Pippin:
>  But since when did the
> internet become the only way to get information? There are reference
> books and libraries and Asking Someone Who Would Know.

Neri:
<deep sigh> I wish *I* had thought about these arguments at the time.

> Pippin:
>  But actually my new theory can account for the missing hours. I'll
call it 
> HP!Snape, for Highest Priority.
<snip >

Neri:
According to your new theory Snape is (naturally) DDM and had delayed
during the Missing Five Hours for justified reasons. If that were the
case I would have expected the issue of the M5H to come up against him
in the end of HBP. Lupin or Tonks could have said something like:
"I've wondered why it took him so long to inform us that Harry was
gone before the Battle in the Department of Mysteries". This would
have made the reversal in Book 7 more powerful. OTOH, if Snape is (as
I suspect) LID, then the more proper place to bring up the M5H would
be when all his motivations are finally resolved in Book 7. 

> Pippin:
> Suppose Dumbledore is sure that Harry will need Snape at the final 
> showdown. What for? Because when Voldemort is cornered, he scarpers, 
> as we saw in the MoM, and AFAWK only someone with a Dark Mark can find
> him. 
> 
> If Snape's help will be needed for the final showdown, it becomes 
> necessary that Snape survive that long. Dumbledore would therefore 
> order Snape to do whatever was necessary to preserve his cover until
> that time, even if it meant letting other Order members fight alone, 
> unless Harry was in immediate danger from Voldemort. Dumbledore
> would explain that he believed that only Harry would have the power
> to defeat Voldemort, and Snape would have agreed at first
> because of the prophecy, and  later because of the unique abilities
> he himself witnessed.
> 
> The explanation for the missing hours, then, is that Snape followed
> Dumbledore's orders and didn't inform the Order that Harry might
> have gone to the MoM until he'd convinced himself the situation 
> was dire enough to break cover for. If there was another spy in the
> Order, that spy then knew whose side Snape was really on. 

Neri:
I assume this spy would be ESE!Lupin? However, according to Dumbledore
Snape did try immediately to find out if Sirius was in 12GP, and from
Dumbledore's words (the "more reliable ways of communication"
mentioned in this context) it appears he used his patronus for that. A
patronus is unique to the sender, and it appears you can't control who
precisely gets the message at the destination (in HBP Tonks meant for
Hagrid to get her patronus but Snape took it instead). So Snape
wouldn't know who would get his patronus in 12GP, and this doesn't fit
very well with your theory.

As I wrote here recently, if Snape isn't DDM then it's actually
possible that he lied to Dumbledore, saying that he had sent this
first message while he actually hadn't. But if he's DDM and didn't
send this first message for justified reasons, then it's Dumbledore
who lied to Harry about this, which I'd find much more difficult to
accept.

Also, like most theories that attempt to acquit Snape of the
responsibility for the M5H, your theory just transfers this
responsibility to Dumbledore. Umbridge had taken McGonagall and Hagrid
out of Hogwarts the night before. Dumbledore had many hours to decide
what to do about it. Your theory seems to assume that he had just left
Snape as the last Order member at Hogwarts while knowing that, should
any emergency arise, it would be very risky for him to warn HQ, and
that he had no means to contact Dumbledore directly. If this was
indeed how it happened then Dumbledore was an extremely poor commander
and the Order is actually much better off without him.

> Pippin:
> But
> would Voldemort trust the other spy? Not necessarily. He'd 
> try to arrange a test.
> 

Neri:
As an aside, if the spy was ESE!Lupin then Voldy knew about the
Occlumency lessons. He also knew that Snape stopped them. He'd also
know that Harry wasn't told about the prophecy, and yet Lucius in the
DoM tells us that Voldy actually thought Dumbledore did tell Harry
about it, only not the exact wording. I'm not sure how all this would
fit into your theory but I suspect it would make it considerably more
complicated.

> Pippin:
> Snape would fear, after unmistakably intervening on Harry's 
> side by informing the Order, that Voldemort would test him.
> He couldn't afford to do anything that even hinted of disloyalty
> to LV.  He took the vow, not expecting the third provision. 
> 
> After the attempt on Dumbledore's life that nearly killed Ron,
> Snape tried to back out of his agreement with Dumbledore,
> saying that maybe he didn't want to do it any more. But 
> Dumbledore refused to release him.
> 

Neri:
Lets see now how would LID explain the M5H. First the main
assumptions: LID!Snape must save Harry's life from Voldemort before he
can go back to Voldemort's side, but he must do it without Voldemort
realizing it. 

I suspect that Voldemort told Snape about his plan several hours
before the MoM operation. This would be the most reasonable from
Voldemort's point of view, since Snape might interfere with Harry
going to the DoM if he's not in the know. Snape's orders were to
"remain behind", exactly as he tells Bellatrix in Spinner's End. He'd
be very stupid to lie about this since he can assume that Bella and/or
Wormtail would report everything he says to Voldemort. 

Additionally, I suspect that Snape was indeed afraid of Voldemort's
spy in 12GP, but I think he was actually told that Kreacher was the
spy, or at the very least he was told that there *was* a spy, if not
his exact identity. This put LID!Snape in a BIG problem ? he had to
save Harry somehow, but he was afraid to warn 12GP since the spy might
tell Voldemort that he did. Maybe Snape indeed couldn't contact
Dumbledore directly, or maybe he didn't want to, since at that point
Dumbledore might decide that saving Harry and the prophecy is worth
blowing Snape's cover. So LID!Snape would be extremely thankful when
Umbridge detained Harry. The idiotic woman practically saved Snape ?
it would be her fault that Harry didn't go to the DoM. 

The next part isn't really necessary for the theory, but I also
suspect that Snape wouldn't care what would happen to Harry in the
forest. This depends on the exact nature of the Life Debt magic, of
which we were very pointedly told nothing, but it seems that logically
the magic should not hold Snape responsible for things he isn't part
of. Dumbledore took care to make Snape a part of Voldemort's schemes,
but Snape was never a part of Umbridge's schemes, and he certainly
wouldn't be a part if Harry were killed by an acromantula or a
centaur's arrow. If the magic indeed doesn't hold Snape responsible
for this, then from his point of view it's good riddance ? no more
Harry and no more Life Debt, problem solved. But as I say this isn't
necessary for the theory. Maybe Snape simply estimated that whatever
might happen to Harry in the forest would still be far less dangerous
than going to the DoM.

So why *did* Snape finally warn the Order? The simplest version: Harry
doesn't come back for several hours, Snape suddenly realizes that
there are thestrals in the forest. If Harry goes to the DoM and is
killed by Voldemort, Snape *would* be magically responsible. Snape
throws all caution to the wind and warns 12GP. Luckily for him
Dumbledore catches Kreacher, so Voldemort never learns that his plan
was foiled because of Snape. 

An alternative version: around midnight Snape gets a message from
Lucius through the fire that everything goes as planed, and Harry & Co
had just entered the MoM. Snape throws all caution to the wind and
warns 12GP. Continue as in the previous version.

A slightly more complicated version: Voldemort or Lucius contact Snape
to tell him that everything goes as planned, and he's to wait half an
hour or so and then warn the Order. The plan is that Dumbledore and
the Order would run to the DoM to rescue Harry, would get there after
the DEs had already cleared the place, and the aurors would be called
to catch Dumbledore with the convicted murderer Black, nicely framed
for breaking into the DoM and possibly for kidnapping Harry and the
prophecy. This is how *I* would have planed it <g>. But Lucius has
some unexpected problems with the unruly teenagers, and maybe Snape
contacts the Order a bit earlier than planned, so the DEs are caught
instead. This version has the advantage that Voldy can't even blame
Snape for warning the Order. It's all Lucius' fault.

Regarding Snape's first message to Sirius ? if he had sent it at all,
which I now seriously doubt, I think he only checked if Sirius was in
12GP but didn't actually inform him of what had happened. Snape would
perhaps be able to justify this to Voldy ? he didn't actually warn the
Order of anything and it was needed in order to convince Dumbledore
that he did everything he could. I simply don't see Sirius getting a
message from Snape that Harry is under a mind-attack from Voldy and is
now detained by Umbridge, and then just sitting quietly for several
hours waiting for more information from Snape. This would be totally
OOC for Sirius. But it is possible that after the case Snape told
Dumbledore that he did tell Sirius everything the first time. It's
interesting that when Dumbledore joins Harry in his office after the
battle he doesn't arrive by portkey, the way he sent Harry. He appears
in his fire, and the first thing he tells Harry is that Madam Pomfrey
is "patching everybody now" and that none of them suffered any lasting
damage. He'd know that only if he's just coming from the hospital
wing, or at the very least he had talked with Madam Pomfrey from the
MoM through the fire. I believe he also talked with Snape at the same
time. Snape would hear from him that Sirius was killed and Kreacher
was caught, so he'd feel relatively safe to lie to Dumbledore about
his first message to Sirius. 

This theory might sound complicated, but it's actually considerably
more simple and straightforward than the hole riddled version that
Dumbledore trys to sell us in OotP. It doesn't have that absurd
situation in which everybody is supposed to act "at once" and yet
Harry & Co beat the Order to the DoM by a large margin. It explains
why JKR took care to describe the time in detail throughout the OotP
climax. Snape has a much better reason for doing nothing for several
hours, Sirius acts much more in character, Voldy behaves much more
reasonably by warning his agent at Hogwarts about the operation, and
Snape tells the truth in Spinner's End. The theory is also nicely
flexible ? there are several possible variations but they are all
basically the same. It's actually similar to Pippin's theory but it
doesn't depend on an additional spy in the Order (besides Kreacher)
and it maintains all the nice properties of LID!Snape. It also
explains why the M5H were not brought up against Snape in the end of
HBP: if Snape is LID then the BANG in Book 7 should come from finally
revealing his motivations, and this is the time when the above details
are best explained. 


Neri 









From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  8 02:05:47 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 02:05:47 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <duk5ok+c3ma@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dule5r+vomq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149240

> Pippin:
> <snip>
> Canon doesn't show Dumbledore being shocked

Neri:
You know, I just had a thought. Maybe Dumbledore really wasn't shocked
on the tower. Maybe he had always expected, or at least taken into
consideration, that Snape might betray him.

So why was he saying time and again that he trusted Snape completely?

Ah, but I don't remember Dumbledore ever saying *what* he trusted
Snape to do. Did Dumbledore ever say something like "I trust Snape to
be completely loyal to me"? Not that I recall. It was always just "I
trust Severus Snape completely". Yes, yes, that's very nice of you, we
really appreciate it and everything, but *what* do you trust him to do???

Well, I'm betting he wasn't trusting Snape to hand out sweets. And I
also suspect he wasn't trusting Snape to be loyal to Dumbledore, or to
the Order.

But it appears that when Snape betrayed Dumbledore on the tower, he
was still doing the thing that Dumbledore had always trusted him to
do. And in fact Dumbledore knew, or at least he pleaded with Snape,
that Snape would continue doing it even after betraying and killing
Dumbledore. Actually, maybe after killing Dumbledore, Snape would be
in a better position to do just the thing that Dumbledore had always
trusted him to do.

Like, say, keep trying to repay a certain Debt?
 

Neri 






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  8 02:10:35 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 02:10:35 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <duk5ok+c3ma@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duleer+ovlg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149241

> > Alla:
> > 
> > The way I read it Dumbledore may have tried to convince himself 
and 
> > sort of decided that he indeed convinced.
> 
> Pippin:
> Sort of? He has a sort of decided he had a firm belief?  I think 
there's 
> a contradiction inherent in your position, Alla, and it's coming 
out 
> in your choice of words.

Alla:

Sorry, Pippin, but I think my choice of words was from a) trying too 
hard to be diplomatic and that resulted in awkward phrasing indeed 
and b) because the quote I brought upthread of course cannot be 
interpreted with 100% surety. I brought what I consider to be a 
valid interpretation, namely that since Dumbledore looked like he 
was trying to make up his mind in response to Harry's accusations, 
it could be argued that Dumbledore was indeed doubting Snape more 
than he was letting on. I see no contradiction here at all. I then 
went on arguing that the reason why Dumbledore reaffirmed his trust 
in Snape because he self-hypnotised himself so to speak as in 
convinced himself that his reasons to trust Snape were indeed valid.

So, where do you see contradiction? That I cannot say that it is 
true with 100% certainty? Of course I cannot, but I think it is a 
possibility, that is all.

Pippin: 
> Canon doesn't show Dumbledore being shocked, so you account
> for that by saying he feared Snape would turn on him.

Alla:

Right, not quite feared, but more like "deep inside his mind", 
Dumbledore may have had the tiny seeds of doubt and possibly in the 
quote I brought Harry's worries GOT to DD more than he let on. It 
seems to me to be perfectly IC for DD to try to believe the best, 
even if  the rational part of his brain may realise that he should 
not.

As I argued earlier, I see the parallels with how DD handled Tom 
Riddle. Yes, this is not an absolute parallel and Tom was a child, 
but still DD did not share his suspicions about Tom with ANYONE, but 
instead gave him second chance, which Tom blew.

Do I think something similar may have happened with his dealings 
with Snape? YES. Am I sure of it? Of course not. But  Pippin I am 
not SURE of many things in canon, it does not mean that my position 
is contradictory.

Pippin:
> But if you stroll out on a shaky bridge, telling yourself that 
hey, 
> it just looks like those ropes are rotten, and it collapses, you'd 
be shocked 
> because you were wrong. 

Alla:

Pippin, as long as the possibility is hinted in canon (IMO of 
course), I am quite Okay with going possibly shaky bridge, BUT my 
crow is always nearby, ready to be cooked. :) We will see though at 
the end of the book 7 whether I will be the only one eating it. ;)

JMO,

Alla







From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com  Wed Mar  8 02:37:15 2006
From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (Katherine Macfarlane)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 02:37:15 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice
In-Reply-To: <duhulh+2dla@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dulg0r+73t0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149242

>
Carol:
>
>                        ...DD doesn't have time to close his eyes
> and compose himself before Snape casts the supposed AK. He must 
> have closed them and reconciled himself to death (from the poison, 
> fall) as Snape was *floating* him over the wall. How else can we
> not the account for the rag doll image, the closed eyes, and the 
> "wise old face" that looks as if it's asleep, oddly resembling
>  the peacefully sleeping DD of the portrait?
> 
La Gatta Lucianese:

Or alternatively, it looks like it's asleep because Dumbledore really
*is* asleep, because Snape has used some sort of sleep or
suspended-animation spell that will keep Dumbledore out of action
until Snape can get back and do something about the situation?







From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com  Wed Mar  8 02:59:39 2006
From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (Katherine Macfarlane)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 02:59:39 -0000
Subject: Things in RL that remind you of HP
In-Reply-To: <dul2ch+ahhp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dulhar+qpc9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149243


> 
Glykonix:
> 
> Yes I most certainly have. I've met Snape while on the bus....
> 
...
> 
> Other then that I have seen some ladies dressed a bit funny, there was 
> this one that looked as if she was dressed in a purple robe, you could 
> swear she was part of the Wizengamot.
>
La Gatta Lucianese:

My dear, you should drop in on Santa Cruz sometime, and stroll up and
down Pacific Avenue. I swear my hometown is the WW's advance capitol
in the U.S. ;D






From Nanagose at aol.com  Wed Mar  8 03:12:32 2006
From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 03:12:32 -0000
Subject: Remus Lupin: Good man doing nothing (long!)
In-Reply-To: <dukvi8+oqt6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duli30+qdkd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149244

> Betsy HP:
> Enough about Snape, let's tackle the real mystery man of the series, 
> Remus Lupin.  

Christina:

Woohoo!  Excellent timing, Betsy, as our favorite lycanthrope will be
celebrating his birthday in just a few days :)

> Betsy HP:  
> (Actually, as a friend of James, he's been ignoring Harry for ten 
> years.  We have nothing in canon suggesting Lupin asked about or 
> even cared what happened to James' orphaned son.)

Christina:

No proof of course, but I have a feeling that that may have something
to do with Dumbledore.  Just a thought.

> Betsy HP:
> So, nothing substantial until he arrives on the scene in PoA.  And 
> when we meet him he's sleeping.  Not merely napping, he is sleeping 
> *hard*.  

Christina:

I think it would be interesting to consider that Lupin might have been
awake the entire time.  He seems to have fast reflexes ordinarily (he
escapes injury in the MoM and catches his falling suitcase in PoA, for
a couple of examples), and although he doesn't DO much, he seems to be
observant.  I certainly thought he was faking when I first read PoA,
and since then I've treated that scene the same way I treat
Dumbledore's apparent willingness to stand back and let Harry try
things on his own, rather than step in immediately.  The threat of
Lupin sitting there is enough to deter Malfoy from doing anything, and
it keeps Harry from being seen as a teacher's favorite (at that point,
at least).

In any case, I see what you mean about that first impression of Lupin
being odd, in the symbolic sense.  I think that JKR wrote the scene
the way she did for narrative reasons.  She needed to introduce the
Dementors and the effects that they had on Harry, and so she needed to
delay Lupin's stepping in until then.

> Betsy HP:
> he's slow to tell Harry about his connections with his father [241]. 

Christina:

I find this hard to reconcile with the Lupin that we get in HBP, who
is happy to talk to Harry about James.  He actually seems to perk up a
bit once he's talked to Harry about it.  Again, I think that it's a
need of the narrative peeking through, but who knows?

> Betsy HP:
> He *never* steps forward to tell Dumbledore about Sirius being an 
> animagus, even after it looks like Sirius came frighteningly close 
> to killing Harry [265-268].

Christina:

This is probably the only case of Lupin-esque inaction that *really*
bothers me, because it really was dangerous.  Once more, it's a little
bit of narrative necessity, because we needed to have the surprise of
Sirius's animagus form in the end.  However, that certainly doesn't
excuse Lupin's behavior (and JKR does need a characterization reason
to make Lupin act this way) - people have mentioned before that they
think this is an example of Lupin being cowardly.  I agree.  Lupin is
very much a people-pleaser, and he's excellent at it.  He didn't want
to disappoint Dumbledore, and I think he just told himself that it
would all be OK, that Sirius's animagus form wouldn't matter (I think
he cites that as a reason himself).  

> Betsy HP:
> But then something changes.  In OotP, Lupin *gets involved*.  He 
> volunteers for [50] and actually appears to *lead* the mission to 
> collect Harry from the Dursleys.  He takes part in discussions [89-
> 97] to the point of taking control at times [90].  He's efficient, 
> decisive and forceful when he needs to be.  Had I been wrong?  Was 
> the Lupin of the past books an inaccurate view of the man?

Christina:

I don't think Lupin is lazy, he just has a number of other character
faults that tend to get in the way a lot (fear of losing the approval
of his friends, etc).  When Lupin needs to act, he does.

I've always said that JKR uses Lupin very well.  He's only ever around
when JKR needs something from him, and then he is delegated to the
background.  Lupin was needed in OP.  Somebody had to go get Harry,
and it had to be somebody that Harry trusted.  He only relaxes when he
hears Lupin's voice.  Lupin also knows Harry well enough that he can
ask him a "safety question."  He is still careful and thoughtful in OP
- he is generally a restraining force, which demonstrates the
passivity he's had all along.  He defuses the argument between Molly
and Sirius, he calms Molly down after the Boggart incident, he
restrains Sirius when the two men are talking to Harry in the fire, he
restrains Harry at the MoM.  I'm sure there are additional examples.

> Betsy HP:
> But get the boys out into the sunlight and our Lupin of past books 
> is quite apparent.  The bullying of Snape begins.  JKR pulls no 
> punches; she gives us no out.

Christina:

I think this is the passive!Lupin example that I cut him the most
slack for.  It's also the most easily explained incident, considering
it falls under the "he cuts [his friends] an awful amount of slack"
quote JKR has given us.  Is it right?  Of course not.  This incident
shows Lupin's lack of courage (as opposed to the way Neville bravely
stands up to his friends).  But I can certainly understand why
somebody like Lupin, who grows up having only three close friends (who
are extreme Type A's), is hesitant to step in and restrain them.  I
hate that Lupin didn't have the guts to get up and do something, but
seriously - nobody else did either.  The scene is filled with other
students that look on and laugh, and nobody (save Lily) does a single
thing.  Again, it's still wrong, but I think it shows an unsavory (but
all too common) human behavior.

> Betsy HP: 
> ...but he seems to take Sirius's excuse that Lupin did manage to 
> shame them from time to time as valid.  That disturbs me a bit.  
> Because Sirius gives Lupin a pass and Lupin seems to take it.  But 
> the thing is Lupin saw a wrong being committed and quietly let it 
> happen.  That's... not good.  And I'm not sure Lupin realizes this.

Christina:

It's important to note that Harry interrupts Sirius while he is giving
Lupin the pass.  Sirius says, "you made us feel ashamed of ourselves
sometimes...That was something..." and Harry "doggedly" cuts in to ask
about James impressing the girls.  The subject was abruptly changed,
so I don't really see an acceptance of the "out" on Lupin's part.

I do think that Lupin realizes that his standing by was wrong, because
he rejects Sirius's opinion that he was the only "good" one by
pointing out his passivity as a fault.  That's the thing about Lupin -
he knows he's doing wrong, he says so himself, and yet he still does
it.  The mark of cowardice, IMO.  He even says, "Did I ever **have the
guts** to tell you I thought you were out of order?" (emphasis mine).


> Betsy HP:
> By HBP Lupin seems to be fully back to old tricks.  We neither see 
> nor hear from Lupin until Christmas.  (Not like Harry would have 
> appreciated a note or anything, right, Lupin?).

Christina:

Lupin *can't* send Harry letters though, because he's been with the
werewolves.  For all of his passivity in the past, this is completely
explainable.


> Betsy HP:
> And then there's his strange reaction when he's told of Dumbledore's
> death in HBP.  <snip the canon quote> 
> Lupin is having a rather noticeable breakdown.  Why?  Why Lupin more 
> than any other character?  It's like Dumbledore's death is one more 
> thing piled on top of an already heavy load.  But what is that heavy 
> load?  Does Lupin feel somewhat responsible for Sirius's death?  
> Does he feel that he acted too slowly in PoA, or should have acted 
> when the Occlumency lessons stopped in OotP?  Or did he have some 
> information on Snape that he chose not to share?
> 
> Honestly, I have no idea.

Christina:

I can totally see why Lupin has a stronger reaction than everybody
else - as you said, it IS one more thing piled on top of an already
heavy load.  It isn't that he feels responsible for Sirius's death
(although he might) - it's that Sirius died in the first place! 
Having a very close friend die is extremely traumatic.  Watching that
friend die only adds to the trauma.  

Then we have Tonks, who has been laying it on thick the entire year
(he's had to tell her no "a million times").  If we accept that Lupin
did have true feelings for Tonks, then he was going against both what
Tonks wanted AND denying himself as well.  Very difficult.  On top of
THAT, Lupin has been with the werewolves all year long, pretending to
be a loyal follower of the man who bit him in the first place! 
Werewolves live "on the margins" of society, which is probably
unpleasant and stressful.  He has tried to covertly win over some of
the werewolves, but it isn't worked - a frustration, to be sure.  Not
to mention the stress of hiding his true allegiance and the chances
that Fenrir might find him out.  

Now take all of that and dump on the fact that Dumbledore means more
to Lupin that to other characters.  Dumbledore is the one who allowed
Lupin to attend school in the first place, allowed him to lead
something of a normal life.  Also, the news of Dumbledore's death
comes in a bit of a vacuum.  When Sirius dies, I'd say Lupin has a
pretty strong reaction.  He has to tear his eyes away from the veil,
is pale-faced, and it seems as though "every word was causing him
pain."  Compared to the emotions we've seen Lupin exhibit in the past,
this is strong.  BUT, Lupin has responsibilities - make sure the kids
are OK, take control of the situation.  There are things to be done,
and so he can put his pain on hold to take care of those things. 
Also, Harry has other things on his mind besides Lupin's pain, and so
he doesn't notice the reaction as strongly.  In the hospital wing
after Dumbledore's death, everyone is just sitting around.  Even
though I didn't see Lupin's reaction to DD's death as much more
pronounced than his reaction to Sirius's death, it is enhanced by the
fact that there's nothing to distract Lupin from it.  Harry also has
nothing else to do, and so he is just standing and watching Lupin
break down.

> Betsy HP:
> Frankly, I think Lupin lacks  the sort of initiative required to 
> become ESE.  And I also believe his pleasant passivity hides a 
> wealth of pain.  Snape referred to him as weak, and he is.  (As he'd
> admit to you, himself.)  But he doesn't have to be.  We've seen 
> Lupin take action and he's good at it, a natural leader.  He is a 
> good man.  Now if only he'd *do* something.

I agree with every word of this.  Also, as much as I do fault Lupin
for his flaws, I think it puts things into perspective to compare him
to others in the books.  He doesn't contact Harry for all the years
that Harry is living with the Dursley's, but neither does Dumbledore.
 Lupin doesn't tell Harry much about his father, but nobody can match
the master of withheld information, Dumbledore.  Lupin only made his
friends feel ashamed of themselves (concerning their childhood
activities), but Sirius shows NO remorse over leading Snape to the
Shack ("he deserved it").  Lupin stood by and let James and Sirius
bully Snape, but it was James and Sirius that were doing the bullying,
and Peter that was having a grand laugh at the goings on.  The other
kids were laughing as well - at least Lupin looked concerned (his brow
creased).  

I also see him as in a lot of pain...JKR continually emphasizes just
how TIRED Lupin always looks, and I think that this is more than just
a physical tiredness, but an emotional one as well.  He has been
through so much in his life, and it seems as though nothing has
changed from when he was a child.  Voldemort is rising to power again.
 His friends keep dying.  It's like an endless, exhausting cycle. 
It's also a very sad and lonely thing to lose your childhood friends -
it's difficult to know that you're the only person alive who remembers
things that happened when you were younger.  No matter how many
friends Lupin makes as an adult, there will always be that hole.

I think the best way to summarize Lupin's behavior is the way you did
it in the subject line - a "good man doing nothing."  The fact that he
sometimes stands by and lets bad things happen shows weakness, but it
also makes him a lot like the rest of us, according to psychology
studies and historical examples.

Like you, I'm hoping that Lupin steps up to the plate in HP7, and I
think Harry's trip to Godric's Hollow in an ideal situation in which
that can happen.  Lupin and Harry are haunted by many of the same
ghosts, and I'd love to see them bond over that and put those ghosts
to rest together.

Thanks so much Betsy - an excellent post on one of my favorite characters!

Christina






From richter at ridgenet.net  Wed Mar  8 03:03:03 2006
From: richter at ridgenet.net (richter_kuymal)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 03:03:03 -0000
Subject: Occlumency & Imperio
Message-ID: <dulhh7+ep2o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149245

"Moody raised his wand, pointed it at Harry and 
said, "Imperio!"
..Jump onto the desk
.Why, though?  Another voice 
had awoken in the back of his brain
.no I don't really want to
 
(pages 231 & 232 American edition, GOF)

And then we have: "I have been told that you have already shown 
aptitude at resisting the Imperius Curse.. You will find that 
similar powers are needed for this
 Legilimens!...

.No, said a voice in Harry's head, as the memory of Cho grew 
nearer, you're not watching that
.. Snape's office had come back 
into view and he realized that he'd fallen to the floor; 
"did you mean to produce a Stinging Hex?"
 (page 534 OOP).
We are meant to believe that Harry isn't any good at occlumency, but 
I think a comparison of the two passages indicates that actually 
Harry
is innately GOOD at keeping unwanted intrusions out of his mind.  He 
has the same initial problem with Imperio, then throws it off as he 
does with Legilimens.  The difference is that whereas fake!Moody 
actually lets him succeed, Snape disparages Harry's response even 
although it works well enough to force Snape OUT of Harry's head and 
add a stinging hex to boot.  Thereafter, Snape uses Harry's emotions 
to unsettle him and insists that Harry "rid your mind of all 
emotion..."(page 538 OOP).  Moody doesn't insist that Harry fight 
off the Imperius in a particular fashion -- he merely encourages 
Harry in doing it.
I find the comparison interesting.
PAR









From nrenka at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  8 03:23:18 2006
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 03:23:18 -0000
Subject: Remus Lupin: Good man doing nothing (long!)
In-Reply-To: <dukvi8+oqt6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dulin6+2ueo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149246

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" 
<horridporrid03 at ...> wrote:

<snip>

> But get the boys out into the sunlight and our Lupin of past books 
> is quite apparent.

Being as it's a flashback to the past, not exactly shocking, is it?

> Lupin launches into a speech about the need to blindly and 
> unquestionably trust Dumbledore [332].  Where does this come from?  
> He didn't trust Dumbledore blindly before.  Throughout PoA Lupin 
> rarely if ever turned to Dumbledore for help or advice. (We *know* 
> he shared no information with Dumbledore.)  And now suddenly it's 
> like he's joined a cult.  Must not question Dumbledore, must not 
> dislike Snape.

One word: Overcompensation.

Lupin feels guilty at not having trusted Dumbledore, not having 
shared, and thus being responsible for the chain of events which PoA 
set off.  So he, despite what he may feel deep down (and keep in mind 
that between PoA and HBP he does find out that Snape has this 
charming tattoo), he plays the party line with fervency (although 
he's far from being the only one).  If not trusting Dumbledore was a 
mistake before, dammit, he's not going to make *that* one again.

The irony is just too delightful, if you're into those sorts of 
things.

And as others have mentioned, Lupin feels indebted to Dumbledore in a 
way that few other characters are.  Without Dumbledore's liberal view 
towards werewolves, Lupin would never have met his friends, been to 
school...maybe a year of working amongst the disenfranchised 
werewolves has had him thanking whatever deities he follows every 
night for what Dumbledore gave him.

-Nora relaxes down in the warmth and sun







From bartl at sprynet.com  Wed Mar  8 03:41:50 2006
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 22:41:50 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Leader of Order of the Phoenix
In-Reply-To: <BAY109-F25E11A870EEFAA5DE3DEE3D9EE0@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY109-F25E11A870EEFAA5DE3DEE3D9EE0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <440E527E.1080009@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149247

Victoria Scott wrote:
> G.C./Vic:
> So, I think Arthur would be a great choice as leader of the OotP. 
> He is skilled and motivated and byt he time Voldemort is dead, he 
> can get the recognition from the Ministry of Magic that he deserves!

Bart:
	I think you have the wrong Weasley there. The one person who EVERYBODY 
in the Order respects is Molly.

	Bart




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  8 04:30:56 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 04:30:56 -0000
Subject: Occlumency & Imperio
In-Reply-To: <dulhh7+ep2o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dulmm0+nfp8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149248

PAR wrote:
>
> "Moody raised his wand, pointed it at Harry and 
> said, "Imperio!"
..Jump onto the desk
.Why, though?  Another voice 
> had awoken in the back of his brain
.no I don't really want to
 
> (pages 231 & 232 American edition, GOF)
> 
> And then we have: "I have been told that you have already shown 
> aptitude at resisting the Imperius Curse.. You will find that 
> similar powers are needed for this
 Legilimens!...
> 
.No, said a voice in Harry's head, as the memory of Cho grew 
> nearer, you're not watching that
.. Snape's office had come back 
> into view and he realized that he'd fallen to the floor; 
> "did you mean to produce a Stinging Hex?"
 (page 534 OOP).
> We are meant to believe that Harry isn't any good at occlumency, but 
> I think a comparison of the two passages indicates that actually 
> Harry
> is innately GOOD at keeping unwanted intrusions out of his mind.  He 
> has the same initial problem with Imperio, then throws it off as he 
> does with Legilimens.  The difference is that whereas fake!Moody 
> actually lets him succeed, Snape disparages Harry's response even 
> although it works well enough to force Snape OUT of Harry's head and 
> add a stinging hex to boot.  Thereafter, Snape uses Harry's emotions 
> to unsettle him and insists that Harry "rid your mind of all 
> emotion..."(page 538 OOP).  Moody doesn't insist that Harry fight 
> off the Imperius in a particular fashion -- he merely encourages 
> Harry in doing it.
> I find the comparison interesting.

Carol responds:
I also see a parallel between the two lessons, as does Snape, who
points it out. However, what you see as criticism, I see as Snape's
closest approach to praise. He *doesn't* criticize Harry for producing
the stinging hex or punish him for it. He has, in fact, told him to
use any spell he wishes to defend himself, but he has also indicated
that the preferred method is to close his mind and deflect the spells
mentally--as he (Harry) did with the Imperius curses. (I would not
praise Crouch!Moody's methods, considering what his motive was and
that Imperius is an Unforgiveable curse for good reason, but that's
just me.) 

The main problem with the Occlumency lessons, whether or not Harry has
a natural aptitude for them (JKR's recent interview suggests
otherwise) is that Harry doesn't *want* to close his mind, either to
the anger he feels throughout OoP (Voldemort's intrusions into his
mind affecting his emotions?) or to the dream of the corridor, which
he *wants* to have. Snape has given him as much information as
Dumbledore will allow, but he can't tell Harry what's behind the door
or why DD doesn't want him to see it. The antipathy between Snape and
Harry doesn't help matters, of course, but IMO Snape is trying to
suppress it, being unusually patient and careful in his explanations
and even offering faint praise ("That was not as bad as it might have
been."). But Harry distrusts him and fails to practice, as he admits
to Dumbledore at the end of the book. Admittedly Snape, despite his
mastery of the subject, is not the ideal teacher for Harry, but he is
not the sole or even the primary reason that the lessons failed, and
would (IMO) have failed even if they had continued beyond the Pensieve
incident. Harry was already on the verge of having that dream and
*trying* to have it. Unsurprisingly, he made no effort to block the
implanted "vision" when it came.

Funny how we can see the same parallel and yet read the scene so
differently.

Carol, noting that evil Crouch!Moody is a fact but Evil!Snape remains
an interpretation, as does DDM!Snape, at least until Book 7






From belviso at attglobal.net  Wed Mar  8 04:45:32 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 23:45:32 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Occlumency & Imperio/Snape Survey
References: <dulhh7+ep2o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00d401c6426b$2286eec0$c098400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 149249

richter_kuymal
I think a comparison of the two passages indicates that actually Harry is 
innately GOOD at keeping unwanted intrusions out of his mind.  He has the 
same initial problem with Imperio, then throws it off as he
does with Legilimens.  The difference is that whereas fake!Moody actually 
lets him succeed, Snape disparages Harry's response even although it works 
well enough to force Snape OUT of Harry's head and add a stinging hex to 
boot.  Thereafter, Snape uses Harry's emotions to unsettle him and insists 
that Harry "rid your mind of all emotion..."(page 538 OOP).  Moody doesn't 
insist that Harry fight off the Imperius in a particular fashion -- he 
merely encourages
Harry in doing it.I find the comparison interesting.

Magpie:
I wrote a longer thing on this once, but I think the two are fundamentally 
different in an important way in JKR's mind.  We see Harry being innately 
good at throwing off Imperius, but we know via the author that he's 
inherently bad at Occlumency.  It's not just the teacher, this seems to say 
something important about Harry's natural talent.

I think the difference is that Imperius centers around Harry's Will, which 
is his strength and connected to the strength of Gryffindor as well.  When 
Harry feels someone imposing their will on him he fights back.

Occlumency requires the compartmentalizing of emotions, which Harry can not 
do.  He is always one, of a piece, with his emotions--I suspect this may be 
partly why his will is so strong.  When Voldemort gets to him in OotP, he 
doesn't Imperio him or impose his will on Harry, he manipulates his 
emotions, often mixing them with his own or putting emotional ideas into his 
head.  Harry can tell the difference between his will and another's, but 
when he feels an emotion he can't shut it off.  Instead he allows it to 
direct his own will, lets it "become" him.

I can't help but find it interesting that the Slytherin pov seems to be the 
opposite.  Draco is apparently a natural Occlumens.  His emotions 
(Slytherin's area) are his strength, but he can replace his own will with 
someone else's (which you have to do to be a DE).  In order to submit to 
another's will or an idea, he can shut off any emotions that go against 
that.  But actually he'd probably be a stronger person if he stopped 
repressing the emotions he does.  He's a little too good at that Occlumency 
thing.  Harry's sometimes too good at Imperio.  In HBP he has to learn to 
sometimes take an order.

That's possibly also why Snape's hopeless at teaching him.  What Harry does 
to push Snape out of his mind is good, but is not Occlumency.  Unfortunately 
Snape doesn't seem to do much else but tell Harry to block off his 
emotions--easy if you're naturally a compartmentalizer, harder if you're 
Harry.

-m 





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  8 05:05:54 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 05:05:54 -0000
Subject: a  bit of SHIP Ron/Hermione/Hermione must be stopped
In-Reply-To: <dulb84+31fv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duloni+se7n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149250

Katssirius wrote:
<SNIP>
>> I was shocked by the 
> > level of ends justifying the means that Hermione was willing to 
> > engage including confunding McLaggen and attacking Ron with 
birds 
> > when he kissed Lavender.  

Hickengruendler:
<SNIP>
> I agree. But quite frankly, she was not the only one I disliked 
> during the middle of HBP. I hate all those chapters involving 
> Quidditch or shipping in HBP, because I found all the protagonists 
> awfully unsympathetic. Harry, Ron, Hermione and Ginny seemed to 
have 
> become their own close knitted group, who did not seem to care 
much 
> about the feelings of anyone outside. Which is annoying, because I 
> cannot remember them being that way (at least to that extreme, in 
the 
> earlier books). It still was Ginny, who I disliked the most, 
because 
> I have the impression that it is not Hermione, but *her*, who gets 
> applauded by the author no matter what she does.


Alla:

Oh, I don't know Hickengruendler,  to me Hermione was by far the 
least likable member of the Trio in HBP, but after all I freely 
admit that she IS my least favorite member of the Trio, period.  In 
fact, I think sometimes that I only like her because these three do 
so well together, as three friends. And it is not like she has some 
huge character flaws, she is a good loyal person, it is just her 
bossiness puts me off SO much.

And I think her attacking Ron with birds was appaling too. It is 
funny, I think JKR commented that Ron had to make himself worthy of 
Hermione in HBP. Personally, I happen to think that Hermione was not 
doing worthy things at all in that book. Ron did not make her any 
promises, they are just sixteen and going and assaulting him because 
she was jealous, IMO , well it was not nice at all.

JMO,

Alla






From kchuplis at alltel.net  Wed Mar  8 05:26:40 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen)
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 23:26:40 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] a  bit of SHIP Ron/Hermione/Hermione must be stopped
In-Reply-To: <duloni+se7n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1F3DFE36-AE64-11DA-8C81-000393B04DDE@alltel.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 149251


On Tuesday, March 7, 2006, at 11:05 PM, dumbledore11214 wrote:

> And I think her attacking Ron with birds was appaling too. It is
> funny, I think JKR commented that Ron had to make himself worthy of
> Hermione in HBP. Personally, I happen to think that Hermione was not
> doing worthy things at all in that book. Ron did not make her any
> promises, they are just sixteen and going and assaulting him because
> she was jealous, IMO , well it was not nice at all.
>
>

kchuplis:

I think it is funny that of all the things to pick on Hermione about, 
people choose the bird incident and (so far) people are universally 
appalled. I feel like I am the only person who ever suffered from 
intense jealousy. I'm not saying it is right, but dang, if *I'd* had 
her ability and a wand at a few certain moments in my life....well, 
bird attacks would probably been the least of someone's worries!

Yes, Hermione is terribly bossy and not perfect and a bit of a tiresome 
know it all.....she's been that way from day one, and still, staunchly 
loyal. That's how friends are. We love each other despite the many 
faults we have. One of my best friends in the world has many behaviours 
that drive me insane. She totally hated me for a mistaken reason when 
we first met (something she *saw* but didn't interpret correctly) but 
several months later we were put in a situation where she actually got 
to know me and we have been friends since. She can be manipulative, 
snobbish, self centered and egotistical beyond, well, most people I've 
ever met. And yet, she makes me laugh, she would be there any time I 
asked, she may not understand many things about me because she doesn't 
identify with it but she tries. I mean, it's not like we all have to 
like the characters on the "good side" to a person. That's part of what 
makes these character relationships so interesting. Would I like to 
slap Hermione sometimes? Yes. But then there have been more than a few 
occasions when Ron and even Harry could use a slap too. I say cut 
Hermoninny some slack :D




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  8 07:32:04 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 07:32:04 -0000
Subject: Exiting and entering the school - FLINT
In-Reply-To: <BAY109-F140423A4438967DF4B2204D9EE0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <dum19k+usf1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149252

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Victoria Scott"
<little_scottie6 at ...> wrote:
>
> G.C./Vic:
> I was just reading the PS/SS again and it struck me that Charlie's 
> friends come and take Norbert off the Astronomy tower, so they fly 
> into Hogwarts. Another example is Fred and George exiting the school 
> on brooms. How are those two things possible if the enchantments are 
> encircling the school, or is it just another flint from JKR?
> 
> Vic
>

bboyminn:

Well, as others have pointed out, it was in this last year that
Security was strengthened greatly at Hogwarts. Yes, prior to that they
did have some security, but it had been over a decade of no problems,
so security was probably a bit lax at that time. 

We know in the earlier books that people come and go from the front
gates all the time. So, one could reasonable conclude that Charlie's
friends flew in the front gate, and Fred and George flew out of it.
The distinction here is that you may not be able to fly over the walls
that surround the castle, but you may be able to fly through the gates.

Note there seems to be more that one gate into and out of Hogwarts.
Based on most assumptions of fans, the gate that leads to the train
station is also the same gate that leads to Hogsmead. Assuming you are
at the train station, if you go in one direction, you end up at
Hogwarts, if you go in the other, you go to Hogsmead. However, a
careful reading of the books also implies at least two gates, as does
JKR's own drawing of Hogwarts grounds. Just pointing that out. 

Just a thought.

Steve/bboyminn






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Mar  8 10:42:34 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 10:42:34 -0000
Subject: Leader of Order of the Phoenix
In-Reply-To: <440E527E.1080009@sprynet.com>
Message-ID: <dumceq+q6sv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149253

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky <bartl at ...> wrote:
>
> Victoria Scott wrote:
> > G.C./Vic:
> > So, I think Arthur would be a great choice as leader of the OotP. 
> > He is skilled and motivated and byt he time Voldemort is dead, he 
> > can get the recognition from the Ministry of Magic that he deserves!
> 
> Bart:
> 	I think you have the wrong Weasley there. The one person who EVERYBODY 
> in the Order respects is Molly.

Geoff:
I'm not so sure that respect is the word..... Most people, including Arthur, seem to be 
frightened of her or at least very worried as to how she will react. Very often, I'm afraid that I 
see her as an adult version of Hermione.







From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Wed Mar  8 10:52:03 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 10:52:03 -0000
Subject: Things in RL that remind you of HP
In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAzrAa/5uW8EmFd8uvobk/+QEAAAAA@citynet.net>
Message-ID: <dumd0j+n254@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149254

BAW:
> Have any of you had the experience of seeing something in real life 
> which immediately made you think of something in HP?

Ceridwen:
My English class.  The teacher reminds me quite a bit of Snape, if he 
was trying to be PC (too many 'current events' and politics), and the 
back half of the class remind me of Harry and Ron (who needs to listen 
to Snape in Potions?).  We even have a Neville, though this one is 
really clueless.  He's out of his depth, and as the semester 
progresses, he's getting more and more nervous.  Only, I don't think 
Neville would ask to see someone else's paper a) while the teacher was 
standing right behind that person and b) during a test.

Ceridwen.






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  8 12:54:45 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 12:54:45 -0000
Subject: a  bit of SHIP Ron/Hermione/Hermione must be stopped
In-Reply-To: <1F3DFE36-AE64-11DA-8C81-000393B04DDE@alltel.net>
Message-ID: <dumk6l+nv7q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149255

> kchuplis:
> 
> I think it is funny that of all the things to pick on Hermione 
about, 
> people choose the bird incident and (so far) people are 
universally 
> appalled. I feel like I am the only person who ever suffered from 
> intense jealousy. I'm not saying it is right, but dang, if *I'd* 
had 
> her ability and a wand at a few certain moments in my 
life....well, 
> bird attacks would probably been the least of someone's worries!


Alla:

Heee, Karen, I found something to disagree with you on. :-) I 
understand if one reacts to "birds accident" as something Hermione 
needs to be forgiven for or something along that line. But no, 
people are not universally appalled. I remember reading that poor 
Ron DESERVED it. That is strange to me. It is not like they are 
engaged or something, they were not even going out together, you 
know.

And, yes, I thought that they were always going to end together, it 
was so very clear to me, so no I did not want them to end up with 
other people. But did I think Ron had a right to have some harmless 
fun with Lavender? Yes, I sure did.


Kchuplis:
> Yes, Hermione is terribly bossy and not perfect and a bit of a 
tiresome 
> know it all.....she's been that way from day one, and still, 
staunchly 
> loyal. That's how friends are.

Alla:

Very true. It is just my personal quirk. My friends know it. I 
cannot stand my friends bossing me around - neither when I was 
younger, not now, therefore Hermione's small fault makes me not like 
her much, or at least not as much as I like Harry and Ron.


Kchuplis:
  Would I like to 
> slap Hermione sometimes? Yes. But then there have been more than a 
few 
> occasions when Ron and even Harry could use a slap too. I say cut 
> Hermoninny some slack :D
>

Alla:

True again, but I have more "slap Hermione" moments than Harry and 
Ron. :-)

JMO,
Alla






From kchuplis at alltel.net  Wed Mar  8 14:25:08 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen)
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 08:25:08 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Things in RL that remind you of HP
References: <dumd0j+n254@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001a01c642bc$1a3a96d0$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local>

No: HPFGUIDX 149256




  BAW:
  > Have any of you had the experience of seeing something in real life 
  > which immediately made you think of something in HP?


  kchuplis:

  Small things all the time. One thing only a Potter fan would know of is that I have a sweatshirt I refer to as my Umbridge sweatshirt. It has the girliest over cutesy kittens on it. When I read JKR's description of the "foul kittens gamboling" in OOP I immediately thought of this sweatshirt. I love cats, but this sweatshirt is horrible.My mother got it for me though, and I really like the fit of it. So I wear that foul Umbridge sweatshirt sometimes on weekends. If no one is going to see me.



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




From kchuplis at alltel.net  Wed Mar  8 14:29:35 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen)
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 08:29:35 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: a  bit of SHIP Ron/Hermione/Hermione must be stopped
References: <dumk6l+nv7q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002c01c642bc$b93e23a0$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local>

No: HPFGUIDX 149257


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: dumbledore11214 
  To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 6:54 AM
  Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: a bit of SHIP Ron/Hermione/Hermione must be stopped


  > kchuplis:
  > 
  > I think it is funny that of all the things to pick on Hermione 
  about, 
  > people choose the bird incident and (so far) people are 
  universally 
  > appalled. I feel like I am the only person who ever suffered from 
  > intense jealousy. I'm not saying it is right, but dang, if *I'd* 
  had 
  > her ability and a wand at a few certain moments in my 
  life....well, 
  > bird attacks would probably been the least of someone's worries!


  Alla:

  Heee, Karen, I found something to disagree with you on. :-) I 
  understand if one reacts to "birds accident" as something Hermione 
  needs to be forgiven for or something along that line. But no, 
  people are not universally appalled. I remember reading that poor 
  Ron DESERVED it. That is strange to me. It is not like they are 
  engaged or something, they were not even going out together, you 
  know.

  kchuplis:

  Oh, I don't think Ron DESERVED it necessarily (although, let's face it, he is a bit clueless - one has to wonder why Hermione is so interested, but that is "lurve".) But I just don't think Hermione derserves to be castigated for it either. There are plenty of nasty jinxes she could have used instead. I'd say she restrained herself well. :)  Does anyone else wonder what some people look like after a blazing husband and wife row in the WW?

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




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  8 14:41:20 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 14:41:20 -0000
Subject: a  bit of SHIP Ron/Hermione/Hermione must be stopped
In-Reply-To: <002c01c642bc$b93e23a0$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local>
Message-ID: <dumqeg+qfh1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149259

>   kchuplis:
> 
>   Oh, I don't think Ron DESERVED it necessarily (although, let's 
face it, he is a bit clueless - one has to wonder why Hermione is so 
interested, but that is "lurve".) But I just don't think Hermione 
derserves to be castigated for it either. There are plenty of nasty 
jinxes she could have used instead. I'd say she restrained herself 
well. :)  Does anyone else wonder what some people look like after a 
blazing husband and wife row in the WW?


a_svirn:
This is the one possibility, I believe, we neglected to discuss while 
talking about Mrs. Zabini. Crime passionale, anyone?  






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  8 14:43:12 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 14:43:12 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped, or at least slapped
In-Reply-To: <dulb84+31fv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dumqi0+r7q0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149260

> Hickengruendler:
> And she learned her lesson. Because she underestimated them, the
> centaurs attacked her and Harry. This is IMO exactly the wake-up
call
> she eneded in this case.

a_svirn:
Did she though? It's not just that she underestimated them as
adversaries (although that too), she also did not deem them persons
worthy of consideration, capable of feeling. And frankly it doesn't
seem likely to me that she's changed her mind on that score. She may
have cursed herself for being indiscreet, but it looks like centaurs
are still no more than overly touchy talking horses as far as she is
concerned.

> Hickengruendler:
> I cannot blame her for blackmailing Rita. Sorry, maybe I'm an old
> cynical, but Rita was deliberatly destroyng othe rpeople's lives
with
> half trues and outright lies. What I do think went to far is
> capturing rita and purring her in a jar. That was harsh by
Hermione,
> but completely in line with the punishment other characters get.
<snip>

a_svirn:
Er.. does it makes it OK then?

> Hickengruendler:
About Marietta. My sympathy for her is
> limited.

a_svirn:
My sympathy for Marietta is nigh close to non-existent, yet I cannot
but feel appalled at the way her situation was dealt with by adults.
I do not believe that not a single Professor at Hogwarts could lift
the curse, yet she was left disfigured (probably for life?) Also I
think it's rather hypocritical for Dumbledore to object to
manhandling his students by Umbridge when he does not hesitate to
obliviate them if the need arises. (Unless his rage was feigned? A
stratagem to divert her attention?)

> Hickengruendler:
  I am still not happy about what Hermione did,
> because I think it would have been both more effective and less
> vindictive, if she, instead of bewitching the list to mark a
possible
> betaryer, had done something to warn the group instead.

a_svirn:
It would, wouldn't it?







From quigonginger at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  8 14:44:25 2006
From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 14:44:25 -0000
Subject: a  bit of SHIP Ron/Hermione/Hermione must be stopped
In-Reply-To: <duloni+se7n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dumqk9+u2jm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149261

> Alla:
(snip)
> And I think her attacking Ron with birds was appaling too. It is 
> funny, I think JKR commented that Ron had to make himself worthy of 
> Hermione in HBP. Personally, I happen to think that Hermione was 
not 
> doing worthy things at all in that book. Ron did not make her any 
> promises, they are just sixteen and going and assaulting him 
because 
> she was jealous, IMO , well it was not nice at all.

Ginger:

While I agree that the whole bird thing wasn't very nice, I have to 
disagree with what people seem to be seeing as the motivation.  From 
what I have read here and from other posts, it seems the people are 
assuming that Hermione was mad (or jealous) at Ron because he was 
snogging Lavender.  

Hermione has been hurt for pages by Ron.  If you go back a few pages 
to where they were headed back to the Common Room after the match, 
Hermione tells Harry that she is sick of Ron and doesn't know why he 
has been treating her the way he has.  Harry knows it is because Ron 
is jealous that Hermione has kissed Krum, but doesn't know how to 
tell her that.  He even thinks to himself that he had hoped that if 
Ron won the match that they'd be friends again.  

After she sees Ron and Lavender doing a mutual tonsil-check, she 
leaves the room.  It is only after they come in that she finally 
breaks and sics the birds on him. 

Ron is the jealous one here.  He is jealous of Hermione having had a 
relationship with Viktor.  His snogfest with Lavender is in 
retaliation.  Remember Ginny had pointed out that he was as 
inexperienced as a 12 year old when he caught her kissing Dean.  She 
pointed out that Hermione had kissed Krum, which was apparently a 
revelation to Ron.  It is after that point that he starts being rude 
to Hermione.  Hermione has no idea what is going on.  All she knows 
is that Ron is acting like a jerk and no one will tell her why.

The birds were a bit much, but I can see why she lost her patience.  

I do agree that Ron has every right to kiss whomever he wants.  He 
and Hermione have made each other no promises, but if he is going to 
be a free agent, he needs to realize that she was one when she was 
with Krum.  Seems to me like a good snogging was what Ron needed.

Now maybe they can get on with saving the world.

Ginger, who has never shown bad judgement when overcome by jealousy.  
Yeah, right.  I've also never made a mistake when tpying;)






From sopraniste at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  8 15:03:34 2006
From: sopraniste at yahoo.com (Maria Holub)
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 07:03:34 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Exiting and entering the school - FLINT
In-Reply-To: <BAY109-F140423A4438967DF4B2204D9EE0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <20060308150334.40032.qmail@web35610.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149262

> G.C./Vic:
> I was just reading the PS/SS again and it struck me
> that Charlie's 
> friends come and take Norbert off the Astronomy
> tower, so they fly 
> into Hogwarts. Another example is Fred and George
> exiting the school 
> on brooms. How are those two things possible if the
> enchantments are 
> encircling the school, or is it just another flint
> from JKR?

Flop:
I was under the impression that the enchantment
preventing people from flying into Hogwarts was one of
the extra protections added for book 6 when DD was
away from the school. I have no canon on this, however
(not with me anyways). Anybody?...

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com  Wed Mar  8 15:05:43 2006
From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (Jazmyn Concolor)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 07:05:43 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wizard ages
In-Reply-To: <dujs5a+cs6v@eGroups.com>
References: <dujs5a+cs6v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <440EF2C7.9080805@pacificpuma.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149263


Edis wrote:

>Just a small niggle that I havent seen covered as yet...
>
>It seems to be Canon that wizards have longer lifespans than Muggles. 
>
>But on her Website Jo celebrates the Wizard of the Month ... and the 
>WsOTM as listed dont have really longer lifespans than expected of 
>Muggles...
>
>So just a sliver of flint or what???
>
>
>
>  
>

I think we only assume they live longer because of Nicholas Flammel and
due to Dumbledore's age.  But remember, up till the destruction of the
stone, Dumbledore was friends with Flammel and might have been sharing
that longevity potion, which might explain why after only 4-5 years,
Dumbledore slipped so much as to become too old to handle the fight
anymore and one too many dealings with cursed items put him to the
point where he knew he was dying and had to try and do as much as he
could before the end, where Snape only ended his suffering for him....



Jazmyn





From sopraniste at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  8 15:14:19 2006
From: sopraniste at yahoo.com (Maria Holub)
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 07:14:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Occlumency & Imperio
In-Reply-To: <dulhh7+ep2o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060308151419.54074.qmail@web35607.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149264

--- richter_kuymal <richter at ridgenet.net> wrote:
<snip>
> And then we have: "I have been told that you have
> already shown 
> aptitude at resisting the Imperius Curse.. You will
> find that 
> similar powers are needed for this Legilimens!...
> .No, said a voice in Harry's head, as the memory of
> Cho grew 
> nearer, you're not watching that.. Snape's office
> had come back 
> into view and he realized that he'd fallen to the
> floor; 
> "did you mean to produce a Stinging Hex?" (page 534
> OOP).
> We are meant to believe that Harry isn't any good at
> occlumency, but 
> I think a comparison of the two passages indicates
> that actually 
> Harry
> is innately GOOD at keeping unwanted intrusions out
> of his mind.  He 
> has the same initial problem with Imperio, then
> throws it off as he 
> does with Legilimens.  The difference is that
> whereas fake!Moody 
> actually lets him succeed, Snape disparages Harry's
> response even 
> although it works well enough to force Snape OUT of
> Harry's head and 
> add a stinging hex to boot.  Thereafter, Snape uses
> Harry's emotions 
> to unsettle him and insists that Harry "rid your
> mind of all 
> emotion..."(page 538 OOP).  Moody doesn't insist
> that Harry fight 
> off the Imperius in a particular fashion -- he
> merely encourages 
> Harry in doing it.
> I find the comparison interesting.
> PAR

Flop:
I noticed that too. In fact, didn't Snape specifically
TELL Harry to do ANYTHING he could to keep Snape out
of his mind in that first lesson? Yes, here it is
"'You may use your wand to attempt to disarm me, or
defend yourself in any other way you can think of,'
said Snape" (OotP 471) and yet when Harry does exactly
that, he is chided for the spell he used.... Interesting.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From hickengruendler at yahoo.de  Wed Mar  8 16:31:28 2006
From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 16:31:28 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped, or at least slapped
In-Reply-To: <dumqi0+r7q0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dun0t0+2fqm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149265

 
> 
> > Hickengruendler:
> > I cannot blame her for blackmailing Rita. Sorry, maybe I'm an old
> > cynical, but Rita was deliberatly destroyng othe rpeople's lives
> with
> > half trues and outright lies. What I do think went to far is
> > capturing rita and purring her in a jar. That was harsh by
> Hermione,
> > but completely in line with the punishment other characters get.
> <snip>
> 
> a_svirn:
> Er.. does it makes it OK then?
 
Hickengruendler:

No. But it's just that IMO Hermione doesn't stand out in doing such 
things, which IMO the original poster seems to imply. I personally do 
not like the scenes very much, were JK Rowling gave the comic 
villains (which Rita clearly is) comic punishments. But that's my 
personal opinion, others might like them. It's just that it isn't 
something only Hermione does and for which she needs to be stopped. 
The others do this as well. On the other hand, the twins had to pay 
some consequences in HBP (even if it was indirectly and poor Bill had 
to suffer the most), so maybe something is in store for Hermione as 
well. But I think to a big part the climax of HBP, where she realized 
that she misjudged Luna and the centaurs, was meant to be a wake-up 
call for Hermione in a general sense, that she can't manipulate 
people like that. She was much more restrained in HBP, except for the 
scene with the birds. And since I thought all involved characters in 
the shipping chapters (except for Luna at the Christmas party) were 
highly annoying, I don't hold this against her personally.







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Mar  8 16:34:30 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 16:34:30 -0000
Subject: Remus Lupin: Good man doing nothing (long!)
In-Reply-To: <dukvi8+oqt6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dun12m+mr8p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149266

 
Betsy Hp:
 There's a  classic quote that I think sums up Lupin quite nicely: 
> 
> "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do 
> nothing." ?Edmund Burke

Pippin:
It certainly does, though maybe not in the way you intended. <g> The
quote widely attributed to Burke  cannot be traced to him. 
http://www.tartarus.org/~martin/essays/burkequote2.html

Burke did say this,"`When bad men combine, the  good must 
associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice 
in a contemptible struggle.' --Thoughts on the Cause
of the Present Discontents [April 23 1770]

He also said,"Public life is a situation of power and energy;
he trespasses against his duty who sleeps upon his watch, as well as he
that goes over to the enemy." -ibid

<snip drastically -- and thanks for the great Lupin reference!>

Betsy HP:
> Honestly, I have no idea.  Lupin is a bundle of contradictions.  
> It's easy to see how his behavior can seem suspicious enough to 
> grant him the ESE moniker.  It's also easy to see why he's 
> considered such a wonderful person.  Frankly, I think Lupin lacks 
> the sort of initiative required to become ESE. 

Pippin:
Examples of Lupin's initiative and leadership skills are easy to
overlook. He claims to have led his friends to become animagi
and to break the rules Dumbledore set down for him. Sirius
does not deny it.

 Lupin also takes action against Peeves, instigates
dressing the boggart as Gran Snape, invites Harry into his office,  
comes up with the idea of using a boggart as a bogus dementor, 
and rushes out to the Shrieking Shack without consulting anyone.
He stops Sirius from killing Peter out of hand, gets his way on telling 
the whole story to Harry  and getting information from Sirius ("you'll
need to help me, Sirius [...] I only know how it began"), then 
interrupts with "Enough of this" once he's 
heard how Sirius discovered Peter's treachery. The steely voice
that Harry had never heard him use before is, IMO, the voice of
someone who is used to giving orders.

In OOP, it's Lupin who carries the day on what Harry should be
told, and Lupin who decides he's been told enough. He claims
to know things  no one else understands, "There are
dangers involved of which you can have no idea, any of you..."
and is not challenged.

Pippin






From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Wed Mar  8 16:58:00 2006
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 16:58:00 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <dukphe+qncs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dun2eo+k2e5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149267

Albus Dumbledore: 

Of course that is what he would tell you, Draco, but 

justcarol67" justcarol67 at ... wrote: 

> But we don't know what it means. 

The above statement is not complicated and I think the meaning is
clear. Of course it is possible to assign strange and counter
intuitive meanings to every single line in the book if one doesn't
mind following a rather convoluted logical path.

> Harry told not only Dumbledore but
> Lupin and Mr. Weasley (in "A Very 
> Frosty Christmas") that Snape had made an Unbreakable Vow.

And no doubt they too thought Snape had not really done it and was
just being a good spy, but we know better.

> *Harry* told Dumbledore what he had 
> overheard in the conversation between 
> Draco and Snape, including that Snape
> had made a UV to protect Draco 

Yes.

> It's inconceivable that DD would not 
> have asked Snape about it if Snape 
> had not already told him

I agree, and it's inconceivable that Snape's answer to Dumbledore's
question was:

"Yes I agreed to make an Unbreakable Vow but I had absolutely no idea,
not the faintest clue, what on Earth I was vowing to do. I didn't find
out until it was over, it turned out I was vowing to do everything I
could to help Draco smuggle a mob of murderous Death Eaters into a
castle full of young children. Oh and then I made yet another
Unbreakable Vow I was clueless about to murder you myself if Draco's
plan failed. Did I make a booboo? You still think of me as a cunning
mastermind and brilliant secret agent, right? You still trust me
completely, right?"

> DD's remark to Harry that he knows 
> more about the situation than Harry does 

Dumbledore's boast was unwarranted, Harry was clearly the wiser of the
two. Dumbledore was very surprised that Death Eaters had gotten into
the castle, even though Harry had warned him that something like that
might happen when they were away finding the (fake) Horcrux; Harry
even pinpointed where the danger was, the Room Of Requirement, and who
was behind it, Draco. So Harry told Dumbledore when the danger would
happen, where it would come from and who was behind it; but when it
did happen just as Harry said it would
Dumbledore was surprised. 

It shouldn't really surprise us to find in book 6 the student starting
to surpass the teacher, after all the book was not called "Albus
Dumbledore and the Half Blood Prince". At the end of the day either
Harry will turn out to be right about Snape or Dumbledore will, I'll
put my money on the hero of the series.

> The only "help" we know for certain that
> Snape gives to Draco in HBP is saving 
> his life from Harry's Sectum Sempra curse 

That was quite a bit of help but I wish Snape hadn't done it, if Draco
had died Dumbledore would still be alive. 

> Snape heals Draco and gives Harry multiple 
> detentions but does not expel him even 
> though McGonagall states that he had
> grounds to do so. 

I confess that part of the story always confused me because I can't
see where Harry did anything wrong, he would have been entirely
justified if he'd blown Draco's head off. 

sistermagpie" <belviso at ...> wrote: 

> Canon suggests Dumbledore did know about the vow

So "Of course that is what he would tell you, Draco, but" suggests
Dumbledore really believed Snape made that vow. It does??? 

Eggplant 








From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Wed Mar  8 17:33:00 2006
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 17:33:00 -0000
Subject: Leader of Order of the Phoenix.
In-Reply-To: <440E527E.1080009@sprynet.com>
Message-ID: <dun4gc+6kec@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149268

I don't know if the Order of the Phoenix will play a pivotal part in
book 7 (the DA may be more likely) but if it does the members would be
fools not to pick Harry Potter to lead them. Harry will be an adult in
book 7 and order members must know the only person who has a chance of
killing Voldemort is Harry. And no point in saying Harry is still too
young because I don't think he's going to be getting much older.

Although I am a little worried about all this talk about love, I don't
want a wimpy confrontation in the last chapter, I don't want Harry to
kill Voldemort with love, I want severed arteries and decapitated heads. 

Eggplant








From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  8 17:33:28 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 17:33:28 -0000
Subject: Remus Lupin: Good man doing nothing (long!)
In-Reply-To: <dukvi8+oqt6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dun4h8+6u6b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149269

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" 
<horridporrid03 at ...> wrote:
> 
> He's so very polite and sensitive and a wonderful teacher and yet 
> he's remarkably laissez-faire  with Harry's physical and emotional 
> well being.  So how to respond to this seeming dichotomy?  There's 
a classic quote that I think sums up Lupin quite nicely: 
> 
> "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do 
> nothing." ?Edmund Burke
> 
> Remus Lupin is a good man.  But he's an expert in doing nothing.

(snips rest of very good and interesting post)

Tonks:

Remus Lupin is a good man, as you say.  But he is not `doing 
nothing'.  He has a different style.  He is the introvert.  He is 
depressed.  He is down trodden.  He is poor.   He is an outcast of 
society.  Any one of those descriptions would portray a person who 
is not going to jump in and "save the day" like a superhero.  If we 
put them all together we get:
a depressed, introverted, downtrodden, poor, outcast.  He is a 
person that represents the powerless.  There are many of these folks 
in RL.  They have learned to just cope, to wait for the more 
powerful to act, to understand "their place".  And the brave among 
them when push comes to shove and no one else comes forward to save 
the day will, at great personal cost, take the risk (an a great risk 
it is) to come forward and do what must be done. 

Remus is doing his part in the fight against LV.  There are others 
that are good men doing nothing, but Remus is not one of them.

Tonks_op







From belviso at attglobal.net  Wed Mar  8 17:41:51 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 17:41:51 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <dun2eo+k2e5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dun50v+o89l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149271

eggplant107:

> So "Of course that is what he would tell you, Draco, but" suggests
> Dumbledore really believed Snape made that vow. It does???

Magpie:
It certainly doesn't prove that Dumbledore thinks he's lying about
the vow.  Like most of this story, it's intentionally vague:

"Of course that is what he would tell you, Draco, but Snape made
that promise with my consent."

"Of course that is what he would tell you, Draco, but in fact Snape
has been worried about your safety for some time."

"Of course that is what he would tell you, Draco, but Snape had been
looking after you long before your mother came to his house that
night."

However, I was not referring to that one sentence, I was referring
to Harry telling Dumbledore about the vow and Dumbledore not only
not showing any surprise but claiming to know more about the
situation than Harry does. (I realize that this fits fine with your
storyline where Dumbledore is actively denying the possibility that
this could be true.)  Dumbledore does later prove to know all about
Draco's task and the previous murder attempts, not to mention all
about Draco's mental state, which makes me lean towards seeing him
as more aware of what's going on, not less.

To bring it back to the Tower, I also lean that way due to the fact
that none of the important moments of the storyline where Dumbledore
clings to the belief that Snape has not made the vow, and quashes
his own doubts about it until moments before his death, are written
into the text.  If Dumbledore really didn't ever believe anything
about the vow, then it seems like he went to his death as ignorant
as ever.  Or at least his pleading had nothing to do with it.

In the absence of a moment where Dumbledore realizes that he's been
wrong all this time and Snape actually did make the vow, and a real
reason for him to finally figure it out after denying people telling
it to him outright, I can't see his pleading being due to suddenly
realizing he should have taken that UV story seriously.  Even in
your own explanation of the story, it seems that whenever it comes
time for a change to occur in Dumbledore, it's never there in the
text and always has to be imagined or rewritten.  You've snipped all
those parts, but I don't see how they can be so unimportant to your
theory.  If Dumbledore's having his firm convictions about denying
the vow shaken just by Draco repeating what Harry already told
Dumbledore Snape said to Draco, I'd think having to write in Snape's
murderous looks and Draco's claims he's been helping him all along,
and moments of suspicion and revelation for Dumbledore, might also
inspire some rethinking.

It's not that I don't see the idea that Dumbledore never knows about 
the vow that we know about, so is killed by it in the end.  It's in 
the text as a possibility ("Have you considered Snape was just 
pretending...?").  Even Harry thinks of Snape just pretending to 
help Draco.  But what there isn't is a moment where Dumbledore 
clearly realizes his mistake, which is what this thread was about.

-m







From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Wed Mar  8 18:34:02 2006
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 18:34:02 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <dun50v+o89l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dun82q+fbtr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149272

"sistermagpie" <belviso at ...> wrote:

> Even in your own explanation of the 
> story, it seems that whenever it comes
> time for a change to occur in Dumbledore,
> it's never there in the text and always
> has to be imagined or rewritten.

Well one second Dumbledore is ill but cool calm and collected and the
next second he's pleading, so something has certainly changed in
Dumbledore's mind. True, we don't hear Dumbledore thinking "I just had
a terrible thought and I don't like the look on Severus's face" but we
never hear what Dumbledore is thinking or any other character except
Harry. And it's true Dumbledore didn't explain his change of mind
verbally either, but then Snape only gave him time to say 2 words
before he blasted him to death. Let me repeat, he blasted Dumbledore
to death. Why are we still debating if Snape is a villain?

Eggplant  
 









From belviso at attglobal.net  Wed Mar  8 18:56:40 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 18:56:40 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <dun82q+fbtr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dun9d8+drj8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149273

eggplant:
> Well one second Dumbledore is ill but cool calm and collected and the
> next second he's pleading, so something has certainly changed in
> Dumbledore's mind.

Magpie:
Or, more simply, something has changed in the environment: Snape has 
just entered the room and Dumbledore wants him to do something he 
knows he must plead with him to get him to do.

eggplant:
 True, we don't hear Dumbledore thinking "I just had
> a terrible thought and I don't like the look on Severus's face"

Magpie:
We do hear about the look on Severus' face.  He's just sweeping the 
room with his eyes.

eggplant:
 but we
> never hear what Dumbledore is thinking or any other character except
> Harry. 

Magpie:
We don't hear what people are thinking, but we get signs in their 
words, expressions and actions. 

eggplant:
And it's true Dumbledore didn't explain his change of mind
verbally either, but then Snape only gave him time to say 2 words
before he blasted him to death. 

Magpie:
I'm going to try to analyze the way these kinds of sentences are so 
subtly frustrating.  Again, you seem to put me in the defensive 
position by default, as if I have to prove your theory could not have 
happened while you don't have to provide evidence that it did.  Here, 
although you've provided no evidence that Dumbledore has any intention 
of explaining a change of mind here, nor any evidence that Dumbledore 
has had a change of mind here, nor good reason for Dumbledore to have 
a change of mind here, it's somehow significant that Snape hasn't 
allowed him a chance to explain it.

As it happens, Dumbledore actually does have time to indicate a change 
of mind here (as opposed to the way he doesn't have time or reason to 
have a change of mind between the time Snape enters the room and the 
moment he starts pleading).  One way he can indicate it is by not 
pleading until his second "Severus, please." It is not Snape's fault 
that the beat isn't there. 


eggplant:
Let me repeat, he blasted Dumbledore
> to death. Why are we still debating if Snape is a villain?

Magpie:
We're not.  We're debating what happens in the scene, and whether this 
can support the idea of Dumbledore having a big realization about 
Snape in the six seconds between Snape entering the room and 
Dumbledore pleading.  The only reason I can see to debate that Snape 
is a villain is that either it's the thing one wishes to debate or 
that one thinks "Snape blasted Dumbledore" somehow covers every moment 
in canon in ways that it doesn't.

-m






From manawydan at ntlworld.com  Wed Mar  8 19:16:02 2006
From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan)
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 19:16:02 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wizard ages
References: <dul09u+l41f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001c01c642e4$bf1c08a0$c84a6d51@f3b7j4>

No: HPFGUIDX 149274

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve" <bboyminn at yahoo.com>
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wizard ages


> Many of us, well specifically me and a couple others, believe that the
> Maximum age difference is about double, disregarding the first 18
> years in which wizards develop normally.
>
> Dumbledore-
>
> ME = (150-18)/2 + 18 = 84
>
> So, functionally, at real age 150, Dumbledore functions like an 84
> year old Muggle.

I think most 84 year old Muggles of my acquaintance would be delighted to be
as fit and active as Albus!

The really old wizards, like Marchbanks, Dippet and Tofty, give far more of
an impression of old age.

I wonder if Dumbledore's ME would work better with a divisor of 3

ME = (150-18)/3 + 18 = 62.

And indeed, he acts far more like a 62 year old than an 84 year old.

> Further, I suspect that JKR thought wizards living longer was such a
> minor point in the overal story, that it never occurred to her that
> people would work it out in detail. So, some error or some degree of
> illogical results can certainly creep into the story. But that

Certainly agree with that one - it's one of the details which don't affect
the real story and therefore she doesn't focus on it.

hwyl

Ffred

O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon
Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion
Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  8 20:04:42 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 20:04:42 -0000
Subject: Wizard ages
In-Reply-To: <001c01c642e4$bf1c08a0$c84a6d51@f3b7j4>
Message-ID: <dundcq+r87f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149275

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "manawydan" <manawydan at ...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Steve" <bboyminn at ...>
> Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wizard ages
> 
> 
> > Many of us, well specifically me and a couple others, believe 
> > that the Maximum age difference is about double, disregarding
> > the first 18 years ....
> >
> > Dumbledore-
> >
> > ME = (150-18)/2 + 18 = 84
> >
> > So, functionally, at real age 150, Dumbledore functions like 
> > an 84 year old Muggle.

> Ffred:
> 
> I think most 84 year old Muggles of my acquaintance would be
> delighted to be as fit and active as Albus!
> 
> The really old wizards, like Marchbanks, Dippet and Tofty, give 
> far more of an impression of old age.
> 
> I wonder if Dumbledore's ME would work better with a divisor of 3
> 
> ME = (150-18)/3 + 18 = 62.
> 
> And indeed, he acts far more like a 62 year old than an 84 year old.

bboyminn:

You are looking at the typical 80 year old, I suspect that Dumbledore
is an exceptional 80 year old. Let's not forget that the Queen is 80,
and she seems well and fit. Let's not forget that many US Congressmen
are in or near their 80's and still serving well. In fact, one who
died recently, served well into his 90's.  Further, Bob Dole
[http://www.bobdole.org/], who is now 83, ran for President when he
was 73. Still a bright, active, healthy man; who, as a side note, is a
spokes person for Viagra. 

It is a standing joke in our family than my 82 year old mother lives a
more active life than any of her children. So, while many in their
80's are quite old, it is not absolute. I've seen people on the Jay
Leno - Tonight Show who are 100 or more, and many of them are still
active. 

So, Dumbledore is exceptionally well and fit for his age, and let's
not forget that he has to walk up and down several flights of stairs,
and up and down sloping lawns several times a day. I'm sure that
excersize contributes to him staying fit and healthy. Further,
Dumbledore is constantly surrounded by young people. In there presents
circumstances demand that he constantly engage his intellect which is
like excersize for the mind. The biggeest waste and wasting of a mind
and body is to not use them. Dumbledore is engaged in life, and that
keeps him young.

For the record, McGonagall at age 70, would be Muggle Equivalent age
of 44 years. How does that square with your view of her? Would you
suggest that she is (70-18)/3 + 18 = 35? 

I'm basing my estimation on an approximate double Maximum age for
Wizards. So, Max for muggles is 125; Max for wizards is about 250 (or
232 according to the formula). Using the average life expextancy in
the USA of 76 years, transferred, using the formula, that would make
wizard's average life expectancy age 134. That would make Dumbledore
older than the average, and I find that consistent with what I see in
the books.

I suspect the ancient and wizened Marchbanks and Tofte are closer to
age 200, which is about a 109 years according to the formula.

Of course, I can't prove I'm right. I'm just making a best quess. But
I think, all things considered, it is a reasonably accurate best guess.

Just passing it a long.

Steve/bboyminn






From hpfgu.elves at gmail.com  Wed Mar  8 20:07:33 2006
From: hpfgu.elves at gmail.com (hpfgu_elves)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 20:07:33 -0000
Subject: ADMIN:  Reminder
Message-ID: <dundi5+hiav@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149276

Hi, everyone--

We'd like to again remind members that personal remarks against 
other list members are not acceptable here.  To be clear:  positive, 
friendly comments are of course always fine, and playful, good-natured 
teasing and joking are fine as well.  We specifically mean any 
critical, snide, rude, or insulting remarks, needling other members, 
taking digs at other members, and so on.

Thanks, everyone!

--The Elves








From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  8 20:07:51 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 20:07:51 -0000
Subject: Occlumency & Imperio
In-Reply-To: <20060308151419.54074.qmail@web35607.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dundin+kad7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149277

> Flop:
> I noticed that too. In fact, didn't Snape specifically
> TELL Harry to do ANYTHING he could to keep Snape out
> of his mind in that first lesson? Yes, here it is
> "'You may use your wand to attempt to disarm me, or
> defend yourself in any other way you can think of,'
> said Snape" (OotP 471) and yet when Harry does exactly
> that, he is chided for the spell he used.... Interesting.

zgirnius:
"Did you mean to produce a Stinging Hex?" is not a criticism, it is a 
question. It is asked 'coolly', and there are none of the 
accompanying 'nasty Snape' expressions we sometimes see, like the 
sneer, the curled lip, etc. 

He goes on to say that for a first attempt, Harry's was 'not as poor 
as it might have been'. This, too, is not a criticism, (though I 
agree it is in absolute terms a very backhanded compliment...but then 
this is Snape we are talking about. Any compliment at all is a 
surprise...) And he suggests if Harry used his mind to repel the 
attack, he would not need to use a hex. Which is not contradicting 
his previous instruction, but clarifying what he believes to be the 
BEST approach. 







From sbarthell2001 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  8 03:19:38 2006
From: sbarthell2001 at yahoo.com (sbarthell2001)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 03:19:38 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore
Message-ID: <duliga+bc8d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149278

It is one of my many beliefs that Dumbledore subconsciously wanted to 
die. In the first book he tells Harry that to the well organized mind 
Death is but the next great adventure. Also JKR has said in one of her 
interviews that Dumbledore is something like 150 years old and he has 
the shriveled hand and he fought Voldemort which left him weakened as 
Snape says in Chapter 2 of HBP.

"sbarthell2001"






From clark.kentjr at gmail.com  Wed Mar  8 07:48:26 2006
From: clark.kentjr at gmail.com (Clark Kent)
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 02:48:26 -0500
Subject: a bit of SHIP Ron/Hermione/Hermione must be stopped
In-Reply-To: <1F3DFE36-AE64-11DA-8C81-000393B04DDE@alltel.net>
References: <duloni+se7n@eGroups.com>
	 <1F3DFE36-AE64-11DA-8C81-000393B04DDE@alltel.net>
Message-ID: <6ac0e4d60603072348v4c85f4cdif5cf7b54096281b5@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149279

> Alla wrote:
> > And I think her attacking Ron with birds was appaling too. It is
> > funny, I think JKR commented that Ron had to make himself worthy 
> > of Hermione in HBP. Personally, I happen to think that Hermione 
> > was not doing worthy things at all in that book. <snip>
>
> kchuplis:
> <snip>
> I mean, it's not like we all have to like the characters on the 
> "good side" to a person. That's part of what makes these character 
> relationships so interesting. Would I like to slap Hermione 
> sometimes? Yes. But then there have been more than a few occasions 
> when Ron and even Harry could use a slap too. I say cut Hermoninny 
> some slack :D


"Clark Kent":
I cut her some slack by not reading HBP more than once...  Personally I
think JKR did a great disservice to all three members of the trio, but then
again I was (and still am) a H/Hr shipper(even before I found the glorious
world of FanFiction) so maybe I'm just "delusional"!

Ron was supposed to be growing up in this book, yet he seemed to have no
attachment to Lavender other than a few snogging sessions.  I'm sure if I
was dating a guy and he walked out his bedroom with a girl EVERYBODY knew he
had a crush on, I'd be a little jealous too.  He was happy to be rid of her
because she was being too clingy and wanted to be around him...hmm, maybe
I'm missing something about the whole boyfriend/girlfriend thing they were
supposed to be having.

Then there's Hermione.  I'd say she went back in age by 3 years in this book
but she was more mature in book 3 than she is here.  After all her fits of
jealousy, I would've swore that JKR mixed up her Book 4 Ron notes with
Hermione's Book 6 notes.  In the other books she's supportive of both of
them, seemingly more mature and stable than both of them, and also seems
tired of Ron's fits of jealousy.  Then this abomination happens and she's
suddenly in love with Ron and can't stand any other female being within a 20
mile radius of him.

Then of course Harry is infested with an Alien, or whatever that "monster"
in his chest was supposed to represent.  He goes from not noticing Ginny in
the first 5 books, to all of a sudden being madly in love with her and
wanting to maim and kill anybody who looks at her.  Maybe if JKR went the
Cho route, and had Ginny actually be noticed by Harry sometime in the first
5 books or showed her as something other than one of the countless people
who seem to only care about his fame "Oh, Mom, can I go on the train and see
him, Mom, please...." then it would've made sense.  As it is, I just can't
see Harry marrying one of his fangirls, with no particular talents besides
casting that one bat bogey spell..

Love potions... what was the deal with them?  Every other potion in
Slughorn's class was more than just a passing remark.  Veritaserum was used
by Dumbledore against Barty Crouch in book 4 and Umbridge against Harry in
book 5, Polyjuice in Book 2 to interrogate malfoy, Felix Felis to get the
memory and save his friends in HBP, Love potions are mentioned throughout
HBP yet we never hear of anybody being affected by it.  Seems almost like
Hagrid mentioning Sirius Black in PS/SS doesn't it?

All in all, although I was hoping for Harry/Hermione, with the way JKR
writes romance, I'm glad she didn't ruin that particular ship for me.  I'll
just stick to www.portkey.org and ignore all the H/G and slash on FFN. :)






From glykonix at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  8 16:27:10 2006
From: glykonix at yahoo.com (Adriana)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 16:27:10 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <dule5r+vomq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dun0ku+4662@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149280

Almost everything pertinent on this topic has already been stated and 
restated on both sides of the argument.
I am one of those who believe Snape is DDM, but I will admit that some 
of the arguments against him made me think (and almost made me doubt 
him). 
But I have one more point in favor of Snape that I don't believe to 
have seen posted here. There has been much talk about Dumbledore 
repeatedly saying he trusts Snape. Some saying that it was only so 
that he could convince himself or because he was actually doubting it. 
Now DD may have told lies and may have hidden truths, but I don't 
believe he lies to himself. 
And he is not the only one who says he trusts Snape with a reason. In 
the scene where Harry tells DD that he overheard Snape and Malfoy 
talking. DD restates his trust in Snape. And the snide voice of 
Phineas Nigellus who was pretending to be asleep says 'I should think 
not.'
And if Phineas says this, I will trust him, because that painting must 
have seen a lot. It is clear that there is a firm reason for which DD 
trust Snape completely. 

Glykonix 








From AllieS426 at aol.com  Wed Mar  8 20:29:57 2006
From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 20:29:57 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped, or at least slapped
In-Reply-To: <dulb84+31fv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dunes5+4b93@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149281

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hickengruendler" 
<hickengruendler at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "katssirius" <katbofaye@> 
> wrote:
>   
 And while I 
> was gleeful, when Marietta was marked in the beginning, I did not 
> like at all, that she was still wearing a balaclava at the end of 
> OotP, therefore that there's a possibility that she is marked for 
> life, because of her mistake. But in HBP, the spots seem to go away 
> and Marietta was able to hide them under make-up. Therefore while it 
> did take unnecessarily long, I guess they vanishe din the end.

Allie:

I'm not convinced that the spots are totally gone, because they need 
to be hidden under layers of makeup.  I was a little bit disturbed 
that they were still there as well, until I realized that Marietta 
NEVER APOLOGIZED to anyone.  To Harry, Hermione, or even her friend 
Cho, who also could have been expelled!  Cho even defends her to Harry 
at the end of OoTP!  And I'm thoroughly convinced that if Marietta 
went to Hermione, apologized for almost getting them all expelled, and 
asked Hermione to remove the charm, she would do it in a heartbeat.  

(By the spots still being there, JKR is also reminding us how 
extraordinarily talented Hermione is, not that we need it.)







From kchuplis at alltel.net  Wed Mar  8 20:57:35 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen)
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 14:57:35 -0600
Subject: Marietta/MoM role
References: <dunes5+4b93@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <004901c642f2$ed343ba0$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local>

No: HPFGUIDX 149282



Allie:

I'm not convinced that the spots are totally gone, because they need 
to be hidden under layers of makeup.  I was a little bit disturbed 
that they were still there as well, until I realized that Marietta 
NEVER APOLOGIZED to anyone.  To Harry, Hermione, or even her friend 
Cho, who also could have been expelled!  Cho even defends her to Harry 
at the end of OoTP!  And I'm thoroughly convinced that if Marietta 
went to Hermione, apologized for almost getting them all expelled, and 
asked Hermione to remove the charm, she would do it in a heartbeat.  

(By the spots still being there, JKR is also reminding us how 
extraordinarily talented Hermione is, not that we need it.)


  kchuplis:

  Maybe that is even part of the charm? A possibility. It's also another of those cases where, how hard did the Ministry work to find a counter jinx? We have only Umbridge's word that they tried to find something and when she was doing that, she was more than a bit crazed. I can't see, either, her spending any spare thought for Marietta after that night (or helping her mother if her mother asked [after all, a snitch is a snitch and unfortunately that sometimes works against the snitcher on all levels; i.e. even the people who benefit from the snitching don't trust the snitch]). Unfortunately, I see Marietta as paying a price by imitating what she sees in her corrupt gov't. I find it interesting that more has not been asked too about Rufus Scrimegeour. 

  I find the new MoM to be rather like what we are accusing Remus of....a good man doing nothing. Here is a warrior, someone who has fought the fight and yet now we see him doing not much in book 6 except trying to get Harry as a posterboy for the MoM (or we, through Harry's and OOTP eyes don't see anything happening). I also wonder what DD's relationship pre-fight over Harry was with old Rufus? It would be really interesting to know how he really regarded Scrimegeour. We can assume that he, like others, is a bit of a "yesman" as he *was* head of the aurors, and so had to be to get to that position. Ministry malcontents don't seem to wind up head of anything, even if they don't get chucked out.  Just some thoughts I've been having in regards to book 7 and possibilities.

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




From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Wed Mar  8 17:02:24 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 12:02:24 -0500
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP10, The House of Gaunt
In-Reply-To: <dtfc99+2bmj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <8C810E934A36B64-13F4-125DB@MBLK-M23.sysops.aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149283

 Lealess:
> 8. <SNIP>Dumbledore trusts Harry to know right from wrong, based 
> on years of observation ? but observation alone did not work with 
> Tom Jr. It seems that Rowling is concluding, through Dumbledore, 
> that people are born with a "blood"-derived moral sense. Voldemort
> was descended from the debased Gaunts and the selfish Riddle Sr.; 
> they were bad, and he is therefore evil. Harry was descended from 
> Lily and James Potter; they were good, and Dumbledore can therefore 
> trust Harry to be good, even if Harry was raised without love. It 
> becomes pointless to teach moral lessons. All Dumbledore has to do 
> is sit back and observe how people show their moral character. Is 
> this, in fact, the assumption on which Dumbledore operates? <SNIP>

Alla:
>snip>
>> Harry does not even have to necessarily be born with it, maybe he 
got his "good nature" during the first year of his life, when he was 
loved and cherished by his parents. <snip>

And yes, Tom Riddle, who seems to be truly born evil. I could not 
come with the better example for this. <<


JKR has explained that she is writing as a Christian and that we 
can expect her story to reflect this world view, but JKR may be a 
Presbyterian or have been influenced by Calvanist thinking, which 
holds that we are born "saved" or "not saved" (salvation is 
predetermined) and there is nothing we can do about it.   In that 
case, the characters would reveal their essential nature through 
their acts. Just a thought.
 
Nikkalmati 






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Mar  8 21:04:33 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 21:04:33 -0000
Subject: Wizard ages
In-Reply-To: <440EF2C7.9080805@pacificpuma.com>
Message-ID: <dungt1+df0h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149284

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Jazmyn Concolor <jazmyn at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> Edis wrote:
> 
> >Just a small niggle that I havent seen covered as yet...
> >
> >It seems to be Canon that wizards have longer lifespans than Muggles. 
> >
> >But on her Website Jo celebrates the Wizard of the Month ... and the 
> >WsOTM as listed dont have really longer lifespans than expected of 
> >Muggles...
> >
> >So just a sliver of flint or what???

Jazmyn:
> I think we only assume they live longer because of Nicholas Flammel and
> due to Dumbledore's age.  But remember, up till the destruction of the
> stone, Dumbledore was friends with Flammel and might have been sharing
> that longevity potion, which might explain why after only 4-5 years,
> Dumbledore slipped so much as to become too old to handle the fight
> anymore and one too many dealings with cursed items put him to the
> point where he knew he was dying and had to try and do as much as he
> could before the end, where Snape only ended his suffering for him....

Geoff:
Two points. 
First, you cannot make any sort of benchmark judgment using Flamel and his wife. they 
had been taking the elixir for centuries before Dumbledore became involved,

Secondly, posters in the past have on more then one occasion pointed to Griselda 
Marchbanks as an example of a very elderly witch:

'"Now, I haven't heard from Dumbledore lately!" she added, peering around the Hall as 
though hpoeful he might suddenly emerge from a broom cupboard. "No idea where he is, I 
suppose?"
"None at all," said Umbridge, shooting a malevolent look at Harry, Ron and Hermione, who 
were now dawdling around the foot of the stairs as Ron pretended to do up his shoelace. 
"But I daresay the Ministry of Magic will track him down soon enough."
"I doubt it,"shouted tiny Professor Marchbanks, "not if Dumbledore doesn't want to be 
found! Is hould know... examined him personally in Transfiguration and Charms when he 
did NEWTs... did things with a wand I'd never seen before."'
(OOTP "OWLs" pp.626-27 UK edition)

There is another little piece in the same chapter which is interesting:

'Meanwhile, Draco Malfoy had found a different way to induce panic.
"Of course, it's not what you know," he was heard to tell Crabbe and Goyle loudly outside 
Potions a few days before the exams were to start, "it's who you know. Now, Father's been 
friendly with the head of the Wizarding Examinations Authority for years - old Griselda 
Marchbanks - we've had her round for dinner and everything..."
"Do you thikn that's true?"?Hermione whispered in alarm to Harry and Ron.
"Nothing we can do about it if it is," said Ron gloomily.
"I don't think it's true," said Neville quietly from behind them, "Because Griselda  
Marchbanks is a friend of my gran's and she's never mentioned the Malfoys."
(ibid. p.623)

I feel inclined to think that these two ladies are contemporaries - in the way that 
schoolfriends sometimes stay in touch in later years which could suggest that Neville's 
gran is equally old.

That, as Steve would say, is just a thought.






From patriciah711 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  8 17:02:48 2006
From: patriciah711 at yahoo.com (Patricia Hurley)
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 09:02:48 -0800 (PST)
Subject: a  bit of SHIP Ron/Hermione/Hermione must be stopped
In-Reply-To: <1F3DFE36-AE64-11DA-8C81-000393B04DDE@alltel.net>
Message-ID: <20060308170248.13616.qmail@web52802.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149285

Alla wrote:

> And I think her attacking Ron with birds was appaling too. It is
> funny, I think JKR commented that Ron had to make himself worthy of
> Hermione in HBP. Personally, I happen to think that Hermione was not
> doing worthy things at all in that book. Ron did not make her any
> promises, they are just sixteen and going and assaulting him because
> she was jealous, IMO, well it was not nice at all.

kchuplis:

> I think it is funny that of all the things to pick on Hermione 
> about, people choose the bird incident and (so far) people are 
> universally appalled. I feel like I am the only person who ever 
> suffered from intense jealousy. I'm not saying it is right, but 
> dang, if *I'd* had her ability and a wand at a few certain moments 
> in my life....well, bird attacks would probably been the least of 
> someone's worries!


Patricia:
Because this board is made of adults you may all be forgetting what 
it's like to be a 16 year old girl. I'm 18 and remember very well 
what life was like two years ago. In the world of teenagers, Ron 
and Hermione had an understanding that pretty much labels them "a 
couple". You notice that Lavender looks sulky a few times when 
Hermione comes around, before Ron and Lav hook up. Hermione and Ron 
both *knew* what they were to each other. Lavender even knew. It's 
not like Hermione caused Ron serious injury. She just let him know 
that she saw what was going on and that it was not okay. 

Another thing to remember before saying that Hermione is over-
judgmental and takes things into her own hands too often, is that 
this is war. This is life or death. This isn't a typical high school 
life, she is saving people and trying to keep people who are less 
than helpful out of the way. All is fair in Love and War. Hermione 
is good in my book.





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Mar  8 21:09:59 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 21:09:59 -0000
Subject: Leader of Order of the Phoenix.
In-Reply-To: <dun4gc+6kec@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dunh77+hu9q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149286

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" <eggplant107 at ...> wrote:

Eggplant:
> I don't know if the Order of the Phoenix will play a pivotal part in
> book 7 (the DA may be more likely) but if it does the members would be
> fools not to pick Harry Potter to lead them. Harry will be an adult in
> book 7 and order members must know the only person who has a chance of
> killing Voldemort is Harry. And no point in saying Harry is still too
> young because I don't think he's going to be getting much older.
> 
> Although I am a little worried about all this talk about love, I don't
> want a wimpy confrontation in the last chapter, I don't want Harry to
> kill Voldemort with love, I want severed arteries and decapitated heads. 

Geoff:
Yes, but you seem to have got bogged down with the slushy  "love" in which crooners 
delight. A number of us have pointed out that real, sacrificial powerful love is, in the eyes 
of Christians at least, the greatest power in the world.

As to your second thought, might I recommend that you watch a video of something like 
"Terminator" of "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" as a bedtime treat?








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  8 21:29:25 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 21:29:25 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped, or at least slapped
In-Reply-To: <dunes5+4b93@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dunibl+llda@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149287

Allie wrote:
> 
> I'm not convinced that the spots are totally gone, because they need 
> to be hidden under layers of makeup.  I was a little bit disturbed 
> that they were still there as well, until I realized that Marietta 
> NEVER APOLOGIZED to anyone.  To Harry, Hermione, or even her friend 
> Cho, who also could have been expelled!  Cho even defends her to
Harry at the end of OoTP!  And I'm thoroughly convinced that if
Marietta went to Hermione, apologized for almost getting them all
expelled, and asked Hermione to remove the charm, she would do it in a
heartbeat.  
<snip>

Carol responds:
But Marietta was Obliviated by Kingsley Shacklebolt in DD's office.
Isn't it possible that she doesn't remember going to Umbridge at all,
or even attending the meetings or signing the parchment, in which case
she wouldn't even understand why the spots are there?

I'm a bit disappointed in Madam Pomfrey's abilities, BTW. She can
shrink overgrown teeth and fix broken noses with a wandflick, but she
can't cure a case of renegade acne? Surely some staff member besides
Snape can invent a countercurse, especially if Hermione were to tell
them the hex she used. And if St. Mungo's can cure "spattergroit"
(sp?), why not SNEAK"?

Carol, not quite sure that Hermione can counter her own jinx or that
she would do so if asked










From dana_052002 at yahoo.com.ar  Wed Mar  8 21:07:44 2006
From: dana_052002 at yahoo.com.ar (dana_052002)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 21:07:44 -0000
Subject: a  bit of SHIP Ron/Hermione/Hermione must be stopped
In-Reply-To: <dumqk9+u2jm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dunh30+952n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149288

> Alla:
> > (snip) And I think her attacking Ron with birds was appalling 
> > too. <snip> Ron did not make her any promises, they are just 
> > sixteen and going and assaulting him because she was jealous, 
> > IMO, well it was not nice at all.
> 
> Ginger:
> While I agree that the whole bird thing wasn't very nice, I have 
> to disagree with what people seem to be seeing as the motivation.  
> From what I have read here and from other posts, it seems the 
> people are assuming that Hermione was mad (or jealous) at Ron 
> because he was snogging Lavender.  
> 
> Hermione has been hurt for pages by Ron. <snip> Harry knows it 
> is because Ron is jealous that Hermione has kissed Krum, but 
> doesn't know how to tell her that. <snip> 


Dana:
Ginger, I agree with you. Hermione did not do the bird thing JUST 
because she was jealous. I think that seeing Ron snoggin' Lavender 
was the very last drop, and she felt she had to react some way for 
Ron to realize how she felt.

I do believe it was a little bit too much, but please, let's not 
forget they are just teenagers learning how to deal with all those 
new emotions.

Even though I don't approve the bird thing, I understand why she 
did it.

take care now,










From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  8 21:49:56 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 21:49:56 -0000
Subject: Gran's age (Was: Wizard ages)
In-Reply-To: <dungt1+df0h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dunji4+db8l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149289

Geoff wrote <snip>:
> Secondly, posters in the past have on more then one occasion pointed
to Griselda Marchbanks as an example of a very elderly witch:
><snip quote> 
> There is another little piece in the same chapter which is interesting:
<snip>
> "I don't think it's true," said Neville quietly from behind them,
"Because Griselda  Marchbanks is a friend of my gran's and she's never
mentioned the Malfoys."
> (ibid. p.623)
> 
> I feel inclined to think that these two ladies are contemporaries -
in the way that schoolfriends sometimes stay in touch in later years
which could suggest that Neville's gran is equally old.

Carol responds:
While there's no question that Madam Marchbanks is ancient, I don't
get the same impression of Neville's gran (Augusta Longbottom), who
seems quite spry and is certainly still formidable. If Neville's
incapacitated parents are in their late thirties like Lupin and Snape
or their early forties like Lucius Malfoy, most likely Gran is in her
seventies or eighties.

My impression is that she's a contemporary of Minerva McGonagall, who
knows that Augusta failed her Charms OWL. It seems to me that only a
student in the same year (or at least the same House) would know that
information--unless McGonagall was Augusta's teacher, which does not
seem probable. (If Augusta was a classmate of McGonagall's, her time
at Hogwarts would overlapped Tom Riddle's, FWIW.)

Marchbanks being a friend of Gran's doesn't necessarily make them
contemporaries. Look at HRH and Hagrid.

Carol, staying away from Snape threads for the moment






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  8 22:46:36 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 22:46:36 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped, or at least slapped
In-Reply-To: <dun0t0+2fqm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dunmsc+8686@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149290

> Hickengruendler:
<snip> 
But I think to a big part the climax of HBP, where she realized 
> that she misjudged Luna and the centaurs, was meant to be a wake-
up 
> call for Hermione in a general sense, that she can't manipulate 
> people like that. She was much more restrained in HBP, except for 
the 
> scene with the birds. And since I thought all involved characters 
in 
> the shipping chapters (except for Luna at the Christmas party) 
were 
> highly annoying, I don't hold this against her personally.

a_svirn:
Frankly, I don't remember any such climax. Certainly, she leaned to 
tolerate Luna, (hardly surprising considering that she'd used her 
connections in order to thwart Umbridge and Co, and they'd fought 
together at the Ministry). But tolerance is not quite the same thing 
as appreciation. As for centaurs, I suspect she judges them even 
more harshly now after their encounter in the Forest. And wherein 
did you see the big change? She's not "more restrained", she's just 
less important in the HBP. In OOP she is a mastermind behind the 
Resistance, in HBP she's either subdued and in awe of Harry, or in 
throes of teen-age passions. 







From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  8 23:07:31 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 23:07:31 -0000
Subject: Remus Lupin: Good man doing nothing (long!)
In-Reply-To: <dul8jd+mlus@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duno3j+23vv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149291

> Jen D.:
> Jen here, finally,
> You've done a fine job of fence-sitting but you seem to swing, 
> unconciously maybe, towards a Pippinesque scenario. A good man 
> who does nothing is not a good man.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
In the end, no he's not.  I have hopes that Lupin will finally get 
some initiative and actually *do* something, but if he doesn't then 
I do lean towards him being not that great of character. 

> >>Julie:
> I too have felt that Lupin is not what I want him to be, and what 
> I think he *could* be if he would just shake himself out of his    
> apathy. We've discussed the mental states of various characters,   
> and Lupin seems to me a man perptually in the throes of           
> depression...
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
He does, doesn't he?  And the interesting thing is, that he's been 
in this depression for *years*.  Since boyhood really.  Because the 
boy in the pensieve was just as helpless, just as willing to put up 
with rather atrocious behavior (not just the attack on Snape, but 
the total lack of care towards his secret) as the man in PoA was 
willing to let his "best friend's" son get killed by a madman.

> >>Julie:
> It's easier for him to wallow in self-pity and self-hatred, rather 
> than push himself into action. (I think Lupin and Snape are very   
> much alike in their capacity for self-hatred, they 
> simply express it differently, Snape outwardly on others and Lupin 
> inwardly on himself.)
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Yes!  I totally agree.  I think there's a reason Lupin and Snape 
mirror each other in the pensieve scene.  But the thing is, Snape 
uses his self-hatred as fuel to keep himself going, to *do* 
something. While Lupin's self-hatred paralyzes him.  We know Snape 
dislikes Lupin for his weakness.  Lupin may well dislike Snape for 
his... shamelessness, maybe?  Perhaps these two wounded men could 
help each other out (or die trying <g>).

> >>Christina:
> Woohoo!  Excellent timing, Betsy, as our favorite lycanthrope will 
> be celebrating his birthday in just a few days :)

Betsy Hp:
Hee!  I did not know that.  Happy birthday, Lupin!

> >>Betsy HP:
> > So, nothing substantial until he arrives on the scene in PoA.    
> > And when we meet him he's sleeping.  Not merely napping, he is  
> > sleeping *hard*.

> >>Christina:
> I think it would be interesting to consider that Lupin might have 
> been awake the entire time.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
It is an interesting thought.  And it could well be possible.  It's 
also possible that Lupin was sick from a recent change or a hard 
travel.  However, Lupin is still in a position of avoiding 
involvement, whether willfully (pretending to be asleep) or 
otherwise.  There's certainly a symbolic element here that I think 
is meant to be there. JKR could have easily had Lupin arrive on the 
scene when the dementor does as the new teacher coming from another 
compartment, for example.

> >>Christina:
> <snip>
> I hate that Lupin didn't have the guts to get up and do something, 
> but seriously - nobody else did either.  The scene is filled with 
> other students that look on and laugh, and nobody (save Lily) does 
> a single thing.  Again, it's still wrong, but I think it shows an 
> unsavory (but all too common) human behavior.

Betsy Hp:
It is common, but it's not good. (Ick, mobs.)  I actually give Lupin 
a greater responsibility than the laughing crowd.  Not just because 
as a Prefect he *does* have a greater responsibility, but because he 
isn't laughing.  Unlike the crowd, Lupin realizes that what's going 
on is *wrong* and yet he still takes no action.  He waits for, and 
possibly depends upon, Lily to come to the rescue.  And until Lily 
*does* something, evil triumphs.  

An interesting question is, how *long* does evil triumph?  How long 
do James and Sirius get to prank whoever they want, whenever they 
want? Until Sirius goes too far?  Until James finally decides to 
listen to Lily?  And could Lupin's willingness to let James and 
Sirius get away with what he lets them get away with be what leads 
them to think Lupin might be the traitor?

> >>Christina:
> Lupin *can't* send Harry letters though, because he's been with the
> werewolves.  For all of his passivity in the past, this is        
> completely explainable.

Betsy Hp:
Jen D. raised the same point, and I'm not saying it would have been 
*easy*.  There is a valid reason for Lupin to not get in touch 
(which I'm sure he clings to).  But Tonks (an Auror who should know 
something about undercover work) thinks it's possible for Lupin to 
get a letter out.  Sirius would have managed it, as he did while on 
the run.  If Lupin had wanted to, a quick note could have been 
managed.  Even if it was sent just *before* he joined the werewolves.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > But get the boys out into the sunlight and our Lupin of past    
> > books is quite apparent.

> >>Nora:
> Being as it's a flashback to the past, not exactly shocking, is it?

Betsy Hp:
That it shows the weakness of PoA and GoF were the standard and the 
strength of OotP was the anomaly, I was a bit shocked, actually.  
Because I do like Lupin, so I hated to see that his natural state 
was one of weakness.  I had hoped that the willingness to let Harry 
die rather than take action was some sort of strange phenomenon 
instead of business as usual.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > And now suddenly it's like he's joined a cult.  Must not        
> > question Dumbledore, must not dislike Snape.

> >>Nora:
> One word: Overcompensation.
> Lupin feels guilty at not having trusted Dumbledore, not having
> shared, and thus being responsible for the chain of events which   
> PoA set off.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I can see that.  (And can I just say that I thought about you, Nora, 
while writing that, "weirdly too trusting of Dumbledore" bit? <g>)  
I also wonder if Lupin didn't depend on Dumbledore to do his action 
for him.  Harry will be safe because Dumbledore is there, etc.  Sort 
of like how he let Lily do his action for him in the pensieve 
scene.  

> >>Nora:
> And as others have mentioned, Lupin feels indebted to Dumbledore   
> in away that few other characters are.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Does he resent that, I wonder?  Because while putting all of his 
trust in Dumbledore, Lupin also sounded a bit bitter with the role 
Dumbledore had assigned him.  I can totally see a love/hate dynamic 
going on there.

> >>Pippin:
> <snip>
> The quote widely attributed to Burke  cannot be traced to him.

Betsy Hp:
Well, poo. <g>  

> >>Pippin:
> Burke did say this,"`When bad men combine, the  good must
> associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice
> in a contemptible struggle.' --Thoughts on the Cause
> of the Present Discontents [April 23 1770]
> He also said,"Public life is a situation of power and energy;
> he trespasses against his duty who sleeps upon his watch, as well 
> as he that goes over to the enemy." -ibid

Betsy Hp:
Very interesting.  That first quote seems to speak towards the WW, 
and their paranoid seperating into tiny little groups.  Whereas 
Dumbledore (and the Sorting Hat!) does his best to gather everyone 
toghether.  In a sense you could say that the Marauders failed to 
associate and have therefore fallen, one by one.

The second quote shows *how* the Marauders failed.  Lupin slept on 
his watch and Peter went over to the enemy, and both of them failed 
their friends. 

> >>Pippin:
> Examples of Lupin's initiative and leadership skills are easy to
> overlook.
> <snip of examples>

Betsy Hp:
I agree that they *are* there.  I just...  It always seems to take 
something extraordinary to pull them out.  It *could* be that Lupin 
is hiding his abilities because he's a spy.  But it could also be 
that he's choosing not to use his abilities because he's scared.

> >>Tonks:
> Remus Lupin is a good man, as you say.  But he is not `doing
> nothing'.  He has a different style.  He is the introvert.  He is
> depressed.  He is down trodden.  He is poor.   He is an outcast of
> society.  Any one of those descriptions would portray a person who
> is not going to jump in and "save the day" like a superhero.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I think Snape would fit into all of those descriptors, and Snape 
*does* actively save the day.  Harry could fit most of those 
descriptors as well, especially in PS/SS, and he too pulls a 
superhero move or two.

> >>Tonks:
> He is a person that represents the powerless.  There are many of   
> these folks in RL.  They have learned to just cope, to wait for   
> the more powerful to act, to understand "their place".  And the   
> brave among them when push comes to shove and no one else comes   
> forward to save the day will, at great personal cost, take the    
> risk (an a great risk it is) to come forward and do what must be   
> done.

Betsy Hp:
Hmmm.  I think you're selling Lupin a bit short.  Because he was 
great in OotP.  He lead his team beautifully, and he kept the more 
childish members of the Order (Sirius and Molly, especially with 
each other) under control.  And he wasn't waiting for someone else 
to do it.  He just did it.

But the rest of the time, Lupin *did* wait for someone else to do 
something.  Which yes, people do, and which yes, isn't a horrible 
sin.  But it is weak.  And it's not very helpful to those around 
you.  And in a time of war it can become deadly.  If Sirius really 
was evil and really did want to kill Harry, Harry would have been 
dead in PoA, because Lupin was waiting for someone else to take care 
of it for him.

> >>Tonks:
> Remus is doing his part in the fight against LV.  There are others
> that are good men doing nothing, but Remus is not one of them.

Betsy Hp:
In OotP, absolutely.  In HBP yes, but because of orders.  And the 
man giving him those orders is now dead.  The question is, will 
Lupin regress back to his PoA and GoF state of doing as little as 
possible?  Or will the Ootp Lupin finally stand up?

Betsy Hp, thrilled with all the feedback, thanks!






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  8 23:46:49 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 23:46:49 -0000
Subject: Remus Lupin: Good man doing nothing (long!)
In-Reply-To: <duno3j+23vv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dunqd9+tfvq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149292

Betsy Hp:
Very interesting.  That first quote seems to speak towards the WW,
and their paranoid seperating into tiny little groups.  Whereas
Dumbledore (and the Sorting Hat!) does his best to gather everyone
toghether.  In a sense you could say that the Marauders failed to
associate and have therefore fallen, one by one.

a_svirn:
Maybe they combined then? "Marauders" is a rather strange name for 
an association of good men. 

Betsy Hp:
The second quote shows *how* the Marauders failed.  Lupin slept on
his watch and Peter went over to the enemy, and both of them failed
their friends.

a_svirn:
Ha! Good one. But not before Sirius failed Lupin by using him as an 
instrument of petty revenge. 







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  8 23:55:25 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 23:55:25 -0000
Subject: Remus Lupin: Good man doing nothing (long!)
In-Reply-To: <duno3j+23vv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dunqtd+h8ke@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149293

> Betsy Hp:
<snip>
> Yes!  I totally agree.  I think there's a reason Lupin and Snape 
> mirror each other in the pensieve scene.  But the thing is, Snape 
> uses his self-hatred as fuel to keep himself going, to *do* 
> something. While Lupin's self-hatred paralyzes him.  We know Snape 
> dislikes Lupin for his weakness.  Lupin may well dislike Snape for 
> his... shamelessness, maybe?  Perhaps these two wounded men could 
> help each other out (or die trying <g>). <snip>

Carol responds:
They also have the common bond of having suffered from the DADA curse.
I think you're right that they'll discover at least one common bond,
not to mention a shared desire to help Harry. Too bad their
reconciliation (if it can be called that) will almost of necessity
take place off page.

> > >>Christina:
> > I think it would be interesting to consider that Lupin might have 
> > been awake the entire time.
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> It is an interesting thought.  And it could well be possible.  It's 
> also possible that Lupin was sick from a recent change or a hard 
> travel.  However, Lupin is still in a position of avoiding 
> involvement, whether willfully (pretending to be asleep) or 
> otherwise.  There's certainly a symbolic element here that I think 
> is meant to be there. JKR could have easily had Lupin arrive on the 
> scene when the dementor does as the new teacher coming from another 
> compartment, for example. <snip>

Carol:
My thought was that he was supposed to remain mysterious and slightly
sinister (giving out chocolate, the Sneakoscope going off, etc.).
We're supposed to be suspicious of him. And the name, of course,
suggests a connection with wolves (although I admit that I didn't make
the *were*wolf association, which ought to have been given away by
Snape's essay). So, IMO, when we see him with Sirius Black in "The
Cat, the Rat, and the Dog" (shades of Richard III!), we're supposed to
think that Snape was right and he's been helping the "murderer" into
the castle.

> Betsy Hp:
> <snip> I do like Lupin, so I hated to see that his natural state 
> was one of weakness.  I had hoped that the willingness to let Harry 
> die rather than take action was some sort of strange phenomenon 
> instead of business as usual. <big snip>
> But the rest of the time, Lupin *did* wait for someone else to do 
> something.  Which yes, people do, and which yes, isn't a horrible 
> sin.  But it is weak.  And it's not very helpful to those around 
> you.  And in a time of war it can become deadly.  If Sirius really 
> was evil and really did want to kill Harry, Harry would have been 
> dead in PoA, because Lupin was waiting for someone else to take care 
> of it for him. <snip>

Carol responds:
I think you're right that weakness is his natural state (if having
been bitten by a werewolf qualifies as natural--we'd have seen a very
different Lupin if that hadn't happened, I'm sure). And I agree that
not informing Dumbledore that Black was an Animagus and knew several
secret passages into the castle was very wrong (selfish and weak) and
put Harry at great risk. Not even the slashed painting or the slashed
curtains, when Ron ws terrified by a man with a twelve-inch knife,
prompted him to act. Nor did he turn in the Marauder's Map as he
should have done, an inaction that had its consequences when PP showed
up on the map on a full moon night. (Of course, I blame the DADA curse
for taking advantage of Lupin's weakness and trapping him through his
own decisions.)

But, to change the subject a little, how *did* Black get in? Surely
the castle doors weren't left open for a dog Animagus to walk through.
(I know he could get past the Dementors, but he couldn't open a door
without shifting back to human form.) Nor could he have gotten in
through the Shrieking Shack passage, which leads to the grounds, but
not to the castle. And I don't see how he could have sneaked into
Honeydukes in dog form, either. Does anyone know how the passage that
was used by the Weasley twins until it became blocked fits into the
chronology? Was it still unblocked during the timeframe of PoA?

Carol, who snipped a lot of interesting points because she had nothing
to add to the discussion







From celizwh at intergate.com  Thu Mar  9 00:06:52 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 00:06:52 -0000
Subject: Occlumency & Imperio
In-Reply-To: <dulmm0+nfp8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dunris+j43e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149294

Carol responds:

> The main problem with the Occlumency lessons, whether 
> or not Harry has a natural aptitude for them (JKR's recent 
> interview suggests otherwise) is that Harry doesn't *want* 
> to close his mind, [...] to the dream of the corridor, 
> which he *wants* to have.

houyhnhnm:

There is another similar situation--the informal patronus lessons
Harry had with Lupin. Harry was unable to produce a successful
patronus against the boggart dementor because, subconsciously, he
*wanted* to keep hearing his mother's voice.  When Harry himself
realized what was holding him back, he overcame it.  Sadly, he never
reached the same level of self knowledge with regard to the vision of
the corridor.  Very likely his hatred of Snape got in the way.  It was
easier with Lupin, because Harry trusted him.  Or possibly it was the
influence of Voldemort.

Carole:

> Snape has given him as much information as Dumbledore 
> will allow, but he can't tell Harry what's behind the 
> door or why DD doesn't want him to see it. 

houyhnhnm:

Each time I read the Occlumency scenes again, I am struck by just how
straight Snape is playing it.  These scenes are the strongest evidence
supporting the DDM!Snape theory, IMO.  (I am a DDM!Snaper, though, not
just because of supporting evidence but because I think there is other
evidence in OotP that falsifies ESE!Snape altogether, and evidence in
several of the books that weakens OFH!Snape.)








From rkdas at charter.net  Thu Mar  9 01:07:46 2006
From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 01:07:46 -0000
Subject: Occlumency & Imperio
In-Reply-To: <dunris+j43e@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dunv52+dl0h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149295

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" <celizwh at ...> 
wrote:
>Snipped ruthlessly...
> 
> houyhnhnm:
> 
> Each time I read the Occlumency scenes again, I am struck by just how
> straight Snape is playing it.  These scenes are the strongest 
evidence
> supporting the DDM!Snape theory, IMO.  (I am a DDM!Snaper, though, 
not
> just because of supporting evidence but because I think there is 
other
> evidence in OotP that falsifies ESE!Snape altogether, and evidence in
> several of the books that weakens OFH!Snape.)

An inquisitive Jen D. here:
Don't leave us hanging like that. Spill your guts about said 
evidentiary information pertaining to Snape and his allegiance....









From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Thu Mar  9 01:10:36 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 01:10:36 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped, or at least slapped
In-Reply-To: <dulb84+31fv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dunvac+neap@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149296

katssirius:
> > She was judge, jury, and warden for Rita Skeeter 
> > at the age of 14.  Hermione knows what is right for house elves in 
> > spite of the up close example of Winky.  
> 
> Hickengruendler:
> 
> I cannot blame her for blackmailing Rita. Sorry, maybe I'm an old 
> cynical, but Rita was deliberatly destroyng othe rpeople's lives with 
> half trues and outright lies. 

Ceridwen:
I couldn't stand Rita Skeeter.  I really couldn't.  She deserved to be 
given to an amoral five year old in her bug form.  But the point is, 
Hermione is fourteen.  It isn't her place to do any of this.  This is 
completely Hermione thinking she knows more than anybody, including 
Dumbledore.

It is never her place to play vigilante.  Not with Umbridge - Harry 
thought of it late, but he thought of it - Snape was there, the only 
remaining member of the Order.  Why not go to him instead of playing at 
commando diversions, before they got trapped into only one way out?  
She is supposed to be the thinking one of the trio.  Not the schemer.

And, not with Rita Skeeter.  It was no more her place to imprison Rita 
Skeeter in a jar than it was right for the MoM to imprison Sirius Black 
without a trial.  In fact, the MoM could get more of a pass because 
they are the WW's official, voter-approved body for taking care of such 
things.  Hermione's action here was pure vigilantism.

And, not with Marietta Edgecomb.  Marietta, as it was explained later, 
had a real crisis in her personal life over the vow.  There was a 
conflict that a fifteen year old child will find difficult if not 
impossible to handle.  Children should go to their parents with crises 
like this.  So, here's Hermione, punishing her for going to her mother -
 and getting away with the punishment!

She may have gotten some sort of an idea that she shouldn't treat 
others poorly or use them and think she can cast them aside, when she 
met with the centaurs.  She was certainly naive!  But has she really 
changed?  We haven't seen, one way or the other.  She's too busy in HBP 
with her crush.

And, yeah, the birds.  Ron got clawed and bitten by them.  They broke 
skin.  Not nice.  But as someone else said, this does look like 
Hermione acting like a normal teen for once, jealous and petty and 
vindictive.  I don't think she should have done it.  Feeling like that 
is one thing, acting on it is another.

But, I think that most of this was about Hermione stepping into shoes 
that are still years too big for her.  It was not her place to do any 
of this.  When things like this happen, the books look to me like the 
typical kid sop, where the adults are clueless that all the teens on 
Elm are dying off mysteriously, or so stupid that the kids are running 
the school.  And, I really think the books are much better than that.

Ceridwen.






From richter at ridgenet.net  Thu Mar  9 01:56:45 2006
From: richter at ridgenet.net (richter_kuymal)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 01:56:45 -0000
Subject: Leader of Order of the Phoenix.
In-Reply-To: <dunh77+hu9q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duo20t+j61g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149297

Eggplant: {snip} 
I am a little worried about all this talk about 
love, I don't  want a wimpy confrontation in the last chapter, I 
don't want Harry to  kill Voldemort with love, I want severed 
arteries and decapitated heads. 
> 
> Geoff:[snip}real, sacrificial powerful love is, in the eyes 
> of Christians at least, the greatest power in the world.
>
 
PAR: 
I think people get hung up on the idea that Harry will direct 
the love towards LV.  Love includes the kind of drive that makes a 
tigress charge in defense of her cubs.  Plenty of severed arteries 
to please.  Love in the Bible includes the destruction of Egyptian 
armies and firstborn sons in defense of the beloved people.  Love as 
DD put it, is also terrible.  Having just rewatched "Saving Private 
Ryan" -- some of the underlying heroism there is based on Love (love 
of country, love of comrades...) as much as it is bravery.  I doubt 
JKR will go to the level of a "dirty Harry", but then again, the 
acceptable level of violence allowed for "kids" is pretty high. 

PAR (who reminds herself that Beowulf and Grimm's fairy tales were 
plenty violent even by today's standards)








From joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  9 02:16:42 2006
From: joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com (Joe Goodwin)
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 18:16:42 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Hermione must be stopped, or at least slapped
In-Reply-To: <dunvac+neap@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060309021642.53823.qmail@web61322.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149298

Hermione might be bossy and down right annoying at 
times however I for one loved her reactions to most
of the issues mentioned her.
   
Using the Centaurs to git rid of Umbridge was a 
stroke of genius. Umbridge was a cruel bigot who 
we already know is not above abusing a child to 
get what she wanted. Hermione might have thought
that Umbridge's bigotry would come out and anger
the Centaurs but Umbridge could have kept her 
mouth shut and gotten away. All you can blame 
Hermione for is being a good judge of character.
   
Sure Hermione putting Rita Skeeter in a jar 
was a bit harsh but I bet it wasn't as harsh 
as going to Azkaban as an unregisted Animagi.
Where you see a vigilante I see a girl who 
could have had Rita tossed in prison but didn't.
   
Now as to the Edgecomb girl. That little sneak
got what she deserved. She literally got branded
a sneak and that is exactly what she was. She
didn't have to join the DA and she didn't have
to give her word to keep it a secret. Not to 
mention that I am fairly certain that by their
fifth year they have some idea of how magical
contracts work. She got scared and tried to 
toss her classmates under a bus. In a real 
school she would have gotten far worse that
what she did.
   
The canary thing was a bit over the top just
for hurt feeling but she's human eh?

Joe  
  











From witherwing at sbcglobal.net  Thu Mar  9 02:21:57 2006
From: witherwing at sbcglobal.net (Rebecca Scalf)
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 18:21:57 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Why didn't Dumbledore bring backup? (Harry doesn't count)
Message-ID: <20060309022157.9594.qmail@web81206.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149299

Michael wrote:
>
> Going to a secluded cave to retrieve/destroy one of
Voldemort's
> horcruxes seems to be a pretty dangerous task, even
for Dumbledore.
> Why didn't he consider bringing another OP member
along? (maybe
> Snape?) Even if this person could not fit on the
boat, it would have
> been the safe thing to do. Why wasn't Harry
surprised or concerned
> that he would be acting as Dumbledore's backup?



witherwing:

Dumbledore is making up for his *Old Man's Mistake*
from the end of OoP. Taking Harry with him to the cave
was not only essential in his lessons on how to defeat
Voldemort, but a practical way , an essential way, for
Dumbledore to prove to Harry that he is no longer
going to shelter him from the truth of what he is up
against. Of course Harry is honored to take it on, and
was feeling ready to take a first step in playing *The
Chosen One.* 

What follows is an unforgettable scene. I still get
the shivers thinking about Harry, elevated to trusted
companion, finding himself force-feeding that green
liquid to a pleading Dumbledore...









From celizwh at intergate.com  Thu Mar  9 02:56:11 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 02:56:11 -0000
Subject: Occlumency & Imperio
In-Reply-To: <dunv52+dl0h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duo5gb+2dto@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149300

An inquisitive Jen D. here:

> Don't leave us hanging like that. Spill your guts about said 
> evidentiary information pertaining to Snape and his allegiance....

houyhnhnm:

It's been argued before to the usual avail, so I probably should have
left the last sentence off.  I was really just trying to qualify my
statement that the Occlumency lesson scenes convinced me of Snape's
DDM identity.  I don't think it is possible to prove that Snape is DDM.  

I do think it is possible to prove he is not LV's Man. I searched for
the original thread; I was unsuccessful unfortunately. But basically,
it's this: I don't see any way the Order's early knowledge of
Voldemort's design on the prophecy can be reconciled with
LordVoldemort'sMan!Snape.  If Snape is not loyal to Voldemort then
everything he says to the various Death Eaters, including Bellatrix
and the DEs on the tower and the lawn, is invalidated and you can go
from there.   Like I said, it was argued before.  No one's mind was
changed.  I was really just trying to make the point that the
Occlumency lessons show Snape's character to me in a way that is
consistant with being DDM but do not necessarily prove it.






From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  9 03:39:10 2006
From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 03:39:10 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped, or at least slapped
In-Reply-To: <dunvac+neap@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duo80u+vc8v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149301

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" <ceridwennight at ...>
wrote:

> Ceridwen:
> I couldn't stand Rita Skeeter.  I really couldn't.  She deserved
> to be  given to an amoral five year old in her bug form.  But the
> point is,  Hermione is fourteen.  It isn't her place to do any of
> this. 

Amiable Dorsai:
I thought Hermione's treatment of Rita was remarkably humane--she did
punch airholes in the lid of that jar.

 What should she have done?  Turn her over to the Ministry for a
stretch in Azkaban?  A week in a jar and a year on the dole is an
alternative I'd grab in a moment.

Rita declared war on a fifteen-year-old.  Sadly for Ms. Skeeter, this
particular fifteen-year-old could wage war right back.  She's lucky
that Hermione is basically a good person.

Ceridwen:
> It is never her place to play vigilante.  Not with Umbridge - Harry 
> thought of it late, but he thought of it - Snape was there, the only 
> remaining member of the Order.  Why not go to him instead of
> playing at commando diversions, before they got trapped into only 
> one way out?  

Amiable Dorsai:
Do you really need to ask why the name "Severus Snape" did not
immediately float to the top of anyone's consciousness when they
needed help for Sirius Black?

Ceridwen:
> And, not with Rita Skeeter.  It was no more her place to
> imprison Rita  Skeeter in a jar than it was right for the MoM
> to imprison Sirius Black  without a trial.  In fact, the MoM
> could get more of a pass because they are the WW's official,
> voter-approved body for taking care of such 
> things.  Hermione's action here was pure vigilantism.

Amiable Dorsai:
Pure revenge, I'd call it, though rather mild revenge.  Rita trashed
Hermione's reputation, spoiled her relationship with Mrs. Weasley, 
and got Hermione splashed with undiluted bubotuber pus--not to 
mention making life hell for several of Hermione's friends.  Rita
could have had all her good memories served up as Dementor chow. Do
you honestly think that would be better?

Ceridwen:
> And, not with Marietta Edgecomb.  Marietta, as it was explained
> later, had a real crisis in her personal life over the vow.  There
> was a  conflict that a fifteen year old child will find difficult
> if not impossible to handle.  Children should go to their parents
> with crises like this.  So, here's Hermione, punishing her for
> going to her mother -  and getting away with the punishment!

Amiable Dorsai:
As best I can tell, Marietta violated a magical contract--in other
words, she precipitated the punishment herself.  Hermione's major
failing here was to not make it clear to the rest of the DA what
exactly it was they were signing. And yes, it was a major failing, 
but it pales next to Marietta's treason.

I don't think you quite grasp the depth of Marietta's betrayal; she
could quite easily have gotten 28 students expelled from the only
magical school in Britain.  As it happened, she did get the 
Headmaster sacked and made a fugitive, and deprived her fellow
students of an opportunity to learn to defend themselves.  

These were the times that tried witch's souls--Marietta's was found
wanting.

Amiable Dorsai








From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  9 03:53:01 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 03:53:01 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped, or at least slapped
In-Reply-To: <duo80u+vc8v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duo8qt+7r79@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149302

> Ceridwen:
> > It is never her place to play vigilante.  Not with Umbridge - 
Harry 
> > thought of it late, but he thought of it - Snape was there, the 
only 
> > remaining member of the Order.  Why not go to him instead of
> > playing at commando diversions, before they got trapped into 
only 
> > one way out?  
> 
> Amiable Dorsai:
> Do you really need to ask why the name "Severus Snape" did not
> immediately float to the top of anyone's consciousness when they
> needed help for Sirius Black?

Alla:

Heee. Too true, Amiable Dorsai, too true. BUT while I absolutely 
have no problem with Hermione's ways to punish bad people ( as I 
said - I find it funny that small part of her character puts me off, 
I do know that she is basically a good person and loyal friend), for 
some reason I do worry about Hermione choosing this particular 
punishment for Umbridge. I don't really hold it against her, she was 
concerned with saving her friends and she had to think fast, but 
centaurs.... I don't know. Not even most because of Umbridge, but 
because she was putting her friends in danger too, while trying to 
save them. Hermione knew that centaurs did not like humans, no?

 
> Amiable Dorsai:
<SNIP>
> I don't think you quite grasp the depth of Marietta's betrayal; she
> could quite easily have gotten 28 students expelled from the only
> magical school in Britain.  As it happened, she did get the 
> Headmaster sacked and made a fugitive, and deprived her fellow
> students of an opportunity to learn to defend themselves.  
> 
> These were the times that tried witch's souls--Marietta's was found
> wanting.

Alla:

YES again. Hermione should have explained it better initially, but I 
have no sympathy for Marieta and think that Hermione had to protect 
DA somehow.

Alla, who thinks that Hermione is VERY well written character, but 
who  probably woud not have been able to get past first expression 
of her when thinking about choosing her as a friend, but who likes 
that Harry and Ron were able to get past that first impression, Yay 
for trolls in the bathroom. :-)






From katbofaye at aol.com  Thu Mar  9 03:01:42 2006
From: katbofaye at aol.com (katssirius)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 03:01:42 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be slapped
Message-ID: <duo5qm+ar21@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149303

I think a lot of the justifications for Hermione's actions are 
exactly the problem.  She is acting like a 16 year old and they have 
roller coaster emotions and reactions.  This is my point.  She 
should not be given the responsibilty of being the moral compass for 
other teens nor the judge and jury for Rita Skeeter or any adult.  
She makes errors.  She will make the kind of errors a teenager with 
lots of power and intelligence makes when they think they are 
infallible. Great Big Mistakes!! In this book they can be life or 
death mistakes like we she chose to silence the Deatheater in the 
MOM instead of stunning him.  She suffered for this error and so did 
her friends.  This is why I believe JKR must set her straight in 
Book 7.  Like any teenager she is making errors of scale.  A child 
betrays other children once and then her punishment is a lifetime 
disfigurement.  This is an error of scale.  Black mail is also a 
crime, kidnapping and holding someone in a jar is surely a crime.  
Hermione is committing crimes.   Of course she is trying to do this 
for good but then so was Umbridge.  Sirius makes an excellent point 
to Harry that the world is not divided between good people and Death 
Eaters.  Someone can disagree with you on the issues you hold most 
dear and they may still be good people.  Umbridge crossed over by 
saying the ends justified the means.  Hermione is doing the same 
thing.  We just happen to agree with her.

katssirius







From belviso at attglobal.net  Thu Mar  9 04:32:04 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 23:32:04 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione must be stopped, or at least slapped
References: <20060309021642.53823.qmail@web61322.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <00e401c64332$6b808b50$4f98400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 149304

I am not totally anti-Hermione, but I see some of these actions differently. 
I think they get a bit shined up and the flaws or questionable bits glossed 
over to make it a bit less messy ethically.

Joe Goodwin:
> Using the Centaurs to git rid of Umbridge was a
> stroke of genius.

Magpie:
It was a stroke of genius to almost get everyone killed?  They were in deep 
trouble and saved only by the arrival of Grawp.  She wasn't a real good 
judge of character when it came to them.  Turns out they're offended by 
being used this way.  Too bad she chose to march right past that Dining Hall 
filled with students and symathetic teachers who might have been more 
willing to help.

It was good of her to come up with a plan, but stroke of genius?  I don't 
think it's that--or that its cleverness means it can't have any ethical 
drawbacks.

Joe Goodwin:
 Sure Hermione putting Rita Skeeter in a jar
> was a bit harsh but I bet it wasn't as harsh
> as going to Azkaban as an unregisted Animagi.
> Where you see a vigilante I see a girl who
> could have had Rita tossed in prison but didn't.

Magpie:
So she covers up crimes *and* blackmails her former prisoner.  Not seeing 
the righteousness here.  Seeing the ruthlessness and effectiveness at 
getting what she wants, but not seeing any real moral lesson here.  If she 
doesn't think unregistered animagi should be in jail, she goes against that 
principle with the blackmail.  If she supports following the law, she's 
going against the principle by not turning her in.

Alla:
YES again. Hermione should have explained it better initially,

Magpie:
Or explained it at all.  "I'm starting a study group but we don't want to 
get in trouble so if you sign this you're sort of promising not to tell 
Umbridge or anyone" doesn't really explain "I'm starting an underground cult 
army personally loyal to me and Harry so if you sign this you'll be punished 
by permanent disfigurement."  Had people known what they were signing they 
probably would have weeded out the girl just there because her friend was 
currently interested in Harry, and perhaps avoided getting outed.  If you 
need that kind of loyalty, best to not go with a bunch of strangers.

Alla:
but I
have no sympathy for Marieta and think that Hermione had to protect
DA somehow.

Magpie:
She didn't protect the DA.  She punished the person who blabbed without 
setting up any way to warn the DA or protect them.

-m (who personally never had any problem with Hermione's bird attack, but 
suspects Tom Riddle was more honest about what he expected form his secret 
club at school than Hermione was)





From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Thu Mar  9 04:47:10 2006
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 04:47:10 -0000
Subject: FILK: His Hegemony
Message-ID: <duoc0e+95f3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149305

His Hegemony

To the tune of We're In the Money from 42nd Street

MIDI

http://www.hamienet.com/midi6627.html

CHORUS OF DEATH-EATING BROADWAY BABIES
His hegemony
His hegemony
He will rehearse a curse to take the whole world down
His hegemony
Gives testimony
That through aggression, You-Know-Who
Will seize the crown

The Hogwarts former head man
He's a dead man today,
That's all because the Dark Lord
Much to your surprise caused his demise

His hegemony's
Our ceremony
We'll trash `em, thrash `em,
Smash `em all over town!

His hegemony
His hegemony
He knows the Horcrux lore to keep himself alive
His hegemony
Will crush the scrawny
Through his oppression, you are through,
You won't survive!

We're gonna start a war soon
Over cartoon displays
If they depict the Dark Lord,
That is the last straw and blood we'll draw
The last straw and blood we'll draw-
The last straw and blood we'll draw-

His hegemony
Is very brawny
We'll trash `em, thrash `em, smash `em
We'll trash `em, thrash `em, smash `em
All o- All o-
All over town!

    - CMC (If He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named doesn't like being named, he
probably doesn't like being pictured either.....)

HARRY POTTER FILKS
http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm







From kchuplis at alltel.net  Thu Mar  9 05:06:28 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen)
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 23:06:28 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] RE:  Hermione must be slapped
In-Reply-To: <duo5qm+ar21@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <77315A49-AF2A-11DA-9053-000393B04DDE@alltel.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 149306


On Wednesday, March 8, 2006, at 09:01 PM, katssirius wrote:

> I think a lot of the justifications for Hermione's actions are
> exactly the problem.? She is acting like a 16 year old and they have
> roller coaster emotions and reactions.? This is my point.? She
> should not be given the responsibilty of being the moral compass for
> other teens nor the judge and jury for Rita Skeeter or any adult.?
> She makes errors.?

kchuplis:

The thing is, should *any* of these kids be facing most of the things 
they are? It's all fine and good to question Hermione as an uber 
conscience but that isn't the crux of the problem. It is very evident 
to me that this "setting" has the students in a much more "choice 
responsible" environment than most of us are used to seeing. The 
generally adult attitude seems to be "let them find their way". Now 
consider, these kids also have many more resources at hand then say WE 
would have. They are operating with the same psychological and 
biological parameters though. All in all, they are being fairly 
reserved! I think the only adult who is (sometimes) on hand that 
represents the over protective stereotype is Molly and she is grating 
on folks nerves because of her inability to see, particularly for 
Harry, but also in regards to her children and Hermione, that that ship 
sailed the minute Harry face LV as an 11 y.o. and certainly after GoF.  
I've always been of the opinion that we often underestimate what kids 
can handle and also our way of presenting "real life". The wizard 
adults make mistakes too, but the consequences here are world 
effecting. Boy it's really late. I hope that made sense.



From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca  Thu Mar  9 05:08:23 2006
From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 05:08:23 -0000
Subject: Remus Lupin: Good man doing nothing (long!)
In-Reply-To: <duno3j+23vv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duod87+s1l3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149307

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" 
<horridporrid03 at ...> wrote:
<snip>
> Betsy Hp:
> It is common, but it's not good. (Ick, mobs.)  I actually give 
Lupin 
> a greater responsibility than the laughing crowd.  Not just 
because 
> as a Prefect he *does* have a greater responsibility, but because 
he 
> isn't laughing.  Unlike the crowd, Lupin realizes that what's 
going 
> on is *wrong* and yet he still takes no action.  He waits for, and 
> possibly depends upon, Lily to come to the rescue.  And until Lily 
> *does* something, evil triumphs.  
> 
> An interesting question is, how *long* does evil triumph?  How 
long 
> do James and Sirius get to prank whoever they want, whenever they 
> want? Until Sirius goes too far?  Until James finally decides to 
> listen to Lily?  And could Lupin's willingness to let James and 
> Sirius get away with what he lets them get away with be what leads 
> them to think Lupin might be the traitor?

But did Lupin act the way he did in Snape's Worst Memory because he 
felt that James and Sirius were doing wrong or because they were 
doing it in the open (thus undermining his authority as prefect)? 
Lupin appears to have tolerated the Marauders relationship with 
Snape, even after the "Prank" and he appears to have engaged in some 
of their rule-breaking (as seen on the detention cards in HBP). Even 
in PoA Lupin doesn't speak up when Sirius says that Snape "deserved" 
the Prank (has anyone considered that maybe Lupin actually gave his 
semi-approval to the plan...maybe he has his own reasons for not 
liking Snape). And throughout the course of PoA Lupin is taking pot-
shots at Snape...the boggart lesson, covering for Harry, etc. So 
Lupin has gone his bit in keeping that conflict going.

<snip>
> Betsy Hp:
> I can see that.  (And can I just say that I thought about you, 
Nora, 
> while writing that, "weirdly too trusting of Dumbledore" bit? 
<g>)  
> I also wonder if Lupin didn't depend on Dumbledore to do his 
action 
> for him.  Harry will be safe because Dumbledore is there, etc.  
Sort 
> of like how he let Lily do his action for him in the pensieve 
> scene.  
<snip>
> Betsy Hp:
> Does he resent that, I wonder?  Because while putting all of his 
> trust in Dumbledore, Lupin also sounded a bit bitter with the role 
> Dumbledore had assigned him.  I can totally see a love/hate 
dynamic 
> going on there.
<snip>
> Betsy Hp:
> Very interesting.  That first quote seems to speak towards the WW, 
> and their paranoid seperating into tiny little groups.  Whereas 
> Dumbledore (and the Sorting Hat!) does his best to gather everyone 
> toghether.  In a sense you could say that the Marauders failed to 
> associate and have therefore fallen, one by one.
> 
> The second quote shows *how* the Marauders failed.  Lupin slept on 
> his watch and Peter went over to the enemy, and both of them 
failed 
> their friends.

Snipping a lot here from an excellent series of posts
I do think 
that Lupin has his issues with Dumbledore and I do think that he 
uses Dumbledore as a clutch sometimes. However it should be noted 
that Lupin was part of a group of wizards that managed to do an 
incredible amount of stuff under Dumbledore's nose so I think his 
view of Dumbledore is probably not the same as that of the average 
wizard. So Lupin both respects Dumbledore but also, some part of him 
anyway, realizes that Dumbledore is human. 

I think this is one of the reasons why I like the Marauders and 
Snape is that they don't seem to be as beholden to Dumbledore as 
nearly everyone else (Harry earned more respect from me by 
disagreeing with Dumbledore). So I think that that also ties into 
Lupin
the Marauders as a group (James and Sirius especially) while 
on Dumbledore's side
seem to be independent minded (Sirius openly 
states that Dumbledore was wrong about Snape in OotP
again earning 
respect from me).  

Quick_Silver







From Nanagose at aol.com  Thu Mar  9 05:55:37 2006
From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 05:55:37 -0000
Subject: Remus Lupin: Good man doing nothing (long!)
In-Reply-To: <duno3j+23vv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duog0p+i361@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149308

> Betsy Hp:
> Hee!  I did not know that.  Happy birthday, Lupin!

Christina:

Yup, March 10th, I believe :)


> Betsy Hp:
> It is common, but it's not good. (Ick, mobs.)  I actually give Lupin 
> a greater responsibility than the laughing crowd.  Not just because 
> as a Prefect he *does* have a greater responsibility, but because he 
> isn't laughing.  Unlike the crowd, Lupin realizes that what's going 
> on is *wrong* and yet he still takes no action.  He waits for, and 
> possibly depends upon, Lily to come to the rescue.  And until Lily 
> *does* something, evil triumphs.  

Christina:

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here :)  I think that the
recognition that something is wrong, even when nothing is done, is
still better than not realizing that something is wrong at all (and
pointing and laughing about it).  True, James and Sirius might have
stopped if Lupin had done something, but they never would have bullied
Snape in the first place if there wasn't a willing audience.


> Betsy Hp:
> That it shows the weakness of PoA and GoF were the standard and the 
> strength of OotP was the anomaly, I was a bit shocked, actually.  
> Because I do like Lupin, so I hated to see that his natural state 
> was one of weakness.  I had hoped that the willingness to let Harry 
> die rather than take action was some sort of strange phenomenon 
> instead of business as usual.

Christina:

I don't see Lupin as weak, per se, in PoA.  I think he does a
fantastic job at handling the situation in the Shrieking Shack, for
example.  He comes into the room ready for anything, "his wand raised
and ready."  He takes a quick inventory of the situation (not unlike
Snape's quick survey of the scene on top of the tower in HBP), and
goes about taking control of the room.  Except for the few minutes
that Snape is in the room, Lupin runs the show - getting the kids to
believe his story and restraining Sirius from acting too rashly.  This
is the same leader!Lupin from OotP.

I wouldn't call Lupin's problem weakness...Julie suggested apathy, but
I don't think that's quite right either.  I think Lupin has two main
problems.  First, he is cautious and an overthinker, which are
normally not such bad things, except when they appear in excess.  He
is that guy who never, ever takes the risk.  He's the guy who sits
there while his two friends are bullying Snape, thinking, "I should
probably do something - but Sirius and James might hate me if I step
up - but I'm a Prefect! - but my friends have done everything for me."
 He runs around in circles in his head until the situation passes and
Lupin has done nothing.  Second, Lupin wants his friends to like him,
and he doesn't like to disappoint others.  That covers Lupin's
activities in the Pensieve and the reason he didn't tell DD about
Sirius's Animagus form.  Lupin is more willing to outwardly oppose
Adult!Sirius because Sirius becomes the dependent one, so to speak. 
Lupin has lived for years without Sirius - he has learned to do
without him.  Sirius's fall from grace and poor reputation (and
complete inability to play nicely with others) makes him much more
dependent on Lupin.

Lupin leads the Advance Guard well because he has his instructions and
can follow them.  He also apparently knows how to make others like and
respect him (which is no surprise).  

The funny thing is, when Lupin takes charge in PoA and OotP, he exerts
his passive and careful nature over others.  At the end of PoA, when
Sirius just wants to kill Peter and be done, Lupin physically and
verbally takes charge and restrains him.  When Sirius and Molly are
fighting in OotP, Lupin steps in to restrain them also.  When Sirius's
temper rises over Snape stopping Occlumency lessons, Lupin exerts his
control by restraining Sirius.  It isn't Dumbledore that steps in to
stop Harry from running through the veil, it's Lupin (a conscious and
meaningful choice by JKR, IMO).  Lupin's best leadership moments in
the books appear when he is exercising his flaws.  It isn't that Lupin
is *doing* when leading, and *not doing* when not leading.  It is that
when leading, Lupin is forcing others to *stop doing*.  In his own
actions, Lupin's flaws do him wrong, because he ends up just sitting
around when he should be acting.  But when matched with people that
act rashly and with their emotions, Lupin is a tempering force that
injects rational thought and caution into the situation.  Sometimes,
it's better to sit and do nothing, or calm down and wait things out -
it's just that when a person is stuck with that philosophy all the
time that it causes problems.


> Betsy Hp:
> Does he resent that, I wonder?  Because while putting all of his 
> trust in Dumbledore, Lupin also sounded a bit bitter with the role 
> Dumbledore had assigned him.  I can totally see a love/hate dynamic 
> going on there.

Christina:

I think that Lupin's bitterness in his voice was directed more toward
himself and his lot in life than at Dumbledore, but I've often
wondered about this.  I don't think Lupin resents Dumbledore, because
he seems to cling desperately to the human self (being very polite,
not getting angry or worked up, etc) that Dumbledore has made
possible.  However, I wonder how much of a service Dumbledore really
did Lupin by letting him come to school.  Lupin was allowed years of
happiness with close friends who loved him, but I wonder how well
Dumbledore prepared Lupin for dealing with what would come after his
schooling.  Obviously Dumbledore did the right thing, but I do see a
small element of giving a child a shiny new toy only to promptly take
it away.  Like I said, I don't think Lupin resents this, but I wonder
if Lupin's parents ever did.

> Betsy Hp:
> It *could* be that Lupin is hiding his abilities because he's a spy.
> But it could also be that he's choosing not to use his abilities 
> because he's scared.

Christina:

I don't think Lupin hides his abilities at all.  Others seem to
recognize him as being intelligent and magically skilled - they accept
his leadership, after all.  His opinion at the dinner table in OotP is
immediately accepted.  The kids at Hogwarts recognize Lupin as the
best teacher they've ever had.


Christina






From sunnylove0 at aol.com  Thu Mar  9 07:43:09 2006
From: sunnylove0 at aol.com (sunnylove0 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 02:43:09 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
Message-ID: <1e5.4d83e792.3141368d@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149309

In a message dated 3/8/2006 10:01:36 AM Mountain Standard Time,  
eggplant107 at hotmail.com writes:

I  confess that part of the story always confused me because I can't
see where  Harry did anything wrong, he would have been entirely
justified if he'd  blown Draco's head off. 

Eggplant....my word.
 


To Dumbledore, Draco was worth his life.  I loathe Draco.  Draco  is a 
worthless little racist scumbag.  But no one deserves to die like  that, bleeding 
out on the bathroom floor or murdered in cold blood by Voldemort,  just because 
he acted like the stupid, spoiled little brat he was raised to  be.  To me, 
it's one of the major lessons of HBP.  That everyone is  worth something.  Even 
the lowest of the low.  If we do not recognize  that, our consciences will 
erode.  If Harry had murdered Draco, what do you  think the effect on HARRY would 
have been?  He doesn't want to become  a murderer!  Didn't he make that clear?
 
I don't think you're going to get your bloodbath.  People were  cursing, 
dueling, murdering each other over Voldemort last time.  It didn't  make a bit of 
difference, until Lily pulled out not her wand, but her courage,  her love, 
her life, her soul.  And I believe Harry will do it in Book 7 the  same way.
 
As to Snape, as I haven't been following this thread, all I know is, he's  
not stupid enough to let Voldemort win, no matter if Snape's good or evil or  
doomed.  But my money is on OFH.  But he and Harry might let each  other live if 
Voldemort is dead.  I think.
 
Amber
 
 
 
 


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




From hubbada at unisa.ac.za  Thu Mar  9 07:51:57 2006
From: hubbada at unisa.ac.za (deborahhbbrd)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 07:51:57 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice
Message-ID: <duomqt+cp6s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149310


Suggested ending for DD's unfinished remark to Young Malfoy:

Of course that is what he would tell you, Draco, but ...

(1)	he left out the vital information that he was working for the
Order all the time.
(2)	I'm sure he didn't mention that his unrequited love for your
mother made it impossible for him to refuse.
(3)	I'm sure he didn't mention that his unrequited love for your Aunt
Bellatrix made it impossible for him to refuse.
(4)	I'm sure he didn't mention that his unrequited love for your
cousin Nymphadora made it impossible for him to refuse.
(5)	just as a well known Muggle hero has to perform ludicrous and
seemingly impossible tasks in accordance with the Code of the
Woosters, so Professor Snape, bound by the Code of the Princes, is
doomed to obey whatever instruction a Pure-Blood gives him. 

And now, my dears, you might like to guess which answer is the
preferred choice of

Yours respectfully

Deborah







From talisman22457 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  9 07:57:58 2006
From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 07:57:58 -0000
Subject: Finding the horcruxes
In-Reply-To: <duk612+nhto@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duon66+t42p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149311

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> 
wrote:
> In CoS, Harry was able to get Gryffindor's sword from the Hat 
because
> he was a true Gryffindor. Would a true Hufflepuff be able to 
recover the
> Cup and a true Slytherin be able to find the Locket in the same 
way?
> 
> It's almost too easy. But it could work. And it fits with uniting 
the Houses.


Sounds a lot like a theory I expounded last year on another site we  
belong to:

TOC Message 3356 of 3995
From: "Talisman" <talisman22457 at yahoo.com> 
Date: Sun Oct 9, 2005 12:58 pm 
Subject: Bloody Relics and Unexpected 

We know that Voldemort is the last descendant of Salazar Slytherin's 
line, now fortuitously reconstituted and active in the WW (thanks to 
DD's tireless efforts). 

Rowling has nixed Harry as an heir to Gryffindor, so the money is on 
DD as having been in Godric's family tree, leaving the redoubtable 
Aberforth as an extant member of that blood line (assuming DD *is* 
even dead, which, I agree, is no sure thing.) This comports nicely 
with Rowling's suggestion that DD's family line is of future 
interest. 

To this I add Zacharias Smith, a Hufflepuff--who, along with his 
father--displays a certain, shall we say, aristocratic haughtiness. 
I'm betting that he is related to Hepzibah Smith, and so a blood 
heir to Helga Hufflepuff. 

What we have, then, on the eve of Book 7, is a gathering of the 
blood. A small matter of identifying a Ravenclaw descendant, and we 
are ready for some serious Founders' mojo. 

Just what will come of it remains to be seen, but I'm betting that 
the need for Slyth blood is one of the reasons DD has kept LV around 
all these years.

As to the location of Hxes, I don't really expect that to take as 
much time as might otherwise be anticipated. The bloodline 
contingent might come in handy here, too, though it's not the only 
reason they are *on stage.* 

For one thing, though she's an awful fibber, Rowling moderated the 
Mugglenetter's expostulations--regarding the difference, going into 
Book 7, of our *knowing* what Harry has to do
--with the quiet suggestion that Harry (and the giddy interviewers) 
might *think* he knows what he has to do, but there will be at least 
one, hmmmmm, shall we say, "unexpected task," which I'm betting will 
throw things rather a different way. 

For another, we know from Hepzibah Smith that the Founders' relics 
have special powers, all their own. 

She only dabbled with the powers imbued in the Hufflepuff Cup. 
Perhaps simply out of the greater interest she had in her ancestor's 
item, but also possibly because a "true heir" would have more 
success with the powers of a given ancestor's relic. 

If so, she wouldn't have bothered experimenting with the Slyth 
pendant, not being blood-linked to activate it's powers. 

If Rowling has made good her claim of leaving sufficient clues, it 
would seem that additional Hx clues are to be found in CoS--again, 
confirming the link between Books 2 and 6--and making good Rowling's 
other claim: that Harry learned something important in Book 2 that 
relates to Book 6. 

Harry *did* use a Founder's object in CoS to defeat a *version* of 
LV, and a troublesome serpent in his employ. (A nice bit of 
foreshadowing/mirror symmetry.) 

Fawkes showed up to assist Harry. I think we have to conclude that 
this was per DD's instructions, not merely due to Harry's *loyalty* 
(which, as I've argued before, was not particularly in play at the 
time, and which would warrant questioning why Fawkes doesn't show up 
in all of Harry's other confrontations, or even on behalf of other 
*loyal* order members, etc.)

Fawkes delivered the Sorting Hat. I'm guessing this was per DD's 
instructions, as well. Harry asks for help, and the sword appears. 

Later, DD tells him that "only a true Gryffindor" could have pulled 
the sword out of the hat. 

Well, DD is a bit of a fibber, himself. Harry isn't literally a 
*true Gryffindor,* certainly not in the way Tom Riddle/LV is a *true 
Slytherin.* But DD, who *is* a true Gryffindor, had a point to make, 
or maybe two. 

Our silver-bearded heir of Gryffindor likely directed the sword to 
respond to Harry. 

Not only did he want to save Harry's buns and secure Harry's 
identification with/ownership of his place in Gryffindor House, but 
he has given a little lesson in what a *true heir* can do vis-a-vis 
the hat, with it's bits of Founders' brains, and a bona fide 
Founder's relic. 

If the Slyth pendant isn't just waiting for Harry in Kreature's 
nest, available even by the master's command, then perhaps LV put 
enough of himself into Harry to allow the boy to conjure it out of 
the old chapeau. 

Zacharias will have to be reasoned with, but after all, he has a 
claim to the cup and might want it back for his Hope chest. 

Who will the Ravenclaw assistant be? Luna? That would be dandy. It 
would teach a thing or two to the Ravenclaws who don't think she 
*belongs in their house.* She'd certainly be willing enough to help 
Harry defeat the Dark Lord. 

As for the non-Founders' item Hxes, LV will be coming after Harry, 
or easy enough to bait if he is being coy, and Nagini is never too 
far from his side. Alternatively, Harry has the touted scar-link and 
can work on homing-in on the Dark Lair, should Mohammad need to come 
to the Mountain. 

Now, why do we need Voldemort and Aberforth?fs blood. Something to 
gnaw on, here. 

Talisman, thinking that what with untapped special powers and scraps 
of tainted soul, those relics are fairly exploding with potential. 







From hubbada at unisa.ac.za  Thu Mar  9 08:27:07 2006
From: hubbada at unisa.ac.za (deborahhbbrd)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 08:27:07 -0000
Subject: Leader of Order of the Phoenix.
Message-ID: <duoosr+due6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149312

Not wishing to be too much of a wet blanket, I must say I think
there's a bit of confusion in some posters' minds about who should
lead the OP into Book 7.

Harry is the prophesied destroyer of LV. Once a prophecy is believed
it seems to acquire a validity of its own. And Harry's track record so
far is promising.  But the only leadership he's shown has been in the
DA lessons, where he did well with a bunch of volunteers his own age
and younger; and a few brief, shining moments as Quidditch captain
which came to an ignominious end.

Consider the Arthurian legends. Consider Lancelot ? and, if you like,
Perceval and Galahad. And now consider Arthur. Arthur doesn't do much
in the way of rushing about slaying dragons and saving maidens, and he
sits everyone around a delightfully democratic Round Table ... but he
gets the throne. He is the leader. We know he is, because he sends the
assault troops out, and they report back to him. Their behaviour
illustrates his status for us. 

I don't necessarily believe that King Arthur = Mr Weasley, in fact I
don't believe for a moment that he's got the leadership potential, in
spite of having brought up a family of remarkable children. I would be
sorry to see Kingsley lose his job in the Prime Minister's office, but
he might well have the stature for the job. Or not. Because the choice
will be made by the surviving members of the Order, who must know that
Harry ? he who was overlooked as a school prefect because he had too
much on his plate already ? has his own job to do and needs to focus
on that, instead of dedicating his time and energy to coordinating
other experts' activities. 

One prediction I don't mind making is that it won't be Professor
McGonagall. Her readiness to take advice is a warning flag ...
listening to advice is one thing, but taking it just because it's
there is quite another.  

If they're suddenly serious about Magical Creature Rights, Dobby has
many of the right qualities, plus lots of unexpected talent. But I'm
not holding my breath.

Deborah, burning up cyberspace today.







From oppen at mycns.net  Thu Mar  9 11:01:40 2006
From: oppen at mycns.net (ericoppen)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 11:01:40 -0000
Subject: Hermione the Vigilante?
Message-ID: <dup1uk+544m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149313

Before starting, I would like to point out that "vigilantism" in 
places like the Old West popped up in places where the authorities 
were either unable to protect citizens, or in cahoots with the Bad 
Guys themselves.

That said---I thought that Hermione's schemes were, mostly, pretty 
brilliant.  Luring Umbridge into the Forest so she could meet the 
centaurs?  You could take that as a test---a test of Umbridge's 
ability to keep her big, flapping pie-hole shut.  If she'd just told 
the centaurs the truth, as in:  "Well, Miss Granger, here, says that 
Albus Dumbledore has a weapon hidden in this forest, and she's 
showing me where," she might well have waltzed out of the forest 
without a scratch.  Instead, her own arrogance and certainty of 
superiority did her in, and after we found out that she had sicced 
Dementors on Harry and his cousin, I can't say that what she got, 
she didn't have coming.

As for Edgecombe, until I see some proof that she _was_ under 
pressure, and I mean as in "Ve haff _vays_ of makink you talk, 
Englische Schweine!" I'd say that Hermione's response was rather 
mild.  "Sneaking" is a BIG no-no in any teenage society, and 
Edgecombe, as one of my learned HPfGU colleagues pointed out, could 
easily have had all 28 of the DA tossed out of Hogwarts on their 
collective ears.  Or, for all we know, sent to juvie Azkaban.  Had 
_I_ been Hermione...well, Miss Edgecombe would've had a nasty fatal 
accident, and _who_ more surprised about it than Little Miss 
Studious?

I'd have also been a lot harsher on Rita Skeeter.  That b*tch 
basically used her position as a reporter to write a bunch of 
falsehoods (betraying the trust of her editors and readers) and then 
decided to manipulate her readers into tormenting a fifteen-year-old 
girl.  Had I been Hermione...once Rita was in the jar, a quick 
_Obliviate_ spell would make her forget she was ever anything but a 
bug.  Too bad...

But I'm Not Nice, and Hermione is.






From lyraofjordan at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  9 15:02:08 2006
From: lyraofjordan at yahoo.com (lyraofjordan)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 15:02:08 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped, or at least slapped
In-Reply-To: <00e401c64332$6b808b50$4f98400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <dupg1g+hivc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149314

> Alla:
> but I
> have no sympathy for Marieta and think that Hermione had to protect
> DA somehow.
> 
> Magpie:
> She didn't protect the DA.  She punished the person who blabbed 
without 
> setting up any way to warn the DA or protect them.
> 
Lyra:
The initial appearance of the "Sneak" blemishes was disturbing, for 
the reasons Magpie lists here and in the part of her post I snipped, 
but at least you could understand part of Hermione's purpose. But in 
a small, closed environment like Hogwarts, surely everyone knew that 
Marietta was the sneak within -- let's be conservative and say -- 48 
hours. What's the point of branding her past that, and certainly an 
entire year later (for as far as we know, she still has the 
blemishes)? Hermione is the girl who burst into tears and ran to the 
hospital wing when her teeth were cursed. You'd think once her 
purpose was served in alerting the school to Marietta's crime, she 
could have a little emphathy for another teenage girl whose face has 
been disfigured. (Even Snape, dispite his rep as an unfeeling jerk, 
doesn't stop her from getting treatment after he insults her; so to 
me, Hermione comes off looking like she's less feeling than Snape.)

Lyra (who is working on the summary for Chapt 12 and was going to 
ask a question about this very subject until you all beat her to it.)









From belviso at attglobal.net  Thu Mar  9 15:27:57 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 15:27:57 -0000
Subject: Hermione the Vigilante?
In-Reply-To: <dup1uk+544m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duphht+2ngh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149315

ericoppen:
> As for Edgecombe, until I see some proof that she _was_ under 
> pressure, and I mean as in "Ve haff _vays_ of makink you talk, 
> Englische Schweine!" I'd say that Hermione's response was rather 
> mild.  "Sneaking" is a BIG no-no in any teenage society, and 
> Edgecombe, as one of my learned HPfGU colleagues pointed out, 
could 
> easily have had all 28 of the DA tossed out of Hogwarts on their 
> collective ears.  Or, for all we know, sent to juvie Azkaban.  Had 
> _I_ been Hermione...well, Miss Edgecombe would've had a nasty 
fatal 
> accident, and _who_ more surprised about it than Little Miss 
> Studious?

Magpie:
I have to stick in something that really bothers me about this 
argument.  First, there's no reason to doubt Marietta was pressured, 
and she didn't need "Ve Haff vays" pressure to talk.  She's a kid at 
school involved in an illegal study group that she herself has shown 
signs of never being comfortable with and her mother may be telling 
her this is a dangerous thing and the *right* thing to do is to go 
to the authorities.  This is something Hermione herself would do 
under some circumstances and I think that if we actually knew her 
story her decision wouldn't seem quite as lame.  

What I'm bothered by sometimes, though, is that that there's no 
acknowledgement that the risk of expulsion was exactly what everyone 
was signing up for.  This doesn't absolve Marietta of her own 
responsibilities for her own actions-obviously she was the one who 
told and that's going to have consequences for her, especially from 
the students in trouble.  But if the DA members are going to take a 
risk and talk about there being things more important than school 
than that's their risk.  It seems silly to then turn around and act 
like it's all Marietta's fault they got in trouble--they took a 
risk, they weren't very bright about who they relied on to cover for 
them, and they got burned.  It's like if I was playing hooky from 
school and somebody saw me and told on me.  Yes, they're the ones 
that got me in trouble and I'd be annoyed at them for tattling, but 
obviously when I cut school I was taking that risk.  (And yes, I do 
understand that the group had good reasons for starting the DA and I 
think they made the right decision, but part of that decision was to 
risk expulsion.)  I have a hard time believing anybody would really 
have "harsher" on any of these people than Hermione is, unless maybe 
they've done jail time themselves.  Hermione is not nice.

Where I stand on Hermione in general is this.  I don't believe in 
the idea that characters have a running score card of things they've 
done wrong in my eyes that they must be punished for by book's end, 
preferably with a speech explaining what they are being punished for 
and why.  What I do believe, though, is that it is unrealistic to go 
through life treating people the way Hermione often does without 
having it eventually come back to bite you on the butt.  Just as 
Rita Skeeter eventually libeled somebody who fought back, so is 
Hermione taking that risk when she uses people, or decides she knows 
what's best for them and she'll manipulate them into doing it, or 
she'll punish them for their crimes.  It's a grea tway to make 
enemies, and although Hermione thinks she can handle any enemy who 
comes along, maybe she can't.

I don't think this is a foreign idea to JKR.  The Prank continues to 
be a pivotal and mysterious incident in the Potterverse, but it 
boils down to a "stupid Prank" (in the eyes of the Prankers) that 
nevertheless continues to drive the Prank-ee and cause problems 20 
years later.  More than one murder mystery, I believe, has turned on 
the idea of someone carelessly hurting someone and later not knowing 
who is stalking them.

So it just seems unrealistic in a way JKR isn't to say that Hermione 
just "takes care" of people and they stay taken care of.  I don't 
expect everything she's done to come back and bite her on the butt, 
but it's hard to believe something won't, especially with Hermione's 
arrogance (in fact, I read the above post rather quickly the first 
time and mistakenly thought the "arrogance" getting someone in 
trouble referred to Hermione and not Umbridge, since Hermione is 
called out for being arrogant) and conviction she's always right.

I especially wonder about the Marietta thing.  There's no real 
reason for JKR to bring it up again in HBP.  She could have just 
dropped it and we'd assume the marks went away over the summer or 
forget about it.  We had two books of constant SPEW and that was 
suddenly not mentioned in HBP, so why does this one thing need to 
continue?  Marietta has been memory charmed, so it's not like she 
can connect the marks to her actions.  She has no memory, 
presumably, of why she did what she did.  If she does remember she 
may not regret her actions (much less think she ought to apologize 
to Hermione).  All the other consequences of her actions have been 
undone--the kids are still in school, Umbridge is gone, Dumbledore 
is back.  Only this one consequence continues, without serving any 
real meaningful punishment for Marietta.  

So why is it there?  Just to give Harry some mild vindictive 
pleasure whenever he looks at her, despite never giving her a 
thought otherwise?  Am I supposed to get vindictive pleasure out of 
seeing a character who barely has any lines suffering?  I don't have 
that much anger towards her.  So I'm not sure why it's there.  It's 
only mentioned in the beginning of HBP so perhaps it is just 
supposed to be a throwaway moment.  

Or else not.  See, I just keep thinking of how in OotP the cabinet 
incident made a huge impression on me.  We get, like, three mentions 
of how Montague is still suffering the effects of the Twins' joke 
weeks or months later. We get that scene where the Trio considers 
doing something to help him and easily dismisses the idea.  I had 
the same kinds of questions then--am I supposed to just get pleasure 
out of a minor character with no lines suffering brain damage after 
a minor scuffle with other students that happened off-screen?  When 
I brought it up in fandom I often found people either didn't 
remember the incident, didn't remember the after-effects, or thought 
it was all about justifying the actions, sometimes by changing the 
facts.

I was ever so happy when the cabinet plot was revealed in HBP.  I 
thought it was the perfect result of that subplot in OotP.  Because 
it wasn't about "punishing" the Twins or making them responsible for 
what happened.  Yes, Malfoy got the idea for his plan from what 
happened to Montague--it was the Twins' experiment that showed him 
the secret--but obviously the plot was all his own.  But I liked 
that when he told the story there were just enough things to suggest 
Montague's side of the story.  Rather than the gormless hulk he was 
in OotP he was a young wizard in trouble who got himself out of it.  
He "could have died" according to Malfoy, which calls up images of 
Montague's friends caring if he died when Harry and his friends 
don't. And "everyone else thought it was just a good story," calls 
up images of Montague telling the story to a group of friends who 
all want to hear what happened to Dorian.  

It's a small thing, but it just hints at the reality behind the 
illusion that really, the world revolves around us and our friends.  
Other people have other stories and pressures on them.  The same 
kind of pressures we easily make allowances for when we know the 
circumstances. If you go through life dismissing this reality of 
others, judging them, handing out punishments and seeing them as 
less real than you are...that's going to get you into trouble, no 
matter what your good intentions.  We see that with the centaurs, 
when Hermione thinks their culture is simple enough to be 
manipulated by her.  We see it with the house elves where Hermione's 
trying to trick them into freedom have led to them refusing to clean 
Gryffindor Tower.  (Unfortunately Dobby takes the hats and cleans 
the tower, thus both keeping Hermione ignorant and silencing the 
house elves.)  I'd imagine Cormac McClaggen might think poorly of 
her as well.  Cho, for all everyone seems to think she should hate 
her friend, seems to maybe see herself as responsible for putting 
Marietta in a bad position.

So yeah, it's not just about Hermione considering herself judge and 
jury of the WW for me, but just that putting someone in their place 
doesn't mean they'll stay there.  Hermone begins the books as the 
girl Ron says, "Has got to have noticed she's got no friends."  
She's made friends since then, but she hasn't lost the parts of her 
personality that made her initially disliked.  I think canonically 
we see that she likes manipulating people--when they do what she 
wants and prove she understood them it's like getting the right 
answer on a test.  But eventually that kind of thing means you've 
got to watch your back.

-m







From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  9 15:47:49 2006
From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 15:47:49 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped, or at least slapped
In-Reply-To: <dupg1g+hivc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dupin5+tkut@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149316


> Lyra:
> The initial appearance of the "Sneak" blemishes was disturbing, for 
> the reasons Magpie lists here and in the part of her post I snipped, 
> but at least you could understand part of Hermione's purpose. But in 
> a small, closed environment like Hogwarts, surely everyone knew that 
> Marietta was the sneak within -- let's be conservative and say -- 48 
> hours. What's the point of branding her past that, and certainly an 
> entire year later (for as far as we know, she still has the 
> blemishes)? Hermione is the girl who burst into tears and ran to the 
> hospital wing when her teeth were cursed. You'd think once her 
> purpose was served in alerting the school to Marietta's crime, she 
> could have a little emphathy for another teenage girl whose face has 
> been disfigured. (Even Snape, dispite his rep as an unfeeling jerk, 
> doesn't stop her from getting treatment after he insults her; so to 
> me, Hermione comes off looking like she's less feeling than Snape.)

Amiable Dorsai:
What makes you think Hermione has prevented Marietta from seeking
treatment?  We know Flitwick was unable, or claimed to be unable, to
lift the curse, but we've never heard of his asking Hermione to lift
it.  Do you think she would refuse a direct request from a teacher she
holds in high regard?

<Full bore speculation mode engaged; hold on to your hats.> Now 
that I think about it, I'm not sure that Hermione could lift the
curse, not by herself.  Think on it--Marietta's contract (if that's
what the list was) was not only with Hermione, but with the DA as a 
whole.  I wonder: could Marietta lift the curse herself, if she 
simply apologized to the rest of Dumbledore's Army?

Amiable Dorsai






From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Thu Mar  9 17:32:17 2006
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 12:32:17 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Trusting Snape
In-Reply-To: <duhqu4+uqi4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY101-F352520E386DA35B6D2698A91EC0@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 149317


Pippin:
>This part I don't understand. Snape can rejoin Voldemort, and
>since nobody, Order or Ministry, has been able to find Voldemort, they 
>shouldn't
>be able to find Snape either. He doesn't need to be able to get information
>to the Order to sabotage Voldemort's plans. There are plenty of ways to
>put a spanner in the works from within, especially for an expert potion
>maker. And if he's with Voldemort when Harry arrives for the kill, then
>Harry may have an unexpected ally.

PJ:
What you say could possibly make sense if we were talking about anyone but 
Voldermort the Ungrateful but I can't help but wonder exactly what you think 
Snape did *right* from Voldermort's perspective that would make him so eager 
to keep him alive and well?

Yes, Snape killed that interfering old Dumbledore but that was a task 
assigned to Draco, not him and the other DE's on the tower *might* have been 
able to finish that job without his assistance considering how weak and 
defenseless Dumbledore was at the time.  (And Voldermort will hear about 
that too and wonder WHY)

So, Snape needlessly outted himself as a DE, ruined Voldermort's punishment 
of the Malfoys and then didn't even bring the Potter brat with him when he 
fled Hogwarts!  I just don't see a guy like Voldermort killing the fatted 
calf for him over that kind of major screw up.  Also, if Snape is now shown 
more respect by the other DE's, he'lll be seen as an immediate threat to 
Voldermort's control by his jealous master.   Voldermort seems like a top 
notch potion maker himself if that cauldren scene in GoF is any indication 
of his skills so Snape's talent becomes redundant.

Let's take a good look at Peter's situation.  He found Voldermort, cared for 
him and gave up his own hand in order to give him back a useable body.  You 
would think he'd be at least somewhat appreciated by Voldermort and be kept 
by his side, wouldn't you?  I mean, if it weren't for Peter Voldermort would 
still be "less than the meanest ghost" or even that grotesque baby!Mort, 
alone and relatively powerless...  But no.  He's stuck in Spinners End with 
Snape and looks like he's had a *very* rough go of it since Voldermort came 
back to power (the hump on his back, etc).

As far as I can see,  Snape's value to Voldermort disappeared when he lost 
the ability to spy for him which was the one job Voldermort specifically 
gave him to do!   He's now become a liability in every sense of the word so, 
rather than keeping him safe and sound from the Aurors, I could actually see 
Voldermort having him hunted down and killed.  Even if he can evade the 
Ministry, where does someone branded with the Dark Mark hide from 
Voldermort?
PJ





From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Thu Mar  9 17:42:35 2006
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 17:42:35 -0000
Subject: Harry the murderer? (was: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice)
In-Reply-To: <1e5.4d83e792.3141368d@aol.com>
Message-ID: <duppeb+90jr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149318

sunnylove0 at ... wrote:

> If Harry had murdered Draco, what do you
> think the effect on HARRY would have been? 

I'm not talking about murder, I'm talking about self defense. All
Harry did was walk into a bathroom and he was attacked without
provocation with an illegal curse that could (and probably should)
have sent Draco to Azkaban for life. Harry had every right to do
anything he could to defend himself. I would have blasted Draco with
everything I had until he was just a dirty smudge on the floor and not
felt one bit bad about it afterward. 

> my money is on [Snape being] OFH.

I agree entirely. 

Eggplant







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  9 17:56:28 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 17:56:28 -0000
Subject: DD's unfinished sentence (Was: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice)
In-Reply-To: <duomqt+cp6s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dupq8c+1010t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149319

Deb wrote:
> Suggested ending for DD's unfinished remark to Young Malfoy:
> 
> Of course that is what he would tell you, Draco, but ...
> 
> (1) he left out the vital information that he was working for the
Order all the time.
> (2) I'm sure he didn't mention that his unrequited love for your
mother made it impossible for him to refuse.
<snip what I take to be tongue-in-cheek explanations>


Carol responds:
Since Dumbledore has just stated that Snape was acting on his orders
and since the "but" follows "Of course that is what he would tell you,
Draco," what follows the "but" must relate to why Snape used the
promise to Narcissa rather than DD's orders to explain his attempts to
interfere with Draco's plans. (His "help" so far has amounts to giving
Crabbe and Goyle detention and telling Draco that he wants to talk to
him in his office.) So number one, which could also be worded "he
[Snape] could hardly tell you that he was working for me [DD]," is
both the simplest and most logical alternative.

My point is simply that DD is right: *Of course* Snape couldn't tell
Draco that he was really working for the Order (or DD directly); Snape
was posing as a loyal Death Eater and to tell the whole truth would
blow his cover (which would certainly mean his death and probably
Draco's, setting aside the disruption in DD's plans for Snape at the
end of the year). Note that Snape (in "The Unbreakable Vow") didn't
even tell Draco that he had promised to help him, only to protect him.
Snape is telling partial truths and suppressing key information, the
same tactic he uses in "Spinner's End"--and again with the Death
Eaters when he orders them off the Hogwarts grounds. 

In short, *of course* Snape would use his promise to Narcissa (in
which he has placed his own life on the line) rather than his loyalty
to Dumbledore as his reason for watching over Draco. It would be
suicide to do otherwise.

Carol, noting that the "but" is perfectly compatible with DD's
previous knowledge of all three provisions of the UV, and he was
almost certainly aware of the first







From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  9 18:10:33 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 18:10:33 -0000
Subject: DD's unfinished sentence (Was: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice)
In-Reply-To: <dupq8c+1010t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dupr2p+p5q8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149320

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" 
<justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> Deb wrote:
> > Suggested ending for DD's unfinished remark to Young Malfoy:
> > 
> > Of course that is what he would tell you, Draco, but ...
> 
> Carol responds:
> Since Dumbledore has just stated that Snape was acting on his 
orders and since the "but" follows "Of course that is what he would 
tell you, Draco," what follows the "but" must relate to why Snape 
used the promise to Narcissa rather than DD's orders to explain his 
attempts to interfere with Draco's plans. 

Tonks:
I have an idea that explains Snape's actions as loyal to DD and at 
the same time does not blow his cover as a spy, even to Draco.

"Of course that is what he would tell you , Draco, but..."  as a 
teacher in this school he is bond by a vow to me and to this school 
to protect all of our students with his life if necessary.

Tonks_op






From lyraofjordan at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  9 18:12:44 2006
From: lyraofjordan at yahoo.com (lyraofjordan)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 18:12:44 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped, or at least slapped
In-Reply-To: <dupin5+tkut@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dupr6s+htoj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149321

> 
> Amiable Dorsai:
> What makes you think Hermione has prevented Marietta from seeking
> treatment?  We know Flitwick was unable, or claimed to be unable, 
to
> lift the curse, but we've never heard of his asking Hermione to 
lift
> it.  Do you think she would refuse a direct request from a teacher 
she
> holds in high regard?
> 
> <Full bore speculation mode engaged; hold on to your hats.> Now 
> that I think about it, I'm not sure that Hermione could lift the
> curse, not by herself.  Think on it--Marietta's contract (if that's
> what the list was) was not only with Hermione, but with the DA as 
a 
> whole.  I wonder: could Marietta lift the curse herself, if she 
> simply apologized to the rest of Dumbledore's Army?
> 
> Amiable Dorsai
>
Lyra:
Hermione applied the curse and apparently no one else is able to 
figure out what it is or how to work a countercurse. Hermione 
certainly does not seem to have volunteered that information (or 
indicated to anyone in authority that she might have that 
information), and without that information, Madame Pomfrey or 
whoever is unable to treat Marietta. Therefore, it seems to me that 
Hermione has erected a roadblock that prevents treatment of Marietta.
(Can I prove that knowing what the curse is will help cure it? No, 
but I'm going by a medical model here, and figuring it's easier to 
cure something if you have some idea what it is and what caused it.)
And as I said previously, after more than year, it seems to me the 
curse has long since served any warning or punitive purpose Hermione 
might have had in mind and there seems to be no point in continuing 
it, yet we've seen her make no move to lift it.
YMMV

Lyra







From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Thu Mar  9 18:43:31 2006
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 18:43:31 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice
In-Reply-To: <duomqt+cp6s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dupt0j+qkti@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149322

With inspiration from deborahhbbrd" hubbada at ... 

Of course that is what he would tell you, Draco, but he left out the
vital information that he was working for the Order all the time.
Obviously having the most powerful wizard in the Order get murdered
will strengthen the Order enormously. I didn't tell Harry any of this
because I wanted him to divert a large amount of his time and effort
from killing Voldemort to killing Snape, that's another huge benefit.

Of course that is what he would tell you, Draco, but 'm sure he didn't
mention that his unrequited love for your mother made it impossible
for him to refuse. You see Draco, Professor Snape often acts like a
love sick teenager because the poor man is simply not very bright. He
is in fact a very silly man, his pratfalls and buffoonery are an
endless source of amusement for me, it takes all my Will Power not to
laugh in his face. I once saw a funny Muggle TV show called Faulty
Towers, it had a pompous but inept character on it called Basil
Faulty, he looked like Nearly Headless Nick for some reason but he
acted just like Professor Snape. Professor Snape's antics also reminds
me of something called the Three Stooges 
. 

Of course that is what he would tell you, Draco, but just as a well
known Muggle hero has to perform ludicrous and seemingly impossible
tasks in accordance with the Code of the Woosters, so Professor Snape,
bound by the Code of the Princes, is doomed to obey whatever
instruction a Pure-Blood gives him. The reason I still trusted
Professor Snape completely is that my Alzheimer's disease has started
to kick in. Can I have a cookie? 

Eggplant







From manawydan at ntlworld.com  Thu Mar  9 19:03:05 2006
From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan)
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 19:03:05 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Gran's age (Was: Wizard ages)
References: <dunji4+db8l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002401c643ac$1aa38dc0$c84a6d51@f3b7j4>

No: HPFGUIDX 149323

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at yahoo.com>
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Gran's age (Was: Wizard ages)


> While there's no question that Madam Marchbanks is ancient, I don't
> get the same impression of Neville's gran (Augusta Longbottom), who
> seems quite spry and is certainly still formidable. If Neville's
> incapacitated parents are in their late thirties like Lupin and Snape
> or their early forties like Lucius Malfoy, most likely Gran is in her
> seventies or eighties.
>
> My impression is that she's a contemporary of Minerva McGonagall, who
> knows that Augusta failed her Charms OWL. It seems to me that only a
> student in the same year (or at least the same House) would know that
> information--unless McGonagall was Augusta's teacher, which does not
> seem probable. (If Augusta was a classmate of McGonagall's, her time
> at Hogwarts would overlapped Tom Riddle's, FWIW.)

Though it could equally be that McG would have had access to the school
records and could easily have looked that up. The Longbottoms aren't
mentioned in any of the Marauders/Young Snape passages which could mean that
they are a lot older.

Neville's parents could easily be in their early 100s. If Augusta was 90-100
when Frank was born, then she could certainly be Griselda's contemporary, or
sufficiently close for them to have had a very long-standing friendship.

hwyl

Ffred

O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon
Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion
Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Thu Mar  9 19:15:49 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 19:15:49 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice
In-Reply-To: <dupt0j+qkti@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duput5+tadl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149324

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" <eggplant107 at ...> wrote:

Eggplant:
> With inspiration from deborahhbbrd" hubbada@ 
>  I once saw a funny Muggle TV show called Faulty
> Towers, it had a pompous but inept character on it called Basil
> Faulty, he looked like Nearly Headless Nick for some reason but he
> acted just like Professor Snape. Professor Snape's antics also reminds
> me of something called the Three Stooges 
. 

Geoff:
Just for information, it is not surprising that Nearly Headless Nick and Basil Fawlty (sp) 
resemble each other since the actor John Cleese played both characters.

Incidentally, having read a number of your missives lately, I am coming to the conclusion that 
your motto is NOT "Blessed are the peacemakers"....
:-))







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  9 20:06:58 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 20:06:58 -0000
Subject: Snape's half truths in "Spinner's End"
Message-ID: <duq1t2+vpos@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149325

I am fairly certain that Snape's explanations to Bellatrix in
"Spinner's End" are a mixture of truths, half truths, and lies. The
problem is determining which statements are which, but two of them
seem paarticularly suspicious to me. 

A bit of background first to support my view that Snape's answers to
Bellatrix in general can't be taken at face value as the full truth: 
 
We know that Bellatrix is suspicious of Snape and that it is necessary
to convince her of his loyalty. WE know that LV trusts no one and that
Snape would not be alive if he had not at least half-persuaded LV of
his loyalty (as Lucius Malfoy did in the graveyard). Given Snape's
rhetorical question to Bellatrix in "Spinner's End," "Do you really
think that the Dark Lord has not asked me each and every one of those
questions?" (Am. ed. 26), it seems probable that his responses to her
(with the exception of the new and questionable information regarding
Sirius Black and Emmeline Vance), are essentially, if not exactly,
those he had already provided to Voldemort when he returned to him at
the end of GoF. And it seems equally likely that these responses were
carefully prepared well in advance of the meeting with Voldemort two
hours after the events in the graveyard scene in GoF, on Dumbledore's
orders: "If you are ready . . . if you are prepared" (Am. ed. 713).
Both DD and Snape knew, at least from the moment that the Dark Mark
began to grow more distinct, that LV was alive and growing stronger.
It was necessary, even before the events in the graveyard, for Snape
to prepare his tale and to know exactly what to conceal to avoid any
appearance of loyalty to Dumbledore. And more recent events also must
be explained or concealed, for example his sending the Order to the
MoM and his role in saving DD from the ring Horcrux.

We know that Snape is a superb Occlumens, and there are hints in both
the first Occlumency lesson in OoP and in "Spinner's End" that he is
using Occlumency to lie to LV without detection. (I can supply the
quotes if anyone wants them but am trying to be concise here.) Without
question he is suppressing information in his answers to Bellatrix
(see previous paragraph) that he must also have concealed from LV or
he would not be alive (unless LV knows what he's doing but has other
uses for him, but I don't want to go into that here). 

We have seen Snape tell partial truths in other instances, notably in
telling Draco only about the provision of the UV requiring Snape to
protect him (not to "help" him or "do the deed" if it appears that
Draco will fail. I'm half-convinced that Snape was not bluffing when
he told Narcissa and Bellatrix that he knew what Draco's task was, but
even that would be a half-truth rather than a truth, as he certainly
did not know about the vanishing cabinet or he would not have tried to
use Legilimency on Draco (whose clumsy attempt at blocking him was
easily detectable, very different from the more sophisticated
Occlumency that Snape apparently uses on LV).

Without examining every explanation that Snape gives to Bella in
"Spinner's End," I want to point out two that strike me as probable
half-truths or partial truths. One is Snape's assertion that he
thought that LV was dead, which seems improbable if he was in DD's
confidence and has been working with him from at least SS/PS to help
defeat Voldemort, which would require his knowledge that LV wasn't
dead. Surely the Dark Mark had faded but not disappeared altogether as
it would have done if LV were really dead? Possibly Snape thought or
hoped that LV would not return, that he was permanently defeated, but
having been told by LV himself that LV was taking steps to protect
himself from death (and perhaps even aided him in protecting his
mortal body, as opposed to his soul, from death), it seems unlikely
that Snape ever believed that LV was dead. (Probably Lucius Malfoy and
the others didn't believe it, either; certainly Bellatrix didn't.)

The other is Snape's assertion that he tried to thwart the "unworthy"
Quirrell without realizing that LV was inside Quirrell's head. The lie
(or half-truth) that Snape thought LV was dead would be necessary to
make the half-truth about thwarting Quirrell without knowing he was
possessed believable. But Snape is a Legilimens, and he could have
read Quirrell's mind fairly easily without detection. If Quirrell
didn't detect the invasion, LV, looking out the back of Quirrell's
head, would not have detected it, either. And once Snape knew or
suspected what was going on, he would have avoided looking at the back
of Quirrell's head or used his sophisticated version of Occlumency to
conceal his suspicions if he was forced to do so.

In short, I think that Snape knew that LV was coming back and that LV
was possessing Quirrell. Again, I'm sure that Snape prepared the story
that he told LV after he failed to show up in the graveyard very
carefully, and these two statements strike me as particularly likely
to be lies or half truths that he originally used to protect himself
from death at LV's hands and repeated to Bellatrix to persuade her of
his loyalty to LV, essentially placing himself in the same category as
Lucius Malfoy and concealing his role as Dumbledore's agent or spy.

Carol, wondering what everyone else thinks about Snape's "spin" on
these two questions and his use of half-truths in general







From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Thu Mar  9 20:38:37 2006
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 15:38:37 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Trusting Snape/Life debt again
In-Reply-To: <duhjbq+jpdt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY101-F11A424AC04844227CCB15191EC0@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 149326



Neri:
>This objection depends on a distinction between a moral debt and
>magical Debt. But we can't be sure what exactly this distinction is,
>or even if JKR wants to make this distinction at all. In SS/PS we had
>no reason to think that Snape's debt to *James* was anything more than
>a point of honor. Did you think, when first reading it, that
>Dumbledore was meaning anything magical by "he couldn't bear being in
>your father's debt"?

PJ:

No, you're right.  I admit that when looked at in that way it's really not 
stated clearly.

>But if you want "a clue"  here is one: Dumbledore had trusted Snape 
>completely for 15 years
>after James had died. He staked his life on this trust. If you don't
>believe in LOLLIPOPS, how do you explain it?

I can't.  <g>

What's even more interesting to me though is that the more I read and the 
more I consider all the arguements posted here about why Snape did this, or 
Snape did that, the more the LID arguement holds water when all other 
options spring leaks of one type or another.  It *appears* to better answer 
the question of why Snape's actions seem too foolish and ill advised to be 
considered DDM! or ESE! or, even (in some instances) OFH!.

I'm thinking about it.  :)

PJ





From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  9 21:01:13 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 21:01:13 -0000
Subject: Trusting Snape
In-Reply-To: <BAY101-F352520E386DA35B6D2698A91EC0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <duq52p+88j5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149327

> >>Pippin:
> > This part I don't understand. Snape can rejoin Voldemort, and
> > since nobody, Order or Ministry, has been able to find          
> > Voldemort, they shouldn't be able to find Snape either.
> > <snip>
 
> >>PJ:
> What you say could possibly make sense if we were talking about    
> anyone but Voldermort the Ungrateful but I can't help but wonder   
> exactly what you think Snape did *right* from Voldermort's        
> perspective that would make him so eager to keep him alive and    
> well?
> Yes, Snape killed that interfering old Dumbledore but that was a   
> task assigned to Draco...
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
A task Voldemort expected Draco to fail and Snape to finish.  As per 
Snape in the Spinner's End chapter, anyway.  Which is what 
happened.  Draco failed and Snape finished.  What went wrong here?

> >>PJ:
> So, Snape needlessly outted himself as a DE...

Betsy Hp:
By killing the *head* of the Order.  What possible use would a spy 
be once the leader is gone?  Especially to someone like Voldemort 
who makes sure his group is very dependent on him?  Plus, there's 
still the implication that Snape *was* following Voldemort's orders.

> >>PJ:
> ruined Voldermort's punishment of the Malfoys...

Betsy Hp:
How?  Draco failed his task.  I'm not sure why Voldemort can't use 
that as an excuse to either visit a world of hurt on the boy, or 
execute him outright.  (For this reason I suspect Draco 
will "disappear" before Snape returns to Voldemort, which *may* piss 
Voldemort off a tad, but probably won't register too high on 
his "betrayer-meter".  A few Crucios and Snape will be forgiven that 
loss.)

> >>PJ:
> and then didn't even bring the Potter brat with him when he 
> fled Hogwarts!

Betsy Hp:
Hang on, I thought you saw Snape as ESE?  How *do* you explain Snape 
letting Harry go?  He will have to explain this, I think.  But I 
think, with the chaos on the grounds and the unexpected presence of 
Order members, Snape has a fair chance of giving a believable 
story.  But if you think Snape is ESE, doesn't that mean his 
statement that Voldemort *wanted* Potter left behind and unhurt was 
a true one?  Isn't that the only way to explain why an ESE!Snape 
*would* fail to kidnap Harry?

> >>PJ:
> <snip>
> Voldermort seems like a top notch potion maker himself if that     
> cauldren scene in GoF is any indication of his skills so Snape's   
> talent becomes redundant.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I doubt fetus!Voldemort was up for making potions in GoF, so I'm 
betting that was Peter (he of the multi skills).  And Snape is so 
much more than a potions master.  He's action guy.  He gets things 
done.  Why else is Bellatrix so threatened by him?

Snape has consistently done (as far as Voldemort is concerned) that 
which he's been assigned to do.  There was some doubt, I'm sure, 
that the double agent had been turned.  But killing Dumbledore (as 
Voldemort assigned Snape to do) should do a lot to quiet that little 
doubt.  And if Snape works it right, he may be assigned to checking 
the security around the various horcruxes.  And how beautiful would 
that be?

Betsy Hp






From alan_rickman_so_lustful at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  8 23:44:29 2006
From: alan_rickman_so_lustful at yahoo.com (Severus Snape's Lil' Protg)
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 15:44:29 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Things in RL that remind you of HP
In-Reply-To: <001a01c642bc$1a3a96d0$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local>
Message-ID: <20060308234429.72563.qmail@web34807.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149328


BAW:
> Have any of you had the experience of seeing something in real 
> life which immediately made you think of something in HP?


Oh! I have something! I totally forgot about this! Hehe...  
   
One day, my mother, my sister, (who was into HP before me), all 
hopped into the car and headed off to do some shopping. Well, we 
had to make a quick stop by the bank so Mom could take out some 
cash to buy food with. Anyway, Stephanie and I waited in the car 
and we look over and see these two teenage boys exiting the bank, 
laughing and joking with each other. They had bright red medium-
length hair and were obviously identical twins. 
   
Stephanie nudged me and inclined her head towards the twins. At the 
same time we both said; "It's Fred and George!"
   
XD!
  
~Ami





From clark.kentjr at gmail.com  Thu Mar  9 08:15:30 2006
From: clark.kentjr at gmail.com (Clark Kent)
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 03:15:30 -0500
Subject: Ron / Re: a bit of SHIP Ron/Hermione/Hermione must be stopped
In-Reply-To: <dunh30+952n@eGroups.com>
References: <dumqk9+u2jm@eGroups.com> <dunh30+952n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <6ac0e4d60603090015o38a3fde7hed8fa95cafab1ecd@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149329

One question I have is when did Ron go from only kissing his aunt 
(was that book 4 or 5?) to having one of the more popular girls in 
school become suicidal over him (a bit of exaggeration, I know)?

"Clark Kent" 








From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  9 21:13:37 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 21:13:37 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped, ...-Hermione's Crimes
In-Reply-To: <dunvac+neap@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duq5q1+dh4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149330

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" <ceridwennight at ...>
wrote:
>
> katssirius:
> > > She was judge, jury, and warden for Rita Skeeter at the age
> > > of 14.  Hermione knows what is right for house elves in 
> > > spite of the up close example of Winky.  
> > 
> > Hickengruendler:
> > 
> > I cannot blame her for blackmailing Rita. Sorry, maybe I'm an
> > old  cynical, but Rita was deliberatly destroyng other people's
> > lives with half trues and outright lies. 
> 
> Ceridwen:
> I couldn't stand Rita Skeeter.  ...  But the point is, Hermione
> is fourteen.  It isn't her place to do any of this.  This is 
> completely Hermione thinking she knows more than anybody, including 
> Dumbledore.
> 
> [..cut from last paragraph...] But, I think that most of this was 
> about Hermione stepping into shoes that are still years too big 
> for her.  It was not her place to do any of this. 

bboyminn:

So, by your way of thinking, it wasn't Harry's place to go after the
Stone in the first book, neither was it his place to go to the Chamber
of Secrets and rescue Ginny in the second, nor to help Ron escape from
Sirius Black in the third, etc.... If Harry took your attitude, the
world would be destroyed. If he sat back and let the adults handle it,
pretty much ALL would be lost.

There is an old saying, 'All that must be done for Evil to flourish,
is for good men to do nothing'. Harry and Hermione are not willing to
stand aside and do nothing. They are not willing to let Adults handle
it when clearly the adults are NOT handling it. 

All the other kids in the school were cozy in their bed when most of
the action happens, they are willing to not get involved, they are
willing to trust the adults to deal with things. At least most of them
are. However, there are a rare and brave few like Neville in the
Battle at Hogwarts, who are willing to do /something/, who are willing
to charge into the heat of battle because they understand that not
doing so has far greater and far graver consequences. 

The greatest people in the world were not people who stood by and
quietly followed convention. They were innovators, they were creative
thinkers, they were rebels, and because they could see farther and
deeper than the teaming masses, they accomplished great things. This
is something to be admired.

Now on to Hermione's crimes -

> Ceridwen:
> 
> It is never her place to play vigilante.  Not with Umbridge - 
> Harry thought of it late, but he thought of it - Snape was there,
> the only remaining member of the Order. ...
> 

bboyminn:

A quick look at Harry and Snape's relationship should explain this.
Snape is at best Harry's adversary, at worst, his enemy. Perhaps not
in reality, but in Harry's mind and his attitude. It would never occur
to Harry, under any circumstances, to go to Snape for help. Snape is
the bringer of misery, not the bringer of help; at least in Harry's mind.

Regarding Umbridge, Umbridge is foul, as foul as they come. She was
about to commit a capital crime, a felony, when Hermione stopped her.
There wasn't a lot of time here to develop a detailed plan, so she
made it up as she went along. I'm sure in the brief seconds she had to
conceive the plan, she envisioned, the Centaurs chasing Umbridge away
and letting the young 'foals' go. 

Seems a simple enough plan. She could not predict that the Centaurs
would react so harshly and unfavorably. And what were the
alternatives? She and her crew were already captured by the
Inquisitorial Squad. They were already in Umbridge's office. Umbridge
was about to commit an 'unforgivable' crime. At that point, the
situation was desperate, and, as they say, desperate times call for
desperate measures. So, I can forgive her for the mistake, especially
since in the long run, she did accomplish her goal, and while people
may have been hurt, no one was actually harmed.

> Ceridwen:
>
> And, not with Rita Skeeter. It was no more her place to imprison
> Rita Skeeter in a jar than it was right for the MoM to imprison 
> Sirius Black without a trial.  ...  Hermione's action here was 
> pure vigilantism.
> 

bboyminn:

I'll make some allowances here for 'heat of the moment' in your
statements. By your way of thinking, your apprarent moral standards,
Hermione should have turned everything over to the 'adults', and let
them send Rita to prison. That would have been the 'right' thing to do.

Yet, Hermione does show some mercy. So, she kept Rita in a jar for a
couple of days, and let her go when they got to London. Sorry, but big
deal. Hermione futher convinced Rita that it would be in her best
interest to not write anything for a year to break her of the habit of
writing lies about everyone. And Hermione was right, it was in Rita's
best interest to do just that. Again, that seems very mild compared to
the alternative. Rita's not really complaining because she knows she
is getting off extremely easy. 

So, doing what you seem to think is morally /right/ would have been
devistating to Rita. It would have meant prison, and probably ruined
her career and her reputation. Doing what you seem to think is morally
/wrong/, Rita is a bit inconvenienced for a while. Again, I think if
we left it up to Rita, she would gladly choose your 'wrong' over your
'right'. 

> Ceridwen:
>
> And, not with Marietta Edgecomb.  Marietta, ..., had a real 
> crisis in her personal life over the vow.  There was a conflict
> that a fifteen year old child will find difficult if not 
> impossible to handle.  

bboyminn:

What Hermione did to Marietta never really bothered me. While Harry's
little club as against the rules, it wasn't causing any harm, and
Marietta was benefiting from it.  What does bother me is that Hermione
hasn't UNDONE it. 

Hermione still has time to redeem herself of this act. In the next
book, she could get tired of Marietta's punishment, and directly or
indirectly, pass on the information on how to get rid of the spell and
the spots. I really hope this happens. Marietta made a mistake, but at
some point, considering things worked out in the end, that mistake
must be forgiven. 


> Ceridwen:
>
> Children should go to their parents with crises like this.  ...
> 

bboyminn:

Surely you jest! Yes kid /should/ go to their parents in situations
like this, but they never do. I think you forget that Children live in
their own private world that has it's own standards and rules.
Further, and infinitely more important, is that in a child's mind,
every encounter with adults ends up with the kid getting into trouble.
It's amazing, and scary, what 'crimes' kids will ignore to avoid
getting into trouble. Why do you suppose School Bullies get away with
so much stuff? Because the 'code of the playground' says you don't go
running to adults and rat out other kids out. 

Ron displays this attitude very clearly when he is convinced that he
will be blamed for Fred and George leaving school. The same when he
refuses to write home for a new wand, he is convince he will get into
further trouble; that is will instigate another Howler. That's how
kids think. Because adults are forced into the disciplinarian role,
kid always associate them with trouble, and kids will do anything to
avoid trouble with adults, even if it means compounding that trouble
to unfathomable levels.


> Ceridwen:
> 
> And, yeah, the birds.  Ron got clawed and bitten by them. They
> broke skin. Not nice. But as someone else said, this does look 
> like Hermione acting like a normal teen for once, jealous and 
> petty and vindictive.  I don't think she should have done it. 
> Feeling like that is one thing, acting on it is another.
> 

bboyminn:

Unfortunately, what you think doesn't matter (in the story: no; in
this group: yes).

Let's let the victim speak for himself. Ron seems to have forgiven
Hermione pretty easily, and I'm sure now they probably all laugh about
it over a nice ale. I'm not really sure that an observer should be
more incensed than the victim.

I think we can let Ron decide for himself just how 'horrible' this
particular crime was. 

There it is; for what it's worth.

Steve/bboyminn







From glykonix at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  9 10:57:52 2006
From: glykonix at yahoo.com (Adriana)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 10:57:52 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <1e5.4d83e792.3141368d@aol.com>
Message-ID: <dup1ng+vfff@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149331

I now realize I should have given the whole quote. Because taken out 
of the context that statement could mean a lot of things.  

(Harry had just told DD about overhearing Snape and Malfoy after 
Slughorns party)
"'So, sir,' [] 'you definitely still trust him?' ( Harry referring to 
Snape)
'I have been tolerant enough to answer that question already,' []'my 
answer has not changed. (DD who doesn't sound very tolerant)
'I should think not,' said a snide voice; Phineas Nigellus was 
evidently only pretending to be asleep"
(book 6, pg 336 UK version, A Sluggish Memory)

Does DD sound in the very least concerned with what Harry said? Does 
he for one moment seem to falter? No. He's in fact tired of having to 
repeat it. He is sure he has not misplaced his trust and he is tired 
of Harry's constantly doubting Snape, which would also mean he doubts 
DD.

The snide comment of Phineas would imply that he also trust Snape. 
That there are good reasons for which Snape is to be trusted. That it 
couldn't be any other way. That there is no reason for which DD 
shouldn't trust him and probably there are reasons for which DD 
should trust him more them at some point in the past.

At least that is what I read from the portrait's intervention. And 
that portrait certainly knows a lot off things, considering he is 
always spying in both the headmasters office, in the Black house and 
who knows where else a picture of him exists. 

And I seem to recall from the book (not to sure which one) that the 
portraits of the former headmasters have to be loyal and obey the 
current one.

Hope someone sees this,
Glykonix









From saberbunny at yahoo.ca  Thu Mar  9 13:10:12 2006
From: saberbunny at yahoo.ca (catherine higgins)
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 08:10:12 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Why didn't Dumbledore bring backup? (Harry doesn't count)
In-Reply-To: <20060309022157.9594.qmail@web81206.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20060309131012.14961.qmail@web37006.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149332


Michael wrote:
> Going to a secluded cave to retrieve/destroy one of Voldemort's 
> horcruxes seems to be a pretty dangerous task, even for 
> Dumbledore. Why didn't he consider bringing another OP member
> along? (maybe Snape?) Even if this person could not fit on the
> boat, it would have been the safe thing to do. Why wasn't Harry
> surprised or concerned that he would be acting as Dumbledore's 
> backup?


Catherine:
   
  The whole point of Harry going wiht him is that Harry knows about the horcruxes. The Order doesn't. As DD had said, he didn't tell anyone other than Harry about them, because he didn't think it safe for a whole bunch of people to know about them (in case the info got back to Voldemort). Inventory of who knows about them: Voldemort, DD, Slughorn, Harry, Ron and Hermione. The only person that could have been asked to help, other than Harry, would have been Slughorn. But as we saw from Ron getting poisened in his office, he doesn't stay calm in emergencies. Would he have been able to brew an antidote? Perhaps, but not under pressure.
   
  Catherine








From richter at ridgenet.net  Thu Mar  9 13:57:26 2006
From: richter at ridgenet.net (richter_kuymal)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 13:57:26 -0000
Subject: Leader of Order of the Phoenix.
In-Reply-To: <duoosr+due6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dupc86+505c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149333

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "deborahhbbrd" <hubbada at ...> 
wrote:.... Harry is the prophesied destroyer of LV. [snip} But the 
only leadership he's shown has been in the  DA lessons, where he did 
well with a bunch of volunteers his own age  and younger; and a few 
brief, shining moments as Quidditch captain  which came to an 
ignominious end. Consider the Arthurian legends. Consider Lancelot ? 
and, if you like,  Perceval and Galahad. And now consider Arthur. <<


PAR: Actually Arthur got the job of leader as a young, untried "not 
even a knight" kid AND did a fair amount of war leading before 
forming that round table.  So on that basis, the kid with the sword 
(of Griffyndor) gets the job.  However, I am more reminded of an 
actual historical parallel in Roman history.  Disregarding the moral 
positions of the players -- 
If Dumbledore is Julius Caesar and Snape is Brutus (fits well in 
that role IMO), Harry is Augustus -- who was Julius' heir apparent 
as a teenager and stepped into that role with a lot fewer 
credentials than JKR has given Harry. 
Will Harry have "advisors" or even an "acting leader" for a while? 
probably.  But pharnabazus (over on live journal) has done a very 
good job of analysis of the way the wizard patronage /protection 
system works IMO, and if he is right, then it's Harry who is the 
heir to both the power and the responsibility.  And this puts him in 
a reasonable position to go after those horcruxes and do something 
about the other WW problems as well.
PAR









From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  9 21:37:34 2006
From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 21:37:34 -0000
Subject: Ron / Re: a bit of SHIP Ron/Hermione/Hermione must be stopped
In-Reply-To: <6ac0e4d60603090015o38a3fde7hed8fa95cafab1ecd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <duq76u+uq3k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149334

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Clark Kent" <clark.kentjr at ...>
wrote:
>
> One question I have is when did Ron go from only kissing his aunt 
> (was that book 4 or 5?) to having one of the more popular girls in 
> school become suicidal over him (a bit of exaggeration, I know)?

In book six...

Or do you mean "How did he go...?"

Well, he's tall, athletic, handsome (apparently--the Weasleys seem to
be an attractive lot), heroic, and he stopped saving himself for the
little bushy-haired girl.

Also, he's on the Quidditch team, hangs out with the Boy Who Lived,
and probably represents the only time in 5-1/2 years that Lavender
ever scored a win on Hermione, at least on Hermione's own terms.

Amiable Dorsai







From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  9 21:37:56 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 21:37:56 -0000
Subject: Snape's half truths in "Spinner's End"
In-Reply-To: <duq1t2+vpos@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duq77k+t8bs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149335

> >>Carol:
> Without examining every explanation that Snape gives to Bella in
> "Spinner's End," I want to point out two that strike me as probable
> half-truths or partial truths. One is Snape's assertion that he
> thought that LV was dead...
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
This was a big old lie.  Though, interestingly enough, Snape doesn't 
say "dead", he says "finished".  It gives him a bit of wiggle room 
because he's not out and out calling Voldemort's claims of being 
immortal a lie.  

But yes, Dumbledore was worried about and preparing for Voldemort's 
return, pre-PS/SS.  Hagrid knew this.  The idea that Snape did not 
just doesn't fly, IMO.

> >>Carol:
> The other is Snape's assertion that he tried to thwart            
> the "unworthy" Quirrell without realizing that LV was inside      
> Quirrell's head.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I have a different take on this.  I don't think Snape or Dumbledore 
realized that Voldemort had taken up residence in Quirrell's head.  
I believe they both knew that Quirrell (young, possibly only 
recently graduated Quirrell) was being run by another Death Eater, 
but I cannot believe that they knew Voldemort was doing the running. 
I just cannot reconcile Dumbledore letting even an injured Voldemort 
loose amongst his students.  I can't.

I suspect that Voldemort, knowing Dumbledore is a skilled 
Legilimens, knowing that Dumbledore knew *someone* was after the 
Stone, put an blanket over both his and Quirrell's thoughts.  
Weren't no one getting into Quirrell's head.  No one.  And that 
includes Snape.

I think realizing that Harry had gotten himself locked in a room 
with the Stone *and* Voldemort was probably one of the more horrible 
shocks of Dumbledore's life which is why he rather giddily pulled 
that clumsy move with the House Cup.

I *do* agree that making Voldemort believe that Snape believed he 
was finished was tied with Snape's interference with Quirrell.  He 
wasn't thwarting another Death Eater trying to help Voldemort.  He 
was thwarting another Death Eater making a move on Snape's turf.  
(Where your loyalties lie, etc.  Young Mr. Quirrell should have 
expressed loyalty to the Death Eater on hand: Professor Snape.)

> >>Carol:
> Again, I'm sure that Snape prepared the story that he told LV     
> after he failed to show up in the graveyard very carefully, and   
> these two statements strike me as particularly likely to be lies   
> or half truths that he originally used to protect himself
> from death at LV's hands and repeated to Bellatrix to persuade her 
> of his loyalty to LV, essentially placing himself in the same     
> category as Lucius Malfoy and concealing his role as Dumbledore's 
> agent or spy.

Betsy Hp:
I agree. Snape *must* have been very well prepared to face 
Voldemort.  Paranoid, not easily forgiving Voldemort.  Bellatrix was 
just fun, IMO.  His whole attitude of "keep up you bloody stupid 
woman!" was so funny.  Especially his dry "Oh yes, your years in 
Azkaban, very nice gesture." bit.  Heh.  He's so smooth. ::snuggles 
Snape::

Betsy Hp






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  9 22:11:30 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 22:11:30 -0000
Subject: Lupin and The Marauders (was:Re: Remus Lupin: Good man doing nothing)
In-Reply-To: <dunqd9+tfvq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duq96i+3o0t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149336

> >>a_svirn:
> Maybe they combined then? "Marauders" is a rather strange name for 
> an association of good men. 
 
> >>Betsy Hp:
> > The second quote shows *how* the Marauders failed.  Lupin slept on
> > his watch and Peter went over to the enemy, and both of them failed
> > their friends.

> >>a_svirn:
> Ha! Good one. But not before Sirius failed Lupin by using him as an 
> instrument of petty revenge.

Betsy Hp:
Yeah, I agree that the Marauders were not a good group of guys.  
(Lupin as much as admits that they'd have found "Harry in lethal 
danger" amusing.)  I also agree that they didn't make a good group of 
friends.  Gosh, the ease with which they totally collapsed under a bit 
of pressure points to that!

I think you had a tight friendship between Sirius and James, and Lupin 
and Peter provided an audience.  It's just that Lupin sometimes had to 
force his laughter. 

> >>Quick_Silver:
> But did Lupin act the way he did in Snape's Worst Memory because he
> felt that James and Sirius were doing wrong or because they were
> doing it in the open (thus undermining his authority as prefect)?
> Lupin appears to have tolerated the Marauders relationship with
> Snape, even after the "Prank" and he appears to have engaged in some
> of their rule-breaking (as seen on the detention cards in HBP). Even
> in PoA Lupin doesn't speak up when Sirius says that Snape "deserved"
> the Prank (has anyone considered that maybe Lupin actually gave his
> semi-approval to the plan...maybe he has his own reasons for not
> liking Snape). And throughout the course of PoA Lupin is taking pot-
> shots at Snape...the boggart lesson, covering for Harry, etc. So
> Lupin has gone his bit in keeping that conflict going.

Betsy Hp:
Lupin *has to* dislike Snape.  He must see Snape as an evil, nasty 
person.  Otherwise, what would that make James and Sirius?  What would 
that make him?

I do think Lupin's problem though, was with *what* James and Sirius 
were doing, not *where*.  I shudder to think what would have happened 
to Snape if James and Sirius got him cornered in a dark room with no 
witnesses.  They were skirting some very disturbing edges already.  
I'm glad the gloves stayed on.  Unleashed, Sirius was quite willing 
for Snape to be *eaten*.  By his "friend" no less.  (Something Lupin 
seems remarkably okay with.  No wonder Snape lost any notion of trust 
the first time Lupin forgot his meds.)

It's interesting though, Lupin's not very frequent appearence on the 
detention cards.  Was he putting in his time to keep in good with 
Sirius and James?  Or was he really the sneakiest Marauder?  I suspect 
the former, with Peter as the one who usually got away.

Betsy Hp







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  9 22:51:09 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 22:51:09 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <dup1ng+vfff@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duqbgt+nj9o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149337

Adriana (Glykonix) wrote:
<snip>
> (Harry had just told DD about overhearing Snape and Malfoy after
Slughorns party) "'So, sir,' [] 'you definitely still trust him?'
(Harry referring to Snape)
> 'I have been tolerant enough to answer that question already,' []'my
answer has not changed. (DD who doesn't sound very tolerant)
> 'I should think not,' said a snide voice; Phineas Nigellus was
evidently only pretending to be asleep"

<snip the part about DD trusting Snape, which I agree with>
> 
> The snide comment of Phineas would imply that he also trust Snape.
That there are good reasons for which Snape is to be trusted. That it
couldn't be any other way. That there is no reason for which DD 
shouldn't trust him and probably there are reasons for which DD should
trust him more them at some point in the past.
> 
> At least that is what I read from the portrait's intervention. And 
that portrait certainly knows a lot off things, considering he is
always spying in both the headmasters office, in the Black house and
who knows where else a picture of him exists. 
> 
> And I seem to recall from the book (not to sure which one) that the
portraits of the former headmasters have to be loyal and obey the
current one. <snip>
 
>
Carol responds:
I agree with you completely, and IIRC there's a second instance of
Portrait!Phineas criticizing Harry for doubting Snape in HBP. (I don't
have time to look for it at the moment but maybe someone knows where
it is offhand and will supply it. ;-) ) Interesting that Phineas would
back up Snape, who was an enemy of his own great-great-grandson (whom
Phineas did genuinely care about, as indicated by his disappearance
near the end of OoP). Maybe he likes having a fellow Slytherin working
with and for Dumbledore, and I imagine he identifies with Snape in a
number of ways. 

At any rate, Phineas must have overheard the majority of DD's
conversations with Snape (not the argument in the forest,
unfortunately!) and would, I agree, have good reason to trust Snape if
that were the case. (Maybe Phineas will be the "person" to reveal DD's
reasons for trusting Snape, including DD's knowledge of the UV and its
implications. Or will he change his mind when he learns that Snape
killed DD? He didn't witness the events on the tower, so it's hard to
say how much he knows.)

And you're right that the portraits are bound by duty (and perhaps
some sort of oath, obviously not a UV) to obey the current headmaster.
I think that was in OoP (but again I don't have time to search for the
reference). But they can also disagree with him, as Phineas does on
occasion. I think in this instance he's supporting DD *and* expressing
his own opinion, which amounts to "I trust Severus Snape (and you
[Harry] should, too)."

Carol, expecting to see more of Phineas in Book 7, especially given
that he has portraits in two places and can act as a go-between for
McGonagall and, say, Lupin (my candidate for the new Order leader)







From imontero at iname.com  Thu Mar  9 22:36:52 2006
From: imontero at iname.com (lunamk03)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 22:36:52 -0000
Subject: Hermione the Vigilante?
In-Reply-To: <duphht+2ngh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duqam4+3bms@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149338

-m wrote:
> So yeah, it's not just about Hermione considering herself judge 
> and jury of the WW for me, but just that putting someone in their 
> place doesn't mean they'll stay there.  Hermone begins the books 
> as the girl Ron says, "Has got to have noticed she's got no 
> friends."  
> She's made friends since then, but she hasn't lost the parts of 
> her personality that made her initially disliked.  I think 
> canonically we see that she likes manipulating people--when they 
> do what she wants and prove she understood them it's like getting 
> the right answer on a test.  But eventually that kind of thing 
> means you've got to watch your back.


Luna here:
This discussion about Hermione's decisions and right to impart 
punishments makes me remember other famous children stories, 
especially from European writers. They are not supposed to be 
politically correct and most of the time the characters are not 
supposed to be polite and controlled or do the "right thing". Yet, 
it is Harry Potter we are talking about and we all know that we tend 
to overanalyze it and to extrapolate our own values into these books.

In most children stories, the "bad behaviors" are ruthlessly 
punished. I see Jo following the same pattern. Jo already told us 
that Hermione and Dumbledore were the characters she used as her 
voice. I see Hermione as the character that Jo is also using to 
impart some level of justice or punishment to wrong doers. 
Hermione's actions are not isolated events or product of her 
capricious mind but rather the consequence of a series of events. 
Her punishments, although severe, do not seem to have a lasting 
effect (I don't agree with the idea that "poor Edgecomb girl" is 
marked for life. In HBP she could dissimulate her marks under make-
up, which means that the marks are erasing little by little) and 
seemed to be just the right dose to serve wrong-doers well. Seeing 
these punishments, I think it was very civilized of Jo not to have 
Rita smashed, or Umbridge cut into pieces or the Edgecomb girl 
dropping dead the moment she betrayed everyone.

Everything needs to be seen in the books context. Jo needed Rita to 
be free in book 5, so she didn't decide that Hermione should send 
her to Azkaban, for example. As I see it, there is a reason for 
everything in the books. Judging Hermione as a flesh and blood moral 
person instead of seeing her for what she is: a character in a 
children / young adult book serving the author to advance a plot, 
is, well, kind of interesting but not very constructive.

BTW, I don't see Hermione as being especially manipulative... Can 
you give me some examples of Hermione being manipulative? If you are 
talking about the centaurs, I see it as Hermione's impulse to stop 
her best friend from being put into a Cruciatus curse. She knew 
Centaurs disliked humans, but wouldn't hurt children. She wanted to 
get rid of Umbridge, this was a good way to do it, although, at the 
end, it didn't work exactly as she thought it would...

Luna









From belviso at attglobal.net  Fri Mar 10 00:19:32 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 19:19:32 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione the Vigilante?
References: <duqam4+3bms@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <007101c643d8$4efdf160$0698400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 149339

Luna:
> In most children stories, the "bad behaviors" are ruthlessly
> punished. I see Jo following the same pattern. Jo already told us
> that Hermione and Dumbledore were the characters she used as her
> voice. I see Hermione as the character that Jo is also using to
> impart some level of justice or punishment to wrong doers.

Magpie:
And I'm happy to say I don't trust that.  I don't think Hermione or 
Dumbledore are set up as so superior to the other characters so that their 
actions should be seen as a hand of justice rather than their doing 
something to support their own agendas.  I don't read a lot of JKR's 
interviews, but does she say Hermione is speaking for her on all matters of 
justice, or is Hermione more of an exposition machine?  I honestly think 
she's more used as that.  There are plenty of times when Hermione is more 
sensible or is right when others are wrong, but I think in those times it's 
backed up in the text.

For instance, the house-elves are a prime example of Hermione putting forth 
a moral view, and JKR probably agrees with the principle that slavery is 
wrong, but she still obviously shows Hermione as making a lot of mistakes in 
the way she deals with them, and writes the conflict as anything but a clear 
case of Hermione being right.  Dumbledore makes mistakes as well.

Luna:
> Hermione's actions are not isolated events or product of her
> capricious mind but rather the consequence of a series of events.
> Her punishments, although severe, do not seem to have a lasting
> effect (I don't agree with the idea that "poor Edgecomb girl" is
> marked for life. In HBP she could dissimulate her marks under make-
> up, which means that the marks are erasing little by little)

Magpie:
Why does it mean that?  It's been months and they're still there. You can 
hide bad acne under make up.  If they're supposed to disappear slowly I 
think the way to write that would be to say they had faded towards the end 
of OotP.  Having her show up with tons of make-up in HBP does not say 
they're fading, it says they're still there. We never see the pimples gone, 
we never get anything that tells us they're fading, just different ways of 
telling us she's got something to hide on her face.

Luna:
and
> seemed to be just the right dose to serve wrong-doers well. Seeing
> these punishments, I think it was very civilized of Jo not to have
> Rita smashed, or Umbridge cut into pieces or the Edgecomb girl
> dropping dead the moment she betrayed everyone.

Magpie:
I don't think it was civilized, I think it was in keeping with the level of 
realism in her books.  In fairy tales people have their eyes plucked out and 
drop dead.  You can't do that in a book where death is real.  All of HBP, 
after all, centered around the importance of the act of killing someone. 
Harry's reaction to almost killing someone was realistic and taking in the 
horror of hurting a human being--not the response of a children's story 
where someone drops dead or the shallow tough-talk recommended where normal 
people squash others like a bug and never feel remorse.  You can't have it 
both ways, either pain and death are real or they aren't.

It's hard in this universe because there is slapstick mixed in with real 
horror.  But none of this, imo, means we have to check our own instincts at 
the door and just listen to Hermione.

Luna:>
 Judging Hermione as a flesh and blood moral
> person instead of seeing her for what she is: a character in a
> children / young adult book serving the author to advance a plot,
> is, well, kind of interesting but not very constructive.

Magpie:
But these books are about ethical issues, among other things.  Sometimes the 
characters are acting in ways that are supposed to reflect reality.  Granted 
the realism changes at different times, and I do think it's best to judge 
the characters based on the way the scene seems to play.  But I don't think 
it's always so cut and dried in this series.  Even when characters get their 
comeuppance we often see them later, suffering, which kind of makes it more 
realistic.

I'm not actually judging Hermione as a flesh and blood mortal at all.  If 
she were a real person my reactions to her actions would be far more 
extreme.  I'm judging her as a fictional character within this universe. As 
I said, I accept all of her actions.  But I don't feel like I'm wrong by 
having my own honest reactions to what she does in the context of the book. 
More than once times when I have reacted to something more negatively and 
others thought it was just supposed to be funny or comeuppance, I think the 
narrative came down validating my own twinges.

Bottom line is I feel it's totally bizarre to write a book with scenes built 
up from different characters with different motivations, where the ethical 
issues just are not that clear, and then say that the point is to get people 
to flatten it out, ignore the shades of grey, and make it into something 
simplistic.

Luna:>
> BTW, I don't see Hermione as being especially manipulative... Can
> you give me some examples of Hermione being manipulative?

Magpie:
Off the top of my head?  Well, the centaurs, obviously, because regardless 
of her motives, which I don't need to be reminded of, her plan was to use 
the centaurs' dislike of humans and easily offended natures to manipulate 
them into taking care of her enemy, especially once the enemy insulted them. 
It's the definition of manipulation.  She's also manipulative when she 
invites Cormac to a party in order to make Ron jealous.  She forces Rita to 
do her bidding via blackmail.  There's a place where she manipulates Hagrid 
in, I think, PS/SS.  She tries to trick the house elves into freeing 
themselves by leaving hats around.  She confunds McClaggen so that Ron will 
be Keeper.  (It's even on Hermione's advice that Ginny becomes "herself" and 
gets Harry's attention.)

I'm not condemning her for all these actions.  Other characters manipulate 
as well--it's human nature.  But I'm honestly shocked anyone would read OotP 
especially and not see Hermione as enjoying to plan and scheme, or know how 
other people are behaving and why.

-m 





From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Fri Mar 10 00:57:42 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:57:42 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped, ...-Hermione's Crimes
In-Reply-To: <duq5q1+dh4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duqiu6+naq3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149340

bboyminn:
> 
> So, by your way of thinking, it wasn't Harry's place to go after the
> Stone in the first book, neither was it his place to go to the 
Chamber
> of Secrets and rescue Ginny in the second, nor to help Ron escape 
from
> Sirius Black in the third, etc.... If Harry took your attitude, the
> world would be destroyed. If he sat back and let the adults handle 
it,
> pretty much ALL would be lost.

Ceridwen:
I'm curious.  Some people get passes, others don't.  Talking about 
characters here, not group members.  Not from you, you're pretty much 
well-reasoned.  I may not agree with your conclusions all the time, 
but usually, you are.

So, Draco is unredeemable because he was brought up to be a bigot, 
but Hermione is given a pass for various and sundry.  Why?  Same with 
the W twins.  Same with the Marauders.

On Harry, I think we all know he is a special case.  Since others 
have brought up Biblical references, let's do it here.  When Jesus 
was twelve, he slipped away from his group and sat with the wise men 
at the Temple.  His parents were rightly upset.  But according to the 
Bible, Jesus isn't an ordinary child.  He gets a pass from the church 
community, and any child who reads the story is told that Jesus is 
special.  Harry isn't Jesus, but in these stories, he has the same 
pass, for pretty much the same reason: he is marked to fulfill a 
certain function.  In rescuing Ginny, grabbing the stone, etc., etc., 
he is fulfilling part of his function, and gaining practice for the 
Main Event.

bboyminn:
*(snip)*
> 
> Now on to Hermione's crimes -
> 
> > Ceridwen:
> > 
> > It is never her place to play vigilante.  Not with Umbridge - 
> > Harry thought of it late, but he thought of it - Snape was there,
> > the only remaining member of the Order. ...
> > 
> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> A quick look at Harry and Snape's relationship should explain this.
> Snape is at best Harry's adversary, at worst, his enemy. Perhaps not
> in reality, but in Harry's mind and his attitude. It would never 
occur
> to Harry, under any circumstances, to go to Snape for help. Snape is
> the bringer of misery, not the bringer of help; at least in Harry's 
mind.

Ceridwen:
But he did think of Snape.  On page 743, US, OotP, 'He had just 
realized something: he could not believe he had been so stupid as to 
forget it.  He had thought that all the members of the Order, all 
those who could help him save Sirius, were gone - but he had been 
wrong.  There was still a member of the Order of the Phoenix at 
Hogwarts - Snape.'

bboyminn:
> Regarding Umbridge, Umbridge is foul, as foul as they come. She was
> about to commit a capital crime, a felony, when Hermione stopped 
her.
> There wasn't a lot of time here to develop a detailed plan, so she
> made it up as she went along. I'm sure in the brief seconds she had 
to
> conceive the plan, she envisioned, the Centaurs chasing Umbridge 
away
> and letting the young 'foals' go.
*(snip)*

Ceridwen:
Harry thought of Snape.  Late, and only after Umbridge thought of him 
first.  But Hermione is usually one step ahead of Harry on the 
contemplative issues.  Maybe a full lap ahead.  Why didn't she think 
of Snape before Harry went frolicking off to Umbridge's office?  
She's thoughtful enough most of the time to do so, and she was 
warning Harry about the visions before they started the night's 
adventures.  Of the three, she seems to have the least animosity 
toward Snape.  He was the only Order member left.

bboyminn: 
> I'll make some allowances here for 'heat of the moment' in your
> statements. By your way of thinking, your apprarent moral standards,
> Hermione should have turned everything over to the 'adults', and let
> them send Rita to prison. That would have been the 'right' thing to 
do.

Ceridwen:
Probably a good thing to allow for.  This is a particular hot-button 
of mine.  I know I have a few, and Kidz Rooleen Teh Wurld is one of 
them.  Yes, I do think Hermione should have turned RS over to an 
adult.  For a few reasons.  Her age, sure.  And that on two levels.  
First, she has little RL experience.  Second, she has little 
experience dealing with a hard case like RS.  Someone else mentioned 
enemies.  RS is a bad one to have.  And, she shows signs of not 
caring much for Hermione after her imprisonment and enforced article-
writing - something about jamming an umbrella up her nose.

bboyminn:
> Yet, Hermione does show some mercy. So, she kept Rita in a jar for a
> couple of days, and let her go when they got to London. Sorry, but 
big
> deal. Hermione futher convinced Rita that it would be in her best
> interest to not write anything for a year to break her of the habit 
of
> writing lies about everyone. And Hermione was right, it was in 
Rita's
> best interest to do just that. Again, that seems very mild compared 
to
> the alternative. Rita's not really complaining because she knows she
> is getting off extremely easy.

Ceridwen:
And the longer Hermione sits on the evidence, the deeper she is in 
the secret.  She could be implicated in keeping RS's secret now, if 
anyone bothers to ask.  If RS gets a wild hair and decides to out 
herself no matter what the consequences, she could easily take 
Hermione with her - as both someone with prior knowledge (it's been a 
while and Hermione hasn't reported her), and as someone who was 
blackmailing her.

No idea that RS would do that to herself, but if she wanted to, she 
could.  This is the sort of thing where tables can be turned.

bboyminn: 
> So, doing what you seem to think is morally /right/ would have been
> devistating to Rita. It would have meant prison, and probably ruined
> her career and her reputation. Doing what you seem to think is 
morally
> /wrong/, Rita is a bit inconvenienced for a while. Again, I think if
> we left it up to Rita, she would gladly choose your 'wrong' over 
your
> 'right'.

Ceridwen:
And maybe the guy whose legs were broken by some local gang for 
messing up a drug deal would prefer the hospital bills, too.  We seem 
to differ on this.
> 
bboyminn:
> What Hermione did to Marietta never really bothered me. While 
Harry's
> little club as against the rules, it wasn't causing any harm, and
> Marietta was benefiting from it.  What does bother me is that 
Hermione
> hasn't UNDONE it.

Ceridwen:
Now here you get into one of my more moral dilemas.  To a point, I 
would rather see people working within the system to ditch an 
unworthy overseer.  But there are times when that isn't possible.  
The question is, where to draw the line?  It's clear that there is no 
absolute.  But what is jumping in too soon?

The DA is necessary.  The only harm it caused was to Umbridge's 
agenda, which was unproductive at its best, and downright harmful 
given the direction of events with LV.  I can see the club having 
penalties for 'traitors'.  But, two things - warn people before they 
sign on, and remove the damage once it is over with.  Hermione did 
neither.  So, you and I agree on that point.

bboyminn:
> 
> Surely you jest! Yes kid /should/ go to their parents in situations
> like this, but they never do. 

Ceridwen:
Marietta did.  That's what I meant.  She had a personal moral crisis, 
and went to her mother.  For this, she was punished.

bboyminn:
> 
> Unfortunately, what you think doesn't matter (in the story: no; in
> this group: yes).

Ceridwen:
I was pretty much under that impression.  Every time I look at the 
bank account, I am under that impression! *g*

This is just me, saying what I think.  Moral or not, agreeable or 
not.  As a reader, I have different criteria than I do when 
discussing the various points.  As a reader being taken through the 
stories, I thought it was great that Umbridge and Skeeter got 
theirs.  They have deserved it for far too long, judging by their 
attitudes.  They seem to think they can get away with anything, so it 
was funny, since we all know or know of, people like them.  I can 
even give a cheer for Marietta's blemishes, having known a couple of 
playground snitches in my time.  But, that's not where I'm coming 
from in this discussion, just so you know.  I'm imagining my own 
children (who do have private lives of their own - loud private 
lives) and the way I would advise them.

Ceridwen.







From kchuplis at alltel.net  Fri Mar 10 01:09:27 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen)
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 19:09:27 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione must be stopped, ...-Hermione's Crimes
In-Reply-To: <duqiu6+naq3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <8582AC37-AFD2-11DA-BE6F-000393B04DDE@alltel.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 149341


On Thursday, March 9, 2006, at 06:57 PM, Ceridwen wrote:

> Ceridwen:
> Marietta did.? That's what I meant.? She had a personal moral crisis,
> and went to her mother.? For this, she was punished.

kchuplis:

I keep seeing this referenced, but I was never under the impression 
that she went to her mother. My impression of what was written that 
because her mother worked for the ministry she decided follow 
Umbridge's "I am your friend and Harry is a liar" line...after, BTW, 
benefitting 6 months of DA training from Harry so she WOULD be able to 
get a decent OWL. Is this just my interpretation or did others see it 
that way too?




From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  9 23:42:33 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 23:42:33 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice.
In-Reply-To: <dup1ng+vfff@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duqeh9+36ff@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149342

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Adriana" <glykonix at ...> wrote:
>
<SNIP>
> 
> Does DD sound in the very least concerned with what Harry said? 
Does 
> he for one moment seem to falter? No. He's in fact tired of having 
to 
> repeat it. He is sure he has not misplaced his trust and he is 
tired 
> of Harry's constantly doubting Snape, which would also mean he 
doubts 
> DD.
> 

True.  But Harry has extremely good reason to doubt DD, whether he in 
fact does or not.  The "epitome of goodness" has the strange habit of 
turning a blind eye to child abuse, after all.  This could also 
simply be another example of DD's habit of behaving like a moron 
where Harry and Snape are concerned.

But, you are right that, in and of itself, this is just another in a 
long and annoying line of DD repeating that he trusts Snape without 
giving an explanation.


Lupinlore








From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Mar 10 01:56:47 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 01:56:47 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped, ...-Hermione's Crimes
In-Reply-To: <8582AC37-AFD2-11DA-BE6F-000393B04DDE@alltel.net>
Message-ID: <duqmcv+jhrg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149343

> kchuplis:
> 
> I keep seeing this referenced, but I was never under the impression 
> that she went to her mother. My impression of what was written that 
> because her mother worked for the ministry she decided follow 
> Umbridge's "I am your friend and Harry is a liar" line...after, BTW, 
> benefitting 6 months of DA training from Harry so she WOULD be able to 
> get a decent OWL. Is this just my interpretation or did others see it 
> that way too?
>

Pippin:
If Marietta is in the same year as Cho (does canon ever say?) she's
already taken her OWLs. Marietta blabs when Harry starts teaching
the class how to fight dementors. I can understand why Marietta suddenly
had trouble with her conscience. It's a situation not too far removed
from the one Draco and Regulus found themselves in. 

Hermione told the group that Umbridge's idea that Dumbledore 
was trying to put together a militant anti-ministry group was 
"mad",  but then Harry started teaching them to fight ministry 
employees. That wasn't what Marietta signed up for.

I'm not so sure Hermione knows how to remove the hex. She
doesn't seem to have practiced it first. What really scares me is
this -- if Harry had confessed in Dumbledore's office, as he was 
about to, would the hex would have struck him too?

I think JKR is more concerned with illustrating destructive patterns of 
behavior and showing *why* they're destructive  than with punctuating 
each act of misbehavior with a comeuppance. Hermione's actions
lost her the confidence of the group, IMO-- only Ginny, Neville and Luna 
were willing to come to her aid in HBP.

Pippin







From kchuplis at alltel.net  Fri Mar 10 02:05:49 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen)
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 20:05:49 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione must be stopped, ...-Hermione's Crimes
In-Reply-To: <duqmcv+jhrg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <654391F7-AFDA-11DA-BE6F-000393B04DDE@alltel.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 149344


On Thursday, March 9, 2006, at 07:56 PM, pippin_999 wrote:
>
> Pippin:
> If Marietta is in the same year as Cho (does canon ever say?) she's
> already taken her OWLs. Marietta blabs when Harry starts teaching
> the class how to fight dementors. I can understand why Marietta 
> suddenly
> had trouble with her conscience. It's a situation not too far removed
> from the one Draco and Regulus found themselves in.
>
> Hermione told the group that Umbridge's idea that Dumbledore
> was trying to put together a militant anti-ministry group was
> "mad",? but then Harry started teaching them to fight ministry
> employees. That wasn't what Marietta signed up for.
>
> I'm not so sure Hermione knows how to remove the hex. She
> doesn't seem to have practiced it first. What really scares me is
> this -- if Harry had confessed in Dumbledore's office, as he was
> about to, would the hex would have struck him too?
>
> I think JKR is more concerned with illustrating destructive patterns of
> behavior and showing *why* they're destructive? than with punctuating
> each act of misbehavior with a comeuppance. Hermione's actions
> lost her the confidence of the group, IMO-- only Ginny, Neville and 
> Luna
> were willing to come to her aid in HBP.
>
>


kchuplis:

That didn't really answer my question but it does bring up a new point. 
I do not get the impression either that the group loses confidence in 
Hermione, but rather that it just means the most to Ginny, Neville and 
Luna. And how did Harry specifically teach them to fight ministry 
employees? He is only teaching the jinxes and charms that he knows and 
has found successful in "real life" situations. It isn't as though they 
have dummies labeled "Fudge" "Umbridge" "Kevin" standing around to 
practice on. Is there some dialogue in a DA meeting I am forgetting 
where they are urging attacks on the ministry? 



From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca  Fri Mar 10 02:08:04 2006
From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 02:08:04 -0000
Subject: Lupin and The Marauders (was:Re: Remus Lupin: Good man doing nothing)
In-Reply-To: <duq96i+3o0t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duqn24+v5il@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149345

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" 
<horridporrid03 at ...> wrote:
<snip>
> Betsy Hp:
> Lupin *has to* dislike Snape.  He must see Snape as an evil, nasty 
> person.  Otherwise, what would that make James and Sirius?  What 
would 
> that make him?
> 
> I do think Lupin's problem though, was with *what* James and 
Sirius 
> were doing, not *where*. 
<snip>

I don't think that Luipn sees Snape as evil so much as "little." He 
seems to take pleasure in PoA from tweaking Snape's nose (not 
drinking his potion in front of Snape, shouting at Snape about 
a "schoolboy" grudge, etc). I think Lupin sees Snape as being small, 
petty, and mean-spirited...the problem is that no one has held up a 
mirror for Lupin (I would say that about the other Marauders as well 
but I wouldn't be surprised if they knew what they doing and did it 
anyway).

<snip>
>I shudder to think what would have happened 
> to Snape if James and Sirius got him cornered in a dark room with 
no 
> witnesses.  They were skirting some very disturbing edges 
already.  
> I'm glad the gloves stayed on.  Unleashed, Sirius was quite 
willing 
> for Snape to be *eaten*.  By his "friend" no less.  (Something 
Lupin 
> seems remarkably okay with.  No wonder Snape lost any notion of 
trust 
> the first time Lupin forgot his meds.)
<snip>

The problem I have with that is that by and large we've always heard 
the story from Snape's point of view. The story of the Prank, 
Snape's Worst memory scene, Snape's rants in PoA, etc. isn't really 
countered by other views of the Marauders. It'd be like asking Harry 
to tell us about Malfoy. I'm also suspicious of the "Prank" in 
general...Sirius acting alone, Snape staying quiet, the fact that 
Lupin let Sirius off about it. I think there most be more too it 
then that.

Quick_Silver







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 10 02:30:58 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 02:30:58 -0000
Subject: Lupin and The Marauders (was:Re: Remus Lupin: Good man doing nothing)
In-Reply-To: <duqn24+v5il@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duqod2+ff1d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149346

Quick silver:
> The problem I have with that is that by and large we've always heard 
> the story from Snape's point of view. The story of the Prank, 
> Snape's Worst memory scene, Snape's rants in PoA, etc. isn't really 
> countered by other views of the Marauders. It'd be like asking Harry 
> to tell us about Malfoy. I'm also suspicious of the "Prank" in 
> general...Sirius acting alone, Snape staying quiet, the fact that 
> Lupin let Sirius off about it. I think there most be more too it 
> then that.

Alla:

I keep bringing it up, but I think it is worth it. There IS more to it 
than we know, JKR said that much and yes, so far story seems 
remarkably one sided, isn't it?

Bu I happen to LOVE those possible hints (and yes, I call them 
POSSIBLE hints simply because I cannot be sure whether they ARE hints 
yet, not because I think that they are weak, IF they are hints.) that 
Snape is not completely innocent party in those events. Don't you love 
the fact that Snape was reading the question about how to recognise 
werewolf in the Pensieve scene and this is the SAME question which he 
gave to Harry class with purpose as we KNOW to make sure kids learned 
who remus is? Hmmm, makes me wonder A LOT whether Snape knew who Remus 
was before he went into Shack.

Of course the fact that we were introduced to Snape creating 
Sectusempra also can lead to some thoughts, etc, etc.

I used to hope that Prank will be explained in light of 
violent "ideological" hatred between Snape and Marauders, probably in 
terms of Marauders taking revenge on Snape for the deeds of Slytherin 
gan, who probably left school by the time of Pensieve scene. I still 
hope that some of this stuff will be there, BUT unfortunately I also 
think that A LOT of reasons for hatred between Snape and Marauders 
will be Saint Lily. :)

It is of course extremely speculative, but JKR pretty much confirmed 
that Lily was a popular girl and that Remus pretty much loved her too. 
If one agrees that Snape loved Lily or as I prefer to say was obsessed 
with her, is it such a stretch that Sirius was a) either in love with 
Lily too ( Gah and gah, I hope not - would be overkill IMO) or somehow 
knew that James was in love with Lily and thought that Snape was not 
worthy of Lily or something.

Gah, I cringe when I type it. At least JKR phrasing that Snape and 
Sirius hatred was mutual gives me hope that it would be something more 
interesting than that.

Alla,

in speculative land and knows it.






From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 10 02:46:23 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 02:46:23 -0000
Subject: JKR's website
Message-ID: <duqp9v+l919@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149347

I hope this is OK to post here. She updated the website. It this 
consided part of canon? I hope so, if not, I will go to my room. 
Ironing my typing hands would just be too violent.

S P O I L E R








..
If you want to find the new stuff on JKR's site yourself, STOP 
reading now!!  You have been warned.

If you are like me and want to have a more talented younger person 
find the stuff and then go check it out


. read on

.

The instructions from someone at Mugglenet it to go to the radio and 
turn it on by pushing the off button.  The announcer will give you 
instructions to go to the room with the door and bring the dead 
plant back to life.  6 drops of red and 3 of green.  And
.  the 
plant is alive again.  I recognize it as a peace lily.  I don't know 
the correct Latin name, but that is what we call it here. It is very 
hard to understand what the announcer says with his accent. Perhaps 
some of our friends in the UK can help us decipher what he is 
saying. The red is a rejuicer and the green a rejuvenateor. The two 
together give the plant the "breath of life".

I wonder what it all means.  Of course, I think it means that DD 
will come back from the dead.  But what are the 6 drops of red and 3 
of green?  6 something from Gryffindor and 3 of Slytherin???  

6 of Gryffindor + 3 of Slytherin = peace.  = something dead comes 
back to life.  peace = no war = no LV. right?

On the page with the word magnets I wonder if they are to spell 
something out for us?  I have tried different things but nothing 
happens.

I am sure that JKR in her usual fashion has given us lots of clues.  
But WHAT are they and what do they mean???

Help me out here folks.  At least this gets us off of talking about 
SS for awhile.

Tonks_op









From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 10 02:57:15 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 02:57:15 -0000
Subject: SPOILER :Re: JKR's website
In-Reply-To: <duqp9v+l919@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duqpub+1l26@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149348

Tonks:
<SNIP>
> The instructions from someone at Mugglenet it to go to the radio 
and 
> turn it on by pushing the off button.  The announcer will give you 
> instructions to go to the room with the door and bring the dead 
> plant back to life.  6 drops of red and 3 of green.  And
.  the 
> plant is alive again.  I recognize it as a peace lily.  I don't 
know 
> the correct Latin name, but that is what we call it here. It is 
very 
> hard to understand what the announcer says with his accent. 
Perhaps 
> some of our friends in the UK can help us decipher what he is 
> saying. The red is a rejuicer and the green a rejuvenateor. The 
two 
> together give the plant the "breath of life".
> 
> I wonder what it all means.  Of course, I think it means that DD 
> will come back from the dead.  But what are the 6 drops of red and 
3 
> of green?  6 something from Gryffindor and 3 of Slytherin???  
> 
> 6 of Gryffindor + 3 of Slytherin = peace.  = something dead comes 
> back to life.  peace = no war = no LV. right?
<SNIP>

Alla:

Oooo, Tonks. Thank you so much! These are the moments when I hate 
that my computer can only access text version of the website (java 
script is not loading or something like that. Gah!

Well, I think this is VERY interesting, but no I don't think that 
would have any relation to Dumbledore but to the end of the story 
and some kind of potion which Harry will drink and it allows him to 
come back to life or something like that. I think this may somehow 
symbolise the ending of the series. Wildly speculating here of 
course, but I think six of red and three green means six Gryffs and 
three Slyths which will play pivotal role in helping Harry defeating 
Voldie.

But of course my guess is as good as any and may change after 
reading what others think. :)


Tonks:
>> Help me out here folks.  At least this gets us off of talking 
about 
> SS for awhile.

Alla:

LOL.






From kchuplis at alltel.net  Fri Mar 10 03:21:47 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 03:21:47 -0000
Subject: SPOILER :Re: JKR's website
In-Reply-To: <duqpub+1l26@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duqrcb+thl1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149350

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
<dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> Tonks:
> <SNIP>
> > The instructions from someone at Mugglenet it to go to the radio 
> and 
> > turn it on by pushing the off button.  The announcer will give you 
> > instructions to go to the room with the door and bring the dead 
> > plant back to life.  6 drops of red and 3 of green.  And
.  the 
> > plant is alive again.  I recognize it as a peace lily.  I don't 
> know 
> > the correct Latin name, but that is what we call it here. It is 
> very 
> > hard to understand what the announcer says with his accent. 
> Perhaps 
> > some of our friends in the UK can help us decipher what he is 
> > saying. The red is a rejuicer and the green a rejuvenateor. The 
> two 
> > together give the plant the "breath of life".
> > 
> > I wonder what it all means.  Of course, I think it means that DD 
> > will come back from the dead.  But what are the 6 drops of red and 
> 3 
> > of green?  6 something from Gryffindor and 3 of Slytherin???  
> > 
> > 6 of Gryffindor + 3 of Slytherin = peace.  = something dead comes 
> > back to life.  peace = no war = no LV. right?
> <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Oooo, Tonks. Thank you so much! These are the moments when I hate 
> that my computer can only access text version of the website (java 
> script is not loading or something like that. Gah!
> 
> Well, I think this is VERY interesting, but no I don't think that 
> would have any relation to Dumbledore but to the end of the story 
> and some kind of potion which Harry will drink and it allows him to 
> come back to life or something like that. I think this may somehow 
> symbolise the ending of the series. Wildly speculating here of 
> course, but I think six of red and three green means six Gryffs and 
> three Slyths which will play pivotal role in helping Harry defeating 
> Voldie.
> 
> But of course my guess is as good as any and may change after 
> reading what others think. :)
> 
> 
> Tonks:
> >> Help me out here folks.  At least this gets us off of talking 
> about 
> > SS for awhile.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> LOL.
>

kchuplis:
Yes! I know it as the "peace Lily" too. I love those dang things on her site!! It's so fun 
to see her scribblings! See where things started or at least stops along the way. She is 
suregenerous, that is for sure! I was going mad at work today trying to
figure out what to do with those two bottles. Thanks :D (Yes, I look at
crossword puzzle answers too :D)








From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net  Fri Mar 10 03:22:33 2006
From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 03:22:33 -0000
Subject: Lupin and The Marauders (was:Re: Remus Lupin: Good man doing nothing)
In-Reply-To: <duqod2+ff1d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duqrdp+nfjm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149351

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
<dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> Quick silver:
> > The problem I have with that is that by and large we've always 
heard 
> > the story from Snape's point of view. The story of the Prank, 
> > Snape's Worst memory scene, Snape's rants in PoA, etc. isn't 
really 
> > countered by other views of the Marauders. It'd be like asking 
Harry 
> > to tell us about Malfoy. I'm also suspicious of the "Prank" in 
> > general...Sirius acting alone, Snape staying quiet, the fact 
that 
> > Lupin let Sirius off about it. I think there most be more too it 
> > then that.

Marianne:
Oh, I'm willing to bet much money that there will be a gigantic 
spanner in the Prank works that will make the whole escapade much 
more ambiguous than Snape is ever willing to admit. But, we shall 
have to wait and see.

> Alla:
 
> Bu I happen to LOVE those possible hints (and yes, I call them 
> POSSIBLE hints simply because I cannot be sure whether they ARE 
hints 
> yet, not because I think that they are weak, IF they are hints.) 
that 
> Snape is not completely innocent party in those events. Don't you 
love 
> the fact that Snape was reading the question about how to 
recognise 
> werewolf in the Pensieve scene and this is the SAME question which 
he 
> gave to Harry class with purpose as we KNOW to make sure kids 
learned 
> who remus is? Hmmm, makes me wonder A LOT whether Snape knew who 
Remus 
> was before he went into Shack.

Marianne:
I like the idea.  I can just see the Snape/Sirius dynamic.  Sirius, 
thinking he'll let Snape in on how to get past the Willow, tells 
Snape what to do, while being sure that Snape will have the pants 
scared off him once he sees/hears Werewolf!Remus.  At the same time, 
Snape, smugly thinking that he knows Remus is a werewolf and all he 
needs to prove it and bring Remus down is photographic proof, takes 
Sirius's Willow instructions at face value and enters the tunnel 
with a camera in his hands. Or not.

The questions remaining for me remain: What spurred Sirius to reveal 
how to get past the Willow to Snape.  And, if Snape really suspected 
Remus to be a werewolf, why he was not better prepared to deal with 
the potential lethal consequences.  OTOH, if Snape had no idea Remus 
was a werewolf, why go past the Willow at all?  

Of course, my pet theory is that the accusation/fear of cowardice 
will come into play big time in this event.


Alla: 
> I used to hope that Prank will be explained in light of 
> violent "ideological" hatred between Snape and Marauders, probably 
in 
> terms of Marauders taking revenge on Snape for the deeds of 
Slytherin 
> gan, who probably left school by the time of Pensieve scene. I 
still 
> hope that some of this stuff will be there, BUT unfortunately I 
also 
> think that A LOT of reasons for hatred between Snape and Marauders 
> will be Saint Lily. :)
> It is of course extremely speculative, but JKR pretty much 
confirmed 
> that Lily was a popular girl and that Remus pretty much loved her 
too. 
> If one agrees that Snape loved Lily or as I prefer to say was 
obsessed 
> with her, is it such a stretch that Sirius was a) either in love 
with 
> Lily too ( Gah and gah, I hope not - would be overkill IMO) or 
somehow 
> knew that James was in love with Lily and thought that Snape was 
not 
> worthy of Lily or something.
 Gah, I cringe when I type it. At least JKR phrasing that Snape and 
> Sirius hatred was mutual gives me hope that it would be something 
more 
> interesting than that.
> 

Marianne:
Sweet saints above, I hope not!  Everyone can't be secretly or not 
so secretly smitten with Lily!  I disagree with JKR saying that 
Remus loved her, in the sense that I don't think she meant the same 
type of boy/girl love that grew to exist between Lily and James.  I 
think it's safe to say that Lily and Remus were vwey fond of each 
other as friends. Although, in light of the recent Remus discussion, 
I wonder what Lily's feelings were about Prefect!Remus.

I'm really against the idea that Sirius was in love with Lily, 
especially as he knew full well that his best bud James was smitten 
with her. Witness Snape's Worst Memory - it seems obvious to me from 
the dialog between James and Sirius that James is still in the dark 
as to why Lily doesn't like him, even though Sirius helpfully points 
out that he thinks that Lily thinks James is a bit conceited. There 
never seems to be any indication that Sirius is at all interested in 
Lily in a romantic sense.  And, somehow, I can't buy that Sirius 
would think he had to do away with Snape in order to clear the field 
for James.  Lily doesn't seem remotely interested in Snape, either.

Marianne, popping up for a bit of non-Snape discussion






From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net  Fri Mar 10 03:39:36 2006
From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 03:39:36 -0000
Subject: JKR's website
In-Reply-To: <duqp9v+l919@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duqsdo+gmj9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149352

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" <tonks_op at ...> wrote:
>
> I hope this is OK to post here. She updated the website. It this 
> consided part of canon? I hope so, if not, I will go to my room. 
> Ironing my typing hands would just be too violent.
> 
> S P O I L E R








..
> If you want to find the new stuff on JKR's site yourself, STOP 
> reading now!!  You have been warned.
 
> The instructions from someone at Mugglenet it to go to the radio 
and 
> turn it on by pushing the off button.  The announcer will give you 
> instructions to go to the room with the door and bring the dead 
> plant back to life.  6 drops of red and 3 of green.  And
.  the 
> plant is alive again.  I recognize it as a peace lily.  I don't 
know 
> the correct Latin name, but that is what we call it here. It is 
very 
> hard to understand what the announcer says with his accent. 
Perhaps 
> some of our friends in the UK can help us decipher what he is 
> saying. The red is a rejuicer and the green a rejuvenateor. The 
two 
> together give the plant the "breath of life".
> 
> I wonder what it all means.  Of course, I think it means that DD 
> will come back from the dead.  But what are the 6 drops of red and 
3 
> of green?  6 something from Gryffindor and 3 of Slytherin???  
> 
> 6 of Gryffindor + 3 of Slytherin = peace.  = something dead comes 
> back to life.  peace = no war = no LV. right?
> 
> On the page with the word magnets I wonder if they are to spell 
> something out for us?  I have tried different things but nothing 
> happens.

Marianne:

Well, here's an idle speculation:
The six Gryffs: Harry, Ron, Hermione, Neville, Ginny and a twin.  
Oh, and, according to the ASPCA, peace lilies are toxic to pets.  
Not necessarily that the plants will kill a pet, but the pet will 
very likely have a bad reaction to eating parts of this plant.  It's 
not terribly likely that dogs would do this, but, as a cat person, I 
know that felines are prone to chomping on greenery.  Maybe 
Crookshanks had best look out.

The other thing that interested me was that the page that came up as 
a Scrapbook reward for revitalizing the lily mentions "The Fates" 
and "The Furies" in the margin.  Perhaps this is an avenue to follow.

Marianne







From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 10 04:29:44 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 04:29:44 -0000
Subject: JKR's website
In-Reply-To: <duqsdo+gmj9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duqvbo+7sak@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149353

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kiricat4001" <zarleycat at ...> 
wrote:
> 
> The other thing that interested me was that the page that came up 
as  a Scrapbook reward for revitalizing the lily mentions "The 
Fates"  and "The Furies" in the margin.  Perhaps this is an avenue 
to follow.
> 

Tonks:

The dictonary says this about the Fates and the Furies:

1.	Furies Greek & Roman Mythology. The three terrible winged 
goddesses with serpentine hair, Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone, who 
pursue and punish doers of unavenged crimes. 

1.	Fates: 
a.	The supposed force, principle, or power that predetermines 
events. 
b.	The inevitable events predestined by this force. 
2.	A final result or consequence; an outcome. 
3.	Unfavorable destiny; doom. 
4.	Fates Greek & Roman Mythology. The three goddesses, Clotho, 
Lachesis, and Atropos, who control human destiny. Used with the. 

 
[Middle English, from Old French fat, from Latin f tum, prophecy, 
doom, from neuter past participle of f r , to speak. See bh -2 in 
Indo-European Roots.]
-----------
The part about punishing doers of unavenged crimes bring to mind the 
unavenged crimes of the murder of the Potters. And the fates 
mentions "prophecy". Sounds like the way that LV will get his just 
due. ????

Tonks_op







From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Fri Mar 10 04:40:53 2006
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 20:40:53 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR's website
In-Reply-To: <duqsdo+gmj9@eGroups.com>
References: <duqp9v+l919@eGroups.com> <duqsdo+gmj9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <700201d40603092040m26916039r5e2ce27530b70792@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149354

SPOILER ALERT:

>   "Tonks" <tonks_op at ...> wrote:
> >
> > I hope this is OK to post here. She updated the website. It this
> > consided part of canon? I hope so, if not, I will go to my room.
> > Ironing my typing hands would just be too violent.
> >
> > S P O I L E R?????????..
> > If you want to find the new stuff on JKR's site yourself, STOP
> > reading now!!  You have been warned.
>
> > The instructions from someone at Mugglenet it to go to the radio
> and
> > turn it on by pushing the off button.  The announcer will give you
> > instructions to go to the room with the door and bring the dead
> > plant back to life.  6 drops of red and 3 of green.  And?.  the
> > plant is alive again.  I recognize it as a peace lily.  I don't
> know
> > the correct Latin name, but that is what we call it here. It is
> very
> > hard to understand what the announcer says with his accent.
> Perhaps
> > some of our friends in the UK can help us decipher what he is
> > saying. The red is a rejuicer and the green a rejuvenateor. The
> two
> > together give the plant the "breath of life".
> >
> > I wonder what it all means.  Of course, I think it means that DD
> > will come back from the dead.  But what are the 6 drops of red and
> 3
> > of green?  6 something from Gryffindor and 3 of Slytherin???
> >
> > 6 of Gryffindor + 3 of Slytherin = peace.  = something dead comes
> > back to life.  peace = no war = no LV. right?
> >
> > On the page with the word magnets I wonder if they are to spell
> > something out for us?  I have tried different things but nothing
> > happens.
>
> Marianne:
>
> Well, here's an idle speculation:
> The six Gryffs: Harry, Ron, Hermione, Neville, Ginny and a twin.
> Oh, and, according to the ASPCA, peace lilies are toxic to pets.
> Not necessarily that the plants will kill a pet, but the pet will
> very likely have a bad reaction to eating parts of this plant.  It's
> not terribly likely that dogs would do this, but, as a cat person, I
> know that felines are prone to chomping on greenery.  Maybe
> Crookshanks had best look out.
>
> The other thing that interested me was that the page that came up as
> a Scrapbook reward for revitalizing the lily mentions "The Fates"
> and "The Furies" in the margin.  Perhaps this is an avenue to follow.
>
> Marianne
>

Kemper now:
Assuming a lot that the drops represent Houses...
I like 5 of your 'red drops', but I think the sixth drop would be either
Hagrid, Minerva, or DD instead of the twin.  (My DDM! thoughts require a
living DD, but that's another post.)
.
I think JKR was playing around with possible names for the Divination
Professor.
.
Peace Lily, *Spathiphyllum, *spathi- is greek for sword.  Gryff's sword,
maybe?
.
-Kemper


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




From kchuplis at alltel.net  Fri Mar 10 04:41:21 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen)
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 22:41:21 -0600
Subject: SPOILERS Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR's website
In-Reply-To: <duqvbo+7sak@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1FB6FCC0-AFF0-11DA-87C9-000393B04DDE@alltel.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 149355


On Thursday, March 9, 2006, at 10:29 PM, Tonks wrote:

> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kiricat4001" <zarleycat at ...>
> wrote:
> >
> > The other thing that interested me was that the page that came up
> as? a Scrapbook reward for revitalizing the lily mentions "The
> Fates"? and "The Furies" in the margin.? Perhaps this is an avenue
> to follow.
> >
>
> Tonks:
>
> The dictonary says this about the Fates and the Furies:
>
> 1.????? Furies Greek & Roman Mythology. The three terrible winged
> goddesses with serpentine hair, Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone, who
> pursue and punish doers of unavenged crimes.
>
> 1.????? Fates:
> a.????? The supposed force, principle, or power that predetermines
> events.
> b.????? The inevitable events predestined by this force.
> 2.????? A final result or consequence; an outcome.
> 3.????? Unfavorable destiny; doom.
> 4.????? Fates Greek & Roman Mythology. The three goddesses, Clotho,
> Lachesis, and Atropos, who control human destiny. Used with the.
>
>
> [Middle English, from Old French fat, from Latin f tum, prophecy,
> doom, from neuter past participle of f r , to speak. See bh -2 in
> Indo-European Roots.]
> -----------
> The part about punishing doers of unavenged crimes bring to mind the
> unavenged crimes of the murder of the Potters. And the fates
> mentions "prophecy". Sounds like the way that LV will get his just
> due. ????
>
>
>
>

kchuplis:

I was looking at an OoTP Easter Egg and I think the folks that don't 
think Lupin/Tonks are the real thing will be disappointed. Looked to me 
like she had to cut some passages that were related. Saw a couple of 
places where she had written Remus/Tonks. I had to laugh at the thought 
of "Hothoofs" for Buckbeak.




From belviso at attglobal.net  Fri Mar 10 04:44:36 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 23:44:36 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione must be stopped, ...-Hermione's Crimes
References: <duqiu6+naq3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00e901c643fd$563c3110$0698400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 149356


> bboyminn:
>> Yet, Hermione does show some mercy. So, she kept Rita in a jar for a
>> couple of days, and let her go when they got to London.

Magpie:
Personally, if I had a good friend who was an unregistered animagi I 
wouldn't feel comfortable turning anyone into Azkaban for it.  But actually, 
it's a MONTH she's got the woman in a jar.  I suspect JKR wasn't really 
thinking it through what it would mean to spend 28 days or so in a glass jar 
and maybe was just thinking of it as being a scene or two later (which is 
probably why people think of it as a short time), but it's a MONTH she's got 
the woman in a GLASS JAR. I don't know wizarding law, but I'd imagine any 
real life equivalent would have Hermione facing far more serious charges 
than Rita the Unregistered (like most animagi we know) Animagus. It's like 
comparing a crime of not declaring income on your taxes to Jame Gumm with 
the girl trapped in his basement!:-)

-m 





From sydpad at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 10 05:07:55 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 05:07:55 -0000
Subject: SPOILERS Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR's website
In-Reply-To: <1FB6FCC0-AFF0-11DA-87C9-000393B04DDE@alltel.net>
Message-ID: <dur1jb+9793@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149357


> kchuplis:
> 
> I was looking at an OoTP Easter Egg and I think the folks that don't 
> think Lupin/Tonks are the real thing will be disappointed. Looked to me 
> like she had to cut some passages that were related. Saw a couple of 
> places where she had written Remus/Tonks. 


It's all "Remus and Tonks recruiting for the Order"-- which it looks
like they were doing in Hogsmead.  I wish she hadn't cut that-- more
Lupin scenes, and then the romance wouldn't have come from outer space!

It seems that the DA was originally explicitly a junior-league of the
Order-- there's a note "discovery of O of P-- Dumbledore takes the rap".

It was worth the 10 tries it took me to get the darn lightning bolt
right to read, "Snape goes ape because Harry can't do it" and "Snape
grudgingly approves-ish".  That whole storyline underwent a change--
originally Harry was skipping the Occ. lessons to do 'Order' meetings
(DA?), and seems to have started going only after the Snake attack
where (to quote from the outline):  "Now Vol is actively trying to get
Harry to D of P".  Then he was trying to block "increasingly vivid"
visions, then he improves in Occlumency-- "Harry starting to get it"--
then... we run out of paper!

Can anyone read the title of the Snape/Harry + Fa(?) column?  I can't
make out the last word... and WHAT does Ginny do on the wall in a
temper?  

Thanks Tonks, for the quick spot on the possiblye Gryffindor/Slytherin
hint to the plant-reviver!  For the Slytherins.. Snape and Draco
and... Nott?

--Sydney, who used to call her Peace Lily the Drama-Queen Plant,
because of its over-the-top fainting fits when watered even one day late.








From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Fri Mar 10 06:15:15 2006
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 01:15:15 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Trusting Snape
In-Reply-To: <duq52p+88j5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY101-F264D91C5919D2ACFA0BAEA91ED0@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 149358

Betsy Hp:
>A task Voldemort expected Draco to fail and Snape to finish.  As per
>Snape in the Spinner's End chapter, anyway.  Which is what
>happened.  Draco failed and Snape finished.  What went wrong here?

PJ:
We don't know for an absolute fact that Voldermort expected that, do we?  We 
heard it only from Snape.  While I *do* think he was telling the truth about 
knowing Draco's task, I'm not at all sure that Voldermort specifically asked 
(demanded?) that Snape do the deed if Draco should fail.  Others think he 
was lying about almost everything but I think he may just have stretched the 
truth a speck right there.  <g>

Betsy Hp:
>Hang on, I thought you saw Snape as ESE?  How *do* you explain Snape
>letting Harry go?  He will have to explain this, I think. <snip>  But if 
>you think Snape is ESE, >doesn't that mean hisstatement that Voldemort 
>*wanted* Potter left behind and unhurt was
>a true one?  Isn't that the only way to explain why an ESE!Snape
>*would* fail to kidnap Harry?

PJ:

No, I've always been firmly counted in the OFH!Snape camp but have lately 
been considering the potential worthiness of the LID!Snape theo... umm... 
no.  Scena.....errrr, no.  IDEA!!  <g>

Snape's statement that Harry belonged to the Dark Lord *was* a true one 
(imo) but that didn't mean leave him lying there so that Voldermort has to 
go through all the trouble of catching him again.  I think Voldermort will 
be livid when he finds out Snape had the opportunity to bring Harry to him 
and didn't.

As for why, Snape left Harry there?  To be totally honest, I don't know.  As 
far as I can see OFH!Snape doesn't answer that question.  LID!Snape does, of 
course, but...  Maybe at some point I'll give him and his thought processes 
more time, but as he is my least favorite character, I don't worry about him 
all that much.

Betsy Hp:
>I doubt fetus!Voldemort was up for making potions in GoF, so I'm
>betting that was Peter (he of the multi skills).  And Snape is so
>much more than a potions master.  He's action guy.  He gets things
>done.  Why else is Bellatrix so threatened by him?

PJ:

You think Peter came up with that potion to return Voldy to his body?  He 
didn't seem all that thrilled to give up his hand to me so I really think if 
he'd seen that line in the potions book he'd have looked around for 
something a bit less painful to try first.  Peter's not all that brave.

Bellatrix totally dislikes Snape and appears to think he's a weasel, but 
thinking he's a weasel isn't the same thing as feeling threatened at all.

PJ





From OctobersChild48 at aol.com  Fri Mar 10 05:13:03 2006
From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:13:03 EST
Subject: Snape Survey - Dumbledore's Sacrifice
Message-ID: <267.7248b07.314264df@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149359

       Carol writes:
> 
> No evidence anywhere that Dumbledore's trust in Snape has in any way
> diminished, or that Snape has given him any reason to distrust him. 

     Sandy responds:
My name is Sandy and I am new to the list. It would appear that the most 
strongly debated issues in Half-Blood Prince are whether Snape is good or evil and whether or not DD was begging Snape to, or not, to take his life, oh, and 
whether or not DD is truly dead. 

A lot is being made of the fact that DD continually states that he trusts 
Snape. The fact that DD trusts Snape does not mean that Snape is trustworthy or 
that DD is not wrong in trusting Snape. I have never been totally convinced of 
Snape's trustworthiness or loyalty to the Order throughout the books and after 
reading Spinners End I was, once and for all, convinced that Snape was still 
a committed Death Eater. Why else would Peter Pettigrew have been there, and 
what other explanation can there be for the Unbreakable Vow? After being so 
thoroughly questioned by Narcissa and coming up with pausible answers for all of 
them why could he have not also come up with a plausible excuse for not making 
the UV?

I think the question to be pondered is why DD continued to be loyal to Snape 
when there were so many clues as to why he shouldn't. Granted, we the readers 
were privvy to the events of Spinners End whereas DD was not, but I think that 
is JKR's way of showing us the "real" Snape. DD ia a great, powerful and 
gifted wizard but that does not mean that he is infallible. 

The debate as to whether DD was or was not begging for his life, with the 
major concensus being that he was not because it would not have been in his 
character to do so bears further scrutiny. I don't believe DD would have begged for his life for himself, but I certainly think he would have done so for Harry. 
He was in the process of providing Harry with the knowledge he needed to have 
to defeat Voldemort and he had not completed that mission yet. He certainly 
knew that no other adult could help, guide or lead Harry in the direction he 
needed to go, least of all Snape. And it just does not make sense that DD would 
have been begging Snape to kill him, knowing full well his (Snape's) 
usefullness to the Order would die with him (DD). I cannot believe that DD would have chosen to leave Harry at such a crucial time.

JKR has made negative comments about Snape in some of her interviews. I will 
try to find an exact quote.

I believe, quite firmly, that DD is dead and that he was cold-bloodedly 
murdered.

Sandy









From juli17 at aol.com  Fri Mar 10 06:37:14 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 06:37:14 -0000
Subject: DD's unfinished sentence (Was: Snape Survey, Snapeity,  Dumbledore's sacrifice)
In-Reply-To: <dupr2p+p5q8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dur6qq+5fuq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149360


> >
> > Deb wrote:
> > > Suggested ending for DD's unfinished remark to Young Malfoy:
> > > 
> > > Of course that is what he would tell you, Draco, but ...
> > 
> > Carol responds:
> > Since Dumbledore has just stated that Snape was acting on his 
> orders and since the "but" follows "Of course that is what he would 
> tell you, Draco," what follows the "but" must relate to why Snape 
> used the promise to Narcissa rather than DD's orders to explain his 
> attempts to interfere with Draco's plans. 
> 
> Tonks:
> I have an idea that explains Snape's actions as loyal to DD and at 
> the same time does not blow his cover as a spy, even to Draco.
> 
> "Of course that is what he would tell you , Draco, but..."  as a 
> teacher in this school he is bond by a vow to me and to this school 
> to protect all of our students with his life if necessary.
> 
> Tonks_op
>

Julie now:
My suspicion is that Dumbledore was about to say something very in 
character for him, something along the lines of "Of course that is 
what he would tell you Draco, but...there are things you don't know, 
things you cannot possibly understand." 

In other words, just the sort of uninformative answers Dumbledore 
often gives Harry, particularly in relation to Snape (e.g., "I 
understand far more than you think" in response to Harry's revelation 
about the Unbreakable Vow).

Julie
(who suspects the unfinished sentence was no more complicated, or 
enlightening, than that!)






From theadimail at yahoo.co.in  Fri Mar 10 07:07:39 2006
From: theadimail at yahoo.co.in (theadimail)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 07:07:39 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped, ...-Hermione's Crimes
In-Reply-To: <00e901c643fd$563c3110$0698400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <dur8jr+utuf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149361

Personally I think the greatest sins of Hermione are the sins of 
ommission, particularly in HBP. In this book, she was clearly an 
adolescent worried about her love life than anything else. Making 
provisons for that, she does act very uncaring about Harry and his 
burden of killing Voldemort. She doesn't show any initiative in the 
book , all the time waiting for Harry to come up and give information. 
She does search the library for the meaning of horcruxes but once 
harry know what they are she doesn't show any interest in knowing more 
about them. All the while more interested in that stupid potions book 
because it helped get harry more shine in the class than her. If 
there's any one character in the series whom you would think would not 
be passive but active and concerned and cautious,. it was Hermione. 
Unfortuunately, she disappoints on that score. Not to mention the fact 
that it's been such a big disappointment to may fans, the way she is 
developing in the last two books.

Regards,
Adi







From littleleah at handbag.com  Fri Mar 10 09:42:36 2006
From: littleleah at handbag.com (littleleahstill)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 09:42:36 -0000
Subject: Finding the horcruxes?/Hermione should be stopped/slapped
In-Reply-To: <duon66+t42p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <durhmc+q7ml@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149362

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Talisman" <talisman22457 at ...> 
wrote:
> Sounds a lot like a theory I expounded last year on another site 
we  
> belong to:
> 
> TOC Message 3356 of 3995
> From: "Talisman" <talisman22457 at ...> 
> Date: Sun Oct 9, 2005 12:58 pm 
> Subject: Bloody Relics and Unexpected 
> 
> We know that Voldemort is the last descendant of Salazar 
Slytherin's 
> line, now fortuitously reconstituted and active in the WW (thanks 
to 
> DD's tireless efforts). 
> 
> Rowling has nixed Harry as an heir to Gryffindor, so the money is 
on 
> DD as having been in Godric's family tree, leaving the redoubtable 
> Aberforth as an extant member of that blood line (assuming DD *is* 
> even dead, which, I agree, is no sure thing.) This comports nicely 
> with Rowling's suggestion that DD's family line is of future 
> interest. 
> 
> To this I add Zacharias Smith, a Hufflepuff--who, along with his 
> father--displays a certain, shall we say, aristocratic 
haughtiness. 
> I'm betting that he is related to Hepzibah Smith, and so a blood 
> heir to Helga Hufflepuff. 
> 
> What we have, then, on the eve of Book 7, is a gathering of the 
> blood. A small matter of identifying a Ravenclaw descendant, and 
we 
> are ready for some serious Founders' mojo. 



Leah:

Just thinking that it would be a very interesting situation if the 
heir of Ravenclaw turned out to be Marietta.  

Leah
> 






From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Fri Mar 10 11:03:43 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 11:03:43 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped, ...-Hermione's Crimes
In-Reply-To: <654391F7-AFDA-11DA-BE6F-000393B04DDE@alltel.net>
Message-ID: <durmef+dbre@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149363

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Karen <kchuplis at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> On Thursday, March 9, 2006, at 07:56 PM, pippin_999 wrote:
> >
> > Pippin:
> > If Marietta is in the same year as Cho (does canon ever say?) 
she's
> > already taken her OWLs. Marietta blabs when Harry starts teaching
> > the class how to fight dementors. I can understand why Marietta 
> > suddenly
> > had trouble with her conscience. It's a situation not too far 
removed
> > from the one Draco and Regulus found themselves in.
> >
> > Hermione told the group that Umbridge's idea that Dumbledore
> > was trying to put together a militant anti-ministry group was
> > "mad",? but then Harry started teaching them to fight ministry
> > employees. That wasn't what Marietta signed up for.
> >
> > I'm not so sure Hermione knows how to remove the hex. She
> > doesn't seem to have practiced it first. What really scares me is
> > this -- if Harry had confessed in Dumbledore's office, as he was
> > about to, would the hex would have struck him too?
> >
> > I think JKR is more concerned with illustrating destructive 
patterns of
> > behavior and showing *why* they're destructive? than with 
punctuating
> > each act of misbehavior with a comeuppance. Hermione's actions
> > lost her the confidence of the group, IMO-- only Ginny, Neville 
and 
> > Luna
> > were willing to come to her aid in HBP.
> >
> >
> 
> 
> kchuplis:
> 
> That didn't really answer my question but it does bring up a new 
point.

Ceridwen:
I checked.  ME did not go to her mother, she did go to Umbridge.  The 
mention of her mother was when Umbridge tells her that Fudge will 
tell Mrs Edgecomb what a good girl she's been (OotP US pg 612 for 
mother, 613 for telling Umbridge).
*(snipping)*

Karen:
> And how did Harry specifically teach them to fight ministry 
> employees? 

Ceridwen:

>From Pippin's post: "Marietta blabs when Harry starts teaching the 
class how to fight dementors. I can understand why Marietta suddenly 
had trouble with her conscience."

At the time, the Dementors were guarding Azkaban.  Therefore, 
Ministry employees.  Corruptable, and OFT (Themselves, they're a 
group), but still at least nominally under the Ministry.

Karen:
> It isn't as though they 
> have dummies labeled "Fudge" "Umbridge" "Kevin" standing around to 
> practice on.

Ceridwen:
lol!  Poor Kevin, lumping him in with those two!

Ceridwen.






From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Fri Mar 10 11:21:53 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 11:21:53 -0000
Subject: JKR's website
In-Reply-To: <duqvbo+7sak@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <durngh+t85c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149364

Tonks:
> 
> The dictonary says this about the Fates and the Furies:
> 
> 1.	Furies Greek & Roman Mythology. The three terrible winged 
> goddesses with serpentine hair, Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone, who 
> pursue and punish doers of unavenged crimes.

Ceridwen:
Alecto was the female DE's name on the Tower.  Amycus's sister?  Wife?  
It seems to pay to check the names for mythical references.  Merope was 
one of the Pleiades, who, according to one story, left her sisters to 
marry a human.

Peace Lily: Spathiphyllum floribundum.  Or, 'spath' for short.  You can 
make new plants by seperating the... rhyzomes? which divide under the 
soil.

Ceridwen, who gave a few Spathiphyllum floribundums to friends way back 
when.






From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 10 13:17:36 2006
From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 13:17:36 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped, ...-Hermione's Crimes
In-Reply-To: <00e901c643fd$563c3110$0698400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <duru9g+nc1v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149365


> bboyminn:
> Yet, Hermione does show some mercy. So, she kept Rita in a jar for a
> >> couple of days, and let her go when they got to London.
> 
> Magpie:
> Personally, if I had a good friend who was an unregistered animagi
> I wouldn't feel comfortable turning anyone into Azkaban for it.
> But actually, it's a MONTH she's got the woman in a jar. 

Amiable Dorsai:
About a week, maybe as many as nine days.  Certainly not a month.

"I've told her I'll let her out when we get back to London,"
said Hermione. "I've put an Unbreakable Charm on the jar, you see,
so she can't transform. And I've told her she's to keep her quill
to herself for a whole year. See if she can't break the habit of
writing horrible lies about people." GOF

Hermione said that on the train going home, she captured Rita near
midnight on the night of the Third Task.  The Lexicon's timeline puts
the Third Task on May 24th, and the ride home on June 2nd.  

The timelines are always a bit dodgy, given Jo's... elastic grasp of
time, but I don't see any way Rita could have been in the jar a month.

Even if she had, she would almost certainly have spent more time than
that in Azkaban, a place that gives someone as brave as Hagrid the
collywobbles, had Hermione turned her in.  Rita has pissed of a lot of
powerful people over the years.

She got off very easy.

Amiable Dorsai








From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Mar 10 13:43:38 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 13:43:38 -0000
Subject: Snape Survey - Dumbledore's Sacrifice
In-Reply-To: <267.7248b07.314264df@aol.com>
Message-ID: <durvqa+r68a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149366

Sandy:
> 
> A lot is being made of the fact that DD continually states that he trusts 
> Snape. The fact that DD trusts Snape does not mean that Snape is trustworthy or 
> that DD is not wrong in trusting Snape.

Pippin:
Hi, Sandy, welcome to the list! The question for me is, do we believe
Dumbledore who says that Snape was remorseful, or do we
believe Harry who thinks he saw Snape murder Dumbledore on the tower?
Dumbledore has been Headmaster for a long time and he's also been
head of the Wizengamot. He has to have seen many remorseful people
and a number who feigned remorse as well.  I suspect he's a better 
judge of remorse than Harry is of avada kedavra's. Harry doesn't even
know how to do an unforgivable. He's hardly an expert.

Sandy:
> The debate as to whether DD was or was not begging for his life, 
with the  major concensus being that he was not because it would 
not have been in his  character to do so bears further scrutiny. I don't 
believe DD would have begged for his life for himself, but I certainly think 
he would have done so for Harry. 
> He was in the process of providing Harry with the knowledge he needed to have 
> to defeat Voldemort and he had not completed that mission yet. He certainly 
> knew that no other adult could help, guide or lead Harry in the direction he 
> needed to go, least of all Snape. 

Pippin:
If Dumbledore thought there was more information he needed to give Harry,
wouldn't he have told him before putting both their lives at risk in the cave?
Or during the broomstick ride back to the castle, knowing he was gravely ill?

It seems to be forgotten that if JKR intends for Harry to defeat Voldemort 
alone, then  she must have created the means for him to do it, consistent
with Harry's abilities and the operations of the Potterverse.  Dumbledore
doesn't know that, of course, but he does know more about Harry's abilities
and the way his world works than anyone else in canon. If there is a way,
Dumbledore probably knew about it.

Of course he wouldn't want Harry to have to take on this task alone, but 
Dumbledore must have known since Voldemort engaged him at the 
ministry that his safety had ended. Voldemort was not afraid to fight
him any more.

Pippin






From Nanagose at aol.com  Fri Mar 10 13:55:09 2006
From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 13:55:09 -0000
Subject: SPOILERS Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR's website
In-Reply-To: <dur1jb+9793@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dus0fu+n9tl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149367

> kchuplis:
> I was looking at an OoTP Easter Egg and I think the folks that don't
> think Lupin/Tonks are the real thing will be disappointed. Looked to
> me like she had to cut some passages that were related. Saw a couple
> of places where she had written Remus/Tonks.

Christina:

There's a couple of Remus and Tonks mentions in chapter 13, but it's
talking about the Trio meeting Remus and Tonks in Hogsmeade.  If I can
make this out correctly, "(Snape lesson - Harry skips to go to...)
Harry, Ron, and Herm go to Hogsmeade, meet Lupin and Tonks, can't
talk, Umbridge *something*, *something* note.  HRH recruiting for O of
P.  Hagrid fresh injuries."


> Sydney:
> It was worth the 10 tries it took me to get the darn lightning bolt
> right to read, "Snape goes ape because Harry can't do it" and "Snape
> grudgingly approves-ish".

Christina:

YES!  And, of course, JKR using the word "firehead" has just made my
day.  This is great stuff.  I love how Ginny and Cho have a column
together, and I'm really interested in the "got to keep Sirius +
Lupin..." and then the word "fractured" (I think) crossed out. 
Fractured from what?  Each other?  The DA?  Harry?  And underneath it
says "*something* here."  The something looks like "gory," but that
doesn't make sense.  The word is in other places too, and I can't make
it out.

Heh heh - "And to Azkaban I must go.  I trust I'm allowed a
toothbrush."  Oh, Dumbledore, you snarky, snarky thing! (match the
"xx" in the box about Dumbledore being taken away to the quote at the
top of the page).

Ooo, and the name of chapter 20...was Umbridge's name originally
Elvira Umbridge?  And it looks like Grawp was originally Hagrid's
cousin, not his half-brother.  And Draco's main insult at the
Quidditch match was more about Cedric than Lily.  Ouch.

The second box under the Hall of Prophecy is interesting - "polyjuice
worthless, dept of mysteries too well guarded," all scratched out.

> Sydney: 
> Can anyone read the title of the Snape/Harry + Fa(?) column?

Christina:

It looks like "Snape/ Harry + father" to me.

> Sydney:
> and WHAT does Ginny do on the wall in a temper?  

Christina:

This is seriously driving me nuts...


Christina






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Mar 10 14:20:30 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 14:20:30 -0000
Subject: Lupin and The Marauders (was:Re: Remus Lupin: Good man doing nothing)
In-Reply-To: <duqrdp+nfjm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dus1ve+rgbj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149368

> Marianne:
> I like the idea.  I can just see the Snape/Sirius dynamic.  Sirius, 
> thinking he'll let Snape in on how to get past the Willow, tells 
> Snape what to do, while being sure that Snape will have the pants 
> scared off him once he sees/hears Werewolf!Remus.  At the same time, 
> Snape, smugly thinking that he knows Remus is a werewolf and all he 
> needs to prove it and bring Remus down is photographic proof, takes 
> Sirius's Willow instructions at face value and enters the tunnel 
> with a camera in his hands. Or not.

Pippin:
The trouble with the accusation/fear of cowardice explanation is that 
neither side seems to have arranged for an audience. Surely Sirius
would have wanted everyone to see Snape running in terror from 
the willow? Surely Snape would have wanted everyone to see for
themselves what Lupin was? A picture of a werewolf wouldn't prove
anything, unless Snape was also in the frame. But then someone else
would have to be taking the pictures.

Marianne:
> The questions remaining for me remain: What spurred Sirius to reveal 
> how to get past the Willow to Snape.  And, if Snape really suspected 
> Remus to be a werewolf, why he was not better prepared to deal with 
> the potential lethal consequences.  OTOH, if Snape had no idea Remus 
> was a werewolf, why go past the Willow at all?  

Pippin:
The most obvious explanation, to me, anyway, is that Snape didn't
enter the willow of free will. JKR has shown us any number of ways
a person can be magicked into going somewhere they didn't intend:
recklessness draughts, confundus charms, the Imperius curse, 
even love potions. Harry got Ron to go to Slughorn's office by
telling him Romilda would be there.

Of course that makes the Prank more obviously a crime. Sirius
had no reason to go that far. But Lupin did.

Put yourself in his place for a minute. Lupin must not only fear that
his own secret will be discovered, but the animagi outings as well.
Sirius and James think they can get away with anything and they
aren't going to be happy giving  up something that good just 
because Snape will be watching the willow from now on.   

When they're caught Lupin will not only lose his only
hope for a decent life, he'll also be separated from the only friends 
he's ever had and the only thing that makes his transformations 
bearable. Being accused of murder, should it come to that, would
hardly be worse than what was in  store for him already. 

It beats me why some of the people who are most anxious to see Harry
whomp the butts  of everyone who ever made his life a misery  are equally 
certain that JKR has made Lupin far too noble to do any such thing. 

Pippin







From R.Vink2 at chello.nl  Fri Mar 10 14:53:23 2006
From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 14:53:23 -0000
Subject: Lupin and The Marauders (was:Re: Remus Lupin: Good man doing nothing)
In-Reply-To: <dus1ve+rgbj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dus3t3+3p1d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149369

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:
>
>
> It beats me why some of the people who are most anxious to see Harry
> whomp the butts  of everyone who ever made his life a misery  are
equally 
> certain that JKR has made Lupin far too noble to do any such thing. 
 
Renee:

She hasn't made him too noble. But while she has repeatedly shown
Harry to possess the aggressive streak necessary to whomp butts, Lupin
is shown to be passive-aggressive at most.  







From kchuplis at alltel.net  Fri Mar 10 15:02:48 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 09:02:48 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lupin and Happy Birthday Remus
References: <dus1ve+rgbj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <004d01c64453$b22373c0$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local>

No: HPFGUIDX 149370


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: pippin_999 
  When they're caught Lupin will not only lose his only
  hope for a decent life, he'll also be separated from the only friends 
  he's ever had and the only thing that makes his transformations 
  bearable. Being accused of murder, should it come to that, would
  hardly be worse than what was in  store for him already. 

  It beats me why some of the people who are most anxious to see Harry
  whomp the butts  of everyone who ever made his life a misery  are equally 
  certain that JKR has made Lupin far too noble to do any such thing. 

  kchuplis:

  Poor Lupin. I think his fear of loss of friends is one of the main reasons he isn't more forceful with Sirius or James. It's part of what makes him so pacific in those situations everyone is accusing him of being too passive on. One does tend to make a habit then of such things. I think the love of a good woman will really bring out the hero in ever so troubled Lupin. I'm guessing that you don't want to wish him a happy birthday today :D

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




From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net  Fri Mar 10 15:03:17 2006
From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 15:03:17 -0000
Subject: Interesting throwaway on Hermione at JKR's updated site (dragon's blood)
Message-ID: <dus4fl+9e2s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149371

Not sure if anyone other than me will find this interesting, but one 
of the scrapbook items you get when you solve a clue (or follow 
someone else's instructions, as I did ;-)) is the original synopsis 
of PS/SS.  I noticed a little tidbit near the end:

"...and Hermione Granger (cleverest girl in the year and the only 
person in the class to know all the uses of dragon's blood)."

Huh.  Does this surprise anyone else that Hermie KNOWS the 12 uses?  
I thought only DD knew them all -- or at least that none of our main 
kid characters did.  So far we readers only know a couple of them, 
right?  Oven cleaner, for instance.  I wonder why Hermione hasn't 
mentioned more of those uses along the way?

Not sure what this does to my DRIBBLE SHADOWS theory -- that Snape 
concocted a protective potion for baby Harry which included dragon's 
blood.  Would Hermione have guessed at such a thing if she knew 
dragon's blood could be used in such a way?

Maybe.  Maybe not.

Jo may only have meant that bit to be an example of Hermione's 
advanced knowledge re: her classmates, but I do wonder if it isn't 
also a specific example which is also going to come into play somehow 
before we're through....

Siruisly Snapey Susan








From belviso at attglobal.net  Fri Mar 10 15:18:39 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 15:18:39 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped, ...-Hermione's Crimes
In-Reply-To: <duru9g+nc1v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dus5cf+f2rg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149372


> > Magpie:
> > Personally, if I had a good friend who was an unregistered 
animagi
> > I wouldn't feel comfortable turning anyone into Azkaban for it.
> > But actually, it's a MONTH she's got the woman in a jar. 
> 
> Amiable Dorsai:
> About a week, maybe as many as nine days.  Certainly not a month.
> 
> "I've told her I'll let her out when we get back to London,"
> said Hermione. "I've put an Unbreakable Charm on the jar, you see,
> so she can't transform. And I've told her she's to keep her quill
> to herself for a whole year. See if she can't break the habit of
> writing horrible lies about people." GOF
> 
> Hermione said that on the train going home, she captured Rita near
> midnight on the night of the Third Task. 

Magpie:
I did remember she said it on the train going home; I just always 
took the chapter opening "When he looked back, even a month 
later..." as indicating the passage of time until the end of the 
book being a month after the events of the previous chapter.  But 
good for Rita if she was only trapped in a jar for a week.

AD:
> Even if she had, she would almost certainly have spent more time 
than
> that in Azkaban, a place that gives someone as brave as Hagrid the
> collywobbles, had Hermione turned her in.  Rita has pissed of a 
lot of
> powerful people over the years.
> 
> She got off very easy.

Magpie:
Even if it is several days, the fact that Hermione could have done 
worse does not make this in any way an act of mercy.  Of course what 
Hermione could have done was worse--it's the threat of Azkaban she's 
holding over the woman's head.  The implication is always that if 
Rita steps out of line she will do exactly that, send her to 
Azkaban.  That's what blackmail is.  If you discover someone is a 
country illegally, for instance, and use that to blackmail them into 
doing what you want upon the fear they'll be deported to a country 
where they'd be in danger, that's not being merciful because you 
didn't turn them in, it's just choosing to hold the threat over 
their head to get more out of it for yourself.  Hermione even starts 
out saying Rita must keep her quill to herself for a year and then--
unsurprisingly--comes up with something else she needs done-Rita 
must write an article to Hermione's specifications.

And I think we all get why Hermione is doing this, but my point 
certainly still stands--engage in this sort of business a lot and 
you're making a lot of enemies.  And power corrupts etc.

bboyminn:

So, by your way of thinking, it wasn't Harry's place to go after the
Stone in the first book, neither was it his place to go to the 
Chamber of Secrets and rescue Ginny in the second, nor to help Ron 
escape from Sirius Black in the third, etc.... If Harry took your 
attitude, the world would be destroyed. If he sat back and let the 
adults handle it, pretty much ALL would be lost.

Magpie:
There's an important difference in the things Ceridwen is talking 
about and what you're describing here--something different enough 
that JKR never puts Harry in this situation, imo.  Harry, in all 
these scenes, is saving someone.  He's worried a person is in danger 
or the world is in danger so throws himself into danger to stop it. 
He's risking himself. In the Hermione scenes Ceridwen is talking 
about she's being judge and jury and meting out punishment to 
others.  It's not that Hermione ought to let adults handle it--it's 
not up to any random adult to do these things either.  It's her 
thinking she has the right to decide what justice is and administer 
it.

Harry, by contrast, does not do this.  In fact, he seems to 
instinctively not do it to stay a hero.  He doesn't punish Quirrel 
in PS, or Lockhart in CoS.  In PoA he doesn't kill Sirius and then 
prevents Sirius and Lupin from killing Peter because he sees it 
would be crossing a line and really be harmful to them.  Usually 
Harry is too busy trying to protect himself and others from a threat 
to think about what punishment he is going to give someone for their 
crimes, but it seems an important part of his being the hero that he 
doesn't see it as his place to mete out this kind of punishment.  In 
the heat of the moment he will, of course, get angry and want to do 
something to the other person, but that's again the opposite of what 
Hermione usually does.

-m









From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Fri Mar 10 16:24:24 2006
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 11:24:24 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Interesting throwaway on Hermione at JKR's updated site
 (dragon's blood)
In-Reply-To: <dus4fl+9e2s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY101-F243AA784EEB321465462D391ED0@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 149374


SSSusan:
"...and Hermione Granger (cleverest girl in the year and the only
person in the class to know all the uses of dragon's blood)."

PJ:
I didn't expect only Dumbledore to know the 12 uses because, like any other 
invention, it needs to be known by many people who can put those discoveries 
to good use.  Otherwise what's the sense of spending all that time working 
on the problem?  And Dumbledore likes people to know just how smart he is.   
   :)

What surprised me was that it didn't say the only *student* in the class to 
know, but the only *person*.  Is this said differently in the UK than in the 
US or does this mean teachers as well as students?  If so, I wonder who's 
class she was in and how many teachers are still ignorant of the uses?

PJ





From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net  Fri Mar 10 16:37:55 2006
From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 16:37:55 -0000
Subject: Interesting throwaway on Hermione at JKR's updated site (dragon's blood)
In-Reply-To: <BAY101-F243AA784EEB321465462D391ED0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <dusa13+5pba@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149375

SSSusan:
> "...and Hermione Granger (cleverest girl in the year and the only
> person in the class to know all the uses of dragon's blood)."

PJ responded:
> I didn't expect only Dumbledore to know the 12 uses because, like 
> any other invention, it needs to be known by many people who can 
> put those discoveries to good use.  Otherwise what's the sense of 
> spending all that time working on the problem?  And Dumbledore 
> likes people to know just how smart he is.   
>    :)

SSSusan:
Oh, yes, I didn't mean to imply that I meant literally *no* one 
besides DD knew them.  I figured since that bit was on the back of 
his wizard card, he was well known for having discovered the 12 
uses.  Thus, I assumed many adult wizards did know about them from 
reading/study.

What I didn't realize was that any of the kids among "our" main 
characters also knew all 12.  They've been mentioned enough in the 
series -- dragon blood has been mentioned enough in the series -- 
that I've always thought it would be coming back in somehow, some 
way.  But I guess in my mind I envisioned Hermione *discovering* the 
full list at some opportune moment which -- since she's not said 
anything about it yet that I can recall -- I recently assumed would 
be in Book 7.  

Now that I find she's known the 12 uses all along, well, that kinda 
shoots that theory out the window.


PJ: 
> What surprised me was that it didn't say the only *student* in the 
> class to know, but the only *person*.  Is this said differently in 
> the UK than in the US or does this mean teachers as well as 
> students?  If so, I wonder who's class she was in and how many 
> teachers are still ignorant of the uses?

SSSusan:
PJ, I think you're assuming "class" to mean "classroom" or one 
specific subject.  I took "class" to mean their *year.*  That is, 
since the synopsis was of PS/SS, I think JKR meant that Hermione was 
the only person in Harry's year -- among the 1st years -- who knew 
them all.

Siriusly Snapey Susan, who didn't even type her name correctly in her 
last post. :-|








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 10 17:39:53 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 17:39:53 -0000
Subject: What possessed Peter to restore Voldemort? (Was: Trusting Snape)
In-Reply-To: <BAY101-F264D91C5919D2ACFA0BAEA91ED0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <dusdl9+sps4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149376

PJ wrote:
<snip> 
> You think Peter came up with that potion to return Voldy to his
body?  He didn't seem all that thrilled to give up his hand to me so I
really think if he'd seen that line in the potions book he'd have
looked around for something a bit less painful to try first.  Peter's
not all that brave. <snip>

Carol responds:
We may not agree about Snape, but apparently we agree about Peter, who
has to be the most cowardly Gryffindor of all time. I don't think that
the potion was in a book (unless it was a very ancient one, and we
know how Voldemort feels about ancient magic); I think he invented it
and gave Peter the directions (as Vapor!mort certainly did when he
gave Peter directions to create a rudimentary body using unicorn blood
and Nagini's venom--*that* couldn't have been in any potions book).
Note also that Voldemort says, in an evil double entendre, "I have an
assignment you'll give your right hand for" (GoF chap. 1, quoted from
memory).

Why Peter actually went through with the assignment--kidnapping and
injuring Harry, murdering Cedric (not part of the original deal, but
promptly performed), violating a grave, and above all mutilating
himself, all to restore Voldemort and make him stronger, is unclear to
me. Did he really think he had no alternative and that he'd be better
off with a stronger Voldemort? Couldn't he have left him stewing in
the cauldron without adding the ingredients (bone, blood, and his own
flesh) and at the same time released Harry, fulfilling his life debt?
Did he think that the revaporized Voldemort would haunt him and kill
him if he disobeyed the order? Or did he hope to be "honored above all
others" despite Voldemort's known indifference to his followers'
happiness and well-being? (At least he knew that LV wouldn't possess
him because he was believed to be dead and his body was useless for
the purpose--roughly paraphrased from GoF chap. 1).

What possessed Wormtail (pun intended) to make him restore his feared
and hated master to his body? Is he insane? Or is he, in his weak way,
actually loyal to LV? Has he fallen so deeply into evil, having
committed some thirteen murders as well as betraying or framing his
friends, that he sees no way out? Would Azkaban be worse than serving
Voldemort? He's a rat Animagus, after all, and could easily escape.

Carol, wondering why Harry thinks that Voldemort (one "r") murdered
Cedric when it was Wormtail who killed him








From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Fri Mar 10 18:00:37 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 18:00:37 -0000
Subject: What possessed Peter to restore Voldemort? (Was: Trusting Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dusdl9+sps4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duses5+1052n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149377

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:

> Carol:
> Note also that Voldemort says, in an evil double entendre, "I have an
> assignment you'll give your right hand for" (GoF chap. 1, quoted from
> memory).

Geoff:
The quote is:
'"Wormtail, I will allow you to perform an essential task for me, one that many of my 
followers would give their right hands to perform..."
"R-really, my Lord? What -?" Wormtail sounded terrified again.
"Ah, Wormtail, you don't want me to spoil the surprise?"'
(GOF "The Riddle House" p.15 UK edition)

As you say, this comment has a sting in its tail....

> Carol, wondering why Harry thinks that Voldemort (one "r") murdered
> Cedric when it was Wormtail who killed him

Geoff:
I think he apportions blame to Voldemort because of the way Cedric died:
'From far away, above his head, he heard a high, cold voice say "Kill the spare."
A swishing noise and a second voice, which screeched the words to the the  night: "Avada 
Kedavra!"

I think Harry considers that Voldemort is truly responsible because he was "manipulating" 
Wormtail.







From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net  Fri Mar 10 18:02:56 2006
From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 18:02:56 -0000
Subject: What possessed Peter to restore Voldemort? (Was: Trusting Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dusdl9+sps4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dusf0g+j75f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149378

Carol wrote:
> Why Peter actually went through with the assignment--kidnapping and
> injuring Harry, murdering Cedric (not part of the original deal, but
> promptly performed), violating a grave, and above all mutilating
> himself, all to restore Voldemort and make him stronger, is unclear 
> to me. Did he really think he had no alternative and that he'd be 
> better off with a stronger Voldemort? Couldn't he have left him 
> stewing in the cauldron without adding the ingredients (bone, 
> blood, and his own flesh) and at the same time released Harry, 
> fulfilling his life debt?


SSSusan:
Questions I, also, have asked before.  I just don't GET Peter here.  
It does seem to me that it would've made more sense to have RUN from 
a weak & needy Voldy, leaving him to die.  Maybe it really *was* just 
the fear that Voldy was so strong... that if some other DE came by 
and saved him... that he knew he'd be killed.  But that possibility 
seems so remote that I just can't figure out why he didn't walk away 
from a Voldy who *couldn't* at that time have killed him!


> Carol, wondering why Harry thinks that Voldemort (one "r") murdered
> Cedric when it was Wormtail who killed him

SSSusan:
Ah, we've had this discussion before, Carol. :-)  I maintain that 
Harry is correct in that thought.  It's the Charles Manson-type 
parallel:  You ORDER the murder, you ARE the murderer in the legal 
sense of things.  Harry *knows* Wormtail cast the spell, but he heard 
Voldy order the killing and so knows that it was Voldy's INTENTION 
and COMMAND which made the murder happen.  Hence, he's the murderer 
(the cause of the murder) even if he's not the murderer (the one 
taking the action).

Eeek, will this stance be torn apart by the *real* lawyers on the 
list? :-)

Siriusly Snapey Susan







From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 10 18:48:28 2006
From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 18:48:28 -0000
Subject: What possessed Peter to restore Voldemort? (Was: Trusting Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dusdl9+sps4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dushls+3su5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149379


> Carol:

> What possessed Wormtail (pun intended) to make him restore his
> feared and hated master to his body? Is he insane? Or is he, in
> his weak way, actually loyal to LV? Has he fallen so deeply into
> evil, having committed some thirteen murders as well as betraying
> or framing his friends, that he sees no way out? Would Azkaban be
> worse than serving Voldemort? He's a rat Animagus, after all, and
> could easily escape.

Amiable Dorsai:
Suppose you've got Sirius Black, Remus Lupin, and Albus Dumbledore
(once Remus gets him to believe) after you.  Suppose your Death Eater
"friends" will kill you on sight, if they discover you're still alive.
 Suppose that in not so many years, the son of the couple you
betrayed, and his best friends--the genius little witch, and the kid
who was brave enough to stand up on a broken leg to get between Harry
and a mass murderer--will be old enough to join the hunt.

Suppose that the *best* thing you could expect, once they catch up to
you, is a Dementor's Kiss.

Who you gonna call?

Amiable Dorsai






From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 10 19:06:15 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 19:06:15 -0000
Subject: JKR's website
Message-ID: <dusin7+1hhu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149380

Spoiler ......      .................................................
.....................................................................
.......

As I was sitting in the links room waiting for Peeves to come by to 
get the clue for the lightning bolt, I keep studying the pictures.  
Has anyone ever noticed that they are mirror images of each other? 
When the owl leave the one on the right they fly left to right.  
When they enter the one on the left they come in from the right and 
go to the left.  I wonder if this is any connection to how the 
portraits work, or how the mirror will work? 

I thought about the broken mirror that Harry has because when Peeves 
does comes into the links room he breaks the second picture.  And 
the clue is behind it.  Perhaps this is also a clue to what happens 
in book 7.  Will Sirius tell Harry the secret of the lightning 
bolt?  Why is the chapter in which DD dies called "the Lightning 
Struck Tower"??? I think there are connections here.

And I still can't draw that darn lightning bolt even with the clue!

Tonks_op
detective on the scene - but a bit of a klutz








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 10 19:13:07 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 19:13:07 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped, ...-Hermione's Crimes
In-Reply-To: <dus5cf+f2rg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dusj43+8lq8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149381

Magpie wrote:
> <snip> Even if it is several days, the fact that Hermione could have
done worse does not make this in any way an act of mercy.  Of course
what Hermione could have done was worse--it's the threat of Azkaban
she's holding over the woman's head.  The implication is always that
if Rita steps out of line she will do exactly that, send her to
Azkaban.  That's what blackmail is.  <snip>

Carol responds:
What concerns me most is that Hermione has previously expressed
concern over the Twins' intention to blackmail Ludo Bagman, i.e.,
their intention to commit exactly the same crime Hermione later commits:

"Hermione was looking uncomfortable now.
"'Yes, but . . . they wouldn't do anything against the law to get gold.'
"'Wouldn't they?' said Ron, looking skeptical. 'I dunno . . . . They
don't exactly mind breaking rules, do they?'
"'Yes, but this is the *law*,' said Hermione, looking scared. This
isn't some silly school rule. . . They'll get a lot more than
detention for blackmail! Ron . . . maybe you'd better tell Percy . . . .' 
"'Are you mad?' said Ron. 'Tell Percy! He'd probably do a Crouch and
turn them in.'"( GoF Am. ed. 569, italics and ellipses in original)

Hermione's attitude here is interesting for several reasons. She now
seems unconcerned about breaking "silly school rules" (in marked
contrast to her attitude in SS/PS), but she's concerned about breaking
the law, not because it's wrong to do so (i.e., blackmail violates the
victim's rights) but because of the *consequences* of getting caught
(Azkaban instead of detention, which clearly has ceased to operate as
a deterrent to her breaking any inconvenient or "unfair" rule--and
note that this attitude predates Umbridge). She considers reporting
the Twins to Percy, an idea that Ron squelches because Percy would
turn them in (a violation of his schoolboy code of honor, but also an
indication that he cares about the Twins and has ceased to trust
Percy). Hermione seems to be convinced by his response, or at least,
IIRC, says nothing more about the Twins' intention.

By OoP, Hermione is thinking more like the Twins, disregarding the
consequences of the law to engage in blackmail herself, for the
self-righteous reason that she'll stop Rita from telling lies, but
also as a form of revenge after the bubotuber pus incident. ("I *hate*
that Skeeter woman!,' she burst out savagely. 'I'll get her back if
it's the last thing I do!'" GoF 546).

Note that Hermione's desire for vengeance against Rita precedes her
concern for the Twins' contemplated blackmail attempt, or rather her
fear of its consequences. By OoP, she's ready to put the two together
and commit blackmail herself in pursuit of vengeance, either
disregarding the consequences if she's caught or assuming that she,
the clever and righteous Hermione, can break the law with impunity.
(In the WW as in RL, teenagers too often think themselves exempt from
consequences and even immortal, and no doubt being a kid acting
against an adult adds to the thrill of victory if power is assumed to
be in the hands of the adults.) Capturing Bug!Rita and putting her in
a jar probably strikes Hermione as no more inhumane than Transfiguring
hedgehogs into pincushions (or vanishing kittens, if an example from
HBP is okay here). And the desire for vengeance imitates that of two
adults Hermione has come to respect, Lupin and Black, both of whom
intended to murder Pettigrew as a form of vigilante justice. So Rita
(whose faults and lies are of course undeniable) is reduced to an
object (or creature), a mere bug to capture and imprison, but who
(which?) is at the same time being punished by Hermione (for crimes
against herself, not against Harry, since the trigger is the bubotuber
pus incident). And apparently this motive justifies Hermione in her
own mind in breaking the law against blackmail (and risking Azkaban)
as she thought the Twins should not do just one year earlier.

Her shift in attitude is at best inconsistent and at worst
hypocritical. What's not okay for the Twins to do in pursuit of their
lost gold (not worth the risk?) is okay for Hermione in pursuit of
revenge. 

While I don't think Hermione deserves to be slapped, I do think she
needs to get her priorities straight, and quickly, if she's going to
be an agent for the side of Good in Book 7.

Carol, noting that it's Ron, not Hermione, who confronts the Twins
regarding the intended blackmail in GoF, prompting George's prescient
remark that he ought to be a Prefect














From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Fri Mar 10 20:17:30 2006
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 15:17:30 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] What possessed Peter to restore Voldemort? (Was: Trusting
 Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dusdl9+sps4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY101-F15DF1F616FA0C21D8E41D591ED0@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 149382

Carol:
>We may not agree about Snape, but apparently we agree about Peter, who
>has to be the most cowardly Gryffindor of all time.

PJ:
We were bound to agree on something eventually.  Peter's a good start.  :-)

Carol:
>I don't think thatthe potion was in a book (unless it was a very ancient 
>one, and we
>know how Voldemort feels about ancient magic); I think he invented it
>and gave Peter the directions (as Vapor!mort certainly did when he
>gave Peter directions to create a rudimentary body using unicorn blood
>and Nagini's venom--*that* couldn't have been in any potions book).

PJ:
I agree. I too see Voldemort as being a top notch potion *creator*.  Just 
one more natural talent in a long list of talents that made him such an 
incredible student.

Carol:
>Why Peter actually went through with the assignment--kidnapping and
>injuring Harry, murdering Cedric (not part of the original deal, but
>promptly performed), violating a grave, and above all mutilating
>himself, all to restore Voldemort and make him stronger, is unclear to
>me. Did he really think he had no alternative and that he'd be better
>off with a stronger Voldemort?

PJ:

He tells Sirius and Lupin that he didn't feel he had a choice in serving 
Voldemort because Peter was convinced LV was going to win and there didn't 
seem any point in going against him.

He knows there's no way he can stay out of prison if he's caught by the 
ministry.  He also knows that Sirius was also an animagus, as well as a much 
better wizard, and it still took him years to finally escape those 
Dementors.  As we agreed earlier, Peter is a coward so the last place he'd 
want to be is around Dementors and the inprisoned DE's who may blame him for 
Voldemort's disappearance!

I think he convinces himself that if he does enough (finding Voldemort, 
caring for him, etc) he can make himself Voldemort's trusted right hand 
man.... Odd how that wish was fulfilled, wasn't it?  lol!


>Carol, wondering why Harry thinks that Voldemort (one "r") murdered
>Cedric when it was Wormtail who killed him

He heard Voldemort say something about killing the spare but maybe in all 
the confusion he didn't hear him clearly?  Or, he could simply feel that 
since Voldemort gave the order (and Cedric came out of Voldemort's wand) 
that he was the one responsible.

PJ





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 10 20:20:56 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 20:20:56 -0000
Subject: Interesting throwaway on Hermione at JKR's updated site (dragon's blood)
In-Reply-To: <dusa13+5pba@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dusn38+5q2p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149383

PJ wrote: 
> > What surprised me was that it didn't say the only *student* in the
class to know, but the only *person*.  Is this said differently in 
the UK than in the US or does this mean teachers as well as  students?
 If so, I wonder who's class she was in and how many teachers are
still ignorant of the uses?
> 
SSSusan:
> PJ, I think you're assuming "class" to mean "classroom" or one
specific subject.  I took "class" to mean their *year.*  That is, 
since the synopsis was of PS/SS, I think JKR meant that Hermione was
the only person in Harry's year -- among the 1st years -- who knew
them all.
> 
> Siriusly Snapey Susan, who didn't even type her name correctly in
her last post. :-|
>
Carol responds:

I agree with SSS that "class" means year and includes the Ravenclaws
and Hufflepuffs as well as the Gryffindors and Slytherins in Snape's
Potions class, which would have been the only one in which the subject
was likely to be raised considering that dragon blood is a potion
ingredient, not a spell or a magical plant. 

I can't conceive of Snape himself not knowing the twelve uses given
both his Potions expertise (*much* greater than that of any first
year, even a smart student like Hermione) and the identity of the
discoverer, his own headmaster. He seems (as of HBP) to have memorized
all the required texts, even outside his own areas of expertise (the
reference to "The Standard Book of Spells, Grade 6"), and he can make
difficult potions that other wizards can't. It would be completely out
of character for him not to know this particular piece of information.
(I'll bet it was on his Potions OWL.)

Possibly JKR intended to establish Hermione's reputation as a
Know-It-All in SS/PS by having her answer, or attempt to answer, this
question. I can't imagine her volunteering the information in Snape's
class: "Please, sir, I know the twelve uses of dragon's blood. May I
list them for you?" but possibly this question was included with the
ones on bezoars, the Draught of Living Death, and aconite in the first
draft of SS/PS. If so, JKR probably concluded that a list of twelve
uses of anything would be tedious, whether it was Snape or Hermione
who recited it and either eliminated the question or substituted, say,
the aconite question for it. (The bezoar and DLD questions have a
point; bezoars have already come into play in saving Ron's life in
HBP, and I suspect that the DLD will be important in Book 7, perhaps
in connection with Emmeline Vance. The aconite question seems merely
thrown in, or at least I have yet to see its significance.)

BTW, SSS, I'm not sure that you need to conclude that Hermione coming
to school knowing the Twelve Uses of dragon's blood is canon just
because it appears on the website. Anything in the early drafts,
notes, and synopses that doesn't appear in the books because it was
changed or eliminated (e.g., "Gary"/Dean as one of the people
wandering the hallway with HRH and Neville in SS/PS) is not canon
because it contradicts the books. JKR may simply have changed her mind
about Hermione already knowing this particular bit of information,
just as she did about having Mr. Granger witness the explosion of the
Potters' house. She thought of it, she wrote it down, but she didn't
include it in the final revision of the book; therefore, it isn't
canon. Either that or Draco's last name is really (ugh!) Spungen,
despite its being Malfoy in the books. 

It's also interesting but possibly not significant that McGonagall was
originally "Madam McGonagall," which alliterates nicely but sounds
less professional than "Professor McGonagall," not to mention that
"Madam M" puts her on terms of equality with Pince, Pomfrey, and Hooch
rather than with Snape and Flitwick, or even Quirrell and Binns.

Carol, who noticed SSS's typo but didn't take it Siruisly ;-)







From kchuplis at alltel.net  Fri Mar 10 21:12:29 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 15:12:29 -0600
Subject: Hermione/Peter
Message-ID: <004501c64487$574967a0$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local>

No: HPFGUIDX 149384

Ceridwen:

>From Pippin's post: "Marietta blabs when Harry starts teaching the
class how to fight dementors. I can understand why Marietta suddenly
had trouble with her conscience."

At the time, the Dementors were guarding Azkaban.  Therefore,
Ministry employees.  Corruptable, and OFT (Themselves, they're a
group), but still at least nominally under the Ministry.

kchuplis:

Hmmm. Yeah, maybe marginally but I don't think that is really what pippin
was talking about. If so, I just can't see that as legitimately acting
against the MoM. The Dementors were shown time and again not to follow any
code in regards to whom they attacked. I, at least, couldn't accept that as
pushing Marietta over the edge.

cubfanbudwoman:

Not sure if anyone other than me will find this interesting, but one
of the scrapbook items you get when you solve a clue (or follow
someone else's instructions, as I did ;-)) is the original synopsis
of PS/SS.  I noticed a little tidbit near the end:

"...and Hermione Granger (cleverest girl in the year and the only
person in the class to know all the uses of dragon's blood)."

Huh.  Does this surprise anyone else that Hermie KNOWS the 12 uses?
I thought only DD knew them all -- or at least that none of our main
kid characters did.  So far we readers only know a couple of them,
right?  Oven cleaner, for instance.  I wonder why Hermione hasn't
mentioned more of those uses along the way?

kchuplis:

I looked it up and the mention became something like "found it hard to relax
when Hermione is next to you reciting the 12 uses of dragon's blood" so
apparently it morphed into being something all first years learn in potions.

Also, I read today the bit on "Characters" about Malfada who was supposed to
be a 12 y.o. that came to live with the Weasley's and was as bright as
Hermione but a bit of a bad egg. I think we can now see where Hermione's
intense difficulty with Harry using the HBP's book to be better at potions
than her really morphed from. I always felt, and to me this supports it,
that rather than disapproving of using "someone elses's work", it really was
that Hermione did not like being shown up in that class.

SSSusan:
Ah, we've had this discussion before, Carol. :-)  I maintain that
Harry is correct in that thought.  It's the Charles Manson-type
parallel:  You ORDER the murder, you ARE the murderer in the legal
sense of things.  Harry *knows* Wormtail cast the spell, but he heard
Voldy order the killing and so knows that it was Voldy's INTENTION
and COMMAND which made the murder happen.  Hence, he's the murderer
(the cause of the murder) even if he's not the murderer (the one
taking the action).


Kchuplis:

This is how I see it too. I find it similar to Sirius saying Voldamort
killed Regulas "or more likely had him killed". Pretty sure it would be
generally accepted that to follow a direct order like "Kill the spare" is
pretty much the same as LV doing it. But either is (as in this case) not
being able to do it immediately or how much status or importance the person
has to LV. Cedric was simply in the way.

I also agree that LV definitely directed Wormtail in how to make the potion.
He certainly had enough strength to plan a long drawn out way to get at
Harry and I can't see it being that taxing to direct Wormtail to make this
potion.





From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net  Fri Mar 10 22:09:11 2006
From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 22:09:11 -0000
Subject: Interesting throwaway on Hermione at JKR's updated site (dragon's blood)
In-Reply-To: <dusn38+5q2p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duste7+efgn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149385

Carol: 
> Possibly JKR intended to establish Hermione's reputation as a
> Know-It-All in SS/PS by having her answer, or attempt to answer, 
> this question. 
<snip> 
>BTW, SSS, I'm not sure that you need to conclude that Hermione 
> coming to school knowing the Twelve Uses of dragon's blood is 
> canon just because it appears on the website. Anything in the 
> early drafts, notes, and synopses that doesn't appear in the books 
> because it was changed or eliminated (e.g., "Gary"/Dean as one of 
> the people wandering the hallway with HRH and Neville in SS/PS) is 
> not canon because it contradicts the books. JKR may simply have 
> changed her mind about Hermione already knowing this particular 
> bit of information....


SSSusan:
Actually, someone on another list said that this rang a bell for 
her, and she found the following from Chapter 14 in PS:

"It was hard to relax with Hermione next to you reciting 
the twelve uses of dragon's blood or practicing wand movements."

So I guess we *did* see it in canon that Hermione knew all 12; it's 
just that apparently no one around her paid attention to it... or 
apparently felt the need to study the same material she was studying?

Actually, I guess this means JKR *may* have changed her mind, from 
Hermione coming to school with this knowledge, to her having learned 
it while studying at Hogwarts.  If the latter, I wonder if all the 
other students in the class were *supposed* to be learning the 12 
uses, too?

Siriusly Snapey Susan, pondering something which may well carry no 
significance whatsoever








From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 10 22:22:02 2006
From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 22:22:02 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped, ...-Hermione's Crimes
In-Reply-To: <dusj43+8lq8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dusu6a+dl8u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149386


> Carol:
> What concerns me most is that Hermione has previously expressed
> concern over the Twins' intention to blackmail Ludo Bagman, i.e.,
> their intention to commit exactly the same crime Hermione later
> commits:

<Snip, huge snip. > 

> By OoP, she's ready to put the two together and commit blackmail
> herself in pursuit of vengeance, either disregarding the
> consequences...


Amiable Dorsai
I've missed something.  Vengeance?  Are you talking about Hermione's
strongarming of Rita into telling Harry's story?  Other than
Hermione's threat to tell Molly that the twins were using 
first-years as guinea pigs, that's the only blackmail I can recall
Hermione performing in OoP. 

Do you really see that as primarily an act of vengeance?  Myself, I
thought it was a last-ditch attempt to warn the wizarding world that
the most evil wizard in history was back, as a way to combat the
Ministry's propaganda campaign to the contrary.  It was a bit
delicious, I admit, that Hermione managed to stick it to an evil and
oppressive government functionary in the process, and that her
instrument was the very woman whose libel gave Fudge's lies currency,
but vengeance seemed to be, at most, a serendipitous side-effect.

So where are we?  On the one hand, we have Hermione disapproving of
blackmail when she thinks it's being used to steal money from an
innocent man, and on the other, we have Hermione using blackmail 
in an attempt to save the world.

Carol:
> While I don't think Hermione deserves to be slapped, I do think she
> needs to get her priorities straight, and quickly, if she's going to
> be an agent for the side of Good in Book 7.

Amiable Dorsai:
Stealing money vs. saving the world...  I'd say she's got a fairly
good sense of priorities already.

Amiable Dorsai







From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Fri Mar 10 22:23:56 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 22:23:56 -0000
Subject: JKR's website
In-Reply-To: <dusin7+1hhu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dusu9s+dltj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149387

Tonks:
> As I was sitting in the links room waiting for Peeves to come by to 
> get the clue for the lightning bolt, I keep studying the pictures.  
> Has anyone ever noticed that they are mirror images of each other? 
> When the owl leave the one on the right they fly left to right.  
> When they enter the one on the left they come in from the right and 
> go to the left.  I wonder if this is any connection to how the 
> portraits work, or how the mirror will work?

Ceridwen:
They're not the same pic, but the bird animations are mirror images 
of each other.  I think the site developer just found it easier to 
switch them than to make different animations, since the pics were so 
similar.  And, I thought they were seagulls.

I'm still waiting on Peeves, but did anyone else find that book that 
explains the symbolisms for numbers?  Demiguise for zero, salamander 
for six (the maximum amount of hours it can survive outside of 
flame), and seven, the Unknown - the symbolic number of seven has yet 
to be discovered?

Ceridwen, waiting on a poltergeist.






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 10 22:48:12 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 22:48:12 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped, ...-Hermione's Crimes
In-Reply-To: <dus5cf+f2rg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dusvnc+8chl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149388

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" <belviso at ...> wrote:

> bboyminn:
> 
> So, by your way of thinking, it wasn't Harry's place to go after the
> Stone in the first book, neither was it his place to go to the 
> Chamber of Secrets and rescue Ginny in the second, nor to help Ron 
> escape from Sirius Black in the third, etc.... If Harry took your 
> attitude, ..., pretty much ALL would be lost.
> 
> Magpie:
> There's an important difference in the things Ceridwen is talking 
> about and what you're describing here--something different enough 
> that JKR never puts Harry in this situation, imo.  Harry, in all 
> these scenes, is saving someone.  He's worried a person is in danger 
> or the world is in danger so throws himself into danger to stop it. 
> He's risking himself. In the Hermione scenes Ceridwen is talking 
> about she's being judge and jury and meting out punishment to 
> others.  It's not that Hermione ought to let adults handle it--it's 
> not up to any random adult to do these things either.  It's her 
> thinking she has the right to decide what justice is and administer 
> it.
> 
> ...
> 
> -m
>

bboyminn:

I can't help but notice that you are very selectively missing the
point. This is about 'right' and 'wrong'. 

If Hermione did the 'right' thing in turning Rita over to the adult
authorities, then the effects would have been crushingly devestating
to Rita. It would have been prison and the ruin of her career. That is
no small thing.

So, what Hermione did was 'wrong' technically, but it was infinitely
more merciful that the consequences of doing the 'right' thing. Again,
I suggest you ask Rita whether she would prefer that Hermione do the
'wrong' thing or the 'right' thing. I can't imagine that Rita would
prefer 'right' over 'wrong'. 

Further, Hermione isn't backmailing Rita for personal gain. She is
trying to stop Rita from telling lies. That's hardly blackmail in the
traditional sense; 'be a good moral person, or go to prison'. Isn't
that the same 'blackmail' that all laws put on all citizens? 

Now to Harry -

Let's use the example of the Philosopher's Stone. What Harry did was
'wrong'. McGonagall specifically told him to go to bed and let the
adults handle it. If Harry did the 'right' thing, he would have
obeyed. He would have been snug in his bed being an obedient little
boy, and the Stone would like have been lost. 

In all cases, if Harry had done the 'right' thing, told the adults
what he knew, then snuggled up in his bed and let them deal with it,
it would have been a disaster in very case. The Stone would be lost,
Ginny would be dead, Sirius would be dead, and in all likelihood, in
GoF, Harry would be dead. 

But Harry does the 'wrong' thing. He disobeys his Head of House, he
meddles in things that, according to the adults, don't concern him. He
violates curfew. He puts himself and others in danger; I'm sure the
adults don't approve of students doing that. 

Any moral absolutest position is flawed. In the real world, and even
more so in the fictional world, true morals dictate that sometime the
'wrong' thing is the infinitely RIGHT thing to do. It is not enough to
simply obey the rules and laws of society because they are sometimes
corrupt, and sometimes in specific cases, are wrong. A truly moral
person uses the rules as a guideline, but ultimately answers to a
higher authority; whether God or conscience. 

If you want to raise morally sound children, then I suggest that you
make that distinction clear to them. Heroes are those who do what is
morally right by conscience even when it goes against the rules.

Back to Hermione, I don't see how anyone can say that Hermione wasn't
merciful in her actions regarding Rita. The consequences of Hermione
doing 'wrong' are infinitely less than that consequences of her doing
'right'. And, I have to believe that Rita has enough intelligence to
see that.

"In a corrupt Fascist society, the people fear the government. In a
free open democratic society, the government must always fear it's
people."

Just passing it along.

Steve/bboyminn







From chrissilein at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 10 16:14:57 2006
From: chrissilein at yahoo.com (chrissilein)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 16:14:57 -0000
Subject: JKR's website
In-Reply-To: <700201d40603092040m26916039r5e2ce27530b70792@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <dus8m1+epb3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149389

> Kemper:
> <snip>
> Peace Lily, *Spathiphyllum, *spathi- is greek for sword.  Gryff's 
> sword, maybe?

Chrissi:
The correctly latin name for a peace lilly is: Spathiphyllum









From katbofaye at aol.com  Fri Mar 10 18:52:38 2006
From: katbofaye at aol.com (katssirius)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 18:52:38 -0000
Subject: Heir of Ravenclaw (was Re: Finding the horcruxes? etc.)
In-Reply-To: <durhmc+q7ml@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dushtm+i1sc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149390

> Leah:
> Just thinking that it would be a very interesting situation if the 
> heir of Ravenclaw turned out to be Marietta.  

"katssirius":
It has got to be Luna.  That would be more fun and JKR spends alot 
more page time on her.












From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 10 23:49:47 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 23:49:47 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped, ...-Hermione's Crimes
In-Reply-To: <dusvnc+8chl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dut3ar+1rtv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149391

> >>bboyminn:
> I can't help but notice that you are very selectively missing the
> point. This is about 'right' and 'wrong'. 
> If Hermione did the 'right' thing in turning Rita over to the adult
> authorities, then the effects would have been crushingly          
> devestating to Rita. It would have been prison and the ruin of her 
> career. That is no small thing.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
You've just described blackmail.  If you don't do what I wish, you 
will be hurt.  If you don't pay me X amount of dollars, I'll tell 
your wife about your mistress.  So yes, Hermione gives Rita a 
choice: go to Azkaban for your crime, or give up your career for a 
year.  Obviously what Hermione wanted Rita to do was a better choice 
than prison, otherwise the blackmail wouldn't have worked.  (That 
Rita had no income for a year is, of course, not something a high 
school girl would really think about.  Especially a high school girl 
of Hermione's comfortable background.)

> >>bboyminn:
> Further, Hermione isn't backmailing Rita for personal gain. She is
> trying to stop Rita from telling lies. That's hardly blackmail in 
> the traditional sense; 'be a good moral person, or go to prison'. 
> Isn't that the same 'blackmail' that all laws put on all citizens? 

Betsy Hp:
This is a nice way to spin it.  But Hermione stops Rita from working 
for a year as a *punishment* to "break the habit of writing horrible 
lies about people."  Instead of saying, "don't lie".  She's, in 
effect, sending Rita to her room without supper.  For a year.  So 
Hermione *is* acting as a judge here.

Funnily enough, I've seen plenty of B-movies where the blackmailer 
makes a big point out of the sins of his victims.  "He's cheating on 
his wife or company!"  "He's gay!!"  "I'm just exacting a little 
moral justice here!"  In those movies, that sort of equivocating 
never really works.  People are never really fond of self-appointed 
morality police.

> >>bboyminn:
> Let's use the example of the Philosopher's Stone. What Harry did   
> was 'wrong'. McGonagall specifically told him to go to bed and let 
> the adults handle it. If Harry did the 'right' thing, he would have
> obeyed. He would have been snug in his bed being an obedient little
> boy, and the Stone would like have been lost. 

Betsy Hp:
Ooh, bad example, Steve!  How would the Stone have been lost?  Harry 
doesn't *save* the Stone.  He frees it from the mirror and puts it 
within Voldemort's grasp.  *Dumbledore* saved the Stone, and Harry's 
life.  If Dumbledore hadn't shown up... well, it would have been a 
short series.

If, on the other hand, Harry had stayed in bed, Quirrell!Mort would 
have remained stuck in front of the mirror for Dumbledore to catch.  
And neither Harry nor Ron would have sustained any injuries.  (And 
it would have been a very boring series. <g>)

However, to go towards your main point that Hermione was just trying 
to save the world here just like Harry always does, I have to 
disagree.  Hermione twists the knife.  Harry does what he had to do, 
but Hermione *ruins* a womans life.  For no other reason than 
Hermione has decided (all by herself) that she deserves it.  I'm 
having a hard time seeing the heroism here.

> >>bboyminn:
> Back to Hermione, I don't see how anyone can say that Hermione     
> wasn't merciful in her actions regarding Rita.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Out of curiosity, if you were told to not work for a year, starting 
immediately, how would you do?  Any house payments you'd have 
trouble making?  Any bills that might start piling up? Any 
dependents? You're healthy, I hope?  This is the sort of stuff a 
wealthy and sheltered girl like Hermione would not think about.  She 
probably thinks she's just keeping Rita out of nail polish.

Rita looks a bit ragged in OotP.  Hermione is not only uncaring, 
she's very strict about Rita working without payment.  The rage Rita 
was barely keeping back suggested, to me anyway, that Hermione would 
not want Rita to ever get her alone to throughly "thank" Hermione 
for her "mercy".  

Actually, what Hermione does to Rita parallels what Umbridge does to 
Lupin quite nicely.  (I think Redhen has an essay on this.)

Betsy Hp






From monalila662 at earthlink.net  Sat Mar 11 00:01:04 2006
From: monalila662 at earthlink.net (dillgravy)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 00:01:04 -0000
Subject: The Snape Secret...
Message-ID: <dut400+qm5q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149392

Ok, I think I'm on to something my fellow potterheads. But everytime I think that, one of you 
(uh, not so gently) points out that my idea had been discussed at length and proven to be 
false. But- You can't keep me from trying!!!! 

So, everyone asks- why does/did DD trust Snape so much? what does he have on Snape that 
would warrant such loyalty? WHEN THE QUESTION SHOULD BE: Who does Snape Love? Love is 
obviously a common theme throughout the books and it is what differentiates the good from 
the bad according to JKR. So- we've been told that he does NOT have a daughter (people 
thought Luna might be his daughter- WHAT??? whatever) but it was never said that he did not 
have a son. Could it be that he has a significant other? (pretty sure he's not gay- but you 
never know I guess- one of my exes changed his mind- but that's another chat room). 
REgardless, whomever Snape loves, he would not want Voldesnort to get wind of it and use it 
to lure him back to the dark side. DD must know who this loved one is and where they are. 
DD may have been Snape's secretkeeper.


What do you guys think- go easy on me. 

Lisa






From imontero at iname.com  Fri Mar 10 20:32:34 2006
From: imontero at iname.com (lunamk03)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 20:32:34 -0000
Subject: Hermione the Vigilante?
In-Reply-To: <007101c643d8$4efdf160$0698400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <dusnp2+m3cq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149393

Magpie <belviso at ...> wrote:
<snip> 
> Magpie:
> And I'm happy to say I don't trust that.  I don't think Hermione 
> or Dumbledore are set up as so superior to the other characters 
> so that their actions should be seen as a hand of justice rather 
> than their doing something to support their own agendas.  I don't 
> read a lot of JKR's interviews, but does she say Hermione is 
> speaking for her on all matters of justice, or is Hermione more 
> of an exposition machine?  I honestly think she's more used as 
> that.  There are plenty of times when Hermione is more sensible 
> or is right when others are wrong, but I think in those times 
> it's backed up in the text.

Luna:
I don't remember saying that Hermione was morally above other 
characters or that Jo was placing her above other characters. All 
I was doing is explaining the facts:

- Some characters were punished
- The character imparting the punishments was Hermione
- These are characters in a book written by JKR.

Which leads me to the conclusion that:  the person writing the books 
chose Hermione as a vehicle to impart punishment to those characters 
that she reckoned deserved it.
 
Not necessarily the person imparting a punishment is morally above 
the person in the receiving end. This is really na?ve as a concept. 
Unfortunately, in real life, we see a lot of people with poor moral 
concepts in positions of power. In HP books, the children, who are 
the protagonists, seem to be the ones with more moral backbone. So, 
Jo chose one of her children characters to impart the punishments 
that she thought they deserved in the degree she considered best. I 
don't see Hermione's own agenda here.
   
You can agree with Jo or not, but that won't change the facts.


> Magpie:
> Why does it mean that?  It's been months and they're still there. 
> You can hide bad acne under make up.  If they're supposed to 
> disappear slowly I think the way to write that would be to say 
> they had faded towards the end of OotP.  Having her show up with 
> tons of make-up in HBP does not say they're fading, it says 
> they're still there. We never see the pimples gone, we never get 
> anything that tells us they're fading, just different ways of 
> telling us she's got something to hide on her face.

Luna: you might be right, but, honestly, I don't really worry too 
much about it. This girls violated a magical contract, she got what 
she deserved. Now, I do wish Jo would have a little heart and make 
her marks go away, I agree that Marrietta should have learned her 
lessons by now.

>snip 
> 
> Magpie:
> But these books are about ethical issues, among other things. 

Luna:
Ethical issues, I agree. But obviously, to Jo it is not ethical to 
play blindly by the rules instead of having the courage of doing 
what you know it is the right thing to do at the moment. It wasn't 
ethical for Hermione (and for Jo) to allow Umbridge to cruciate 
Harry. It wasn't ethical for her either to have Rita sent to 
Azkaban, knowing what was awaiting her. Instead she did the moral 
choice to put her in a Jar for a couple of days and then make sure 
she wont go around destroying people's lives with her false 
statements, this is what I guess you consider manipulation. Betrayal 
is not ethical for Hermione (and clearly not for Jo), so she made 
sure that whoever betrayed the DA, would pay a high cost for it. You 
could argue that Marrietta was doing what she considered to be "the 
right thing" but by doing it, she was incurring in an even 
worst "sin:" selling the DA members for her own safety and a pardon 
to remain in school. This, I hardly can consider ethical.
 
Also, in all these punishments, the people in the receiving end are 
as, or even more, responsible for their faith than Hermione. 
Marietta could have abandoned the D.A. without betraying them, 
specially knowing what would happen to the group. Umbridge could 
have shut her mouth instead of calling the centaurs "half-breed" or 
trying to put Harry in a Cruciatus curse. 

Had Hermione played "by the rules" and done the "ethical thing" 
Harry would have been cruciated stupid, Rita Skeeter would have been 
sent to Azkaban (then who would have written Harry's article in 
OOP?), and Harry with other 25 students would have been expelled 
from school and possibly sent to Azkaban just for wanting to have a 
DADA study group to pass their exams. Wanting to pass your exams, is 
it a crime?

Sometimes we all face situations of adversity where we all need to 
be manipulative in order to save or protect someone we care about or 
for the greatest good. Extreme situations call for extreme actions. 

 
snip 
> Bottom line is I feel it's totally bizarre to write a book with 
> scenes built up from different characters with different 
> motivations, where the ethical issues just are not that clear, 
> and then say that the point is to get people to flatten it out, 
> ignore the shades of grey, and make it into something simplistic.

Luna: On the contrary, as you can see in my comments above, there 
are plenty of grey shades in Hermione's choices.  

snip
> She's also manipulative when she invites Cormac to a party in 
> order to make Ron jealous.  She forces Rita to do her bidding via 
> blackmail.  There's a place where she manipulates Hagrid in, I 
> think, PS/SS.  She tries to trick the house elves into freeing 
> themselves by leaving hats around.  She confunds McClaggen so 
> that Ron will be Keeper.  

Luna: I have, however, to concede the fact that Hermione does tend 
to impose herself, more like an over protective mother or big 
sister. She likes to impose her ideas on others. This is part of 
her character challenges. I'll also concede that her methods to 
free unwilling elves weren't correct. At least Ron complements her 
in that aspect. She also was manipulative with McLaggen in order 
to make Ron jealous, but the again, she paid the price by having a 
crappy date. Love, my dear, makes us do stupid things sometimes! 
Hermione happens to be a human being (at least in the books) who 
can have feelings and, as many people do, can't help to act on them.

Hermione is learning, she's growing up and eventually she'll get 
there. But, honestly, I don't see Hermione's actions as crimes for 
which she deserves to be punished.

> (It's even on Hermione's advice that Ginny becomes "herself" and 
> gets Harry's attention.)

Luna: Giving an advice to a friend... Now, is it called being 
manipulative? Now I start to see why you see Hermione as being so 
manipulative.
 
> I'm not condemning her for all these actions.  Other characters 
> manipulate as well--it's human nature.  But I'm honestly shocked 
> anyone would read OotP especially and not see Hermione as enjoying 
> to plan and scheme, or know how other people are behaving and why.


Luna:
Honestly, I see Hermione wanting to pass an exam and helping Harry 
to tell the world about LV return...  Why should I be shocked to see 
an inteligent person being able to make a plan and carry it out or 
knowing how (some) other people behave. How is she supposed to be? 
Someone who has no ability to plan or to foresee someone's reaction? 
This sounds to me like someone who, well, is not very normal or 
healthy.   








From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 11 00:22:20 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 00:22:20 -0000
Subject: Interesting throwaway on Hermione at JKR's updated site (dragon's blood)
In-Reply-To: <dusn38+5q2p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dut57s+gl76@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149394

Carol:
> If so, JKR probably concluded that a list of twelve
> uses of anything would be tedious, whether it was Snape or Hermione
> who recited it and either eliminated the question or substituted, say,
> the aconite question for it. (The bezoar and DLD questions have a
> point; bezoars have already come into play in saving Ron's life in
> HBP, and I suspect that the DLD will be important in Book 7, perhaps
> in connection with Emmeline Vance. The aconite question seems merely
> thrown in, or at least I have yet to see its significance.)

zgirnius:
Aconite is also known as Wolfsbane. Possibly an ingredient in the 
potion of the same name?










From sbarthell2001 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 10 20:52:18 2006
From: sbarthell2001 at yahoo.com (sbarthell2001)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 20:52:18 -0000
Subject: Snape teaching DADA
Message-ID: <dusou2+fc4l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149395

When Dumbledore gave Professor Snape the DADA job why wasn't that 
the first thing Harry asked DD during their first lessons? It can't 
be fear of rejection because he's asked DD why he trusts Snape about 
a million times and gotten the exact same reply. He knew that 
Dumbledore was hesitant to give Snape the job in the past so why 
is he suddenly throwing caution to the wind? Slughorn could have 
easily taken over DADA. 

"sbarthell2001"










From Dystopia at s8219.net  Fri Mar 10 22:35:59 2006
From: Dystopia at s8219.net (A. Breese Cyndale)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 15:35:59 -0700
Subject: ::raises hand::
Message-ID: <001f01c64493$02883500$0300a8c0@Eponine>

No: HPFGUIDX 149396

I've tried, but could someone just quick explain what OFT  (OFH?) ESE & LID stand for?

Thanking you in advance for want of not spamming the list with more one liners :)

--
A. Breese Cyndale (Dystopia at s8219.net)
http://www.livejournal.com/users/s8219/
AIM: Miss Breese Y!IM: s8219


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






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sat Mar 11 00:55:38 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 00:55:38 -0000
Subject: ::raises hand::
In-Reply-To: <001f01c64493$02883500$0300a8c0@Eponine>
Message-ID: <dut76a+lgj4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149397

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "A. Breese Cyndale" <Dystopia at ...> wrote:
>
> I've tried, but could someone just quick explain what OFT  (OFH?) ESE & LID stand for?
> 
> Thanking you in advance for want of not spamming the list with more one liners :)
> 
> --
> A. Breese Cyndale (Dystopia at ...)
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/s8219/
> AIM: Miss Breese Y!IM: s8219

Geoff:
OFH/OFT = out for himself/out for themselves
ESE =  ever so evil

I don't recall seeing LID....

There's also DDM = Dumbledore's Man

Hope this helps






From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 11 01:07:42 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 01:07:42 -0000
Subject: Snape teaching DADA
In-Reply-To: <dusou2+fc4l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dut7su+v9lb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149398

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sbarthell2001" 
<sbarthell2001 at ...> wrote:
>
 He knew that 
> Dumbledore was hesitant to give Snape the job in the past so why 
> is he suddenly throwing caution to the wind? Slughorn could have 
> easily taken over DADA. 
> 

Tonks:

Oh no, no, no. Not Slughorn as DADA. First I don't think he is the 
man for the job. Second, DD is trying to keep him safe and the DADA 
job is no place to do that with the curse on it. 

Snape is the most skilled in the dark arts and know the most about 
DADA, other than DD himself. Perhaps DD felt that the students 
needed to learn some serious DADA lessons. Also he didn't want the 
Ministry interfering again when he couldn't find anyone after that 
awful woman that I won't even honor by using her name. 

I think that all the above things considered, Snape was the logial 
choice.  The time had come to use whatever chess piece Snape 
represents before the King is checked.

Tonks_op






From katbofaye at aol.com  Fri Mar 10 23:44:40 2006
From: katbofaye at aol.com (katssirius)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 23:44:40 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped or at least slapped
Message-ID: <dut318+3oql@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149399

Amiable Dorsai:
I've missed something.  Vengeance?  Are you talking about Hermione's
strongarming of Rita into telling Harry's story?  Other than
"Hermione's threat to tell Molly that the twins were using
first-years as guinea pigs, that's the only blackmail I can recall
Hermione performing in OoP."

Katssirius:
Hermione talks about the conditions of Rita's release on the train 
home in Book 4 and Hermione refers back to the black mail the night 
Harry arrives at Sirius' home.  

""But she's not writing for them anymore, is she?"
"Oh no, she's kept her promise-not that she's got any choice." 
Hermione added with satisfaction."  

Then when they meet in Hogsmeade for the interview Harry notices 
that  "Unemployment did not suit Rita...
This is blackmail for vengeance.  Hermione makes it personal.  
Compare this response to DD when he finds Rita in the broom closet 
with Harry.  He confronts Rita about the rudeness but goes on.  Rita 
treats everyone this way.  She went after a story not after Harry or 
Hermione.

It is okay for Hermione not to be perfect.  Her imperfections and 
faults make her interesting and how JKR will handle them makes the 
story interesting.  I believe for these stories to continue to be on 
the same moral path Hermione needs to understand the difference 
between justice and vengeance.  Her own advice to Harry and Ron is 
to ignore the Slytherins.  Their taunts are personal and hurtful.  
When she is the target then Hermione lets nothing stop her.

She set all of this up way before they knew the ministry was going 
to continue to ignore Voldemort's return.  This was never about 
saving the world.

Katssirius







From kchuplis at alltel.net  Sat Mar 11 01:46:51 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 19:46:51 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] ::raises hand::
In-Reply-To: <001f01c64493$02883500$0300a8c0@Eponine>
Message-ID: <E8FE4332-B0A0-11DA-B337-000393B04DDE@alltel.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 149400


On Friday, March 10, 2006, at 04:35 PM, A. Breese Cyndale wrote:

> I've tried, but could someone just quick explain what OFT? (OFH?) ESE 
> & LID stand for?
>
> Thanking you in advance for want of not spamming the list with more 
> one liners :)
>
kchuplis:
I asked about LID off list thinking I was the only one! it's apparently 
"Life in debted" Snape.




From montague at tca.net  Fri Mar 10 20:37:40 2006
From: montague at tca.net (amont4ljtk)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 20:37:40 -0000
Subject: Dobby and Kreacher Apparate Inside Hogwarts
Message-ID: <duso2k+4psb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149401

I have never been in a chat group before, so bare with me.  I love to 
listen to the HP books and have them on tape and not book.  I was 
listening to book 6 (for the 4th time) and in Chapter 21 Ron said 
something like - I wish I could apparate like a house elf.  But this 
made me question the fact that you can not apparate in Hogwarts.  Are 
magical creatures allowed to apparate where witches and wizards 
cannot?  If anyone has an answer to this please respond.  I have looked 
in lots of cites and cannot find an answer.

montague







From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Sat Mar 11 02:15:10 2006
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 21:15:10 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dobby and Kreacher Apparate Inside Hogwarts
In-Reply-To: <duso2k+4psb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY101-F3396628D9017C213B5BE4291E20@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 149402



montague:
>Are magical creatures allowed to apparate where witches and wizards
>cannot?  If anyone has an answer to this please respond.  I have looked
>in lots of cites and cannot find an answer.

The house elves are allowed to apparate in order to be able to do their 
jobs.  They prefer not to be seen and, I'm sure with such a huge castle it's 
easier on the little guys.  :)

PJ








Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/HBF_Text__MUST_READ

Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from 
posts to which you're replying!

Yahoo! Groups Links








From kjones at telus.net  Sat Mar 11 02:31:27 2006
From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 18:31:27 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR's website
In-Reply-To: <dusu9s+dltj@eGroups.com>
References: <dusu9s+dltj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4412367F.8080605@telus.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 149403

Ceridwen wrote:

> Ceridwen:
> They're not the same pic, but the bird animations are mirror images
> of each other.  I think the site developer just found it easier to
> switch them than to make different animations, since the pics were so
> similar.  And, I thought they were seagulls.
> 
> I'm still waiting on Peeves, but did anyone else find that book that
> explains the symbolisms for numbers?  Demiguise for zero, salamander
> for six (the maximum amount of hours it can survive outside of
> flame), and seven, the Unknown - the symbolic number of seven has yet
> to be discovered?
> 
> Ceridwen, waiting on a poltergeist.

KJ Writes:
   Use the numbers in the order in which the pictures present them in 
the rubbish bin and dial them into the phone in the home page. You get 
an award.

KJ




From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 11 02:37:02 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 02:37:02 -0000
Subject: Trusting Snape
In-Reply-To: <BAY101-F264D91C5919D2ACFA0BAEA91ED0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <dutd4e+ul88@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149404

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > A task Voldemort expected Draco to fail and Snape to finish.  As 
> > per Snape in the Spinner's End chapter, anyway.
> > <snip>
 
> >>PJ:
> We don't know for an absolute fact that Voldermort expected that, 
> do we?  We heard it only from Snape.  While I *do* think he was   
> telling the truth about knowing Draco's task, I'm not at all sure 
> that Voldermort specifically asked (demanded?) that Snape do the   
> deed if Draco should fail.  Others think he was lying about almost 
> everything but I think he may just have stretched the truth a      
> speck right there.  <g>

Betsy Hp:
Oh, not an absolute fact, no.  I agree, Snape is playing a close 
game here, so it's no simple thing figuring out what is truth, lie 
or half-lie.  But if Voldemort did want Dumbledore dead (and why 
would he not?) it makes sense that he assign his man on the spot the 
job.  (I don't think anyone thought Draco could accomplish the task 
set for him.)  Snape himself only says that he expects Voldemort 
would want him to do it in the end.  So yeah, there's a bit of guess 
work involved.  Though the fact that Bellatrix didn't dismiss 
Snape's statement is suggestive, IMO.

> >>PJ: 
> No, I've always been firmly counted in the OFH!Snape camp but have 
> lately been considering the potential worthiness of the LID!Snape 
> theo... umm... no.  Scena.....errrr, no.  IDEA!!  <g>

Betsy Hp:
Hee!  That LID, um, thing.  It's a bit too clinical for me.  Plus, I 
can't see that being Dumbledore's iron clad reason to trust Snape.  
It didn't get him to trust Peter Pettigrew after all.  But that's 
another discussion. <g>

> >>PJ:
> Snape's statement that Harry belonged to the Dark Lord *was* a     
> true one (imo) but that didn't mean leave him lying there so that 
> Voldermort has to go through all the trouble of catching him      
> again.  I think Voldermort will be livid when he finds out Snape   
> had the opportunity to bring Harry to him and didn't.
> As for why, Snape left Harry there?  To be totally honest, I don't 
> know.  As far as I can see OFH!Snape doesn't answer that           
> question.  LID!Snape does, of course, but...  Maybe at some point 
> I'll give him and his thought processes more time, but as he is my 
> least favorite character, I don't worry about him all that much.

Betsy Hp:
That's why I'm so completely DDM!Snape.  It explains *everything*. 
<g>  Because, yeah, it makes no sense whatsoever for OFH!Snape to 
kill Dumbledore to begin with.  And once Dumbledore was dead, it 
makes no sense for Snape to not bring Harry to Voldemort.

LID!Snape strikes me as cynical enough to be more OFH than anything 
else, so there's the same problems.  For a good idea of what a 
person completely out for themselves would do I think Peter makes a 
good example.

> >>PJ:
> You think Peter came up with that potion to return Voldy to his    
> body?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
No.  I think Peter *made* the potion that returned Voldemort to 
physical form.  I'm pretty sure the potion was either created or 
discovered by Voldemort.

> >>PJ:
> Bellatrix totally dislikes Snape and appears to think he's a      
> weasel, but thinking he's a weasel isn't the same thing as feeling 
> threatened at all.

Betsy Hp:
I think Bellatrix likes to give the *impression* that she thinks 
Snape is beneath her.  But she must see him as some sort of threat, 
otherwise she wouldn't be so eager to discredit him.  And seeing how 
well Snape played her, I don't think she's unwise to see him as such.

Betsy Hp






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 11 02:49:15 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 02:49:15 -0000
Subject: What possessed Peter to restore Voldemort? (Was: Trusting Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dushls+3su5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dutdrb+k7ef@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149405

>> Amiable Dorsai:
> Suppose you've got Sirius Black, Remus Lupin, and Albus Dumbledore
> (once Remus gets him to believe) after you.  Suppose your Death 
Eater
> "friends" will kill you on sight, if they discover you're still 
alive.
>  Suppose that in not so many years, the son of the couple you
> betrayed, and his best friends--the genius little witch, and the 
kid
> who was brave enough to stand up on a broken leg to get between 
Harry
> and a mass murderer--will be old enough to join the hunt.
> 
> Suppose that the *best* thing you could expect, once they catch up 
to
> you, is a Dementor's Kiss.
> 
> Who you gonna call?


Alla:

Oh, I love you, Amiable Dorsai :). I mean I love your posts of 
course. Yes, you captured rather nicely the situation Peter may find 
himself in when he will be hunted by everybody, BUT I guess I am in 
doubt as to why he did not use the "run and hide" option, if indeed 
the main reason he joined Voldemort was his fear.

I suppose I am with SSSusan. I don't GET Peter either. One moment I 
am thinking of him that he was broken by Voldemort's torture and 
that is why he betrayed his friends and maybe just maybe some kind 
of redemption is possible for him, but then I don't understand at 
all him actively seeking to restore Voldemort, since that is 
suggests to me that Peter is not just broken, but deeply evil person.

Gah. Need book 7 now.

Alla







From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Sat Mar 11 02:53:38 2006
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 18:53:38 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR's website
In-Reply-To: <dus8m1+epb3@eGroups.com>
References: <700201d40603092040m26916039r5e2ce27530b70792@mail.gmail.com>
	 <dus8m1+epb3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <700201d40603101853x35eb7371v5c78c38ac7a2d3de@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149406

 > Kemper:
> > <snip>
>
> > Peace Lily, *Spathiphyllum, *spathi- is greek for sword.  Gryff's
> > sword, maybe?
>
> Chrissi:
> The correctly latin name for a peace lilly is: Spathiphyllum
>
...
..
.
Kemper again:
More correctly or accurately, Spathiphyllum is the Scientific name for Peace
Lily: a scientific name with Greek roots, not latin.
Peace.  Lily.  Sword.  Hmm..


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




From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Sat Mar 11 03:03:04 2006
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 19:03:04 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] ::raises hand::
In-Reply-To: <E8FE4332-B0A0-11DA-B337-000393B04DDE@alltel.net>
References: <001f01c64493$02883500$0300a8c0@Eponine>
	 <E8FE4332-B0A0-11DA-B337-000393B04DDE@alltel.net>
Message-ID: <700201d40603101903w1a172b3ch8f735a8ddcb3d16f@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149407

On 3/10/06, Karen <kchuplis at alltel.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, March 10, 2006, at 04:35 PM, A. Breese Cyndale wrote:
>
> > I've tried, but could someone just quick explain what OFT  (OFH?) ESE
> > & LID stand for?
> >
> > Thanking you in advance for want of not spamming the list with more
> > one liners :)
> >
> kchuplis:
> I asked about LID off list thinking I was the only one! it's apparently
> "Life in debted" Snape.
>

..
.
Kemper:
It's from T-BAY, (theory bay), Neri came up with it: you can find it below
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/145024
I'm not a big fan of it, but it's worth reading and so are some of the
threads.


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




From quigonginger at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 11 03:23:55 2006
From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 03:23:55 -0000
Subject: FILK:  Watch That Vane!
Message-ID: <dutfsb+rcb1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149408

Watch That Vane!  To the tune of "You're So Vain" by the Great Carly 
Simon.  Midi found here:

http://www.upchucky.com/midi-request6.html

To the ever-vigilant CMC (I remembered the original this time!)


Sometime towards the latter part of HBP, Neville tries to warn Harry 
about Romilda Vane.  

NEVILLE:

She walked in our compartment,
And she gave wooing you her best shot.
Her friends were giggling in the corridor.
They all thought that you were hot.

She had one eye cast on Luna as
Your company she sought.
Said, "Harry, dear, 
Please come grace our compartment,
Grace our compartment."

Yeah, watch that Vane!
I guess she thinks there's something about you.
Watch that Vane!
I guess she thinks there's something about you.
Won't you?  Won't you?

Well, you've studied Advanced Potions now,
But, boy, you're still quite naive.
When she gave to you those Choc'late Cauldrons, son,
You were so quick to believe.

Well, she gave away to win your love,
But they weren't really free.
She had some dreams
Bigger than Ton-Tongue Toffee,
Than Ton-Tongue Toffee.

Yeah, watch that Vane!
I guess she thinks there's something about you.
Watch that Vane!
I guess she thinks there's something about you.
Won't you?  Won't you?  Won't you?

(interlude)

She had some dreams
Bigger than Ton-Tongue Toffee,
Than Ton-Tongue Toffee.

Yeah, watch that Vane!
I guess she thinks there's something about you.
Watch that Vane!
I guess she thinks there's something about you.
Won't you?  Won't you?

Well, I hear you shoved the sweets into your trunk,
And so you were not undone.
But who knew your dear friend would soon munch all them down,
And be the fellow whose heart she had won?

Well, you should have binned them all that time,
Avoided a near-miss.
That underhand try 
Hexed the life of a close friend,
Life of a close friend.

Yeah, watch that Vane!
I guess she thinks there's something about you.
Watch that Vane!
I guess she thinks there's something about you.
Won't you?  Won't you?

Watch that Vane!
I guess she thinks there's something about you.
Watch that Wave!
(repeat and fade)


Ginger, who was inspired to write this filk by a huge windstorm and 
must now go reattatch some of the siding on her house.






From belviso at attglobal.net  Sat Mar 11 03:41:44 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 22:41:44 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione must be stopped, ...-Hermione's Crimes
References: <dusvnc+8chl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <009d01c644bd$b8745fe0$7bb4400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 149409

>> Magpie:
>> There's an important difference in the things Ceridwen is talking
>> about and what you're describing here--something different enough
>> that JKR never puts Harry in this situation, imo.  Harry, in all
>> these scenes, is saving someone.  He's worried a person is in danger
>> or the world is in danger so throws himself into danger to stop it.
>> He's risking himself. In the Hermione scenes Ceridwen is talking
>> about she's being judge and jury and meting out punishment to
>> others.  It's not that Hermione ought to let adults handle it--it's
>> not up to any random adult to do these things either.  It's her
>> thinking she has the right to decide what justice is and administer
>> it.

> bboyminn:
>
> I can't help but notice that you are very selectively missing the
> point. This is about 'right' and 'wrong'.
>
> If Hermione did the 'right' thing in turning Rita over to the adult
> authorities, then the effects would have been crushingly devestating
> to Rita. It would have been prison and the ruin of her career. That is
> no small thing.

Magpie:
I'm not intentionally missing the point, I can at least say!  I think we're 
just making different points.  Hermione discovered something her enemy was 
doing that was against the law, but not morally wrong or harmful (imo, and I 
think in Hermione's opinion, given she doesn't seem to think the Marauders 
belonged in prison).  She uses this to her advantage in capturing and then 
blackmailing said enemy to make her behave more to her liking.  I don't 
think that just because Azkaban is the law here that that make it the 
"right" choice.

It's not like the choice is either blackmail Rita or send her to Azkaban. 
There's also different degrees of letting Rita go free, from just reminding 
her that someone knowing her secret means she'd better watch her step 
because she's vulnerable to forcing her to write pieces praising Hermione 
and handing over half her salary.  I don't think you can label throwing the 
woman in Azkaban the "right" thing just so that Hermione needs to do any 
"wrong" by comparison.  Even in your own example Azkaban isn't the right 
thing, it's the thing that's cruel and so wrong in the true sense of the 
world (hence the quotes around 'right').

So my view on what Hermione does is the same as it's always been: she does 
not do something so cruel as sending the woman to Azkaban. She does 
something potentially less harmful to Rita and perhaps more personally 
satisfying--and later more personally beneficial--to her.  To me it's a 
sticky moral point in the book worth exploring.

Steve:
> Further, Hermione isn't backmailing Rita for personal gain. She is
> trying to stop Rita from telling lies. That's hardly blackmail in the
> traditional sense; 'be a good moral person, or go to prison'. Isn't
> that the same 'blackmail' that all laws put on all citizens?

Magpie:
The fear about Hermione's actions, for me, is not that she's getting Rita to 
do things that only benefit Hermione, but that you can get into trouble 
thinking that you can force people to live up to your own moral standards. 
"My personal gain" and "the good of everyone" can get very blurry, 
especially if you see yourself as saving the world, or you're a teenager who 
knows what's best for the world.  As I have described that the very real 
danger of pulling stuff like this is that you make enemies and can lose your 
perspective. "The Noble Blackmailer" isn't a hero you see too much for a 
reason. Personal freedom means that sometimes people do things wrong. I 
wouldn't be okay with somebody blackmailing me to make me a more moral 
person.

Hermione's clever here, she's ruthless and efficient and she takes care of 
someone who's written things she didn't like in the newspaper--some of which 
were true, some of which were false.  I give her credit for it and 
acknowledge that some good came of it.

I'm snipping the rest of the examples because I think they run into the same 
problem.  I do not consider "what a teacher says" or "going to a teacher" to 
be automatically "the right thing" in a moral sense.  And I think the 
examples still fall into the distinction that *I* made, which is just 
different than the distinctions you are making.  You see it as the 
difference between doing what an authority tells you and what you feel is 
right yourself.  I see it as the difference between protecting and 
punishing.  The fact that Hermione did not go to an *adult* as I've said, is 
not an issue for me.  Umbridge was an adult.  Voldemort is an adult. Going 
to them isn't right.  Going to an adult may often be the responsible thing 
or the smart thing, but it's not always more *moral* than acting on your 
own.

Steve:
> Any moral absolutest position is flawed. In the real world, and even
> more so in the fictional world, true morals dictate that sometime the
> 'wrong' thing is the infinitely RIGHT thing to do.

Magpie:
Exactly.  The difference only being that you seem to be putting following 
authority in the supreme moral place so that not doing that is doing 
something wrong, but I don't agree.  I have never disagreed with the idea 
that sometimes moral laws go against society's laws and that people will 
hold the former over the latter--nor am I, I don't think, any sort of moral 
absolutist (I definitely don't believe in morality derived from authority). 
I respect Hermione's following her own moral conscience.  I just don't 
always have to think what she does is 100% perfect or could not be 
problematic later--following your own conscience is a big responsibility.  I 
think it's good to think about this stuff if you're going to make decisions 
like that.  When Harry saves the stone and saves Ginny and saves Sirius, he 
does not put anyone in his power.

Steve:
> "In a corrupt Fascist society, the people fear the government. In a
> free open democratic society, the government must always fear it's
> people."

Just passing it along.

Magpie:
We both, it seems, already agree on the point you're making here, and so 
think it is unmerciful for Rita to be thrown into Azkaban.  You also made a 
case for "be a good moral person or you'll go to prison."  Don't fascist 
governments like that sort of thing?  I mean, there's no reason to always 
assume Hermione's never going to be the one making or enforcing the laws. 
>From people I've spoken to who have trouble with these kinds of scenes with 
Hermione, that's more the line they think on, not that Hermione was wrong 
for going to a teacher.

Luna:
I don't remember saying that Hermione was morally above other characters or 
that Jo was placing her above other characters. All I was doing is 
explaining the facts:

- Some characters were punished
- The character imparting the punishments was Hermione
- These are characters in a book written by JKR.

Which leads me to the conclusion that:  the person writing the books chose 
Hermione as a vehicle to impart punishment to those characters that she 
reckoned deserved it.

Magpie:
I agree that she is using Hermione as a vehicle to punish these characters 
here.  I just don't think that means it's pointless to consider these scenes 
as something other than that as well--to do otherwise suggests JKR isn't 
writing the scenes well.  Especially since I think these books seem to 
encourage us to think about ethical questions even at times like this.  In 
fact, that speaks to the point of the thread.  If it's good for Hermione to 
use her own conscience, surely it's even better for the kids reading about 
her to do that. I would never question that JKR considers Rita and Umbridge, 
for instance, worthy of punishment.

Luna:
Had Hermione played "by the rules" and done the "ethical thing" Harry would 
have been cruciated stupid, Rita Skeeter would have been
sent to Azkaban (then who would have written Harry's article in OOP?), and 
Harry with other 25 students would have been expelled from school and 
possibly sent to Azkaban just for wanting to have a
DADA study group to pass their exams. Wanting to pass your exams, is it a 
crime?

Magpie:
There's that use of the word 'ethical' when what you mean is 'submissive.' I 
think I've said that I did think it was right for Umbridge to be stopped, 
for the DA to form, that manipulation is sometimes necessary.  Obviously 
Hermione doing nothing isn't the "ethical" choice, and I didn't say so, so 
it seems like a strawman.  Really I just see more to ethics than a choice 
between "allow evil to happen" and "s/he got what he deserved and that's 
that."

Luna:
Hermione happens to be a human being (at least in the books) who can have 
feelings and, as many people do, can't help to act on them.

Magpie:
Yes, I know that.   Nor did I say that she should be punished for her 
actions-I believe I got into this thread by stating the opposite. But what 
is significant about her being a human being who has feelings she can't help 
but act on?  It seems like you're defending her from some sort of attack I 
haven't made.

Luna:
Luna: Giving an advice to a friend... Now, is it called being manipulative? 
Now I start to see why you see Hermione as being so manipulative.

Magpie:
::sigh:: I can't say I'm surprised at this response.  You asked me for 
examples of Hermione being manipulative.  Manipulative means to influence or 
manage shrewdly or deviously.  These are examples of Hermione fitting that 
definition.  She is not actually doing the manipulating with Harry/Ginny but 
because it was an example of her ability to see situations this way, and 
Harry and Ginny actually refer to her as having done some good for them 
there, I figured I would include it.

It's a neutral, accurate (imo) description of her actions, not an insult to 
a friend in need of appeals for sympathy, justifications and more flattering 
language.

Love making us do stupid things, dear, for instance, does not make it 
suddenly not shrewd and devious management for Hermione to invite McClaggen 
to a party to make Ron jealous after considering which boy would make Ron 
the most angry. Or this:

Luna:
Honestly, I see Hermione wanting to pass an exam and helping Harry to tell 
the world about LV return...  Why should I be shocked to see an inteligent 
person being able to make a plan and carry it out or knowing how (some) 
other people behave. How is she supposed to be? Someone who has no ability 
to plan or to foresee someone's reaction? This sounds to me like someone 
who, well, is not very normal or
healthy.

Magpie:
I'm analyzing a fictional character, not saying she "has to be" any way at 
all.  I didn't say you had to be shocked or that Hermione wasn't helping 
fight Voldemort or pass her exams.  This, to me, sounds like talking about 
Hermione like a flesh and blood human being.

-m 





From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 11 03:47:58 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 03:47:58 -0000
Subject: Hermione the Vigilante?
In-Reply-To: <dusnp2+m3cq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duth9e+nviv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149410

> >>Luna:
> I don't remember saying that Hermione was morally above other 
> characters or that Jo was placing her above other characters.
> <snip>
> In HP books, the children, who are the protagonists, seem to be    
> the ones with more moral backbone. So, Jo chose one of her        
> children characters to impart the punishments that she thought     
> they deserved in the degree she considered best. I don't see       
> Hermione's own agenda here.    
> You can agree with Jo or not, but that won't change the facts.

Betsy Hp:
I'm confused.  You seem to be contradicting yourself here.  First 
you're saying that Hermione is not more moral than other characters, 
and then you say that she has more "moral backbone".  I'm not sure 
what the difference is here?

Also, I'm not sure that Hermione is representing JKR when she 
blackmails Rita or hexes Marrietta.  Actually, I think it's hard to 
figure out exactly how JKR feels about the various decisions her 
characters make.  Sirius is a good example of her reticence, I 
think. 

[As an aside, I've never thought that when JKR says Hermione is a 
lot like her this means that Hermione is perfect in JKR's eyes.  JKR 
seems to use her to poke fun at herself at times, IMO.]
 
> >>Magpie:
> > <snip>
> > We never see the pimples gone, we never get 
> > anything that tells us they're fading, just different ways of 
> > telling us she's got something to hide on her face.
 
> >>Luna: 
> you might be right, but, honestly, I don't really worry too 
> much about it. This girls violated a magical contract, she got    
> what she deserved. Now, I do wish Jo would have a little heart and 
> make her marks go away, I agree that Marrietta should have learned 
> her lessons by now.

Betsy Hp:
Some folks feel that yes, you snitch you deserve to be permently 
disfigured.  Others don't.  That's what makes this an interesting 
ethical discussion.  However, again, I don't think anyone can say 
JKR is *happy* that Marrietta is still suffering.  JKR is certainly 
making it *clear* that Marrietta is still suffering, but all 
judgement calls are up to the reader.

The thing that worries me is that people like Rita and Marrietta 
might not be learning the lesson Hermione seems to want them to 
learn.  What they *could* be learning is that when Hermione gets 
taken down, she'll need to be taken down hard.  Without any mercy.  
Rita certainly seems to be preparing for the day.  And Hermione is 
not as clever as she thinks she is.

> >>Magpie:
> > But these books are about ethical issues, among other things. 

> >>Luna:
> Ethical issues, I agree. But obviously, to Jo it is not ethical to 
> play blindly by the rules instead of having the courage of doing 
> what you know it is the right thing to do at the moment.
> <snip>
> Sometimes we all face situations of adversity where we all need to 
> be manipulative in order to save or protect someone we care about 
> or for the greatest good. Extreme situations call for extreme      
> actions. 

Betsy Hp:
Here's the interesting thing.  Marietta broke a contract.  She 
didn't "blindly" follow Hermione's secret rules.  So, what does JKR 
have to say about that?  When should one follow the rules?  When 
should one break the rules?  When should one be manipulative?  How 
much control should someone seek to have over another person's life?

> >>Luna:
> <snip>
> Hermione happens to be a human being (at least in the books) who 
> can have feelings and, as many people do, can't help to act on    
> them.
> Hermione is learning, she's growing up and eventually she'll get 
> there. But, honestly, I don't see Hermione's actions as crimes for 
> which she deserves to be punished.

Betsy Hp:
Hmm, I don't think Magpie was saying she expects Hermione to 
be "punished".  For myself, I don't see these books as a complicated 
calculation of karmic vengence to be visited upon all those 
characters who've done wrong.  So I'm not seeing Hermione as 
deserving to be punished.  I *do* think she's playing dangerous 
games and that she's not fully aware of how dangerous they are.  I 
think she's forming far more enemies than she's aware of, and I 
don't think she's fully considered that fact.

As part of her growing experience I think she needs to realize that 
she doesn't know everything.  I *hope* she can learn that as 
painlessly as possible.  But I am a bit worried for her.

Betsy Hp







From nrenka at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 11 04:03:08 2006
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 04:03:08 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped, ...-Hermione's Crimes
In-Reply-To: <009d01c644bd$b8745fe0$7bb4400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <duti5s+bbca@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149411

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" <belviso at ...> wrote:

> Magpie:
>
> ::sigh:: I can't say I'm surprised at this response.  You asked me 
> for examples of Hermione being manipulative.  Manipulative means to 
> influence or manage shrewdly or deviously.  These are examples of 
> Hermione fitting that definition. 

<snip>

> It's a neutral, accurate (imo) description of her actions, not an 
> insult to a friend in need of appeals for sympathy, justifications 
> and more flattering language.

YMMV, but I don't perceive 'manipulative' as a neutral word at all.  
It's generally used to imply that one is doing something specifically 
for one's own personal gain above anything else, and that one is 
doing something with shady intent that you hope the objects of your 
manipulation won't pick up on.  If one states that parents are 
manipulating their children, for instance, it's almost always a 
statement of disapproval.

I suspect that's some of what dissenting listies are objecting to, 
the connotations of the word.

-Nora misses her OED access at the moment...







From belviso at attglobal.net  Sat Mar 11 04:39:06 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 23:39:06 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione must be stopped, ...-Hermione's Crimes/Trusting Snape
References: <duti5s+bbca@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00c601c644c5$bc1ef7b0$7bb4400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 149412

Nrenka:
> YMMV, but I don't perceive 'manipulative' as a neutral word at all.
> It's generally used to imply that one is doing something specifically
> for one's own personal gain above anything else, and that one is
> doing something with shady intent that you hope the objects of your
> manipulation won't pick up on.  If one states that parents are
> manipulating their children, for instance, it's almost always a
> statement of disapproval.
>
> I suspect that's some of what dissenting listies are objecting to,
> the connotations of the word.

Magpie:
I'm glad to clear up that I was not expressing disapproval of Hermione every 
time I felt her actions were manipulative, then.:-)  I thought it just 
seemed very straightforward that it was the most obvious thing to call it--I 
can't think of any other word.  Just as I'd say Harry is being manipulative 
when he gets the memory out of Slughorn, and Draco's manipulative when he 
gets Harry out to the midnight duel.  I like both those scenes in canon 
(one's for a good cause, one's for personal gain).  Sometimes it's downright 
satisfying and fun to watch a character being manipulative.  In my mind the 
difference is sometimes that when you call a person manipulative in real 
life what you often mean is that their manipulation is crude so that you see 
them doing it.  A good manipulator is just smooth and often gets called a 
cool person.

I may just be very insensitive to this type of thing.  Given the characters 
I like I'm used to Cotton Mather-like attacks from the Pulpit calling them 
every name in the book and calling for their punishment and death.  You 
learn to only object to criticisms you can challenge on factual grounds, not 
subjective ones.  Manipulative?  That's practically a compliment.:-)

Betsy:
Snape himself only says that he expects Voldemort
would want him to do it in the end.  So yeah, there's a bit of guess work 
involved.  Though the fact that Bellatrix didn't dismiss Snape's statement 
is suggestive, IMO.

Magpie:
I don't have the book with me, but doesn't Snape say the thing about "him" 
wanting him to do it in the end to himself?  I remember it seemed like it 
was written as if Snape was sort of saying it dreamily, thoughtfully, or 
something.  To me it seemed like a way of showing this was a true statement 
Snape was really making to himself--though whether "he" was Voldemort or 
Dumbledore was in question.

-m








From kchuplis at alltel.net  Sat Mar 11 04:57:13 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 22:57:13 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione must be stopped, ...-Hermione's Crimes/Trusting Snape
In-Reply-To: <00c601c644c5$bc1ef7b0$7bb4400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <81540393-B0BB-11DA-84A3-000393B04DDE@alltel.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 149413


On Friday, March 10, 2006, at 10:39 PM, Magpie wrote:

> Magpie:
> I'm glad to clear up that I was not expressing disapproval of Hermione 
> every
> time I felt her actions were manipulative, then.:-)? I thought it just
> seemed very straightforward that it was the most obvious thing to call 
> it--I
> can't think of any other word.? Just as I'd say Harry is being 
> manipulative
> when he gets the memory out of Slughorn, and Draco's manipulative when 
> he
> gets Harry out to the midnight duel.? I like both those scenes in canon
> (one's for a good cause, one's for personal gain).? Sometimes it's 
> downright
> satisfying and fun to watch a character being manipulative.? In my 
> mind the
> difference is sometimes that when you call a person manipulative in 
> real
> life what you often mean is that their manipulation is crude so that 
> you see
> them doing it.? A good manipulator is just smooth and often gets 
> called a
> cool person.
>
>

kchuplis:

Wow. It's just amazing how different people view a word. I would never 
equate Draco's example and Harry getting the Slughorn memory in anyway. 
I mean, I guess I see the connection but definitely manipulative does 
not imply a favorable thing to me, nor "coolness". The term 
manipulation just has never had good connotations to me.

So I looked up manipulate:

2 a : to manage or utilize skillfully b : to control or play upon by 
artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one's own advantage
3 : to change by artful or unfair means so as to serve one's purpose
b
I guess it does allow for "artful"  but overall, I still get the sense 
that people usually (and certainly anytime I've ever seen it) use the 
term to portray unfair and insidious means.  Synonyms seem to back this 
up for the most part too:

Related Words engineer, finagle, jockey, maneuver; beguile, bluff, 
cozen, deceive, delude, dupe, fool, gull, hoax, hoodwink, kid, snow, 
take in, trick; intrigue, machinate, plot, scheme; arrange, contrive, 
devise, finesse, mastermind; cheat, chisel, defraud, fleece, gyp, 
hustle, swindle




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 11 05:02:00 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 05:02:00 -0000
Subject: Who was and who was not in love with Lily WAS:Lupin and The Marauders
In-Reply-To: <duqrdp+nfjm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dutlk8+6l4r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149414

> Marianne:
> Sweet saints above, I hope not!  Everyone can't be secretly or not 
> so secretly smitten with Lily!  I disagree with JKR saying that 
> Remus loved her, in the sense that I don't think she meant the 
same 
> type of boy/girl love that grew to exist between Lily and James.  
I 
> think it's safe to say that Lily and Remus were vwey fond of each 
> other as friends. Although, in light of the recent Remus 
discussion, 
> I wonder what Lily's feelings were about Prefect!Remus.
> 
> I'm really against the idea that Sirius was in love with Lily, 
> especially as he knew full well that his best bud James was 
smitten 
> with her. Witness Snape's Worst Memory - it seems obvious to me 
from 
> the dialog between James and Sirius that James is still in the 
dark 
> as to why Lily doesn't like him, even though Sirius helpfully 
points 
> out that he thinks that Lily thinks James is a bit conceited. 
There 
> never seems to be any indication that Sirius is at all interested 
in 
> Lily in a romantic sense.  And, somehow, I can't buy that Sirius 
> would think he had to do away with Snape in order to clear the 
field 
> for James.  Lily doesn't seem remotely interested in Snape, either.
> 


Alla:

Heeee, yes, I sincerely hope that at least Sirius was not in love 
with Lily, I really really do. :)

But I do think that that interview I was talking about indicated 
that Remus had more than friendly feelings for Lily. I think JKR 
said that he was not running around competing for her with James, 
but I thought it was quite obvious that Remus ( at least) liked Lily 
for more than friend.

I also wrote earlier that yes, I am forced to grudgingly join DSnape 
loving Lily bandwagon ( Gah and gag again :-))  and no, I don't 
think Lily had romantic feelings for him, but Snape obsessing over 
Lily? Yeah, unfortunately me thinks it was soo. :)

As to how that can play into Snape/Sirius dynamics? Well, I hope it 
would not, but I can see something along the line that Sirius 
somehow learns that Snape likes Lily and thinks that James deserves 
her more or something like that OR ( I think I read this speculation 
on June Diamanti's LJ - I think, don't want to misrepresent) that 
Snape tried to drug Lily with Love Potion and Sirius learned about 
it somehow and proceed to execute revenge or something.

I hope that it is not so, or at least that Lily was not the only 
reason for Snape/marauders hatred, I really truly do.

JMO,

Alla, who apologises to Marianne for bringing Snape into this post. 
It seems to be a bad habit that she tries to get rid of but not 
always succesfully. :)






From belviso at attglobal.net  Sat Mar 11 06:19:11 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 01:19:11 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione must be stopped, ...-Hermione's Crimes/Trusting Snape
References: <81540393-B0BB-11DA-84A3-000393B04DDE@alltel.net>
Message-ID: <000b01c644d3$b7363890$979e400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 149415

kchuplis:

Wow. It's just amazing how different people view a word. I would never
equate Draco's example and Harry getting the Slughorn memory in anyway.
I mean, I guess I see the connection but definitely manipulative does
not imply a favorable thing to me, nor "coolness". The term
manipulation just has never had good connotations to me.

Magpie:

I may have not been clear.  My point is that the good manipulator is not 
called manipulative because you're not aware you're being manipulated. Think 
of someone just very good at getting what they want.  When you call someone 
manipulative it often means that you feel manipulated.  It's like the 
difference between Ferris Bueller and a guilt-tripping mother in law or 
something.

I wouldn't put Harry's scene with Slughorn and Draco's midnight duel on the 
same level morally, but I still haven't heard another word that seems to 
cover what they're doing as succinctly as manipulating another person.  I'm 
not really trying to link the two scenes in a major way in canon.  If there 
is another word I'll gladly just say okay, every time I've said manipulative 
change it in your mind to this other word (as long as I think the word 
actually covers the behavior I'm thinking of).  With Slughorn we're talking 
about a scene where Harry gets an old guy drunk, brings up his dead mother 
to make him feel guilty, offers absolution (while I think assuming Slughorn 
won't remember it later) and calls himself the Chosen One.  Bringing up Lily 
and calling himself the Chosen One are both things we know Harry doesn't do 
naturally, but he's doing it here to get Slughorn to do what he 
wants--willingly.  Harry himself, iirc, recognizes Tom Riddle as doing 
things he himself does in a memory where Tom Riddle is trying to get 
information for an evil plan.

-m 





From DaveH47 at mindspring.com  Sat Mar 11 06:28:01 2006
From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 22:28:01 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR's website
In-Reply-To: <duqsdo+gmj9@eGroups.com>
References: <duqsdo+gmj9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <518481912.20060310222801@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149416


Thursday, March 9, 2006, 7:39:36 PM, kiricat4001 wrote:

k> Well, here's an idle speculation:
k> The six Gryffs: Harry, Ron, Hermione, Neville, Ginny and a twin. 

My Own Guess:

Six G's:
  1. Harry
  2. Ron
  3. Hermione
  4. Neville or Ginny
  5. Lupin or McGonnegal
  6. Wormtail(!)
  
Three S's: Snape, Draco, and Slughorn


What??  No drop of blue for Luna??

-- 
Dave




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sat Mar 11 07:37:30 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 07:37:30 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped, ...-Hermione's Crimes/Trusting Snape
In-Reply-To: <81540393-B0BB-11DA-84A3-000393B04DDE@alltel.net>
Message-ID: <dutunq+la21@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149417

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Karen <kchuplis at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> On Friday, March 10, 2006, at 10:39 PM, Magpie wrote:
> 
> > Magpie:
> > I'm glad to clear up that I was not expressing disapproval of Hermione 
> > every
> > time I felt her actions were manipulative, then.:-)? I thought it just
> > seemed very straightforward that it was the most obvious thing to call 
> > it--I
> > can't think of any other word.? Just as I'd say Harry is being 
> > manipulative
> > when he gets the memory out of Slughorn, and Draco's manipulative when 
> > he
> > gets Harry out to the midnight duel.? I like both those scenes in canon
> > (one's for a good cause, one's for personal gain).? Sometimes it's 
> > downright
> > satisfying and fun to watch a character being manipulative.? In my 
> > mind the
> > difference is sometimes that when you call a person manipulative in 
> > real
> > life what you often mean is that their manipulation is crude so that 
> > you see
> > them doing it.? A good manipulator is just smooth and often gets 
> > called a
> > cool person.
> >
> >
> 
> kchuplis:
> 
> Wow. It's just amazing how different people view a word. I would never 
> equate Draco's example and Harry getting the Slughorn memory in anyway. 
> I mean, I guess I see the connection but definitely manipulative does 
> not imply a favorable thing to me, nor "coolness". The term 
> manipulation just has never had good connotations to me.
> 
> So I looked up manipulate:
> 
> 2 a : to manage or utilize skillfully b : to control or play upon by 
> artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one's own advantage
> 3 : to change by artful or unfair means so as to serve one's purpose
> b
> I guess it does allow for "artful"  but overall, I still get the sense 
> that people usually (and certainly anytime I've ever seen it) use the 
> term to portray unfair and insidious means.  Synonyms seem to back this 
> up for the most part too:
> 
> Related Words engineer, finagle, jockey, maneuver; beguile, bluff, 
> cozen, deceive, delude, dupe, fool, gull, hoax, hoodwink, kid, snow, 
> take in, trick; intrigue, machinate, plot, scheme; arrange, contrive, 
> devise, finesse, mastermind; cheat, chisel, defraud, fleece, gyp, 
> hustle, swindle

Geoff:
I would tend to agree with kchuplis over this one. My usual dictionary defines 
"manipulative" as:
(1) tending to manipulate other people cleverly or unscrupulously. (2) relating to 
manipulate.

It is interesting that the figurative meaning is given precedence over its concrete sense. To 
me, manipulation makes me think of, say, an engineer operating equipment and thus 
being in control which equates to the Puppetmaster! prefix some folk have used on the 
group to describe characters.

I do see a parallel here between Harry and Draco. Although Harry is trying to obtain 
information for a "good cause", he is still aiming to get what he needs from Slughorn 
rather against the latter's wishes.

Manipulative always makes me think of someone such as Iago in "Othello" who controls 
events to bring about his aim, namely the destruction of our eponymous hero. I would 
never use the word to describe positive action.







From sydpad at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 11 09:48:10 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 09:48:10 -0000
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape
Message-ID: <duu6cq+4v07@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149418

*eye squint*  *tumbleweed*

It's you or me, OFH!Snape.

*twitches fingers over revolver*

I've had three hobbyhorses I've wanted to take for a trot around this
site.  Okay, four-- selling jogging!Snape is very dear to my heart. 
One, that Snape/Lily is well-nigh unavoidable (and fun!  yay!  fun!).
 Two, that the oddity of Dumbledore's immediate pleading with Snape on
the tower, far from being a small detail, means that Snape AKing
Dumbledore on his specific request is the straightforward reading of
that scene; and that it is, in fact, the Evil!Snapers who have to come
up with convoluted, extra-canonical theories to explain it.  

Hobbyhorse number 3:  Out-for-Himself!Snape must die.  ESE!Snape is a
pretty thin fellow and not much of a threat; but OFH!Snape has been
seducing away some people that I need for my Evil Army.  So, he's got
to go.

I could go through all the books and rip this guy apart, but let's
stick to some narrow paramaters.  Dumbledore's pleading on the tower
(The Curious Incident, shall we call it, of the Dumbledore who Didn't
Bark, for those who recall their Sherlock Holmes) has shown how
fruitful it can be to look at this stuff in detail rather than in
vague impressions. 

So.

Let's have a look at that Unbreakable Vow.



"If you are there to protect him... Severus, will you swear it?  Will
you make the Unbreakable Vow?"
Snape's expression was blank, unreadable.  ...
"Certainly, Narcissa, I shall make the Unbreakable Vow," he said quietly.


The taking of the Vow makes one thing very clear-- Snape is willing to
die.  Not necessarily suicidal, but definitely not holding his life at
a particularly high value.  Anyone who sees a way around this, be my
guest.

Surely it must be clear that of all our Snapes, the most entirely
incompatible with the Vow is Out-For-Himself!Snape.  People who are
out for themselves simply do not, under any circumstances short of the
absolutely unavoidable, make promises that they drop dead if they
don't fulfill.  Seriously, even if you have every intention of
remembering to pick up the milk, would you literally swear to drop
dead if you didn't?  Snape is not an impulsive, panicky person, and he
certainly was not unavoidably trapped into making the Vow.  And Snape
wasn't Vowing to do something simple-- he was Vowing to do something
very difficult that Voldemort himself had repeatedly failed to do. 
Whatever OFH!Snape wants out of life-- money, power, that sort of
thing, he's not going to get it if he's dead.  He had precious little
if anything to gain and everything to lose from the Vow.  

I don't know, maybe you can posit that OFH!Snape was cross with
himself for procrastinating on the Gaining Power goal, and thought
taking the Vow might be a good motivator, sort of like doing
Affirmations or something.  "I will succeed or drop dead". Might make
a good weight-loss tool?    

Unless you've got one heck of a theory (or wash your hands of the
whole thing by saying the character most consistently portrayed as
calculating is an idiot), the Vow scene boots OFH!Snape right out the
window.  

Taking the Vow doesn't work well with ESE!Snape either.   There's
plenty of reason to think Voldemort would be downright displeased at
the Vow.  Draco is supposed to die, either in the attempt or by
failing and being executed.  Snape is not supposed to be protecting
him.  Neither Snape nor Narcissa were supposed to be talking about the
plan to other people at all.  And Snape has Voldemort's biggest fan
right there in the room-- Bellatrix.  And a guy who can turn into a
rat spying on him.  ESE!Snape might make a Vow to kill Dumbledore if
it had been proposed by Voldemort, but not one proposed by a tearful
mother, two-thirds of which dealt with protecting a kid that V-mort
wanted to make an example of.

ESE!Snape:  buh-bye.  

LifeDebt!Snape:  How does this work again?  It's hard to argue with a
theory when I don't actually understand what it claims!  Reading over
the original LID post, I think Snape-loves-Narcissa is brought up as
an unrelated explanation.  So, Snape is ready to die to save the
child, not his own, of the woman he loves.  First, this is pretty far
from being out for yourself;  second, I think that whole scenario
integrates into the plot a teensy bit better if the woman is Lily and
the child Harry.  

What does this leave us with?  Not a whole lot.  No two ways about it,
taking the Vow was an extremely weird thing to do.  

Let's try to look at this logically.  I see two scenarios here-  not
mutually exclusive ones, but they are distinct, so lets look at them
seperately:

One is our old friend Suicidal!Snape.  He took the Vow intending to
break it.  If he knew that the task was to kill Dumbledore, so much
the better-- it practically guaranteed his goal, to die a hero (but,
oh, that pesky DADA curse..). If Dumbledore has been nagging him about
hanging around until he can help bring down Voldemort, he's got an
easy out here. When Narcissa proposed the Vow, his first thought is,
'ooooh, that's that thing where you die, right?  I'm in'.

Much as I adore Suicidal!Snape, that doesn't account for the jerk of
the hand at the third clause of the Vow.  I think that was definitely
a "gah" moment.  Plus, it's a bit defeatist for Snape's personality. 
So looking at this from another angle-- what does anybody have to gain
from the Vow?  Why does Narcissa propose it?  Surely it would be more
likely to alienate someone you were going to for help, to demand that
they promise to help you or die?

I think Narcissa proposed, and Snape took, the Vow, because it was the
only way to protect Draco from Voldemort.  Voldemort intended Draco to
be killed, and if he doesn't die in the attempt, he will be killed
afterwards-- "He told me to do it or he'd kill me".   But the Vow
throws a massive spanner in the works-- Snape has effectively lashed
his fate to Draco's, and Snape is Voldemort's top (well, only
competent) guy-- "his favorite, his most trusted advisor", Narcissa
calls him.  Here V-mort thought he had a disposable minion to off as a
punishment to his father;  but now if he pushes Draco too hard, or has
a go at him himself, he also loses one of his most valuable people at
the same time.  

I don't think Voldemort was pleased with this at all, and I don't
think Snape had a merry time of it when it came out-- as it's hard to
see how it didn't, with Bellatrix and possibly Peter overhearing.  But
what's he going to do?  Minions are not so thick on the ground as once
they were.  

And it was a good plan, too, except for that darn third clause. Which
I really wonder why Narcissa proposed it-- so Voldemort would be in
such a good mood with D-dore dead, than he wouldn't just snap and kill
both Draco and Snape?  Because she suspects Snape isn't loyal to
V-mort, and worries that might threaten Draco?  

What makes this a nice theory is a) it actually makes sense (always
good in a theory), and b) it's by way of being a Dark version of
Lily's sacrifice for Harry.  Snape is ready to die for Draco, but it's
Dark magic, not Love magic, that binds it, and the consequences
destroy the Light Dumbledore, not the Dark Voldemort.  Coolio!

I'm still giving Suicidal!Snape some cred though, because of the tower
scene-- Dumbledore would not have felt he had to PLEAD with Snape, if
he was confident that Snape wouldn't try to break the Vow.  

Last man standing:  decent, cunning, miserable, instinctively-Dark,
trying-to-do-the-right-thing-yet-screwing-up,
not-too-fond-of-being-alive, Snape.  That's my boy.

-- Sydney, who really DOES have lots of opinions on all sorts of
non-Snape things in the books, but a) if she posted on them would
cease to have a life entirely, and b) her posts would mostly consist
of "I agree with Magpie".








From littleleah at handbag.com  Sat Mar 11 11:05:58 2006
From: littleleah at handbag.com (littleleahstill)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 11:05:58 -0000
Subject: Heir of Ravenclaw (was Re: Finding the horcruxes? etc.)
In-Reply-To: <dushtm+i1sc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duuaum+6gmn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149419

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "katssirius" <katbofaye at ...> 
wrote:
>
> > Leah:
> > Just thinking that it would be a very interesting situation if 
the 
> > heir of Ravenclaw turned out to be Marietta.  
> 
> "katssirius":
> It has got to be Luna.  That would be more fun and JKR spends alot 
> more page time on her.

Leah again:

Oh, I agree Luna would be a lot more fun- not that I see book seven 
as being fun-filled.  But getting Luna to help him would hardly be a 
challenge for Harry. However Jinxed!Marietta with ties to the MOM 
would 
be (assuming her memory of events has not been completely 
oblivated).  And, since I'm assuming Zacharias Smith is the heir to 
Hufflepuff, and he and Harry have always had their difficulties, 
having Marietta as the Ravenclaw heir would be more of a piece.  
Needing Marietta would also explain why we are reminded of the jinx 
in HBP.

But I do see an argument for having the generally rejected Luna 
having something vital to do on behalf of her house. 

Leah








From elfundeb at gmail.com  Sat Mar 11 12:39:52 2006
From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 07:39:52 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What possessed Peter to restore Voldemort? (Was: Trusting Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dutdrb+k7ef@eGroups.com>
References: <dushls+3su5@eGroups.com> <dutdrb+k7ef@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <80f25c3a0603110439y21d4c6deyb2a0acca085ee33d@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149420

Carol:
Why Peter actually went through with the assignment--kidnapping and
injuring Harry, murdering Cedric (not part of the original deal, but
promptly performed), violating a grave, and above all mutilating
himself, all to restore Voldemort and make him stronger, is unclear to
me. Did he really think he had no alternative and that he'd be better
off with a stronger Voldemort? Couldn't he have left him stewing in
the cauldron without adding the ingredients (bone, blood, and his own
flesh) and at the same time released Harry, fulfilling his life debt?
Did he think that the revaporized Voldemort would haunt him and kill
him if he disobeyed the order? Or did he hope to be "honored above all
others" despite Voldemort's known indifference to his followers'
happiness and well-being?


Alla:
I suppose I am with SSSusan. I don't GET Peter either. One moment I
am thinking of him that he was broken by Voldemort's torture and
that is why he betrayed his friends and maybe just maybe some kind
of redemption is possible for him, but then I don't understand at
all him actively seeking to restore Voldemort, since that is
suggests to me that Peter is not just broken, but deeply evil person.

Debbie:
Well, yes.  Peter is deeply evil, IMO, because he has no goals in life
except his own self-preservation.  He's a lot like Voldemort in this
respect, no?  Like Voldy, he has no loyalty to anyone, but unlike Voldy he
is weak and needs protectors.   Voldy knows this and exploits it masterfully
in his handling of Peter, constantly reminding Peter even in Ugly!Baby form
that Peter has no better place to turn, now that his rat cover has been
blown (Voldemort to Wormtail, GoF ch. 1:  "Your devotion is nothing more
than cowardice.  You would not be here if you had anywhere else to go.").

Do you think he was tortured by Voldemort?  I think he went over quite
willingly.  ("He -- he was taking over everywhere!  Wh -- what was there to
be gained by refusing him?" PoA ch. 19.)  I think the slightest hint of
killing was enough.

So why doesn't he cut and run?  Pettigrew can't possibly hope for glory from
Voldemort, who has made clear that he's not worthy of any such thing (E.g.,
"Wormtail, I need somebody with brains, somebody whose loyalty has never
wavered, and you, unfortunately, fulfill neither requirement.").
I think Peter carried out Voldemort's resurrection because he has made an
(unspoken) deal with Voldemort:  If Peter takes care of Voldemort, and helps
him carry out his resurrection plan, he will be protected.  And, as Sirius
pointed out in PoA, Peter is weak (though not nearly as dim as Sirius seems
to think) and craves protection above all else.

>From GoF ch. 1:  "I do not deny that [Bertha Jorkins'] information was
invaluable.  Without it, I could never have formed our plan, and for that,
you will have your reward, Wormtail.  I will allow you to perform an
essential task for me . . . I promise you, you will have the honor of being
just as useful as Bertha Jorkins."
"You . . . are going . . . to kill me too?"
"Wormtail, Wormtail, why would I kill you?"

If Pettigrew walks out on Voldemort, he doesn't just lose his protection; he
will forfeit his life.  Even if Voldemort drowns in the
cauldron, Voldemort's "faithful servant" (Moody/Crouch) knows the plan, and
he will know Wormtail failed to carry it out, in which case Peter will be
Dead!Dead!Dead!  And if Fetus!Voldy doesn't drown in the cauldron in the
meantime, Crouch Jr. would be glad to give his right arm to resurrect him,
without any of Peter's sniveling.

This is really a pretty good deal for Peter.  Yeah, he's a little put out
that he doesn't get more respect, but his conversation with Snape at
Spinner's End makes clear that he's not willing to give up his comfortable
life with Snape to improve his standing.  It's all about that protection
from the most powerful.

It's gotta be better than living as a rat, anyway.

Debbie


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




From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Sat Mar 11 13:55:35 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:55:35 -0000
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <duu6cq+4v07@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duuksn+bqg2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149421

Sydney:
> The taking of the Vow makes one thing very clear-- Snape is willing 
to
> die.  Not necessarily suicidal, but definitely not holding his life 
at
> a particularly high value.  Anyone who sees a way around this, be my
> guest.

Ceridwen:
I agree here.  But he comes out sounding like someone tragically 
willing to off themselves for a noble cause, but out of despair.  
There are people who are willing to die, and who think their lives 
are not as important as the mission, but are not tragic or 
despairing.  Offering to protect and help Draco is selfless, sure, 
given the parameters set down (LV wants him *un*protected and 
*un*helped).  This is a go-beyond thing, I think.  Though the same 
description applies, the emphasis is changed from not valuing his 
life, to valuing the mission and its ongoing outcome as more 
important.

Sydney:
> Surely it must be clear that of all our Snapes, the most entirely
> incompatible with the Vow is Out-For-Himself!Snape.  People who are
> out for themselves simply do not, under any circumstances short of 
the
> absolutely unavoidable, make promises that they drop dead if they
> don't fulfill.  *(snip)* Snape is not an impulsive, panicky person, 
and he
> certainly was not unavoidably trapped into making the Vow.  And 
Snape
> wasn't Vowing to do something simple-- he was Vowing to do something
> very difficult that Voldemort himself had repeatedly failed to do.

Ceridwen:
I'll stop you here.  The original request was for help and 
protection.  Voldemort probably never tried to help or protect 
Draco.  We now return you to your scheduled program.

Sydney:
> Taking the Vow doesn't work well with ESE!Snape either.

Ceridwen:
Get ready for ESE!/OFH!Snape, then.  Out For Himself because he's 
Ever So Evil and wants to be Supreme Overlord of the Planet, and 
ruthlessly capable of evil manipulations and advanced magicks.  
Spelling intended.  I can easily see this composite version of Snape 
making an appearance in the countdown to book 7 (Harry Potter and the 
Jumble of Loose Threads? or, HP&JoLT?)  Not my fave flavor of Snape, 
not at all.  But, be prepared.

Sydney:
> (snipping thoughts on ACID POPS) So, Snape is ready to die to save 
the
> child, not his own, of the woman he loves.  First, this is pretty 
far
> from being out for yourself;  second, I think that whole scenario
> integrates into the plot a teensy bit better if the woman is Lily 
and
> the child Harry.

Ceridwen:
Plotwise, yes.  But the imagery in Spinner's End, with the Vow, is 
definitely like some sort of dark wedding. And Narcissa's wheedling, 
definitely gave me the impression that she thinks she can manipulate 
Snape, and engineer the Vow, through some sort of feminine wiles.  
She's a pretty woman, from what I can gather.  I wouldn't be 
surprised if Young!Snape, and others, had crushes on her at some 
point during school.  ACID POPS, like LOLIPOPS, suggests some 
lingering obsessive attatchment.  Maybe not.  But, positive feelings 
toward the woman?  Probable, IMO.

LID can't work in this scene, I don't think.  Doesn't it involve the 
life debt to James?  How does James figure in a UV with Narcissa?  Of 
course, Snape may have other interests in life besides owing a dead 
man.  But, LID doesn't work, I don't think.

Sydney:
> One is our old friend Suicidal!Snape.  He took the Vow intending to
> break it.  If he knew that the task was to kill Dumbledore, so much
> the better-- it practically guaranteed his goal, to die a hero (but,
> oh, that pesky DADA curse..). If Dumbledore has been nagging him 
about
> hanging around until he can help bring down Voldemort, he's got an
> easy out here. When Narcissa proposed the Vow, his first thought is,
> 'ooooh, that's that thing where you die, right?  I'm in'.

Ceridwen:
I can't get a picture of Suicidal!Snape in any of the books.  He 
looks, to me, like a man fighting to stay afloat.  A suicider will 
allow himself to sink.  Just my impression.  Suicidal!Snape could 
have manipulated Bellatrix to off him right there, I think.  I can't 
get cozy with your man here.  (which, of course, leaves more of him 
for you *g*)

Sydney:
> Much as I adore Suicidal!Snape, that doesn't account for the jerk of
> the hand at the third clause of the Vow.  I think that was 
definitely
> a "gah" moment.  Plus, it's a bit defeatist for Snape's personality.

Ceridwen:  My impression exactly.  The twitch was singled out, 
spotlighted, close-upped.  There's a reason.  And that reason is that 
Narcissa threw in a third provision not previously agreed upon.

Sydney:
> So looking at this from another angle-- what does anybody have to 
gain
> from the Vow?  Why does Narcissa propose it?  *(snip)*
> 
> I think Narcissa proposed, and Snape took, the Vow, because it was 
the
> only way to protect Draco from Voldemort.  Voldemort intended Draco 
to
> be killed, and if he doesn't die in the attempt, he will be killed
> afterwards-- "He told me to do it or he'd kill me".   But the Vow
> throws a massive spanner in the works-- Snape has effectively lashed
> his fate to Draco's, and Snape is Voldemort's top (well, only
> competent) guy-- "his favorite, his most trusted advisor", Narcissa
> calls him.  Here V-mort thought he had a disposable minion to off 
as a
> punishment to his father;  but now if he pushes Draco too hard, or 
has
> a go at him himself, he also loses one of his most valuable people 
at
> the same time.

Ceridwen:
Good point.  I've never gone at it from Narcissa's POV, other than 
the desperate mother scenario.  But gleaning the fact that LV has 
some pretty stupid minions, and that Snape is one of the few (if not 
the only) competent ones, gives her more depth.  And it puts some 
more depth to the entire scene.  I'll have to go back and read it 
again with that idea in mind.

*(snip)*
Sydney:
> What makes this a nice theory is a) it actually makes sense (always
> good in a theory), and b) it's by way of being a Dark version of
> Lily's sacrifice for Harry.  Snape is ready to die for Draco, but 
it's
> Dark magic, not Love magic, that binds it, and the consequences
> destroy the Light Dumbledore, not the Dark Voldemort.  Coolio!

Ceridwen:
Yes.  There are plenty of mirrors in the WW.  This could well be yet 
another.  Enough of us have mentioned Dumbledore's sacrifce possibly 
mirroring Lily's, on the side of Light, why not one on the side of 
Dark?  And the parallels are more direct, in the 'offing' sense.

Sydney:
> I'm still giving Suicidal!Snape some cred though, because of the 
tower
> scene-- Dumbledore would not have felt he had to PLEAD with Snape, 
if
> he was confident that Snape wouldn't try to break the Vow.

Ceridwen:
Or if he thought that Snape didn't see the same Big Picture he did, 
and was about to allow himself to be sacrificed for the Greater Good 
(think war movies, not From Here To Eternity, where the guy really 
needed some sort of punishment).  Not suicidal, but not cowardly, 
either. 

Sydney:
> Last man standing:  decent, cunning, miserable, instinctively-Dark,
> trying-to-do-the-right-thing-yet-screwing-up,
> not-too-fond-of-being-alive, Snape.  That's my boy.
> 
> -- Sydney, who really DOES have lots of opinions on all sorts of
> non-Snape things in the books, but a) if she posted on them would
> cease to have a life entirely, and b) her posts would mostly consist
> of "I agree with Magpie".

Ceridwen, who also agrees with Magpie, and who points out that she is 
currently manipulating a keyboard without anyone being aghast.






From nrenka at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 11 14:56:51 2006
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 14:56:51 -0000
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <duu6cq+4v07@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duuofj+3a1f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149422

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" <sydpad at ...> wrote:

<snip>

> The taking of the Vow makes one thing very clear-- Snape is willing 
> to die.

Really?  It could also imply that he's willing to do everything to 
fulfill the Vow so that he himself doesn't die.  You do have a gap 
there in terms of necessity.

> Not necessarily suicidal, but definitely not holding his life at
> a particularly high value.  Anyone who sees a way around this, be my
> guest.

Sure.  He doesn't think that he could possibly fail in his task, so 
the whole death thing is more of an idle threat.  After all, he's 
been doing so well for so long, and has an eminently high concept of 
his own abilities (and a fairly low evaluation of most other 
people's.  Hubris is a dangerous thing, Severus...)
 
> Surely it must be clear that of all our Snapes, the most entirely
> incompatible with the Vow is Out-For-Himself!Snape.  People who are
> out for themselves simply do not, under any circumstances short of 
> the absolutely unavoidable, make promises that they drop dead if 
> they don't fulfill. 

Here's the classic problem I feel obliged to raise over and over 
again.  OFH!Snape is defined by wanting what he wants (at least to 
me); this does not preclude actions which might be read as 
altruistic, if they're towards an end which he's interested in.

This is the Utilitarian problem AGAIN.  I cannot define what makes 
you happy.  I can look and say "You're crazy to enjoy that, how can 
that make you happy?", but that has absolutely no impact on you.  
Happiness is incommensurable.

People have asked again and again why OFH!Snape, for instance, would 
be a twerk to Harry instead of trying to manipulate the kid (full 
negative connotations here, of course).  The answer may well be 
because it makes him *happy*.  It may be very gratifying to Snape to 
nurse his old hurts and anger towards James Potter--Dumbledore tells 
us as much at the end of PS/SS, unless you think he's just trying to 
cover up the profound truth of Snape's eternal agony at the loss of 
Lily Potter.

OFH!Snape may well *get* something out of this action with the Vow; 
this is not an option which can be automatically dismissed, because 
frankly, none of us have a clearer window than anyone else into his 
psyche, because he's such a sketchily drawn character.  That's 
deliberate.

-Nora waits with amusement for the potential scream of "That's IT?" 
when Snape's mysteries collapse, just like the screaming onlist after 
the Prophecy







From belviso at attglobal.net  Sat Mar 11 15:37:31 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 10:37:31 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione must be stopped, ...-High Noon  for OFH!Snape
References: <dutunq+la21@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <004b01c64521$b90333f0$0692400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 149423

Geoff:
I would tend to agree with kchuplis over this one. My usual dictionary 
defines "manipulative" as:
(1) tending to manipulate other people cleverly or unscrupulously. (2) 
relating to manipulate....
I would never use the word to describe positive action.

Magpie:
And to me, yup, that would be a good word to describe many actions of 
Hermione's.  I'm not bothered by it having some negative connotations.  I 
think you'd be hard-pressed to find words to honestly describe some of 
Hermione's actions that were glowingly positive.  They often aren't positive 
actions.  You can perform a negative action to acheive what you think is a 
positive result.  The girl's not afraid to get her hand's dirty.

Sydney:
(Who I also agree with--no surprise there!)
And it was a good plan, too, except for that darn third clause. Which I 
really wonder why Narcissa proposed it-- so Voldemort would be in such a 
good mood with D-dore dead, than he wouldn't just snap and kill both Draco 
and Snape?  Because she suspects Snape isn't loyal to V-mort, and worries 
that might threaten Draco?

Magpie:
This question now really stands out to me: why does she do it?  It's one of 
those moments that crosses the same sorts of lines I've been talking about 
in other threads.  The first two clauses are about protecting her son, the 
third clause is a promise to commit murder for him.  We know little about 
Narcissa, but we do know that in the last book she was the key to Sirius' 
death in that Kreacher went to her with the information about Harry.  Was 
she happy to have Sirius die?  Actively trying to get rid of Harry because 
she wants Lord Voldemort in power?  Or was she motivated by the idea that 
this would protect her family?  This would be after Harry outed Lucius as a 
DE in the Quibbler article, and I can imagine both Draco and Narcissa seeing 
that as an attack they need to retaliate against.

So.  Does Narcissa have something to gain by Dumbledore dying herself? 
That's hard to know. We know she doesn't gain from it--in fact, DD's death 
snatches away real protection for her family--but there could be some 
unknown reason for her wanting him to die.  Though getting into that seems 
like it would pull the plot off in an odd direction.

It also seems odd to imagine her testing Snape's loyalty in the scene.  I 
take her weeping at face value in that her goal is to protect her 
son--that's not a cover story to test Snape, imo.  Bellatrix is the truly 
loyal sister. For Narcissa to be doing this she'd have to be an incredible 
actress and a truly scary mother.

Much better to assume, imo, she sees this part of the vow as protecting 
Draco.  Does she worry that if Draco somehow survives his failed attempt 
Voldemort will just keep making him try to do it until he dies?  (She may be 
completely unaware of Voldemort's stated plans to kill Draco--and her--if he 
fails.)

It seems like Narcissa feels like she's putting an end to *something* with 
this, doesn't it?  The first two clauses are mushy, but the third is the 
real promise to act in a decisive way.  It's not something Snape can slither 
out of.  One way or another, this will have an end.  For some reason she's 
decided the task must get done by someone to protect Draco.

Perhaps she's actually thinking along the same lines as Dumbledore--if 
Dumbledore is dead at Snape's hand Draco can't kill him, thus Draco does not 
become a murderer.  Granted Voldemort could always send Draco to kill 
someone else, but somehow I feel that on the instinctual, quasi-mythical 
level on which the Voldemort story operates, it works to say that by 
removing the victim Narcissa feels Draco will be protected from the task. 
Snape, she must either know for a fact or assume, has already damaged his 
soul by killing.  He's an adult so should take the sin on himself.

The good thing about this is it a ties into the Lily parallel even more. 
Lily was protecting her baby from being murdered by being murdered herself. 
Narcissa is finding a way to protect her son from murdering by murdering 
herself by proxy.  It's a similar, standard parental impulse of "take me 
instead."  And the two threats fit the ages of the boys--Harry is a baby, 
the time of life when he's vulnerable.  Draco is just about to hit the age 
where he becomes a man.  Murdering someone would inhibit or warp that growth 
just as murder would have inhibited Harry's.  Just as Lily throws herself in 
front of baby Harry, Narcissa is sort of throwing herself in front of Draco, 
taking the task out of his hands and getting it done herself.

Ceridwen:
Ceridwen, who also agrees with Magpie, and who points out that she is 
currently manipulating a keyboard without anyone being aghast.

Magpie:
I'm typing with MY MIND!!! (couldn't resist)

-m






From sophierom at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 11 15:57:47 2006
From: sophierom at yahoo.com (sophierom)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 15:57:47 -0000
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <duuofj+3a1f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duus1r+qh5g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149424

Sydney wrote: 
> > The taking of the Vow makes one thing very clear-- Snape is willing 
> > to die.

Nrenka responded:

> Really?  It could also imply that he's willing to do everything to 
> fulfill the Vow so that he himself doesn't die.  You do have a gap 
> there in terms of necessity.

Sophierom:

Really? ;-D  But if Snape was willing to do anything to avoid death,
wouldn't he avoid the vow in the first place?  He's under no
compulsion to make the vow. Indeed, if Snape's real goal is to kill
Dumbledore (for whatever reason - Voldie's love, revenge, etc.), all
he has to do is kill Dumbledore.  He doesn't have to take the Vow
(which includes the possibility of his own death) to perform the AK. 

Sydney wrote:
> > [Snape is] Not necessarily suicidal, but definitely not holding
his life at
> > a particularly high value.  Anyone who sees a way around this, be my
> > guest.

Nrenka responded:
> Sure.  He doesn't think that he could possibly fail in his task, so 
> the whole death thing is more of an idle threat.  After all, he's 
> been doing so well for so long, and has an eminently high concept of 
> his own abilities (and a fairly low evaluation of most other 
> people's.  Hubris is a dangerous thing, Severus...)

Sophierom:

Again, I ask: Why does he have to take the vow to kill Dumbledore? Why
does he have to take the Vow at all? Idle threat or not, Hubris or
not, Snape gains no new opportunity regarding Dumbledore's death by
taking the Vow.

Nrenka wrote:
 
> OFH!Snape may well *get* something out of this action with the Vow; 
> this is not an option which can be automatically dismissed, because 
> frankly, none of us have a clearer window than anyone else into his 
> psyche, because he's such a sketchily drawn character.  That's 
> deliberate.

Sophierom: 
I agree; we can't dismiss self-interest as a motivation for Snape
taking the Vow.  But I think it is sound to argue that his interest is
NOT in killing Dumbledore because he could do that without taking the
Vow. As others have pointed out, he could have let Dumbledore die when
 after the headmaster's encounter with the Horcrux/ring. As Dumbledore
tells Harry, "Had it not been for ... my own prodigious skill, and for
Professor Snape's timely action when I returned to Hogwarts, I might
not have lived to tell the tale" (HBP Am. ed., 503). 

Furthermore, everything in the book could still have led up to
Dumbledore's death without Snape taking the Vow. The Vow does two
things: it binds Snape's fate to Draco Malfoy, and it ensures that
either Dumbledore or Snape must die.  So, this leads me to conclude
that, if Snape is acting out of self-interest, his interests are
either: to protect Draco Malfoy (as Syndey has suggested) or to die
(as Sydney has also suggested). If Dumbledore's death was the only
motivating factor, Snape need not have taken the Vow in the first
place.   






From sophierom at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 11 16:28:07 2006
From: sophierom at yahoo.com (sophierom)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 16:28:07 -0000
Subject: What possessed Peter to restore Voldemort? (Was: Trusting Snape)
In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0603110439y21d4c6deyb2a0acca085ee33d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <duutqn+ps63@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149425

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, elfundeb <elfundeb at ...> wrote:
>
> Carol:
> Why Peter actually went through with the assignment--kidnapping and
> injuring Harry, murdering Cedric (not part of the original deal, but
> promptly performed), violating a grave, and above all mutilating
> himself, all to restore Voldemort and make him stronger, is unclear to
> me. Did he really think he had no alternative and that he'd be better
> off with a stronger Voldemort? 

<snip>


> Debbie:
 
> This is really a pretty good deal for Peter.  Yeah, he's a little
put out
> that he doesn't get more respect, but his conversation with Snape at
> Spinner's End makes clear that he's not willing to give up his
comfortable
> life with Snape to improve his standing.  It's all about that protection
> from the most powerful.



Sophierom:

It struck me, as I was reading Debbie's reponse, that Peter has been
one of the most predictable characters of the series so far.  If you
take out a few words in Debbie's response (above), she could have been
referring to Peter's deference to James and Sirius:

"This is really a pretty good deal fo Peter.  Yeah, he's a little put
out that he doesn't get more respect, but ... he's not willing to give
up his comfortable life ... to improve his standing.  It's all about
that protection from the most powerful."  

At Hogwarts, James and Sirius may have been the kings on campus. 
Peter promptly allies himself with them.  They graduate, and James and
Sirius are no longer the major source of power. Now it's Voldemort. 
So, Peter switches sides.  Will we see, in the end of the series, an
attempt by Peter to switch sides once more? Will the tide turn and
will Peter, recognizing Harry as the one with power, go with the flow?
 Probably.  And I will still despise the little rat at the end of it all.







From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 11 15:42:31 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 15:42:31 -0000
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <duuofj+3a1f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duur57+c1e5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149426

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" <nrenka at ...> wrote:
>
<SNIP>
> 
> Here's the classic problem I feel obliged to raise over and over 
> again.  OFH!Snape is defined by wanting what he wants (at least to 
> me); this does not preclude actions which might be read as 
> altruistic, if they're towards an end which he's interested in.

Exactly.  The problem with most arguments about OFH!Snape is that 
many people seem to think that OFH!Snape means DWLIHBIAIUI!Snape 
(i.e. DoingWhat'sLogicallyInHisBestInterestAsIUnderstandIt!Snape).  
But, as Nora points out in the next paragraph, judgments of "best 
interest" are, to a certain extent, incommensurable from one person 
to another (although obviously not ABSOLUTELY incommensurable).  This 
is particularly the case when goals are not clearly shared 
understood -- which is pretty much all the time.  After all, most 
people don't really understand their OWN goals very clearly, much 
less anyone else's.  Or perhaps, to contradict myself and show how 
illogical and totally fouled up the human psyche is, we are not able 
to see the illogic and internal contradictions in our own goals, but 
readily see them in other people's, thus our constant complaint 
that "You're acting crazy!"  Or, to put it as an aphorism, "Never 
attribute anything to malice, conspiracy, or deep plotting that is 
adequately explained by cognitive dissonance, muddled thinking, and 
irrational desire."

Thus, there is no reason whatsoever that OFH!Snape might not be loyal 
to Dumbledore in most situations. There is no reason that OFH!Snape 
might not genuinely feel certain obligations to the side of light.  
But there is also no reason that any of this should be obviously in 
his "best interest" as defined by an outside observer, particularly 
one with no real understanding of the man (which fits pretty much 
everybody, even within the text, with the possible exceptions of DD 
and Voldy).
.
> 
> People have asked again and again why OFH!Snape, for instance, 
would 
> be a twerk to Harry instead of trying to manipulate the kid (full 
> negative connotations here, of course).  The answer may well be 
> because it makes him *happy*.  

Hmmm.  I wouldn't go so far as happy.  I'd say it may scratch a 
psychic itch and relieve tension.  That doesn't necessarily mean that 
OFH!Snape (or any other variety of Snape, for that matter), isn't 
readily aware of the potential damage he is wreaking both to his 
cause and to his own future by alienating Harry.  The sicko just 
can't help himself.  Much like some alcoholics pick up the bottle 
knowing they will hate themselves in the morning, Snape can't resist 
alienating Harry even though he well understands that it may backlash 
on him.

Lupinlore, who gleefully anticipates the howls that will result as 
the Snape mysteries collapse, and who is laying in popcorn for the 
show (as well as Thorazine to suppress the projectile vomiting sure 
to result if JKR settles on the more extreme versions of DDM!Snape, 
especially the -- IMO -- ludicrously poor writing inherent in a 
Snape/Lily infatuation).








From nrenka at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 11 16:46:36 2006
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 16:46:36 -0000
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <duus1r+qh5g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duuutc+pdle@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149427

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

> Sophierom:
> 
> Really? ;-D  But if Snape was willing to do anything to avoid death,
> wouldn't he avoid the vow in the first place?  He's under no
> compulsion to make the vow. Indeed, if Snape's real goal is to kill
> Dumbledore (for whatever reason - Voldie's love, revenge, etc.), all
> he has to do is kill Dumbledore.  He doesn't have to take the Vow
> (which includes the possibility of his own death) to perform the 
> AK. 

I'd agree, but I don't recall ever having argued for Snape's most 
immediate goal being offing Dumbledore--I don't think he was waking 
up in the morning going "Wow, I'd really like to kill my boss 
today".  Then again, that is the American Dream...

I see the killing of Dumbledore as the outcome of the Vow, 
naturally.  What I can't discount is that Snape had his own reasons 
for taking the Vow which may seem suicidal or foolish to us, but 
beneficial enough to him for him to swing it.  Hence 
incommensurability.

> Again, I ask: Why does he have to take the vow to kill Dumbledore? 
> Why does he have to take the Vow at all? Idle threat or not, Hubris 
> or not, Snape gains no new opportunity regarding Dumbledore's death 
> by taking the Vow.

Opportunity...Draco will do something eventually, I guess.  But what 
he does get is *necessity*, and that's pretty uncomfortable for most 
theories of sweetness and light.

And because he gets something out of it, I suspect.  There's nothing 
to rule out that there's something more in it for him than just 
protecting Draco, which does seem to be an operative principle.  But 
it may well be something where he realizes that the two things go 
together, and offing Dumbledore is not a horrific thing to be avoided 
at all cost.  Snape plays it out as long as he can, but the Moment of 
Choice has finally caught up at the end.

> I agree; we can't dismiss self-interest as a motivation for Snape
> taking the Vow.  But I think it is sound to argue that his interest 
> is NOT in killing Dumbledore because he could do that without 
> taking the Vow.

What I do wonder about, though, are the changes in situation 
throughout the book.  I see Snape as playing a dangerous game all 
through OotP and HBP, balancing two masters as well as his own 
desires.  Well, it's canonical that he can feel pretty strongly about 
what he himself wants, and the kind of game that he's playing is one 
which is hard to keep up for too long.

That's a long winded way of saying that the situation at the 
beginning of the book is not that of the middle or the end; or, if 
you prefer, people can change both their minds and what they want and 
intend to do. :)  (Literature would be very boring, I think, if 
patterns were always expected to hold perfectly.)

Now this is idle speculation, and I'll label it as such: does anyone 
think there was some sort of internal calculus going on here, where 
Snape was weighing Draco's life against Dumbledore's, but also in 
terms of what he gets out of each?  After all, by taking the Vow, as 
you said, Snape has committed himself to being involved in the death 
of either Draco or Dumbledore (or himself).  Someone's got to give.  
And this could fit with an OFH! who gets some benefit out of saving 
Draco, but also gets his freedom from Dumbledore.  That's 
speculation, of course, but there's some thematic legs behind the 
idea that Snape chafes at the bit.

-Nora knows that none of the competing theories can be remotely 
killed off by the others at this point in time, and thinks it was 
beautifully written to enable that






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Mar 11 16:55:26 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 16:55:26 -0000
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <duuofj+3a1f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duuvdu+snso@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149428

Nora:
> Here's the classic problem I feel obliged to raise over and over 
> again.  OFH!Snape is defined by wanting what he wants (at least to 
> me); this does not preclude actions which might be read as 
> altruistic, if they're towards an end which he's interested in.
> 
> This is the Utilitarian problem AGAIN.  I cannot define what makes 
> you happy.  I can look and say "You're crazy to enjoy that, how can 
> that make you happy?", but that has absolutely no impact on you.  
> Happiness is incommensurable.

Pippin:
Maybe in RL, but it's generally the author's responsibility to know 
what makes the character happy and to demonstrate this to the reader.
A universe where love is the most potent power and the future
of mankind is written in the stars is not the sort of existentialist 
place where you can't really understand why anyone else acts the 
way they do.

I don't doubt it does make Snape happy to be a jerk to Harry, but 
you'd have to ignore canon, specifically the jerk of Snape's hand, 
to say it made him happy to take the vow. And you'd have to ignore 
canon again, specifically the look of hatred and revulsion, to say it 
made Snape happy to fulfill it.

Nora:
> OFH!Snape may well *get* something out of this action with the Vow; 
> this is not an option which can be automatically dismissed, because 
> frankly, none of us have a clearer window than anyone else into his 
> psyche, because he's such a sketchily drawn character.  That's 
> deliberate.

Pippin:
On the contrary, Snape's gratification is not sketchily drawn at all. We
have copious descriptions of what makes him happy, and we also see
him failing to conceal happiness.

"Snape loomed behind them, half in shadow, wearing a most
peculiar expression: It was as though he was trying hard not to smile."
-CoS ch 9

What we don't know is where Snape's loyalties lie. OFH! basically
says he hasn't got any, which would make him redundant, just a
lesser copy of Voldemort, incapable of allegiance. 

> -Nora waits with amusement for the potential scream of "That's IT?" 
> when Snape's mysteries collapse, just like the screaming onlist after 
> the Prophecy

Pippin:
In a way I think you're right. IMO the plot's going to twist like a 
pretzel, but the motives will be simple enough for a ten year old to
understand. That's another reason why I don't like OFH as I keep 
saying -- if Snape sometimes favors Dumbledore and sometimes 
Voldemort, then for every situation you'll have to explain which 
side Snape thought he was helping and why -- and it won't be 
self-evident, since  Snape's actions must sometimes be self-defeating,
or you  end up with Puppetmaster!Snape.

Pippin







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 11 16:52:37 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 16:52:37 -0000
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <duus1r+qh5g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duuv8l+uqgp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149429


> Sydney wrote: 
> > > The taking of the Vow makes one thing very clear-- Snape is 
willing 
> > > to die.
> 
> Nrenka responded:
> 
> > Really?  It could also imply that he's willing to do everything 
to 
> > fulfill the Vow so that he himself doesn't die.  You do have a 
gap 
> > there in terms of necessity.

Alla:

Heee. Thank you, Nora for saying that. :)

 
Sophierom:
> Furthermore, everything in the book could still have led up to
> Dumbledore's death without Snape taking the Vow. The Vow does two
> things: it binds Snape's fate to Draco Malfoy, and it ensures that
> either Dumbledore or Snape must die.  So, this leads me to conclude
> that, if Snape is acting out of self-interest, his interests are
> either: to protect Draco Malfoy (as Syndey has suggested) or to die
> (as Sydney has also suggested). If Dumbledore's death was the only
> motivating factor, Snape need not have taken the Vow in the first
> place.

Alla:

Well, sure. But the way I see it if Snape took the UV to protect 
Draco and to kill Dumbledore, it does not exclude OFH!Snape at all. 
I mean, Okay, it is in Snape's best interests for some reasons we 
don't know yet ( or I should say I don't know yet) to protect Draco. 
That IS what he wants at the moment and that may very well 
contradict with his loyalties to Dumbledore, no?

I mean, there must be a reason why Sirius called Snape "Malfoy's 
lapdog". I have to point out that we still don't know whether that 
relates to their school years or not. Something connects Snape and 
Malfoys. It may very well be genuine friendsip or something more 
sinister, but the fact of the matter is that Malfoys is a family of 
wizards who stands for something very opposite that Dumbledore's 
side fights for. And Snape being ready and willing to protect their 
child at the expense of killing Dumbledore does not really look good 
for me at all.

I mean, it is one thing for DD to try and convince Draco to come 
back to Light side, but we don't know if that is the reason Snape 
took the UV, he may as well wanted to protect Malfoys and their dark 
secrets, no?

JMO,

Alla










From nrenka at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 11 17:38:56 2006
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 17:38:56 -0000
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <duuvdu+snso@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duv1vg+rcs8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149430

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> 
wrote:

> Pippin:
> Maybe in RL, but it's generally the author's responsibility to know 
> what makes the character happy and to demonstrate this to the 
> reader. A universe where love is the most potent power and the 
> future of mankind is written in the stars is not the sort of 
> existentialist place where you can't really understand why anyone 
> else acts the way they do.

True, but we are all speculating at the moment, and we may well be 
*wrong* given future revelations.  I've just been thinking about all 
the arguments that go "Snape couldn't possibly want to give up his 
job, the esteem of the WW, etc., he wouldn't be happy and thus 
couldn't have done these actions except as ordered and under 
duress".  Those tend to be centered around each person's perceptions 
of what would make Snape happy, and those may not be the 'actual' 
ones.  There's also to point out that we may have been given some 
mildly discomforting reasons for acting as he does, as you admit 
below. :)

> I don't doubt it does make Snape happy to be a jerk to Harry, but 
> you'd have to ignore canon, specifically the jerk of Snape's hand, 
> to say it made him happy to take the vow. And you'd have to ignore 
> canon again, specifically the look of hatred and revulsion, to say 
> it made Snape happy to fulfill it.

There's a little bit of a gap here.  Happiness may not be the 
immediate and most proximate result of the action, but the action may 
well be geared towards some perception of future benefit.  I don't 
know anyone who is constantly happy at everything they do in order to 
further their own interests, but those ultimate goals are generally 
things that make them happy, for their own definition of happy.

As for the look of hatred and revulsion, it's your interpretation 
that those are self-directed emotions, but that's not the only one: 
they may well be directed at Dumbledore.  One can thus not rule out 
some kind of gratification at disposing of someone who is hated.  
Again, it's one possible read, but not one which can be excluded at 
present.

> Pippin:
> On the contrary, Snape's gratification is not sketchily drawn at 
> all. We have copious descriptions of what makes him happy, and we 
> also see him failing to conceal happiness.
> 
> "Snape loomed behind them, half in shadow, wearing a most
> peculiar expression: It was as though he was trying hard not to 
> smile." -CoS ch 9
> 
> What we don't know is where Snape's loyalties lie. OFH! basically
> says he hasn't got any, which would make him redundant, just a
> lesser copy of Voldemort, incapable of allegiance. 

I guess it boils down to me being skeptical of this claim that 
Snape's happiness is centered in one area (as you mention, we find 
him continually gratified at trying to catch others, etc.) but his 
loyalties are unrelated to this, a completely independent variable.

It's interesting that you bring up the parallelism to Voldemort.  
Maybe it's just too damn obvious and Harry is Wrong Yet Again by 
picking up on it, but it is striking, no?  One can argue that he's 
thus going to be a contrary mirror, a different path, but that's also 
not quite guaranteed.

> Pippin:
> In a way I think you're right. IMO the plot's going to twist like a 
> pretzel, but the motives will be simple enough for a ten year old to
> understand. That's another reason why I don't like OFH as I keep 
> saying -- if Snape sometimes favors Dumbledore and sometimes 
> Voldemort, then for every situation you'll have to explain which 
> side Snape thought he was helping and why...

'Cui bono?' is always an excellent question.  I don't see that it has 
to be exceptionally complicated.  I have my own mental division into 
periods marked by a dominant concern; it's only come both OotP and 
HBP that things get genuinely messy (and maybe the backstory around 
the time period we're all curious about), and frankly, it's going to 
take a decent amount of explanation to pull off DDM! for that either.

Oh, wait--ESE!Lupin is going to make it all so easy and tie it up in 
one package.  How could I forget. :)

-Nora has absolutely no faith in the "It's too obvious so it couldn't 
be right" school of reading these books, anymore







From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 11 18:04:32 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 18:04:32 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and the End Game
Message-ID: <duv3fg+8d5r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149431

There has been a lot of talk here about minions and how there are 
not many really capable players on either side.  That made me think 
back to the chess game theories that came up some time back.  I am 
not a good chess player, but I am sure that there are a few here 
that are.  The Auror office will recruit you for this mission. So 
all of you Master Chess player lurkers come on out and have a go. 
Let's look at the chess board again and figure out who is what 
player on both sides of the board.  Assuming that DD is not the 
King, because if he is it is already Checkmate.  So it must be LV is 
the black King and Harry is the white?? 

Also I think, as someone else here said, that the Mirror of Erised 
will play a part in the end.  As a child Harry's deepest desire was 
to see his parents, but as a young man it will be different. Now he 
wants to vanquish LV. 

Hats off to Sydney for that very good post on why Snape would take 
the vow.  Puts LV in a tight place.  Now he can't kill Draco without 
Snape dying.  Good one!!

BTY
  is "Coolio" a new spell?  I like it. We can use it in the 
summer when the air conditioner goes out.

Tonks_op








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 11 18:19:09 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 18:19:09 -0000
Subject: Pettigrew as Cedric's murderer (Was: What possessed Peter to restore Voldemort?
In-Reply-To: <dusf0g+j75f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duv4at+gl6u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149432

Carol earlier:
> > Why Peter actually went through with the assignment--kidnapping
and injuring Harry, murdering Cedric (not part of the original deal,
but promptly performed), violating a grave, and above all mutilating
himself, all to restore Voldemort and make him stronger, is unclear 
to me. Did he really think he had no alternative and that he'd be 
better off with a stronger Voldemort? Couldn't he have left him 
stewing in the cauldron without adding the ingredients (bone, blood,
and his own flesh) and at the same time released Harry, fulfilling his
life debt?
> 
> SSSusan:
> Questions I, also, have asked before.  I just don't GET Peter here.
 It does seem to me that it would've made more sense to have RUN from
 a weak & needy Voldy, leaving him to die.  Maybe it really *was* just
the fear that Voldy was so strong... that if some other DE came by 
and saved him... that he knew he'd be killed.  But that possibility
seems so remote that I just can't figure out why he didn't walk away
from a Voldy who *couldn't* at that time have killed him!

Carol again:
My sentiments exactly. I understand that it was fear of retaliation by
both sides and exposure as a mass murderer that sent Wormtail to
Voldie in the first place (see AmiableDorsai's argument upthread), yet
in GoF he's no better than a slave. When the stakes are raised and
he's ordered to cut off his own hand, with only dim hope of
restitution or reward, and his helpless master is at his mercy, why
doesn't he destroy him (and make good his life debt to Harry by
letting him go)? He's a rat Animagus and could live in the sewers or
the wild or even be adopted by another family. Even Azkaban (which he
could certainly escape if Sirius Black could, given his small size in
rat form and the Dementors' near-inability to sense animal emotions)
would be better than being forced to serve so cruel a master--and
compound his own crimes in the process. Yes, he's a coward. Yes, he's
"deeply evil" (nods to Alla). But he's also the epitome of an OFH!
self-interested character with no real loyalty to anyone but himself.
The chances of being discovered by some other DE after abandoning
Fetus!mort to his fate were slim; only Barty Crouch Jr. knew what
Wormtail was supposed to do, and he (like Wormtail) was believed to be
dead. And Voldemort himself would have been vaporized again if he
starved or was drowned or was destroyed by Harry. I don't see how *he*
(It) could have harmed Wormtail, whom he can't possess for reasons
stated in my previous post. So why didn't Wormtail, who hates and
fears LV, make a run for it when he had the chance? It makes no sense
to me.
> 
Carol earlier: 
> > Carol, wondering why Harry thinks that Voldemort <snip> murdered
Cedric when it was Wormtail who killed him
> 
> SSSusan:
> Ah, we've had this discussion before, Carol. :-)  I maintain that
Harry is correct in that thought.  It's the Charles Manson-type
parallel:  You ORDER the murder, you ARE the murderer in the legal
sense of things.  Harry *knows* Wormtail cast the spell, but he heard
Voldy order the killing and so knows that it was Voldy's INTENTION and
COMMAND which made the murder happen.  Hence, he's the murderer (the
cause of the murder) even if he's not the murderer (the one taking the
action).
> 
> Eeek, will this stance be torn apart by the *real* lawyers on the 
> list? :-)

Carol again:
I agree that Wormtail is the Agent (a person who acts for another) and
Voldemort is the Principal, in the sense of "one who employs another
to act as agent subject to the employer's general control and
instruction; specifically: the person from whom an agent's authority
derives" (Merriam-Webster Online, definition c). 

However, I'm pretty sure that in a court of law, the person ordering
the murder (the Principal) and the person committing the murder (the
Agent) are equally guilty, whether the agent is Charles Manson, Adolf
Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, or Voldemort. Surely a Mafia hit man is as
guilty of a particular murder as the Mob boss who sends him on his
mission. (I'd appreciate hearing from any lawyers on the list on this
point.) I suppose it could be argued that Wormtail is not a paid
assassin--Voldemort is his master and he's a servant--but that applies
to all the DEs. Does that mean that unless the DEs are acting on their
own initiative, like Bella and her crew torturing the Longbottoms into
insanity, they are mere puppets of their master and bear no
responsibility for their actions? If Dolohov tortured Muggles and
Travers killed the McKinnons (GOF, "The Pensieve") on Voldemort's
orders, does that make Dolohov and Travers innocent? I don't think so.
They were sent to Azkaban and should have stayed there. (Dolohov, at
least, is evil, evil, evil!)

I realize that Voldemort probably was not actually present giving the
order at the scene of these crimes as he was with Pettigrew, but I
don't see how that makes any difference. The Principal/Agent
relationship remains the same: he gave the order and they (willingly)
obeyed it. Wormtail cast the Killing Curse himself ("screeching it
into the night"), and, like the imprisoned DEs, he *chose* to obey the
order. He acted (as far as I can tell) out of fear of retribution, yet
he was using Voldemort's wand, and Voldemort, a helpless, wandless
bundle of rags, was at his mercy. Wormtail could have merely stupefied
Cedric to get him out of the way, arguing that there was no need to
kill him, or better yet, he could have chosen that moment to Apparate,
saving his hand and avoiding the commission of yet another crime. Or
rather two crimes: the tragic and pointless murder of an innocent boy
and the restoration of an evil overlord which made additional deaths
both possible and inevitable. By staying, he injured himself,
prolonged his servitude, and compounded his own crimes exponentially
by restoring a murderous tyrant to power.

BTW (to bring up someone else's argument, I think Karen's), Cedric
counts as one of Voldemort's murders in the graveyard scene only
because Wormtail used Voldemort's wand. If Wormtail had used his own
wand, Cedric's shadow would not have been included with the others. So
that in itself does not make Voldemort the murderer, or the sole
murderer. It was a team effort, and occurred only because LV gave the
order *and* Wormtail obeyed it. Wormtail would not have killed Cedric
on his own initiative, AFAIK, but Voldemort's order alone would not
have killed him, either. It took the combined actions of Principal and
Agent to kill him.

So, while I absolutely agree with Harry (in GoF, "The Pensieve") that
Voldemort is ultimately responsible for most of the murder and
destruction in the books (he is, after all, the villain of the
series), I don't think Wormtail can be exonerated in this instance any
more than in the deaths of the twelve Muggles he killed to save
himself and frame his friend. He chose to kill Cedric; his action
directly brought about the boy's death. He could have chosen to defy
Voldemort and refuse to obey the order, but instead he obeyed him
instantly. That he acted out of fear of retribution is no excuse, IMO,
any more than it was an excuse for betraying the Potters. Nor does the
fact that Voldemort gave the order excuse him for obeying it.

IMO, Wormtail is at least as guilty of Cedric's murder as Voldemort
and should not be exonerated. Our choices reveal what we are, says
Dumbledore, and Wormtail's choice to obey Fetus!mort and kill an
innocent boy reveals him as a scurvy, murdering coward who deserves to
go to Azkaban for this one crime alone, even without all his other
evil deeds.

Carol, listening to the wind whipping the palm trees and hoping it
will bring rain








From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 11 18:36:23 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 18:36:23 -0000
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <duu6cq+4v07@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duv5b7+jh41@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149433

>Sydney wrote:

> *eye squint*  *tumbleweed*
> 
> It's you or me, OFH!Snape.
> 
> *twitches fingers over revolver*
> 

Neri:
You waste your ammo on that guy. LID!Snape is a much more able contender.

>Sydney:
>  Two, that the oddity of Dumbledore's immediate pleading with Snape on
> the tower, far from being a small detail, means that Snape AKing
> Dumbledore on his specific request is the straightforward reading of
> that scene; and that it is, in fact, the Evil!Snapers who have to come
> up with convoluted, extra-canonical theories to explain it.  
> 

Neri:
LID!Snape explains what happened on the tower in a very
straightforward way. Dumbledore was pleading with Snape that Snape
would continue with his attempts to pay the Life Debt. This is an
especially attractive idea if Snape had realized Harry was also there
on the tower. Like Draco he probably had seen the two broomsticks too,
but unlike Draco he'd realize immediately what they imply. And
Dumbledore's lack of shock suggests, as I wrote here recently, that he
had never trusted Snape to be loyal to him, only to keep trying to
repay the Debt. LID also explains Snape's hatred, and Snape bringing
up James during the flight. You can't beat LID for straightforward
reading. 

> Sydney:
> LifeDebt!Snape:  How does this work again?  It's hard to argue with a
> theory when I don't actually understand what it claims!  Reading over
> the original LID post, I think Snape-loves-Narcissa is brought up as
> an unrelated explanation.  So, Snape is ready to die to save the
> child, not his own, of the woman he loves.  First, this is pretty far
> from being out for yourself;  second, I think that whole scenario
> integrates into the plot a teensy bit better if the woman is Lily and
> the child Harry.  
> 

Neri:
As the original LID post fully admitted, LID in itself doesn't explain
the UV. But (as this post also mentioned) DDM, OFH and ESE also don't
explain the UV, so it's a tie there. It seems we need an additional
motivation to explain the UV. However, most theories of the UV
motivation (the DADA jinx, ACID POPS, Suicidal!Snape, etc.) would
actually work with LID as well as with DDM. 

In fact, in the meta-thinking level I think these motivations don't
work very well with DDM at all, once you connect the UV with what
happened on the tower. Am I supposed to accept a DDM!Snape who made
the UV because he was noble or stupid or suicidal or arrogant, and
then Dumbledore had to die because of it? That would make Snape a very
lousy DDM, more pathetic than tragic, really ("Oops, I was sure I
could bring it off, but the plan went to the dogs and I had to kill my
supreme commander instead". Or perhaps "Oops, I wanted to save Draco's
life but I blew it and so I had to kill my supreme commander
instead"). In contrast, precisely the same motivations can make for a
very good and thematic story if Snape *isn't* DDM. He'd be tragic
maybe, but he wouldn't be pathetic.  

As an aside, it might actually be possible for LID to explain the UV
without any help. This depends on the exact nature of the Life Debt
magic, which JKR took care to hide from us, but it's possible that a
clause of this magic says you can only have one active bond of that
magnitude at a time. So perhaps Snape thought that he could outwit the
Life Debt magic by taking an even graver obligation, the Unbreakable
Vow. This is a wild speculation, of course, but it makes sense with
the canon - as long as the UV was still in effect, Snape wasn't saving
Harry or helping him in any way, but the moment Snape AKs Dumbledore
and the UV isn't relevant anymore, immediately Snape guards Harry
again.    

> Sydney:
> Much as I adore Suicidal!Snape, that doesn't account for the jerk of
> the hand at the third clause of the Vow.  I think that was definitely
> a "gah" moment.  Plus, it's a bit defeatist for Snape's personality. 
> So looking at this from another angle-- what does anybody have to gain
> from the Vow?  Why does Narcissa propose it?  Surely it would be more
> likely to alienate someone you were going to for help, to demand that
> they promise to help you or die?
> 
> I think Narcissa proposed, and Snape took, the Vow, because it was the
> only way to protect Draco from Voldemort.  Voldemort intended Draco to
> be killed, and if he doesn't die in the attempt, he will be killed
> afterwards-- "He told me to do it or he'd kill me".   

Neri:
For some reason you don't give your theory a name. Would Noble!Snape
be fair? He took the UV in order to save Draco's life, without any
additional reason. My problem with this is, as I wrote above, that
Noble!Snape, when taken in combination with DDM!Snape, is no less a
pathetic jerk than Suicidal!Snape. He wanted to save the life of his
student, so ended up killing his headmaster instead. Oops.


Neri








From kchuplis at alltel.net  Sat Mar 11 19:20:10 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:20:10 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Pettigrew as Cedric's murderer (Was: What possessed Peter to restore Voldemort?
In-Reply-To: <duv4at+gl6u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <0EDBAFEF-B134-11DA-88D9-000393B04DDE@alltel.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 149434


On Saturday, March 11, 2006, at 12:19 PM, justcarol67 wrote:
>
> Carol again:
>  So why didn't Wormtail, who hates and
> fears LV, make a run for it when he had the chance? It makes no sense
> to me.

kchuplis:

Well, he certainly fears LV but I don't see that he hates him. Wormtail 
loves whoever has the best chance of winning, seems to me. He hedges 
his bets constantly. I don't think he was banking on Barty Jr. coming 
along to steal his glory from being "the only loyal servant" when he 
went looking for LV and by then, he has a pretty good idea that the 
wizard folks fear the most is on his way back and actually, though he 
probably hates the fact that Barty Jr is a better candidate for Golden 
Evil Servant Boy, it also must be clear to him that with clever and 
insane Crouch on hand, LV has an even *better* chance to come back and 
take over. I can't see the Wormtail we've seen all along tossing his 
hands up and turning "good" or even back to a rat. He's actually got 
the same reason to stay. He is one of the ones who came back for LV. 
That hasn't changed. He lives in constant fear, yes, but he always did. 
He might pick up some perks anyway (and he does). Who knows what LV 
offers him? We don't see those scenes. I suspect LV feeds him a LOT of 
B.S. Wouldn't even break a sweat doing it.  Wormtail's self perception 
is a lot like the co-dependent abused spouse/child whatever with a 
smidgen of just plain stoolie thrown in.
>
>
> Carol again:
> I agree that Wormtail is the Agent (a person who acts for another) and
> Voldemort is the Principal, in the sense of "one who employs another
> to act as agent subject to the employer's general control and
> instruction; specifically: the person from whom an agent's authority
> derives" (Merriam-Webster Online, definition c).
>
> However, I'm pretty sure that in a court of law,

kchuplis:

But we aren't talking about a court of law. At least I sure wasn't. I 
was talking about why Harry and DD say LV killed Cedric and how that is 
perceived. Just as Sirius says LV killed Regulas and then amends "or 
rather had him killed". To the WW in general, LV is considered the real 
problem; it's the same difference to the general public. No one, I 
don't think, says Wormtail should be exonerated for anything.  Maybe I 
am missing posts and therefore misconstruing the questions.

carol:
He acted (as far as I can tell) out of fear of retribution, yet
> he was using Voldemort's wand, and Voldemort, a helpless, wandless
> bundle of rags, was at his mercy.

kchuplis:

I don't know. That helpless, wandless bundle of rags was able to put 
Barty Crouch Sr. under an imperious curse and break Bertha Jorkins 
memory charm and various other things. he actually seems to have more 
physical limitations than magical ones. I don't think he's THAT 
helpless or he couldn't have possessed Quirrell, but he isn't the form 
in which he can get around very well and alot of that "self perception" 
is LV's helplessness. I don't see how we keep seeing this "LV is 
helpless". In all honesty, LV was helpless until he had a follower 
nearby, any follower, back. I'm thinking that may very well have been 
more of a psychological helplessness than actual helplessness.

> BTW (to bring up someone else's argument, I think Karen's), Cedric
> counts as one of Voldemort's murders in the graveyard scene only
> because Wormtail used Voldemort's wand. If Wormtail had used his own
> wand, Cedric's shadow would not have been included with the others. So
> that in itself does not make Voldemort the murderer, or the sole
> murderer. It was a team effort, and occurred only because LV gave the
> order *and* Wormtail obeyed it. Wormtail would not have killed Cedric
> on his own initiative, AFAIK, but Voldemort's order alone would not
> have killed him, either. It took the combined actions of Principal and
> Agent to kill him.

kchuplis:

See my earlier comment. I didn't count it as LV's murder because of the 
wand. I was just explaining how I see it that DD and Harry call Cedric 
as being murdered by LV. Again, we aren't AFAIK talking about a legal 
case but the way these events are perceived by the WW. I must have 
missed something. If so, I abjectly apologize to all.
>


Carol:
>  I don't think Wormtail can be exonerated in this instance any
> more than in the deaths of the twelve Muggles he killed to save
> himself and frame his friend.

kchuplis:

? Who is exonerating Wormtail?

> carol:
> IMO, Wormtail is at least as guilty of Cedric's murder as Voldemort
> and should not be exonerated.

kchuplis:
Agreed. Who said he is free of guilt? Not I.

carol:
> Our choices reveal what we are, says
> Dumbledore, and Wormtail's choice to obey Fetus!mort and kill an
> innocent boy reveals him as a scurvy, murdering coward who deserves to
> go to Azkaban for this one crime alone, even without all his other
> evil deeds.

kchuplis:
I agree. I'm not sure I ever saw anyone disagree about that. I have 
apparently misunderstood the question I originally answered in the 
other post because I really didn't think anyone was excusing Pettigrew. 
I thought someone asked why DD and Harry say that LV killed Cedric.




From kchuplis at alltel.net  Sat Mar 11 19:38:56 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:38:56 -0600
Subject: One last Pettigrew thought
Message-ID: <AE080B48-B136-11DA-8D2C-000393B04DDE@alltel.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 149435

and then I'll shut up for today. Maybe this has been brought up, and if 
so, mea culpa.

It seems Pettigrew's blowing up 13 muggles is attributed to a master 
plan he had or something, but personally, I see it as him being found 
by a grief mad Sirius, on an open street,  and in a panic trying some 
curse or another to get out of it. My guess is, he wasn't aiming for 
such a spectacular escape. It's kind of like the old gunfighter days 
when a shoot out became legend and much more than it really was by dint 
of the sheer scale of damage that ended up happening. He was probably 
just going for blowing up the street for a distraction so that he could 
fake his death. Maybe it  DID hit a gasline (the excuse given by muggle 
police), and purely by accident then blew up people for a block around. 
Who's to know? Stuff like that happens. I really think Peter ended up 
being a first hand murderer by accident. Once that happened, he's never 
had any reason not to kill when ordered, since Peter is all about "what 
will happen to me now".  He doesn't have that bridge to cross ever 
again. By intent or accident, he's a first hand murderer, just as he is 
by his turning over the Potters, but I'm sure to him that was a nice, 
distant thing and he probably thought "Lily and James are good wizards. 
They have a chance" NOt that that is true, but I can sure see Pettigrew 
soothing the one small spot of conscience that he might have somewhere 
in those grey cells.

kchuplis




From sydpad at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 11 19:49:18 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 19:49:18 -0000
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <duuofj+3a1f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duv9ju+oq5i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149436

Me:
> > The taking of the Vow makes one thing very clear-- Snape is willing 
> > to die.

Nora:
> Really?  It could also imply that he's willing to do everything to 
> fulfill the Vow so that he himself doesn't die.  You do have a gap 
> there in terms of necessity.

*furrows brow*  Sorry, I must have missed the part where you explain
why he took the Vow in the first place. That was my point.  He
wouldn't have taken the Vow unless he was willing to die.

Me:
> > Not necessarily suicidal, but definitely not holding his life at
> > a particularly high value.  Anyone who sees a way around this, be
my guest.
> 

Nora:
> Sure.  He doesn't think that he could possibly fail in his task, so 
> the whole death thing is more of an idle threat.  

Is this arrogant!Snape or idiot!Snape?  When people argue things like
this, which was done with the DADA curse, I'm always a bit stymied.
Because I don't think, pardon me, that you're really making any
attempt to make sense of Snape here.  You're fine with him taking Vows
that he's not even sure what they're going to contain, that he dies
automatically if he fails them, because he's 'arrogant'.  Wouldn't an
arrogant person say, "I don't have to take a Vow, I'll just do it, and
I don't care if you need that extra assurance because I sure don't"? 
Writers have to get into the heads of both nice and nasty people, and
to date JKR has done an admirable job of both.  I'll bring up Bagman
again, because I like him <g>-- he was arrogant to think that making a
huge bet with the goblins was a good idea when he didn't have the
money to pay them back.  But we all know people who do this;  and,
getting into his head a bit, I can even see why-- it was worth the
risk to pay the debts he had already; if he lost he could put the
goblins off until his ship really came in, etc. etc.  You can pretty
easily see how he could rationalized himself into it.  The version of
arrogant Snape who takes Unbreakable Vows because he just assumes he
can do absolutely any old thing he's going to swear to, and he just
ignores the 'dropping dead automatically' bit.. I'm sorry, that may
ring true to you, but it doesn't to me.  But I don't have any real way
to argue this to your satisfaction, so you may continue on your merry
way on that one.

Me:
> >People who are
> > out for themselves simply do not, under any circumstances short of 
> > the absolutely unavoidable, make promises that they drop dead if 
> > they don't fulfill. 

Nora:
> Here's the classic problem I feel obliged to raise over and over 
> again.  OFH!Snape is defined by wanting what he wants (at least to 
> me); this does not preclude actions which might be read as 
> altruistic, if they're towards an end which he's interested in <snip>
> OFH!Snape may well *get* something out of this action with the Vow; 
> this is not an option which can be automatically dismissed, because 
> frankly, none of us have a clearer window than anyone else into his 
> psyche, because he's such a sketchily drawn character.  That's 
> deliberate.

And here's the classic problem with OFH!Snape posts-- to a large
extent it seems to be all about saying, "I'm not even going to try to
get into this person's head, because obviously he's nothing like a
normal human being, or certainly nothing like ME, so he doesn't have
to make any sense.  OFH=just a rotten guy, and if he's being rotten in
no logical fashion, who cares?"  The old, "How am supposed to
understand how a werewolf's mind works" out.  

As I understand the theory, OFH!Snape is trying to figure out which
side is going to win so he can pick one, so he can survive.  Well,
here he's taking an Unbreakable Vow which widens that "won't survive"
door a whole heck of a lot.  And the only thing it seems to gain him
is a measure of protection against Draco dying, because by taking the
Vow Voldemort can't kill Draco without killing Snape as well.  If he
just wants to make nice with the Malfoys, I still don't see why it's
worth it to him to take the Vow rather than just assume he can protect
Draco and reap in the gratitude afterwards.  Snape is really putting
his head on the block here-  because there's a very good chance
Voldemort will be so angry at Narcissa for going behind his back, and
at Snape for putting this private loyalty above him, that he really
will kill both of them.

This is just plain not "out for himself".  That's, you know, my point.
 Now perhaps we can replace this OFH!Snape with "ready to die for the
Malfoys" Snape.  Which is a bit left field, but actually offers an
explaination for what's going on here!


Alla:
>Well, sure. But the way I see it if Snape took the UV to protect
>Draco and to kill Dumbledore, it does not exclude OFH!Snape at all.
>I mean, Okay, it is in Snape's best interests for some reasons we
>don't know yet ( or I should say I don't know yet) to protect Draco.
<snip>
>I mean, there must be a reason why Sirius called Snape "Malfoy's
>lapdog". ... Something connects Snape and
>Malfoys. 

Thank you!  This is actually constructive.  Although, again, because
of the sheer volume of risk involved, this looks a bit more like "out
for the Malfoys" Snape than "out for himself" Snape.  There is indeed
some mysterious connection between Snape and the Malfoys (that pesky
'sudden movement' in GoF), that may explain why Snape is prepared to
die to protect Draco.  Care to come up with a theory?  Because I sure
don't have one yet!  Need... more... data...  

And, just in case this isn't really clear:  Snape is willing to die to
protect Draco.  That's what the Vow means.

But this doesn't conflict with my basic issue with OFH!Snape, which is
that I just plain don't see him as the sort of person who is
calculating what's best for himself in a material or survival sense. 
I've never seen him act this way in canon, the way we clearly see
Slughorn or Lockhart act.  I don't see him this way in the way he
teaches-- the main context we see him in the books.  Teachers who are
'out for themselves' don't ride their students and give them long
essays and work above their level;  they give them stupid, simple work
that they can't go far wrong on and is easy to grade.  Why is
'out-for-himself' Snape teaching at all for that matter?  Brilliant
Nazi scientists had no difficulty getting lucrative work after the
war;  Snape has these great and well-known connections with the
Malfoys;  Karkaroff was actually convicted as a DE and simply left the
country and got himself a Headmaster gig.  What's Snape DOING, hanging
around teaching grade school for 14 years, when he has demonstrably
rare and valuable skills in both Potions and DADA?  

>This is the Utilitarian problem AGAIN.  I cannot define what makes
>you happy.  I can look and say "You're crazy to enjoy that, how can
>that make you happy?", but that has absolutely no impact on you.
>Happiness is incommensurable.

Um, yeah.  From this angle, EVERYBODY is 'out for themselves', in the
sense that some people are made happy by money, and some people are
made happy by feeding the hungry.  But if we're defining down
OFH!Snape to this point, then, gee, I guess I'M an OFH!Snaper because
I think trying to do the right thing to relieve his unbearable guilt
is what motivates him, which is selfish at bottom.  And Sirius was
selfish at bottom because helping his friends made HIM happy.  Paging
Dr. Kant!

Neri:
>You waste your ammo on that guy. LID!Snape is a much more able contender.

Geez, that grey little guy that looks like a lawyer? Seeing as the
LID!Snape theory is so vague, it's hard to counter it with canon,
except to point out that this assumed Life-Debt doesn't seem to act
anything like Pettigrew's canonical Life-Debt.  Far from having his
actions restricted, nobody has done more to endanger Harry than Peter
has.  Why is Snape forced to act by the LD, where Peter can tie Harry
to rocks and cut him with knives and resurrect folks whose maing goal
in life is to kill Harry?  Who knows!  LID!Snape doesn't seem to
propose anything specific enough to contradict.  If it's a magical
compulsion, how come it acts so differently from Peter's?  If it's a
debt of honour, how is that different from, well, decent!Snape, which
is what DDM!Snape comes down to?

Is there any other character in all of canon-- and that is a lot of
characters-- who is driven not by a normal human motivation, but by
magical compulsion?  Well, sure there are-- Crouch Sr., under the
Imperius;  Ron with the Love Potion, Dobby under the House-Elf
enslavement.  And they all-- ALL-- behave extremely strangely when the
compulsion kicks in, showing overt changes in their personality. 
They're like people under the influence of powerful, nearly
incapacitating narcotics.  I just don't think Rowling writes the sort
of fantasy story that is driven by vague, subtle magics.  Magic is a
pretty blunt instrument in the HP world.  The subtle stuff is the
human stuff-- thank heaven!-- motivations and personalities.  

I don't have a problem with a LifeDebt angle that acts rather like the
DADA curse-- by creating circumstances that are fortuitous or not. 
But as a Grand Unified Snape theory, it lacks both a human angle and
an explanation for the basic Snape mysteries.  Like why Snape wanted
the DADA job, why he took the Unbreakable Vow, and basically, what
actually motivates Snape. 

>And Dumbledore's lack of shock suggests, as I wrote here recently,
that he
>had never trusted Snape to be loyal to him, only to keep trying to
>repay the Debt.

Dumbledore has not been only assuring Harry that he trusts Snape; 
he's been, according to both McGonnegal and Lupin, giving Order
members repeated assurances of this, in the face, it seems, of
argument.  Was the conversation only about Harry every single time
this came up?  Would Dumbledore be assuring McGonnegal or Moody for 14
years that he trusted Snape when he meant, only in Harry-related
manners?  I just can't see this.


Alla:
>And Snape being ready and willing to protect their
>child at the expense of killing Dumbledore does not really look good
>for me at all.

Just to remind you, it's by no means sure-- it is in fact highly
unlikely, going by the hand jerking, that Snape thought he was
promising to do anything other than protect Draco.  That's what makes
it a rich situation!  Because here he is trying to do a good thing,
and, being poor old Snape, he winds up the bad guy again!  It's classic.

Back to Neri:
>For some reason you don't give your theory a name. Would Noble!Snape
>be fair? He took the UV in order to save Draco's life, without any
>additional reason. My problem with this is, as I wrote above, that
>Noble!Snape, when taken in combination with DDM!Snape, is no less a
>pathetic jerk than Suicidal!Snape. He wanted to save the life of his
>student, so ended up killing his headmaster instead. Oops.

Let's call him atonement!Snape.  And the way you describe it, I'm
like, OMG that's an AWESOME situation!  It's classic Snape.  Because
he's going about everything in exactly the wrong way.  He's trying to
follow a Dark Magic path to make up for his Dark Magic mistakes.  He's
trying to calculate and force and repress and do damage, even if he
thinks he's doing it for the right reasons.  That Vow sure looked like
Dark Magic to me, and even if it seemed logically like an excellent,
efficient plan, it was bound to go wrong.  *shakes head*  Why are you
trying to talk me out of this theory by making it seem even MORE
ironic and awful and tragic?  You've got the wrong end of the stick
there, lady. <g>

>Nora waits with amusement for the potential scream of "That's IT?"
>when Snape's mysteries collapse, just like the screaming onlist after
>the Prophecy

-- Sydney, who can well understand why people who don't like Snape
keep falling back on the "nothing to see here folks" write-off for all
the many dramatic, mysterious, and emotional scenes JKR lavishes on
him, seeing as they can't really seem to explain it any other way.







From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 11 19:59:14 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 19:59:14 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped, ...-Hermione's Crimes
In-Reply-To: <dusu6a+dl8u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duva6i+und3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149437

 
> Amiable Dorsai
> I've missed something.  Vengeance?  Are you talking about 
Hermione's
> strongarming of Rita into telling Harry's story?  Other than
> Hermione's threat to tell Molly that the twins were using 
> first-years as guinea pigs, that's the only blackmail I can recall
> Hermione performing in OoP. 
> 
<snip>

a_svirn:
Hermione did express her desire for revenge as early as chapter 24 
in GOF. It was between the first two tasks, somewhat in early 
January.  Rita made a huge mistake by publicly calling her "silly 
girl" which proved to be a huge mistake of her part. 

"I'll show her! Silly little girl, am I?  Oh, I'll get her back for 
this.  First Harry, then Hagrid ..."

You see, first Harry, then Hagrid, and now ME! How dares she! Since 
then Hermione had raked her brains and mulled over Rita's miraculous 
omniscience until she hit upon the truth. This done she set about 
capturing Rita in her animal guise and confining her. It was before 
any idea of using her professional skills could ever occur to 
Hermione. No, she caught Rita, imprisoned her, whereupon by using 
blackmail extracted from her a promise to stay unemployed for a 
year. If this is not revenge, I don't know what is. 








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 11 20:16:23 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 20:16:23 -0000
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <duuutc+pdle@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duvb6n+61h3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149439

Nora wrote:
> <snip> What I do wonder about, though, are the changes in situation
throughout the book.  I see Snape as playing a dangerous game all
through OotP and HBP, balancing two masters as well as his own
desires.  Well, it's canonical that he can feel pretty strongly about
what he himself wants, and the kind of game that he's playing is one
which is hard to keep up for too long. <snip>
 
> Now this is idle speculation, and I'll label it as such: does anyone
think there was some sort of internal calculus going on here, where
Snape was weighing Draco's life against Dumbledore's, but also in 
terms of what he gets out of each?  After all, by taking the Vow, as 
you said, Snape has committed himself to being involved in the death
of either Draco or Dumbledore (or himself).  Someone's got to give. 
And this could fit with an OFH! who gets some benefit out of saving
Draco, but also gets his freedom from Dumbledore.  That's speculation,
of course, but there's some thematic legs behind the idea that Snape
chafes at the bit. <snip>

Carol responds:
The benefits to protecting Draco seem to be partly personal (he likes
Draco, he is apparently on good terms with the Malfoy family, he's
moved more than he wants to be by Narcissa's tearful appeal) and
partly related to duty (he's Draco's HOH and Dumbledore wants him to
do it). So both instinct/personal feeling and duty/obligation would
motivate him to protect Draco (and "help" him in the sense of keeping
him out of trouble) with or withot the vow. Yes, he's walking a
tightrope between life and death, serving or seeming to serve two
masters, and has been doing so at least since the end of GoF. The UV
as initially proposed by Narcissa could result in his death, but (IMO)
the risk seems no greater than the risks he has already been taking,
and he's vowing to do what he already intends to do. He has already
gone to great lengths to persuade Bellatrix that he's loyal to
Voldemort and refusing to take the risk would prove that what he
valued was his own skin. (And there is always, of course, the danger
that she or Narcissa would kill him on the spot if he refused.) So he
takes a calculated risk--confident, probably, in his ability to
protect and "help" (i.e., manipulate) Draco based on past experience.
I wouldn't call that hubris so much as a reasonable estimate of his
own abilities. And there is no need at this point to weigh Draco's
life against Dumbledore's. Draco's welfare and Snape's obligation to
protect him or die are the only factors involved.

With the third provision, which clearly takes Snape by surprise given
both the hand twitch and Narcissa's failure to mention it when she
asked him to take the vow, the stakes change. Now three lives are at
stake--Draco's, which we know he wants to save and is already
committed to save, Dumbledore's, and his own. That he does not want to
take the third provision also seems evident, and we can only speculate
on his reasons for doing so. But that he has anything to gain by
Dumbledore's death seems to me highly questionable.

Granted, he does sometimes chafe under Dumbledore's orders or
reprimands, but he has (as he tells Bellatrix) a "comfortable job"
(much more safe and comfortable than the life of a Death Eater). He
has authority and power of sorts, he has the trust of a great and
powerful wizard, he has the respect of his colleagues (who follow his
lead in CoS regarding Lockhart), he has the freedom to go anywhere in
the WW with no danger of being sent to Azkaban. (It isn't just his job
at Hogwarts that's keeping him out of prison; he's been cleared of all
charges and his name has never, AFWK, been publicly circulated as a
former DE. Yes, the Wizengamot heard Karkaroff's accusation and DD's
response, but there have been no consequences. You can't be tried for
being a DE when the charges have already been dropped.) What can he
possibly gain from killing Dumbledore? Revenge for some small slights?
Better to let him die when he comes to Snape for help after the
encounter with the ring Horcrux. That way he could simply claim
inability to save him rather than being charged with murder.

What are the consequences of openly killing Dumbledore? Yes, he can
save his own life and Draco's (and save Draco from splitting his soul
through murder), but what does he gain? Temporary status as the most
trusted lieutenant of a murderous tyrant who can turn on him at any
moment; loss of freedom and employment and whatever respect he once
had; infamy and hatred of all good people in the WW. That's what
"freedom from Dumbledore" amounts to.

Death seems vastly preferable, especially a heroic death defending
Dumbledore, but that would mean sacrificing Draco, which it seems
clear that neither Snape nor DD considers a desirable outcome. And as
I've noted in previous posts, killing DD (or at least getting him off
the tower and enabling him to die) enables Snape to get the DEs off
the tower and out of Hogwarts, at the same time keeping Harry (whose
presence Snape must have suspected because of the second broom) from
rushing out and fighting four and a half DEs (Snape would be dead from
the UV; Harry would be facing four committed DEs and Draco).

Snape could not, of course, have anticipated the situation on the
tower, with a weak and wandless Dumbledore and DEs getting past the
increased protections that DD had placed on Hogwarts. Maybe as he
heard that last provision, he had some dim hope that he and DD
together could keep the situation outlined in the third provision ("if
it seems that Draco will fail") from occurring and that he would not
be forced to "do the deed" or die. (Again, not necessarily hubris;
more like the desperate hope of a man diagnosed with a fatal illness.)
But that he could personally benefit from killing Dumbledore, that he
would be better off as Voldemort's half-trusted lieutenant than as
Dumbledore's man (who saved the lives of at least three people in HBP)
seems to me to stretch credibility. If Snape is indeed OFH!, his best
bet is to remain in comparative safety and comfort at Hogwarts as a
colleague of McGonagall et al., worrying about his students' marks on
their OWLs and interhouse Quidditch rivalries and the petty
satisfaction of deducting points from Gryffindor for "cheek." That he
would give up that cozy position for the "glory" and danger of being a
DE, no longer able to "slither out of action" because he would
constantly be under Voldemort's eye, is a doubtful proposition indeed.

On a side note, the question has been raised about Narcissa's
motivation in adding the third provision. It seems to be a spontaneous
thought, occurring after Snape has agreed informally to the first
provisions. (I don't think, BTW, that Narcissa planned the UV from the
beginning. It seems that she didn't want Bella's company, which would
have been necessary if she intended from the outset to manipulate
Snape into taking the vow.) I'm not sure what she has to gain from it
unless, as has been suggested, she wanted to protect her son from
becoming a murderer at Snape's expense. (I don't see her as being a
murderer by proxy since she didn't order the murder in the first
place, but she's certainly an accessory to the crime.) I suspect that
the third provision is the consequence of the DADA curse, silently and
automatically operating to trap both Snape and Dumbledore and to
benefit Voldemort. (Snape certainly knew that he would have to teach
the class and that DD would succeed in convincing Slughorn to teach
Potions. It may have been at that exact moment that he agreed to do
so, activating the curse and trapping Snape.) That being the case,
there's no need for Narcissa or Bellatrix to be willing agents of
Voldemort in administering the vow or sealing the magical bond. They
need only be unwitting agents of the curse itself. (Just my own view,
not one I expect you to share.

Carol, drinking to the death of OFH!Snape with elf-made wine--or
should that be Rosmerta's best oak-matured mead?






From nrenka at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 11 20:35:49 2006
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 20:35:49 -0000
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <duv9ju+oq5i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duvcb5+ap7f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149440

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" <sydpad at ...> wrote:

BTW, as a general reminder, labeling posts 'Me' is about as confusing 
as it gets.  Yeah, it may look ugly to refer to yourself in the third 
person, but it's helpful.  Excuse me while I put my tea cozy back in 
the linen chest.

> Sydney:
>
> *furrows brow*  Sorry, I must have missed the part where you explain
> why he took the Vow in the first place. That was my point.  He
> wouldn't have taken the Vow unless he was willing to die.

I don't know; I know full well that I could die every time I go 
skiing in the woods, but I don't intend to, trusting in my abilities 
to keep me afloat for the reward of extreme sore knees and the thrill 
of the sheer insanity.  There seems the potential for a similar high-
risk game with the Vow: what's open are his reasons for taking it.  
ACID POPS certainly provides one explanation, as do some other 
explanations involving his valuation of Draco over Dumbledore.  I was 
more interested in generalities than speculation, at that moment.

> Is this arrogant!Snape or idiot!Snape?  When people argue things 
> like this, which was done with the DADA curse, I'm always a bit 
> stymied. Because I don't think, pardon me, that you're really 
> making any attempt to make sense of Snape here.  You're fine with 
> him taking Vows that he's not even sure what they're going to 
> contain, that he dies automatically if he fails them, because 
> he's 'arrogant'. 

I think he is arrogant, yes.  But I also think (and have elaborated 
on it in the past) that he's trying to play both sides and he's 
serving two masters.  What happens in Spinner's End is that he's 
doing a very nice job of that.  He's busy explaining away all sorts 
of pesky behavior which seems pro-Dumbledore, just as he could be 
envisioned explaining away all sorts of pesky behavior which seemed 
pro-Voldemort--listies generally do that for him very well.  And then 
he gets caught in a situation he probably would have wanted to avoid, 
cornered by Narcissa into a moment of commitment.  And I am also 
probably more fine with a streak of irrationality in the character 
than most people; there's been a tendency for years to make Snape 
into the calculating Ice King, regardless of his canonical CAPSLOCK 
tendencies.

> And here's the classic problem with OFH!Snape posts-- to a large
> extent it seems to be all about saying, "I'm not even going to try 
> to get into this person's head, because obviously he's nothing like 
> a normal human being, or certainly nothing like ME, so he doesn't 
> have to make any sense.

No, he just doesn't have to be what any of us *want* him to be.  So 
many of the arguments do have a layer of "This doesn't make sense to 
me, therefore it can't be what JKR is writing."  If you want an 
illustration of the dangers of that, look at everyone who got 
poleaxed by Ron and Hermione hooking up, because they totally thought 
there was nothing there or it would be an abusive relationship, ad 
nauseam.  I am totally cool, I admit, with embracing things that 
don't conform to my worldview on personal motivations and 
relationships.  Hell, none of the teenage romance made sense to my 
personal sense of how things like that go, but it made sense in terms 
of their characters and what they wanted from each other.

<snip>

> Teachers who are 'out for themselves' don't ride their students and 
> give them long essays and work above their level;  they give them 
> stupid, simple work that they can't go far wrong on and is easy to 
> grade. 

But if that's something gratifying to someone out for himself, why 
not?  I've stated *again and again* that how I see Snape is not 
always the 'Path of Least Resistance', which is what you want to 
reduce everything OFH into.  It's the Path of Gratification, which 
can produce results which seem so contrary to common sense that 
there's always a rush to retcon them, to smooth out the rough edges.  
I don't doubt that Snape rather enjoys running his class at a high 
level.  Less frustating than trying to be accomodating of everyone's 
skills and natures (for one thing), far more opportunities to crush 
the egos and wishes of his students, far more opportunities to 
exercise his very particular reading of fairness and the like.

> Why is 'out-for-himself' Snape teaching at all for that matter?  

Because it keeps him in a position which he likes?  Dumbledore trusts 
him, he's protected from the Ministry underneath Dumbledore's aegis.  
We shouldn't forget that the reign of Crouch was much more 
persecutorial than the comparatively benign bumbling of Fudge.  And 
when we go in for personal preference, I find that 'cui bono' 
tradeoff much more convincing than "Snape who hates teaching and 
students but stays out of the depth of his loyalty to Dumbledore, 
just ready to take action again when he's needed, willing to 
subjugate his own desires".

> -- Sydney, who can well understand why people who don't like Snape
> keep falling back on the "nothing to see here folks" write-off for 
> all the many dramatic, mysterious, and emotional scenes JKR 
> lavishes on him, seeing as they can't really seem to explain it any 
> other way.

It's more that mystery is in the eye of the beholder than anything 
else.  Maybe I've just become a jaded old listie after all of this 
time, but I've seen far, far more complicated and involved (and 
dramatic and mysterious) theories and explanations than this fall by 
the wayside or be crushed in one fell swoop of a book.  (OotP was 
heavy enough to do a lot of that).  I don't think there's nothing to 
see there.  I just think there is for SURE far less than the 
accumulated amount of electronic ink and time would indicate, and 
because I'm a bad person, it all amuses me quite a bit to watch 
theories end up on the GARBAGE SCOW.

-Nora would provide, on request, her list of favorite dramatic 
scenes/moments or character tidbits which proved not to be much of 
anything complex or deep in the long run (yet)






From mgrantwich at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 11 21:14:47 2006
From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:14:47 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's half truths in "Spinner's End"
In-Reply-To: <duq1t2+vpos@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060311211447.51552.qmail@web53112.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149441

--- justcarol67 <justcarol67 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> In short, I think that Snape knew that LV was coming back and that
> LV was possessing Quirrell. Again, I'm sure that Snape prepared the
> story that he told LV after he failed to show up in the graveyard 
> very carefully, and these two statements strike me as particularly
> likely to be lies or half truths that he originally used to protect
> himself from death at LV's hands and repeated to Bellatrix to 
> persuade her of
> his loyalty to LV, essentially placing himself in the same category
> as Lucius Malfoy and concealing his role as Dumbledore's agent or 
> spy.
> 
> Carol, wondering what everyone else thinks about Snape's "spin" on
> these two questions and his use of half-truths in general


I agree that Snape (and Dumbledore) expected Voldemort to come back:
in what fashion or at what point in time, they didn't know.  But
neither of them assumed that Voldemort was dead and both were in a
holding pattern until the end of GOF, when the Dark Lord did indeed
return.

But I don't believe that Snape (or Dumbledore) knew that Voldemort
was attached to the back of Quirrell's head.  They probably thought
something was up with Quirrell - after all, unlike HRH they knew that
Quirrell's manner had changed during his sabbatical away from
Hogwarts.  I'm sure that when Snape did find out about Voldemort's
literal possession of Quirrell, he reviewed his previous
conversations carefully and came up with good alibis in case they
were needed in the future.

As for Snape's half-truths - he tells enough of the truth so that
Voldemort can't legilimens the dangerous part and just enough of a
lie that it makes him look good.  If it's something that no one else
can vouch for, Snape would probably feel more confident telling an
outright lie.  But if there were witnesses or others in the know,
scaling back the fictional component would be his tactic.

Magda

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From lorac44444 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 11 18:15:27 2006
From: lorac44444 at yahoo.com (lorac44444)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 18:15:27 -0000
Subject: The cave
Message-ID: <duv43v+idfi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149442

Any thoughts on what happened to the two children Tom Riddle took to 
the cave? Anyone think this is worth pursuing?

Lorac44444.








From saberbunny at yahoo.ca  Sat Mar 11 20:42:15 2006
From: saberbunny at yahoo.ca (catherine higgins)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 15:42:15 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Hermione must be stopped, ...-Hermione's Crimes
In-Reply-To: <duva6i+und3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060311204215.10868.qmail@web37012.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149443


a_svirn <a_svirn at yahoo.com> wrote:    
You see, first Harry, then Hagrid, and now ME! How dares she! Since 
then Hermione had raked her brains and mulled over Rita's miraculous 
omniscience until she hit upon the truth. This done she set about 
capturing Rita in her animal guise and confining her. It was before 
any idea of using her professional skills could ever occur to 
Hermione. No, she caught Rita, imprisoned her, whereupon by using 
blackmail extracted from her a promise to stay unemployed for a 
year. If this is not revenge, I don't know what is. 

Catherine responds:
   
  You know, Rita wasn't just being a little mean. She was publically slandering the people that Hermione cared about most. She was also trespassing onto Hogwarts grounds after being told she wasn't allowed. Eavesdropping in to private conversations....In fact, I think that that's what drove Hermione to go as far as she did. The mystery of HOW Rita was getting all of her
  information, things that she couldn't possibly have known. 
   
  Trespassing, eavesdropping, slander, liable AND being an unregistered animagus. Rita is not a nice person. Had she NOT been on Hogwarts grounds, transformed into a beetle, trying to dig up more dirt, Hermione could never have caught her. Can we lay SOME of the blame on Rita herself? 
   
  Also it seems to me, that an animagus may retain *some* of the human's ability and thought pattern, the way Sirius spoke of it in PoA, it seems that the transformee isn't completely themselves either. So for a beetle trapped in a jar, it's a beetle trapped in a jar. Not quite the same as emprisoning a human in a jar.  
   
  I think people are reading WAY too much into her behaviors as needing to be punished. Whereas I agree that she has some faults that lead her into unwise actions, she is also far from needing to be punished. This isn't real-life. And the rules seem a little more blurry in the WW. All Rita would have to do is to go an register herself as an animagus, and she could go on writing, despite what Hermione says, since Hermione would have nothing on her anymore. Rita has remained unemployed for over a year by her own CHOICE not to register herself as an animagus.

As for Marietta, I think JKR wanted us to see just how good Hermione is at jinxing people. It may come up again in book 7. And maybe Cho could be the Ravenclaw heir? 
   
  Catherine

		





From catwomanlg_50 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 11 20:47:01 2006
From: catwomanlg_50 at yahoo.com (catwomanlg_50)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 20:47:01 -0000
Subject: New Member
Message-ID: <duvd05+j69c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149444

Hi there!  Just joined in order to keep up with what's happening w/
Harry & friends.  Just finished "audio book" of "Order of the Phoenix"
and I do have some thoughts about why things happened the way they did.
However, let me say here if you didn't listen to Jim Dale reading this
you'd swear it was Dumbledore himself reading!  For now, I ask only
to read about your ideas until I get a home computer.  I'm on the public
one at the Library right now.  Hope to have my own by end of April.
Really hated the ending of the book---I couldn't believe Dumbledore was
"done in" by Snape.  I know this sounds weird but, I think Snape is
working both sides just for his own benefit.  What say you?  
Oops - my time is running out here.  Will continue with more thoughts
next chance I get.  Thanks for making a "grown up" HP group.  I am
an "older" fan.  Thanks for letting me join - see you all again soon.

Lisa-Marie









From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 11 22:49:35 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 22:49:35 -0000
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <duv9ju+oq5i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duvk5v+qjmc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149445


> Sydney:
> Geez, that grey little guy that looks like a lawyer? Seeing as the
> LID!Snape theory is so vague, it's hard to counter it with canon,

Neri:
It is indeed hard to counter LID with canon, but that's because it is
so canon-based, not because it is vague. 

> Sydney:
> except to point out that this assumed Life-Debt doesn't seem to act
> anything like Pettigrew's canonical Life-Debt.  Far from having his
> actions restricted, nobody has done more to endanger Harry than Peter
> has.  Why is Snape forced to act by the LD, where Peter can tie Harry
> to rocks and cut him with knives and resurrect folks whose maing goal
> in life is to kill Harry?

Neri:
You forget that Pettigrew's Life-Debt was canonically different of
that of Snape. Pettigrew didn't have a part in killing the person he
owed his Debt to. 

Or rather, Pettigrew didn't until the graveyard scene. When, as you
say, he cut Harry with a knife. And when Dumbledore heard about that,
he had "a gleam of something like triumph" in his eyes. Hmm, could
that be because Dumbledore realized that Pettigrew's Debt had just
been upgraded to the same status as Snape's Debt? 

And note that the young Severus who joined the DEs behaved very much
like Pettigrew after PoA. His Debt didn't prevent him from working for
Voldemort. It seems Snape had only started to be worried about his
Debt when he inadvertently became a part of a scheme to kill James. 

Not that this is necessary for LID. We know very little about the Life
Debt magic (because JKR didn't tell us) but we have Dumbledore's word
that Snape tried to save Harry'a life in SS/PS because of the debt he
owed James. 

> Sydney:
> Who knows!  LID!Snape doesn't seem to
> propose anything specific enough to contradict.

Neri:
Now it's your position that is vague. Do you agree that Dumbledore's
words in SS/PS imply that Snape owed James a Life Debt? If you do,
what part do you think this Debt had played in Snape changing sides?
If not, how do you explain that James saved Snape's life and yet Snape
didn't owe him a Life Debt?
 
> Sydney:
> If it's a
> debt of honour, how is that different from, well, decent!Snape, which
> is what DDM!Snape comes down to?
> 

Neri:
The difference is that decent!Snape wouldn't kill Dumbledore, and
wouldn't make a Vow to kill Dumbledore if Draco couldn't kill him,
while LID!Snape wouldn't have a problem with that. It's *Harry* he has
to pay his Debt to, not Dumbledore.

As I wrote here many times, we don't know how the Life Debt magic
exactly works, and many things are still unknown. After all, JKR must
leave *something* in her sleeve for Book 7. But LID already has more
canon for it than any other Snape theory.

> Sydney:
> Is there any other character in all of canon-- and that is a lot of
> characters-- who is driven not by a normal human motivation, but by
> magical compulsion?  Well, sure there are-- Crouch Sr., under the
> Imperius;  Ron with the Love Potion, Dobby under the House-Elf
> enslavement.  And they all-- ALL-- behave extremely strangely when the
> compulsion kicks in, showing overt changes in their personality. 

Neri:
Erm... aren't you forgetting Snape himself, under the Unbreakable Vow?
He wasn't acting very strangely there. Well, except for AK'ing the
headmaster off the astronomy tower. Answer me about the magical/moral
status of the UV, and I'll answer you about the LD. And what about
"binding magical contracts", like in Harry's obligation to participate
in the TWT? And what about people under the Fidelius, who are
compelled not to divulge certain details? And what about Petunia
sealing a magical "pact" by taking Harry? Was she compelled to keep
him in her house, or was that a moral decision? And what about Harry
himself and the prophecy? It doesn't really mean he *has* to try kill
Voldemort, but he *will* anyway, so the prophecy does work after all.

No, we don't know yet what is the exact moral/magical mechanism of the
Life Debt, but JKR certainly has a wide repertoire to choose from.
Moral/magical compulsions and contracts seem to be the rule rather
than the exception in the WW, and regardless of their exact mechanism
they almost always work.

> Sydney:
> Dumbledore has not been only assuring Harry that he trusts Snape; 
> he's been, according to both McGonnegal and Lupin, giving Order
> members repeated assurances of this, in the face, it seems, of
> argument.  Was the conversation only about Harry every single time
> this came up?  Would Dumbledore be assuring McGonnegal or Moody for 14
> years that he trusted Snape when he meant, only in Harry-related
> manners?  I just can't see this.
> 

Neri:
You mean, you can't see JKR trapping us with double meanings and
taking advantage of our incorrect assumptions? Really? And you can't
see Dumbledore, umm, somehow neglecting to add a few critical words
that would make his statement unequivocal?

Where in canon does Dumbledore say something like "I trust Snape to be
completely loyal to me"? Why doesn't he ever say *what* is it that he
trusts Snape to be or to do?

> Sydney:
> Let's call him atonement!Snape.  And the way you describe it, I'm
> like, OMG that's an AWESOME situation!  It's classic Snape.  Because
> he's going about everything in exactly the wrong way.  He's trying to
> follow a Dark Magic path to make up for his Dark Magic mistakes.  He's
> trying to calculate and force and repress and do damage, even if he
> thinks he's doing it for the right reasons.  That Vow sure looked like
> Dark Magic to me, and even if it seemed logically like an excellent,
> efficient plan, it was bound to go wrong.  *shakes head*  Why are you
> trying to talk me out of this theory by making it seem even MORE
> ironic and awful and tragic?  You've got the wrong end of the stick
> there, lady. <g>
> 

Neri:
Erm... first of all, that would be a gent <g>. Secondly, are we to buy
DDM!Snape who wants to "atone" for his past crimes, thus involving
himself in a Dark scheme leading directly to him killing his patron,
the Epitome of Goodness? This result kind of defeats the atonement
part. And yet during the flight Snape is "sneering" and "jeering" at
Harry. He's not behaving as if he's atoning for his majestically
failed attempt to atone for the previous failures. Well, I guess you
can explain this with the usual DDM!Snape argument "he's acting" but
it would hardly be straightforward reading.

If you still find LID!Snape vague, try reading "The Flight of the
Prince" again, assuming that Snape had no problem AK'ing Dumbledore
but he's magically compelled to protect Harry because of his Debt to
James. All his words, emotions and actions suddenly become completely
straightforward.


Neri







From celizwh at intergate.com  Sat Mar 11 23:09:05 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 23:09:05 -0000
Subject: What possessed Peter to restore Voldemort? (Was: Trusting Snape)
In-Reply-To: <duutqn+ps63@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duvlah+5hpq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149446


Sophierom:
 
>  Will we see, in the end of the series, an attempt 
>  by Peter to switch sides once more? Will the tide 
>  turn and will Peter, recognizing Harry as the one 
>  with power, go with the flow? Probably.  And I will 
>  still despise the little rat at the end of it all.

houyhnhnm:

You have to wonder what Peter has been up to for nearly a year after
the scene at Spinner's End.  Making himself at home in Snape's house?
 Drinking his elf made wine?  Reading his books? (Probably not.)  We
never hear another word about Pettigrew.

I think it is likely that Wormtail will switch sides one more time.
And who better to work on his self interest and fear of Voldemort, and
eventually turn his coat for him, than his unwilling host.  Perhaps it
has already happened.

 










From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 11 23:26:01 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 23:26:01 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped, ...-Hermione's Crimes
In-Reply-To: <20060311204215.10868.qmail@web37012.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <duvma9+3vu6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149448

> Catherine:
>    
>   You know, Rita wasn't just being a little mean. She was 
publically slandering the people that Hermione cared about most. She 
was also trespassing onto Hogwarts grounds after being told she 
wasn't allowed. Eavesdropping in to private conversations....In 
fact, I think that that's what drove Hermione to go as far as she 
did. The mystery of HOW Rita was getting all of her
>   information, things that she couldn't possibly have known. 
<snip>    

a_svirn:
Sure. The question is just how far was that? Some folks out there 
claim that Hermione's actions do not qualify as revenge or even 
blackmail. My point is that they are both. Whether she was justified 
in her thirst for revenge is another matter. It depends on whether 
you think that vengeance is allowable in principle or not. 

I must say, however, that your suggestion that Hermione's vengeance 
was but a way of satisfying her academic curiosity strikes as me 
more than a little disturbing.  Revenge I can understand (as long as 
we do not pretend that it's anything else). But this
 You know, the 
challenge of the unknown was probably what had driven people like 
Voldemort and quite possibly Snape to the Dark Arts. If Hermione is 
prepared to sacrifice others for the sake of intellectual exercise ? 
well, this way lay darkness. (Not that I believe that, mind. I think 
she was just getting even with Rita.)







From belviso at attglobal.net  Sat Mar 11 23:50:10 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 18:50:10 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: High Noon for OFH!Snape
References: <duvb6n+61h3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <010d01c64566$88e64190$0692400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 149449

Carol:
I'm not sure what she has to gain from it
> unless, as has been suggested, she wanted to protect her son from
> becoming a murderer at Snape's expense. (I don't see her as being a
> murderer by proxy since she didn't order the murder in the first
> place, but she's certainly an accessory to the crime.)

Magpie:

Just wanted to agree with this.  I didn't mean I thought Narcissa would be a 
murderer, just that she is attempting to take care of this for Draco 
herself.  The chance of her killing DD, she knows, are probably not much 
better than her son's, but she goes to someone she thinks has the ability 
and opportunity.  Plus Narcissa trying to kill Dumbledore isn't half as 
juicy.  Though I wouldn't put it past her if it came down to it.

Sydney:
You're fine with him taking Vows that he's not even sure what they're going 
to contain, that he dies
automatically if he fails them, because he's 'arrogant'.  Wouldn't an 
arrogant person say, "I don't have to take a Vow, I'll just do it, and I 
don't care if you need that extra assurance because I sure don't"?  Writers 
have to get into the heads of both nice and nasty people, and to date JKR 
has done an admirable job of both.  I'll bring up Bagman again, because I 
like him <g>-- he was arrogant to think that making a huge bet with the 
goblins was a good idea when he didn't have the
money to pay them back.  But we all know people who do this;  and, getting 
into his head a bit, I can even see why-- it was worth the risk to pay the 
debts he had already; if he lost he could put the goblins off until his ship 
really came in, etc. etc.  You can pretty
easily see how he could rationalized himself into it.  The version of 
arrogant Snape who takes Unbreakable Vows because he just assumes he
can do absolutely any old thing he's going to swear to, and he just ignores 
the 'dropping dead automatically' bit.. I'm sorry, that may ring true to 
you, but it doesn't to me.  But I don't have any real way to argue this to 
your satisfaction, so you may continue on your merry
way on that one.

Magpie:
Reading the different theories, I admit I find myself a little wary of 
arrogant!Snape.  Certainly the guy has arrogance in him, but when I think of 
him being brought down by arrogance it really falls flat.  He's always 
yelling about other people being arrogant--especially James and Harry.  Not 
that seeing a fault in others doesn't mean you can't be guilty of it 
yourself at all, but the thing is, James seems far more defined by arrogance 
in JKR's style.

James is so very arrogant in the Pensieve scene (and it's great--I loved 
James after that scene) and he's brought down by by Peter, his fanboy, the 
guy he underestimated.  Iirc, Snape yells about James not taking his advice 
abot Sirius as well--and Snape is wrong about Sirius there but may not have 
been wrong about James being arrogant or dismissive of him.  James' tragic 
ending, while not "deserved," is still a fitting ending to him.  He's a 
stag, after all--proud, flashy antlers, stately, beautiful...but at the 
bottom of it all, he's prey, a sacrifice.

Snape?  I just don't see that being his tragic flaw.  If he's made a big 
mistake here it seems far more dramatically correct and more Rowling to have 
it turn on his bitterness and resentment, not arrogance.  The type of 
arrogant Snape is is just so different than James', and the way it's 
described in this scene (I'll just take the vow because it's a challenge and 
I'm sure I'll succeed because I always do) reads to me more like classic 
James--the threat of death just makes it more thrilling (as opposed to 
Severus 'I COULD HAVE DIED IN THE PRANK!' Snape).  Snape more has the 
arrogance of the resentful geek, imo.  He knows he's smarter than others a 
lot of the time, but resents feeling he's overlooked in favor of the stars. 
I'm remembering him getting so wound up by Crouch!Moody suggesting 
Dumbledore didn't trust him.  It seems like Snape's always in that position. 
Doing something stupid to "show them all" I can see much more than taking 
this kind of risk since he already is insecure about how people think of 
him.

So yeah, it just seems like "his arrogance did him in" misses the heart of 
Snape, who so far has had to be so careful about how he behaves in order to 
survive.

He doesn't need to take the vow on any level, after all.  Not to find out 
what the task is (Narcissa is about to tell him and he cuts her off 
pre-Vow), not to show he's loyal to Voldemort (he's vowing to do something 
Voldemort expressly wants done by someone else, and it's not Voldemort who's 
telling him to do it), not to prove he's not loyal to Dumbledore for the 
same reason.  His hand twitched at the third provision, but he still doesn't 
have to take it.  He could just as easily say, "The Dark Lord has ordered 
that Draco do it.  I will not disobey him.  Nix on that third vow.  Moving 
on."  He's not trapped there, imo.  To me the twitch indicates him making 
the choice to stick with the vow, even though he doesn't want to do it.

-m 





From angirussell at bellsouth.net  Sat Mar 11 23:54:42 2006
From: angirussell at bellsouth.net (mrsfigg1968)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 23:54:42 -0000
Subject: Lily and Marauders WAS:Lupin and The Marauders
In-Reply-To: <duqrdp+nfjm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duvo02+j720@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149450


> Marianne:
<SNIP>
> I'm really against the idea that Sirius was in love with Lily,
> especially as he knew full well that his best bud James was smitten
> with her. Witness Snape's Worst Memory - it seems obvious to me from
> the dialog between James and Sirius that James is still in the dark
> as to why Lily doesn't like him, even though Sirius helpfully points
> out that he thinks that Lily thinks James is a bit conceited. There
> never seems to be any indication that Sirius is at all interested in
> Lily in a romantic sense. And, somehow, I can't buy that Sirius
> would think he had to do away with Snape in order to clear the field
> for James. Lily doesn't seem remotely interested in Snape, either.
>
> Marianne, popping up for a bit of non-Snape discussion

Angirussell:
I agree that Sirius was not in love with Lily.  But he was obviously very
good-looking and aware of it.  So, why have we not even heard of a
romantic link in school or after with Sirius and some witch?

Lupin is just a classic tragic figure.  His redemption may be in Tonks,
but I always liked the idea that Tonks is the traitor in the midst..I
don't know why.

Angirussel







From angirussell at bellsouth.net  Sat Mar 11 23:32:55 2006
From: angirussell at bellsouth.net (mrsfigg1968)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 23:32:55 -0000
Subject: The cave
In-Reply-To: <duv43v+idfi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duvmn7+4umn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149451

Lorac44444" <lorac44444 at ...> wrote:
>
> Any thoughts on what happened to the two children Tom Riddle took to 
> the cave? Anyone think this is worth pursuing?
> 

I had not given the kids a thought.  I assumed that the children were 
muggles.  However, it would be interesting to know what the young Tom 
had done to the children. 

Angirussell.







From imontero at iname.com  Sun Mar 12 00:25:25 2006
From: imontero at iname.com (lunamk03)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 00:25:25 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped, ...-Hermione's Crimes
In-Reply-To: <009d01c644bd$b8745fe0$7bb4400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <duvppl+htnc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149452

Magpie:
::sigh:: I can't say I'm surprised at this response.  You asked me 
for
examples of Hermione being manipulative.  Manipulative means to 
influence or manage shrewdly or deviously.  

Luna again: 
to this concept I would add: to one's own advantage and 
gain. To me, being manipulative is to make someone else do what you 
want in order to achieve a vile, personal gain. The connotation to 
me is very negative.   

Magpie:
These are examples of Hermione fitting that
definition.  She is not actually doing the manipulating with 
Harry/Ginny but
because it was an example of her ability to see situations this way, 
and
Harry and Ginny actually refer to her as having done some good for 
them
there, I figured I would include it.


Luna:
 If we see the grey shades in this business, maybe Rita example 
could be included in this concept, after all, Hermione did get some 
personal gain: she got her revenge. But the black mail was serving, 
as I see it, to a higher objective. Hermione was making sure also 
that Rita wasn't going to harm someone else with her articles. She 
wasn't doing this entirely to her own, exclusive personal gain. And, 
I don't agree with the idea that poor Rita was starving herself 
during that year, she could have worked in other jobs, not as a 
journalist, of course, maybe not earning as much as she used to, but 
then again, enough to live, I guess.

The centaurs example could also, if you stretch it, be considered as 
manipulation, if it weren't for the fact that she was risking her 
own neck too. At the end she paid for underestimating the centaurs, 
things didn't go exactly as she would have wished. If it weren't for 
Grawp, who knows how Harry and Hermione would have ended up. Then 
again she wasn't doing it for her personal gain alone, she was 
helping Harry as well as Luna, Ginny, Ron and Neville at her own 
risk. 

Now, giving Ginny an advice as a friend, that, I must say, does not 
remotely qualify as an example of manipulation, not even on 
a "neutral sense." Hermione wasn't gaining anything from it, she 
wasn't influencing Ginny in a shrewdly or deviously manner. She 
didn't even have the slightest idea that even if Ginny was being 
herself, Harry would see her as more than Ron's little sister. 

Magpie:

It's a neutral, accurate (imo) description of her actions, not an 
insult to a friend in need of appeals for sympathy, justifications 
and more flattering language.

Luna:
I am not sure what do you mean with what you say above
 Where 
does flattering language appears between Ginny and Hermione??? 
Sorry, I am lost here.

Magpie:
Love making us do stupid things, dear, for instance, does not make it
suddenly not shrewd and devious management for Hermione to invite 
McClaggen
to a party to make Ron jealous after considering which boy would 
make Ron
the most angry. 

Luna:
Hermione was being totally stupid here, as I said before, love 
makes us do stupid things. I agree she was using McLaggen to make 
Ron jealous. Then again, the date was worst than crappy, she had to 
run for it! I was laughing my head off! She paid for this one also. 
Yes, it was shrewd management, manipulation at its best, but 
devious? No I don't agree. I don't see Hermione as a particularly 
devious character.  Had Hermione pursued a relationship with 
McLaggen, kissing him in front of Ron, etc
 Then, I have to say, it 
would have been devious. Had Hermione pursued with the same 
technique dating guys in and out to make Ron jealous for the rest of 
the book, then I would agree. Hermione seemed to have learned her 
lesson here, we see a great change in her during the second half of 
the book.
As you can see, in most cases, Hermione does end up getting what she 
was asking for. This is part of her growing up.  In no way I see her 
as a threat, devious, potentially harmful character that needs to be 
slapped, stopped or punished for her errors, she's already paid for 
her mistakes. 










From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Sun Mar 12 01:18:01 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 20:18:01 EST
Subject: Snape's half truths in "Spinner's End"
Message-ID: <2d0.4caa0ca.3144d0c9@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149453

Carol:
>I am fairly certain that Snape's explanations to Bellatrix  in
>"Spinner's End" are a mixture of truths, half truths, and lies.  The
>problem is determining which statements are which, but two of  them
>seem particularly suspicious to me. 

<snip>Carol,  wondering what everyone else thinks about Snape's "spin" on
>these two  questions and his use of half-truths in general

Nikkalmati:
I know I am jumping  in a little late, but I have a somewhat different view 
here. Most listees  agree that Snape at SE is lying somewhere.  They disagree 
about where and  how to make that distinction.  I agree that the story he told 
Belletrix is  likely to be the story he told LV when he returned.  Therefore, 
DDMSnape is  sure to be lying here.  However, it seems to me that Snape did 
not know the  nature of Draco's assignment.
 
  ""If he has forbidden it, you ought not to speak," said Snape  at once . . 
. . "There!" she said triumphantly to her sister. "Even Snape says  so: You 
were told no to talk, so hold your silence!"  But Snape  had gotten to his feet 
and strode to the small window, peered through the  curtains at the deserted 
street, than closed them again with a jerk. . . . "It so happens that I know of 
the plan," (HBP US hardback  edition at 32).  To me the narrator is shouting 
at us - that Snape has  no idea what the plan is.  The conversation has 
reached a dead end.   This is the point where if he is VoldyMan or even if he is DDM 
and knows of the  plan he says drink up and good bye. Yet he looks out the  
window thinking "what are my options here?" I believe, he decides to  take a 
chance in order to elicit more information.  He wants to draw the  sisters out.  
He takes the UV to prove his loyality to Belletrix, to  comfort Narcissa who 
is nearly hysterical, and to put himself in a position to  mentor Draco with 
an eye to foiling the plot. Snape doesn't think Belletrix  will go to LV and 
ask how Snape knows because she is not in favor now and  she would get her 
sister in trouble.  (Not that she would hesitate on that  account if LV could 
benefit, but there is no clear benefit to telling LV about  SE).  He does not 
anticipate the third part, that Narcissa will ask him to  do the job, notice 
"Snape's hand twitched" ( HBP at 36) at the point she was  about to ask him to do 
it.  He doesn't know what he is getting  into.
 
  If he doesn't know exactly what Draco is planning there is no  reason for 
him to conceal part 3 from DD to avoid looking stupid.  He also  needs very 
much to know the plan, so he is shown trying Legimancy on Draco  (which I take to 
be an extreme step).  
 
    I do think he and DD figured it out - hence  the argument near the 
Forbidden Forest- about what they were going to do.   Also, DD refuses point blank 
to listen to Harry tell him about  Draco, "[Harry]He's trying to mend something 
dangerous in there and if you  ask me, he's fixed it al last . . . [DD] I do 
not wish to discuss the mater any  further."  DD knows.  He mentions to Harry 
he has always called  in protection when he is gone, but have we ever seen 
nearly the entire OTP  patrolling the halls of Hogwarts?  And why isn't Snape on 
patrol instead of  in his office?    
 
Long enough for one post.  
Nikkalmati (who wishes she could use  footnotes)   
  






From nrenka at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 12 01:41:51 2006
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 01:41:51 -0000
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <010d01c64566$88e64190$0692400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <duvu8v+f3p4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149454

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" <belviso at ...> wrote:

> Magpie:
>
> Snape more has the arrogance of the resentful geek, imo.

Let me simply interject to note that I'm personally wary of labels 
such as 'geek' (and by implication, 'jock' and other fellow 
travelers) in the Potterverse.  They have such definite overtones for 
most of us of American high school, but I'm not sure that's a good 
model.  It doesn't ring true for me in the social structure of 
Hogwarts, and it can tend to bring out some strange models of 
identification with characters.

> He knows he's smarter than others a lot of the time, but resents 
> feeling he's overlooked in favor of the stars.  I'm remembering him 
> getting so wound up by Crouch!Moody suggesting Dumbledore didn't 
> trust him.  It seems like Snape's always in that position. Doing 
> something stupid to "show them all" I can see much more than taking 
> this kind of risk since he already is insecure about how people 
> think of him.

I see Snape's arrogance in a slightly different streak: he's very, 
very sure of himself to the point of refusing to hear or admit other 
viewpoints.  The classic example of this is during his rage in PoA, 
both in the Shack itself and afterwards.  A forgiving reading is that 
he's so upset he's lost reason, but it does reveal something 
interesting: I think he feels deeply *threatened* by the idea that 
his constructed paradigm could turn out to be wrong.  He's so certain 
about Black and Lupin being guilty that he refuses to consider 
evidence that they may not be, leading to his public meltdown at the 
end of the book.

The same thing seems to be going on with Harry and Snape's somewhat 
delusional POV in that area.  As Lupinlore posted a while back, 
Dumbledore seems to have had the idea that exposing Snape and Harry 
to each other would lead to realizations, particularly Snape figuring 
out that Harry is not James the Younger.  As argued before ad 
nauseam, that doesn't seem to have worked out.  (One might also add 
in his style of running the DADA class in PoA, which is intended to 
shut down argument or any feedback from students--that's part of why 
the kappa thing is so funny...)

A charitable reading of Snape's actions regarding the Vow could 
involve this kind of arrogance, the idea that he knows what's going 
on when everyone else is deluding themselves--and that desire to do 
what no one else can do, to be the spy of spies and successfully fool 
the agents of Voldemort, is what brings him down into the trap and 
forces him to do what he really doesn't want to do.  First-rate 
Aristotelian tragedy.  Not as much fun as the real thing, but...

-Nora is fully capable of being charitable on special occasions






From montague at tca.net  Sat Mar 11 20:45:06 2006
From: montague at tca.net (amont4ljtk)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 20:45:06 -0000
Subject: Snape teaching DADA
In-Reply-To: <dut7su+v9lb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <duvcsi+gjl0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149455

> Tonks:
<SNIP>
>> Snape is the most skilled in the dark arts and know the most about 
> DADA, other than DD himself. Perhaps DD felt that the students 
> needed to learn some serious DADA lessons. Also he didn't want the 
> Ministry interfering again when he couldn't find anyone after that 
> awful woman that I won't even honor by using her name. 
> 
> I think that all the above things considered, Snape was the logial 
> choice.  The time had come to use whatever chess piece Snape 
> represents before the King is checked.


I am new to the group, but thought I would put in my 2 cents.  I 
think DD gave Snape the job as DADA teacher, because Snape told him 
of the unbreakable vow and DD knew he or Snape would have to die by 
the end of the year and because he knew the job was jinxed, he 
finally gave Snape his dearest wish in the hopes that Snape would 
kill him and keep Draco safe.

a Montague but not a Slithering










From belviso at attglobal.net  Sun Mar 12 02:09:25 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 21:09:25 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's half truths in "Spinner's End"
References: <2d0.4caa0ca.3144d0c9@aol.com>
Message-ID: <013201c64579$fce78af0$0692400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 149456


> Nikkalmati:
However, it seems to me that Snape did
> not know the  nature of Draco's assignment.
>
>  ""If he has forbidden it, you ought not to speak," said Snape  at once . 
> .
> . . "There!" she said triumphantly to her sister. "Even Snape says  so: 
> You
> were told no to talk, so hold your silence!"  But Snape  had gotten to his 
> feet
> and strode to the small window, peered through the  curtains at the 
> deserted
> street, than closed them again with a jerk. . . . "It so happens that I 
> know of
> the plan," (HBP US hardback  edition at 32).  To me the narrator is 
> shouting
> at us - that Snape has  no idea what the plan is.  The conversation has
> reached a dead end.   This is the point where if he is VoldyMan or even if 
> he is DDM
> and knows of the  plan he says drink up and good bye. Yet he looks out the
> window thinking "what are my options here?" I believe, he decides to  take 
> a
> chance in order to elicit more information.

Magpie:
How does this scream he doesn't know the nature of the task?  I just never 
understand how this is supposed to work.  Narcissa is about to tell him what 
the task is.  Snape stops her himself.  Then he says that he already knows 
what it is.  He even, iirc, thoughtfully says that he thinks that "he" 
always intended him to do "it" in the end.  Is he just talking nonsense, 
hoping it fits with the plan?  Because to me that line sounded like a very 
thoughtful line from Snape that loses meaning if he doesn't know what he's 
talking about.

If the point of the vow is that he was trying to find out what the secret 
task is, why doesn't he just let the woman tell him like she was about to 
do?  Why first jump in saying if the Dark Lord says not to speak about it 
she shouldn't and then put his life on the line in an elaborate magical 
contract to find out the information he just refused to listen to a minute 
ago?  Rowling didn't need to write it that way.

On top of that, taking the vow doesn't get him the information anyway! 
Nobody in the scene ever says that Snape now has to kill DD if Draco fails. 
(Granted I had no doubt what the task was not far into the chapter, so I 
naturally assumed Snape did too.)  If his plan was to find out what Draco 
was assigned to do, all he's accomplished is getting himself into a vow 
whereby he's promised to do something under pain of death but has no idea 
what it is he's supposed to do--and the sisters won't tell him because he's 
claimed to already know.  So he's stuck just trying to get Draco to tell him 
or read Draco's mind during the year, something he does not need the UV to 
do and doesn't work anyway!

Nrenka:
Let me simply interject to note that I'm personally wary of labels such as 
'geek' (and by implication, 'jock' and other fellow travelers) in the 
Potterverse.  They have such definite overtones for most of us of American 
high school, but I'm not sure that's a good
model.

Magpie:
Okay, I don't really have anything invested in the word for Snape. It just 
seemed a convenient way to cover Snape feeling disrespected, especially in 
contrast to popular, charismatic James Potter.  He has the resentment of 
someone not blessed with certain social gifts perhaps.

Nrenka:
I see Snape's arrogance in a slightly different streak: he's very, very sure 
of himself to the point of refusing to hear or admit other viewpoints...

Magpie:
Absolutely--but I don't see how the vow really plays out the way that Snape 
holds on to these things--it more seems to just set him up as the fall guy 
again in ways that he's hated in the past.

Nrenka:
the idea that he knows what's going on when everyone else is deluding 
themselves--and that desire to do what no one else can do, to be the spy of 
spies and successfully fool the agents of Voldemort, is what brings him down 
into the trap and forces him to do what he really doesn't want to do.

Magpie:
I think these are three completely different things.  Liking to be the guy 
who is the only one who knows what's going on does not lead to wanting to do 
what no one else can do or be the spy of spies.  I think we've seen evidence 
that Snape *believes* that he knows more than other people and is frustrated 
when they don't believe him and doesn't listen to their pov.  But I haven't 
seen him show signs that he's the kind of guy who would want to be the first 
person to break a UV and live or kill Dumbledore, or be the spy of spies.  I 
think he'd want everybody to appreciate and respect how much they owe him 
and how right he was, but when I imagine his reaction to somebody putting 
his life on the line and risking everything just for doing something that's 
never been done or being King of Spies I picture him thinking that person's 
just the kind of idiot he'll outlive.

Luna:
to this concept I would add: to one's own advantage and gain. To me, being 
manipulative is to make someone else do what you want in order to achieve a 
vile, personal gain. The connotation to me is very negative.

Magpie:
To me it isn't, and I don't add that you must be working for a vile, 
personal gain, so I'm not seeing any reason to not describe some actions of 
Hermione and others as manipulative.  (I believe I have already said that 
while I tossed in Ginny and Harry agreeing that Hermione was smart in terms 
of how to make their relationship work out I was not saying that Hermione 
was being manipulative in giving Ginny advice.)  I haven't been given any 
other alternative words that describe the kind of thing I'm describing to my 
satisfaction, and the main objection to "manipulative" seems to be that many 
people consider the word unflattering, therefore it shouldn't be used in 
connection to "good" characters.  I don't have that problem with it (or 
devious), so I'm still happy with it.

I have said that I don't look forward to "punishment" for Hermione in the 
future either.

-m 





From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Sun Mar 12 02:10:44 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 21:10:44 EST
Subject: The House of Black - family tree musings -Ramblings
Message-ID: <2d9.411590f.3144dd24@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149457

bboyminn:

<snip>
>Dumbledore claims that the oldest  cousin would inherit. I guess he
>knows what he's talking about, but  personally, I would have thought it
>would have gone to the oldest living  male DECENDANT with Black blood.
>That would be Draco.

>However,  if we can assume that Charlus Potter is related to Harry, and
>even  speculate that it might be Harry's grandfather, then Harry
>becomes like  Draco. He is the oldest living Male with Black blood.
>Futher, if we  accept these assumptions, Harry's position is higher up
>on the family  tree and that might give him priority, and make him both
>a true Black  heir and the recipient of Sirius's Will.


If the  house were entailed (a la Jane Austin) the inheritance would go UP 
the family  tree as far as necessary to find a living male descendent.  Draco 
would be  cut off as he can't inherit through his mother. Harry would be 
eligible assuming  Charlus is his ancestor.
 
Nikkalmati






From kchuplis at alltel.net  Sun Mar 12 02:34:08 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 20:34:08 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The cave
In-Reply-To: <duvmn7+4umn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <AEEB4B3E-B170-11DA-A38A-000393B04DDE@alltel.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 149458




> Lorac44444" <lorac44444 at ...> wrote:
> >
> > Any thoughts on what happened to the two children Tom Riddle took to
> > the cave? Anyone think this is worth pursuing?
> >
> Angirussell:
> I had not given the kids a thought.? I assumed that the children were
> muggles.? However, it would be interesting to know what the young Tom
> had done to the children.
>
> .
>
>
kchuplis:

I have often wondered, but I'm afraid to find out. It can only have 
been really horrible. I think though, not being specific....it's made 
it even worse. Clever girl our Jo.




From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Sun Mar 12 02:48:15 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 02:48:15 -0000
Subject: Snape's half truths in "Spinner's End"
In-Reply-To: <013201c64579$fce78af0$0692400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <dv025f+tsh5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149459

magpie:
I haven't been given any 
> other alternative words that describe the kind of thing I'm 
describing to my 
> satisfaction, and the main objection to "manipulative" seems to be 
that many 
> people consider the word unflattering, therefore it shouldn't be 
used in 
> connection to "good" characters.

Ceridwen:
Take your pick:
Manipulative
maneuver
finesse
manage
handle
beguile
exploit
jockey
play

>From dictionary.com's thesaurus:
Manipulative:
Main Entry:   calculating 
Part of Speech:   adjective 
Definition:   scheming 
Synonyms:   artful, canny, careful, cautious, chary, circumspect, 
considerate, contriving, crafty, cunning, designing, devious, 
discreet, gingerly, guarded, guileful, intelligent, manipulative, 
politic, premeditating, safe, scheming, sharp, shrewd, sly, wary, 
wily 
Antonyms:   artless, naive, rash, reckless, unassuming, uncalculating

I kind of like 'finesse'.

Ceridwen.






From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Sun Mar 12 02:54:26 2006
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 18:54:26 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] The cave
In-Reply-To: <duv43v+idfi@eGroups.com>
References: <duv43v+idfi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <700201d40603111854i446de3cav35cd81a05781905d@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149460

On 3/11/06, lorac44444 <lorac44444 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Any thoughts on what happened to the two children Tom Riddle took to
> the cave? Anyone think this is worth pursuing?
>

...
..
Kemper now:
I have wondered about them.  I've wondered about them and how, if at all,
their torture relates to the potion in the cave.
It wasn't until I heard the audio of the book that I thought the potion
could be the memories of either one or both kids or from the adult
Tom. (Dumbledore, to me, sounds like an anguished child)
But then I second guess the idea of the memory being from the kids because
how could Kid Tom have taken those memories?  I don't know.
BUT... he took tokens from his victims to remind himself of his power (no
canon proof, just working within my field of knowledge)  Which begs the
question: what did he take from them?
Taking the memory(s), and treasuring it(them), and using it to protect
his cherished secret, that seems like pure evil.  I would like to see that
in our not so scary, clunky Dark Lord.

-Kemper


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




From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 12 03:06:45 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 03:06:45 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped, ...-Hermione's Crimes
In-Reply-To: <20060311204215.10868.qmail@web37012.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dv0385+hp5n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149461

> >>Catherine:    
> I think people are reading WAY too much into her [Hermione's]     
> behaviors as needing to be punished.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
What people?  I've been following this thread fairly closely and 
those who dislike Hermione's various actions tend to suggest that 
Hermione is putting herself in danger.  Not suggesting that she 
*needs* to be punished.  Merely that she's playing with fire and 
could possible wind up burned.

> >>Catherine:
> All Rita would have to do is to go an register herself as an      
> animagus, and she could go on writing, despite what Hermione says, 
> since Hermione would have nothing on her anymore. Rita has        
> remained unemployed for over a year by her own CHOICE not to      
> register herself as an animagus.

Betsy Hp:
This, actually, would have been a more merciful path for Hermione to 
take.  But she's told Rita that she cannot work, as a writer at 
least, for a year or she'll tell that Rita has been an unregistered 
animagus.  Rita cannot undo the fact that she's been an animagus for 
a while.

> >>Luna:
> <snip>
> And, I don't agree with the idea that poor Rita was starving      
> herself during that year, she could have worked in other jobs, not 
> as a journalist, of course, maybe not earning as much as she used 
> to, but then again, enough to live, I guess.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Hmm, the fact that Rita was so shabby looking suggests that she was 
facing pretty dire straits, IMO.  Women like Rita don't let 
themselves go so badly unless they *have* to.  Job hunting isn't 
always the easiest thing.  Especially in uncertain times.  Though 
again, I think this sort of "real world" stuff is beyond Hermione at 
the moment.

> >>Catherine: 
> As for Marietta, I think JKR wanted us to see just how good       
> Hermione is at jinxing people. It may come up again in book 7. And 
> maybe Cho could be the Ravenclaw heir? 

Betsy Hp:
That could be JKR's point, I suppose.  We'll have to wait and see 
how Hermione's story winds up.  I feel like there's another shoe to 
drop with her, especially since her attempts at manipulation went so 
badly in HBP.  I'll be interested to see where she goes.

Betsy Hp






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 12 03:49:08 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 03:49:08 -0000
Subject: Did Snape know about Quirrell!mort? (Was: Snape's half truths in "Spinner's End"
In-Reply-To: <20060311211447.51552.qmail@web53112.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dv05nk+epko@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149462

Magda wrote: 
<I've snipped the parts where you agree with me> 
> But I don't believe that Snape (or Dumbledore) knew that Voldemort
was attached to the back of Quirrell's head.  They probably thought
something was up with Quirrell - after all, unlike HRH they knew that
Quirrell's manner had changed during his sabbatical away from
> Hogwarts.  I'm sure that when Snape did find out about Voldemort's
literal possession of Quirrell, he reviewed his previous conversations
carefully and came up with good alibis in case they were needed in the
future. 

Carol responds:
Snape must have known that something was going on with the turban and
pegged that as the key difference, the thing that was making Quirrell
act differently. He also, as you say, would have noted the changes in
his behavior and known that he was terrified of something or someone.
He knew that Quirrell was after the Sorceror's Stone, and if as you
say, he knew that LV was not dead, he must have known, or suspected,
whom DD was hiding the stone from. "Greedy, unworthy Quirrell" after
the Stoen for himself? Why? This si clearly a lie for LV's and
Bellatrix's benefit.

Snape would have known that Quirrell had gone to Albania ostensibly
looking for vampires. If he (Snape) was working closely with
Dumbledore, as I think he was, he would have known where Voldemort was
hiding. So even if Voldemort wasn't hiding in the turban (or
possessing Quirrell), Snape would have suspected that it was Voldemort
who was manipulating and controlling Quirrell. What can "where your
loyalties lie" mean other than with Dumbledore or with Voldemort? I
don't think Snape is talking about loyalty to himself vs. Quirrell's
self-interest or he would have phrased the statement differently. I
think he means loyalty to a master or leader, the undead Dark Lord or
the only wizard that the Dark Lord fears.

And another thing that I thought of as I was writing to a fellow
poster offlist: We've seen Snape clutch at his Dark Mark twice as if
it pained him, once in GoF when Crouch!Moody is speaking of Death
Eaters who walked free ("some spots don't come off") and once in OoP
when Harry speaks Voldemorts' name. (I have an idea that DDM!Snape's
Dark Mark hurts him when it senses disloyalty to its master, but I
won't go into that here.) The Dark Mark must have been at least dimly
visible during SS/PS because Voldie was stirring in the WW. (Okay, he
was possessing Quirrell, but he was stronger than he had been when he
was possessing animals in Albania so the Dark Mark would have been
less faded.) Maybe Snape's Dark Mark hurt him when he was around
Quirrell and that was a clue to the possession?

In any case, we know that Snape is a Legilimens. We know that he
distrusted Quirrell. Why would he not have used Legilimency on
Quirrell, who is clearly weaker than he is and afraid of him, to find
out Quirrell's secret? Voldemort, looking out the back of Quirrell's
head, would not have known what was happening, and once Snape knew the
secret, he would have been very careful to use Occlumency if there was
any chance of Voldemort's looking at him. Once DDM!Snape knew that LV
was possessing Quirrell, he would have informed Dumbledore. And that,
perhaps, was the point when Dumbledore moved the Mirror of Erised into
the third-floor corridor as the final protection. And I can't imagine
Dumbledore hiding the stone in the first place if he didn't know that
Voldemort was after it. 

Carol, wondering (apropos of Snape if not of this thread) whether Neri
saw the Acid Pops candy buried beneath disks and papers on JKR's
virtual desk and thought of tears falling onto Snape's chest :-)








From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Mar 12 03:54:39 2006
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 03:54:39 -0000
Subject: DD/Snape/Ships/Narcissa/Snape/Lifespan/'MrsZabini'/Manipulative/Entail
Message-ID: <dv061v+831e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149463

KJ writes in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149151 :

<< We also know that Dumbledore has told Harry that he knows more of
what is going on with Snape's UV than Harry. >>

But we don't know if DD was right about that. Even DDM!Snape could
have told him the first two clauses and omitted tellling him the 
third clause out of embarrassment/shame (as non-ESE Lupin in PoA
omitted telling DD about escaped mass murderer Sirius Black being an
Animagus).

Sometimes DD doesn't know as much as he thinks he does; because he
thought he knew all about Draco's plan, he refused to listen to Harry.
If he had listened to Harry, Harry might have mentioned that Draco was
repeatedly vanishing into the Room of Requirement, and that might have
been enough for DD to discover the Vanishing Cabinet's role in the
plan. Then he could have figured out some way to prevent the Death
Eaters from getting inside Hogwarts without revealing that he knew
about Draco's plan.

Lupinlore wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149173 :

<< Oh, your point is perfectly understandable, I think.  It just isn't
all that convincing with regard to what was or was not going on atop
the tower, or what was or was not going on with Snape during HBP.  I
mean, DDM! Snape, IMO, would be cheesy, more than faintly ludicrous,
and extremely poor and unbelievable writing. >>

If Snape was ESE or OFH and murdered DD for selfish reasons, at what
point did DD realise that his trust in Snape had been misplaced? Was
it before or after DD's first plea? I think it could be that when
Snape entered the room, DD thought he was the cavalry coming to the
rescue, and DD immediately begged him 'save my life' (which seems out
of character for someone who was so blase about Flamel's death) or
'save Harry' or 'save Hogwarts' or something else that DD and Snape
knew about but I don't, but ESE or OFH Snape instead acted for his own
benefit. For Snape to be ESE or OFH doesn't require DD to recognize
the betrayal before the first plea.

Sarah wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149197 :

<< I'm Sarah, I'm 16 (yes I know this is for grown-ups, but I think I
can handle it. *wink* >>

Hi, Sarah. Altho' I am 48, we have had grown-ups here as young as 13.
They tend to get older over time. 

<< I'm totally a R/Hr and H/G shipper, and other also include
Remus/Tonks, Neville/Luna, Fred/Angelina, Snape/Sinistra, and the
cuteness of Dobby/Winky. >>

Some of those seem to be canon now, but JKR has squashed Nevile/Luna.
On http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/rumours_view.cfm?id=24 she
wrote: "The Luna/Neville shippers are much less vehement and scary
than the Harry/Hermione, Ron/Hermione tribes, so I hope I won't
receive too much hate mail for quashing this rumour. I see Neville and
Luna as very different kinds of people and while they share a certain
isolation within Hogwarts, I don't think that's enough to foster true
love - friendship, perhaps, although I think that Neville would always
find Luna's wilder flights of fancy alarming."

Brady wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149202 :

<< Was reading HBP again, and the Spinner's End Chapter struck me that
Snape's love interest could be Narcissa! >>

That theory is named ACID POPS (acronym for Alas, Cissy Is Despondent,
Perhaps Obsessively Passionate Severus, invented in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/138742 by Neri).
Hey, Elves, ACID POPS isn't in Inish Alley, but LOLLIPOPS is
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database?method=reportRows&tbl=28&sortBy=1&sortDir=down&start_at=139

Edis wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149206 :

<< It seems to be Canon that wizards have longer lifespans than
Muggles. But on her Website Jo celebrates the Wizard of the Month 
... and the WsOTM as listed dont have really longer lifespans than
expected of Muggles... >>

I already replied back in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148862 :

<< hpotter284 asked in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148648 :

<< If we take Dumbledore and Marchbanks as a guideline for wizard
lifespans, then the average wizard life should last about 200 years.
Yet none of the Blacks in the family tree lived anywhere close to that
long (the oldest seem to have lived for about 80 years or so, which is
barely above half of Dumbledore's age).  >>

Same for all the Famous Witches and Wizards on the Famous Wizards
cards (Wizard of the month on JKR's website). I think some listies
have theorized that JKR's interview statement that wizards live longer
than Muggles is generally false, except that a few wizards including
Dumbledore live very long by magical means -- in Dumbledore's case, >>

Jazmyn wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149263 :

<< I think we only assume they live longer because of Nicholas Flammel
and due to Dumbledore's age.  But remember, up till the destruction of
the stone, Dumbledore was friends with Flammel and might have been
sharing that longevity potion, which might explain why after only 4-5
years, Dumbledore slipped so much as to become too old to handle the
fight anymore  >>

But Rowling SAID that wizards live longer than Muggles:
http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2000/1000-scholastic-chat.htm
<<Question: How old is old in the wizarding world, and how old are
Professors Dumbledore and McGonagall?
J.K. Rowling responds: Dumbledore is a hundred and fifty, and
Professor McGonagall is a sprightly seventy. Wizards have a much
longer life expectancy than Muggles. (Harry hasn't found out about
that yet.) >>
http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2001/0301-bbc-rednose.htm
<<Q: How old is Prof. Dumbledore and Prof. Snape?
JKR: Dumbledore's about 150 years old... Wizards have a longer life
expectancy than us Muggles. Snape's 35 or 36 >>

a_svirn wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149259 :

<< This is the one possibility, I believe, we neglected to discuss
while talking about Mrs. Zabini. Crime passionale, anyone? >>

Well, it *could* be that she marries for love but has an amazingly bad
temper, but it's quite likely she's Mrs. Husband-number-seven and that
Blaise resulted from one of the earlier marriages.

Nora wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149411 :

<< YMMV, but I don't perceive 'manipulative' as a neutral word at all.
It's generally used to imply that one is doing something specifically
for one's own personal gain above anything else, and that one is
doing something with shady intent that you hope the objects of your
manipulation won't pick up on.  If one states that parents are
manipulating their children, for instance, it's almost always a
statement of disapproval. >>

My late mother used to say that when one doesn't like a person, one
calls them 'manipulative', but if one likes the person, one praises
the exact same behavior as 'being good at handling people', and she
always finished by saying it's the exact same word, just whether it's
in Latin or English.

Nikkalmati wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149457 :

<< If the  house were entailed (a la Jane Austin) the inheritance
would go UP the family  tree as far as necessary to find a living male
descendent.  Draco would be  cut off as he can't inherit through his
mother. Harry would be eligible assuming Charlus is his ancestor. >>

I can't see why Charlus Potter's son or grandson would be more
eligible than Lucius Malfoy's son. The Malfoy boy could inherit only
through his mother, Lucius's wife, the former Narcissa Black, and the
Potter boy could inherit only through his (grand)mother, Charlus's
wife, the former Dorea Black. 







From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 12 04:16:20 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 04:16:20 -0000
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <BAY101-F33CF30CD2F0B9F5FDBBBDF91E20@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <dv07ak+5bue@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149464

> >>PJ:
> OFH!Snape is far from being suicidal.
> <snip>
> As I see it, it's the other theories that have Snape willing to    
> die.  My Snape *knows* he'll outlive both Dumbledore and          
> Voldemort.  ;)

Betsy Hp:
Which begs the billion dollar question: why'd he make the Vow?

> >>Sydney:
> > Surely it must be clear that of all our Snapes, the most entirely
> > incompatible with the Vow is Out-For-Himself!Snape.  People who 
> > are out for themselves simply do not, under any circumstances    
> > short of the absolutely unavoidable, make promises that they     
> > drop dead if they don't fulfill.

> >>PJ:
> I could turn right around and say that it must be clear to anyone 
> how incompatible it would be for DDM!Snape to willingly take a vow 
> to kill his boss and mentor but that doesn't get us anywhere, does 
> it? 

Betsy Hp:
Well, you sure could, but that's not what Snape entered the Vow for 
in the first place (as you acknowledge later) and there's still the 
billion dollar question:  Why would a man intent on protecting his 
own hide risk his life in such a massive way? 

> >>PJ:
> Snape felt ok taking the vow to protect Draco since he would've    
> tried to do so anyway.  He's been friendly with the Malfoys too    
> long not to.  And he's Draco's head of house which would give him 
> an additional responsibility.  
> Then we have the added bonus of him thinking that this would go a 
> long way in cementing his position as a loyal DE with Bellatrix.  
> It all works for the OFH!Snape personality.

Betsy Hp:
It does?  How?  Why would *out for HIMSELF*!Snape care about the 
Malfoys or his duty as head of house to such an extent he puts his 
*life* on the line?  Doesn't that directly oppose someone being out 
for *himself* rather than his friends or his duty?  I'm also 
confused as to how the Vow would prove his loyalty to Voldemort more 
than booting the two women out of his house with a "The Dark Lord 
has spoken and so it must be."  He took the Vow *in spite* of 
Voldemort's wishes.  Not in obedience to them.

> >>PJ:
> However, the 3rd provision of the vow was never on Snape's radar   
> at all!
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Exactly!  Which is why DDM!Snape folks don't need to explain why 
Snape was willing to take a Vow to kill Dumbledore.

> >>PJ:
> OFH!Snape wants freedom of CHOICE.  That's all.  He lives simply   
> and has no real need of money and as far as he's concerned he      
> already *has* more power than both of the "titans"... all he wants 
> is to be left in peace with his old grudges, potions and spells.  
> All these are things he can't have until the tug of war stops      
> between Dumbledore and Voldemort...

Betsy Hp:
Exactly!  That's exactly why OFH!Snape doesn't work.  Because in 
Spinner's End Snape takes a calculated risk that he *knew* was going 
to *limit* his choices.  There's reasons for DDM!Snape to take that 
risk.  But there is *no* reason for a character intent on keeping 
his head down to choose to involve himself so heavily in 
Dumbledore's and Voldemort's little tug of war.  OFH!Snape is like 
Chewbacca on Endor.  It does not. make. sense.

> >>Sydney:
> > What does this leave us with?  Not a whole lot.  No two ways     
> > about it, taking the Vow was an extremely weird thing to do.
 
> >>PJ:
> Not at all!  When Cissy suggested the vow it was like an early     
> Christmas present for OFH!Snape.  He shows the depth of his        
> friendship and loyalty to the Malfoys as well as shutting         
> Bellatrix up once and for all!

Betsy Hp:
Um... Why would OFH!Snape care about the Malfoys?

> >>PJ:
> All this when, as HoH, he'd have done all of this anyway... it was 
> no skin off Snape's nose to take that vow.

Betsy Hp:
The Vow that if it's broken you *die*?  That Vow?  Yeah, I think 
there was a huge possibility of skin being removed from noses here.  
Snape was Vowing to help Draco while he tried to kill one of the 
main players in the little war Snape (according to OFH rules) was 
trying to avoid taking part in.  How could Snape *not* recognize 
that Draco was about to put his life in some serious danger.  That 
was the main talking point of his and Narcissa's discussion during 
that chapter.  Why on earth would Snape see tying his life to 
Draco's as no big deal?

> >>Sydney:
> > *furrows brow*  Sorry, I must have missed the part where you    
> > explain why he took the Vow in the first place. That was my     
> > point.  He wouldn't have taken the Vow unless he was willing to 
> > die.

> >>Nora:
> I don't know; I know full well that I could die every time I go
> skiing in the woods, but I don't intend to, trusting in my        
> abilities to keep me afloat for the reward of extreme sore knees   
> and the thrill of the sheer insanity.

Betsy Hp:
Um, okay.  So OFH!Snape is also a danger freak?  He took the Vow 
because he was looking for a rush?  I'd love a bit of canon pointing 
to this aspect of our Professor Snape. <g>  Though I'd add that the 
look of calculation suggests that Snape didn't do this in some sort 
of "ooh shiny!" kind of impulsive behavior that we've seen more 
often displayed in Sirius.  Plus, there's the whole "keep my head 
down and be the last man standing" vibe that OFH has that "yay! 
danger rush!" doesn't really jell with.

> >>Nora:
> <snip>
> And then he gets caught in a situation he probably would have     
> wanted to avoid, cornered by Narcissa into a moment of            
> commitment.

Betsy Hp:
I can see how a DDM!Snape is cornered here.  Or at least, how he's 
lead to think that taking the Vow is a good way to go.  But why 
would OFH!Snape feel cornered here?  What power does Narcissa have?

> >>Nora:
> And I am also probably more fine with a streak of irrationality in 
> the character than most people; there's been a tendency for years 
> to make Snape into the calculating Ice King, regardless of his    
> canonical CAPSLOCK tendencies.

Betsy Hp:
There's a reason it's called CAPSLOCK, and that's because there are 
usually a lot of uppercase letters involved in the text.  That's 
missing in this scene, and especially at the moment Snape decides to 
take the Vow.  Snape *can* be ruled by his emotions, I agree.  The 
scene in the Shrieking Shack proves that.  But this scene was 
nothing like that scene.  CAPSLOCK!Snape was not 
present.  "Unemotional, impossible to read"!Snape was there 
instead.  And it's impossible (having seen the tries <g>) to assign 
a logical reason for OFH!Snape to make such a choice.

> >>Sydney:
> > And here's the classic problem with OFH!Snape posts-- to a large
> > extent it seems to be all about saying, "I'm not even going to   
> > try to get into this person's head, because obviously he's      
> > nothing like a normal human being, or certainly nothing like ME, 
> > so he doesn't have to make any sense.

> >>Nora:
> No, he just doesn't have to be what any of us *want* him to be.  So
> many of the arguments do have a layer of "This doesn't make sense 
> to me, therefore it can't be what JKR is writing."

Betsy Hp:
I agree with both of you. <g>  The OFH!Snape argument is based 
largly on "eh, he makes no sense so he must OFH" with a side order 
of "and while I *want* him to be ESE, JKR isn't writing him that way 
and since I can't stand the idea of Snape being DDM, I'll stick with 
the impossible to make sense of OFH".  

Meanwhile us DDM!Snape folks sit back and think, "Thanks JKR for 
such a gift of a character!"

> >>Nora:
> <snip>
> Maybe I've just become a jaded old listie after all of this
> time, but I've seen far, far more complicated and involved (and
> dramatic and mysterious) theories and explanations than this fall 
> by the wayside or be crushed in one fell swoop of a book.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
That's the beauty of DDM!Snape.  It's neither complicated nor really 
that mysterious, and it's based soundly on canon rather than 
esoteric symbolism.  I kind of hate to say it, but DDM!Snape is the 
Harry/Ginny of Snape theories. <very evil grin>

Betsy Hp






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 12 04:30:05 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 04:30:05 -0000
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <dv07ak+5bue@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv084d+fsst@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149465

> > >>PJ:
> > Snape felt ok taking the vow to protect Draco since he 
would've    
> > tried to do so anyway.  He's been friendly with the Malfoys 
too    
> > long not to.  And he's Draco's head of house which would give 
him 
> > an additional responsibility.  
> > Then we have the added bonus of him thinking that this would go 
a 
> > long way in cementing his position as a loyal DE with 
Bellatrix.  
> > It all works for the OFH!Snape personality.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> It does?  How?  Why would *out for HIMSELF*!Snape care about the 
> Malfoys or his duty as head of house to such an extent he puts his 
> *life* on the line?  Doesn't that directly oppose someone being 
out 
> for *himself* rather than his friends or his duty?  I'm also 
> confused as to how the Vow would prove his loyalty to Voldemort 
more 
> than booting the two women out of his house with a "The Dark Lord 
> has spoken and so it must be."  He took the Vow *in spite* of 
> Voldemort's wishes.  Not in obedience to them.
>

Alla:

I think we run into semantics here again, or maybe into ambiguity of 
the terms. I really don't see how 'Out for Himself" Snape is 
forbidden from wishing to protect Malfoy Jr. To me Out for Himself 
really does not mean that Snape cannot care about anybody else BUT 
himself. To me Out For Himself only means that Snape really does not 
care which SIDE wins in the war, that he would side with whoever 
side wins, whichever side let him have what he wants.

But it surely does not mean that he cannot care for Malfoys, if that 
is included in his goals for some reason which I am not aware of yet.

I can totally see OFH!Snape genuinely wishing to protect Draco, 
while at the same time forfetting the life of the leader of the 
Light in favor of protecting Malfoy Jr. Would I call Snape noble 
here because he genuinely cares for Draco? No, sorry, not if he is 
willing to give Dumbledore's life to Voldemort on the silver platter 
while protecting Draco.

(Yes, I know that you have not said anything of the sorts, I am just 
extending my thoughts about OFH!Snape into speculation land, that is 
all).

JMO,

Alla, who loves LID!Snape more and more, but who still thinks that 
he can coexist with OFH!Snape peacefully enough.






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 12 05:03:25 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 05:03:25 -0000
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <dv084d+fsst@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv0a2t+7mu1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149466

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > Why would *out for HIMSELF*!Snape care about the Malfoys or his 
> > duty as head of house to such an extent he puts his *life* on   
> > the line? 
> > <snip>

> >>Alla:
> I think we run into semantics here again, or maybe into ambiguity 
> of the terms. I really don't see how 'Out for Himself" Snape is 
> forbidden from wishing to protect Malfoy Jr.

Betsy Hp:
Oh, he's not forbidden.  But it does stretch believability for OFH!
Snape to risk his own life to do so.  Because than he'd no longer be 
out for himself.  He'd be out for Draco.  Or maybe the entire Malfoy 
clan.  But not himself.  Someone caring only about their own well-
being or gain does not risk their lives for someone else.  That 
would mean they were no longer out for themselves.  They'd be out 
for whomever they were risking their lives for.

> >>Alla:
> To me Out for Himself really does not mean that Snape cannot care 
> about anybody else BUT himself. To me Out For Himself only means  
> that Snape really does not care which SIDE wins in the war, that  
> he would side with whoever side wins, whichever side let him have 
> what he wants.
> But it surely does not mean that he cannot care for Malfoys, if   
> that is included in his goals for some reason which I am not aware 
> of yet.

Betsy Hp:
So he doesn't care who wins the war as long as the Malfoys survive? 
Um, then Snape wouldn't be out for himself would he?  He'd be out 
for the Malfoys.  

Because we're a bit beyond a mild caring for the Malfoys and into "I 
will risk my life to make sure Draco survives."  And yeah, there's 
no "out for himself" reason behind that.  Not that we've seen 
anyway. 

> >>Alla:
> <snip>
> Would I call Snape noble here because he genuinely cares for      
> Draco? No, sorry, not if he is willing to give Dumbledore's life   
> to Voldemort on the silver platter while protecting Draco.

Betsy Hp:
Nope, nothing noble in risking your life to save a child.  Very 
selfish that. <g>
 
> >>Alla, who loves LID!Snape more and more, but who still thinks   
> that he can coexist with OFH!Snape peacefully enough.

Betsy Hp:
I agree.  Except that it would be Peter Pettigrew playing that 
particular role.  He's a perfect example of an OFH!character dealing 
with a life-debt.  

Betsy Hp






From bawilson at citynet.net  Sat Mar 11 21:21:49 2006
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 16:21:49 -0500
Subject: Christian symbolism; Lupin & Dumbledore; Hogwarts Security
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAAASbpb76MUixUIKvlGth+AEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 149467

Tonks:
"Now I hear you asking 'how can DD not be Jesus and yet be seen as 
Christ?'  My answer to that is that DD is the human who has been 
transformed..  or more specific to the books "transfigured" into the 
image of Christ.  There is a concept in Christianity which is that 
each of us can be transformed into Christ.  Jesus is one thing, 
Christ is another. Some people think that Christ was Jesus' last 
name, but that is not correct.  Jesus was "the Christ".  I don't 
want to get off on a tangent here about Christian theology.  I just 
want to point out that some of us see many, many Christian symbols 
in the HP books.  And I think that the symbols all come together 
more and more as they lead up to the death of DD. "


One of the Greek Fathers wrote of the Incarnation, "God became Man so that Man
might become God."  Now, of course, he didn't mean that in the way that certain
New Agers say 'I am God.'  What he meant was something like this.  Human beings
were created 'in the image and likeness of God'; this image has been marred, but
not obliterated.

Have you ever seen an art restorer working on a painting by an old master, one
that may have been damaged by sunlight, smoke, damp, daubings of less-skilled
artists, botched attempts by unskilled restorers, or even outright vandalism?
How, little by little, the restorer works to bring out what the artist
originally put there?  So the power of the Holy Spirit works to restore the
Image of God in each of us.

What has this to do with Harry Potter?  Harry has been surrounded by Christian
symbols ever since he entered the Wizardling world.  His House's token, the
gryphon, is a symbol of Christ; he was rescued by a Phoenix, another symbol of
Christ; his patronus is a White Stag, another symbol of Christ; one could go on
and on.  Even if a reader is not him/herself a Christian, s/he should have a
nodding acquaintance with Christian theology in order to properly understand the
books.


BetsyHP:
"Lupin is having a rather noticeable breakdown.  Why?  Why Lupin more 
than any other character?  It's like Dumbledore's death is one more 
thing piled on top of an already heavy load.  But what is that heavy 
load?  Does Lupin feel somewhat responsible for Sirius's death?  
Does he feel that he acted too slowly in PoA, or should have acted 
when the Occlumency lessons stopped in OotP?  Or did he have some 
information on Snape that he chose not to share?"


We have seen how the Wizardling World generally treats Werewolves.  Dumbledore
is just about the only major wizard to feel differently; it is only under
Dumbledore's patronage that Lupin has been able to manage in Wizardling society
as well as he has.  Lupin probably feels that, with Dumbledore gone, he has no
place in Wizardling society any longer, and he probably doesn't feel that he'd
be very welcome among Greyback's crew either--so what will he do?

       

G.C./Vic:
"I was just reading the PS/SS again and it struck me that Charlie's 
friends come and take Norbert off the Astronomy tower, so they fly 
into Hogwarts. Another example is Fred and George exiting the school 
on brooms. How are those two things possible if the enchantments are 
encircling the school, or is it just another flint from JKR?"


In HBP, DD put extra protections on the campus.  Those were not in place in
PS/SS.

*Bruce*





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






From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Sun Mar 12 04:27:35 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 23:27:35 EST
Subject: Snape's half truths in "Spinner's End"
Message-ID: <20a.140a7057.3144fd37@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149468

>Magpie:
>How does this scream he doesn't know the nature of the  task?  I just never 
>understand how this is supposed to work.   Narcissa is about to tell him 
what 
>the task is.  Snape stops her  himself.  <snip>
If the point of the vow is that he was  trying to find out what the secret 
>task is, why doesn't he just let the  woman tell him like she was about to 
>do?  Why first jump in saying  if the Dark Lord says not to speak about it 
>she shouldn't and then put  his life on the line in an elaborate magical 
>contract to find out the  information he just refused to listen to a minute 
>ago?  Rowling  didn't need to write it that way.
<SNIP>


Clearly,  if dear Bella weren't standing right there, Snape would let 
Narcissa go on and  tell him everything.  He can't allow that to happen because Bella 
already  distrusts him and "The Dark Lord's word is law" (or should be if I 
am a loyal  DE).  
 
When he says "he means me to do it in the  end"  that underscores that he 
hasn't a clue what "IT" is - otherwise he  would say:  "I think he means me 
to kill the old man in the end."
That sentence also betrays that LV has not asked Snape to do "it" but Snape  
has surmised that was the intent.
 
I am not convinced LV is behind the vow.  Why  would he need to set Snape 
up when he can call him in and say "if Draco does not  do his job, you do it 
or you are a dead man."  Just as effective as a UV,  yes?
 
Nikkalmati  
 
 


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







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 12 05:25:05 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 05:25:05 -0000
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <dv0a2t+7mu1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv0bbh+97n5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149469

> > >>Alla:
> > I think we run into semantics here again, or maybe into 
ambiguity 
> > of the terms. I really don't see how 'Out for Himself" Snape is 
> > forbidden from wishing to protect Malfoy Jr.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Oh, he's not forbidden.  But it does stretch believability for OFH!
> Snape to risk his own life to do so.  Because than he'd no longer 
be 
> out for himself.  He'd be out for Draco.  Or maybe the entire 
Malfoy 
> clan.  But not himself.  Someone caring only about their own well-
> being or gain does not risk their lives for someone else.  That 
> would mean they were no longer out for themselves.  They'd be out 
> for whomever they were risking their lives for.

Alla:

Not to me, to me it does not stretch the believability of OFH!Snape 
in the slightest. OFH!Snape may have different goals,which we don't 
know yet. One of them may be genuinely caring for Draco. What OFH!
Snape does NOT have is the permanent, unwavering loyalty to light 
side, no matter what. 

 
> Betsy Hp:
> So he doesn't care who wins the war as long as the Malfoys 
survive? 
> Um, then Snape wouldn't be out for himself would he?  He'd be out 
> for the Malfoys.  

Alla:

I just said above that caring for Malfoys maybe included in OFH!
Snape goals, for the reasons we are not privy too yet.
 
Betsy Hp:
> Because we're a bit beyond a mild caring for the Malfoys and 
into "I 
> will risk my life to make sure Draco survives."  And yeah, there's 
> no "out for himself" reason behind that.  Not that we've seen 
> anyway. 

Alla:

Not that we haven't seen yet is the key to me. Who knows, maybe 
Snape owes Malfoys big time, maybe his very survival depends on 
Malfoy family, maybe Snape needs to be on Malfoys good side, maybe 
he indeed loves Narcissa, etc.
 
> > >>Alla:
> > <snip>
> > Would I call Snape noble here because he genuinely cares 
for      
> > Draco? No, sorry, not if he is willing to give Dumbledore's 
life   
> > to Voldemort on the silver platter while protecting Draco.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Nope, nothing noble in risking your life to save a child.  Very 
> selfish that. <g>

Alla:

If that means that Snape is willing to put the life of Dumbledore's 
potential murderer over Dumbledore's life. Sure I can see plenty of 
selfish undertones in that.

I have a problem with Dumbledore giving Draco's absolution on the 
Tower, but that I can at least see in light of religious undertones, 
etc.
Snape choosing to protect Draco while shmuck prepares Dumbledore's 
assasination ... well,yes, I would not call what Snape does  a noble 
deed exactly.

But again, it seems like we even view OFH!Snape term differently. My 
OFH!Snape can SURE care for people, if it suits him, or even 
genuinely care for them, it is just those people are the enemies of 
the side Snape supposed to be loyal to now.

Alla.  







From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Sun Mar 12 05:49:11 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 05:49:11 -0000
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <010d01c64566$88e64190$0692400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <dv0con+rg1o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149470

Magpie:
> His hand twitched at the third provision, but he still doesn't 
> have to take it.  He could just as easily say, "The Dark Lord has
> ordered that Draco do it.  I will not disobey him.  Nix on that
> third vow.  Moving on."  He's not trapped there, imo.  To me the
> twitch indicates him making the choice to stick with the vow, even
> though he doesn't want to do it.

Jen: I don't see a reason why Snape couldn't abandon the Vow mid-
stream,  either. People have suggested Bella and Narcissa would kill 
him on the spot or betray him to Voldemort, yet both women say they 
were ordered not to talk to anyone about Draco's task. So they attempt 
to kill Snape and if successful (big if) then face Legilimens!
Voldemort to explain why Snape, the only person positioned at Hogwarts 
to kill Dumbledore, is dead. Or the women run off to inform the Dark 
Lord Snape won't take an Unbreakable Vow to protect Draco when 
Narcissa and Bella aren't supposed to be talking to Snape in the first 
place. 

No, the only thing that works in my mind is that Snape had a choice to 
continue the Vow when the third provision came up and he continued 
forward. He doesn't need to prove himself to Bella in my opinion, as 
Bella's stock with Voldemort has dropped dramatically. Maybe he feels 
obligated to Narcissa for some reason, or compelled to help her, but 
that would mean a big plot point the readers aren't privy to yet as to 
why Snape is willing to die for the Malfoys, or Narcissa and/or Draco 
in particular. Not saying that can't be true, just there's missing 
information for that one.

So my best guess is that Snape knew he was being trapped by the third 
Vow and took it anyway. I personally think it's because he guessed the 
game was up--he did *not* fool Voldemort completely, Narcissa was 
*not* telling him everything about why she came to him in particular, 
and Peter *was* there to report back on this little meeting. The only 
one who seemed to be completely straightforward in that scene to me 
was Bella. 

So the next question is....Why? Snape did prove during the Occlumency 
lessons he has uneasy feelings about Voldemort, if not outright fear. 
Still he's not Peter, I don't think fear alone would make him succumb 
to a trap. No, I think there's something deeper going on. Snape seems 
to have attached himself to the two most powerful wizards in the world 
for most of his adult life. Some people see that as firm canon for 
OFH, while I see another version of the oft-played theme of father 
figures. As a teen and young man, he believed Voldemort would deliver 
salvation. When none came, and in fact Snape only found more emotional 
pain from Voldemort's actions, Snape returned to Dumbledore. I really 
believe Snape knew he was being trapped and decided in that instant 
that Dumbledore would be able to deliver him from his tragic mistake. 
And Dumbledore did and he didn't: Snape expected (just as Harry does) 
that Dumbledore could set everything right, while Dumbledore surveyed 
the landscape and said, "Yes, Severus, you know what I expect you to 
do now. If it becomes a question of myself or Draco being spared, you 
will do what you must and continue to follow my orders after my death. 
And that includes safeguarding Harry and helping him defeat 
Voldemort." Cue fight in the forest and etc.....

I think that interview in TIME when JKR talked about father figures 
and evil flourishing where fathers are bad or absent is fertile ground 
for growing Snape's motivations. It's certainly connected to a major 
theme and would place Snape in the already crowded room of abandoned 
sons, but as the only one who found an acceptable father substitute on 
the Right side.

Jen, quite pleased with Salvation!Snape.






From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Sun Mar 12 05:49:24 2006
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 00:49:24 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <dv07ak+5bue@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY101-F1925148A105D23ACE8A4FA91E30@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 149471

Betsy Hp:
>Well, you sure could, but that's not what Snape entered the Vow for
>in the first place (as you acknowledge later) and there's still the
>billion dollar question:  Why would a man intent on protecting his
>own hide risk his life in such a massive way?

PJ:
Until the 3rd provision there was no risk!  He was promising to do exactly 
what he'd planned to do, what he *had* been doing, all along.

Betsy Hp:
>It does?  How?  Why would *out for HIMSELF*!Snape care about the
>Malfoys or his duty as head of house to such an extent he puts his
>*life* on the line?  Doesn't that directly oppose someone being out
>for *himself* rather than his friends or his duty?

PJ:
So what you're saying is that just because someone puts their own wants and 
needs first that this person is incapable of having *any* friends?  That's 
not very realistic, and JKR creates pretty realistic characters for her 
story.

Maybe I'm not understanding you but it looks like you're trying to make him 
a 2 dimensional character.  Either he's all good or he's all bad with no 
room in the middle for blatently self centered, and it can't work... He's 
much more complex than that imo...

Betsy Hp:
>I'm also confused as to how the Vow would prove his loyalty to Voldemort 
>more
>than booting the two women out of his house with a "The Dark Lord
>has spoken and so it must be."  He took the Vow *in spite* of
>Voldemort's wishes.  Not in obedience to them.

Read what I wrote again please.  I said it would help convince *Bellatrix* 
of his loyalty and get her off his back.  I give you this piece of canon to 
explain what I'm trying to say here.  "If you are there to protect him... 
Severus, will you swear it?  Will you make the Unbreakable Vow?"  "The 
Unbreakable Vow?" Snape's expression was blank, unreadable.  Bellatrix, 
however, lt out a cackle of triumphant laughter.  "Aren't you listening, 
Narcissa?  Oh, he'll *try*.  I'm sure... The usual empty words, the usual 
slithering out of action... oh on the Dark Lord's orders of course!" (HBP 
Spinner's End pg 35 US Version)

Without the UV Snape would not have been able to convince Bellatrix of his 
loyalty to LV and she would continue to talk about him, maybe convincing 
Voldemort that he should take another look at his spy Snape... He had no 
choice and what Cissy had *asked* him to take a vow for was no risk!  It was 
that dratted 3rd provision that she snuck in at the last minute which was 
the problem!

He didn't have to convince LV that he was loyal because if he wasn't  fairly 
well convinced of his loyalty, Snape would already be dead.  It was 
*Bellatrix* he really had to convince at that moment.

Betsy Hp:
>Exactly!  That's exactly why OFH!Snape doesn't work.  Because in
>Spinner's End Snape takes a calculated risk that he *knew* was going
>to *limit* his choices.

PJ:
Sorry but what Cissy *asked* him to vow *before* they began would not have 
limited his choices at all!  He's been "there to look after him, seeing he 
came to no harm and protecting him" without the vow since Draco started 
school...

Betsy Hp:
>Um... Why would OFH!Snape care about the Malfoys?

PJ:
Because they're friends.  It's canon.  "Severus... please... You are, you 
have always been, Draco's favorite teacher... *You are Lucius's old 
friend*... (HBP, Spinner's End pg33/34 US Edition)

Betsy Hp:
>The Vow that if it's broken you *die*?  That Vow?  Yeah, I think
>there was a huge possibility of skin being removed from noses here.

How?  If he's asked to take a vow to protect Draco and to watch over Draco, 
and he's been doing that very thing, and planning to continue doing that 
very thing with or without the vow, how is that dangerous to Snape?  Because 
that is what Cissy first asked him to take the vow *for*.


Betsy Hp:
>Snape was Vowing to help Draco while he tried to kill one of the
>main players in the little war Snape (according to OFH rules) was
>trying to avoid taking part in.  How could Snape *not* recognize
>that Draco was about to put his life in some serious danger.

PJ:
That is the 3rd provision, not what Cissy originally asked Snape to take a 
vow to do.

PJ





From nrenka at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 12 05:54:45 2006
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 05:54:45 -0000
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <dv07ak+5bue@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv0d35+g1od@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149472

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" 
<horridporrid03 at ...> wrote:

> Because in Spinner's End Snape takes a calculated risk that he 
> *knew* was going to *limit* his choices. 

On the other hand, this risk does potentially free up other choices 
in the long run--such as the choice not to be a double agent spy 
anymore, and the choice not to have to pretend to be something he may 
not be.  I think we should keep both short-term and long-term goals 
in mind when we think about choices and limitations, because things 
which are short-term setbacks can be long-term benefits.

> Betsy Hp:
> Um, okay.  So OFH!Snape is also a danger freak?  He took the Vow 
> because he was looking for a rush?

No, I'm the slight danger freak. :)  But we both have a certain 
confidence in our abilities to navigate difficult situations, maybe 
to the point where ohh, it's going to hurt if we mess up.  (Trees 
hurt.  A lot.)  Hence the upthread somewhere worries about hubris.

> Betsy Hp:
> I can see how a DDM!Snape is cornered here.  Or at least, how he's 
> lead to think that taking the Vow is a good way to go.  But why 
> would OFH!Snape feel cornered here?  What power does Narcissa have?

The power to potentially make his life inconvenient, especially as 
crazy Bellatrix is along for the ride.  There's too much unknown for 
us to settle on whether Voldie was involved directly, he would have 
been angry at Narcissa, whatever.  Say that OFH!Snape thinks "How can 
I get this crazy broad off of my back," and takes the Vow, voila trap 
of the third clause.

> Betsy Hp:
> "Unemotional, impossible to read"!Snape was there instead.  And 
> it's impossible (having seen the tries <g>) to assign a logical 
> reason for OFH!Snape to make such a choice.

I dunno if I'd call it unemotional, being as Narcissa's romance novel 
heroine theatrics seem to do *something*...

> Betsy Hp:
> I agree with both of you. <g>  The OFH!Snape argument is based 
> largly on "eh, he makes no sense so he must OFH" with a side order 
> of "and while I *want* him to be ESE, JKR isn't writing him that 
> way and since I can't stand the idea of Snape being DDM, I'll stick 
> with the impossible to make sense of OFH".  

As opposed to the contortions one had to go through to explain away 
the AK and make it a plan and all of that... :)

To counter your assertion, a good portion of the DDM!Snape argument 
is based on thematic arguments of personal preference.  "Oh, it would 
be so mean and unfair if he weren't good in the long run.  JKR would 
be sending bad messages about second chances and Slytherins and 
underdogs.  It would totally ruin Dumbledore's character if he were 
mistaken about Snape and Harry were right, because Harry is the 
student who has to learn from his mentor.  It would totally ruin the 
entire theme of the books."

I got into a discussion once where the other person stated that if 
Snape were evil, JKR had totally destroyed all the value in her 
books, and she would continue to believe in her reading because it 
would be better than what JKR wrote.  (Yes, I have seen all of these 
arguments.)

-Nora gets a periodic chuckle out of the claim that one's reading is 
correct even if it's not what ends up being written in the book






From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Sun Mar 12 06:07:50 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 06:07:50 -0000
Subject: The cave
In-Reply-To: <700201d40603111854i446de3cav35cd81a05781905d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <dv0drm+75uj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149473

lorac44444 <lorac44444 at ...> wrote:
> Any thoughts on what happened to the two children Tom Riddle
> took to the cave? Anyone think this is worth pursuing?

> Kemper now:
> I have wondered about them.  I've wondered about them and how, if
> at all, their torture relates to the potion in the cave.
> It wasn't until I heard the audio of the book that I thought the
> potion could be the memories of either one or both kids or from the
> adult Tom. (Dumbledore, to me, sounds like an anguished child)
> But then I second guess the idea of the memory being from the kids
> because how could Kid Tom have taken those memories?  I don't know.
> BUT... he took tokens from his victims to remind himself of his
> power (no canon proof, just working within my field of knowledge)
>  Which begs the question: what did he take from them?
> Taking the memory(s), and treasuring it(them), and using it to
> protect his cherished secret, that seems like pure evil.  I would 
> like to see that in our not so scary, clunky Dark Lord.

Jen: Ugh. That would place Voldemort on a different plane of evil 
than how I've veiwed him so far. And there IS a way he could have 
those memories: the power of possession. One of my fave little 
theories is that Voldemort was practicing his newfound power of 
possession on the children in the cave. But he couldn't tell 
Dumbledore about *that*, then he would know the level of cruelty he 
was capable of and that could endanger his chances of getting into 
Hogwarts (in Riddle's mind). So he trots out the 'talking to snakes' 
line and piques Dumbledore's curiousity without arousing outright 
suspicion.

Gee, this might even revive the R. Amy Benson theory! Finally 
getting her revenge for the cave by destroying the horcrux. Well, 
nah. The locket in the Black house would then be a big red herring 
and even I'm not banking on that one.

Jen, missing for a moment the days when wild & confident speculation 
reigned.










From juli17 at aol.com  Sun Mar 12 07:47:54 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 02:47:54 EST
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape
Message-ID: <81.37864ea3.31452c2a@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149474

Snipping liberally from several posts on this topic (with credit to  Sydney
for her inspiring argument against OFH!Snape):

Ceridwen:
Get ready for ESE!/OFH!Snape, then.  Out For Himself  because he's 
Ever So Evil and wants to be Supreme Overlord of the Planet,  and 
ruthlessly capable of evil manipulations and advanced magicks.   
Spelling intended.  I can easily see this composite version of Snape  
making an appearance in the countdown to book 7 (Harry Potter and the  
Jumble of Loose Threads? or, HP&JoLT?)  Not my fave flavor of  Snape, 
not at all.  But, be prepared.
Julie:
I have one major problem this Snape who wants to be the  Overlord
of the Planet. When have we ever seen evidence of this Snape? 
He wants respect, yes, and glory, yes, but power? Certainly he's
willing to use his power as a teacher to make his students miserable,
but from all evidence it's not a position he even likes. Does he  really
want to rule the world, and have to interact with all those tedious 
minions, who aren't so much different from the dunderheads he 
teaches? I think he'd rather just be left alone!
 
Nora:
I see the killing of Dumbledore as the outcome of the Vow,  
naturally.  What I can't discount is that Snape had his own reasons  
for taking the Vow which may seem suicidal or foolish to us, but  
beneficial enough to him for him to swing it.  Hence  
incommensurability.

Julie:
Er, what reasons? Do you have possible theories? 
 
-Nora again:
 waits with amusement for the potential scream of "That's IT?"  
when Snape's mysteries collapse, just like the screaming onlist after  
the Prophecy


Julie:
None of the Snapes, be it DDM, OFH, ESE, or LID, come off as
That'sIT?!Snape to me. Whatever he turns out to be, and why,  it's
still going to be a revelation about a man we still don't know  from
Adam, even after 6 books with his always snarky and  ever-expanding
presence. I know it's irritating to some, but JKR didn't make him  the
most mysterious character in the HP books *by far* simply to sweep 
him nonchalantly under the rug in Book 7 ;-)
 
Lupinlore:
, who gleefully anticipates the howls that will result as 
the Snape  mysteries collapse, and who is laying in popcorn for the 
show (as well as  Thorazine to suppress the projectile vomiting sure 
to result if JKR settles  on the more extreme versions of DDM!Snape, 
especially the -- IMO --  ludicrously poor writing inherent in a 
Snape/Lily infatuation).
 
Julie:
Might I suggest you spoil yourself beforehand, and if the  concluding
book of the series turns out to be the ludicrous, abominable,  poorly
written, reprehensible excuse of child abuse that you're  expecting,
then you can not only save the cost of purchasing the book, but 
also save yourself the immense discomfort of projectile vomiting  or
popping pills unnecessarily!
 
Sydney:
> 
> I think Narcissa proposed, and Snape took, the Vow, because  it was the
> only way to protect Draco from Voldemort.  Voldemort  intended Draco to
> be killed, and if he doesn't die in the attempt, he  will be killed
> afterwards-- "He told me to do it or he'd kill  me".   

Neri:
For some reason you don't give your theory a  name. Would Noble!Snape
be fair? He took the UV in order to save Draco's  life, without any
additional reason. My problem with this is, as I wrote  above, that
Noble!Snape, when taken in combination with DDM!Snape, is no less  a
pathetic jerk than Suicidal!Snape. He wanted to save the life of  his
student, so ended up killing his headmaster instead. Oops.
 
Julie:
Actually it can go like this. Noble!Snape (at least in this  instance)
took the UV to save Draco's life, because he is fond of Draco and
feels some responsibility for him. The third part of the Vow caught
him unawares, but by then it was too late. He plowed ahead with
it, perhaps morphing into Arrogant!Snape ("I can outwit the vow")
tempered by Sacrificial!Snape ("If I can't outwit the vow, then I'll  break
it rather than kill Dumbledore, even if I die instead"). But once  Snape
told Dumbledore about the Vow, Dumbledore nixed Snape's plan,
insisting if push came to shove, Snape must kill Dumbledore rather
than sacrifice himself. And Snape, very unhappily and perhaps 
resentfully, complied when push did come to shove on the Tower.
Thus DDM!Snape comes out on top in the end. 
 
PJ wrote:
However, the 3rd provision of the vow was never on Snape's radar at  all!  It 
took him totally by surprise and is the spot where his  arrogance did him 
in...  There's no reason to put that "twitch" in the  scene unless it means 
something.

Julie:
EXACTLY! And since Snape didn't expect the third part, the first  two
were easy to take, as it involved nothing more than protecting a  boy
he cares about. No DDM conflict at all until the third part, and then 
it's too late to back out (in Arrogant/Sacrificial!Snape's perhaps  faulty
reasoning, anyway). 




Sydney:
> Last man standing:  decent, cunning, miserable,  instinctively-Dark,
>  trying-to-do-the-right-thing-yet-screwing-up,
>  not-too-fond-of-being-alive, Snape.  That's my boy.

Julie:
I hope you don't mind sharing, because that's also my Snape!
(Along with the others I mentioned above; it seems the man has 
more personalities than Sybil!)
 
PJ:
As I read it, and I grant you it doesn't have a lot of excitement or  oomph! 
about it (though it does have it's basis in canon), Snape owes James  a Life 
Debt from the time of the prank but never got to fulfill it while  James was 
alive.  Hating loose ends, the debt (whether willingly or  magically) is 
transfered to James' son, Harry.  I'll admit it helps to  explain a few pesky 
little problems though it doesn't thrill me.

Julie:
I just don't get why OFH!Snape, siding with whoever's likely to  win, and
switching sides accordingly, is so bothered by the life debt. If Snape  is
this cold, calculating, OFH guy, why would he care if he ever  repaid
that debt to a man he'd just consider a fool for saving a hated  enemy.
What do loose ends matter, if all that matters is your own welfare?
(I note that we don't yet know if there is anything physically binding  in
a life debt, let alone whether Snape did or didn't pay that debt by
attempting to save Harry in PS/SS.)
 
Neri:
 And yet during the flight Snape is "sneering" and "jeering"  at
Harry. He's not behaving as if he's atoning for his majestically
failed  attempt to atone for the previous failures. Well, I guess you
can explain  this with the usual DDM!Snape argument "he's acting" but
it would hardly be  straightforward reading.
 
Julie:
I assume you mean the fight between Snape and Harry, which wasn't
really a fight as much as an offense (Harry) versus a defense  (Snape)
and a pretty incompetent offense at that. If there's one thing Snape
can't stand, it's incompetence, and here's Harry, making one easily
parried attack after another. This is the kid who's supposed to  defeat
the Dark Lord in the near future? It's enough to cause anyone who's
just tossed his life in the garbage to sneer and jeer some, no acting
necessary. And, for Snape, it's a very straightforward reaction.
 

Neri:
If you still find LID!Snape vague, try reading "The Flight of  the
Prince" again, assuming that Snape had no problem AK'ing  Dumbledore
but he's magically compelled to protect Harry because of his Debt  to
James. All his words, emotions and actions suddenly become  completely
straightforward.

Julie:
I actually think Snape *is* magically compelled to protect Harry,  either
via something that happened at or right after Godric's Hollow. or via  an
agreement with Dumbledore. Snape protecting Harry, which he's been
doing all along, even after Dumbledore implied Snape had dispatched
his life debt to James in PS/SS, is as compatible with DDM as LID,
IMO. 
 
Nora:
I see Snape's arrogance in a slightly different streak: he's very, 
very  sure of himself to the point of refusing to hear or admit other  
viewpoints.  The classic example of this is during his rage in PoA,  
both in the Shack itself and afterwards.  A forgiving reading is that  
he's so upset he's lost reason, but it does reveal something  
interesting: I think he feels deeply *threatened* by the idea that 
his  constructed paradigm could turn out to be wrong.  He's so certain 
about  Black and Lupin being guilty that he refuses to consider 
evidence that they  may not be, leading to his public meltdown at the 
end of the book.
 
Julie:
Hmm, why does this sound so analogous to Harry's hatred of  Snape?
Harry willingly ignores the evidence so he can keep blaming Snape
for the death of Sirius (even as he acknowledges his irrationality).
Harry refuses to accept Dumbledore's trust of Snape, though he is
willing to trust him on virtually every other issue, up to making a
promise to pour poison down his throat. Harry twists Dumbledore's
words about Snape's remorse to imply that remorse happened 
*after* James and Lily were dead. Harry doesn't even blink at  the
lapses of logic in the events on the Tower (Dumbledore pleading...
for what? Snape not killing or taking him to Voldemort...why not?
and so on). It's unconscious, this twisting to fit his view of evil
Snape, because he's emotionally invested in his hatred. Just
as Snape twists events in his mind and ignores logic that puts 
any doubt on his emotionally invested belief of Sirius's guilt.
 
And that has nothing to do with arrogance, or being sure of oneself.
It's all about invested emotion, and clinging to it in the face


Nora:
-would provide, on request, her list of favorite dramatic  
scenes/moments or character tidbits which proved not to be much of  
anything complex or deep in the long run (yet)
 
Julie:
I'm curious. Please provide :-)
 
 
Julie 





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




From mgrantwich at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 12 13:30:39 2006
From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 05:30:39 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What possessed Peter to restore Voldemort? (Was: Trusting Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dusf0g+j75f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060312133039.64431.qmail@web53115.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149475

> SSSusan:
> Questions I, also, have asked before.  I just don't GET Peter here.
> It does seem to me that it would've made more sense to have RUN
> from a weak & needy Voldy, leaving him to die.  Maybe it really 
> *was* just 
> the fear that Voldy was so strong... that if some other DE came by 
> and saved him... that he knew he'd be killed.  But that possibility
> seems so remote that I just can't figure out why he didn't walk
> away from a Voldy who *couldn't* at that time have killed him!


Because Peter WANTS Voldemort to regain his strength.  He WANTS to
have a powerful leader to follow around again, someone whose
successes he can vicariously enjoy while telling himself (and anyone
else who might ask, like the authorities if they get caught) that
it's not his fault, that he was forced to do it.  Peter WANTS to be a
part of the biggest, baddest gang around and he wants to be able to
do it cost-free.  Even giving up his hand costs him less than
actually taking a stand or going against a more powerful personality.

Peter is a jackal, scavenging the prey brought down by other, more
fierce animals.  He's too lazy to do his own hunting, but is keen
enough to know where the biggest kill has taken place and is a master
of the pre-emptive cringe so that the alpha males don't see him as a
threat.  They scorn him but because he's not a threat they don't run
him off.  

James felt sorry for him and Voldemort scorns him but neither of them
realizes Peter's depths.  And in that way, doesn't Peter actually
have one over on both of them?  Isn't that a kind of power?  Don't
you think Peter doesn't hug himself gleefully thinking about that? 
Peter gets an almost sexual charge out of manipulating those who are
his "superiours".  It's like riding a tiger: dangerous if you lose
your grip but exciting if you can maintain your balance.

When he was a teenager he wanted to hang with the Quidditch star's
cool club; when he became an adult his taste for what constituted
real power changed accordingly.

I wouldn't be surprised if Lily actually disliked him.  His position
sitting between her and James in Moody's photo strikes me as the kind
of passive-aggressive thing he might do, knowing that James would
indulge him out of habitual pity while Lily would be too polite to
ask him to move.  I'll bet her skin crawled at the proximity though.

Magda (who thinks Peter is in a category of evil all on his own that
is in some ways more terrible than Voldemort's)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From rkdas at charter.net  Sun Mar 12 13:35:31 2006
From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 13:35:31 -0000
Subject: Tonks' role/ WAS:Lupin and The Marauders
In-Reply-To: <duvo02+j720@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv1833+n2tv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149476

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mrsfigg1968" <angirussell at ...> 
wrote:
Snipped
> Angirussell writes:
> 
SNIPPED again
 
> Lupin is just a classic tragic figure.  His redemption may be in 
Tonks,
> but I always liked the idea that Tonks is the traitor in the midst..I
> don't know why.
> 
> Angirussel

Jen D. here, posing more questions than she ever answers, hoping 
someone might be troubled by the same things...

I don't want to suspect Tonks but the day she discovered Harry 
partially covered by the cloak, looking for the ROR, it just bothers 
me. She made absolutely no sense. If she were looking for DD, why 
would she be on the 7th floor, far away from DD's tower? Seeing things 
through Harry's eyes is such a deceptive way to look at things so we 
are lulled into thinking she's perhaps grieving over Sirius (surface-y 
type of misdirection)which we can get past with a little thought but 
there is still the bigger thing of "looking for DD." It doesn't add 
up. DD doesn't wander the hallways. And she's supposed to be on guard 
duty. Not wandering the halls herself. So, while I am not prepared to 
embrace a spyTonks, I do have a concern over her. I bet you thought 
this thread was through! No, just morphed.
Jen D.
>







From mgrantwich at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 12 13:47:39 2006
From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 05:47:39 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione must be stopped, ...-Hermione's Crimes
In-Reply-To: <dusvnc+8chl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060312134739.54681.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149477

--- Steve <bboyminn at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Let's use the example of the Philosopher's Stone. What Harry did
> was
> 'wrong'. McGonagall specifically told him to go to bed and let the
> adults handle it. If Harry did the 'right' thing, he would have
> obeyed. He would have been snug in his bed being an obedient little
> boy, and the Stone would like have been lost. 


Would it really?  I didn't notice Quirrell enjoying a great deal of
success in figuring out how to get the stone out of the mirror.  In
fact, Harry's being present actually helped in that regard.  

Magda

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From miles at martinbraeutigam.de  Sun Mar 12 14:07:49 2006
From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 15:07:49 +0100
Subject: Snape's half truths in "Spinner's End"
References: <2d0.4caa0ca.3144d0c9@aol.com> <013201c64579$fce78af0$0692400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <003501c645de$5983e470$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>

No: HPFGUIDX 149478

Magpie wrote:
> How does this scream he doesn't know the nature of the task?  I just
> never
> understand how this is supposed to work.  Narcissa is about to tell
> him what
> the task is.  Snape stops her himself.  Then he says that he already
> knows
> what it is.

Miles:
Because Bellatrix is listening, and because he is not sure whether anyone
else is listening. He made sure Peter is not behind the door just before, so
he doesn't want any witnesses. If you want information, it is sometimes good
not to let the informant know that he gives something to you. That's what he
is trying to do: let Narcissa tell him the task, without letting her and
particularly Bellatrix know that he didn't know it before. It turns out that
he is too clever here, but his strategy is not stupid -it just, but only
just, failed.

Magpie wrote:
> He even, iirc, thoughtfully says that he thinks that "he"
> always intended him to do "it" in the end.  Is he just talking
> nonsense,
> hoping it fits with the plan?  Because to me that line sounded like a
> very
> thoughtful line from Snape that loses meaning if he doesn't know what
> he's
> talking about.

Miles:
But Narcissa told him that Draco won't be able to succeed, and she asked him
for help. He just takes the information she gave him and draws conclusions.
Draco won't be able to succeed = the task is difficult, Narcissa asks him to
help Draco = he would have better chances. Nothing magical or mysterious
here.

Magpie wrote:
> <snip> Rowling didn't need to write it that way.

Miles:
Snape does not give us a single piece of information Narcissa didn't give
him before. We do not learn anything new from Snape, all we learn is told by
Narcissa. You are right, Rowling didn't need to write it that way.

Magpie wrote:
> On top of that, taking the vow doesn't get him the information anyway!

Miles:
Refusing the vow would be a very suspicious thing to do. Just think what
Bellatrix would do. And the first and second part of the vow are no big
problem, only the third is. He hesitates before this part, but there is no
way out. It's the end of the spinner - Snape tried to be very clever, but he
got trapped in his own cobweb.

Miles




From mgrantwich at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 12 14:48:04 2006
From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 06:48:04 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's half truths in "Spinner's End"
In-Reply-To: <013201c64579$fce78af0$0692400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <20060312144804.74211.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149479

--- Magpie <belviso at attglobal.net> wrote:

> I just never understand how this is supposed to work.  Narcissa is 
> about to tell him what the task is.  Snape stops her himself. 
> Then he says that he already knows what it is.  He even, iirc, 
> thoughtfully says that he thinks that "he" 
> always intended him to do "it" in the end.  Is he just talking
> nonsense, hoping it fits with the plan?  Because to me that line 
> sounded like a very thoughtful line from Snape that loses meaning 
> if he doesn't know what he's talking about.

He doesn't know what he's talking about but he THINKS he does.  This
is how the DADA curse plays out for Snape: the curse brings out the
worst in each DADA professor in the series.  What's "the worst" in
Snape?  His tendency to jump to conclusions.  

And that tendency is going to bite him in the butt this time!

IMO Snape never did know what Draco's task was - not until the very
climax of the book at the top of the tower. He spent all year
assuming that Draco's task was to kill HARRY and then trying to keep
the two of them apart so that Draco wouldn't have the chance. 

I think that when Snape reported the UV to Dumbledore (and yes, I
think he told him everything), he said that he'd be able to come up
with a way to straddle the line between protecting Harry and not
falling victim himself.  And I think when he left Dumbledore pondered
the situation, considered his own knowledge of Tom Riddle and came to
the correct conclusion: that Voldemort wants to kill Harry himself
and that the subject of Draco's task was himself.  

And he decided not to tell Snape but let him go on thinking that
Harry was the target.  

Dumbledore's and Snape's private talk in the woods? That was about
Snape telling DD that he would have to die rather than kill Harry.
And DD's stern warning that Snape had agreed to the Vow and would
have to honour it probably shocked Snape who couldn't reconcile it
with Dumbledore's apparent care for the boy. 

Not until Snape got to the top of the Tower and the DE said "Draco
doesn't seem able..." does Snape suddenly realize that DUMBLEDORE was
the target all the time.  And man, is he not happy about finding out
the truth this way!  He's also angry with himself because he knows he
brought a lot of this about on his own and one thing Snape hates is
knowing he did something stupid.  Especially this, especially now.

DD's "Please Severus..." was his way of pleading "now that you know
the truth don't let your feelings for me get in the way of doing what
you must, please solve this mess and save the castle as best you
can".   

Snape screaming at Harry over being called a coward for killing DD?
Damn right it was the most courageous thing he'd ever done. Bet when
they got back to Spinner's End, Snape whaled the stuffing out of
Draco for not telling him before. 

Magda

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Sun Mar 12 14:54:07 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 14:54:07 -0000
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <81.37864ea3.31452c2a@aol.com>
Message-ID: <dv1cmf+1c9l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149480

> Ceridwen:
> Get ready for ESE!/OFH!Snape, then.  Out For Himself  because he's 
> Ever So Evil and wants to be Supreme Overlord of the Planet,  and 
> ruthlessly capable of evil manipulations and advanced magicks.   
> Spelling intended.  I can easily see this composite version of 
Snape  
> making an appearance in the countdown to book 7 (Harry Potter and 
the  
> Jumble of Loose Threads? or, HP&JoLT?)  Not my fave flavor of  
Snape, 
> not at all.  But, be prepared.

Julie:
> I have one major problem this Snape who wants to be the  Overlord
> of the Planet. When have we ever seen evidence of this Snape? 
> He wants respect, yes, and glory, yes, but power? Certainly he's
> willing to use his power as a teacher to make his students 
miserable,
> but from all evidence it's not a position he even likes. Does he  
really
> want to rule the world, and have to interact with all those tedious 
> minions, who aren't so much different from the dunderheads he 
> teaches? I think he'd rather just be left alone!

Ceridwen:
So do I, Julie.  But reading Sydney's post, I could see how OFH! and 
ESE! can be combined into the EvilOverlordInWaiting!Snape.  Not that 
Sydney suggested it, or would support it.  But there was something 
she wrote that made me think, someone, somewhere, is going to suggest 
this.

That's why I said it isn't my favorite flavor of Snape.  I think it 
goes against everything we've seen in canon.  But, part of OFH! for 
some, is the idea that Snape wants Harry to kill LV to vacate the 
spot, while in HBP, Snape himself offs DD, proving both his Dark 
Wizard credentials and his power, so that danger is neutralized.  
Nature abhors a vacuum, so in steps EOIW!Snape, who has allowed 
everyone else to do his work for him - LV gets a ready-made batch of 
groupies ready to kowtow, and Harry offs LV.  According to this 
particular flavor of OFH, this is what Snape's been waiting for, 
while benefiting from DD's protection.  All he has to do is prove his 
street creds, and he's in.

I don't buy OFH!ESE!Snape.  He doesn't appear in canon that I can 
find.  But, I can see where some people might see him lurking in the 
shadows with the hint of an evil smile on his face.  Just browse the 
posts here and elsewhere, and you'll see plenty of contention.  And, 
plenty of variety.

Ceridwen.






From belviso at attglobal.net  Sun Mar 12 15:44:27 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 10:44:27 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione must be stopped/Snape's half truths in "Spinner's End"
References: <20a.140a7057.3144fd37@aol.com>
Message-ID: <003c01c645eb$d8f5b410$1c9e400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 149481

Ceridwen:
I kind of like 'finesse'.

Magpie:
Designing has some style.:-)

And now back to SNAPE SNAPE SNAPE!

pudhuhepa:
> Clearly,  if dear Bella weren't standing right there, Snape would let
> Narcissa go on and  tell him everything.  He can't allow that to happen
> because Bella
> already  distrusts him and "The Dark Lord's word is law" (or should be if
> I
> am a loyal  DE).

Magpie:
It's not unusual for a Death Eater to want to know the the big secret plan 
and so let Narcissa blab it to him if he can.  Snape's letting Narcissa 
speak doesn't make him look any more untrustworthy than he already does in 
her own disagraced eyes.

Miles:
Because Bellatrix is listening, and because he is not sure whether anyone 
else is listening. ... If you want information, it is sometimes good not to 
let the informant know that he gives something to you. That's what he is 
trying to do: let Narcissa tell him the task, without letting her and 
particularly Bellatrix know that he didn't know it before. It turns out that 
he is too clever here, but his strategy is not stupid -it just, but only 
just, failed.

Magpie:
I'm afraid I think the strategy is far more stupid than you do.  Pretending 
to be just seconds too slow to stop Narcissa from speaking vs. getting 
locked into a death vow?

I don't understand why it's so gosh darned important that Snape not let 
Bella and Narcissa not know they gave him information--important on pain of 
death so he's willing to take an unknown UV rather than risk it.  Especially 
since I still don't see the connection between taking the vow and getting 
the information as being so direct or strong.  Why would he think taking the 
vow would get him the info?  I'm trying to picture him explaining it: Well, 
I didn't know what the task was, so I took a UV!

Do you know what the task is now?

No, I don't.  But if I got a death sentence if I don't complete it--that's a 
good start!

Here's a much easier way for Snape to get the info without letting the women 
know they've given it to him.  Let Narcissa finish her sentence, and then 
tell her she should have kept her mouth shut, but luckily you already know 
about the vow.

It's not that I can't imagine Snape being tricky enough to want to get info 
without letting anyone realize they're giving him new information, but not 
to the point of getting into a vow to do it.  Same thing he does, only a few 
seconds later, and without the UV.

puduhepa:
> When he says "he means me to do it in the  end"  that underscores that he
> hasn't a clue what "IT" is - otherwise he  would say:  "I think he means
> me
> to kill the old man in the end."

Magpie:
I don't see that it underscores anything except that we, the readers, don't 
know what the vow is.  There's really nothing remarkable about Snape's 
saying "it" instead of saying the whole plan. In fact, there's a very good 
reason Snape is not saying it outright that has nothing to do with himself: 
the author's trying to keep it from the reader.  I'm also surprised he isn't 
now trying to get the ladies to talk a bit more about the task, given that 
he's now ordered to perform it under pain of death and still has no idea 
what it is.

puduhepa:
> That sentence also betrays that LV has not asked Snape to do "it" but
> Snape
> has surmised that was the intent.

Magpie:
I don't see how it betrays this information, since nobody in the scene is 
under the impression that LV asked Snape to do the task--everyone knows he
hasn't.  That's why they're all there, because LV has commanded Draco Malfoy 
to do the task.  Besides which, what has Snape surmised that it is LV's
intent for him to do if he doesn't know what's going on?

Miles:
Narcissa told him that Draco won't be able to succeed, and she asked him for 
help. He just takes the information she gave him and draws conclusions.
Draco won't be able to succeed = the task is difficult, Narcissa asks him to 
help Draco = he would have better chances. Nothing magical or mysterious
here.

Magpie:
Oh, so the line is more empty than it came across to me in canon. To me (and 
I wish I had it with me so I could check) the line about "He's always 
intended for me to do it in the end" stood out as meaning more than it 
seemed, not less.  But you're saying, if I understand you, that Snape is 
just still bluffing saying, "Oh, Voldemort always intended for me to do this 
task in the end," still not knowing what the task is, and the line is more 
directed to the women than to himself.  I hate to lose my important line, 
but without the book in front of me I can't look for any reasons why this 
interpretation doesn't work.

puduhepa:>
> I am not convinced LV is behind the vow.  Why  would he need to set Snape
> up when he can call him in and say "if Draco does not  do his job, you do
> it
> or you are a dead man."  Just as effective as a UV,  yes?

Magpie:
Err...I don't think LV is behind the vow either.  Not sure where that came 
from.  I think Snape's "HE means for me to do IT" is Snape saying
that he thinks LV (or DD) always meant for Snape to kill Dumbledore 
eventually.  He (LV) doesn't really expect Draco to do it, but Snape, who 
knows that Dumbledore would eventually always have to die in Voldemort's 
plan, believes that LV has long planned for Snape (his agent in Hogwarts who 
has been DD's trusted companion for years) to kill Dumbledore.  So I thought 
Snape was flat out saying that he thinks that eventually his double agent 
days would be set up against DD in this way.  The line stuck out to me as 
important in just that way, as Snape seeing that destiny looming into view.

Miles:
Refusing the vow would be a very suspicious thing to do. Just think what 
Bellatrix would do.

Magpie:
Okay, what would Bellatrix do?   Isn't Bella absolutely shocked that he 
agrees to it?  What would be so shocking about his not agreeing to go into a 
UV with Narcissa Malfoy?  I imagine Bellatrix would just say "of course you 
won't do it, you slither out of actions!" which is how she already feels. 
I'd imagine most DEs would refuse the vow.

Miles:
And the first and second part of the vow are no big
problem, only the third is. He hesitates before this part, but there is no 
way out. It's the end of the spinner - Snape tried to be very clever, but he
got trapped in his own cobweb.

Magpie:
And why doesn't he just not take the third part of the vow?  As I said 
elsewhere, I see no reason he couldn't not agree to do the task for the same 
reason that gets repeated over and over at the end of the book: The Dark 
Lord wants Draco to do it.

I guess it just seems far less dramatic to me to think that this vow, the 
thing that sets the whole book in motion, is just an oopsie! by Snape based 
around the not-so-compelling reason of not wanting Bella and Cissy to know 
he doesn't know about the task beforehand.  I get the feeling of destiny at 
work in that second chapter, and Snape knowing it.

Magda:
He doesn't know what he's talking about but he THINKS he does.  This is how 
the DADA curse plays out for Snape: the curse brings out the
worst in each DADA professor in the series.  What's "the worst" in Snape? 
His tendency to jump to conclusions.

Magpie:
Oh.  So this is a slightly different scenario.  Snape isn't trying to get 
information from Bella and Cissy; he's not bluffing when he thinks he knows 
the task.  He just has the wrong idea about the task.  We just never are 
never told what Snape thought he was vowing to do and how he found out 
otherwise.

Magda:
IMO Snape never did know what Draco's task was - not until the very climax 
of the book at the top of the tower. He spent all year assuming that Draco's 
task was to kill HARRY and then trying to keep
the two of them apart so that Draco wouldn't have the chance.

Magpie:
Ah!  There's the story, though we're still not told it in canon.  I can't 
honestly say I see any evidence for this in the book.  There are no scenes 
of Snape actively keeping Harry and Draco apart that I can remember, and 
Harry's following Draco around, not vice versa.  You'd think if he was 
watching them Snape would notice that.  And notice that the bottle of 
poisoned wine was supposed to be for DD.  Harry doesn't even drink wine.

Magda:
And I think when he left Dumbledore pondered
the situation, considered his own knowledge of Tom Riddle and came to the 
correct conclusion: that Voldemort wants to kill Harry himself and that the 
subject of Draco's task was himself.

And he decided not to tell Snape but let him go on thinking that Harry was 
the target.

Magpie:
Whoa!  The thing going on that we don't see at all is getting more 
complicated.  Since we don't see any beats of this story, I don't see how 
they really make up the plot of the book.

So if Snape didn't realize what he was supposed to do until he's on the 
tower, you're saying that he shows up and looks around, sees Draco there 
with the DEs and DD, doesn't see Harry there, and then realizes who he's 
supposed to kill according to the vow?

I'm afraid I've got the same problem with this as I do to the scenario where 
DD realizes here that Snape has betrayed him.  There's no moment of 
realization for Snape.  I don't recall him having any change between looking 
around and striding forward, knocking Draco out of the way.  I'd think he'd 
need a moment to process the information he's been wrong all along.  A 
moment of confusion and dawning understanding that he's got to kill this 
guy--and time to decide if he's going to.

Magda:
And DD's stern warning that Snape had agreed to the Vow and would have to 
honour it probably shocked Snape who couldn't reconcile it with Dumbledore's 
apparent care for the boy.

Magpie:
Dangerous game that DD's playing there, giving Snape orders to kill Harry 
Potter.  He's lucky Snape didn't fulfill that vow in a fit of temper many 
times throughout the year.

Another thing surprising about it is that I'd expect Snape to be angrier 
than ever at Harry if the vow was over him.  I think JKR would write in 
moments in their interactions connected to Snape's vow.

-m






From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 12 16:37:36 2006
From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 16:37:36 -0000
Subject: Snape's half truths in "Spinner's End" - another point view
In-Reply-To: <20060312144804.74211.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dv1iog+mnao@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149482

I think that the "what did Snape know" question is not the most 
significant thing from "Spinner's End".  To me, the most significant 
thing from this chapter is the way that Voldemort's coalition is 
starting to fracture.  Narcissa is risking Voldy's anger, breaking 
Voldy's "law", risking her life, by confiding in Snape and asking for 
his help. Why?  Because to Narcissa her son's life/safety/welfare 
trumps her loyalty to and fear of Voldemort.  Her LOVE for her son is 
more important to her than her obediance to Voldemort.  She's a rotten 
character with no apparent redeeming qualities, but still loves her 
son.  As opposed to Harry, whose "helpers" love him and would be ready 
to die for him if necessary, Voldy rules his followers by fear.  
Narcissa's love for her son is stronger than her fear of Voldy and 
thus she is ready to disobey him and spill the beans on this plot to 
Snape, who as far as she knows (before he responds by telling her he 
already knows) knows nothing about it.  

Steven.








From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Sun Mar 12 17:10:14 2006
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 17:10:14 -0000
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape
Message-ID: <dv1klm+jhr9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149483

"Sydney" <sydpad at ...> wrote:

> The taking of the Vow makes one
> thing very clear-- Snape is willing to die. 

Yes I agree, Snape knows it's very dangerous and soon either he or
Dumbledore will be dead, but if you want to be the number one wizard
in the world you have to be willing to take risks.

> Surely it must be clear that of all our Snapes,
> the most entirely incompatible with the
> Vow is Out-For-Himself! 

Huh? You're saying a pragmatic man would never vow to do something he
had every intention of doing anyway, not even if he had already made
the identical same vow to Voldemort, not even if it gained him 2
allies. Certainly I find the out for himself idea far far more
compatible than a good man vowing to murder another good man and then
actually murdering him as hatred was etched in the harsh lines of his
face; that does not compute. And don't call me Shirley. 

> He had precious little if anything to
> gain and everything to lose from the Vow.  

No, he had something to gain and nothing to lose by taking that vow.

> Taking the Vow doesn't work well with
> ESE!Snape either. 

ESE Snape is not my favorite theory either but it's much better than
DDM Snape because it you look very hard at history you may be able to
find instances of evil men vowing to kill someone and then actually
killing them. Off the top of my head I can't think of a historical
example of a good man murdering another very good man with hatred
etched into the harsh lines of his face. 

> There's plenty of reason to think Voldemort
> would be downright displeased at the Vow. 
> Draco is supposed to die

The number one priority was that Dumbledore die, Voldemort figures
Draco will probably die in the attempt but if he doesn't that's OK as
long as Dumbledore is dead. Voldemort does not hate Draco, or at least
he doesn't hate him more than any other member of the human species.  

> Last man standing:  decent, cunning, miserable,
> instinctively-Dark, trying-to-do-the-right-thing
> yet-screwing-up,not-too-fond-of-being-alive, Snape.
> That's my boy. 

There is one element in your list that is incompatible with the
others, cunning. If Snape is as you describe him then the man is brain
dead dumb.

Eggplant 
 
 
 







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 12 17:16:16 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 17:16:16 -0000
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <dv0d35+g1od@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv1l10+apdb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149484

Nora:
<SNIP>
> To counter your assertion, a good portion of the DDM!Snape 
argument 
> is based on thematic arguments of personal preference.  "Oh, it 
would 
> be so mean and unfair if he weren't good in the long run.  JKR 
would 
> be sending bad messages about second chances and Slytherins and 
> underdogs.  It would totally ruin Dumbledore's character if he 
were 
> mistaken about Snape and Harry were right, because Harry is the 
> student who has to learn from his mentor.  It would totally ruin 
the 
> entire theme of the books."

Alla:

Hehe. SO true, so very true, Nora. The thing which always confuses 
me about such argument ( that unless Snape is DD!M, it would send a 
bad message , that Dumbledore's trust into Snape should be 
validated, or else the thematic significance will be ruined, 
etc,etc.) is that Okay, I can understand that sending the message 
that Dumbledore's trust in Snape was good, because he changed, was 
remorseful is viewed as attractive. I get it.

What I never understood is why  the message that Dumbledore's trust 
COULD be mistaken ( and if I may we saw it so many times in the 
books already IMO), somehow is SO terrible and so much worse for the 
kids than sending a message that killing is Okay, as long as it is 
you know for the good cause.

I mean, I will be the first one to say that JKR DOES aim her books 
on the younger audience first and foremost, but I think that JKR 
thinks that kids are capable of understanding some other messages - 
like person CAN blew their chance at redemption and it does not mean 
that the person  who gave that chance to another person is somehow 
stupid because of his trust.

I will not respect DD any less if it will turn out that his trust in 
Snape was wrong. (Although maybe Neri IS right and it will turn out 
that DD was correct to trust Snape in fulfilling his Life Debt, but 
not being loyal to him).

I think that kids are able to do figure such messages.

NOT saying that this is what will happen of course, not saying that 
I am right. Just saying that arguing that it is not going to happen 
because that would be sending a wrong message, because we don't like 
it, is weak, IMO.

We, IMO don't know what kind of messages JKR is interested in 
sending at the end. it can IMO turn out that her message is totally 
different from what we want( myself included of course) the final 
message to be.
 
Nora:
> I got into a discussion once where the other person stated that if 
> Snape were evil, JKR had totally destroyed all the value in her 
> books, and she would continue to believe in her reading because it 
> would be better than what JKR wrote.  (Yes, I have seen all of 
these 
> arguments.)

Alla:

Hehe. Now THAT is funny. Although I am not the one to talk, since I 
certainly thought on the occasions that if JKR made some other 
decisions , that would be better. :-) Too bad she forgot to ask 
me. :-)

But yeah, I am quite confident that I would be able to enjoy most 
anything at the end ( except Harry dying - THAT would mean for  me 
the end of rereading of the books. I am pretty sure of it.)

JMO,

Alla






From sopraniste at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 12 17:23:45 2006
From: sopraniste at yahoo.com (Maria Holub)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 09:23:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] The cave
In-Reply-To: <700201d40603111854i446de3cav35cd81a05781905d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20060312172345.44993.qmail@web35612.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149485

> On 3/11/06, lorac44444 <lorac44444 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Any thoughts on what happened to the two children
> Tom Riddle took to
> > the cave? Anyone think this is worth pursuing?
> >
> 
> ...
> ..
> Kemper now:
> I have wondered about them.  I've wondered about
> them and how, if at all,
> their torture relates to the potion in the cave.
> It wasn't until I heard the audio of the book that I
> thought the potion
> could be the memories of either one or both kids or
> from the adult
> Tom. (Dumbledore, to me, sounds like an anguished
> child)
> But then I second guess the idea of the memory being
> from the kids because
> how could Kid Tom have taken those memories?  I
> don't know.
> BUT... he took tokens from his victims to remind
> himself of his power (no
> canon proof, just working within my field of
> knowledge)  Which begs the
> question: what did he take from them?
> Taking the memory(s), and treasuring it(them), and
> using it to protect
> his cherished secret, that seems like pure evil.  I
> would like to see that
> in our not so scary, clunky Dark Lord.
> 
> -Kemper

And Flop:
That was one of the first things that popped into my
head the first time I read this scene. I figured that
the potion was somehow tied in to what young Tom
Riddle did to those two kids in the cave, and that
drinking it somehow forced Dumbledore to experience
whatever it was. Judging by Dumbledore's reaction,
I've always considered it a mercy that we never find
out what actually happened....
Flop

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From katbofaye at aol.com  Sun Mar 12 16:43:47 2006
From: katbofaye at aol.com (katssirius)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 16:43:47 -0000
Subject: Voldemort's evil plan
Message-ID: <dv1j43+vu93@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149486

I am not clear what Voldemort and his Death Eater's want.  Any level of 
power or money Tom Riddle desired he could have gotten as Tom Riddle.  
Lucius Malfoy obviously has both as well.  So what do these guys want.  
Is it just unlimited torture?  These are smart people.  If you kill all 
of the mudbloods then there are not enough wizards to maintain a gene 
pool and no one to torture.  So what is the point.  Maybe I do not have 
a dark enough side to get it.  But it seems to me that they could 
torture people and be powerful without all this fuss.  No one would 
notice.  The wizarding world certainly has the flaw of very little 
introspection and a great deal of license for all kinds of behavior.  
Frankly they could torture Muggles with very few people noticing.  
After all muggles get away with it all of the time.

Obviously I'm a fan.  But for me this is a weakness in the series.  I 
do not understand what Voldemort wants that Tom Riddle could not have 
had.  Dismissing him as psychotic as the entire explanation is weak for 
a series with this many pages.

Katssirius,
 typing while her kids sleep in on Sunday morning to keep the 
groans and predictions of losing all touch with reality to a minimum








From little_scottie6 at hotmail.com  Sun Mar 12 04:31:22 2006
From: little_scottie6 at hotmail.com (Victoria Scott)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 15:31:22 +1100
Subject: Found on JKR's Website
In-Reply-To: <dv07ak+5bue@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY109-F8FFD16F1596D427452062D9E30@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 149487

Vic:
Just recently been on JKR's website to hear for myself what the radio 
announcer said. Sounds pretty interesting and that also the red rejuices and 
green regerminates, therefore the 'Gryffindors' and the 'Slytherins' will 
have two different jobs to perform in the task to bring whatever it may be 
back to life.

Also while I was there I picked up the eraser and started to move it around 
the screen. It rubbed out a drawing on a 'blank' piece of parchment and 
showed a couldron with 4 ingredients that need to be added, a feather, a 
potion, a spider and 2 leaves. I don't really understand what it means but 
the 4 ingredients kind of remind me of different people. I think the feather 
could be symbolic of Harry (Pheonix hair) or Buckbeak or Dumbledore, the 
potion either Snape or Slughorn or Hermione, the Spider - Ron and the leaves 
Neville. I like the idea of having Harry, Hermione, Ron and Neville 
together, and I thought it might mean that they are important together?

What do you think? I'm sure EVERYONE else has found this already, just 
wondering what was discussed about it?
Vic






From little_scottie6 at hotmail.com  Sun Mar 12 04:54:15 2006
From: little_scottie6 at hotmail.com (Victoria Scott)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 15:54:15 +1100
Subject: WHO is Oakden Hobday?
In-Reply-To: <dv084d+fsst@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY109-F181D8669DBC66BC83CFF33D9E30@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 149488

**********JKR's Website Spoiler**********
*****************************************


Vic again,
Once again from the JKR site, after you rejuvinate the pot plant, and you 
see the paper with writing on it, down the bottom there is the list of 
pretty important people in each book, what i am wondering is who is Oakden 
Hobday who she has named a MAJOR person? At first I thought it was a list of 
DADA teachers, but Pettigrew was never one of them.
Any thoughts?

Also on that piece of paper there was a name Mylor Silvams? Does anyone have 
any ideas to who he may be?

Vic






From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 12 17:36:14 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 17:36:14 -0000
Subject: Snape's half truths in "Spinner's End"/why take the vow
In-Reply-To: <20060312144804.74211.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dv1m6e+lug8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149489

Narcissa loves her son.  Snape is a both a family friend and a very 
powerful wizard with influence in both camps. It is logical that she 
would go to him, as we all would if we needed a favor and our friend 
was a person with access to the most powerful people.  Snape is also 
Draco's teacher so he is in the logical position to look after Draco 
since Draco will be in school most of the year. 

Narcissa trust Snape to care about her, her child and his old friend 
Lucius.  Are all DE just cold hearted, all for themselves, villains 
like LV?  I think the answer is, No.  They are more human that LV.  
They love and care for their families just like everyone else.	 One 
might wonder why a person would become a DE, but that is another 
post.

Narcissa is upset and when she "began to cry in earnest, gazing 
beseechingly all the while at Snape", Snape must have been looking 
into her eyes.  She then goes on to think about the task that Draco 
has been assigned saying "it's too dangerous! This is vengeance for 
Lucius's mistake, I know it!"  

Then Snape looks away. We are led to believe that he looks away 
because he can not bare to see her tears.  That might be part of it, 
but I think that until that moment he did not know what Draco's task 
was.  It was in that moment when he saw it in her mind that he was 
on the verge of dropping his guard and showing his own thoughts.  It 
was this reason that he turned away.  He stayed turned away for a 
few minutes, while he was composing himself.  He is still turned 
away when he says to her "If Draco successes he will be honored 
above all others".  I think he is still turned away from her so that 
the shock does not show in his eyes.  But clearly this is the first 
time that he knows what the task is.

Why would Snape need to take so long to compose himself? Why might 
there be shock in his eyes?  Maybe because LV told him this "I have 
a little task for Draco, being a child he may not be up to it, and 
so if he can't succeed in doing it I will expect you to do it for 
him".  At the time Snape probably thought "no problem, simple task a 
kid could do, not to worry."  LV, being the type that he is, would 
not have told Snape the whole story.  Snape only realizes the 
position that he is placed in when he see the task in Narcissa's 
eyes.  (He must be thinking "oh s---!")

It is a small leap from this to Snape's taking the vow.  He did not 
know that Narcissa would ask the third provision of the vow.  He is 
damned either way anyway. So he goes on with the third provision in 
order to protect his cover, now fully realizing the terrible place 
in which he has been placed, not only by the vow, but by LV.  And we 
see his hand shake.  

Poor, poor Snape.  `Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we 
practice to deceive.'  It came back to bite him.  Spinners end 
indeed!

Tonks_op











From little_scottie6 at hotmail.com  Sun Mar 12 04:57:59 2006
From: little_scottie6 at hotmail.com (Victoria Scott)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 15:57:59 +1100
Subject: WHO is Oakden Hobday?
In-Reply-To: <dv084d+fsst@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY109-F328F4E509813F063359DE8D9E30@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 149490

**************Spoiler Space******************************




Vic:

Sorry, my bad, down the bottom of the sheet where I thought it said Major person, it said 'MYLOR person Oakden Hobday'

Still trying to figure out who it is and why he is so important?

Vic






From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Sun Mar 12 17:56:27 2006
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (PJ)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 17:56:27 -0000
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <duu6cq+4v07@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv1ncb+c6ro@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149491

Reposted with correct attribution and my deepest apologies to both 
Sydney and SSSusan.  :)

Sydney:
>*eye squint*  *tumbleweed*

>It's you or me, OFH!Snape.

>*twitches fingers over revolver*

PJ:
ROFLMAO!!  There must be a padded cell with your name on the door 
somewhere. 
  lol!

Sydney:
>Hobbyhorse number 3:  Out-for-Himself!Snape must die.  ESE!Snape is 
a
>pretty thin fellow and not much of a threat; but OFH!Snape has been
>seducing away some people that I need for my Evil Army.  So, he's 
got
>to go.

PJ:
Well, shall we meet in front of the saloon at high noon for a 
showdown, 
Pardner?  <g>


Sydney:
>The taking of the Vow makes one thing very clear-- Snape is willing 
to
>die.  Not necessarily suicidal, but definitely not holding his life 
at
>a particularly high value.  Anyone who sees a way around this, be my
>guest.

PJ:
OFH!Snape is far from being suicidal.  He's simply arrogant to a 
fault in 
his belief in himself, his mastery of occlumency and of his ability 
to 
coldly calculate any situation and think fast on his feet.  He 
considers 
himself so  much more brilliant and talented than everyone else that 
he has 
no expectation of *ever* getting caught out! He's been playing the 
game for 
so long now that he's got it down pat...

As I see it, it's the other theories that have Snape willing to 
die.  My 
Snape *knows* he'll outlive both Dumbledore and Voldemort.  ;)

Sydney:
>Surely it must be clear that of all our Snapes, the most entirely
>incompatible with the Vow is Out-For-Himself!Snape.  People who are
>out for themselves simply do not, under any circumstances short of 
the
>absolutely unavoidable, make promises that they drop dead if they
>don't fulfill.

PJ:
I could turn right around and say that it must be clear to anyone 
how 
incompatible it would be for DDM!Snape to willingly take a vow to 
kill his 
boss and mentor but that doesn't get us anywhere, does it?   We've 
all 
ridden that particular Merry Go Round so often we have seasons 
tickets! <g>

Sydney:
>Snape is not an impulsive, panicky person, and he
>certainly was not unavoidably trapped into making the Vow.  And 
Snape
>wasn't Vowing to do something simple-- he was Vowing to do something
>very difficult that Voldemort himself had repeatedly failed to do.

PJ:
Snape felt ok taking the vow to protect Draco since he would've 
tried to do 
so anyway.  He's been friendly with the Malfoys too long not to.  
And he's 
Draco's head of house which would give him an additional 
responsibility.  
Then we have the added bonus of him thinking that this would go a 
long way 
in cementing his position as a loyal DE with Bellatrix.  It all 
works for 
the OFH!Snape personality.

However, the 3rd provision of the vow was never on Snape's radar at 
all!  It 
took him totally by surprise and is the spot where his arrogance did 
him 
in...  There's no reason to put that "twitch" in the scene unless it 
means 
something.

Sydney:
>Whatever OFH!Snape wants out of life-- money, power, that sort of
>thing, he's not going to get it if he's dead.  He had precious 
little
>if anything to gain and everything to lose from the Vow.

Snape:
OFH!Snape wants freedom of CHOICE.  That's all.  He lives simply and 
has no 
real need of money and as far as he's concerned he already *has* 
more power 
than both of the "titans"... all he wants is to be left in peace 
with his 
old grudges, potions and spells.  All these are things he can't have 
until 
the tug of war stops between Dumbledore and Voldemort...


Sydeny:
>I don't know, maybe you can posit that OFH!Snape was cross with
>himself for procrastinating on the Gaining Power goal, and thought
>taking the Vow might be a good motivator, sort of like doing
>Affirmations or something.  "I will succeed or drop dead". Might 
make
>a good weight-loss tool?

PJ:
I think you're confusing ESE with OFH here.  ESE people feel that 
Snape 
intends to take over his rightful place in the universe but all OFH!
Snape 
wants is to be able to choose which side is the best for his 
particular 
needs and live through it.   He intends to be on the winning side 
but which 
side that will be isn't at all clear to him yet so he's tap dancing 
as fast 
as he can for both of them.


Sydney:
>LifeDebt!Snape:  How does this work again?  It's hard to argue with 
a
>theory when I don't actually understand what it claims!  Reading 
over
>the original LID post, I think Snape-loves-Narcissa is brought up as
>an unrelated explanation.  <snip> I think that whole scenario
>integrates into the plot a teensy bit better if the woman is Lily 
and
>the child Harry.

PJ:
As I read it, and I grant you it doesn't have a lot of excitement or 
oomph! 
about it (though it does have it's basis in canon), Snape owes James 
a Life 
Debt from the time of the prank but never got to fulfill it while 
James was 
alive.  Hating loose ends, the debt (whether willingly or magically) 
is 
transfered to James' son, Harry.  I'll admit it helps to explain a 
few pesky 
little problems though it doesn't thrill me.

Sydney:
>What does this leave us with?  Not a whole lot.  No two ways about 
it,
>taking the Vow was an extremely weird thing to do.

PJ:
Not at all!  When Cissy suggested the vow it was like an early 
Christmas 
present for OFH!Snape.  He shows the depth of his friendship and 
loyalty to 
the Malfoys as well as shutting Bellatrix up once and for all!  All 
this 
when, as HoH, he'd have done all of this anyway... it was no skin 
off 
Snape's nose to take that vow.   BUT, the 3rd provision was the 
killer (no 
pun intended)... He didn't expect it and couldn't get out of taking 
it.  He 
was trapped like a rat.

Sydney:
>Much as I adore Suicidal!Snape, that doesn't account for the jerk of
>the hand at the third clause of the Vow.  I think that was 
definitely
>a "gah" moment. <snip> what does anybody have to gain
>from the Vow?  Why does Narcissa propose it?  Surely it would be 
more
>likely to alienate someone you were going to for help, to demand 
that
>they promise to help you or die?

PJ:
Exactly... the jerk of the hand.  That says it all, imo.  He never 
saw the 
3rd provision coming.

Narcissa is a mystery to me in that I'm not sure if she is trying to 
catch 
Snape out or if she's so totally convinced he's a loyal DE that a 
thing like 
killing Dumbledore wouldn't be a problem for him.  If he were VMM! 
through 
and through then he should be honored to take over the task assigned 
to 
Draco, shouldn't he?

Regardless, she's being very manipulative in getting Snape to agree 
to help 
Draco because deep down she doesn't think her son can survive.  Both 
Dumbledore and Voldemort are so much more powerful than Draco that 
she sees 
him dying either way.  By getting Snape to agree to finish the task 
she's 
giving Draco the only out she can.

Sydney:
>Last man standing:  decent, cunning, miserable, instinctively-Dark,
>trying-to-do-the-right-thing-yet-screwing-up,
>not-too-fond-of-being-alive, Snape.  That's my boy.

PJ:
Last man standing, arrogant, cunning, miserable, instinctively-Dark, 
tightrope walking, trying to survive till retirement, Snape.  That's 
my boy. 
  lol!

PJ










From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 12 18:33:28 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 18:33:28 -0000
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <dv0con+rg1o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv1pho+b6bl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149492

Jen wrote: 
<snip> 
> No, the only thing that works in my mind is that Snape had a choice
to continue the Vow when the third provision came up and he continued
 forward. He doesn't need to prove himself to Bella in my opinion, as
 Bella's stock with Voldemort has dropped dramatically. <snip>

Carol responds:
I don't quite agree. Snape spends the first half of the chapter doing
exactly what you say he doesn't need to do--proving himself to Bella.
You're right that she is no longer in the Dark Lord's confidence (a
fact he takes pains to ascertain before answering her questions), but
he makes his reason quite clear: The Death Eaters are talking about
him behind his back, spreading rumors that he's really Dumbledore's
Man (as Bella also believes), and he wants those rumors to stop:

"Before I answer you--oh yes, Bellatrix, I am going to answer! You can
carry my words back to the others who whisper behind my back, and
carry false tales of my treachery to the Dark Lord" (HBP Am. ed. 26).

So Bellatrix's opinion is very important to him, important enough to
make Narcissa wait many minutes so that he can answer her questions as
he has answered Voldemort's (with a few additional tidbits that she,
not being in the Dark Lord's confidence, has no means of verifying).
And note Bellatrix's surprise when he agrees to the vow, especially
the third provision. Risking his own life and agreeing to "do the
deed" if Draco fails removes all her doubts regarding his loyalty to
her master: "Bellatrix's astounded face glowed red in the blaze of a
third tongue of flame, which . . . twisted . . . and bound itself
thickly around their clasped hands, like a rope, like a fiery snake"
(57). He has taken a terrible risk, a deadly risk, and she knows it. 
That he has succeeded in convincing her of his loyalty to the Dark
Lord, through both his answers and the UV itself, and that she has
done as he requested and ended the doubts of her fellow DEs, is
evident from the behavior of the DEs on the tower, who clearly do
regard him as someone to be respected and feared, the Dark Lord's new
favorite.

Jen wrote:
> So my best guess is that Snape knew he was being trapped by the
third Vow and took it anyway. I personally think it's because he
guessed the game was up--he did *not* fool Voldemort completely,
Narcissa was *not* telling him everything about why she came to him in
particular, and Peter *was* there to report back on this little
meeting. The only one who seemed to be completely straightforward in
that scene to me was Bella. 

Carol responds:
I agree that Bella is being completely straightforward, revealing her
opinions and feelings without reservation (except the doubts she feels
regarding LV's Legilimency skills being superior to Snape's
Occlumency, which she doesn't dare express). I also agree that Snape
is not being straightforward (see my post on his half-truths and
concealed facts) and that he chose to accept the third, unforeseen,
provision of the vow against his will, that he knew it would doom him
to either death or the murder of the one man who trusted him unless
they could somehow defeat it by keeping Draco as far from Dumbledore
as possible and placing every conceivable protection on Hogwarts to
prevent Draco from being helped by fellow Death Eaters. Maybe he felt
the DADA curse falling into place and there was nothing to do except
to tell DD what had happened, aid him with his knowledge of Healing
and the Dark Arts in the time available, pass on as much DADA
knowledge as possible to his students (especially Harry), and postpone
the inevitable.

I don't agree that Narcissa had a plan when she sought his help,
certainly not to trap him into an Unbreakable Vow, since she clearly
didn't want Bellatrix following her and interfering. Nor do I think
that Narcissa knew the whole plan involving the Vanishing Cabinet or
Snape could have seen it in her mind using Legilimency. 

As for Peter, he can, if he chooses, report to LV that the sisters
have visited Snape, but he's not privy to their conversation. Snape
has sealed the door with what I take to be an Impervius spell to
prevent eavesdropping. (He's also the inventor of Muffliato--he's not
going to let PP overhear their conversation.) I also think that PP,
who has developed a hunchback as the reward for his service to the
Dark Lord, is in any hurry to return to him. No, better to act as
servant and factotum to Snape and endure his taunts than to be
repeatedly Crucio'd by Voldemort.
> 
Jen wrote:
> So the next question is....Why [did Snape agree to the third
provision of the UV]? <snip> Snape seems to have attached himself to
the two most powerful wizards in the world for most of his adult life.
Some people see that as firm canon for OFH, while I see another
version of the oft-played theme of father figures. As a teen and young
man, he believed Voldemort would deliver salvation. When none came,
and in fact Snape only found more emotional pain from Voldemort's
actions, Snape returned to Dumbledore.

Carol responds:
Well, maybe not salvation but certainly the recognition for his
intelligence and talents that he wanted and didn't receive from DD. It
seems that he wasn't even made a Prefect, and the hated James was made
Head Boy despite what I imagine were Severus's exceptionally high
marks in at least two subjects and probably more. There is evidence
throughout the books of his feeling like a son striving for the
approval of a father who favors another brother or brothers (James
Potter and to a lesser degree, Sirius Black, and even Remus Lupin, the
Prefect who didn't do his job). So, yes, I think one reason he went to
Voldemort was the hope that LV would recognize and reward his talents,
the old "honor him above all others" lie we hear so often. And when he
found out what service to LV really entailed, he *returned* (DD's own
word, used in GoF and again in HBP to his original father figure, the
great wizard whose trust and respect and perhaps affection he craved.

Jen wrote:
I really believe Snape knew he was being trapped and decided in that
instant that Dumbledore would be able to deliver him from his tragic
mistake. 

Carol responds:
Now this is an interesting perspective. Snape knew that DD had been
injured by a curse (I think he must have deduced that the cursed
object was a Horcrux, but that's beside the point), but he knew that
DD had sent Fudge and company packing and defeated Voldemort in the
MoM. He could not possibly have anticipated a weak (dying?) and
wandless Dumbledore on the tower, and he seems (later) to have trusted
to the protections that DD placed on Hogwarts (and to Draco's
incompetence). It's possible that he felt a dim hope that Dumbledore,
his father figure, would rescue him. I think, though, that the
sinister imagery at the end of the chapter suggests otherwise. Snape
chose to risk dooming himself, to lose either his life or his soul, to
save Draco and maintain his cover as a DE. But he must have known that
he would be teaching the cursed DADA class, that something like this
would happen. And he must have felt that he had no choice but to
accept the third provision. Not to do so would undo his careful work
to persuade Bellatrix (and, through her, the other DEs) of his loyalty
to LV. I can only account for his placing himself in such a terrible
position (something OFH!Snape would not have done, nor would ESE!Snape
have gone behind LV's back to agree to the vow) by supposing that he
was following DD's orders to do whatever it took to maintain his
cover, at all costs to himself and to DD. And DD would only have
required such a promise from him (very like the unwilling promise he
extracted from Harry before the cave expedition) if DD already knew
about Draco's mission to kill him because Snape had told him.

Jen wrote:
> And Dumbledore did and he didn't: Snape expected (just as Harry
does) that Dumbledore could set everything right, while Dumbledore
surveyed the landscape and said, "Yes, Severus, you know what I expect
you to do now. If it becomes a question of myself or Draco being
spared, you will do what you must and continue to follow my orders
after my death. And that includes safeguarding Harry and helping him
defeat Voldemort." Cue fight in the forest and etc.....

Carol responds:
This I agree with, but I also think that Snape felt that following and
talking to Draco was futile (the brat wasn't listening to him or
confiding in him) and DD told him to keep doing it. And had Snape not
followed that order, keeping an eye on Draco (or Harry?), Draco would
have died from Harry's Sectum Sempra curse (and Snape, having failed
to protect Draco, would have died as well). But, yes, the orders
include safeguarding Harry and helping him defeat Voldemort at all
costs, including Dumbledore's death. As DD tells Harry, it's Harry's
life, not his, that's valuable now.
> 
Jen wrote:
> I think that interview in TIME when JKR talked about father figures
 and evil flourishing where fathers are bad or absent is fertile
ground for growing Snape's motivations. It's certainly connected to a
major theme and would place Snape in the already crowded room of
abandoned sons, but as the only one who found an acceptable father
substitute on the Right side.

Carol responds:
Or rather, the only one besides Harry who did so. The parallels
between Snape and Harry are mounting. I really like the parallel
between him and Lily, too--a father figure placing himself at risk to
save the "son" that Narcissa should have sacrificed herself to save if
the pattern of the dying mother (Lily, Mrs. Crouch) had continued. And
the pattern resumes with DD dying to save *three* sons--Harry, Draco,
and his beloved black sheep, Severus Snape, who still has an important
role to play. (Speculation, I know, but JKR has hinted that Snape will
do something important and unexpected in Book 7.
> 
> Jen, quite pleased with Salvation!Snape.

Carol responds:
I agree with most but not all of your points, so I'll stay with a
DDM!Snape who views Dumbledore as a father figure but does not naively
expect salvation from him. I think he's doing what he feels he must do
to defeat Voldemort, knowing that he will ultimately face the terrible
choice between saving Draco's (and his own) life or Dumbledore's, and
hoping only that the choice can be put off as long as possible. And
if, as I speculate, he already knows that he is the only candidate for
the DADA position and that DD can no longer postpone giving it to him,
he has already reconciled himself to grim consequences--death or worse
than death--by the end of the year. So what I see (as of Book 6) is
not Salvation!Snape or Suicidal!Snape but maybe Tragic!Snape (or
Atonement!Snape), paying dearly for his long-ago choice to become a
Death Eater and reveal the Prophecy to the Dark Lord. He's doomed and
anguished, but Harry, in many ways his foil as well as his antagonist,
will have to accept his help before the end. (I hope.)

Carol, thinking that Snape, like Harry, has a hero complex, only Harry
tries to save people without thinking it through because action comes
naturally to him and he wants to *make things right* while Snape tries
to save people, especially Harry and now Draco, because he wants
Dumbledore's recognition and approval, even if it means death to
himself or his mentor







From anabenevides at visualnet.com.br  Sun Mar 12 08:09:12 2006
From: anabenevides at visualnet.com.br (Ana)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 05:09:12 -0300
Subject: JKR's website
In-Reply-To: <1142029327.3927.88660.m25@yahoogroups.com>
References: <1142029327.3927.88660.m25@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <4413D728.7010101@visualnet.com.br>

No: HPFGUIDX 149493

Hi, everyone.
Im new in the list, just thought Id introduce myself before posting. :)


Tonks:
(...) Will Sirius tell Harry the secret of the lightning 
bolt?  Why is the chapter in which DD dies called "the Lightning 
Struck Tower"??? I think there are connections here.

Ana:

I think the name of the chapter is a reference to the prediction made by Trelawney - (tarot?) card reading - in chapter 25 ("The seer overheard")of HBP. 

" The Headmaster has intimated that he would prefer fewer visits from me,' she said coldly. I am not one to press my company upon those who do not value it. If Dumbledore chooses to ignore the warnings the cards show -'
Her bony hand closed suddenly around Harry's wrist.
'Again and again, no matter how I lay them out -'
And she pulled a card dramatically from underneath her shawls.
'- the lightning-struck tower,' she whispered. 'Calamity. Disaster. Coming nearer all the time ...' "


Perhaps it means not all of Trelawneys predictions are made up... But, who knows? Shes bound to get it right some times, I think.


Ana - Not a native English speaker, as you might have noticed.














From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Sun Mar 12 15:37:19 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 10:37:19 EST
Subject: Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Is Snape good or evil? (lon...
Message-ID: <277.64d7243.31459a2f@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149494

>Alla
>And yes, I do think that Draco can still go both ways. He  can return>
>or become faithful DE. The main question for me whether he  becomes 
>like Snape or not.


I think JKR has  prepared us for Draco's turning.  At the start of the year 
he wanted  revenge against those who put his father in Azkaban (see train 
scene), but now  he knows the price of failure I doubt he would want to follow LV 
anymore and I  don't think his mother or his father are really pleased with LV 
either.  We  saw how fearful he was of failure; it literally made him sick.  
How many  times had he been holed up in Moaning Myrtle's bathroom before Harry 
found  him?  We have been given little signs he is not  irredeemable.  He did 
not start by throwing Unforgivables at  Harry in the bathroom and we don't 
know if he could have carried out the Crucio  he tried.  We know he was shocked 
to see Fenrir on the tower and that he  could not even attempt the killing 
curse against DD.  I think he will  change sides and Snape will be the one to flip 
him.
 
Nikkalmati 






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sun Mar 12 18:55:18 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 18:55:18 -0000
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <dv0d35+g1od@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv1qqm+t2mr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149495

Nora: 
On the other hand, this risk does potentially free up other choices 
> in the long run--such as the choice not to be a double agent spy 
> anymore, and the choice not to have to pretend to be something he may 
> not be.  I think we should keep both short-term and long-term goals 
> in mind when we think about choices and limitations, because things 
> which are short-term setbacks can be long-term benefits.

Pippin:
But surely if killing Dumbledore was a major step in a plan that 
involved great, if calculated risk, we should see some indication of
relief that this extremely tricky part of the plan has been accomplished

I know we're all speculating here, but as you yourself have pointed out
many times, there's a difference between speculation based on what is
in canon and speculation based on what is not.
 

> > Betsy Hp:
> > I agree with both of you. <g>  The OFH!Snape argument is based 
> > largly on "eh, he makes no sense so he must OFH" with a side order 
> > of "and while I *want* him to be ESE, JKR isn't writing him that 
> > way and since I can't stand the idea of Snape being DDM, I'll stick 
> > with the impossible to make sense of OFH".  
> 
> As opposed to the contortions one had to go through to explain away 
> the AK and make it a plan and all of that... :)

Pippin:
Not contortions, canon. There are only three paths available to
a  character on Voldemort's hit list who wants to survive long term

1) Be Harry Potter
2) Join Voldemort
3) Fake your death

Three is the only option for Dumbledore, right? 
And he is on the hit list, right?
Voldemort tried to kill Dumbledore at the MoM. He didn't have
to do that, he could have grabbed Bella and scarpered straightaway.
Conclusion: Voldemort wants Dumbledore dead


As this would be a very significant killing, it's quite likely that  no
matter what Voldie told Snape or Draco,  he planned to do it himself.
He wouldn't want any other to steal the glory of killing the wizard
some say is even more powerful than he is, not to mention that
getting away with it might give his Death Eaters ideas.

And since Voldemort knows he can get  himself and his agents into
Hogwarts without Snape's help, and the Order will most likely
be fatally crippled without Dumbledore, Snape is not necessary to
Voldemort's plans.
 
Plus, if there is a spy in the Order, then Voldemort knows all about how
Snape warned the Order about the MoM, and will wish to punish
Snape. 

Conclusion: If Voldemort ordered or hinted that Snape should kill 
Dumbledore, the purpose would be to eliminate/punish Snape.

So the situation for DDM!Snape going into Spinner's End might be this.

1)Voldemort has told Snape that there's a plan to send Draco after
Dumbledore.
2) Voldemort has ordered Snape not to hinder Draco in any way. 
3) Voldemort has hinted that Draco's failure will be an opportunity for Snape.
4) Dumbledore has deduced from this that if Snape is ordered to attack him,
the purpose will be to eliminate Snape

So DDM!Snape, in vowing to try to help Draco and to kill Dumbledore 
if Draco fails, would not  be putting Dumbledore or himself in any more 
danger than they were already.

In fact he's created an opportunity for the fake death which is the *only*
way to save Dumbledore, because while it would be very hard to fool
Voldemort into thinking he'd killed Dumbledore, it might just be possible
to fool him into thinking that Snape or Draco had done it. And the
wording of the vow is twisty enough to give Snape an out.

This explains the vow, and the argument in the forest. Snape no doubt
tried to find out where Slughorn had got the mead and was able to trace
it to Rosmerta. He may have been arguing with Dumbledore about 
questioning Rosmerta, to see if she was under Imperius and if so who
had done it (it can't have been Draco because he didn't go to Hogsmeade.)
Dumbledore, remembering why Bode was murdered, refused to let him. 

Snape told Dumbledore that Dumbledore was taking too much for granted
and maybe he didn't want to do it (watch over Draco without hindering him)
anymore. Dumbledore grew angry (we have seen this happen
only when an adult menaces a student) and told Snape he'd agreed to do
it and that's that. And he was to continue his investigations *in Slytherin
House* -- ie, not in Hogsmeade. 

Pippin
agreeing that  ESE!Lupin does explain everything about Lupin and Pettigrew 
and a fair few things about Snape. Maybe one day, you'll blame JKR for that, 
not me :) And the howls will far louder than those occasioned by any
flavor of Snape. I'm looking forward to it.






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 12 19:20:34 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 19:20:34 -0000
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <BAY101-F1925148A105D23ACE8A4FA91E30@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <dv1sa2+d3b2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149496

PJ wrote:
> Until the 3rd provision there was no risk!  He was promising to do
exactly what he'd planned to do, what he *had* been doing, all along.
 story. <snip> 
> Without the UV Snape would not have been able to convince Bellatrix
of his loyalty to LV and she would continue to talk about him, maybe
convincing Voldemort that he should take another look at his spy
Snape... He had no choice and what Cissy had *asked* him to take a vow
for was no risk!  It was that dratted 3rd provision that she snuck in
at the last minute which was the problem!
> 
> He didn't have to convince LV that he was loyal because if he wasn't
 fairly well convinced of his loyalty, Snape would already be dead. 
It was *Bellatrix* he really had to convince at that moment.
<snip>
> Sorry but what Cissy *asked* him to vow *before* they began would
not have limited his choices at all!  He's been "there to look after
him, seeing he came to no harm and protecting him" without the vow
since Draco started school... <snip>

> Betsy Hp:
> >Snape was Vowing to help Draco while he tried to kill one of the
> >main players in the little war Snape (according to OFH rules) was
> >trying to avoid taking part in.  How could Snape *not* recognize
> >that Draco was about to put his life in some serious danger.
> 
> PJ:
> That is the 3rd provision, not what Cissy originally asked Snape to
take a vow to do.

Carol responds:
Oddly, since I'm a DDM!Snaper, I've been looking at the same evidence
and arriving at almost the same conclusions as PJ, an OFH!Snaper. (On
a side note, it seems that there are almost as many variations on
OFH!Snape as on DDM!Snape and we're not all defining these terms in
the same way. I'm not even sure that everyone agrees on ESE!Snape,
which used to mean "secretly loyal to Voldemort" but would now have to
mean something like "outed as loyal to Voldemort." ???)

At any rate, as I argued in another post, I agree that Snape was
working hard to convince Bella of his loyalty to LV because she, in
turn, would convince the doubting DEs and cement his position as LV's
most trusted lieutenant, and that the third provision was necessary to
convince *Bella*, not LV, of his loyalty. (That the loyalty was in
itself a lie, IMO, is beside the point.)

I also agree, as I think the text shows indisputably, that the third
provision caught Snape by surprise and that it was not what Narcissa
asked him to agree to when she proposed the UV. She asked him to do
what he would have done in any case, protect and "help" his favorite
student and the son of his friends (personal loyalty), which also
happened to be his duty as Draco's HOH (duty and loyalty to DD). That
his definition of "help" is rather more flexible than Narcissa's is
beside the point. We see him agreeing, with an inscrutable expression,
to take a UV with those provisions.

I disagree, however, that there was no risk in doing so. Any UV,
regardless of its provisions and the desire of the person taking the
vow to do exactly as he is promising to do, entails the risk of death.
He cannot always keep an eye on Draco, especially if he's also
watching Harry. He has to spend some time marking essays and preparing
lessons. Circumstances change. If he had not been on hand to discover
Draco bleeding in the bathroom, Draco would have died. No one but
Snape knew the countercurse to the spell he himself had invented. No
one else, not Madam Pomfrey or even Dumbledore, could have saved him.
And if Draco had died, Snape would have died, too, for failing to
protect him and thereby breaking his oath. Moreover, his definition of
"help" (which includes using Occlumency on Draco and putting Crabbe
and Goyle in detention) involves manipulating the vow beyond
Narcissa's intentions (and Bellatrix's expectations). So even agreeing
to these two provisions of the UV (behind LV's back) is a risk, but
it's a calculated risk. He thinks for a moment, giving Bellatrix time
to accuse him of "slithering out of action" again, and agrees to the
vow. As you say, it involves doing what he intended to do anyway, but
there is still the risk of failure and death. He's been walking this
tightrope for many years, relying on his intelligence and his many
talents to survive with his true loyalty undiscovered. He is probably
under orders from DD to do whatever is required to *appear* loyal to
LV in the Death Eater's eyes. He doesn't want to undo his carefully
argued defense of his supposed loyalty. He doesn't want to betray the
tearful and beautiful Narcissa, who is depending on him to help her
and her son. So he agrees--at some risk of discovery and death, but no
more than usual.

As you say, it's the unexpected third provision that really puts him
at risk of death. But to agree to that when he could have "slithered
out of action--on the Dark Lord's orders, of course," marks him, IMO,
as anything but OFH! A man who was out for himself would have used his
powers of persuasion and "the Dark Lord's orders" to prevent the two
angry women from AKing them. I agree that he needed to keep the
skeptical Bellatrix convinced of his loyalty to LV, but that in itself
would not have been sufficient motivation to place his own life in
such jeopardy, not to mention the consequences of saving his own life
(and Draco's) at the expense of murdering Dumbledore. Neither OFH! nor
ESE!Snape adequately explains that decision. Only DDM!Snape, acting on
Dumbledore's orders, provides anything like the incentive needed to
take such a terrible risk.

Carol, who absolutely agrees that Snape is a complex character with
complex motivations but does not see OFH!Snape as either a logical or
a canonical explanation for his actions in HBP or elsewhere






From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Mar 12 19:58:34 2006
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 12 Mar 2006 19:58:34 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 3/12/2006, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1142193514.4702.84509.m15@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149497


 Reminder from the Calendar of HPforGrownups
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal

Weekly Chat
Sunday March 12, 2006
1:00 pm - 1:00 pm
(This event repeats every week.)

Notes:
Don't forget, chat happens today, 11 am Pacific, 2 pm Eastern, 7 pm UK time. Chat times do not change for Daylight Saving/Summer Time. Chat generally goes on for about 5 hours, but can last as long as people want it to last.

To get into Chat, just go to the group online:  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups and click on "Chat" in the lefthand menu.  If you have problems with this, go to http://www.yahoo.com and in the bottom box on the left side of the page click on "Chat".  Once you're logged into any room, type /join *g.HPforGrownups ; this should take you right in.  If you have an


Set up birthday reminders!
 http://us.rd.yahoo.com/cal_us/rem/?http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal?v=9&evt_type=13

Copyright 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All Rights Reserved.
 http://www.yahoo.com

Privacy Policy:
 http://privacy.yahoo.com/

Terms of Service:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20060312/5df7f98c/attachment.html>

From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 12 20:34:50 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 20:34:50 -0000
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <dv1l10+apdb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv20la+i3tt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149498

Alla wrote:
<snip>
> What I never understood is why the message that Dumbledore's trust 
> COULD be mistaken (and if I may we saw it so many times in the 
> books already IMO), somehow is SO terrible and so much worse for the 
> kids than sending a message that killing is Okay, as long as it is 
> you know for the good cause. <snip>

Carol responds:
But isn't that exactly the message she *seems* to be sending by having
Dumbledore tell Harry that he'll have to kill Voldemort or be killed
by him (OoP) and agreeing that Harry has "got to try and kill
[Voldemort] not because of the Prophecy but because of what Voldemort
did to his parents (HBP Am. ed. 511)? "He will continue to hunt you,"
adds Dumbledore, which makes it really certain that--" "That one of us
is going to end up killing the other," responds Harry (512). So JKR
*does* seem to be sending a message that "killing is okay as long as
it's for a good cause." 

I'm not thrilled that DD seems to be appealing here to Harry's desire
for vengeance, which doesn't fit well with the idea that Harry's
weapon is Love, and I would find it very disturbing if Harry used an
Unforgiveable Curse to kill Voldemort since we've seen what using the
weapons of the enemy did to Barty Crouch Sr. Even if Harry could
summon up the "will and nerve" (Snape's phrase) to cast an
Unforgiveable, and even if the killing didn't qualify as murder and
didn't split his soul, it would still, IMO, cause him great
psychological trauma. Killing, says DD, is much more difficult than
the innocent suppose, and we know that in RL, soldiers return from war
with scarred psyches. So I hope that Harry finds a way, perhaps
through the power of possession, to destroy Voldemort totally and
permanently without killing him.

But nevertheless, regardless of what I want to happen, it looks as if
Dumbledore is asking Harry to take upon himself the burden of killing
for the common good. That being the case, it's not impossible that he
would have placed a similar burden on Severus Snape, whom Dumbledore
canonically states that he trusts completely.

Carol, who does want DD's trust in Snape to be justified but is not
arguing that at the moment







From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 12 20:40:04 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 20:40:04 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped/Snape's half truths in "Spinner's End"
In-Reply-To: <003c01c645eb$d8f5b410$1c9e400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <dv20v4+d8v5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149499

> Magda:
> He doesn't know what he's talking about but he THINKS he does.  
This is how 
> the DADA curse plays out for Snape: the curse brings out the
> worst in each DADA professor in the series.  What's "the worst" in 
Snape? 
> His tendency to jump to conclusions.
> IMO Snape never did know what Draco's task was - not until the very 
climax 
> of the book at the top of the tower. He spent all year assuming 
that Draco's 
> task was to kill HARRY and then trying to keep
> the two of them apart so that Draco wouldn't have the chance.

zgirnius:
This theory has some appeal for me, since the first time through the 
book, this is what *I* believed Draco's task to be. However, the 
train scene disabused me of that notion. Draco had an opportunity to 
kill Harry offered him on a platter, and what did he do? He broke his 
nose and left him on the train. I really think Snape must have 
figured out that Harry was not Draco's target at this point as well.

> Magda:
> And he decided not to tell Snape but let him go on thinking that 
Harry was 
> the target.
> 
> Magpie: 
> So if Snape didn't realize what he was supposed to do until he's on 
the 
> tower, you're saying that he shows up and looks around, sees Draco 
there 
> with the DEs and DD, doesn't see Harry there, and then realizes who 
he's 
> supposed to kill according to the vow?
> 
> I'm afraid I've got the same problem with this as I do to the 
scenario where 
> DD realizes here that Snape has betrayed him.  There's no moment of 
> realization for Snape.  I don't recall him having any change 
between looking 
> around and striding forward, knocking Draco out of the way.  I'd 
think he'd 
> need a moment to process the information he's been wrong all 
along.  A 
> moment of confusion and dawning understanding that he's got to kill 
this 
> guy--and time to decide if he's going to.
zgirnius:
I'm with you, Snape would have figured it out, both from the train 
incident, and the other incidents that were aomed at Dumbledore 
rather than Harry. However, that aside, we DO have the moment of 
change in Snape.

"Snape gazed for a moment at Dumbledore, and there was revulsion and 
hatred etched in the harsh lines of his face." 

This could be the moment he is realizing he was wrong about Harry, 
and Dumbledore was the target. 

I don't think so, though. I think Snape always knew the UV was a risk 
to *himself*, and was willing to assume that risk. What came as a big 
(and most unpleasant) surprise was that, under the wrong 
circumstances, the Vow proved dangerous to Dumbledore as well. In the 
end, if he could not outwit the Vow in some way, I believe it was his 
intent to die rather than kill Dumbledore. And I think he walked on 
to the Tower fully intending to fight the Death Eaters if necessary, 
and die, if necessary. So the moment of change/realization for Snape 
was when he realized that, under the circumstances, his sacrifice 
would not save Dumbledore, because in order to live, Dumbledore 
needed Snape alive as well. 








From nrenka at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 12 21:03:14 2006
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 21:03:14 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore asking Harry to kill (Was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dv20la+i3tt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv22ai+6fte@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149500

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...> 
wrote:

<snip>

> But nevertheless, regardless of what I want to happen, it looks as 
> if Dumbledore is asking Harry to take upon himself the burden of 
> killing for the common good. 

And that's part of why many listies, including myself, have 
speculated that the end of the series will NOT involve flat-out 
killing of Voldemort, but something different and somehow 
thematically appropriate.  When Dumbledore was completely "Yes, you 
have to kill", it set off my warning bells of that being precisely 
what is not going to happen.

After all, very often in stories of this sort there comes a time when 
the Hero must do the deed, and frequently has some kind of 
culminating realization as to what precisely he must do--and it's 
often very different from what he thought he had to do, or what his 
mentor told him his task was.  (Examples are thick on the ground in 
the fantasy genre.)

So if that ends up being the case, I think it's clear why the 
thematic objection which Alla made could be a very strong one.

-Nora wishes she could relax as well as the dog can...






From maria8162001 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 12 16:57:13 2006
From: maria8162001 at yahoo.com (Maria Vaerewijck)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 08:57:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: JKR's website
In-Reply-To: <dusu9s+dltj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060312165713.17168.qmail@web53210.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149501


Ceridwen <ceridwennight at hotmail.com> wrote:
  
I'm still waiting on Peeves, but did anyone else find that book that 
explains the symbolisms for numbers?  Demiguise for zero, salamander 
for six (the maximum amount of hours it can survive outside of 
flame), and seven, the Unknown - the symbolic number of seven has yet 
to be discovered?



maria8162001 here:
   
  The book you're looking for is "The Ancient Runes Made Easy" it's next to the "Book Of Spell." You have to click on The Ancient Runes book once and it will fall out/open. 
   
  SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER:
  The numbers you're looking for is JKR's birthdate. Sorry can't help it.
   
  










From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Sun Mar 12 21:30:00 2006
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 21:30:00 -0000
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape.
In-Reply-To: <dv1sa2+d3b2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv23so+135c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149502

"PJ" midnightowl6 at ...  Wrote:

> the 3rd provision of the vow was
> never on Snape's radar at all! 
> It took him totally by surprise 

But Dumbledore still trusts and respects Snape, why? If Snape told
Dumbledore about the vow, and nothing in it requires he not do so,
then Dumbledore would have no reason to respect Snape's intelligence,
and given that he had vowed become an assassin no reason to trust him.
Face it, JKR is a wonderful writer but even she couldn't make a good
book out of a good Snape. That dog just won't hunt.

> There's no reason to put that "twitch"
> in the scene unless it means something.

I don't think JKR is under any obligation to ever explain that twitch
if she doesn't want to, after all people twitch all the time. However
I think I know why she put that in, she wanted to confuse us. Even I,
a confirmed Snape hater from day 1 couldn't quite believe what I was
seeing the first time I read chapter 2; I knew Snape was a bastard but
I didn't think he was quite that big of a bastard. The twitch
increased my suspicion that there was something more going on than met
the eye, I didn't know what it was but something.

However I was wrong, as it turned Snape was a big enough bastard and
JKR was playing perfectly fairly with me. JKR told me in chapter 2 how
the book would end, and if I didn't believe her that's my fault not hers.

I sure in book 7 we will discover good and noble things Snape has done
in his life, but Snape murdered Dumbledore and nothing, absolutely
positively nothing could ever make me forgive him for that. Well
. Ok,
one thing could, I'd forgive Snape if we discover that Dumbledore is
not really dead. But then I couldn't forgive JKR. 

Eggplant     
 







From meltowne at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 12 21:49:39 2006
From: meltowne at yahoo.com (meltowne)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 21:49:39 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped/Snape's half truths in "Spinner's End"
In-Reply-To: <003c01c645eb$d8f5b410$1c9e400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <dv251j+n694@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149503

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" <belviso at ...> wrote:
>
> Magpie:
> Oh, so the line is more empty than it came across to me in canon. 
To me (and 
> I wish I had it with me so I could check) the line about "He's 
always 
> intended for me to do it in the end" stood out as meaning more 
than it 
> seemed, not less.  But you're saying, if I understand you, that 
Snape is 
> just still bluffing saying, "Oh, Voldemort always intended for me 
to do this 
> task in the end," still not knowing what the task is, and the line 
is more 
> directed to the women than to himself.  I hate to lose my 
important line, 
> but without the book in front of me I can't look for any reasons 
why this 
> interpretation doesn't work.

I have to agree with you - I think Snape knows what the task is, and 
surmises that this was always really intended to be his task.  Draco 
is given the task, as a test of his loyalty, but LV knows he won't 
be able to complete it.  I don't think LV is in on the vow, but may 
have known Draco would tell his mother, and that she would go to 
Snape for help.

I don't think Snape knew the task before Narcissa showed up asking 
for help, but are we all forgetting Snapes abilities?  Unless 
Narcissa is accomplished at blocking him, Snape could probably read 
it directly - he lets her almost tell him the task to allow her to 
concentr4ate on it, making it easier to pick up from her.  

I did not get the impression Snape was surprised in the end that 
this was Draco's task.  I do think he gave Draco the opportunity to 
tell him because he didn't want Draco to know he knew.

DD knows about the curse on the DADA position, but he knows it is 
safe to give the job to Snape - he knows Snape will be leaving by 
the end of the term anyway if he accomplishes the task.  Any other 
year he wouldn't give it to Snape because he wanted to keep him at 
Hogwarts.






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 12 22:05:31 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 22:05:31 -0000
Subject: Snape's half truths in "Spinner's End"
In-Reply-To: <003c01c645eb$d8f5b410$1c9e400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <dv25vb+5mft@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149504

> >>Miles:
> <snip>
> If you want information, it is sometimes good not to let the      
> informant know that he gives something to you. That's what he is 
> trying to do: let Narcissa tell him the task, without letting her 
> and particularly Bellatrix know that he didn't know it before. It 
> turns out that he is too clever here, but his strategy is not     
> stupid -it just, but only just, failed.

> >>Magpie:
> I'm afraid I think the strategy is far more stupid than you do.    
> Pretending to be just seconds too slow to stop Narcissa from      
> speaking vs. getting locked into a death vow?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I agree.  If Snape *was* trying to collect information he'd have let 
Narcissa finish her sentence.  I think it would be a rather large 
and unnecessary risk to lie to Bellatrix about the depth of 
Voldemort's trust in him.  She was shocked that Snape knew the 
plan.  If she got a wiff of a suspicion that he was lying she'd use 
that to try and turn Voldemort against Snape.

Plus, Snape gives too much information for someone playing at 
knowing more than he does.  He tells the women that Voldemort made 
this plan out of anger.  That there's no way to change Voldemort's 
mind (implying, I think that Snape may have made a subtle attempt 
that quickly hit a stone wall).  And that if Snape remains 
uninvolved, if Draco succeeds, Snape could remain at Hogwarts for a 
little while longer.  All of that before gaining any hint of what 
Draco is supposed to do.  In fact, Snape's words gives the *reader* 
hints about Draco's mysterious task.

I agree that the person in the dark during this little scene was the 
reader.  Hence all the mysterious uses of the word "it".

> >>Miles:
> > Narcissa told him that Draco won't be able to succeed, and she   
> > asked him for help. He just takes the information she gave him   
> > and draws conclusions.
> > Draco won't be able to succeed = the task is difficult, Narcissa 
> > asks him to help Draco = he would have better chances. Nothing   
> > magical or mysterious here.

> >>Magpie:
> Oh, so the line is more empty than it came across to me in canon. 
> To me (and I wish I had it with me so I could check) the line     
> about "He's always intended for me to do it in the end" stood out 
> as meaning more than it seemed, not less.  But you're saying, if I 
> understand you, that Snape is just still bluffing saying, "Oh,     
> Voldemort always intended for me to do this task in the end,"     
> still not knowing what the task is, and the line is more directed 
> to the women than to himself.  I hate to lose my important line, 
> but without the book in front of me I can't look for any reasons   
> why this interpretation doesn't work.

Betsy Hp:
Well, here's the text:

[Narcissa is clutching and crying on Snape] "You could do it.  *You* 
could do it instead of Draco, Severus.  You would succeed, of course 
you would, and he would reward you beyond all of us --"
"Snape caught hold of her wrists and removed her clutching hands.  
Looking down into her tearstained face, he said slowly, "He intends 
me to do it in the end, I think.  But he is determined that Draco 
should try first.  You see, in the unlikely event that Draco 
succeeds, I shall be able to remain at Hogwarts a little longer, 
fulfilling my useful rolse as spy." (HBP scholastic p.34)

First, Snape stops Narcissa's rather desperate gushing.  (I did not 
get the impression that he believed anything about big rewards, 
etc.)  And he does speak slowly, which suggests to me that he's 
thinking.  It's soon after this that he offers to help Draco.  Which 
goes against what we've been told are Voldemort's orders.

I suspect that Snape is reeling Narcissa in.  For some reason he 
wants her to ask him to help her son.  But then Narcissa takes it a 
step futher than he'd forseen by asking for an Unbreakable Vow. 
(Narcissa is used to dealing with Death Eaters perhaps? <g>)  I 
suspect Snape decided the risk was worth his goal and agreed.  And 
when the third provision was sprung I think he felt his goal worth 
dying for.

And, since I'm DDM!Snape all the way, I'm quite sure the goal is 
something both he and Dumbledore are aware of.  And, as we see at 
the end, it's a goal Dumbledore feels is worth dying for too.

> >>Magpie:
> <snip>
> So I thought Snape was flat out saying that he thinks that        
> eventually his double agent days would be set up against DD in    
> this way.  The line stuck out to me as important in just that way, 
> as Snape seeing that destiny looming into view.

Betsy Hp:
I think Snape is well aware of the DADA curse.  So I'm fairly sure 
he and Dumbledore saw his double agent days coming to an end when he 
was assigned the job.  (I think he had the job before Bellatrix and 
Narcissa arrived, pending Slughorn being hired on.)  

I can see Snape getting a grim sort of chuckle out of the third part 
of the Vow.  A sort of "so this is how it ends" moment.  Because I 
do think he expected to be the one to die by the end of the school 
year.  But again, his goal was worth it, so he agreed to the third 
Vow.

Betsy Hp






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 12 23:09:22 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 23:09:22 -0000
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <BAY101-F1925148A105D23ACE8A4FA91E30@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <dv29n2+rl0m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149505

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Why would a man intent on protecting his own hide risk his life 
> > in such a massive way?
 
> >>PJ:
> Until the 3rd provision there was no risk!

Betsy Hp:
Um, there's his life?  That's what makes an Unbreakable Vow 
unbreakable, right?  You die if it breaks?  And Draco was embarking 
on a task *everyone* was sure would kill him.  Why would OFH!Snape 
risk attaching his life to that of a boy who was probably going to 
die soon?

> >>PJ:
> He was promising to do exactly what he'd planned to do, what he    
> *had* been doing, all along.

Betsy Hp:
Why would OFH!Snape seriously care what happened to Draco Malfoy?  
I'm not sure why I should take OFH!Snape at his word when he says 
he'd willing defy one all powerful wizard to help a young boy try 
and kill another all powerful wizard.  It seems to go against 
the "out for himself" code of behavior.

> >>PJ:
> So what you're saying is that just because someone puts their own 
> wants and needs first that this person is incapable of having     
> *any* friends? That's not very realistic, and JKR creates pretty   
> realistic characters for her story.

Betsy Hp:
No, I'm saying that someone who puts their own wants and needs 
first, puts their own wants and needs first.  They don't risk 
themselves for others.  Not even for their friends.  Which is 
realistic actually.  I've known plenty of people like this.  Good 
fun at a party.  No good if you need any kind of help.

> >>Alla: (message #149469)
> I just said above that caring for Malfoys maybe included in OFH!
> Snape goals, for the reasons we are not privy too yet.

Betsy Hp:
So there's a super secret reason OFH!Snape would bag his self-
interest game and risk it all for the Malfoys?  Doesn't this take 
the story line away from Harry? <veg>

> >>PJ:
> Maybe I'm not understanding you but it looks like you're trying to 
> make him a 2 dimensional character.  Either he's all good or he's 
> all bad with no room in the middle for blatently self centered,    
> and it can't work... He's much more complex than that imo...

Betsy Hp:
Me?  Oh, heck no!  I love my complex and complicated, all too human, 
sexy, intelligent, passionate and noble DDM!Snape.  It's illogical, 
2-D, OFH!Snape that I'm going against. 

Not that OFH!characters have to be 2-D.  Peter Pettigrew is a 
perfect example of someone out for themselves, and that little rat 
is a wonderfully rounded character.  Especially considering his lack 
of page time.  

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > I'm also confused as to how the Vow would prove his loyalty to   
> > Voldemort... <snip>

> >>PJ: 
> Read what I wrote again please.  I said it would help convince    
> *Bellatrix* of his loyalty and get her off his back.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
No, I got you the first time.  I'm just confused as to why Bellatrix 
would take this as an example of loyalty to *Voldemort*.  Snape does 
prove that he's willing to take action, to put his money where his 
mouth is, but it has nothing to do with loyalty to Voldemort.

And Bellatrix knows it.  She continues to work against Snape after 
this meeting is over, as per the way Draco starts avoiding Snape 
throughout the rest of HBP.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Um, okay.  So OFH!Snape is also a danger freak?  He took the Vow
> > because he was looking for a rush?

> >>Nora:
> No, I'm the slight danger freak. :)  But we both have a certain
> confidence in our abilities to navigate difficult situations, maybe
> to the point where ohh, it's going to hurt if we mess up.  (Trees
> hurt.  A lot.)  Hence the upthread somewhere worries about hubris.

Betsy Hp:
Oh.  So, Snape doesn't take the Vow because he likes to live life on 
the edge.  But he *does* take the Vow because... he likes to live 
life on the edge?  First off, I'm confused as to your point.  But 
second off, this makes no sense with an OFH character.  If Snape 
showed signs of risking everything because he was such a massive 
risk taker because he knew he could handle it, I guess I could get 
your hubris answer. But I don't recall any such moments in canon.  

Because you seem to be suggesting Snape only takes the Vow because 
it's "ooh, shiny danger!".  I'm not sure how that supports an OFH!
Snape argument.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > "Unemotional, impossible to read"!Snape was there instead.  And
> > it's impossible (having seen the tries <g>) to assign a logical
> > reason for OFH!Snape to make such a choice.

> >>Nora:
> I dunno if I'd call it unemotional, being as Narcissa's romance   
> novel heroine theatrics seem to do *something*...

Betsy Hp:
Yeah, but I'm talking about Snape, not Narcissa.  There wasn't a 
CAPSLOCK moment in sight.  Especially when he decides to take the 
Vow.

> >>Nora:
> To counter your assertion, a good portion of the DDM!Snape argument
> is based on thematic arguments of personal preference.  "Oh, it    
> would be so mean and unfair if he weren't good in the long run.    
> JKR would be sending bad messages about second chances and        
> Slytherins and underdogs.  It would totally ruin Dumbledore's     
> character if he were mistaken about Snape and Harry were right,   
> because Harry is the student who has to learn from his mentor.  It 
> would totally ruin the entire theme of the books."

Betsy Hp:
Those arguments certainly add spice, but the meat of the DDM!Snape 
argument is all text.  From PS/SS to HBP Snape has been saving the 
day and supporting Dumbledore more than any other character in the 
series.  It is nice that DDM!Snape also keeps the rest of the 
Potterverse folk in character and fits in with what appears to be 
the intended theme of the series.  That sort of continuity is hard 
to argue with. <g>

Betsy Hp






From celizwh at intergate.com  Sun Mar 12 23:38:05 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 23:38:05 -0000
Subject: Snape's half truths in "Spinner's End"
In-Reply-To: <duq1t2+vpos@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv2bct+mc1k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149506

Carol:

> The other is Snape's assertion that he tried to 
> thwart the "unworthy" Quirrell without realizing that 
> LV was inside Quirrell's head. The lie (or half-truth) 
> that Snape thought LV was dead would be necessary to 
> make the half-truth about thwarting Quirrell without 
> knowing he was possessed believable. But Snape is a 
> Legilimens, and he could have read Quirrell's mind 
> fairly easily without detection.

houyhnhnm:

If Snape can legilimence anyone at anytime, that would make him nearly
all-knowing, and I don't think such an omniscience squares with his
actions throughout the books.

If only *we* knew What Snape Knew and When He Knew It, we would be
close to unravelling his character.  Did Snape know or suspect, in
PS/SS, that Quirrell was working for Voldemort?  What did he know of
Lucius Malfoy's plot to discredit Arthur Weasley in CoS?  When did he
first begin to suspect the connection between Harry and LV? Did he
suspect Mad-Eye Moody of being a Death Eater in disguise in GoF?

I have been back through all three books with these questions in mind
and cannot find any definitive proof.  PoA is the only book in which
the readers are informed of precisely what it is that Snape suspects
and he turns out to be wrong (or not if Pippin is correct).  I find
that suspicious in and of itself.

I think that Snape probably avoids telling outright lies if he can
make the truth serve the purpose of a lie, because he is less open to
detection that way.  So he can tell Bellatrix that he didn't *know*
Voldemort was the one after the Stone, because he didn't, but I find
it hard to believe that he didn't *suspect* that something was up.

First there is the incident at the start-of-term banquet when he is
staring at Harry (I feel sure he is trying to legilimence Harry here.
 There is no other occasion when Harry's scar hurts in Quirrell's
presence), while sitting next to Quirrell, and he sees  Harry clap his
hand to his forehead.  He may not have known what it meant at the
time, but surely it aroused his suspicion.

Then there is the fact that Harry was in danger from Quirrell, which
must surely have given his imagination a nudge.

Finally there is the Thing in the Forbidden Forest drinking unicorn
blood, which Draco saw with his own eyes.  I find it hard to believe
that Snape didn't get wind of that. Unworthy Quirrell may have been
seeking infinite riches and immortality for himself alone, but,
surely, only someone who was barely alive would be willing to accept
the dire consequences of killing a unicorn.  Snape had somewhere
around a week to act on the information while all of Hogwarts was
preoccupied with upcoming examinations, but he didn't.

Maybe he didn't want to know for sure that Voldemort was back.  Lately
I have been playing around with the idea that an inability to commit
to certainty, rather than hubris,  may be Snape's tragic flaw.  He
prefers for his situation to remain absolutely fluid at all times,
allowing him complete freedom to act in any direction, a watery
characteristic-- Piscean, in point of fact--and therefore a Slytherin
one.  Otherwise how can you explain why such a clever fellow is never
the one to solve the mystery?







From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Sun Mar 12 23:59:44 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 23:59:44 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore asking Harry to kill (Was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dv22ai+6fte@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv2clg+105r2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149507

Carol:
> But nevertheless, regardless of what I want to happen, it looks as 
> if Dumbledore is asking Harry to take upon himself the burden of 
> killing for the common good. 

Nora: 
> And that's part of why many listies, including myself, have 
> speculated that the end of the series will NOT involve flat-out 
> killing of Voldemort, but something different and somehow 
> thematically appropriate.  When Dumbledore was completely "Yes,
> you have to kill", it set off my warning bells of that being 
> precisely what is not going to happen.
 
> After all, very often in stories of this sort there comes a time
> when the Hero must do the deed, and frequently has some kind of 
> culminating realization as to what precisely he must do--and it's 
> often very different from what he thought he had to do, or what
> his mentor told him his task was.  

> So if that ends up being the case, I think it's clear why the 
> thematic objection which Alla made could be a very strong one.

Jen: That side-steps the point, though. The point is Dumbledore 
seems to believe there are times when a person should be killed for 
the greater good. His beliefs may be relevant to what happened on 
the tower whether they are relevant to what Harry ends up having to 
do or not. In fact, I'm almost certain killing *won't* be what Harry 
has to do after JKR said the things we learn about Lily in books 
five and seven 'are very important in what Harry ends up having to 
do'. (Connection, 1999) 

Back to the point, Dumbledore didn't tell Harry "killing is never an 
option" or "I would never ask you to kill someone" or "killing rips 
the soul so you shouldn't do it Harry, no matter what the prophecy 
says." He agreed with Harry's statement that one of them would have 
to kill the other in the end. Now I don't think Dumbledore believes 
in his heart of hearts that Harry is capable of killing Voldemort, I 
think we saw that on the tower in his speech to Draco and in his 
musings about Harry's untarnished soul. It was likely a weight he 
carried around with him and was the true reason why he waited so 
long to reveal the prophecy to Harry. Nevertheless, he has to tell 
Harry what he believes to be true, he can't sugar-coat it. But if he 
*really* believed Harry was going to kill Voldemort in the end, he 
would have prepared him for that eventuality.

He got his message across though, what he personally believes about 
killing, and his beliefs are the important ones here: There are 
times when it serves a greater purpose. 

Jen, off for a rare night out of dinner and a movie with her dh. :)






From celizwh at intergate.com  Mon Mar 13 00:12:54 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 00:12:54 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped/Snape's half truths in "Spinner's End"
In-Reply-To: <003c01c645eb$d8f5b410$1c9e400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <dv2de6+67d9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149508

pudhuhepa:

> > Clearly,  if dear Bella weren't standing right there, 
> > Snape would let Narcissa go on and  tell him everything.  
> > He can't allow that to happen because Bella already  
> > distrusts him and "The Dark Lord's word is law" (or should 
> > be if I am a loyal  DE).

Magpie:

> It's not unusual for a Death Eater to want to know the 
> the big secret plan and so let Narcissa blab it to him 
> if he can.  Snape's letting Narcissa speak doesn't make 
> him look any more untrustworthy than he already does in 
> her own disagraced eyes.

houyhnhnm:

But Snape is not just any Death Eater. He is someone that Bellatrix is
trying to out as a traitor.  It's not enough, from Snape's pov, merely
not to "look any more untrustworthy than he already does". He needs to
squelch it.

I think Snape's first concern, after the sisters arrived, was to
neutralize Bella. (After that is taken care of, he can turn his
attention to gleaming information) He is accused of being a traitor. 
If he began to answer that accusation immediately, he would be on the
defensive.  Instead, he takes the offensive.  He puts Narcissa on the
defensive for being disloyal (and Bella, too, because he is implying
that he is Loyaler than Thou)  He is, if you'll pardon the expression,
manipulating both women, to throw them off balance, before he proceeds
to turn their visit to good account.

pudhuhepa's interpretation makes perfect sense to me.  It is the way
"Spinner's End" struck me the first time I read it, and it is the
interpretation that makes the most sense to me every time I reread it. 

Magpie:

> I'm afraid I think the strategy is far more stupid 
> than you do. Pretending to be just seconds too slow to 
> stop Narcissa from speaking vs. getting locked into a death vow?

houyhnhnm:

How could Snape have known he was going to have a UV sprung on him?








From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 13 00:23:37 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 00:23:37 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped, ...-Hermione's Crimes
In-Reply-To: <dut3ar+1rtv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv2e29+e0s2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149509

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03"
<horridporrid03 at ...> wrote:
>
> > >>bboyminn:
> > I can't help but notice that you are very selectively missing 
> > the point. This is about 'right' and 'wrong'. If Hermione did
> > the 'right' thing in turning Rita over to the adult authorities,
> > then the effects would have been crushingly devestating to Rita.
> > It would have been prison and the ruin of her  career. That is 
> > no small thing.
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> You've just described blackmail.  If you don't do what I wish, you 
> will be hurt.  If you don't pay me X amount of dollars, I'll tell 
> your wife about your mistress.  So yes, Hermione gives Rita a 
> choice: go to Azkaban for your crime, or give up your career for
> a year.  

bboyminn:

Once again both Betsy and Magda are selectively missing the point. The
point is about 'right' and 'wrong'. I'm saying that Hermione doing the
 'right' thing with respect to the law and Rita is infinitely more
devestating that Hernione doing the 'wrong' thing. The point is about
motivation to action, not the results of the action.

Rita broke the law. Hermione knows Rita broke the law. The 'right'
thing to do is for Hermione to turn Rita into the authorities which
will substantially ruin Rita's entire life from a career prespective.
No one would be likely to every trust her again, and her secret
disguise (bug animagus) would be more likely to get her killed than
get her a story. Plus, there is always that nasty bit of prison time
Rita would have to serve. 

> Betsy Hp:
>
> Obviously what Hermione wanted Rita to do was a better choice 
> than prison, otherwise the blackmail wouldn't have worked.  (That 
> Rita had no income for a year is, of course, not something a high 
> school girl would really think about.  Especially a high school 
> girl of Hermione's comfortable background.)
> 
> > >>bboyminn:
> > Further, Hermione isn't backmailing Rita for personal gain. She
> > is trying to stop Rita from telling lies. That's hardly 
> > blackmail in the traditional sense; 'be a good moral person, or
> > go to prison'.  Isn't that the same 'blackmail' that all laws 
> > put on all citizens? 
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> This is a nice way to spin it.  But Hermione stops Rita from working 
> for a year as a *punishment* to "break the habit of writing horrible 
> lies about people."  Instead of saying, "don't lie".  She's, in 
> effect, sending Rita to her room without supper.  For a year.  So 
> Hermione *is* acting as a judge here.
> 
> ...
> 

bboyminn:

First, turning someone in for commiting a crime is NOT blackmail.
Second, offerring them a moral alternative, in a sense a second
chance, is not blackmail. Once again, Hermione is not doing this for
personal gain. Blackmail is when you say to some one, pay me 'X'
amount of money or I'll tell the world you did THIS. For Hermione
there is no 'X' amount of money. Hermione gains nothing and Rita gains
a valuable lesson in morals and ethics.

Further, there is nothing to stop Rita from working. She's not in
prison or crippled. She simply can't earn her living by writing. She
could even work for the paper in a clerical capacity. Further, she
could take that year off and write the 'Great British Novel' she has
always dreamed about. So, unless she chooses to, Rita is not going to
starve, and clearly while she is a bit down on her luck when we see
her again, she is not starving. 

> > >>bboyminn:
> > Let's use the example of the Philosopher's Stone. What Harry 
> > did was 'wrong'. McGonagall specifically told him to go to bed
> > and let the adults handle it. If Harry did the 'right' thing, 
> > he would haveobeyed. He would have been snug in his bed being
> > an obedient little boy, and the Stone would like have been lost. 
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Ooh, bad example, Steve!  How would the Stone have been lost?  Harry 
> doesn't *save* the Stone.  ...
> 
> If, on the other hand, Harry had stayed in bed, Quirrell!Mort would 
> have remained stuck in front of the mirror for Dumbledore to catch.  
> ...
> 

bboyminn:

Once again, selectively missing the point. This whole discussion is
about Hermione's 'crimes', and the 'right' or 'wrong' of her actions.
The result of those actions is not in dispute. What is in dispute is
the moral motivation and correctness of instigating those actions.

In this example, whether Harry saved the Stone or not is irrelevant to
the 'right' or 'wrong' of his choosing to act. By a Moral Absolutest
view, what Harry did was 'wrong'. McGonagall specifically told him to
go to bed and let the adults handle it. He did not, therefore he is
'wrong'. 

Yet it is a chance for him to bravely confront Quirrel and Voldemort
and to a certain extent, beat them again. It was an act of high moral
fiber and courage for Harry even though it was technically wrong. This
seems to be the position that Dumbledore takes on the matter. He
doesn't punish Harry for doing what was 'wrong' because he knows
Harry's motivations for doing so were 'right'.

The same is true of Hermione. She does the technically 'wrong' thing
but for the 'right' reason.

Once again, I say, let us ask Rita which she prefers? Hermione does
the 'right' thing, and substantial imprisons and damages Rita for a
lifetime, or Hermione does the 'wrong' thing and Rita is
inconvenienced for a while. 

> Betsy HP:
>
> However, to go towards your main point that Hermione was just
> trying to save the world here just like Harry always does, I have
> to disagree.  Hermione twists the knife.  Harry does what he had
> to do, but Hermione *ruins* a womans life.  ...
> 
> > >>bboyminn:
> > Back to Hermione, I don't see how anyone can say that Hermione     
> > wasn't merciful in her actions regarding Rita.
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Out of curiosity, if you were told to not work for a year, starting 
> immediately, how would you do?  Any house payments you'd have 
> trouble making?  ... You're healthy, I hope?  ...
> 
> Rita looks a bit ragged in OotP.  Hermione is not only uncaring, 
> she's very strict about Rita working without payment.  The rage Rita 
> was barely keeping back suggested, to me anyway, that Hermione would 
> not want Rita to ever get her alone to throughly "thank" Hermione 
> for her "mercy".  
> 
> Actually, what Hermione does to Rita parallels what Umbridge does to 
> Lupin quite nicely.  (I think Redhen has an essay on this.)
> 
> Betsy Hp

bboyminn:

Once again, Rita's life is not ruined. In fact, I again remind you
that if Hermione had been a moral absolutest, she would have turned
Rita in , and THEN Rita's life WOULD have been ruined. But Hermione
offers her a second chance. I chance to take a break and gain some
prespective on the consequences of her actions. A little reminder that
Rita is ruining people's lives with the lies she tells. Time to remind
Rita that the 'highest moral value' is not measured by how many papers
you sell. 

Further, it is Hermione that restarts Rita's career. Yes, she does it
by her absolute insistance that Rita tell the truth about Harry and
Voldemort's return. But that turns out to be the 'article of the
year'. The most important, significant, crucial, and truthfull article
printed for that entire year. Rita is a celebrity again. 

She now appears to be the one journalist who wasn't intimidate by the
Ministry. She appears to be the one journalist who sought out truth
over propaganda and dare to bring it forth. By her apparent 'wrong'
actions, Hermione has made Rita into a hero again; at least in
journalistic circles. 

I'm sure it will be short lived, but I have no doubt that Rita is
making the party circuit regaling everyone with boastful tale of how
she stuggle against the odds and unrelentingly sought out the truth
from her 'good friend' Harry Potter, and dared to print it at great
personal risk. I can't prove that, but it is certainly Rita's style.

Twice by her seemingly 'wrong' actions, Hermione has done Rita a BIG
FAVOR. 

So, I close by once again saying that we should ask Rita what she
thinks about Hermione's actions. Hermione does the 'right' thing and
cause immense damage to Rita. Hermione does the 'wrong' thing and Rita
is annoyingly inconvenienced and later becomes a hero. Think what you
will, but I think in Rita's eyes, Hermione made the right choice.

Just passing it along.

Steve/bboyminn






From nrenka at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 13 00:32:16 2006
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 00:32:16 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore asking Harry to kill (Was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dv2clg+105r2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv2eig+d04p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149510

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" <stevejjen at ...> 
wrote:

> Jen: That side-steps the point, though. The point is Dumbledore 
> seems to believe there are times when a person should be killed for 
> the greater good. His beliefs may be relevant to what happened on 
> the tower whether they are relevant to what Harry ends up having to 
> do or not.

I can see that point, since the meaning of the events on the Tower 
seems determined by what spin Dumbledore would put on them (if he 
weren't dead).  If it were done on orders, then it's okay--general 
fandom thinking.  (Now I wonder if anyone wants to take that argument 
on, or whether it might be confronted in the books.)

But if Dumbledore's statement to Harry that *Harry* must kill is 
brought into question, as I think it's going to be, I'm not unsure 
that his hypothetical statement of the same to Snape wouldn't be, 
too.  After all, consistency is a small virtue, but a virtue 
nonetheless.

Could JKR be retaining our impression of Dumbledore's essential 
goodness and nobility but deconstructing the facade of Lawgiver from 
on High?  I certainly think she started that in OotP and kept the 
flame very much alive in HBP, when she didn't have to.  It doesn't 
make him a 'bad person', but it does put a lot of complication into 
the usual Wise Old Mentor archetype to have him foul up in ways 
corrected by the younger generation.

> He got his message across though, what he personally believes about 
> killing, and his beliefs are the important ones here: There are 
> times when it serves a greater purpose. 

If the denoument is not centered around that principle, after we've 
been explicitly prepared for it, it would undercut it.  That 
undercutting is a strong possibility, at least from where I'm 
sitting.  YMMV.  While there are times we've been shown that it's a 
noble thing to die, I can't think of any situation so far where 
*killing* has been put into the same category.  That may have been 
the Tower, but it's hardly settled yet.

-Nora hopes for something nice and elegant above all






From celizwh at intergate.com  Mon Mar 13 01:15:19 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 01:15:19 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped/Snape's half truths in "Spinner's End"
In-Reply-To: <dv2de6+67d9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv2h37+iadj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149511

houyhnhnm:
 
> If he began to answer that accusation immediately, 
> he would be on the defensive.

houyhnhnm:

My mistake.  He does answer Bella's charges first.  But

"Bellatrix stilled looked unhappy, though she appeared unsure how best
to attack Snape next."

He needs to hammer his point home.  I still think he cut Narcissa off
with an accusation of disloyalty because it appeared to him the only
safe course of action at that moment.   






From anabenevides at visualnet.com.br  Sun Mar 12 23:00:21 2006
From: anabenevides at visualnet.com.br (Ana)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 20:00:21 -0300
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <1142196019.3101.27034.m26@yahoogroups.com>
References: <1142196019.3101.27034.m26@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <4414A805.6040207@visualnet.com.br>

No: HPFGUIDX 149512


Pippin:
(...)In fact he's created an opportunity for the fake death which is the 
*only*way to save Dumbledore, because while it would be very hard to 
fool Voldemort into thinking he'd killed Dumbledore, it might just be 
possible to fool him into thinking that Snape or Draco had done it. (...)


Ana:
Im very keen to believe that Dumbledore faked his death, maybe for my 
own personal feelings about Dumbledore and Snape, but I also think there 
is canon evidence for that undestanding. Actually, the whole "faking 
Dracos death idea" - that only exists in the American Edition of HBP 
(see quote that follows this) - is what makes me think: "hey, if he can 
arrange to fake Dracos, why not fake his own? "

    " `I can help you, Draco.` `No, you can't , said Malfoy, his wand
    shaking very
    badly indeed. `Nobody can. He told me to do it or he'd kill me. I've
    got no
    choice.` `*He cannot kill you if you are already dead.* Come over to
    the right
    side, Draco, and we can hide you more completely than you can
    possibly imagine.` "
    /(HBP American edition pg 591/552)/

    " `I can help you, Draco.''No, you can't,' said Malfoy, his wand
    hand shaking very badly indeed. 'Nobody can. He told me to do it or
    he'll kill me. I've got no choice.'
    Come over to the right side, Draco, and we can hide you more
    completely than
    you can possibly imagine."
    /(HBP UK Edition pg 552/)



Pipin:
(...)And the wording of the vow is twisty enough to give Snape an out.

Ana:
Anyway, though I believe in DDM!Snape, and therefore, Im ready to 
embrace most of "Dumbledore is not dead" theories, I couldnt  see how 
"the wording of the vow is twisty enough to give Snape an out.", as 
Pippin said. It looks to me as though either Dumbledore or Snape must be 
dead at the end of book six, as a consequence of the UV. I tried 
re-reading the vow many times, in a desperate hope to find that outing, 
but I didnt manage it. Would anyone be kind enough to point that out to 
me? :)
Thanks!

    "Narcissa spoke.
    Will you, Severus, watch over my son, Draco, as he attempts ta
    fulfill the Dark Lord's wishes?`
    `I will,` said Snape.
    A thin tongue of brilliant flame issued from the wand and wound its
    way around their hands like a red-hot wire.
    `And will you, to the best of your ability, protect him from harm?`
    `I will,` said Snape.
    A second tongue of flame shot from the wand and interlinked with the
    first, making a fine, glowing chain.
    `And, should it prove necessary... if it seems Draco will fail...`
    whispered Narcissa (Snape's hand twitched within hers, but he did
    not draw away), `will you carry out the deed that the Dark Lord has
    ordered Draco to perform?`
    There was a moment's silence. Bellatrix watched, her wand upon their
    clasped hands, her eyes wide.
    `I will,` said Snape.
    Bellatrix's astounded face glowed red in the blaze of a third unique
    flame, which shot from the wand, twisted with the others, and bound
    itself thickly around their clasped hands, like a fiery snake."







From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Mon Mar 13 00:50:54 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 19:50:54 EST
Subject: DD's unfinished sentence (Was: Snape Survey, Snapeity...
Message-ID: <273.757fe00.31461bee@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149513

> Tonks:
> I have an idea that explains Snape's actions as loyal  to DD and at 
> the same time does not blow his cover as a spy, even to  Draco.
> 
> "Of course that is what he would tell you , Draco,  but..."  as a 
> teacher in this school he is bond by a vow to me and  to this school 
> to protect all of our students with his life if  necessary.
> 

Nikkalmati:
 
    How could SS tell Draco "I am watching over you  because DD told me to."  
As far as Draco knows SS is a loyal DE.   Interestingly, this would explain 
why Draco cannot tell SS he has doubts about  his mission.  He is not afraid SS 
would take the glory; he is afraid SS  would report him (and get his family 
killed) or that SS would kill DD when Draco  is not sure he wants that to 
happen. 
Nikkalmati






From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Mon Mar 13 00:46:15 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 19:46:15 EST
Subject: Snape Survey - Dumbledore's Sacrifice
Message-ID: <246.86749d9.31461ad7@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149514

Sandy:
>The debate as to whether DD was or was not begging for his life, with  the 
>major concensus being that he was not because it would not have been  in his 
>character to do so bears further scrutiny. I don't believe DD  would have 
begged for his life >for himself, but I certainly think he would  have done so 
for Harry. 

Nikkalmati:
 
    It seems to me the natural way for DD to plead for  his life is to say:  
"Severus ....please don't."  Why doesn't  he say that? - because that is 
exactly the opposite of what he means and might  lead to SS's misunderstanding him. 
 What he is saying is "Severus . .  .   Please [do what we discussed or what 
is necessary or what you know  I want}.   Otherwise, his statement is 
unnatural and makes no  sense.  He could not state exactly what he wanted in front of 
Harry and the  DEs. 
 
    BTW do we know we have the full  prophecy?  The last sentence is cut off  
(I believe it says The Dark  Lord will be killed by one who is born at the 
end of July . . . ) and then just  tails off. 
 
Nikkalmati








From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca  Mon Mar 13 02:11:50 2006
From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 21:11:50 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:  Snape Survey - Dumbledore's Sacrifice
In-Reply-To: <246.86749d9.31461ad7@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20060313021150.44129.qmail@web53301.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149515



    Nikkalmati:

It seems to me the natural way for DD to plead for his life is to say: 
"Severus ....please don't." Why doesn't he say that? - because that is 
exactly the opposite of what he means and might lead to SS's misunderstanding him. 
What he is saying is "Severus . . . Please [do what we discussed or what 
is necessary or what you know I want}. Otherwise, his statement is 
unnatural and makes no sense. He could not state exactly what he wanted in front of 
Harry and the DEs. 

BTW do we know we have the full prophecy? The last sentence is cut off 
(I believe it says The Dark Lord will be killed by one who is born at the 
end of July . . . ) and then just tails off. 

Luckdragon:
  I believe that DD was asking Snape to keep his cover even at the possible expense of DD's life.
   
  As for the prophecy, I really don't think the entire prophecy was revealed. It seems incomplete in a couple of places, and that could be for a variety of reasons. Perhaps because DD & SPT were interupted,  perhaps SPT  was having difficulty channeling the prophet for some reason. There is no canon for this as it is to be revealed in book 7.



		
---------------------------------
7 bucks a month. This is Huge Yahoo! Music Unlimited  

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




From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 13 02:18:09 2006
From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 02:18:09 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped, ...-Hermione's Crimes
In-Reply-To: <duva6i+und3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv2kp1+933k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149516

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" <a_svirn at ...> wrote:
>
>  
> > Amiable Dorsai
> > I've missed something.  Vengeance?  Are you talking about 
> Hermione's
> > strongarming of Rita into telling Harry's story?  Other than
> > Hermione's threat to tell Molly that the twins were using 
> > first-years as guinea pigs, that's the only blackmail I can recall
> > Hermione performing in OoP. 
> > 
> <snip>
> 
> a_svirn:
> Hermione did express her desire for revenge as early as chapter 24 
> in GOF. It was between the first two tasks, somewhat in early 
> January.  Rita made a huge mistake by publicly calling her "silly 
> girl" which proved to be a huge mistake of her part. 
> 
> "I'll show her! Silly little girl, am I?  Oh, I'll get her back for 
> this.  First Harry, then Hagrid ..."
> 
> You see, first Harry, then Hagrid, and now ME! How dares she! Since 
> then Hermione had raked her brains and mulled over Rita's miraculous 
> omniscience until she hit upon the truth. This done she set about 
> capturing Rita in her animal guise and confining her. It was before 
> any idea of using her professional skills could ever occur to 
> Hermione. No, she caught Rita, imprisoned her, whereupon by using 
> blackmail extracted from her a promise to stay unemployed for a 
> year. If this is not revenge, I don't know what is.

Amiable Dorsai:
Yeah, I get that Hermione was was POed in Goblet of Fire.  I would be
too if someone had slandered me to the point where I was getting
envelopes filled with a blistering agent (Bubotuber Pus) in my morning
mail.  But I was responding to Carol's:

Carol:
>By OoP, she's ready to put the two together and commit blackmail
> herself in pursuit of vengeance, either disregarding the
> consequences...

Amiable Dorsai:
By "Order of the Phoenix", the book Carol is refering to, Hermione's
had her revenge, Rita's out of business, she's bedraggled (BTW, am I
the only one who thought Rita was playing for sympathy here? Hermione
didn't forbid her from using her wand, she could surely have cleaned
herself up a bit before going into Hogsmeade to meet Hermione.), she's
living up to her end of the bargain.  

Hermione needs no further revenge at this point, her goal is to repair
Harry's reputation and warn the world that Voldemort is back.

Amiable Dorsai







From siskiou at vcem.com  Mon Mar 13 02:16:51 2006
From: siskiou at vcem.com (Susanne)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 18:16:51 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione must be stopped, ...-Hermione's Crimes
In-Reply-To: <dv2e29+e0s2@eGroups.com>
References: <dut3ar+1rtv@eGroups.com> <dv2e29+e0s2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1781751131.20060312181651@vcem.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149517



Hi,

Sunday, March 12, 2006, 4:23:37 PM, Steve wrote:

> Once again, Hermione is not doing this for
> personal gain. Blackmail is when you say to some one, pay me 'X'
> amount of money or I'll tell the world you did THIS. For Hermione
> there is no 'X' amount of money. Hermione gains nothing and Rita gains
> a valuable lesson in morals and ethics.

I do think Hermione gains something (power over another
human being) and I also think that she was far more
motivated to catch Rita and teach her a lesson after things
became personal.

She even said so herself. Something like: "I'll get her back
for that".

Hermione disliked what Rita was doing to Harry and Hagrid
with her articles, but she didn't react strongly at all even
when Rita painted her to be a "scarlet woman".
She laughed it off.

But then Rita attacked her intelligence and maturity by
calling her a "silly little girl" and that's when Hermione
became personally offended and very angry.

And she did seem to enjoy her power over Rita in the jar,
which is understandable.

Ultimately, things worked out for Rita, but more so for
Hermione, who could force her into writing the article about
Harry.

Yes, Rita did wrong, and Hermione didn't turn her in, but I
still don't feel Hermione *only* did it for the greater good
of the WW. I strongly suspect there was an element of
revenge and personal satisfaction on Hermione's side.
The silly little girl showed Rita who triumphed in the end.

This doesn't make Hermione a horrible person, but I don't
think she is meant to be a saint, either, who never thinks
of herself.

For example, I also feel that making the Polyjuice potion in
CoS was partially because Hermione really wanted to make it,
and the circumstances gave her the perfect opportunity.
Even when Ron and Harry didn't really think it was the thing
to do, she pushed for it very strongly.

Again, this is just a counter weight to the "perfect
Hermione" who can do no wrong that I often see presented and
defended on many forums.

-- 
Best regards,
 Susanne                           mailto:siskiou at vcem.com







From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 13 02:28:06 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 02:28:06 -0000
Subject: TBAY: HMS DESIRE (about Snape) Long
Message-ID: <dv2lbm+ip7l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149518

Sitting around the Sinner Snape Loved Lily Camp is getting a bit 
boring.  Hum...  I have never been over to the bay.  Think I'll take 
a stroll over there and have a look around.  

Nice day, suns up, soft breeze blowing through the sails on that one 
ship over there.  Standing on the dock, thinking
 Maybe I too could 
build a ship
  Hum
 I should find a real ship builder.  I tried to 
build a storage room once and it fell in.  If I built a ship and it 
sank I'd be in big trouble since I can't swim.  Maybe there is 
someone on the beach that can help.  Looking around...  Well I see a 
fellow way over there.  Maybe he will help.  Looks a bit like a 
carpenter, but dressed like an old wizard hippy, long hair and love 
beads.   

Says he is happy to help...  great!!  Name of the ship?  Well, I'll 
think about it, you just start building. It will come to us.  How do 
you put this together?  Oh... I see.  Foundation..  Right..  OK.
                                                   
=====================
The early days:
Snape as a teen was good in Potions and so was Lily. They both had 
Slughorn as their professor.  We know that Slughorn liked to get his 
students together at these little parties.  Lily was very popular, 
and Sluggy liked her a lot so he must have invited her.  Snape 
wasn't popular or from an influential family, but he had great 
potential and Slughorn would have seen great things for him and 
would have wanted his favor later on. So Snape was probably invited 
as well.  If Lily and Snape went to Sluggy's parties they would have 
gotten to know each other well.  I would guess that, for whatever 
reason, James, Peter and Remus were not invited to Sluggy's parties. 

Snape and Lily may have been casual friends, but only saw each other 
in potions class and at Sluggy's parties.  They were in different 
houses and the kids seem to mostly hang out with others from their 
own house. Lilly saw the good in Snape and treated him well.  Snape 
develops a strong love for Lily, but realizes that she is a very 
beautiful and popular girl and he would never have a chance to be 
anything more than a friend.  He pines for her in his heart, but 
never tells her of his love.  Maybe he even goes by her house.  He 
is probably "that awful boy" that Petunia has a conversation with at 
some point. Maybe he came by when Lily was out, or Petunia saw him 
lurking about and told him to go away. 

The marauders might have figured out Snape's true feelings at some 
point and teased him about it.  Snape's calling Lily "Mudblood" 
could have been a way to say "it isn't true, I don't really have a 
crush or obsession on her" to get the others off of his back.  Later 
having done this he is kicking himself.  If he ever hoped to have a 
chance with her, he has blown it now!  He feels like a real jerk.

As others have pointed out the potions book owned by the Half-Blood 
Prince would have been enchanted to only be seen by Snape and 
perhaps by Lily.  (Thus explaining why Harry, having his mother's 
eyes, can see the pages of the book and Ron can not make it out.)

The early years as a DE:
After leaving school Snape gets involved with LV and becomes a DE.  
He overhears at least part of the prophesy and gives this 
information to LV.  He then hears that Lily is pregnant with her 
first child.  When Harry is born at the end of July and Snape 
realizes what LV plans to do, Snape is over come with remorse.  He 
is also worried about his life debit to James and the consequences 
to himself if James is killed because of the information that was 
given to LV.   

Being a clever young man, Snape comes up with a plan and presents it 
in such a way that LV will think that it is his own idea.  Snape 
will become a spy for LV by telling DD that he has defected.  LV 
thinks that this will help him find the Prophesy child.  Snape 
thinks that this plan will keep them all alive.  Snape can work for 
DD and help prevent the death of the Potters and their child.  It 
will also prevent Snape's own death and damnation.  (It has to be 
really bad karma with very serious consequences to be an accomplice 
in the death of someone to whom you had the duty of a life debit.) 

Snape hates James Potter but does not want James Potter to die in 
this way.  Snape is bound to James because of the life-debit.  Snape 
must save James or be damn himself for giving information to LV that 
might result in the death of James.  Snape also loves Lily and can 
not bear to see her die or to have her only son be taken from her.  
Snape is sure that he can prevent it all from happening.  He even 
goes to James, maybe before the switch in secret keepers, maybe 
before they go into hiding, and tries to warn James, but James does 
not listen to him.  

Before the events of that fated Halloween night Snape may have 
either been Out for Himself or DD's man. The tragic death of both 
the man to whom he had a life-debit and the kind hearted woman that 
he loved with all of his heart, was the most traumatic event in 
Snape's life. It makes Snape a bitter person, and a person with 
enough remorse to truly turn from the dark side and repent.  Snape 
would be haunted by the memory of this event for the rest of his 
life.  

After the death of Lily and of James, Snape goes to DD and vows to 
DD (perhaps with either Hagrid or Fawkes as bonder, if needed) that 
he will serve DD all the days of his life and if LV should ever rise 
to power again he will do any and all to preserve the life of 
Harry.  DD has the power through the ancient magic to forgive Snape 
the sin of his indirectly causing the death of James and transfers 
the life-debit to James' son, Harry.  Snape is now honor bound to 
serve DD and protect Harry.  Snape is a noble man and a man of 
honor. What ever else he may be, he is a man of honor.  He is 
the "Half-Blood Prince" after all, and a Prince would never be a 
coward. 

Harry comes to Hogwarts: 

Snape is at Hogwarts locked away in his dungeon, enjoying his 
potions making and perhaps secret experiments, being able to some 
extent forget the events of his youth.  Then Harry comes to Hogwarts 
and when Snape sees him it all comes flooding back.  Snape feels the 
trauma all over again, he is reminded of his sins, he feels the 
guilt and remorse that he thought he had overcome with the years.  
He hates Harry for bringing back these memories.  Oh what his life 
might have been if he hadn't "worn his heart on his sleeve", if he 
had never fallen in love and lost.  Better to never have loved at 
all!  See the mess that it got him into.  And now here in front of 
him is "her" son.  Ah
 he has his mother's eyes.  And he looks just 
like that *&%$#@ father of his!

As a member of the faculty Snape and the other teachers have 
probably taken an oath to the school that they will protect the 
students and preserve them from evil.  Snape also must protect Harry 
from LV and anyone else that might try to harm him.  Snape says to 
himself: "Great!  Normally a life-debit is an easy thing.  But it 
seems like everyone wants to kill this damn kid!!  And Harry doesn't 
help any.  He keeps putting himself in harms way whenever he can!  
No wonder my hair is so greasy and I am grouchy all the time, I can 
never get any sleep with Harry always sneaking off in the night." 

The Vow:
Narcissa loves her son.  Snape is a both a family friend and a very 
powerful wizard with influence in both camps. It is logical that she 
would go to him, as we all would if we needed a favor and our friend 
was a person with access to the most powerful people.  Snape is also 
Draco's teacher so he is in the logical position to look after Draco 
since Draco will be in school most of the year. 

Narcissa trust Snape to care about her, her child and his old friend 
Lucius.  Are all DE just cold hearted, all for themselves, villains 
like LV?  I think the answer is, No.  They are more human that LV.  
They love and care for their families just like everyone else.	 One 
might wonder why a person would become a DE, but that is another 
post.

Narcissa is upset and when she "began to cry in earnest, gazing 
beseechingly all the while at Snape", Snape must have been looking 
into her eyes.  She then goes on to think about the task that Draco 
has been assigned saying "it's too dangerous! This is vengeance for 
Lucius's mistake, I know it!"  

Then Snape looks away. We are led to believe that he looks away 
because he can not bear to see her tears.  That might be part of 
it.  At that moment, he might have been thinking of Lily begging for 
the life of her own son.  But there is another possibility as well.  
Snape may be telling the truth when he tells Narcissa that he knows 
what Draco's task is.  Maybe LV does trust him enough to tell him, 
maybe not.  If Snape is lying to Narcissa, I think that this is the 
moment that he finds out what the task really is.  It was in that 
moment when Snape saw it in her mind that he was on the verge of 
dropping his guard and showing his own thoughts.  This was this 
reason that he turned away.  He stayed turned away for a few 
minutes, while he was composing himself.  He is still turned away 
when he says to her "If Draco successes he will be honored above all 
others".  I think he is still turned away from her so that the shock 
does not show in his eyes.  But clearly, if he did not already know, 
this is the first time that he understands what the task actually is.

Why would Snape need to take so long to compose himself? Why might 
there be shock in his eyes?  Maybe because LV told him this "I have 
a little task for Draco, being young he may not be up to it, and so 
if he can't succeed in doing it I will expect you to do it for 
him".  At the time Snape probably thought "no problem, simple task a 
boy could do, not to worry."  LV, being the type that he is, would 
not have told Snape the whole story.  Snape only realizes the 
position that he is placed in when he see the task in Narcissa's 
eyes.  (He must be thinking "oh s---!")

It is a small leap from this to Snape's taking the vow.  He did not 
know that Narcissa would ask the third provision of the vow.  He is 
damned either way anyway.  So he goes on with the third provision in 
order to protect his cover, now fully realizing the terrible place 
in which he has been placed, not only by the vow, but by LV.  And we 
see his hand shake.  Poor, poor Snape.  `Oh what a tangled web we 
weave when first we practice to deceive.'  All of the deception in 
his life as the clever Slytherin came back to bite him.  Spinners 
end indeed!

The Forest:
I am sure that Snape told DD what LV was expecting Draco or Snape to 
do.  The argument in the forest could be about this.  DD may also 
have told Snape that he must do it when the time came to keep Draco 
from becoming a murder. And I think that part of the vow to keep 
Draco safe would have included keeping his soul safe as well as his 
body. So any way that you look at it, DD must die at the hand of 
Snape. And they both knew it. Snape did not want to do it, he may 
have tried to think of some plan to work around it, but there was no 
way out for either of them.  DD understood this and insisted that 
Snape do what had to be done whenever and wherever the time came.

The Tower:
Snape is a bitter, tainted by sin, tragic, damned, doomed and 
depressed man, but he is DD's man to the end.  He is misunderstood.  
Snape is the Judas betrayer to all who see him.  Only Snape knows 
what is really in his heart.  He still has a heart.  It has been 
stomped on, broken and wrenched from his soul, he thinks beyond 
repair, but it is still deep inside him. 

Snape is the soul that has been so damaged by the world that he has 
given up on Love.  Unlike LV who has never loved and therefore does 
not understand Love, Snape has loved and does understand.  And the 
one who has loved and knows the depth of love also knows a desperate 
despair that LV can never know.  LV had never been broken by Love.  
Snape has.  

 The events on the tower add to the depth of anguish in Snape's 
soul.  This is the final straw.  He would rather die himself, but he 
must do what is hard over what is easy.  Snape has promised DD to 
obey him no matter what, just as Harry did on the way to the cave.  
Snape also has a duty to protect Harry and Draco.  The only way to 
protect Harry and be loyal to DD's plan now is to keep his cover as 
a DE, keep his wits about him, and do what must be done.  In order 
to cast an AK one must feel hated in their heart and Snape has that 
type of hatred for LV and he uses those feeling to do the deed.  
Harry sees the look in Snape's eyes, and misreads the events 
happening before him.

Snape is the sinner's sinner. He is the epitome of all the desperate 
brokenness of humanity.  Snape is also a noble man and a man of 
honor.  He has given all for DD, for Love of Lily, and to redeem 
himself from the curse of a failed life-debit.  And in the end Snape 
will give his life and through Love's great mercy, his tortured soul 
will be set free.
==========================

Wow, look we did it!  We built a ship.  A big ship!  Look Kaylee, 
others are coming by to see it. They are saying it looks like a "Man 
of War".  And the name, yes, the name:  The HMS Desire.

HMS. DESIRE
Harry Must Survive.  Death Eater Snape is repentant evermore.

The full theme of this ship is:
Repentant Sinner Snape is Dumbledore's man for the Love of Lily and 
with a transferred life debit to Harry.


Tonks_op







From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 13 02:49:56 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 02:49:56 -0000
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <4414A805.6040207@visualnet.com.br>
Message-ID: <dv2mkk+3atd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149519

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Ana <anabenevides at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> Pippin:
> (...)In fact he's created an opportunity for the fake death which 
is the *only*way to save Dumbledore, because while it would be very 
hard to fool Voldemort into thinking he'd killed Dumbledore, it 
might just be possible to fool him into thinking that Snape or Draco 
had done it. (...)
> 
> 
> Ana:
> I?m very keen to believe that Dumbledore faked his death, maybe 
for my  own personal feelings about Dumbledore and Snape, but I also 
think there  is canon evidence for that undestanding. Actually, the 
whole "faking Draco?s death idea" - that only exists in the American 
Edition of HBP (see quote that follows this) - is what makes me 
think: "hey, if he can arrange to fake Draco?s, why not fake his 
own? "

Tonks:
Briefly if DD is not really dead Snape would have died, because he 
did not fullfil the vow. So no, DD is really, really, dead. Just 
face it, greive it and go on. ;-)

Tonks_op
Forgive me this post, it is my 4th.






From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net  Mon Mar 13 02:58:53 2006
From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 02:58:53 -0000
Subject: What possessed Peter to restore Voldemort? (Was: Trusting Snape)
In-Reply-To: <20060312133039.64431.qmail@web53115.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dv2n5d+ma5m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149520

SSSusan earlier:
> > Questions I, also, have asked before.  I just don't GET Peter 
> > here. 
<snip> 
> > ...I just can't figure out why he didn't walk away from a Voldy 
> > who *couldn't* at that time have killed him!
 

Magda: 
> Because Peter WANTS Voldemort to regain his strength.  He WANTS to
> have a powerful leader to follow around again, someone whose
> successes he can vicariously enjoy while telling himself....
> Peter WANTS to be a part of the biggest, baddest gang around ....
> 
> Peter is a jackal, scavenging the prey brought down by other, more
> fierce animals.  He's too lazy to do his own hunting, but is keen
> enough to know where the biggest kill has taken place....
<snip>
> When he was a teenager he wanted to hang with the Quidditch star's
> cool club; when he became an adult his taste for what constituted
> real power changed accordingly.
>
> Magda (who thinks Peter is in a category of evil all on his own 
> that is in some ways more terrible than Voldemort's)


SSSusan:
This is a very fascinating take on Peter, imo.  It would be kind of 
satisfying, I think, to discover a Peter who is this STRONG (in a 
way), a person who actually has THOUGHT about what he wants and how 
to get it, rather than just the cowardly, weak, wimpering follower 
he seems to be so much of the time.  

Yes, interesting indeed.

The one question which comes to mind, though, is how would you 
explain Wormtail's attempt (I think that's an okay work to use to 
classify it) to get Voldy to use someone else's blood in the 
rebirthing -- that it didn't *have* to be Harry's?  I've always 
taken that as an attempt on Wormtail's part to, perhaps, get 
himself "unindebted" to Harry.  But maybe it was something else?  

Can you think of a way this action on Wormtail's part could fit with 
the man you've described?

Siriusly Snapey Susan







From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 13 03:20:07 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 03:20:07 -0000
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <4414A805.6040207@visualnet.com.br>
Message-ID: <dv2od7+l3h6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149521


> Ana:
I tried 
> re-reading the vow many times, in a desperate hope to find that 
outing, 
> but I didn?t manage it. Would anyone be kind enough to point that 
out to 
> me? :)
> Thanks!
> 
>     "Narcissa spoke.
>     ?Will you, Severus, watch over my son, Draco, as he attempts ta
>     fulfill the Dark Lord's wishes?`
>     `I will,` said Snape.
>     A thin tongue of brilliant flame issued from the wand and wound 
its
>     way around their hands like a red-hot wire.
>     `And will you, to the best of your ability, protect him from 
harm?`
>     `I will,` said Snape.
>     A second tongue of flame shot from the wand and interlinked 
with the
>     first, making a fine, glowing chain.
>     `And, should it prove necessary... if it seems Draco will 
fail...`
>     whispered Narcissa (Snape's hand twitched within hers, but he 
did
>     not draw away), `will you carry out the deed that the Dark Lord 
has
>     ordered Draco to perform?`
>     
zgirnius:
Sure. I can see at least two ways out. They both revolve around the 
third clause of the Vow, which, note, is not an absolute commitment 
to carry out the task, but rather, conditional. Onbly if certain 
(stated) conditions are met, must Snape complete the task.

One of these conditions is the first phrase:
'Should it prove necessary'.
Which immediately raises the question, necessary for what/whom? I 
think a reasonable reading is, necessary to protect Draco. Since that 
is clearly what Narcissa, the person formulating the Vow, really 
cares about. So, if Dumbledore had faked the deaths of Draco and 
Narcissa, Snape would be off the hook. It would not be necessary to 
kill Dumbledore, because Draco is well-protected by Dumbledore. 
Likewise, if Snape faked the killing well enough, he would be off the 
hook as long as none of the bad guys figured it out-because as long 
as they don't, a fake death is as good as a real one for the 
protection of Draco.

The second condition is:
'if it seems Draco will fail'.
This suggests that one thing that could mess things up is for Draco 
to fail publicly, where others know about it (SEEM to fail). (Note 
Draco did make two failed attempts, with no consequences for Snape...)

So, I definitely agree there were loopholes Snape and Dumbledore 
could have hoped to exploit. But personally, I don't believe that it 
worked out for them. Draco smuggling in the Death Eaters messed up 
any plans Snape and Dumbledore may have had.







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Mar 13 04:11:55 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 04:11:55 -0000
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <4414A805.6040207@visualnet.com.br>
Message-ID: <dv2reb+ftct@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149522

> Pippin:
> (...)And the wording of the vow is twisty enough to give Snape an out.
> 
> Ana:
> Anyway, though I believe in DDM!Snape, and therefore, I?m ready to 
> embrace most of "Dumbledore is not dead" theories, I couldn?t  see how 
> "the wording of the vow is twisty enough to give Snape an out.", as 
> Pippin said. It looks to me as though either Dumbledore or Snape must be 
> dead at the end of book six, as a consequence of the UV. I tried 
> re-reading the vow many times...

>     `And, should it prove necessary... if it seems Draco will fail...`
>     whispered Narcissa (Snape's hand twitched within hers, but he did
>     not draw away), `will you carry out the deed that the Dark Lord has
>     ordered Draco to perform?`
>     There was a moment's silence. Bellatrix watched, her wand upon their
>     clasped hands, her eyes wide.
>     `I will,` said Snape.


Pippin:
Think of the vow as a logic problem.  Snape  is familiar with them since he 
created the potions puzzle in Book One, and of course Puppetmistress!
JKR is too.

There are two conditional clauses in the third part of the vow:
"Should it prove necessary"
"if it seems Draco will fail"

If the second condition was only a restatement of the first then the vow 
is   watertight, as many people seem to think.
 
Buf  that makes the first clause superfluous. Narcissa need only say, "And 
[breathy pause for suspense] if it  seems Draco will fail..will you" etc.  
Let us assume that JKR chose Narcissa's words carefully,
and consider what happens if  the second clause is *not* a 
restatement or specification of the first but an independent condition. 

If  the two conditions are independent then Snape may have an out.
First, does the vow consider killing Dumbledore a necessity?  Narcissa
at any rate did not, since she first tried to persuade Snape to talk the Dark
Lord out of it.

Second, there's a conjunction missing between the two clauses,
so we don't know how they're related. Is Snape supposed to act
if ANY of the conditions are true ? Or must he act only if ALL
the conditions are true? If the latter, and the vow doesn't think
that killing Dumbledore should prove necessary, then Snape is
home free.


Pippin
who thinks Dumbledore is dead, but not because Snape killed him






From belviso at attglobal.net  Mon Mar 13 04:13:58 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 23:13:58 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione must be stopped/Snape's half truths in "Spinner's End"
References: <dv2de6+67d9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <018c01c64654$8dff3df0$1c9e400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 149523

> houyhnhnm:
>
But Snape is not just any Death Eater. He is someone that Bellatrix is
trying to out as a traitor.

Magpie:
Here's my big picture problem with the scenario (besides just feeling like 
the reasons given for why he takes the vow still don't seem clear enough: 
The UV is a very important thing to do.  It's life or death.  It's a turning 
point in Snape's life; no going back. I have a really hard time believing 
that the motivation behind this is that he's trying to get a minor villain 
to stop thinking he's a traitor, or find out about Voldemort's latest plan. 
It's just too small.  I think the UV must go straight to Snape's entire 
raison d'etre, either as Voldemort's man or DD's (I think he's Dumbledore's, 
myself).  If either of these things (convincing Bella or finding out this 
information) seemed really tied to Snape's fundamental nature or story, I 
could see it working.  But it doesn't seem to do that.  The explanation is 
just a throwaway--a risk that went wrong.  Even the "Snape is arrogant" 
explanation is a problem for me because a) this doesn't seem like the 
character I've seen and b) the scene doesn't really seem to be about that.

If the vow doesn't get to the heart of Snape for me it's like...it's like if 
instead of Lily dying to save Harry by throwing herself in front of him, she 
actually died because she was running to call 911.  Or Peter betraying the 
Potters because he was trying to get information about Voldemort's plans and 
got Legimensed or something.  It's not that oopsies and things that the 
person themselves didn't think was important don't ever turn into major 
things--they do.  But a conscious decision like this seems all about "it's 
our choices that show who we are."

Life changing moments, imo, are going to be about the heart of the 
character, not just some passing thing in the plot.  A Snape making the vow 
because he thought maybe this was a good way to find out what the latest 
plan was, or this was a good way to look like a tough DE to the other DE 
goes nowhere for me.  It's an idea brought up and discarded in one chapter 
in book six--the vow is important, but the reason for the vow is totally 
not.  It makes the biggest climax in HP history--right up there with 
PoA--into something that sounds like it's only there to get to the climax 
instead of coming out of the character.

If we'd seen Snape taking risk after risk like this and this is the one that 
finally brought him down, that would reflect on his character, but this is a 
first.  If Snape made a fatal mistake because of his resentment or not 
believing Harry or Sirius, that would make sense.  But Snape's not about 
this, imo.  He's at home with vows in general, oh yes.  But vows that have 
lifelong consequences.  I think of all characters in canon Snape's one of 
the last one's who'd take a vow for any other reason than he felt it was his 
inescapable duty to do the task that came with it.

-m






From foodiedb at optonline.net  Mon Mar 13 04:23:05 2006
From: foodiedb at optonline.net (David)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 04:23:05 -0000
Subject: Portkey in GOF
Message-ID: <dv2s39+s555@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149524

Hi all,
Once again, I am sorry if this has been covered, but if not:  I was 
wondering why Crouch/Moody went through all of that trouble to have 
Harry go through the tournament and then make the Goblet the portkey.  
Why didn't he, for example, just make Harry's toothbrush or pillow the 
portkey?
Thanks,
David








From foodiedb at optonline.net  Mon Mar 13 04:24:45 2006
From: foodiedb at optonline.net (David)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 04:24:45 -0000
Subject: Who calls Voldemort "Lord"
Message-ID: <dv2s6d+rin8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149525

I thought I recalled reading that only deatheaters called Voldermort 
LORD Voldemort.  Is that true?  Because I thought Dumbledore did it 
once or twice.

David









From sopraniste at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 13 04:46:36 2006
From: sopraniste at yahoo.com (Maria Holub)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 20:46:36 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who calls Voldemort "Lord"
In-Reply-To: <dv2s6d+rin8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060313044636.63797.qmail@web35608.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149526



--- David <foodiedb at optonline.net> wrote:

> I thought I recalled reading that only deatheaters
> called Voldermort 
> LORD Voldemort.  Is that true?  Because I thought
> Dumbledore did it 
> once or twice.

Flop:
The Death Eaters don't call Voldemort ANYTHING
Voldemort! They call him "The Dark Lord". The only
people who use the name Voldemort seem to be
Dumbledore, Harry, and a few select other Good Guys
(forgive me for not combing my books at the moment for
all the names, I think you get the picture.)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Mon Mar 13 05:33:49 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 05:33:49 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore asking Harry to kill (Was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dv2eig+d04p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv307t+bq11@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149527

Nora:
> But if Dumbledore's statement to Harry that *Harry* must kill is 
> brought into question, as I think it's going to be, I'm not unsure 
> that his hypothetical statement of the same to Snape wouldn't be, 
> too.  After all, consistency is a small virtue, but a virtue 
> nonetheless.

Jen: Wouldn't that be ex-post facto for the tower, though? If JKR is 
going for Dumbledore's beliefs during the year or even in that 
moment on the tower, Harry would have to revisit the tower not once, 
but twice: Once to discover the information he missed in the first 
place, and again to realize his first and second conclusions were 
wrong.  Why not just go for consistency already in the text? 
Dumbledore held a belief which likely wasn't palatable to everyone 
in Potterverse, including perhaps Snape himself, and yet Dumbledore 
didn't abandon his belief when the moment arrived to face the music. 
It's simple, clear, and consistent with Dumbledore's beliefs so far. 

He could be *wrong* and Harry could learn that and move past him and 
the prophecy, but it wouldn't change the tower from the Dumbledore's 
perspective in time. 

Nora:
> Could JKR be retaining our impression of Dumbledore's essential 
> goodness and nobility but deconstructing the facade of Lawgiver
> from on High?  I certainly think she started that in OotP and kept
> the flame very much alive in HBP, when she didn't have to.  It
> doesn't make him a 'bad person', but it does put a lot of
> complication into the usual Wise Old Mentor archetype to have him
> foul up in ways corrected by the younger generation.

Jen: Maybe, I wouldn't rule it out. I think it more likely Harry 
will discover Dumbledore was wrong, and somehow Dumbledore-from-
beyond-the-Veil will rejoice with him in that error. No matter what 
happened on the tower, or what happens with Harry's defeat of 
Voldemort, Dumbledore would much rather murder not be a part of 
anyone's life.

Nora:
> If the denoument is not centered around that principle, after
> we've been explicitly prepared for it, it would undercut it.  That 
> undercutting is a strong possibility, at least from where I'm 
> sitting.  YMMV.  While there are times we've been shown that it's
> a noble thing to die, I can't think of any situation so far where 
> *killing* has been put into the same category.  That may have been 
> the Tower, but it's hardly settled yet.
> 
> -Nora hopes for something nice and elegant above all


Jen: Not settled, no. Noble isn't the word that springs to my mind, 
though. 'Necessary' perhaps, a 'worst-case scenario', 'very 
unfortunate' to paraphrase Dumbledore. Still, if it served a crucial 
purpose in Dumbledore's mind, then I believe he would ask for the 
world. That's where the limit of my mileage is, that Dumbledore saw 
some reason he might benefit Harry or the situation at large by his 
death. If he didn't think that, if he dearly wanted to help Harry 
find and destroy the horcruxes and Snape was saving himself at the 
expense of Harry, then my interest in Snapey will dwindle to 
nothingness and I'll savor the other parts of the story.

I mean, there's *something* in the story JKR is concerned about when 
she mentions she may lose all her readers or have only 6 people 
reading by the end (as if). Maybe it's this, maybe not, but when I 
put myself in her shoes trying to sort out the tower, it *will* be 
divisive if internet fandom is any indication of readership at large 
(or would we be a skewed sample?!?). She gave us fair warning.

Jen, who wants nice and elegant as well, but recognizes the 
utilitarian problem of her nice and elegant looking different from 
Nora's.






From tifflblack at earthlink.net  Mon Mar 13 05:35:29 2006
From: tifflblack at earthlink.net (Tiffany Black)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 21:35:29 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Portkey in GOF
In-Reply-To: <dv2s39+s555@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <E1FIfi6-0005hM-F1@smtpauth07.mail.atl.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 149528

David:
Hi all,
Once again, I am sorry if this has been covered, but if not:  I was
wondering why Crouch/Moody went through all of that trouble to have Harry go
through the tournament and then make the Goblet the portkey.  
Why didn't he, for example, just make Harry's toothbrush or pillow the
portkey?
Thanks,

Tiffany:
Lol. Well, the simple answer is, because the book would have been extremely
short. The more complex answer is maybe Voldemort had to take a complex
potion to regenerate, and it took a year to brew, or what if he had to take
a bunch of less complex potions that had a cumulative effect that took most
of a year to take effect?





Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/HBF_Text__MUST
_READ

Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from
posts to which you're replying!
 
Yahoo! Groups Links



 







From tifflblack at earthlink.net  Mon Mar 13 05:40:24 2006
From: tifflblack at earthlink.net (Tiffany Black)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 21:40:24 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who calls Voldemort "Lord"
In-Reply-To: <dv2s6d+rin8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <E1FIfmr-00082q-Tp@smtpauth07.mail.atl.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 149529

David:
I thought I recalled reading that only deatheaters called Voldermort LORD
Voldemort.  Is that true?  Because I thought Dumbledore did it once or
twice.

Tiffany:
You're on the right track, but wrong name. The death eaters call Voldemort
"The Dark Lord" which makes me wonder what was up with Rita Skeeter. Was she
being controlled by Voldemort in GOF or what? But you're right. Dumbledore,
Harry, Sirius, Lupin, and Hermione after the fifth year,  are, I believe,
the only five people who use Voldemort's name.






Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/HBF_Text__MUST
_READ

Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from
posts to which you're replying!
 
Yahoo! Groups Links



 







From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 13 06:08:15 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 06:08:15 -0000
Subject: Portkey in GOF
In-Reply-To: <dv2s39+s555@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv328f+t5m5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149530

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "David" <foodiedb at ...> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> Once again, I am sorry if this has been covered, but if not:  I 
was 
> wondering why Crouch/Moody went through all of that trouble to 
have 
> Harry go through the tournament and then make the Goblet the 
portkey.  Why didn't he, for example, just make Harry's toothbrush 
or pillow the portkey?

Tonks:
I was under the impression that just as you can not apparate out of 
Hogwarts you also can not transport out via a portkey either. The 
only reason the goblet portkey worked was because DD had make it 
into one that would have transported the winner out of the mass. I 
assume that because DD lowered the defenses to allow for that one 
object to be a portkey that this was the only object that 
Crouch/Moody could use. And he just changed the location of 
transport, which for some reason bypassed any defense system that 
should have been in place to prevent a change of location. 

I could be wrong, but that is my take on it.

Tonks_op






From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Mon Mar 13 06:54:27 2006
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 06:54:27 -0000
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape.
In-Reply-To: <4414A805.6040207@visualnet.com.br>
Message-ID: <dv34v3+44vs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149531

Ana <anabenevides at ...> wrote:

> I'm very keen to believe that
> Dumbledore faked his death

Why? Why would you even want that? All the drama in the final
confrontation between Harry and Voldemort that we all know is coming
in the last book would be sucked out if we knew the only wizard
Voldemort ever feared was alive and well and ready to take over if
Harry failed. No, Harry must defeat Voldemort without a wizard of
Dumbledore's caliber to help him. For dramatic reasons Dumbledore must
be dead meat.

And another thing, let's forget about that vow for a moment because
something else that happened in chapter 2 that proves Snape is a
villain, he said he helped provide information that caused the death
of Sirius Black. If that wasn't true why did he say it? How did he
expect to get away with a lie about it to the two people who know more
about the incident than anyone else on Earth? Kreature went to
Narcissa and told her secret stuff about Sirius, and Bellatrix was the
one who actually killed him. Snape would be a fool to say that if it
wasn't true. 

Eggplant











From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Mar 13 07:40:51 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 07:40:51 -0000
Subject: Portkey in GOF
In-Reply-To: <dv328f+t5m5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv37m3+jhd6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149532

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" <tonks_op at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "David" <foodiedb@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> > Once again, I am sorry if this has been covered, but if not:  I 
> was 
> > wondering why Crouch/Moody went through all of that trouble to 
> have 
> > Harry go through the tournament and then make the Goblet the 
> portkey.  Why didn't he, for example, just make Harry's toothbrush 
> or pillow the portkey?
> 
> Tonks:
> I was under the impression that just as you can not apparate out of 
> Hogwarts you also can not transport out via a portkey either. The 
> only reason the goblet portkey worked was because DD had make it 
> into one that would have transported the winner out of the mass. I 
> assume that because DD lowered the defenses to allow for that one 
> object to be a portkey that this was the only object that 
> Crouch/Moody could use. And he just changed the location of 
> transport, which for some reason bypassed any defense system that 
> should have been in place to prevent a change of location. 
> 
> I could be wrong, but that is my take on it.

Geoff:
This opinion has been expressed on a number of occasions except that there has been a 
general view that Crouch!Moody didn't change the location but added an intermediate 
stop, the thought being that, having killed Harry, Voldemort would take great pleasure in 
returning the body to Hogwarts via Dumbledore's original setting.






From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 13 00:35:19 2006
From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 00:35:19 -0000
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <dv1pho+b6bl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv2eo7+36u2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149533

Jen wrote:
> I think that interview in TIME when JKR talked about father figures
>  and evil flourishing where fathers are bad or absent is fertile
> ground for growing Snape's motivations. It's certainly connected to a
> major theme and would place Snape in the already crowded room of
> abandoned sons, but as the only one who found an acceptable father
> substitute on the Right side.



If you go further with the DD as Snape's father figure thinking, I 
think it may be a factor in Snape's feelings towards Harry -- Harry, 
not Snape, is DD's favorite, Harry, not Snape, is the one with the 
power to vanquish LV, Harry, not Snape, is the one who gets all the 
glory and attention, etc.


"steven1965aaa"






From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 13 07:48:44 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 07:48:44 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore asking Harry to kill (Was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dv307t+bq11@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv384s+evdd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149534

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" <stevejjen at ...> wrote:
> 
> I mean, there's *something* in the story JKR is concerned about when 
> she mentions she may lose all her readers or have only 6 people 
> reading by the end (as if). Maybe it's this, maybe not, but when I 
> put myself in her shoes trying to sort out the tower, it *will* be 
> divisive if internet fandom is any indication of readership at large 
> (or would we be a skewed sample?!?). She gave us fair warning.

Tonks now:
I think that the reason some might be upset with the final ending is 
that it will be very evident to all that these are and have been all 
along books about the Gospel of Christ. As someone with a degree in 
Religious Studies I see it clearly in every book.  When the 
fundementalist find out that she has written Christ as an old wizard, 
they are going to be even more upset than they are about the whole 
witchcraft thing.  JKR will have to go hind out with the Danish 
cartoonist. Some will put her in the catagory with C.S. Lewis and other 
will want to linch her. Some non-christians will be angry that she has 
smuggled the Gospel into the schools and into their homes and hearts. 
Some will feel that they have been had. Hopefully not a vast number, 
but some will not be happy when they find out the truth of what she has 
been writing.


To answer Nora:
When DD talks to Harry in the broom closet and seems proud of him for 
saying that he will take out LV and as many DE as possible, I think 
what DD is applauding is Harry's courage and determination, not the 
method of vanquishing LV. And when Harry ask later if he has to kill LV 
and DD answers, does he say "yes" or one of his "it would seem so" type 
answers? Because I too would be very surprised if Harry kills anyone. 
He doesn't have it in him to do that and that is not the theme of the 
books.

Now some have said that C.S. Lewis, while telling a Christian story, 
has his young heroes kill. I really don't think that JKR is going to go 
there. This is a different era and the concept of a just war is a bit 
different today, at least in some circles.

Tonks_op







From cherylcsalem at woh.rr.com  Mon Mar 13 02:51:50 2006
From: cherylcsalem at woh.rr.com (cherylcsalem)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 02:51:50 -0000
Subject: Jkr's website and other thoughts
Message-ID: <dv2mo6+cklb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149535

I just read the post from Victoria Scott. I got cold chills after I 
read that. I agree I think Harry Ron Hermione and Neville definitely
have something to do with the six Gryffindor's. I can't really see Ginny 
Lupin or pro. McGonagal being involved. As for the slytherins, I can see 
Draco Snape and Slughorn.  I also agree with the post about 
Ravenclaws's heir being Luna. I love Luna. And I think that would be 
dandy as well!  

Now as far as Tonk's being in the castle up on the 
7th. floor, I thought that was funny also. However, Didn't DD say he 
had people patrol the hallways when he left the school? Maybe that's 
what she was doing? Just a thought.  Also I am new here and this is my 
forst post.  I love the books and enjoy reading everyone's thoughts.  
Forgive any misspellings, my mind goes faster than I can type.


"cherylcsalem"





From bawilson at citynet.net  Mon Mar 13 04:38:48 2006
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 23:38:48 -0500
Subject: Entailment
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAA9KebyVN+KEuNdh96PxQc5AEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 149536

Nikkalmati:
"If the  house were entailed (a la Jane Austin) the inheritance would go UP 
the family  tree as far as necessary to find a living male descendent.  Draco 
would be  cut off as he can't inherit through his mother. Harry would be 
eligible assuming  Charlus is his ancestor."

It depends on how the original entailment grant were worded.  Some entailments
will pass only in male line; some will pass to the eldest daughter and her
descentants if there are no sons; some will pass to a male heir in the female
line (that is, if there are only daughters, when the father dies the property
will be held in trust until one of them produces a son--there have been cases of
estates being so entrusted for two or three generations until SOMEone gives
birth to a son [e.g., if the youngest daughter of the youngest daughter produces
a son ahead of all her sisters and aunts, the property immediately reverts to
the baby.)  

 
BAW





From siddhu1616 at yahoo.co.in  Mon Mar 13 05:02:44 2006
From: siddhu1616 at yahoo.co.in (s d)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 05:02:44 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Portkey in GOF
In-Reply-To: <dv2s39+s555@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060313050244.95549.qmail@web8902.mail.in.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149537


David <foodiedb at optonline.net> wrote:
> I was wondering why Crouch/Moody went through all of that trouble
> to have Harry go through the tournament and then make the Goblet
> the portkey. Why didn't he, for example, just make Harry's 
> toothbrush or pillow the portkey?

s d:
1. No teacher except head of house can enter in dormitory.
2. No one could make portkey without permission of headmaster as 
walls of Hogwarts are protected by more than just wall!









From sonjamccartCPA at verizon.net  Mon Mar 13 05:47:35 2006
From: sonjamccartCPA at verizon.net (sonjaartemisia)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 05:47:35 -0000
Subject: Portkey in GOF
In-Reply-To: <dv2s39+s555@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv311n+5tuh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149538

David wrote:
> <snip> I was wondering why Crouch/Moody went through all of that 
> trouble to have Harry go through the tournament and then make the 
> Goblet the portkey.  Why didn't he, for example, just make Harry's 
> toothbrush or pillow the portkey?


I am sure I read this somewhere, but I can't remember who to give 
credit for this idea.  It has been suggested that Voldemort's intent 
was to use the portkey to return with his deatheaters to the Triwizard 
Tournament... what a surprise that would be.

Sonja








From anabenevides at visualnet.com.br  Mon Mar 13 06:07:16 2006
From: anabenevides at visualnet.com.br (Ana)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 03:07:16 -0300
Subject: Portkey in GOF
In-Reply-To: <1142224145.2141.35241.m35@yahoogroups.com>
References: <1142224145.2141.35241.m35@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <44150C14.4090209@visualnet.com.br>

No: HPFGUIDX 149539

David:
> <snip> I was wondering why Crouch/Moody went through all of that 
> trouble to have Harry go through the tournament and then make the 
> Goblet the portkey.  Why didn't he, for example, just make Harry's 
> toothbrush or pillow the portkey?


Ana:
I can only guess. Perhaps he figured that if Harry had gone missing in 
an ordinary day, Dumbledore wouldve known or suspected that something 
odd had happened and could have tried to rescue him. That would make 
things harder to LV (specially if he still didnt have a suitable body 
of his own). 
I think that by making the Cup the portkey, he guaranteed that no one 
would go looking for Harry for a few hours, because they didnt know 
what was going on inside the maze, so they simply wouldnt assume 
anything was wrong.







From vuurdame at xs4all.nl  Mon Mar 13 12:31:02 2006
From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 12:31:02 -0000
Subject: Snape again
In-Reply-To: <due3gu+8tk2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv3om6+vpg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149540

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" <rdoliver30 at ...> wrote:

> Okay, that's fine.  But why would this be so much worse than other 
> possibilities?  I mean, I grant that it would be incredibly cheesy.  
> But I don't see why that would be any more cheesy than a dozen other 
> scenarios that got frequently batted around -- like an intricate plot 
> between DD and Snape or some kind of legilimency conversation on the 
> tower or a DDM!Snape writhing in agony over having to kill his mentor 
> on the tower.  Highly cheesy and faintly ludicrous all, but no more or 
> less so than the "Harry's eyes" scenario.
> 
> 
> Lupinlore
>
Because I want something original, something I could not predict, or
something I would have thougth too unlikely to be written believably.
Not something I could see coming books and books before.

Gerry







From mgrantwich at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 13 14:43:05 2006
From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 06:43:05 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione must be stopped, ...-Hermione's Crimes
In-Reply-To: <dv2e29+e0s2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060313144305.91053.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149541

> bboyminn:
> 
> Once again both Betsy and Magda are selectively missing the point.
> The
> point is about 'right' and 'wrong'. I'm saying that Hermione doing
> the
>  'right' thing with respect to the law and Rita is infinitely more
> devestating that Hernione doing the 'wrong' thing. The point is
> about
> motivation to action, not the results of the action.


I have no idea what point I'm missing as I didn't post anything about
Hermione and Rita Skeeter.  I merely pointed out that Quirrell was
stymied in front of the Mirror of Erised at the climax of PS/SS
before Harry got there.

Magda 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From elfundeb at gmail.com  Mon Mar 13 14:47:56 2006
From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 09:47:56 -0500
Subject: Hermione's Crimes and Punishments
Message-ID: <80f25c3a0603130647m7464d7daxb3a0498830de8a57@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149542

Catherine wrote:
 I think people are reading WAY too much into her behaviors as needing to be
punished. Whereas I agree that she has some faults that lead her into unwise
actions, she is also far from needing to be punished. This isn't real-life.
And the rules seem a little more blurry in the WW. All Rita would have to do
is to go an register herself as an animagus, and she could go on writing,
despite what Hermione says, since Hermione would have nothing on her
anymore. Rita has remained unemployed for over a year by her own CHOICE not
to register herself as an animagus.

As for Marietta, I think JKR wanted us to see just how good Hermione is at
jinxing people.


Debbie:
I think just about everything has already been said about the rightness or
wrongness of Hermione's actions.  My contribution (dating back to the middle
ages of this list) is here:

 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/messages/81788?xm=1&m=s
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/82355
(apologies to anyone who tries to read this; these are not short)

But I do find the notion of comeuppance quite interesting.  With Rita
Skeeter, with Marietta and to some extent Umbridge (though in that case all
Hermione did was lure Umbridge into the forest, allowing Umbridge to dig her
own grave with her half-breed comments), Hermione is acting as an agent of
comeuppance.  In my mind, there are two issues:

1.  How comfortable are we with JKR's use of Hermione as an agent of
comeuppance/punishment.

2.  Whether Hermione's manipulativeness has reached the point where she
should, or will, get any comeuppance.

Taking the first question first, I am quite uncomfortable with Hermione as
instrument of vengeance, but that's to be expected, of course, since I
dislike comeuppance as a rule.  I don't find the Twins very funny when they
engage in it (though I've acknowledged time and again that I believe JKR
means it to be funny).  Yet using Hermione for this purpose raises the
stakes a bit.  Hermione is a main character and her primary function is
*not* comic relief.

I suspect if we polled the list, the same people who are troubled with
Hermione's vigilanteism were troubled by, for example, the Ton-Tongue Toffee
incident.  We never resolved that one, and we aren't going to resolve this
one either.

So, on to question 2.  In OOP, I would describe Hermione as suffering from,
paradoxically, an excess of success (almost to the point of becoming
a Hermione Sue) while using questionable means.   Shutting down Rita
Skeeter's livelihood.  Permanently disfiguring Marietta.  Because of her
phenomenal success in OOP, I expected a spectacular failure in HBP, because
nobody can be *that* successful, even if she does everything right.

After HBP, I began to wonder if Hermione already *had* her moment
comeuppance out there in the Forbidden Forest facing the wrath of the
centaurs.  Because it was a short-lived failure, since Grawp came to save
the day, and of course it immediately followed her success with Umbridge,
her failure is easy to miss.

However, in HBP we see a more chastened Hermione.  She has lost her
overconfidence.  She's still manipulative, as her Confundus on McLaggen
shows, but she's less successful on the whole.  Harry challenges her on the
Confundus, and her attempt to make Ron jealous is a complete failure.

In addition, she seems unnerved by Harry's success at potions, even though
she knows it's a result of the secret tips in his book.  Perhaps her
determination to stick to the official instructions ultimately begins to
undermine her confidence in books.  And when she accuses Harry of not
thinking girls are as clever as boys (HBP ch. 25) appears to be a victim of
typical female self-doubts that often arise in the teen years as girls get a
better understanding of how male-centered the world really is.  She has also
abandoned her attempts to free the house elves, which can be read as further
evidence that she's questioning herself, her cleverness, and her efficacy.

All this adds up to a Hermione that seems a lot different from the
overconfident and successful Hermione we saw in OOP.  This appears to be a
step backwards, but I see it as part of a growth process that will result in
a Book 7 Hermione who is much better prepared to give Harry the help he
needs in Book 7.

Having once been a sixteen-year-old girl wracked with self-doubt, I think
Hermione's HBP experience was punishment enough.

Debbie
who thinks Hermione should turn her talents to developing an antidote for
Marietta, who also has had punishment enough for her crime


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




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Mar 13 14:49:09 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 14:49:09 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore as Christ?/Defecting Draco?
Message-ID: <dv40p5+lelb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149543

Tonks wrote:
"Now I hear you asking `how can DD not be Jesus and yet be seen as Christ?' My answer to 
that is that DD is the human who has been transformed
 or more specific to the books 
"transfigured" into the image of Christ. There is a concept in Christianity which is that each 
of us can be transformed into Christ. Jesus is one thing, Christ is another. Some people 
think that Christ was Jesus' last name but that is not correct. Jesus was "the Christ".

Geoff:
I feel that I cannot fully agree with this; I speak from the standpoint of an evangelical 
Christian (but not a fundamentalist). I believe that no human (or wizard) can be seen /as/ 
Christ or can be transformed into Christ. We can be /like/ Christ; that is what a true 
Christian strives towards. Paul, writing in the letter to the Romans chapter 12 says "Do not 
conform any longer to the pattern of this world but be transformed by the renewing of 
your mind." This is not being transformed into Christ but adapting our thinking and 
outlook to what God wants in our life ? and this is where Dumbledore can echo Christian 
experience.

How do I see Dumbledore? Let me refer to the Bible again. Mark, who wrote the second of 
the Gospels, was a young man, possibly even a teenager at the time of Jesus. His mother 
was an early follower and he must have met Jesus. There is an event recorded in Mark's 
Gospel and nowhere else which is of interest. When Jesus was arrested, Mark chapter 14, 
verse 51 notes: "A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. 
When they seized him, he fled naked, leaving his garment behind." This is often 
interpreted as an autobiographical reference since very few other people would have been 
aware of this occurrence in the midst of the confusion of that night.

It was accepted by the early church, whose members were still close enough to the events, 
that Mark was a close friend of Peter and that his account was written from the oral 
evidence and standpoint of that disciple. Certainly, its insights into what Peter did and 
thought ? including his blunders ? seem to bear this out. So I see Peter as being a mentor 
to the younger Mark, guiding him on his way in his faith. 

This is how I see Dumbledore. He has acted as a mentor ? both overtly and covertly ? to 
Harry as he grows up and moves from the na?ve First Year to the blossoming young man 
who witnessed his death. Harry, in a sense like Mark, takes over the torch but as someone 
who is an everyman in Christian terms, going through life like today's believers (myself 
included); often wandering off the road but knowing in which direction he wants to go.

***
Moving on to a different topic, there has been a lot of discussion over the months as to 
who, on Harry's side, might turn traitor and defect to the dark side. I often wonder if there 
will be a counter-defection from Voldermort to the Wizarding World's side. This sort of 
situation is not unknown in fiction, or real life for that matter. Those of you who follow my 
ramblings will know that I have a (surprising) weak spot for Draco. I have often written that 
I believe he is not irredeemable and this came back to me when Nikkalmati made reference 
to this in message 149494. I feel that we were seeing the beginning of an epiphany in 
respect of his world view when he confronted Dumbledore on the tower at the end of HBP 
? another of a series of happening which would cause him to think. Since I have been 
writing in Biblical terms, I would again do so and refer to the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, 
who became St.Paul. OK, he was a lot older than Draco but he came up against events 
which challenged his point of view. He was a Pharisee, highly trained in the Jewish 
Scriptures, who set out to stop early Christians by any method. The turning point seems to 
have come when he witnessed the death of Stephen and it was soon afterwards that he 
had his experience of meeting Christ on the road to Damascus. Taking the line of parallels 
between real Christian experience and the event of the Harry Potter books, I would like to 
see something happen to young Mr.Malfoy and would also be interested to know whether 
there are other candidates who members of the group feel might be put forward to be 
"turned" to the good.








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 13 15:39:37 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 15:39:37 -0000
Subject: Jkr's website and other thoughts
In-Reply-To: <dv2mo6+cklb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv43np+mn1t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149544

cherylcsalem wrote:>
> <snip> I agree I think Harry Ron Hermione and Neville definitely
have something to do with the six Gryffindor's. I can't really see
Ginny  Lupin or pro. McGonagal being involved. As for the slytherins,
I can see Draco Snape and Slughorn.  I also agree with the post about
 Ravenclaws's heir being Luna. <snip>

Carol responds:
Mere speculation, of course, but I think the Gryffindors will be Harry
(of course), with the same four who have helped him in the last two
books, Ron, Hermione, Neville, and Ginny. If the final battle takes
place at Hogwarts, which I don't think it will, the Gryffindor adult
will be McGonagall. If it takes place at the MoM, which is more
likely, it will be Lupin (who, BTW, I expect will die). It could,
however, be Peter Pettigrew, paying his life debt, but I think that
will happen earlier. For the Slytherins, I don't see anyone but
Slughorn and maybe Theo Nott (CrabbnGoyle? Not likely!)if it takes
place at Hogwarts, but definitely Snape and Draco, and possibly Theo
(who's in the book for a reason) if it's at the MoM. Poor little Luna,
I fear, will have contributed her intuitive brilliance toward the
finding of the Ravenclaw Horcrux and then been killed (she's not among
the birthday people on JKR's website, as she ought to be as one of the
two loyal DA members who's not in Harry's immediate circle or a
Weasley). I don't think Luna is Ravenclaw's heir, exactly, but I
suspect a connection between her and Ollivander, given the silvery
eyes. (How common a trait is that?)

cherylcsalem wrote: 
> Now as far as Tonk's being in the castle up on the 7th. floor, I
thought that was funny also. However, Didn't DD say he had people
patrol the hallways when he left the school? Maybe that's what she was
doing? Just a thought. <snip>

Carol responds:
I think Tonks was watching Harry in one of the Order's invisibility
cloaks and didn't want Harry to know. She pops up suddenly twice, or
actually three times if you count the train incident, here and in
Hogsmeade when Harry catches Dungbeetle with the stolen goods. I think
 she did want to talk to Dumbledore about the recent murder of a
five-year-old boy by Fenrir Greyback (possibly she thought Lupin's
assignment was too dangerous?) but she must have known he wasn't there
and that she was nowhere near his office, which had been in the same
tower when she was in school a few years before. So a lie with a grain
of truth (where have we seen that tactic before?)--and she's not at
her sharpest because her mind is elsewhere. But, yes, I do think she's
patrolling the hallways and doesn't want Harry to know. I guess Remus
hasn't told her about the Marauder's Map.

Carol






From mgrantwich at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 13 15:41:16 2006
From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 07:41:16 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What possessed Peter to restore Voldemort? (Was: Trusting Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dv2n5d+ma5m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060313154116.88223.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149545


> SSSusan:
> This is a very fascinating take on Peter, imo.  It would be kind of
> satisfying, I think, to discover a Peter who is this STRONG (in a 
> way), a person who actually has THOUGHT about what he wants and how
> to get it, rather than just the cowardly, weak, wimpering follower 
> he seems to be so much of the time.  
> 
> Yes, interesting indeed.
> 
> The one question which comes to mind, though, is how would you 
> explain Wormtail's attempt (I think that's an okay work to use to 
> classify it) to get Voldy to use someone else's blood in the 
> rebirthing -- that it didn't *have* to be Harry's?  I've always 
> taken that as an attempt on Wormtail's part to, perhaps, get 
> himself "unindebted" to Harry.  But maybe it was something else?  
> 
> Can you think of a way this action on Wormtail's part could fit
> with the man you've described?


There could be three reasons for it:  

1.  Peter is uneasily aware of the Life Debt and would prefer not to
have any contact with Harry at all.  

2.  Peter is a little concerned that Voldemort's tendency to go for
the Grand Symbolic Gesture might be more trouble than it's worth.
Using someone else would accomplish the same end with a lot less
fuss. (And in hindsight, Peter was right.)  This concern depends more
on logistics than on any kind of personal feeling.  

3.  A (very) small residue of guilt over the betrayal of James and
Lily, especially after meeting Harry, who is the incarnation of his
father, face to face - much different from observing him from his
rat-form.

Or - more likely - a combination of all three.

I don't think Peter spends a lot of time looking back or examining
his motivations.  Other people don't mean much to him - he's almost
as cold as Voldemort that way.  He's almost moving on to the next
situation he can manipulate, scurrying like a rat from garbage can to
garbage can.  It's nothing personal, anyone would do the same thing,
it's not his fault, etc. etc.

That's my take.

Magda

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From mgrantwich at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 13 15:50:16 2006
From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 07:50:16 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What possessed Peter to restore Voldemort? (Was: Trusting Snape) - correction
In-Reply-To: <20060313154116.88223.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20060313155016.50186.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149546

--- Magda Grantwich <mgrantwich at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Other people don't mean much to him - he's almost
> as cold as Voldemort that way.  He's almost moving on to the next
> situation he can manipulate, scurrying like a rat from garbage can
> to garbage can.  

Sorry: that should read "He's ALWAYS moving on to the next
situation..."

Carry on.

Magda (insisting that this is a freebie and doesn't count towards the
daily three posts)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 13 14:25:58 2006
From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 14:25:58 -0000
Subject: Portkey in GOF
In-Reply-To: <dv311n+5tuh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv3vdm+2at3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149547

> Sonja <sonjamccartCPA at ...> wrote:
> <snip> It has been suggested that Voldemort's intent was to use 
> the portkey to return with his deatheaters to the Triwizard 
> Tournament...what a surprise that would be.


Steven:
I don't think that theory works.  In the beginning of OOP when Siruis 
is explaining things to Harry he says that Harry ruined Voldemort's 
plan by surviving and telling Dumbledore that Voldemort had returned, 
and that Voldemort wanted to keep it a secret.









From pegdigrazia at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 13 14:49:54 2006
From: pegdigrazia at yahoo.com (Peg DiGrazia)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 06:49:54 -0800 (PST)
Subject: The cave
In-Reply-To: <duv43v+idfi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060313144954.90510.qmail@web42206.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149548

Lorac44444:
>>Any thoughts on what happened to the two children Tom Riddle 
>>took to the cave? Anyone think this is worth pursuing?

Peg:
  I've always been curious about this, too.  My immediate reaction was that there was some sort of molestation involved, but considering that Tom was only 10 years old at the time, that seems unlikely.  He may have simply loved the thrill and the power of terrorizing those poor kids, but I still think there's more to it.  Hopefully we'll find out in the final book!








From vuurdame at xs4all.nl  Mon Mar 13 15:56:24 2006
From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 15:56:24 -0000
Subject: Is Snape good or evil?
In-Reply-To: <du6q9i+bkbt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv44n8+g25f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149549

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:

> Pippin:
> I hate to let the facts get in the way of a good story, much less a good
> argument. But barring Flints, it's conclusive  that an Unforgivable
Curse didn't
> kill Dumbledore (and thanks, Nora, for pointing out the thematic
significance
> of that.) The closed eyes and the blood are facts on the ground.
Literally.  
> The BANG on the tower has been undermined already, by JKR herself. 

Well, Harry came late on the scene so somebody might have closed the
eyes. And for the blood, I always assumed that this was a JKR mistake
and not a clue. 

Gerry, way way behind with reading






From mgrantwich at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 13 16:15:41 2006
From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 08:15:41 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's half truths in "Spinner's End"
In-Reply-To: <003c01c645eb$d8f5b410$1c9e400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <20060313161541.10690.qmail@web53112.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149550

>>Magda:
>>He doesn't know what he's talking about but he THINKS he does.  
>>This is how the DADA curse plays out for Snape: the curse brings 
>>out the worst in each DADA professor in the series.  What's "the 
>>worst" in Snape? His tendency to jump to conclusions.

>Magpie:
>Oh.  So this is a slightly different scenario.  Snape isn't trying 
>to get information from Bella and Cissy; he's not bluffing when he 
>thinks he knows the task.  He just has the wrong idea about the 
>task.  We just never are never told what Snape thought he was vowing

>to do and how he found out otherwise.


Yes, that's basically my view.  Although I would say that he found
out otherwise when he emerged at the top of the tower and a DE said
"The boy doesn't seem able to..." and Dumbledore was the only target
in sight.  


>>Magda:
>>IMO Snape never did know what Draco's task was - not until the very

>>climax of the book at the top of the tower. He spent all year 
>>assuming that Draco's task was to kill HARRY and then trying to
keep
>>the two of them apart so that Draco wouldn't have the chance.

>Magpie:
>Ah!  There's the story, though we're still not told it in canon.  I 
>can't honestly say I see any evidence for this in the book.  There 
>are no scenes of Snape actively keeping Harry and Draco apart that I

>can remember, and Harry's following Draco around, not vice versa. 
>You'd think if he was watching them Snape would notice that.  And 
>notice that the bottle of poisoned wine was supposed to be for DD.  
>Harry doesn't even drink wine.


Well, Snape goes down to the gates to pick up Harry when he's late
for the feast - to check out what happened, I'm sure.  He also gives
Harry a Saturday detention after the sectumsempra (sp?) incident
which keeps him off the quidditch pitch - another place that
"accidents" might happen.  Snape was also concerned - visibly - when
Draco was caught trying to crash Slughorn's Christmas party - a party
where Harry was present.  

He also gave detentions to Crabbe and Goyle, so that Draco's henchmen
weren't available to him if he was planning to ambush Harry. 
(Showing that Snape knows a lot about Draco's history of tactics.)

And I don't think the wine matters.  It was in Slughorn's office,
never left it.  Why should Snape assume that Draco would poison
anyone?  And for that matter, why would Snape assume that Draco had
anything to do with the necklace either?  Or if he did, why assume it
had anything to do with Harry?

Snape would have been looking for signs of the same tactics Draco had
used for years: ambush, assault, quidditch tricks.  


>>Magda:
>>And I think when he left Dumbledore pondered the situation, 
>>considered his own knowledge of Tom Riddle and came to the correct 
>>conclusion: that Voldemort wants to kill Harry himself and that the

>>subject of Draco's task was himself. And he decided not to tell 
>>Snape but let him go on thinking that Harry was the target.

>Magpie:
>Whoa!  The thing going on that we don't see at all is getting more 
>complicated.  Since we don't see any beats of this story, I don't 
>see how they really make up the plot of the book. So if Snape didn't

>realize what he was supposed to do until he's on the tower, you're 
>saying that he shows up and looks around, sees Draco there with the 
>DEs and DD, doesn't see Harry there, and then realizes who he's 
>supposed to kill according to the vow?


Yes, that's what I'm saying.


>Magpie
>I'm afraid I've got the same problem with this as I do to the 
>scenario where DD realizes here that Snape has betrayed him.  
>There's no moment of realization for Snape.  I don't recall him 
>having any change between looking around and striding forward, 
>knocking Draco out of the way.  I'd think he'd need a moment to 
>process the information he's been wrong all along.  A moment of 
>confusion and dawning understanding that he's got to kill this guy--
>and time to decide if he's going to.


Snape charges up to the Tower and finds Draco and three DE's with
Dumbledore.  He looks around - no visible Harry.  One of the DE's
says, "we've got a problem Snape, the boy doesn't seem able to -"  I
would submit that in that moment he realized who the target was.  At
the time, that DE's comment struck me as inserted specifically for a
purpose - and I deduce that the purpose for to inform Snape of
Draco's real target.

I don't think Snape would ever show confusion; he covers it up with
anger.

>>Magda:
>>And DD's stern warning that Snape had agreed to the Vow and would 
>>have to honour it probably shocked Snape who couldn't reconcile it 
>>with Dumbledore's apparent care for the boy.

>Magpie:
>Dangerous game that DD's playing there, giving Snape orders to kill 
>Harry Potter.  He's lucky Snape didn't fulfill that vow in a fit of 
>temper many times throughout the year. Another thing surprising 
>about it is that I'd expect Snape to be angrier than ever at Harry 
>if the vow was over him.  I think JKR would write in moments in 
>their interactions connected to Snape's vow.

Snape would never physically hurt a student, even Harry Potter.  I
doubt that Dumbledore ever lost a wink of sleep over that issue.  And
personally I don't see why Snape would hold it against Harry that
Snape got the wrong idea.  (Hold it against Draco - you betcha, but
that's a different issue.) He already dislikes Harry for plenty of
Harry-related stuff; this wouldn't qualify.

As for writing in moments of their interactions connected to the vow
- well, she didn't so there's not much we can do about it.

>zgirnius:
>This theory has some appeal for me, since the first time through the

>book, this is what *I* believed Draco's task to be. However, the 
>train scene disabused me of that notion. Draco had an opportunity to

>kill Harry offered him on a platter, and what did he do? He broke 
>his nose and left him on the train. I really think Snape must have 
>figured out that Harry was not Draco's target at this point as well.

Maybe not.  He might have figured that Harry had fended Draco off
(knowing that Draco's track record in beating Harry up hasn't been
exactly impressive) or that Draco was interupted.  

We have all seen how tenaciously Snape clings to a belief once he's
got it into his head.  I see no difference in this book.

Magda


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 13 16:24:47 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 16:24:47 -0000
Subject: Portkey in GOF
In-Reply-To: <44150C14.4090209@visualnet.com.br>
Message-ID: <dv46cf+5rsb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149551

David wrote:
> > <snip> I was wondering why Crouch/Moody went through all of that
trouble to have Harry go through the tournament and then make the
Goblet the portkey.  Why didn't he, for example, just make Harry's
toothbrush or pillow the portkey?
> 
> 
> Ana:
> I can only guess. Perhaps he figured that if Harry had gone missing
in an ordinary day, Dumbledore would?ve known or suspected that
something odd had happened and could have tried to rescue him. That
would make things harder to LV (specially if he still didn?t have a
suitable body of his own). I think that by making the Cup the portkey,
he guaranteed that no one would go looking for Harry for a few hours,
because they didn?t know what was going on inside the maze, so they
simply wouldn?t assume anything was wrong.
>
Carol responds:
That's the part I can never understand--how no one could know what was
going on in the maze. Why were they watching, then? Surely they at
least saw the lit wand tips and the lights from the various spells,
and certainly they saw the red sparks shot up when someone needed to
be rescued. And I would think that the glow of the TriWizard Cup in
the middle of the maze would be visible and everyone would have seen
it mysteriously disappear. Again, why have an audience if you can't se
*anything*? (And, as an aside, did anyone besides DD, Snape, Harry,
and McGonagall know that Krum had been under Imperius and cast a Crucio?)

As for the TWT cup (not the Goblet of Fire) being a portkey, I agree
with others that Dumbledore had been authorized to turn it into one to
get the winner out of the center of the maze--a nice thrill for the
audience at an otherwise rather dull event. Maybe the maze itself was
supposed to magically disappear at that point so that the losers
didn't have to struggle pointlessly toward the now cupless center.
(Really, the whole maze sequence doesn't seem very well thought out,
but maybe it's just me.) I also think that Crouch!Moody adding an
extra stop to an existing, and legal, portkey makes sense. Indequate
as the MoM is, surely they have ways of detecting illegal spells like
unauthorized port keys, even at Hogwarts.(?)

As for David's original question of why Crouch!Moody went to all that
trouble, I think Barty Jr. was proud of his cleverness and happy to
serve LV. The more elaborate the plan, the better he liked it, and
impersonating the eccentric DE-hating, hip flask-swigging Moody was
right up his alley. (Cool to have that magical eye, too, and an excuse
to cast Unforgiveable curses on students since his own father had
authorized the Aurors to use them--on DEs, but that little detail
wouldn't bother Barty, who in any case would have loved to Crucio DEs
who walked free, especially Severus Snape and Igor Karkaroff.) 

More important, Voldemort wanted Harry to appear at a specific time
and place. The place had to be the graveyard, where the bone dust was,
and the huge clay cauldron had to be there with the preliminary potion
(who knows what was in that--more unicorn blood and essence of
Nagini?) already boiling and sparkling. And Voldie is a drama
queen--he wanted as many people as possible to witness Harry's
disappearance--and quite possibly his own reappearance in front of
thousands at the TWT with the dead Chosen One in tow. How's that for a
dramatic return, especially if he considered himself invincible? And,
of course, he'd have brought some DEs along for the ride to kill as
many people as possible and create panic and mayhem. Much more
satisfactory than having Harry simply disappear.

IOW, what's important is not merely getting Harry to Voldemort to be
killed. It's first obtaining his blood for the potion and forcing him
to witness the rebirth and then summoning the DEs to witness Voldie's
triumph over the Boy Who Lived. So any old portkey would not do even
if Crouch!Moody could turn a piece of Harry's property into one
without detection. It had to be the TWT cup, which would get Harry to
the graveyard at exactly the right moment, with the cauldron waiting
for bone, blood, and flesh. And Crouch!Moody also had to insure that
Harry would be the winner of the tournament, a task that took him
almost the whole year. 

Carol, imagining poor Fleur winning the maze race and showing up alone
at the graveyard 






From belviso at attglobal.net  Mon Mar 13 17:38:11 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:38:11 -0000
Subject: Snape's half truths in "Spinner's End"
In-Reply-To: <20060313161541.10690.qmail@web53112.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dv4am3+1ij1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149553

Magda:

> Well, Snape goes down to the gates to pick up Harry when he's late
> for the feast - to check out what happened, I'm sure.  He also 
gives
> Harry a Saturday detention after the sectumsempra (sp?) incident
> which keeps him off the quidditch pitch - another place that
> "accidents" might happen.  Snape was also concerned - visibly - 
when
> Draco was caught trying to crash Slughorn's Christmas party - a 
party
> where Harry was present.  

> 
> He also gave detentions to Crabbe and Goyle, so that Draco's 
henchmen
> weren't available to him if he was planning to ambush Harry. 
> (Showing that Snape knows a lot about Draco's history of tactics.)

Magpie:
But I don't see these things as Snape following either boy around.  
He checks on Harry when he's already late--and after Draco's already 
had an opportunity to kill him.  The detentions also follow Harry 
being able to sneak up on Draco in a bathroom.  Giving detentions to 
C&G and being nervous to see Draco sneaking around are just generic 
Snape worry.  Snape makes Harry miss one Quidditch game, but Draco 
has been avoiding the matches anyway.

Of course, Draco was not caught trying to crash Slughorn's party and 
to me it seemed like Snape knew that.  Draco was caught sneaking to 
the RoR and was forcibly dragged into the party when he gave that to 
Filch as a cover story.

Snape probably does know Draco's tactics, so I'd think he'd notice, 
just as Harry does, that Draco is not using any of them this year.  
He's avoiding Harry.

In order to consider the theory that Snape thinks Draco is supposed 
to kill Harry, I need a scene in canon showing me this. A scene that 
can be explained by this idea best and most easily.  So far all of 
these scenes seem to just not quite support it.

Magda:
> 
> And I don't think the wine matters.  It was in Slughorn's office,
> never left it.  Why should Snape assume that Draco would poison
> anyone?  And for that matter, why would Snape assume that Draco had
> anything to do with the necklace either?  Or if he did, why assume 
it
> had anything to do with Harry?

> Snape would have been looking for signs of the same tactics Draco 
had
> used for years: ambush, assault, quidditch tricks.  

Magpie:
But Snape does think the necklace is Draco's doing--he asks him 
outright if it was.  He assumes he'd try to poison someone because 
he's trying to kill someone--something he's never done before.  And 
the wine is important because it's a murder attempt.  If Snape 
thinks Draco's attempting murder why wouldn't he consider that this, 
like the necklace, was Draco's doing?  And consider that with the 
wine, unlike the necklace, he knows who was supposed to get it?

That we know that Snape does immediately suspect Draco of the 
necklace caper proves that the assertion that Snape believes Draco 
would only resort to ambushes and Quidditch tricks is false.

Magda:
> Snape charges up to the Tower and finds Draco and three DE's with
> Dumbledore.  He looks around - no visible Harry.  One of the DE's
> says, "we've got a problem Snape, the boy doesn't seem able to -"  
I
> would submit that in that moment he realized who the target was. > 
I don't think Snape would ever show confusion; he covers it up with
> anger.

Magpie:

Yes, that would be the moment, but Snape's description doesn't seem 
to include any big realization.  Even if he's covering something up, 
we see him covering something up.  We'd see something rise and be 
smothered on his face.  This seems more like making the scene fit 
the idea rather than the scene naturally supporting it.  As you 
actually come out and describe here:

Magda:

> As for writing in moments of their interactions connected to the 
vow
> - well, she didn't so there's not much we can do about it.

Magpie:
That's totally backwards, imo.  We go by what she did write to 
conclude from that what's going on.  We don't decide what's going on 
and then assume it's the fault of the text for not backing us up.  
JKR's text actually does usually back us up.  To me it's one of the 
most constant characteristics of her writing.

-m







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Mar 13 17:40:08 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:40:08 -0000
Subject: Portkey in GOF
In-Reply-To: <dv2s39+s555@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv4apo+lnuu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149554

David:
> Hi all,
> Once again, I am sorry if this has been covered, but if not:  I was 
> wondering why Crouch/Moody went through all of that trouble to have 
> Harry go through the tournament and then make the Goblet the portkey.  
> Why didn't he, for example, just make Harry's toothbrush or pillow the 
> portkey?

Pippin:
If Harry just disappeared then everyone would immediately suspect 
Voldemort, even without corroborating evidence like Snape's dark mark.

According to Sirius, Voldemort didn't want that. He seems to have 
been prepared to plant a story that was easier and more comforting to 
believe than the truth: Harry entered the contest illegally and paid a
sad price for his folly. There was an acromantula in the maze and
maybe other known wizard killers too.

Since no one other than Crouch with his magical eye could see what 
was happening in the maze, a Death Eater  could 
have returned the portkey   for one of the other contestants to
find (Crouch being on hand to make sure that no one discovered it
missing in the meantime. ) The DE could then have been
smuggled out of Hogwarts by Crouch, or if it was Peter, could have
escaped in rat form.

I've always thought that the thousand spectators watching nothing in
particular in the maze and water trials was just JKR's way of taking
the mickey out of sports fans. 

Pippin







From bamf505 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 13 17:40:33 2006
From: bamf505 at yahoo.com (Metylda)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 09:40:33 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR's website
In-Reply-To: <700201d40603101853x35eb7371v5c78c38ac7a2d3de@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20060313174033.31924.qmail@web31511.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149555



<snip>
> .
> Kemper again:
> More correctly or accurately, Spathiphyllum is the
> Scientific name for Peace
> Lily: a scientific name with Greek roots, not latin.
> Peace.  Lily.  Sword.  Hmm..
> 

bamf:

To be more accurate, Spathiphyllum is the genus for
Peace Lily. Most people don't use the specific
epithat/species for peace lilies.  

Sorry, my inner horticulturalist is coming out. ;) 

bamf

There is no snooze button on a cat who wants breakfast.

*****

Me t wyrd gewf

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net  Mon Mar 13 18:55:31 2006
From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 18:55:31 -0000
Subject: Hermione's Crimes and Punishments
In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0603130647m7464d7daxb3a0498830de8a57@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <dv4f73+6572@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149556

Debbie wrote:
> I suspect if we polled the list, the same people who are troubled 
> with Hermione's vigilanteism were troubled by, for example, the Ton-
> Tongue Toffee incident.

SSSusan:
I totally agree.  I'm one of the ones who openly laughed at the 
TTT... and the pig's tail... and Montague in the toilet... until 
others pointed out how horrible these incidents could have been or 
were.  Now I snigger quietly. ;-)

Anyway, I'm much less bothered by what y'all are calling Hermione's 
vigilanteism than are some members of the list.  While I think she 
HORRIBLY mishandled the DA start-up and membership and could have 
avoided the whole Marietta thing by having thought a little harder 
about it and by being more honest with Harry, the fact that, in the 
end, Marietta ended up with S-N-E-A-K on her forehead didn't bother 
me much.

In real life, I'm a very compassionate person, and one very 
disinclined to engage in or desire retribution or vengeance.  No, 
really, I *am*!!  But in the HP books, I do find it FUNNY.  So, 
Debbie, count me in as "evidence" of your theory.


Debbie:
> In addition, she seems unnerved by Harry's success at potions, even 
> though she knows it's a result of the secret tips in his book.  
> Perhaps her determination to stick to the official instructions 
> ultimately begins to undermine her confidence in books.

SSSusan:
And she can't HANDLE that because, if not books, WHERE would she 
turn??  I'm being dead serious, too, because for Hermione, the world 
has been opened by books, problems have been solved through books, 
and she's risen to her position as top student in large part because 
of books.  If books are failing her now, what does she DO?


Debbie:
> And when she accuses Harry of not thinking girls are as clever as 
> boys (HBP ch. 25) appears to be a victim of typical female self-
> doubts that often arise in the teen years as girls get a
> better understanding of how male-centered the world really is.

SSSusan:
I think this is more her overall frustration talking than her true 
belief, about Harry anyway.  Harry has *always* considered her 
brilliant, and I'm sure she knows it.  I think she's just frustrated 
beyond words at what's happening in Potions, and this is just what 
tumbles out of her mouth.


Debbie:
> She has also bandoned her attempts to free the house elves, which 
> can be read as further evidence that she's questioning herself, her 
> cleverness, and her efficacy.

SSSusan:
Now that's an interesting proposition!  I wonder whether this is 
so....  Is she questioning her cleverness, or did she actually 
*realize* something about her incomplete analysis of the house elves' 
situation in the previous two years?


Debbie:
> All this adds up to a Hermione that seems a lot different from the
> overconfident and successful Hermione we saw in OOP.  This appears 
> to be a step backwards, but I see it as part of a growth process 
> that will result in a Book 7 Hermione who is much better prepared 
> to give Harry the help he needs in Book 7.

SSSusan:
I agree that she seems different in HBP.  I wonder if some of that 
isn't also due to the situation with RON.  Up `til now, since it's 
mattered anyway <g>, I think Hermione's been able to read Ron's 
feelings for her better than he's ever been able to admit them.  But 
this year, when they fight (and there's certainly a history of that), 
he not only turns away from her, but he turns TO another girl.  This 
obviously hurts & frustrates Hermione, and I don't think she 
anticipated this nor knows how to respond.  

So, I propose that she *is* feeling a little more vulnerable this 
year, a little less confident, a little more tentative about always 
having THE right answer or approach.  As to whether the year has 
brought her to a place where she'll have grown and will be better 
prepared, more insightful (not just book-y), it certainly seems 
likely.  The way things came together at the end of the year, with 
the relationship repaired with Ron, with DD's death reinforcing the 
need for Harry & his inner circle to be focused & very careful to 
plan exceedingly well, and with her & Ron's commitment to be right 
beside Harry, I do think JKR is leading us to the possibility that 
Hermione will be different again in Book7 from Book6, just as she was 
different in Book6 from Book5. 

> Debbie
> who thinks Hermione should turn her talents to developing an 
> antidote for Marietta, who also has had punishment enough for her 
> crime

Siriusly Snapey Susan, 
who agrees with this, for even though I found it amusing at the time, 
I didn't expect it to go on *this* long








From sydpad at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 13 19:01:21 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 19:01:21 -0000
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <duu6cq+4v07@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv4fi1+rrbf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149557

Sweet baby jane, you say to yourself "Okay, no HPfG this weekend, I
have to work", and before you know it, you have to address literally
dozens of posts!  I have no idea how to make this coherent, so... I
won't.  The following points will be in totally random order:

Nora:

>Sure.  He doesn't think that he could possibly fail in his task, so
>the whole death thing is more of an idle threat.

He doesn't think there's ANY way he can fail to both protect Draco
from all harm for a year and kill Dumbledore?  At the same time?  Wow,
this arrogant!Snape is sure something!

But, arrogant or not-- remember the milk example from my initial post?
 Let's say your babe calls and says, "Hon, be sure to pick up milk on
your way home."  So you're all, of COURSE I'll pick up the milk, I
want the milk even more than you do, so why are you even asking?  And
your babe is, like, "Okay, I believe you, but just to be sure, can you
sign this magic thingie that means you will DIE if you don't bring
milk home tonight?"  Wouldn't not be a bit, "Wait... what?  Did you
say DIE?"  I mean, you're not against bringing in the milk in any way;
 you're pretty confident in your ability to get a carton of milk,
but... DIE?  What if your car breaks down?  What if there's a late
meeting?  What if there's a shock milk crisis?  Would not you be most
likely to say, "Uh, babe, can we just go on trust on this one?  'Cause
it seems a bit much for you to ask me to die if I fail.  Plus, the
boss wouldn't like it.  Plus, I don't want to DIE.  I'll just make a
straightforward promise, I will bring in the milk-- stop crying, in an
hour you'll have the milk anyways and then you'll be happy."

If OFH!Snape just wanted to make the Malfoys happy, surely the logical
thing to do would be to say "Yes, of course I'll do everything I can
to protect Draco.  No, I can't take an Unbreakable Vow to go against
the Dark Lord's wishes, he'd crucio me into next week and then I
wouldn't be any good to you.  I know you're very, very upset, but
you're just going to have to trust me, and believe me, when I have the
task done and Draco safe-and-sound here, you will be so happy you'll
forget all about this."  So, he loses a bit of ground for while, but
(arrogant!Snape here) obviously he'll do everything she wants anyways
so he'll gain it all back before you know it.  I just don't see in
that scene where he HAS to take the Vow or lose somethig vital that he
can't get any other way.

Nora:
>a good portion of the DDM!Snape argument
>is based on thematic arguments of personal preference.  "Oh, it would
>be so mean and unfair if he weren't good in the long run.  JKR would
>be sending bad messages about second chances and Slytherins and
>underdogs.  It would totally ruin Dumbledore's character if he were
>mistaken about Snape and Harry were right, because Harry is the
>student who has to learn from his mentor.  It would totally ruin the
>entire theme of the books."

>I got into a discussion once where the other person stated that if
>Snape were evil, JKR had totally destroyed all the value in her
>books, and she would continue to believe in her reading because it
>would be better than what JKR wrote.  (Yes, I have seen all of these
>arguments.)

You know, it's a good thing no evil!Snapers around here have been
saying they'd throw out all their child-abuse celebrating HP books and
projectile-vomit if Snape turns out to be DDM, 'cause otherwise that
would be really ironic.  Do I mean ironic?  I think I just mean
'funny'.  (note to self:  stop using 'ironic' when you just mean 'funny').


Nora:
>Let me simply interject to note that I'm personally wary of labels
>such as 'geek' (and by implication, 'jock' and other fellow
>travelers) in the Potterverse.  They have such definite overtones for
>most of us of American high school, but I'm not sure that's a good
>model.  It doesn't ring true for me in the social structure of
>Hogwarts, and it can tend to bring out some strange models of
>identification with characters.

Well, insofar as Hogwarts is based on your basic English school
society... I lived in England for years and am engaged to an
Englishman who went to your basic English school.  'Geek' in the UK
means exactly what it means here, and yeah, sporty, popular British
boys beat up anti-social, loser British boys with the same montonous
regularity that they do in the US.  As far as I have any knowledge. 
Any UK-ers want to dispute this?  


Nora:
>No, he just doesn't have to be what any of us *want* him to be.  So
>many of the arguments do have a layer of "This doesn't make sense to
>me, therefore it can't be what JKR is writing."  If you want an
>illustration of the dangers of that, look at everyone who got
>poleaxed by Ron and Hermione hooking up, because they totally thought
>there was nothing there or it would be an abusive relationship, ad
>nauseam.  

Wow, that is SO weird!  I was JUST thinking to myself, 'why can't
those bad!Snapers see they are as delusional as the old H/Hr crowd? 
And then I decided not to put it in my post because it wasn't really
an argument.

But speaking of H/Hr... I actually have something to say on a
non-Snape subject!  *gasps all around*

This is just apropos of how I think about story, and what I mean when
I say 'structurally so-and-so wouldn't happen'.  Because I don't mean,
"I dislike it on a specific emotional level".  I dislike all kinds of
stuff on an emotional level in HP:  I can't bear the twins and dearly
wish the they would turn out to be paying protection money to the
DE's. I was horrified by the SNEAK jinx (note to Hermionie:  branding
people on the FACE is something evil people do. It's the epitomie of
dehumanization.  You might want to look that up in a book or
something).  But I don't get any sense that the narrative is setting
me up for anything there.  I mean, it might happen, but I don't feel
any necessary energy towards it.  Does that make sense?

Ron and Hermionie, Harry and Ginny, is something else.  When I found
all the HP fandom online after GoF, I was amazed to discover there was
such a thing as people who thought Harry/Hermionie was a possiblity. 
It just felt totally wrong.  And I was even more amazed when I found
that the main tide of arguement was that, in terms of close-text
detail and real-world compatibilty R/H was justified;  but in
structural terms H/Hr was justified.  Because "The Hero Gets the Girl".

And I thought, but Hermionie's not a GIRL.  She's a SERVANT.  

Okay, that sounds really, really awful.  Bear with me.  The thing is,
in comedic romances like HP, there's usually two levels of characters.
 There's the upper, heroic level, the characters who are noble or
destiny-laden or just in some indefinable way above the normal run of
humanity, whose fate is in some strange way tied into the fate of the
whole community.  And then there's the lower, comedic or satyric
level, historically occupied by working-class characters, who are more
objectivized, more comic, and in some indefinable way, 'lower', and
who are devoted to the upper characters.  In a big epic romance you
might have a knight on a quest, and his angst and pain and adventures
are Important and Deep; and then he'll have a Squire, who has comical
hijinks and ridiculous courtships with village-wenches and so on. 
Most of our theatrical tradition in the west, from Greece onwards, is
built on comic romances where you have a sentimental, ennobled couple,
and a comic, bickering couple.  It doesn't mean that the noble couple
are more interesting or better-- if you've ever seen "Much Ado About
Nothing", who the heck remembers what-is-name and whosits, when
Beatrice and Benedict walk away with the show?

But the two levels don't mix in the 'happy ending'.  Never.  It just
feels totally wrong.  Papageno wouldn't wind up with Pamina in "The
Magic Flute".  Bingely can't end up with Elizabeth in "Pride and
Prejudice" (structurally, Bingley and Jane are the Noble couple,
innocent, pure, and having the devotion of the 'comic' pair, Elizabeth
and Darcy).  Whatever that other couple is in "When Harry Met Sally"
can't end up with either Harry or Sally.  And Hermionie can't end up
with Harry.  She has to end up with Ron, her comic, servant
counterpart.  It doesn't, at root, have anything to do with
psychological compatibility, it has to do with story compatibility. 
Obviously reversing the 'comic' and 'noble' characters has been a game
in literature since "Don Quixote", but it resists inversion pretty
stubornly, so Quixote's angst remains more tear-jerking than Sancho's.
 And Harry's Angst is the Angst with a capital A, while Hermionie can
be pretty much completly estranged from her parents for most of her
childhood and it's just, meh, what are you gonna do?  

On a like/dislike level, I personally happen to like the R/H romance
very much.  I totally identify with Hermionie, even with the ruthless
tendency to evil... wait, maybe because of the ruthless tendency to
evil.  I think Ron is good for her, they make nice foils to each
other,etc.  The H/G romance, not so much.  

Obviously, I like the thematic stuff that's implied by DDM!Snape.  
But I don't think that's why I'm saying I think it's going to happen.
 Reason #1:  Harry's hatred of Snape, which is amped up a notch every
single book.  That's one of the strongest energy lines in the series.
 Now it's stretched to the breaking point.  People are arguing that
Harry will just feel a sort of pitying contempt for Snape in Book VII.
 But that's not the counter-force to Harry's feelings, it's just a
relaxation of the tension in the same direction.  A reversal, and a
recognition are required.  It's just story-physics.  Or
story-architecture.  

Now, this reminds me of LifeDebt!Snape.  Because one of the reasons I
tend to dismiss it is that it has no effect on Harry.  Actually, the
only slight effect would be another couple of pounds of pressure on
the "I hate Snape" side, because it allows him to write off anything
good Snape has done so far.  Which, strangely, seems to be it's
principal attraction to Certain Parties!


> Sydney:
> Is there any other character in all of canon-- and that is a lot of
> characters-- who is driven not by a normal human motivation, but by
> magical compulsion?  Well, sure there are-- Crouch Sr., under the
> Imperius;  Ron with the Love Potion, Dobby under the House-Elf
> enslavement.  And they all-- ALL-- behave extremely strangely when the
> compulsion kicks in, showing overt changes in their personality.

Neri:
>Erm... aren't you forgetting Snape himself, under the Unbreakable >Vow?
>He wasn't acting very strangely there.

Okay, this needs to be cleared up before we can go any further.  As
I'm using the term 'magical compulsion', the UV ISN'T one.  It doesn't
affect Snape's psychology, it just means on a bare practical level
he'll die if he doesn't do this certain thing.  So it's like, for
instance, the SNEAK hex-- it didn't affect Marietta's thinking, it
just had this physical effect when it kicks in.  I'm contrasting that
to the 'psychological' magics-- the House-Elf enslavement, Love
Potions, Imperius.  Those spells directly seem to control the BRAIN of
the victim in pretty crude ways.  Inicidentally, this goes with my
objections to the DADA curse nudging the victim to display their worst
traits by some subtle, internal means, too.  So, which one are you
proposing the Life Debt falls into?  Is this a House-Elfy compulsion
to serve the Life-Debtee, or is it like the UV, where if the victim
fails in the terms of the injuncition, something physical happens to
them?  If it's the first, then I don't see it at all.  If you're
proposing the second-- that the Life Debt actually does something to
the Debtor if they fail it-- that's a different kettle of fish.

> Sydney:
> Dumbledore has not been only assuring Harry that he trusts Snape;
> he's been, according to both McGonnegal and Lupin, giving Order
> members repeated assurances of this, in the face, it seems, of
> argument.  Was the conversation only about Harry every single time
> this came up?  Would Dumbledore be assuring McGonnegal or Moody for 14
> years that he trusted Snape when he meant, only in Harry-related
> manners?  I just can't see this.
>

Neri:
>You mean, you can't see JKR trapping us with double meanings and
>taking advantage of our incorrect assumptions? Really? And you can't
>see Dumbledore, umm, somehow neglecting to add a few critical words
>that would make his statement unequivocal?

That's not a double-meaning.  That's a.. well, a meaning.  When JKR
does a tricky-dicky, when you read back over it, it all lines up. 
Dumbledore assuring various Order members that they can trust Snape
with their lives, when he actually meant, oh, no, just HARRY'S life,
he'd totally sell YOU down the river, but I'm going to be coy about
it, hee hee-- that doesn't really line up for me.  

And, (I don't have my books with me, but off the top of my head),
Dumbledore testifies in court-- the sort of thing I presume he swore
an oath to -- that Snape came over to OUR side before V-morts fall,
that "he's now no more a Death Eater than I am".  And Harry asks him
in HBP, "How can you be sure Snape's on OUR side?", and D-dore says,
"I'm sure.  I trust Severus Snape completely".  He's saying, he's on
OUR side.  Meaning, yours and mine.  Our.  Side.  This is another
argument that he's not actually saying he trusts Snape completely when
he says he trusts.. Snape ... completely... I dunno.  I think you're
clipping bits off the jigsaw-piece here.

>You've got the wrong end of the stick
> there, lady. <g>
>

Neri:
>Erm... first of all, that would be a gent <g>. 

Gha!  Sorry!  I must have been deceived by your elegance and keen mind
 <g>.

>If you still find LID!Snape vague, try reading "The Flight of the
>Prince" again, assuming that Snape had no problem AK'ing Dumbledore
>but he's magically compelled to protect Harry because of his Debt to
>James. All his words, emotions and actions suddenly become completely
>straightforward.

I did.  I still find Dumbledore's "Severus... please..." simply to not
fit in with this theory.  You say, he's asking Snape not to forget the
Life Debt.  But why would D-dore need to PLEAD for Snape not to forget
some sort of deadly magical compulsion that's been driving him for
over a decade?    Wouldn't he be using the 'stern and terrible' voice
he used to Petunia?  Why would D-dore be so upset when he was telling
Harry that he couldn't imagine the remorse Snape felt when he found
out the targets?  Seeing as by the LD theory Dumbledore's being kind
of cute here, wouldn't he be calm or even downright twinkly?  I don't
think D-dore would refer to what Snape was feeling as 'remorse' if it
was just, 'crap, I've just accidentally screwed myself'.  

Why would D-dore send Harry to get Snape and no one but Snape when he
was incapacitated by a poison?  And where does the bit where Snape is
described as being in as much pain as a dog on fire fit in with Snape
having no problem AK-ing D-dore?  Or the bit where Snape's face is
suffused with hatred and revulsion, gee, JUST like Harry's was when he
was force-feeding D-dore the poison?  Of course he's cold and angry
and jeering.  That's Snape's defense mechanism.  Hating Harry and
James is totally Snape's defense mechanism.  And the next thing he has
to do is apparate on over to V-mort and talk him out of offing Draco.
 He has to have the Occlumency shields at full power for the
foreseeable future.  It cracks for a second-- dog on fire-- and he
refocuses by concentrating on the James/Harry hatred.

For the record, if anyone is keeping a record, I'm pretty sure
Dumbledore is dead.  I'm agnostic on whether Snape used an AK to kill
him or an ordinary spell mixed with a false AK-- I.. just.. get..
bored.. with the magical mechanics.  And I really think the scene is
constructed to the edge of absurdity so that Snape has no choice:  the
UV, the bizzaro-potion, the Barrier that Keeps Everyone But Snape off
the scene, the most crazed DE's JKR could round up, the
frozen-invisible Harry-- honestly? I thought it was a bit too much. 
In those circumstances.. the thing I'd compare it to is, has everyone
seen "Master and Commander"?  OMG you HAVEN'T?  Because it's the best
movie ever.  Go see it now.  Once you've seen it--- SPOILERS FOR
MASTER AND COMMANDER!!!!!!--- , you will remember a scene where the
ship is in a terrible storm, and one of the masts breaks, and falls
into the ocean with a sailor hanging on. And everyone is yelling,
"You're going to make it!" to the sailor.  But the captain realizes
that the mast, still held to the ship by its ropes, is dragging the
ship down.  To save everybody, he has to take an axe and cut the mast
away from the ship, dooming the sailor.  To make it even closer to the
HBP situation, it was the captain's hubris that led to them being in
this situation in the first place.  Yeah, he felt like crap about it.
 But at that specific moment, there just wasn't a choice.  It was,
everybody dies (Snape from the Vow, Draco from Voldemort, Dumbledore
from one of the DE's, Harry ditto), or just Dumbledore dies.  

<gasp, pant>  Okay, that's it for now.  Obviously I've left a lot of
people's stuff unaddressed, but I really have to make a pretense of
getting some work done!

-- Sydney






From lyraofjordan at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 13 19:06:45 2006
From: lyraofjordan at yahoo.com (lyraofjordan)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 19:06:45 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: hbp12, Silver and Opals
Message-ID: <dv4fs5+um34@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149558

CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 
12, Silver and Opals.

The chapter begins with a brief reminder that Dumbledore is 
frequently gone from the school, leading Harry to feel he and his 
lessons have been abandoned.

The day of the first Hogsmeade weekend dawns, and we learn that 
Harry, (like some members of this list) likes to while away his 
Saturday mornings perusing his HBP book, looking for hidden clues. 
The book is filled with a variety of imaginative little spells and 
jinxes that were apparently created by the Prince himself. Harry has 
already tried a few, including Muffliato (which keeps others from 
overhearing a conversation), although Hermione heartily disapproves.

On this day, Harry comes across a scribble that reads: Levicorpus 
(nvbl). He determines that (nvbl) must mean nonverbal, and doubts 
he'll be able to pull off a nonverbal spell, which he is still 
having trouble with in DADA. But, as the narrator points out, the 
Prince had proved a much more effective teacher than Snape so far.

Harry waves his wand, says Levicorpus inside his head, and Ron is 
shockingly hoisted in the air as if by an invisible hook. Harry 
finds the counter-jinx scribbled in the book, lets Ron down, and all 
the boys agree it's been a great laugh. At breakfast they tell 
Hermione, who berates Harry for using spells when he doesn't know 
what they're for, especially handwritten spells that are not 
Ministry-approved. She wonders who'd create such a spell, and Harry 
remembers seeing his father use it in Snape's Pensieve. In fact, he 
wonders if James could be the Prince. Hermione, however, reminds him 
the Death Eaters used it at the Quidditch World Cup. She says she 
doesn't think the Prince was a very nice person, and Harry retorts: 
If he'd been a budding Death Eater, he wouldn't have been boasting 
about being a half-blood. Hermione says she doesn't believe all the 
Death Eaters are purebloods, it's only Muggleborns they have a 
problem with.

After Harry gets a note from Dumbledore, setting the next lesson for 
the following Monday, the trio undergoes a security check as they 
leave the castle and head to Hogsmeade. In the town, they run into 
Slughorn, who wants Harry to attend the next Slug Club meeting, 
which is Monday, but Harry has the handy excuse of a meeting with 
the Headmaster. 

On the way to the Three Broomsticks, the trio see Mundungus and the 
barman from the Hog's Head in conversation on the street. After the 
barman walks away, Mundungus drops the old suitcase he's carrying, 
and a bunch of junk spills forth. Ron picks up a piece and 
recognizes it as a silver goblet from Sirius's house. Harry attacks 
Mundungus, who has apparently stolen some Black family heirlooms 
from Grimmauld Place. Mundungus quickly disapparates, just as Tonks 
shows up and suggests the kids get out of the cold.

In the Three Broomsticks, Harry remembers that Sirius's stuff that 
Mundungus had stolen is actually his (Harry's) stuff as well. After 
noting that Zabini is hanging around and that Madame Rosmerta isn't 
behind the bar, the kids finish their butterbeer and decide to head 
back to school. They're walking behind Katie Bell and her friend 
Leanne when they notice the girls arguing. Suddenly Leanne grabs at 
the package Katie is holding. Katie grabs it back and is launched 
into the air, where she screams and seems in anguish, before falling 
to the ground. Harry runs for help and finds Hagrid, who carries 
Katie up to the castle.

Leanne tells the trio that things started happening when the package 
tore. She points to the ground, where an ornate opal necklace is 
poking out of the brown wrapping. Harry recognizes the necklace as a 
cursed one he'd seen at Borgin and Burkes. Leanne says Katie got it 
in the Three Broomsticks, when she went to the loo. In fact, Leanne 
now deduces Katie must have been Imperiused. 

Harry wraps the necklace in his scarf and they head up to school, 
Harry insisting all the way that Malfoy is behind this event. At 
Hogwarts, Professor McGonagall runs out to meet them, sends the 
necklace to Professor Snape and questions Leanne, who repeats that 
Katie went to the loo at the Three Broomsticks and returned with the 
package, seeming a little odd, and that the girls argued over 
whether it was advisable to agree to deliver an unknown object.  
She's then sent off to the hospital wing to be treated for shock.

Harry asks to see the Headmaster, but he's still away from Hogwarts, 
so Harry hesitantly decides to reveal his suspicions about Malfoy to 
McGonagall. In her best muggle attorney attitude, she cross-examines 
Harry about Malfoy's visit to Borgin and Burkes; says the new 
security measures would have kept such a necklace from entering 
school grounds; and besides, notes that Malfoy wasn't in Hogsmeade 
on this day, as he was doing detention for failure to turn in 
Transfiguration homework. 

Later, Harry and his friends speculate for whom the necklace might 
have been intended. Harry thinks either Dumbledore or Slughorn. 
Hermione suggests Harry could have been the target, too, but Harry 
thinks Katie would have just handed it to him when she noticed he 
was behind her. To his friends' dismay, Harry continues to harp on 
how Malfoy could have accomplished his task, and when the pair point 
out it wasn't a very good plan, anyway, Harry responds, "But since 
when has Malfoy been one of the world's great thinkers?"



Discussion Questions:

1)	In GoF, it says something to the effect of "four years in 
the magical world had taught Harry it wasn't a good idea to stick 
his hand into some unknown magical substance." But by 6th year, 
Harry is willing to try incantations without a clue of what their 
effect will be. Does this change of attitude tell us something about 
Harry? Is he becoming reckless?

2)	After using the Levicorpus spell, Harry is able to find the 
counterspell handwritten in the HBP book. Later, when he uses 
Sectumsempra on Draco, it turns out Snape also knows a countercurse 
for that spell as well (though we don't know if he invented it or 
just learned a spell that heals the cut).  Does the fact that Snape 
apparently creates/learns counterspells to undo his curses give us 
any insight into the man? 

3)	The Levicorpus spell is specifically noted as being 
nonverbal. In DADA class, however, it seems that students are using 
the same spells they learned verbally, but learning to cast them as 
nonverbal spells. Do you think all spells can be cast verbally and 
nonverbally, or are some used only as either verbal or nonverbal? 
Why?

4)	Levicorpus is Harry's first successful nonverbal spell. Why 
do you think he was able to do this one?

5)	Some of the Prince's early jinxes included one to make 
toenails grow fast, one to make the tongue stick to the roof of the 
mouth, and Muffliato. Ron thinks they are the sort of spells Fred 
and George might create; Hermione says they are the work of someone 
who is not a nice person.  Do you think these are typical schoolyard 
hexes, not much different from the bat bogey hex or Ron's 
eat slugs curse, or do they hint at something darker? 

6)	Is there any particular symbolism or meaning to the opal 
necklace (or to opals or necklaces), or is it simply a convenient 
McGuffin?

(Not sure what a McGuffin is? Look here)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGuffin
http://sc.essortment.com/alfredhitchcoc_rvhd.htm
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/mcguffin?view=uk


7)	Most of JKR's characters, even those with walk-on parts, 
have a complete name (Mark Evans, Piers Polkiss, and dozens of 
students who have been sorted in the last few years and happily 
taken their place in the Charms Society, Gobstones Club, or whatever 
they do that keeps them from crossing paths with Harry ever again).  
But Katie Bell's friend Leanne gets six pages of center stage, yet 
no last name. Did this bother anyone? Was JKR simply signaling that 
Leanne wasn't really worth bothering with?

8)	In OOTP Sirius says the barman at the Hogs Head threw 
Mundungus out of his bar 20 years ago and has banned him since. That 
seems to suggest some bad blood between the two. Yet Harry sees the 
same two talking on the street in Hogsmeade. What are we to think?

9) Harry is upset at Mundungus for stealing "Sirius's stuff" (or 
more specifically, I think, for violating Sirius's memory) and 
totally forgets it's now his stuff. Does this surprise you? Is 
Harry's almost total lack of interest in material goods (aside from 
international-standard broomsticks) an important element of his 
personality? Will it be important in the future?

10) If Malfoy was in detention, how did the necklace end up at the 
Three Broomsticks?

11) Hermione warns about using "unknown, handwritten spells" that 
aren't "Ministry approved." But just a few chapters ago, she was 
admiring the products at Weasley's Wizard Wheezes, which are most 
likely not all Ministry approved.  And after her experiences with 
Umbridge and Fudge, it seems Hermione would have suspicions about 
the value of Ministry approval. Is this just a lame excuse she comes 
up with, or is there some validity to her concern about using spells 
that don't bear the MOM stamp of approval? 

12) Harry only reluctantly tells McGonagall about his suspicions 
concerning Malfoy. Why is he less open with her than with 
Dumbledore? Will this be an issue as we move into book 7?

13) Heightened security measures have Filch using the Secrecy Sensor 
on students as they leave the school. Why is Filch checking people 
as they *leave* the school? Is it wise to have a squib doing tasks 
that could put him in contact with magical objects he might not 
recognize or be able to counter or disable? And why is Filch, who 
seemed solidly on Umbridge's side the previous school year, still 
apparently in good graces at Hogwarts? Is this another example of 
Dumbledore trusting people to do the job he's given them, and is 
this a wise move on the Headmaster's part?

(A bouquet of virtual daffodils is on its way to Penapart Elf for 
her help and undying devotion to Chapter Discussions.)

NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see
"HPfGU HBP Chapter Discussions" at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database


 












From belviso at attglobal.net  Mon Mar 13 19:45:51 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 19:45:51 -0000
Subject: JKR has Mystery Writer-related to Tower Theories-long!
Message-ID: <dv4i5f+uf47@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149559

The recent conversations about the Tower have got me thinking about 
JKR as a writer of secrets or mysteries.  A lot of us have obviously 
been spending a lot of time pointing to moments in canon and asking 
for a sign that certain things are going on, if they are and it 
seems like many people don't find it hard to believe that key 
moments are meant to be imagined or assumed to be covered up.  This 
always surprises me because in my experience it seems like JKR 
*always* writes those things in.  In fact, it's what she does in 
place of writing an actual solvable mystery.  I wrote this on my lj 
but it seemed like it was probably even more on-topic here, so here 
goes. (Hope I got rid of all the formatting!)

I don't think you can really solve all of the mysteries at the 
center of the HP books.  You can figure out basically what's 
happening, that Voldemort is trying to get Harry to the MoM, that 
Draco is trying to kill Dumbledore.  Sometimes these things aren't 
even hidden.  But I don't think there's any way that, for instance, 
you can really figure out ahead of time in GoF that Moody is really 
Barty Crouch Jr. not dead and Polyjuiced and planning to spirit 
Harry away to Voldemort when he touches the Tri-wizard cup.  Or that 
Draco is fixing that Vanishing Cabinet to bring DEs to the school.  
You can't do these things, because you don't have the information.  
We don't even know a Vanishing Cabinet works with its pair as a 
portal, and it's not like this is real world knowledge, so how could 
we guess it?  Had we heard Montague's story beforehand we could, but 
we didn't, so we can't.

I don't think JKR's stories rely on those kinds of mysteries, they 
just feel like they do--perhaps this is why they hold up more on re-
reading (despite the inevitable "Why the hell didn't Barty just turn 
the nearest eraser into a Portkey and toss it to Harry?").  They're 
really more about the adventure and the plot that's revealed.  Where 
they feel like mysteries is we still get that very satisfying, "Oh!  
So that's what was going on!  That's what that meant!" feeling when 
all is revealed.  We get that because JKR has showed it to us every 
time. We really do "see" everything.  Not to the point where we 
could probably solve it ourselves, usually, but so that all these 
questions we had, even if we didn't realize it, suddenly become 
clear.  Reading back the book doesn't become less satisfying because 
we know who done it, but more satisfying because we know what's 
really going on and can follow along with the secret plot.  

I'm going to use GoF as an example, because it may be one of the 
best.  I'm going to sum up the "mystery plot" of GoF, which you all 
probably know and can skip but there's a reason it's here: 

Barty Crouch Jr. is the son of Bartemius Crouch, Sr., who led the 
trials against Death Eaters during the first war and became cruel 
and judgmental.  Junior was tried as a Death Eater and sentenced to 
Azkaban where he cried for his mother.  On his last parental visit 
his mother Polyjuiced herself into him and died in his place.  Barty 
was kept under Imperius by his father, cared for by Winky, but was 
eventually discovered by Bertha Jorkins, who was herself discovered 
by Peter Pettigrew, who brought her to Voldemort, who then zapped 
and killed her and went to find his servant.  Barty escaped from his 
father at the QWC, where he was supposed to be being watched by 
Winky while he was under an invisibility cloak.  He stole Harry's 
wand and set off a Dark Mark to strike fear into the hearts of Death 
Eaters who went free, whom he hates with a passion.  Crouch fired 
Winky when he got free.  Later, under Voldemort's orders, he 
Polyjuiced himself into Mad-Eye Moody and taught at Hogwarts during 
the year.  He slipped Harry's name into the Goblet of Fire so that 
he would be in the Tournament with the help of Crouch Sr., now 
Imperiused by Voldemort.  He tries to give Harry help so that he 
will win the Tournament.  When his father escapes, fighting off the 
Imperius, he kills him and hides the body.  Eventually Harry wins 
the tournament, touching a portkey he's made, and is whisked off to 
Voldemort.

Whew! That's a hell of a complicated mystery to be revealed, huh!  
But even with a whole chapter devoted to the confession, it's not so 
bad because we saw it all happen.  There's not a single item of this 
story that Rowling has not included in the book beforehand, either 
by having someone tell it to us in some other context or by having 
it acted out in a scene without our knowing it.  Each important beat 
or element has a scene explained by it and only it. So rather than 
feeling like we're being hit by a big story we've never heard (which 
unfortunately is what many theories come down to) the story just 
slots easily into place explaining scenes that, although we might 
not have been totally aware of it, did not quite make sense 
otherwise. Even if we preferred elements of the earlier version of a 
scene and try to cling to them later, the revised version really 
makes more sense.

To illustrate, here are scenes that illustrate all of these points:

*Barty Crouch Jr. is the son of Bartemius Crouch, Sr., who led the 
trials against Death Eaters during the first war.

Sirius tells us about Barty's reputation and actions back then.  We 
also see him very into rules, which is why Percy likes him.

*Junior was tried as a Death Eater and sentenced to Azkaban...

We see this in the Pensieve.

*...where he cried for his mother.  On his last parental visit his 
mother Polyjuiced herself into him and died for him.

Sirius gives us an eyewitness account of Barty's first night, his 
later quiet, and is burial (though he doesn't know about the body 
switch).

*Barty was kept under Imperius by his father,

We have scenes explaining what Imperius is and how to fight it off.

*and cared for by Winky, but was eventually discovered by Bertha 
Jorkins, who was herself discovered by Peter Pettigrew, who brought 
her to Voldemort, who then zapped and killed her and went to find 
his servant.

Bertha's disappearance is discussed at different points in the 
book.  We see Muggles addled by memory charms at the QWC (and 
elsewhere in the books). We also hear from Sirius and Dumbledore's 
Pensieve that Bertha was a snoop.

*Barty escaped from his father at the QWC, where he was supposed to 
be being watched by Winky while he was under an invisibility cloak.  
He stole Harry's wand and set off a Dark Mark to strike fear into 
the hearts of Death Eaters. 

This all happens in front of us.  We see Winky up in the 
stands "alone," know Harry's wand went missing, see Winky struggling 
with invisible Barty Jr., see Crouch's horror at whatever has 
happened and his firing of Winky over it.

*Hating DEs who went free is a passion of Barty's.  

We see tension between him and Snape in The Egg and the Eye, and see 
him bouncing Draco in ferret form.

*Later, under Voldemort's orders, he Polyjuiced himself into Mad-Eye 
Moody

We hear about the "false alarm" at Moody's house that Arthur covers 
up.

*and taught at Hogwarts during the year.  He slipped Harry's name 
into the Goblet of Fire so that he would be in the Tournament with 
the help of his father, now Imperiused by Voldemort.

Crouch Sr. is acting a bit funny in the post-Goblet scene, and at 
one point even looks evil.  Barty actually says outright exactly 
what's happened (someone's slipped another name into the Goblet). We 
hear a number of times that Crouch Sr. has been skipping work and 
sending notes to Percy instead.

*He tries to give Harry help so that he will win the Tournament.

Not only do we see him sometimes giving advice, we see him invite 
Neville for tea, which he will later reveal was an attempt to get 
Harry the book on gillyweed. (Even something as small as giving the 
book to Neville gets a scene, not an after-the-fact "I slipped the 
Longbottom kid a book but I guess he didn't show it to you--we see 
Barty come upon the Trio when they're comforting Neville after the 
Crucio lesson--yet ANOTHER hint of a secret before it's revealed--
which gives him a reason to think they're friends, we see him invite 
Neville for tea, we see Neville come back from tea.)

*When his father escapes, fighting off the Imperius,

We see Crouch, slightly demented, and again have scenes all about 
Imperius.

*he kills him and hides the body. 

The body disappears and Viktor is stunned.

*Eventually Harry wins the tournament, touching a portkey he's made, 
and is whisked off to Voldemort.

And that's where we came in.

You see?  There's no elaborate plot that comes out of nowhere, 
there's an elaborate plot hiding in plain sight.

Perhaps the one big reveal without a buildup, one that's used far 
too often to back up other theories, is Scabbers being Peter 
Pettigrew.  Scabbers is just an ordinary rat for two books.  
However, in the book where Peter's story will be revealed, Scabbers 
suddenly gets a plot that, as usual, is not what it seems but has 
beats we can follow later.  It's not like he's just been sleeping on 
Ron's shoulder the whole book.  Suddenly he's got the authorial 
finger pointing at him.  

This is maybe also important to show that if a storyline has twists 
and turns, we need signposts when one has happened.  For instance, 
let's say Barty Crouch Jr. decided he'd have to change his plans 
when he saw Harry fight off Imperius.  If that was the plot we would 
presumably not get a scene of Barty communicating this to Voldemort 
or having a soliloquy about it.  That would give it away. What I 
submit we *would* get would be a reaction to Harry's fighting off 
the Imperius that we would later point to and say: "There.  Barty is 
dismayed by Harry's being able to fight off the curse.  At the time 
he hides it and it comes across as him just being flustered, but 
it's clearly really written as dismay.  That's the moment Barty 
began to move towards changing his plans to the Draught of Living 
Death Potion" in retrospect. Similarly, we don't know the mechanism 
of the Vanishing Cabinets, but we did get all those Montague 
references in OotP.  On re-reading, the beginning of Draco's 
storyline in HBP slots in easily.

So there's my thing about this.  With the kinds of complicated 
backstories we get we're not always going to be able to see things 
as clearly as we see things with Barty.  But the answers, imo, are 
always going to be accompanied by that click of fitting things 
together, even if we don't like the way they fit together.  Sure 
sometimes things that you didn't think seemed odd at the time later 
turn out to be signposts--it's fun if it's not obvious the first 
time.  But even then that's going to be because the "real" story and 
the "false" story happen to play the same way.  Or the author will 
use our prejudices and brains against us.  It's not going to rely, 
imo, on the author helping to cover it up from outside the text.  
>From inside the text sure (Harry can draw the wrong conclusion about 
an action, for instance), but if a moment relies on something 
like "Hermione is totally shocked here," we're going to see, in 
retrospect, Hermione showing signs of shock, even if she's covering 
it up. 

(Case in point: "For a fleeting instant, Harry thought he saw a 
gleam of something like triumph in Dumbledore's eyes.  But next 
second, Harry was sure he had imagined it
"  This after Dumbledore 
leaps out of his chair at the news Voldemort cut Harry's arm, a 
movement cleverly camouflaged by Sirius' possibly less significant 
exclamation at his Godson's being hurt.)

-m (posts with trepidation)







From tifflblack at earthlink.net  Mon Mar 13 20:09:05 2006
From: tifflblack at earthlink.net (Tiffany Black)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 12:09:05 -0800
Subject: Opals RE: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: hbp12, Silver and Opals
In-Reply-To: <dv4fs5+um34@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <E1FItLO-00012L-W2@smtpauth07.mail.atl.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 149560

Lyarofjordan:
6)	Is there any particular symbolism or meaning to the opal 
necklace (or to opals or necklaces), or is it simply a convenient McGuffin?

Tiffany:
I can't remember where I've read it, but it seems that there are some RL
opals that have a story about a curse associated with them, because anyone
who has owned them has died. I read about it something like 20 years ago, so
my memory might not be all that accurate.
Tiffany




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 13 20:35:09 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 20:35:09 -0000
Subject: Portkey in GOF  - Logistics
In-Reply-To: <dv2s39+s555@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv4l1t+n3kl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149561

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "David" <foodiedb at ...> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> Once again, I am sorry if this has been covered, but if not:  I
> was wondering why Crouch/Moody went through all of that trouble
> to have Harry go through the tournament and then make the Goblet
> the portkey.  Why didn't he, for example, just make Harry's 
> toothbrush or pillow the portkey?
>
> Thanks,
> David
>


bboyminn:

Other have already covered the subject nicely, but I'll add another
point. Think about it from a practical perspective. To say, 'make some
other object a Portkey' sounds easy, but think it through from
beginning to end.

Regardless of the object the Fake!Moody enchants, there is a good
chance that some one other than Harry will pick it up. For example,
people most often suggest Harry's toothbrush, but the phrase 'Ron,
hand me my toothbruch' pretty much shoot that one down. 

Voldemort needs Harry's blood and he seems to need it at a specific
time. Another person touching a random Portkey would bring the wrong
person and that would open an investigation which would threaten
Voldemort's plans.

A book is also frequently suggested, but it has the same problem, no
guarantee that Harry will be the next one to touch it. 

At least inside the Maze Task, fake!Moody has some control of who does
what. He is clearing obsticals for Harry and making sure Harry gets to
the Cup. It's not a 100% guarantee that Harry will win, but the odds
are stacked in his favor. Further, if something does happen to Harry
in the Maze, it will take them a while to determine if some
enchantment or beast has gotten him, or if there has been some foul play. 

Further, I suspect that fake!Moody intends to get away with it and go
on to serve the Dark Lord. If he enchants Harry's toothbrush, odds are
he will have been seen lurking around an area where he would have no
logical reason to lurk; ie: the Commons Room and the Dorms.

So, I think my central point is that Harry and the Portkey object need
to be isolated when the come into contact with each other to control
the timing and to be sure that it is indeed Harry who touches the Portkey.

Further, if everything had gone according to plan, there is a certain
disgrace and lose of credibility for Harry to have been lost in the
Tri-Wizards Tournement. It puts Dumbledore, Hogwarts, and the Ministry
in a bad light. Whereas if Harry had just disappeared at a random time
on a random day, it could be chalked up to Harry's own mischief making
and disregard for the rules. So, in this sense, Voldemort want to
weaken his enemies as well as gain his own power.

Just a few thoughts.

Steve/bboyminn






From nrenka at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 13 20:50:06 2006
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 20:50:06 -0000
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <dv4fi1+rrbf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv4ltu+gqsk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149562

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" <sydpad at ...> wrote:

> You know, it's a good thing no evil!Snapers around here have been
> saying they'd throw out all their child-abuse celebrating HP books 
> and projectile-vomit if Snape turns out to be DDM, 'cause otherwise 
> that would be really ironic.  Do I mean ironic?  I think I just mean
> 'funny'.  (note to self:  stop using 'ironic' when you just 
> mean 'funny').

I never said it was confined to one group of fans, did I? :)

> And I thought, but Hermionie's not a GIRL.  She's a SERVANT.  

So...who is this 'Hermionie' person, anyways?

> And Hermionie can't end up with Harry.  She has to end up with Ron, 
> her comic, servant counterpart. 

It would help to understand the H/Hr position, I think, if you 
realize that they tended NOT to consider Hermione a comic sidekick, 
but rather the heroine of the story (in counterpart to Harry the 
Hero) as undoubtedly the most important and prominent female 
character.  Argue for that being wrong, but realize that it's not 
completely unfounded.

-Nora only pokes fun in good jest, naturally






From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 13 20:55:41 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 20:55:41 -0000
Subject: Snape's half truths in "Spinner's End"
In-Reply-To: <20060313161541.10690.qmail@web53112.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dv4m8d+8c9i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149563

 
> >zgirnius:
 Draco had an opportunity to
> 
> >kill Harry offered him on a platter, and what did he do? He broke 
> >his nose and left him on the train. I really think Snape must have 
> >figured out that Harry was not Draco's target at this point as 
well.

> Magda:
> Maybe not.  He might have figured that Harry had fended Draco off
> (knowing that Draco's track record in beating Harry up hasn't been
> exactly impressive) or that Draco was interupted.  
> 
> We have all seen how tenaciously Snape clings to a belief once he's
> got it into his head.  I see no difference in this book.

zgirnius:
Perhaps...but I still don't see it. Draco was at the school on time 
with all the other students. Harry showed up with Tonks very late. He 
missed the Sorting, and the dinner afterwards. If Harry had fended 
Draco off, of if someone had intervened on Harry's behalf at the time 
of the attack, why would Harry have been so late?







From kchuplis at alltel.net  Mon Mar 13 21:13:53 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 15:13:53 -0600
Subject: Opals RE: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: hbp12, Silver and Opals
References: <E1FItLO-00012L-W2@smtpauth07.mail.atl.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <001d01c646e3$08553440$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local>

No: HPFGUIDX 149564


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Tiffany Black 
  To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 2:09 PM
  Subject: Opals RE: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: hbp12, Silver and Opals


  Lyarofjordan:
  6)      Is there any particular symbolism or meaning to the opal 
  necklace (or to opals or necklaces), or is it simply a convenient McGuffin?

  Tiffany:
  I can't remember where I've read it, but it seems that there are some RL
  opals that have a story about a curse associated with them, because anyone
  who has owned them has died. I read about it something like 20 years ago, so
  my memory might not be all that accurate.
  Tiffany




  kchuplis:

  REally? I know my mother won't have them around, considering them unlucky because her sister who died at 14 was named Opal and her brother (who died fairly early at 64) loved them. I didn' t know they were more widely considered unlucky.

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




From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Mon Mar 13 21:34:58 2006
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 16:34:58 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Many Faces of Snape was: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <dv29n2+rl0m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY101-F226E52310895F142D4CE3A91E00@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 149565

Betsy Hp:
>Why would OFH!Snape seriously care what happened to Draco Malfoy?
>I'm not sure why I should take OFH!Snape at his word when he says
>he'd willing defy one all powerful wizard to help a young boy try
>and kill another all powerful wizard.  It seems to go against
>the "out for himself" code of behavior.


PJ:
Ok, let's try this...  Let's make a sliding scale with "DDM!Misunderstood 
Angel" on one end and "ESE!Nastier than Voldemort" on the other.  That 
leaves us with LOTS of room in between for various perceptions of DDM!, OFH! 
as well as ESE!Snapes and none have to be exactly like the others even while 
sharing a common designation.  Tammy and SSSusan have already made this 
quite clear regarding DDM!Snape so I don't feel I'm off the mark at all, but 
even they may not agree on *all* facets of DDM!Snape.

So what have we got?  We've got about 200 different opinions of who Snape is 
and what he's up to but who all use the *same* *3* *designators* to define 
their man.  Then, as if the situation weren't bad enough, we have LID 
weaving it's way through any and all designators seamlessly.  All this is 
bound to create *some* confusion.  :-)

While there are many variations of OFH!Snape, I don't believe my version is 
anywhere *near* ESE! on the Snape sliding scale since, as Carol has pointed 
out, she's a DDM!Snaper and we still agreed on quite a bit regarding the UV.

So who is *my* Snape and why do I cubbyhole him as OFH!?  My Snape is 
emotionally immature and takes his considerable frustration out on those 
around him.  He's snarky and a bully and much too caught up in his own 
brilliance for his own good.  He respects brains and cunning and has the 
Slytherin idea that "the end justifies the means".  Respect is a major 
factor for him and he insists on receiving it while not considering many 
others deserving of it.  Friendship for him is a matter of "standing" and 
respect - in both directions.

I believe he came to Dumbledore of his own free will after being 
disillusioned by Voldemort and I think he felt a certain respect and 
closeness to Dumbledore and felt respected in return.  But all this changed 
for Severus when Harry came to school.  As Harry got rewarded for breaking 
the rules it reminded Snape too much of his own school days where, rather 
than be expelled for being part of "the prank", James is made Head Boy.  And 
I believe that the old hates and jealousy ate Snape alive.  That's when 
Dumbledore lost Snape's loyalty...

I feel Snape chafes at the bit of both his "Masters" and wants to go his own 
way, make his own decisions, but finds himself trapped.  He has been 
(literally) branded by one, and saved by the other (even a gilded cage is 
still a cage) and now, as *he* sees it, *both* regard Snape as their own 
pawn to be used in the chess game of war.  Neither feel him worthy of 
sharing their thoughts/reasons with him but they both put him in grave 
danger to further their own plans.

He resents both Voldemort and Dumbledore and doesn't care which side wins as 
long as *he* survives intact.  He wants his quiet life filled with his 
books, his potions, his spells and his grudges to enjoy for many years... He 
wants out of the tug of war between Dumbledore and Voldemort but will go 
along with the charade of being loyal to both in order to be rewarded at the 
end by which ever side he helps to win.

That uncharming fellow is *my* OFH!Snape and while I'll bet he doesn't look 
exactly like any other on this list, I'm also willing to bet my last nickle 
that almost everyone can see one or two bits and pieces of their *own* Snape 
in him regardless of what classification they give him.   He's a slippery 
little devil.  :-)

PJ





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 13 21:48:04 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 21:48:04 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped, ...-Hermione's Crimes
In-Reply-To: <duvma9+3vu6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv4pak+sgj3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149566

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" <a_svirn at ...> wrote:
>
> > Catherine:
> >    
> > You know, Rita wasn't just being a little mean. She was 
> publically slandering the people ... trespassing onto Hogwarts 
> ... Eavesdropping in to private conversations....
> 
> a_svirn:
> ... Some folks out there claim that Hermione's actions /do not/ 
> qualify as revenge or even blackmail. My point is that they are 
> both. ...edited..

bboyminn:

a_svirn, you seem to be taking the position that I've labeled as
'Moral Absolutest', and part of the point I've been trying to make is
that there is a difference between 'blackmail' (with a small 'b') and
'Blackmail' (with a capital 'B'). 

By the broadest and most general definitions of Blackmail (revenge,
vengence, etc...), Hermione is guilty, but I absolutely /can not/ see
the wizard world regarding her actions as CRIMINAL Blackmail (revenge,
vengence, etc...).

Is a Playground Bully quilty of blackmail and extortion? Yes,
absolutely, but unless their actions become blatantly criminal and
dangerous, rarely are they ever treated as criminals. In fact, rarely
are they ever dealt with at all.

To some extent, I think this is what muddies our discussions. Some
people define action by the broadest definition and the most extreme
application. Whereas others make a distinction between Applied
Definitions and Applied Reality. 

By definition, Hermione is guilty of Blackmail, but in reality, I
can't see any wizarding authorities treating her actions as criminal
Blackmail. In fact, I can't see even our real world muggle authorities
treating Hermione's action as criminal Blackmail. 

I think it is important to make a distinction between broad
definitions and applied reality when regarding these matters. I am
speaking to the subject, in my other posts, from the perspective of
applied reality; you, on the other hand, seem to be taking the
approach of applied definitions. 

To a group of blind men, to some an elephant is a wall, to others it
is a tree, and to others still it is a rope. Are they wrong or are
they right? Well, of course, the answer is - Yes and No.

I think it is important that we acknowledge the difference.

Steve.bboyminn






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 13 22:35:55 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 22:35:55 -0000
Subject: Opals RE: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: hbp12, Silver and Opals
In-Reply-To: <001d01c646e3$08553440$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local>
Message-ID: <dv4s4b+6bd8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149567

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Karen" <kchuplis at ...> wrote:
>
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Tiffany Black 
>   To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 2:09 PM
>   Subject: Opals RE: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: hbp12, Silver and Opals
> 
> 
>   Lyarofjordan:
>   6) Is there any particular symbolism or meaning to the opal 
>   necklace (or to opals or necklaces), or is it simply a 
>    convenient McGuffin?
> 
>   Tiffany:
>   I can't remember where I've read it, but it seems that there 
> are some RL opals that have a story about a curse associated with 
> them, because anyone who has owned them has died. I read about it 
> something like 20 years ago, so my memory might not be all that 
> accurate.
>   Tiffany
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   kchuplis:
> 
>  REally? I know my mother won't have them around, considering 
> them unlucky because her sister who died at 14 was named Opal 
> and her brother (who died fairly early at 64) loved them. I 
> didn' t know they were more widely considered unlucky.
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>


bboyminn:

To read more about the legend and lore of the 'cursed Opal' here is a
link -

http://www.tucsonshowguide.com/stories/sep01/opal.cfm

Here I think is the most relevant curse. It seems there was an Opal
ring that was passed through the Royal Family of Spain. Everyone who
owned it died an early death. It was later surmized that the stones of
the ring were contaminated with one of the many plagues that ravaged
Europe. As each new own took possession, he/she became infected.

- - - Quoted in Part  - - -

"Many centuries later, a Spanish king would sully the opal's already
sordid reputation further still. In the late 19th Century, Alfonzo XII
fell madly in love with a beautiful aristocrat named the Comtesse de
Castiglione. The Comtesse reciprocated the King's affection, but
months before the pair were to wed the faithless Alfonzo married
another woman, the Princess Mercedes. Vowing to get even, the Comtesse
sent the couple a wedding present in the form of a magnificent opal
set in a huge ring of the purest gold. The princess was immediately
smitten by the gift and insisted that her husband slip it on her
finger. He obliged, and two months later the princess mysteriously died.

"After the funeral Alfonzo gave the ring to his grandmother, Queen
Christina, who almost immediately thereafter also expired. After that
the ring passed to Alfonzo's sister, the Infanta Maria del Pilar.
Maria died as well, apparently victim to the same weird illness that
had taken the other two women. The ring was up for grabs yet again,
and when Alfonzo's sister-in-law expressed an interest, he let her
have it with the usual result. 

"Deeply depressed by then, the King decided to end it all by slipping
the ring on his own finger, just as Cleopatra had embraced the asp to
terminate her own misery. In little over a month, the ring did to
Alfonzo what the snake had done to the Egyptian Queen. The ring was
finally attached to a gold chain and strung around the neck of a
statue of the patron saint of Madrid, the Virgin of Alumdena. That put
an end to the incredible chain of tragic circumstances, but was the
gem really responsible for the calamities besetting this royal family?
According to Kozminsky, it seems pretty unlikely.

"At this time it must be remembered that cholera was raging through
Spain," he writes in The Magic and Science of Jewels and Stones. "Over
100,000 people died of it during the summer and autumn of 1885. It
attacked all classes from the palace of the king to the hut of the
peasant, some accounts giving the death estimate at 50 percent of the
population. It would be as obviously ridiculous to hold the opal
responsible for this scourge as it was to do so in the previously
noted plague at Venice. All that may be said is that in this case the
opal was not a talisman of good for King Alfonzo XII of Spain and to
those who received it from his hand, and that in the philosophy of
sympathetic attraction and repulsion man, stones, metals and all
natural objects come under the same law." 

- - - - - - - - - - - 

Just passing it along.

Steve/bboyminn






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 13 22:58:44 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 22:58:44 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped, ...-Hermione's Crimes
In-Reply-To: <dv4pak+sgj3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv4tf4+ldl0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149568

> bboyminn:
> 
> a_svirn, you seem to be taking the position that I've labeled as
> 'Moral Absolutest', <snip>

a_svirn:
Merlin Forbid. 

> bboyminn:
> By the broadest and most general definitions of Blackmail (revenge,
> vengence, etc...), Hermione is guilty, but I absolutely /can not/ 
see
> the wizard world regarding her actions as CRIMINAL Blackmail 
(revenge,
> vengence, etc...).
<snip> 
> By definition, Hermione is guilty of Blackmail, but in reality, I
> can't see any wizarding authorities treating her actions as 
criminal
> Blackmail. In fact, I can't see even our real world muggle 
authorities
> treating Hermione's action as criminal Blackmail. 

a_svirn:
I am curious. If her actions is not "criminal" Blackmail, what then? 
Lawful Blackmail? Permissible Blackmail? Officially Authorized 
Blackmail? Above-board Blackmail? There seem to be a certain 
contradiction of terms in all of the above, yet what can possibly be 
opposite to "criminal"? 

> bboyminn:
<snip> 
> To a group of blind men, to some an elephant is a wall, to others 
it
> is a tree, and to others still it is a rope. Are they wrong or are
> they right? Well, of course, the answer is - Yes and No.
> 

a_svirn:
If you say so. 







From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Mon Mar 13 23:49:46 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 23:49:46 -0000
Subject: Opals RE: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: hbp12, Silver and Opals
In-Reply-To: <E1FItLO-00012L-W2@smtpauth07.mail.atl.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <dv50eq+uuf3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149569

Lyarofjordan:
> 6)	Is there any particular symbolism or meaning to the opal 
> necklace (or to opals or necklaces), or is it simply a convenient 
McGuffin?

Tiffany:
> I can't remember where I've read it, but it seems that there are 
some RL
> opals that have a story about a curse associated with them, because 
anyone
> who has owned them has died. I read about it something like 20 
years ago, so
> my memory might not be all that accurate.

Ceridwen:
It is supposedly unlucky to wear opals if your birthday is not in 
October.  My mother had a lovely opal necklace for years (might still 
have it), though her birthday is in December.  My father gave it to 
her for their anniversary, which was in October.

Ceridwen.







From donnawonna at worldnet.att.net  Tue Mar 14 00:08:34 2006
From: donnawonna at worldnet.att.net (Donna)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 19:08:34 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Subject: JRK Web Site - continued
Message-ID: <44160982.000008.03904@D33LDD51>

No: HPFGUIDX 149570

Please forgive me for not knowing all the proper names for the various parts
of Ms. R's web site but on the page accessed with the hairbrush, pick up the
eraser and rub it across the blank piece of paper tacked to the board with a
red tack.  You will reveal a caldron with 4 items (feather, flask, spider,
and 2 leafs) above it.  That info has already been posted earlier by someone
else.

Now, on the bullitne board are 2 leafs - double click on them and they
disappear.  Go to the Fan Site page and you will find the feather - double
click on it and it disappears.

I've been unable to locate the flask and spider.  Maybe you sharper eyed
persons can find 'em.

Donna

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




From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 14 00:18:35 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 00:18:35 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped / Crime and Punishment
In-Reply-To: <dv2e29+e0s2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv524r+4i4a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149571

> >>bboyminn:
> Once again both Betsy and Magda are selectively missing the point. 
> The point is about 'right' and 'wrong'. I'm saying that Hermione   
> doing the 'right' thing with respect to the law and Rita is       
> infinitely more devestating that Hernione doing the 'wrong' thing.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I guess I'm not really getting your point. (I'm seriously not 
missing it on purpose.)  Yes, it would be hasher on Rita if Hermione 
had merely turned her in.  The blackmail only works because this is 
true.  If Hermione wasn't offering a better alternative Rita 
wouldn't have felt obligated to follow Hermione's orders.  Every 
single blackmail has this simple truth at its heart.  Following the 
orders of the blackmailer is less painful than the "or else" being 
threatened.

> >>bboyminn:
> Rita broke the law. Hermione knows Rita broke the law. The 'right'
> thing to do is for Hermione to turn Rita into the authorities which
> will substantially ruin Rita's entire life from a career          
> prespective.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Yes, this is true.  I guess it could be labled as the "right" action 
for Hermione to take.  Certainly it leaves her a little less tainted 
than her chosen course of action, legally in any case.  Ethically 
it's a bit stickier, I think.  Mainly because Hermione is acting out 
of a sense of vengence (mild and understandable, but vengence, none 
the less) and it *would* ruin Rita.  For a time anyway.  (Though one 
could argue that Rita made her bed...)

> >>bboyminn:
> First, turning someone in for commiting a crime is NOT blackmail.

Betsy Hp:
Yes of course.  I don't think anyone was arguing this.

> >>bboyminn:
> Second, offerring them a moral alternative, in a sense a second
> chance, is not blackmail.

Betsy Hp:
Erm, yes it is.  Anytime you tell someone, do this or I'll spill 
your secrets, you're blackmailing them.  I don't care if the action 
you ask for is to give all your money to charity or to make balloon 
animals for sick children.  You are using information and a threat 
to expose that information to make someone do as *you wish*.  The 
muggle version of Imperius, if you will.

> >>bboyminn:
> Once again, Hermione is not doing this for personal gain.
> <snip> 
> Hermione gains nothing and Rita gains a valuable lesson in morals 
> and ethics.

Betsy Hp:
First of all, I'm amused whenever someone posits that either Rita or 
Marietta learned an important moral lesson from Hermione.  Is there 
*any* textual evidence for this?  Rita seemed angry more than 
anything.  And going by Cho's little rant to Harry, Marietta had 
similar feelings.

Second, Hermione did gain something.  She gained the little thrill 
you get when someone who's hurt you is made to pay.  Plus the thrill 
of knowing she took on an adult and won.  Reread the scene where she 
reveals all to Harry and Ron.  Hermione is practically giddy with 
her success.

> >>bboyminn:
> Further, there is nothing to stop Rita from working. She's not in
> prison or crippled. She simply can't earn her living by writing.   
> She could even work for the paper in a clerical capacity. Further, 
> she could take that year off and write the 'Great British Novel'   
> she has always dreamed about. So, unless she chooses to, Rita is   
> not going to starve, and clearly while she is a bit down on her    
> luck when we see her again, she is not starving. 

Betsy Hp:
See, this strikes me as a bit too flippant.  Rita hasn't had time to 
prepare to lose her normal income.  Maybe she has something saved to 
last her a year, but in general people don't.  And while she could 
possibly get another job (if Hermione let her) I think we shouldn't 
overlook how ragged she looks by GoF.  Whatever Rita is doing to get 
by, it's not up to her usual standards.  Proud women like Rita don't 
let themselves go like that unless they're really are close to 
starving, or losing their homes.

> > > >>bboyminn:
> > > Let's use the example of the Philosopher's Stone. What Harry 
> > > did was 'wrong'. McGonagall specifically told him to go to bed
> > > and let the adults handle it. If Harry did the 'right' thing, 
> > > he would haveobeyed. He would have been snug in his bed being
> > > an obedient little boy, and the Stone would like have been     
> > > lost. 

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Ooh, bad example, Steve!  How would the Stone have been lost?    
> > Harry doesn't *save* the Stone.  ...
> > If, on the other hand, Harry had stayed in bed, Quirrell!Mort   
> > would have remained stuck in front of the mirror for Dumbledore 
> > to catch.  

> >>bboyminn:
> Once again, selectively missing the point.

Betsy Hp:
Perhaps a better example would be helpful?  One in which doing 
the "wrong" thing actually saves the day where the "right" thing 
would have lost it.

> >>bboyminn:
> This whole discussion is about Hermione's 'crimes', and           
> the 'right' or 'wrong' of her actions. The result of those actions 
> is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the moral motivation and 
> correctness of instigating those actions.
> <snip of how the example is supposed to work>
> The same is true of Hermione. She does the technically 'wrong'     
> thing but for the 'right' reason.

Betsy Hp:
What right reason?  Obviously you feel some great moral message has 
been handed down from on high.  I see a little girl, cleverer than 
most, taking petty vengence on someone who's hurt her.  It certainly 
doesn't help Harry, nor does it change how reporters write their 
pieces.  Actually, it's in Rita's absence that the articles turn 
particulary ugly for Harry and Dumbledore.  (Unless Hermione is 
prescient and somehow "knows" she'll need a reporter in her pocket 
next year.)

Harry's motivations for going after the Stone were head and 
shoulders above Hermione's in selflessness and nobility.  Harry was 
preparing to risk his life to prevent evil from returning.  Hermione 
was getting revenge.  She may have coated it in teaching Rita an 
important moral lesson, but she's tainted herself with her methods.  
And she deliberately causes Rita pain.  Rita is not allowed to write 
for year, not an "I'll be watching and be sure you tell the truth", 
but a "no writing for a year".  That's punishment for the sake of 
vengence.  Very little noble in that.  (As Harry realizes 
instinctually with Peter Pettigrew a year before Hermione's little 
dabble in the dark side.) 

> >>bboyminn:
> Once again, I say, let us ask Rita which she prefers? Hermione does
> the 'right' thing, and substantial imprisons and damages Rita for a
> lifetime, or Hermione does the 'wrong' thing and Rita is
> inconvenienced for a while. 

Betsy Hp:
And again I say, duh.  *Obviously* Rita prefers being at Hermione's 
beck and call to prison.  Otherwise she'd have told Hermione to go 
stuff herself and faced the prison time.  Once again: THIS IS HOW 
BLACKMAIL WORKS!  Forgive me if I don't give Hermione a pass just 
because she's a successful blackmailer.

> >>bboyminn:
> <snip>
> Further, it is Hermione that restarts Rita's career.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Hoo boy!  Now forgive me if I don't jump up and down and say yay 
Hermione for jumpstarting the career of the woman who's career 
*Hermione put on hold*.

> >>bboyminn:
> Rita is a celebrity again.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp
An *unpaid* celebrity. 

> >>bboyminn:
> Twice by her seemingly 'wrong' actions, Hermione has done Rita a   
> BIG FAVOR.  
> So, I close by once again saying that we should ask Rita what she
> thinks about Hermione's actions.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
We don't have to ask Rita.  JKR shows us.  Rita doesn't appear to 
share your view.  One could almost call her view of Hermione to be a 
bit negative.

> >>Debbie: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149542

> <snip>
> I suspect if we polled the list, the same people who are troubled 
> with Hermione's vigilanteism were troubled by, for example, the   
> Ton-Tongue Toffee incident.  We never resolved that one, and we    
> aren't going to resolve this one either.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I'll agree with SSSusan in agreeing with you, Debbie. <g>  Because, 
yeah, not a fan of comeuppance and not a fan of the twins and not a 
fan of this side of Hermione.

> >>Debbie:
> After HBP, I began to wonder if Hermione already *had* her moment
> comeuppance out there in the Forbidden Forest facing the wrath of 
> the centaurs.  Because it was a short-lived failure, since Grawp  
> came to save the day, and of course it immediately followed her   
> success with Umbridge, her failure is easy to miss.
> However, in HBP we see a more chastened Hermione.  She has lost her
> overconfidence.  She's still manipulative, as her Confundus on    
> McLaggen shows, but she's less successful on the whole.  Harry    
> challenges her on the Confundus, and her attempt to make Ron      
> jealous is a complete failure.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp
Ooh, I *like* this Debbie!  Perhaps Hermione's turn around could be 
symbolically linked to her getting punched in the eye by the 
twins "little joke"  (there's an irony there, I suspect <g>) in HBP. 
It's soon after this that Hermione has her first big failure in 
Burgess and Burkes.  And it's pretty much downhill from there.

So yeah, the Centaurs are Hermione's "big mistake" and after that, 
her attempts at manipulation tend to backfire on her.  I can live 
with that.

I still wonder if there's another shoe to drop with Marietta, 
though.  Mainly because JKR highlights the fact that she's still 
sporting her brand.  

Betsy Hp






From exodusts at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 14 00:38:25 2006
From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 00:38:25 -0000
Subject: TBAY: HMS DESIRE (about Snape) Long
In-Reply-To: <dv2lbm+ip7l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv53a1+rke6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149572

> Tonks:
>
> Snape and Lily may have been casual friends, but only saw each 
other 
> in potions class and at Sluggy's parties.  They were in different 
> houses and the kids seem to mostly hang out with others from their 
> own house. Lilly saw the good in Snape and treated him well.  Snape 
> develops a strong love for Lily, but realizes that she is a very 
> beautiful and popular girl and he would never have a chance to be 
> anything more than a friend.  He pines for her in his heart, but 
> never tells her of his love.  Maybe he even goes by her house.  He 
> is probably "that awful boy" that Petunia has a conversation with 
at 
> some point. Maybe he came by when Lily was out, or Petunia saw him 
> lurking about and told him to go away. 
> 
> The marauders might have figured out Snape's true feelings at some 
> point and teased him about it.  Snape's calling Lily "Mudblood" 
> could have been a way to say "it isn't true, I don't really have a 
> crush or obsession on her" to get the others off of his back.  
Later 
> having done this he is kicking himself.  If he ever hoped to have a 
> chance with her, he has blown it now!  He feels like a real jerk.


Exodusts:

You left out the Love Potion. I'm pretty sure that stuff was involved 
in the Snape / Lily / Maruaders scenario somehow (either Snape/James 
trying to give it to Lily, or James trying to spike Snape).






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 14 00:44:14 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 00:44:14 -0000
Subject: Snape's half truths in "Spinner's End"
In-Reply-To: <20060313161541.10690.qmail@web53112.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dv53ku+89r7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149573

Note: This is a revised version of my interrupted post of this
morning, which I've deleted. The first part is the same, but the
ending is different.

Magpie (interpreting Magda's theory):
> >Oh.  So this is a slightly different scenario.  Snape isn't trying
to get information from Bella and Cissy; he's not bluffing when he
thinks he knows the task.  He just has the wrong idea about the task.
 We just never are never told what Snape thought he was
vowing to do and how he found out otherwise.
>
Magda's response:
> Yes, that's basically my view.  Although I would say that he found
out otherwise when he emerged at the top of the tower and a DE said
"The boy doesn't seem able to..." and Dumbledore was the only target
in sight.
>

Carol notes:
Not that it's important, but it's still a bluff regardless of whether
he thinks he knows or is pretending that he knows but has no clue.
Also, he may or may not know whom Draco has been assigned to kill, but
he certainly doesn't know about the Vanishing Cabinet or he wouldn't
have resorted to Legilimency on Draco.

Magpie:
> ><snip> There are no scenes of Snape actively keeping Harry and
Draco apart that I can remember, and Harry's following Draco around,
not vice versa. You'd think if he was watching them Snape would notice
that.  And notice that the bottle of poisoned wine was supposed to be
for DD. Harry doesn't even drink wine.
>
Magda:
> Well, Snape goes down to the gates to pick up Harry when he's late
for the feast - to check out what happened, I'm sure.  He also gives
Harry a Saturday detention after the sectumsempra (sp?) incident which
keeps him off the quidditch pitch - another place that "accidents"
might happen.  Snape was also concerned - visibly - when Draco was
caught trying to crash Slughorn's Christmas party - a party where
Harry was present.
>
Carol responds:
I agree with Magpie that Snape would have known from the face-stomping
incident that Harry was not the target. More important, why would
Narcissa be so fearful about Draco trying to kill Harry? It would be
easy, at least in Narcissa's view. Dimbledore is another matter
altogether, and neither Snape nor Narcissa would expect Draco to be
able to manage it. And surely Voldemort wouldn't assign Draco the task
of killing Harry, which he wants to do himself, or consider it a way
of punishing the Malfoys. Imagine how humiliating it would be for
Voldemort if the Malfoy boy easily killed the Potter boy. (It's
difficult for *Voldemort* to kill Harry because of all the protections
that were put on him, but it probably wouldn't be difficult for anyone
else.)

Snape's confrontation with Draco, where he's angry and fearful, occurs
soon after the cursed necklace incident. The argument in the forest
occurs soon after the poisoned mead incident. I don't think the timing
is coincidental. I'm pretty sure he knows that Draco is responsible in
both cases (certainly he does in the first). 

Magda (I think--the attributions are missing):
> He also gave detentions to Crabbe and Goyle, so that Draco's
henchmen weren't available to him if he was planning to ambush Harry.
(Showing that Snape knows a lot about Draco's history of tactics.)
<big snip>

Carol responds:
The detentions could have been a means of Legilimencing Crabbe and
Goyle to see if they knew anything about what Draco was up to. He
would merely have discovered what he probably already knew, that Draco
was up to something in the RoR. I see no evidence here that Snape
thought Harry was the target.

Magda: 
> Snape charges up to the Tower and finds Draco and three DE's with
Dumbledore.  He looks around - no visible Harry.  One of the DE's
says, "we've got a problem Snape, the boy doesn't seem able to -"  I
would submit that in that moment he realized who the target was.  At
the time, that DE's comment struck me as inserted specifically for a
purpose - and I deduce that the purpose for to inform Snape of Draco's
real target. <big snip>

Carol responds:
Four DEs, actually, not counting Draco. And Snape would have seen the
second broom and deduced that Harry was present in his Invisibility
Cloak. I think the DE's remark is inserted to alert Snape that the UV
is about to kick in. This is the moment when it seems that Draco will
fail. Snape has only seconds to decide what to do, and he doesn't even
raise his wand when Dumbledore speaks, though we do see hatred and
revulssion on his face when he realizes what DD wants him to do. And
even then, the seconds are ticking away, as (IMO) DD reminds him with
"Severus, please. . . ." I think he knew very well what Draco was
supposed to do. It's his own part that he doesn't want to play.

I do see one bit of evidence that could favor Magda's theory, and
that's the repeated Saturday detentions with Harry, but I think
they're intended to keep Harry away from Draco (and under Snape's eye)
rather than keeping Draco away from Harry. The only thing that bothers
me is that Snape can't keep an eye on Draco when he has Harry in his
office. But then, it's impossible to watch him all the time, anyway,
and Snape is certainly aware that Draco is spending lots of time in
the RoR. I'd be surprised if he hadn't figured out the identity of
Draco's little "female" helpers, either.

Carol, with apologies for the partly repeated post, but I couldn't
keep the DSL guy waiting (It took three hours to install--what a
nightmare!)






From donnawonna at worldnet.att.net  Tue Mar 14 00:46:30 2006
From: donnawonna at worldnet.att.net (Donna)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 19:46:30 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Subject: JRK Web Site - continued
References: <44160982.000008.03904@D33LDD51>
Message-ID: <44161266.00000B.03904@D33LDD51>

No: HPFGUIDX 149574

 
 
Donna said: 
Please forgive me for not knowing all the proper names for the various parts
of Ms. R's web site but on the page accessed with the hairbrush, pick up the
eraser and rub it across the blank piece of paper tacked to the board with a
 red tack.  You will reveal a caldron with 4 items (feather, flask, spider,
and 2 leafs) above it.  That info has already been posted earlier by someone
else. 

Now, on the bullitne board are 2 leafs - double click on them and they
disappear.  Go to the Fan Site page and you will find the feather - double
click on it and it disappears. 

I've been unable to locate the flask and spider.  Maybe you sharper eyed
persons can find 'em. 

Donna adds:

On the Rubbish page, double click on the ink pen and it will break open an
spills ink on the blank paper underneath the pen revealing another caldron
with 3 items above it.  I've been unable to identify the items expect the
one on the far right - egg shells which can be found on the Rubbish page. 
Double click 'em and they disappear.

Any others?

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




From exodusts at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 14 00:55:31 2006
From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 00:55:31 -0000
Subject: For Everyone Asking About JKR's Site
In-Reply-To: <44161266.00000B.03904@D33LDD51>
Message-ID: <dv54a3+vv89@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149575

> Donna adds:
> 
> On the Rubbish page, double click on the ink pen and it will break 
open an
> spills ink on the blank paper underneath the pen revealing another 
caldron
> with 3 items above it.  I've been unable to identify the items 
expect the
> one on the far right - egg shells which can be found on the Rubbish 
page. 
> Double click 'em and they disappear.
> 
> Any others?


Exodusts:

Check out The Harry Potter Lexicon's Tips and Tricks for Collecting 
the Extras -

http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/sources/jkr.com/jkr-com-tips.html






From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 13 21:22:45 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 21:22:45 -0000
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <dv4fi1+rrbf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv4nr5+73dd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149576

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" <sydpad at ...> wrote:
<SNIP>
> 
> You know, it's a good thing no evil!Snapers around here have been
> saying they'd throw out all their child-abuse celebrating HP books 
and
> projectile-vomit if Snape turns out to be DDM, 'cause otherwise 
that
> would be really ironic.  Do I mean ironic?  I think I just mean
> 'funny'.  (note to self:  stop using 'ironic' when you just 
mean 'funny').

Well, that would be "throw out the child-abuse celebrating books if 
Snape isn't clearly punished," then "projectile vomit if some of the 
DDM theories come through."  The question of DDM really doesn't 
touch very directly on the question of child abuse and its 
punishment.  

Still, you are quite right that everyone is arguing from personal 
preference -- which is as it should be.  This isn't astrophysics and 
there aren't "Laws of Character Motion" to go with the laws of 
physical motion.  Ultimately this is all unavoidably and deeply 
subjective.  That's why the arguments are so very fierce.



> Now, this reminds me of LifeDebt!Snape.  Because one of the 
reasons I
> tend to dismiss it is that it has no effect on Harry.  Actually, 
the
> only slight effect would be another couple of pounds of pressure on
> the "I hate Snape" side, because it allows him to write off 
anything
> good Snape has done so far.  Which, strangely, seems to be it's
> principal attraction to Certain Parties!
> 

What do you mean by "write-off?"  Do you mean "give an explanation 
that doesn't include Snape really being a very decent individual 
under all of it," then I guess you are right.  Sorry, but at least 
IMO decent individuals don't abuse children.  Now, if you 
mean "write-off" in terms of "having no significance" I don't think 
that's necessarily the case.  For one thing we have no idea how Life 
Debts actually work.  A Snape who bears a life debt that is a 
magically binding obligation is one kind of character, whereas a 
Snape whose life debt is largely a matter of pride and bitterness is 
another.


Lupinlore, who thinks that Sydney is probably right about another 
thing, which is that JKR will likely reveal a Snape whose character 
and fate are ambivalent enough to draw in a working majority from 
all sides, although, like Nora, he would enjoy the chorus of howls 
if she does not










From anabenevides at visualnet.com.br  Tue Mar 14 01:55:35 2006
From: anabenevides at visualnet.com.br (Aninha)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 01:55:35 -0000
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape?Harry getting to GH
Message-ID: <mailman.137.1576215537.17272.hpforgrownups@archive.hpfgu.org>

No: HPFGUIDX 149577

Ana before: 

> I'm very keen to believe that 

> Dumbledore faked his death 

Eggplant:

Why? Why would you even want that? All the drama in the final 

confrontation between Harry and Voldemort that we all know is coming 

in the last book would be sucked out if we knew the only wizard 

Voldemort ever feared was alive and well and ready to take over if 

Harry failed. No, Harry must defeat Voldemort without a wizard of 

Dumbledore's caliber to help him. For dramatic reasons Dumbledore must 

be dead meat. 



Ana (now):

One simple reason: denial. I cant say I really think DD is alive, but I sure hope so. I think I must admit I got to the point that whatever JKR decides to do will surprise me. 

I simply couldnt believe the whole scene at the tower, even if I was expecting DD to be dead ever since JK announced the death of a character (Book 4).

But being a DDM!Snape supporter (even though I can see some sense in most of other Snape theories) is what makes me hope - rather than believe - that DD is alive (pretending to be dead) or snape killed him obeying some previous agreement.

I do agree Dumbledores death takes the plot to a whole new level, but I still dont think Harry is ready to face LV. Perhaps Snape will end up preparing Harry (intending to do so, if youre a DDM!Snapey, or unwillingly so, if not). Well just have to wait and see.



Eggplant:

And another thing, let's forget about that vow for a moment because 

something else that happened in chapter 2 that proves Snape is a 

villain, he said he helped provide information that caused the death 

of Sirius Black. If that wasn't true why did he say it? How did he 

expect to get away with a lie about it to the two people who know more 

about the incident than anyone else on Earth? Kreature went to 

Narcissa and told her secret stuff about Sirius, and Bellatrix was the 

one who actually killed him. Snape would be a fool to say that if it 

wasn't true. 



Ana:

I dont remember Snape saying anything about Sirius death, except for the part he congratulates Bella for doing it. But I dont have the books with me now (Im at work), Ill check it when Im home. Anyway, I still think he must have said a few things about the Order to LV in order to be a believable DE - and a spy!, even if he was only pretending to be loyal. He problably told something about Sirius and Harrys relationship, something that could lead to the understanding that one would go anywhere for the other (Harry went to the Ministry to try and rescue Sirius, who went to the Ministry to try and rescue Harry, ending up dead).

And I dont deny that Snape wasnt sorry, after all, that Padfoot died. That doesnt necessarily make him a traitor of the Order. (killing DD is much more hard to argue with... and even that alone isnt enough, IMO, to support ESE!Snape.)


Anyway, I dont know if Im off topic, or if this has already been discuss, but I was wondering how does Harry intends to get to Godrics Hollow. I dont remember anything in the books about the fidelius charm (the one that has Petigrew as secret keeper) being lifted after the Potters death. Doesnt that mean that the Potters house would be unreacheable for anyone who hasnt heard from Peter its location? 

As a matter of fact, how did Hagrid managed to find it to take baby Harry to Dumbledore?



Ana - just confused.









From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 14 02:35:23 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 02:35:23 -0000
Subject: What Dumbledore trusts Snape to do? WAS: Re: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <dv4fi1+rrbf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv5a5b+gk0g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149578

> Neri:
> >You mean, you can't see JKR trapping us with double meanings and
> >taking advantage of our incorrect assumptions? Really? And you 
can't
> >see Dumbledore, umm, somehow neglecting to add a few critical 
words
> >that would make his statement unequivocal?

Sydney: 
> That's not a double-meaning.  That's a.. well, a meaning.  When JKR
> does a tricky-dicky, when you read back over it, it all lines up. 
> Dumbledore assuring various Order members that they can trust Snape
> with their lives, when he actually meant, oh, no, just HARRY'S 
life,
> he'd totally sell YOU down the river, but I'm going to be coy about
> it, hee hee-- that doesn't really line up for me.  

Alla:

But he does not, Sydney, Dumbledore does not say that - that various 
Order members should  trust Snape with their lives, or at least I 
should say to cover myself that I really don't remember him saying 
that. If you do, could you please send me to the relevant canon?

And I can totally see exactly what Neri is arguing happening that DD 
trusted Snape to do one thing and one thing only - to pay off his 
debt, whatever way this debt works.

Now, Dumbledore does not even say that he trusts Snape with HIS 
life, no? (Although I can be wrong on that one) Dumbledore has no 
problem saying that he trusts Hagrid with his life, but with Snape - 
it is just I trust him, etc,etc.

Sydney: 
> And, (I don't have my books with me, but off the top of my head),
> Dumbledore testifies in court-- the sort of thing I presume he 
swore
> an oath to -- that Snape came over to OUR side before V-morts fall,
> that "he's now no more a Death Eater than I am".

Alla:

How is it relevant to Dumbledore maybe omiting what he trusts Snape 
to do? Sure, it could be true that at that moment in time Snape was 
not a DE, why not? 

But could it be that he was not completely loyal to DD either? I'd 
say it could. Or could it be that the only reason why he was not a 
DE was that he wanted to get rid of Life debt?

Sydney:
 And Harry asks him
> in HBP, "How can you be sure Snape's on OUR side?", and D-dore 
says,
> "I'm sure.  I trust Severus Snape completely".  He's saying, he's 
on
> OUR side.  Meaning, yours and mine.  Our.  Side.  This is another
> argument that he's not actually saying he trusts Snape completely 
when
> he says he trusts.. Snape ... completely... I dunno.  I think 
you're
> clipping bits off the jigsaw-piece here.

Alla:

Dumbledore looks as if he tries to make up his mind and THEN says 
that he trusts Snape, if I may bring it up again. Could it be 
because he is NOT sure that Snape is on our side and he does NOT say 
that directly, he just says what you quoted. "I am sure. I trust 
Severus Snape completely" Could it be that he is not answering 
Harry's question directly, but just reaffirms his trust in Snape 
paying his life debt? I think it is possible, personally.

JMO,

Alla, who still csnnot figure out how life debts work in 
Potterverse, but SO wants to and who thinks that the fact that Ginny 
does not owe a debt to Harry could be a clue.








From saberbunny at yahoo.ca  Mon Mar 13 21:28:53 2006
From: saberbunny at yahoo.ca (catherine higgins)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 16:28:53 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Opals (was CHAPDISC: hbp12, Silver and Opals)
In-Reply-To: <001d01c646e3$08553440$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local>
Message-ID: <20060313212854.5090.qmail@web37009.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149579

Lyarofjordan asked:

  6)      Is there any particular symbolism or meaning to the opal 
  necklace (or to opals or necklaces), or is it simply a convenient McGuffin?

Tiffany wrote:

I can't remember where I've read it, but it seems that there are some RL opals that have a story about a curse associated with them,
because anyone who has owned them has died. I read about it something
like 20 years ago, so my memory might not be all that accurate.


  Catherine adds:
   
  Some cultures believe that opals gather the essence of the owner. If the owner was a good person, the opal will be lucky; if the owner was an evil person....well, you can fill in the blank.
   
  However, when I was a child, my mother (who is of italian decent) told me that opals are only unlucky to people who weren't born in October, since the Opal is October's birth stone. Incidently, my mother was born in October, and has owned and wears many opals. (Knock on wood)Nothing unlucky or evil has happened to her. 
   
  Catherine
   





From juli17 at aol.com  Tue Mar 14 03:00:39 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 22:00:39 EST
Subject: Is Snape good or evil?
Message-ID: <205.127f7ee6.31478bd7@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149580

 


> Pippin:
> I hate to let the facts get in the way of a  good story, much less a good
> argument. But barring Flints, it's  conclusive  that an Unforgivable
Curse didn't
> kill Dumbledore  (and thanks, Nora, for pointing out the thematic
significance
> of  that.) The closed eyes and the blood are facts on the  ground.
Literally.  
> The BANG on the tower has been undermined  already, by JKR herself. 


Gerry:
Well, Harry came late on the scene so somebody might have closed  the
eyes. And for the blood, I always assumed that this was a JKR  mistake
and not a clue. 


Julie:
I think the blood could be a mistake, and JKR just didn't think out  the
passage of time and whether the blood would still be fresh (which  kind
of goes with her not thinking out the passage of time in OotP between
Harry going to the DoM and Snape informing the Order that Harry was
missing--if you believe this much time passing here was unintended).
We know JKR isn't good with maths, thus her times and dates have
frequently been off in the books. 
 
However, she has used the open eyes and blank/surprised expression
as a hallmark of the AK several times, and I don't think she often forgets 
the hallmarks of her creations, be they character, location, spell,  etc.
I can't imagine the closed eyes and peaceful expression *not* being
intentional, and not having some specific meaning. Whether it means
a fake AK, or signifies some power Dumbledore has over his own 
death (an ability to slide peacefully into death, whatever the actual
cause of that death, for instance), I don't know. But I'm sure it  means
*something*!
 
 
IMO, 
 
Julie 









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




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 14 03:14:29 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 03:14:29 -0000
Subject: Is Snape good or evil?
In-Reply-To: <205.127f7ee6.31478bd7@aol.com>
Message-ID: <dv5cel+urge@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149581

> Julie:
> I think the blood could be a mistake, and JKR just didn't think 
out  the
> passage of time and whether the blood would still be fresh (which  
kind
> of goes with her not thinking out the passage of time in OotP 
between
> Harry going to the DoM and Snape informing the Order that Harry was
> missing--if you believe this much time passing here was 
unintended).
> We know JKR isn't good with maths, thus her times and dates have
> frequently been off in the books. 


Alla:
Why does it have to be a mistake? Why JKR has to think about how 
much time passes  and whether the blood still be fresh? She wrote an 
emotional moment, which IMO was very well done - Harry having a 
reason to touch DD one last time. I thought it was wonderful, I 
think it is all that there is, but that is just me of course.


Julie:
> I can't imagine the closed eyes and peaceful expression *not* being
> intentional, and not having some specific meaning. 

Alla:

Well, since Dumbledore was NOT wearing a peaceful expression, I feel 
safe enough to say that there is no meaning behind it. :)

JMO.

Alla







From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 14 03:26:54 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 03:26:54 -0000
Subject: What Dumbledore trusts Snape to do? WAS: Re: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <dv5a5b+gk0g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv5d5u+fk4l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149582

> >>Sydney:
> > <snip> 
> > When JKR does a tricky-dicky, when you read back over it, it all 
> > lines up. Dumbledore assuring various Order members that they   
> > can trust Snape with their lives, when he actually meant, oh,    
> > no, just HARRY'S life, he'd totally sell YOU down the river, but 
> > I'm going to be coy about it, hee hee-- that doesn't really line 
> > up for me.  

> >>Alla:
> But he does not, Sydney, Dumbledore does not say that - that      
> various Order members should  trust Snape with their lives, or at 
> least I should say to cover myself that I really don't remember    
> him saying that. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Well, I guess it depends on what sort of risk-taking the Order 
members are being asked for.  If they are risking their lives, then 
when Dumbledore tells them they can trust Snape it's implied that he 
means that they can trust Snape with their lives just as they trust 
their fellow Order members with their lives.

If you're looking for a specific moment where Dumbledore says, I 
trust Snape not to kill anyone of you, then, yeah, you'll be looking 
for a long time.  But I kind of think it's implicit in his whole, 
trust Snape, thing.

> >>Alla:
> Now, Dumbledore does not even say that he trusts Snape with HIS 
> life, no?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Again, I'm not sure Dumbledore ever says, "I trust Snape with my 
life".  However, he makes the point that Snape saved his life and 
when he's dying he specifically asks for Snape.  So again, I think 
it's implied.

> >>Sydney: 
> > And, (I don't have my books with me, but off the top of my head),
> > Dumbledore testifies in court-- the sort of thing I presume he 
> > swore an oath to -- that Snape came over to OUR side before V-   
> > morts fall, that "he's now no more a Death Eater than I am".

> >>Alla:
> <snip>
> Sure, it could be true that at that moment in time Snape was 
> not a DE, why not? 

Betsy Hp:
Right.  And Dumbledore is also vouching for Snape.  He's swearing, 
in a court like setting, that Snape can be trusted.  To suggest that 
he added in his mind "to not kill Harry, anything else goes".  Or 
that when he says Snape is not a Death Eater any more he means, "at 
least when it comes to Harry.  He'd kill or torture the rest of us 
at the slightest whim of his chosen master," stretches, I think, 
credibility. 

> >>Alla 
> But could it be that he was not completely loyal to DD either? I'd 
> say it could. Or could it be that the only reason why he was not a 
> DE was that he wanted to get rid of Life debt?

Betsy Hp:
If that is so, then it's not something Dumbledore is aware of.  (Or 
JKR for that matter.)  I think you could swing it as a fanfic, but 
there's little canon to support the idea that Dumbledore's trust was 
limited.

Unless you have canon where Dumbledore states that there are limits 
beyond which he doesn't trust Snape.  As far as I can recall 
Dumbledore's statements of trust where very open ended and all 
inclusive.

> >>Sydney:
> > And Harry asks him in HBP, "How can you be sure Snape's on OUR   
> > side?", and D-dore says, "I'm sure.  I trust Severus Snape      
> > completely".
> > <snip>

Betsy Hp:
There you go, Alla.  There is no limitation to the world completely.

> >>Alla:
> Dumbledore looks as if he tries to make up his mind and THEN says 
> that he trusts Snape, if I may bring it up again. Could it be 
> because he is NOT sure that Snape is on our side and he does NOT   
> say that directly, he just says what you quoted. "I am sure. I    
> trust Severus Snape completely" Could it be that he is not        
> answering Harry's question directly, but just reaffirms his trust 
> in Snape paying his life debt? I think it is possible, personally.

Betsy Hp:
Right, in fanfiction land, you could swing it.  You could make up 
all sorts of internal language where Dumbledore continues "to 
protect *your* life Harry, but nothing else.  And um, yeah, by 
competely I actually meant barely and mostly not at all, except when 
it comes down to killing you."

In the land of canon, Dumbledore takes a moment, thinks about his 
response, and then says, "I'm SURE.  I trust Snape COMPLETELY."  You 
also have to explain away all the times Dumbledore trusts Snape 
completely (walks alone with Snape in the forest, asking Harry to 
fetch Snape when Dumbledore is incredibly sick, etc.) and tell us 
how Dumbledore really expected Snape to snap at any moment and kill 
anyone not Harry. 

Honestly, I think trying to say that Dumbledore *doesn't* trust 
Snape completely is a bit like arguing that Harry will end up 
married to Hermione.  It's fun for fanfiction, but it's really not 
part of the text.  Like, at all.

Betsy Hp







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 14 03:50:49 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 03:50:49 -0000
Subject: What Dumbledore trusts Snape to do? WAS: Re: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <dv5d5u+fk4l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv5eip+jnt5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149583

> > >>Sydney:
> > > And Harry asks him in HBP, "How can you be sure Snape's on 
OUR   
> > > side?", and D-dore says, "I'm sure.  I trust Severus 
Snape      
> > > completely".
> > > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> There you go, Alla.  There is no limitation to the world 
completely.

Alla:

No, there is no limitation to the word "completely", but nothing 
stops JKR ( the way I see it) from specifying in book 7 what DD 
trusted Snape to do COMPLETELY.


 
> Betsy Hp:
<SNIP>
> Honestly, I think trying to say that Dumbledore *doesn't* trust 
> Snape completely is a bit like arguing that Harry will end up 
> married to Hermione.  It's fun for fanfiction, but it's really not 
> part of the text.  Like, at all.

Alla:

I really don't see what speculating about DD NEVER saying what he 
trusts Snape to do has to do with fanfiction. I mean, he does NOT 
say anything about it, right? So, why is it fanfiction to speculate 
that maybe there IS a blank which JKR will fill out later?

I mean, if I were starting to argue that Snape is actually Harry's 
father, or Draco is Harry's best friend in disguise or lover, then 
yeah, that probably be too fanfictionary, since that I see zero 
support in canon for, but again, I am sure other people would find 
canon support for these arguments, so that is subjective too.

It is just speculation based on something that I think could turn 
out to be missing in the text or I should probably say Neri thinks 
and I like his line of thinking.:-)

But before we go too far, I really don't insist on that argument as 
being strong one. I see it as a possibility, yes, because that is 
the kind of textual surprise, not convoluted plot twisting, that I 
think JKR may give us or NOT. It just seems like her style to me.

I prefer the argument that Dumbledore's trust in Snape will turn out 
to be at least partially  misplaced. And I think we have plenty 
canon support for DD trusting the wrong people.

JMO,

Alla







From juli17 at aol.com  Tue Mar 14 03:59:24 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 03:59:24 -0000
Subject: The Many Faces of Snape was: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <BAY101-F226E52310895F142D4CE3A91E00@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <dv5f2s+8i30@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149584

<snipping PJ's sliding scale of a hundred Snapes--nay a couple dozen 
hundred Snapes--which is so true>

PJ:
> So who is *my* Snape and why do I cubbyhole him as OFH!?  My Snape 
is 
> emotionally immature and takes his considerable frustration out on 
those 
> around him.  He's snarky and a bully and much too caught up in his 
own 
> brilliance for his own good.  He respects brains and cunning and 
has the 
> Slytherin idea that "the end justifies the means".  Respect is a 
major 
> factor for him and he insists on receiving it while not considering 
many 
> others deserving of it.  Friendship for him is a matter 
of "standing" and 
> respect - in both directions.
> 
> I believe he came to Dumbledore of his own free will after being 
> disillusioned by Voldemort and I think he felt a certain respect 
and 
> closeness to Dumbledore and felt respected in return.  

Julie:
...and stop. So far I'm with you, PJ, but here is where we start to 
diverge, from yourOFH!Snape to myDDM!Snape. (And while I diverge 
here, I commend you for an excellent presentation of your!Snape ;-)

Now, I agree Snape came to DD of his own free will, disillusioned by 
Voldemort, but also I believe, truly remorseful over his own actions, 
particularly in relation to the Potters. I take Dumbledore's words 
about Snape's remorsefulness at their face value. And I also agree 
that everything changed when Harry arrived at Hogwarts. 

What primarily changed is that it was time for Snape to fully face 
his actions and to act on the promises he'd made Dumbledore. Up to 
this point Snape's actions and how they contributed to the death of 
the Potters, his life debt to James, his feelings one way or the 
other about Lily--it was all shoved into the back of his mind, not 
gone but at least not front and center. He didn't have to think about 
it all the time. But Harry's arrival, this boy who looked just like 
his hated father, except when Snape looked in the boys eyes and saw 
Lily (his friend, object of his affection, whatever), brought it all 
rushing back to the fore. And Harry's presence, day after day after 
bloody day, *kept* it there.

I also agree that Harry's tendency to break the rules with little or 
no consequences chafes Snape considerably. And I also don't doubt 
he's made his feelings on that subject very clear to Dumbledore. I 
think part of Snape's hatred of Harry--beyond his parentage, his 
similarity to his father in both looks and action, and him being a 
constant reminder of Snape's own crimes--is because he resents Harry 
being treated so kindly by Dumbledore when he doesn't appear to 
deserve it. So there is some jealousy involved.

However, with my!Snape, while this jealousy does bring out additional 
snarkiness toward Harry, I don't think it has altered Snape's 
fundamental sense loyalty to Dumbledore, which is where I think our 
two Snapes hop the fence away from each other, one to the OFH side, 
and one to the DDM side. 

So myDDM!Snape, while he certainly has OFH qualities, acts first on 
his promise and his loyalty to Dumbledore. Even when he AKs (or 
doesn't AK) Dumbledore, his action is based on this promise/loyalty, 
on what will protect Harry and the other students at Hogwarts 
(including Draco), and on what will ultimately bring about 
Voldemort's demise. (These things--protecting Harry, protecting all 
Hogwarts students, and defeating Voldemort--are all tied together, 
all part of whatever promise Snape made to Dumbledore. And I don't 
think any UV was involved, just a promise Snape intends to keep 
through personal integrity rather than because of magical force.)

And that is the final element of myDDM!Snape. He's mean, snarky, 
embittered, vindictive, and even cruel at times, and yet...he does 
have a moral compass. A moral compass that sent him to Dumbledore, 
that draws a line against things like physically harming children, 
murdering the innocent (yes, despite Dumbledore's death, which is 
shrouded in enough uncertainty to render its actual status 
as "murder" questionable), or breaking a solemn promise. 

BTW, I agree with you, PJ, that what Snape most wants is to be left 
alone with his books and potions and old grudges, but I think he 
knows that would never happen with Voldemort. Win or lose, Voldemort 
would never leave Snape to his peaceful life. He'd keep using Snape, 
or if he's smarter than he appears, kill Snape and get rid of a 
wizard nearly as powerful as he is. Of course, Snape also knew it 
wasn't likely to happen with Dumbledore either, not when his own life 
in this double-spy game would most likely be forfeit in the end. But 
there's that pesky moral compass again, urging Snape to right his old 
wrongs, to pay his debt, not only to James but to everyone who was 
affected by his bad choices, including one young boy-who-lived, Harry 
Potter. And he'd rather pay his debt and earn his redemption (as well 
as Dumbledore's respect and gratitude) than live with it all still 
hanging over his head.

And that's myDDM!Snape in a nutshell. Sort of ;-)

Julie 







From sydpad at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 14 03:59:49 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 03:59:49 -0000
Subject: What Dumbledore trusts Snape to do? WAS: Re: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <dv5a5b+gk0g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv5f3l+tsat@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149585

. 
> > Dumbledore assuring various Order members that they can trust Snape
> > with their lives, when he actually meant, oh, no, just HARRY'S 
> life,
> > he'd totally sell YOU down the river, but I'm going to be coy about
> > it, hee hee-- that doesn't really line up for me.  
> 
> Alla:
> 
> But he does not, Sydney, Dumbledore does not say that - that various 
> Order members should  trust Snape with their lives, or at least I 
> should say to cover myself that I really don't remember him saying 
> that. If you do, could you please send me to the relevant canon?

You are a member of a small underground society that is being targeted
by a ruthless and deadly terrorist organization, and you are sitting
in meetings where your plans are being discussed, and your identies
know, with a double-agent-- a conspicuously shifty and hostile
double-agent.  When you ask your leader, "Can we really trust this
guy?", it just stands to reason you mean, "Can we trust this guy with
our lives?", not "Can we trust this guy to find really great jazz
clubs?"  If Dumbledore was telling  Moody, McGonnegal, and Lupin-- all
characters who relate such assurance-- that he 'trusts Snape', it
would be a pretty outrageous piece of sophistry of him to really mean,
"I only trust him on this one very specific point, on which he is
magically constrained, and only in matters relating to this specific
person who is not you".  Lupin is supposed to be spying undercover on
werewolves led by psychopath.  Do you honestly think that Dumbledore
is assuring him that he trusts Snape, but concealing the vital
information that he doesn't in fact trust Snape with Lupin's life,
just with Harry's?  Why wouldn't he say, "We have to be careful around
Severus on many things, but I have my reasons to trust him on Plan X
that involves Harry"?  McGonnegal says D-dore "wouldn't hear a word
against him".  Is this honestly a Dumbledore who DOESN'T trust Snape
completely?  And how does 'trusting Snape completely' gel with
'trusting Snape only a very, very narrow parameter'?

This does not have the smooth click of something falling into place. 
At least for me.  

Would this LD theory now presume that, if asked by any Order member in
a general sense, post-GoF Dumbledore would say: "I trust Peter
Pettigrew completely"?  That he "wouldn't hear a word against
Pettigrew"?  Because that's what this theory implies.

 
> Sydney: 
> > And, (I don't have my books with me, but off the top of my head),
> > Dumbledore testifies in court-- the sort of thing I presume he 
> swore
> > an oath to -- that Snape came over to OUR side before V-morts fall,
> > that "he's now no more a Death Eater than I am".
> 
> Alla:
> 
> How is it relevant to Dumbledore maybe omiting what he trusts Snape 
> to do? Sure, it could be true that at that moment in time Snape was 
> not a DE, why not? 

Well, he's testifying that Snape is on their side.  And no more a DE
than D-dore himself.  Meaning, I dunno, Snape is on their side, and--
I just don't know how to put this more clearly-- no more a Death Eater
than Dumbledore himself.  You may think this compatible with
Dumbledore actually meaning that Snape is only magically constrained
to protect one person on their side, Harry Potter; that he would still
follow V-mort if he could; and that in all other respects he's
essentially a Death Eater and would return in a second if he could pay
back the life debt.  For some reason, that doesn't really work for me.


> Alla:
> 
> Dumbledore looks as if he tries to make up his mind and THEN says 
> that he trusts Snape, if I may bring it up again. Could it be 
> because he is NOT sure that Snape is on our side and he does NOT say 
> that directly, he just says what you quoted. "I am sure. I trust 
> Severus Snape completely" 

"How can you be sure he's on our side?"  Pause.  "I am sure. I trust
Severus Snape completely".  *turns head this way and that*  Um, yeah.
 I can see how that would work.  If you really, really want to make it
work.  It's not as big a stretch as all the other instances, but it's
still, IMO, a long, looong stretch.

"I do believe he worked so hard to protect you this year because he
felt that would make him and your father even".

*turns head this way and that*  This, more of a stretch.  I dunno,
this takes a lot of clipping and stretching to turn it into, "he HAD
to work so hard to protect you this year because he KNEW it would make
him and your father even." Doesn't he even follow it up with something
about 'funny how people's minds work'?  

I'm also curious, of course, about how LD's will play out and what
'magic at it's deepest and most mysterious' looks like.  Perhaps the
Life Debt is related the mercy thing, and possibly involves saving the
life of someone you can't stand?  Because it's symbolically about the
brotherhood of man whoever they are, or something?

-- Sydney, who is now fantasizing about Harry owing a life debt to
Draco, and wonders how well he would handle that!








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 14 04:04:06 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 04:04:06 -0000
Subject: Is Snape good or evil?
In-Reply-To: <dv5cel+urge@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv5fbm+ht5m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149586

Alla wrote:
> 
> Well, since Dumbledore was NOT wearing a peaceful expression, I feel 
> safe enough to say that there is no meaning behind it. :)
>
Carol responds:
Actually, I think you mean that the phrase "peaceful expression" was
used to describe the sleeping portrait, not the dead Dumbledore, whose
expression is not described. However, since he looks like he's asleep
and Harry sees the "wise old face," evidently looking much like its
usual self except that the eyes are closed since he feels neither
revulsion nor horror, we can't rule out the possibility of a peaceful
expression matching that of the portrait. It would fit with the
touching moment you describe, in any case. And the open-eyed,
surprised expression often associated with AK victims is markedly
absent. So I don't think it's safe to conclude anything of the sort.
Those of us who think the differences may be significant are as
justified as those who see them as accidental or meaningless. :-)

Carol, who thinks the *portrait's* peaceful expression is significant
in itself

(Sorry--fourth post of the day, but it's a short one!)






From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 14 04:12:02 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 04:12:02 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dv4fi1+rrbf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv5fqi+3d6g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149587

> Sydney: 
> Okay, this needs to be cleared up before we can go any further.  As
> I'm using the term 'magical compulsion', the UV ISN'T one.  It doesn't
> affect Snape's psychology, it just means on a bare practical level
> he'll die if he doesn't do this certain thing.  So it's like, for
> instance, the SNEAK hex-- it didn't affect Marietta's thinking, it
> just had this physical effect when it kicks in.  I'm contrasting that
> to the 'psychological' magics-- the House-Elf enslavement, Love
> Potions, Imperius.  Those spells directly seem to control the BRAIN of
> the victim in pretty crude ways.  Inicidentally, this goes with my
> objections to the DADA curse nudging the victim to display their worst
> traits by some subtle, internal means, too.  So, which one are you
> proposing the Life Debt falls into?  Is this a House-Elfy compulsion
> to serve the Life-Debtee, or is it like the UV, where if the victim
> fails in the terms of the injuncition, something physical happens to
> them?  If it's the first, then I don't see it at all.  If you're
> proposing the second-- that the Life Debt actually does something to
> the Debtor if they fail it-- that's a different kettle of fish.
> 

Neri:
There are many possibilities regarding the exact nature of the Life
Debt. One possibility indeed takes the UV as its model, and proposes
that the Life-Debtee would die if he kills, or is a part of killing,
the person he owes the Debt to. For more details about this version see:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139110
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/140493

This speculation has some very attractive features, but it's hardly
the only speculation, and having many different Life Debt speculations
doesn't pose much of a problem for LID!Snape. It's actually similar to
the situation with LOLLIPOPS. There are probably as many versions of
the Snape/Lily SHIP as there are Snape/Lily SHIPpers (possibly more).
You know, maybe it was only a platonic relationship, or maybe it was
platonic on Lily's side but not on Severus' side. Maybe it was a hot
romance for a time, maybe it was a completely one-sided secret
admiration, maybe it was Lily who was the admirer while Snape wasn't
actually interested (yes, this version was proposed too. I seem to
remember it even has an official acronym in TBAY, although I'm too
lazy to search for it now). These differences can be quite important
for the details, but in general most of these variations would
probably work in a similar way with the plot. We can't really know now
which version is true since we have approximately zero information,
but this has never bothered any S/L SHIPper that I could see. The good
ship LOLLIPOPS has always been open to all variations of S/L, and I
don't remember anybody claiming it made her weaker.

The situation with LID is similar. There can be many optional versions
of the Life Debt magic and Snape would come out slightly different in
each version, same as he would come out slightly different in each
version of LOLLIPOPS. We can't really know now because we have as
little information about the Life Debt magic as we have about the
Snape/Lily relationship, but plotwise all Life Debt variations would
probably work in a similar way.

The one big difference in the situation of LOLLIPOPS and LID is that
we don't even have canon that a relationship (of any kind) between
Lily and Snape ever *existed*. In contrast, whatever Life Debt
variation you prefer we do have some good canon that Snape owed James
a Life Debt.

> Sydney: 
> And, (I don't have my books with me, but off the top of my head),
> Dumbledore testifies in court-- the sort of thing I presume he swore
> an oath to -- that Snape came over to OUR side before V-morts fall,

Neri:
But he doesn't say *why* Snape came over to our side. However, he did
tell us that James saved Snape's life, and that Snape tried to save
Harry's life in SS/PS because of his "debt" to James. So I ask you
again ? doesn't this imply Snape owed a Life Debt to James? And what
part did this Debt play in Snape coming over to "our" side?

> that "he's now no more a Death Eater than I am".  

Neri:
Even if Dumbledore had testified under oath (which we don't know for a
fact) I doubt that this particular statement was part of his
testimony. We know that Snape has an active dark mark, so either
Dumbledore means here that he (Dumbledore) also has an active dark
mark, or we must conclude that Dumbledore words (warning: big surprise
coming) should be taken with a grain of salt.

> Sydney:
And Harry asks him
> in HBP, "How can you be sure Snape's on OUR side?", and D-dore says,
> "I'm sure.  I trust Severus Snape completely".  He's saying, he's on
> OUR side.  Meaning, yours and mine.  Our.  Side.

Neri:
"*Your* side, because he has to save your life. *My* side, because he
has to save *your* life". Dumbledore wouldn't consider his own life as
part of the deal. It's Harry that matters.

The Dumbledore in LID is similar to the Dumbledore in DDM in that he's
absolutely ready to give his life for the plan. The difference is that
the Dumbledore of LID is a more moral man. He'd never want Snape to be
a killer. He *trusts* Snape not to be a killer, not in the sense that
he's 100% sure Snape wouldn't do it, but in the sense that he puts his
trust in Snape, that he leaves the choice to Snape. But if Snape
chooses *not* to justify this trust ? Dumbledore's plan still works,
because Snape is still InDebted. The fact the Dumbledore would die in
such case is, for Dumbledore, immaterial.

It's moral *and* devious. No wonder Snape was furious.


> Sydney:
  This is another
> argument that he's not actually saying he trusts Snape completely when
> he says he trusts.. Snape ... completely... I dunno.  I think you're
> clipping bits off the jigsaw-piece here.
> 

Neri:
I remind you we're talking about the person who said "I trust Severus
Snape, but I forgot
 that some wounds run too deep for the healing. I
thought professor Snape could overcome his feelings about your father
-  I was wrong."

Evidently, Dumbledore saying he trusts Snape doesn't necessarily mean
there isn't a but somewhere in there. A but that in certain
circumstances might turn out to be a pretty big BUT. 


> Sydney: 
> I still find Dumbledore's "Severus... please..." simply to not
> fit in with this theory.  You say, he's asking Snape not to forget the
> Life Debt.  But why would D-dore need to PLEAD for Snape not to forget
> some sort of deadly magical compulsion that's been driving him for
> over a decade? 

Neri:
Because whatever the moral/magical mechanism of the Life Debt will
turn out to be, for Dumbledore the moral meaning would always take
first place. Dumbledore wants Snape to save Harry because it's the
right thing to do, not because Snape is magically forced to.

The Dumbledore of LID doesn't plead with Snape to pay the Debt for the
sake of the plan (which would probably work anyhow) but for the sake
of Snape's soul.  

> Sydney:
> Wouldn't he be using the 'stern and terrible' voice
> he used to Petunia?  

Neri:
No. Snape isn't Petunia. And like I said, Dumbledore is pleading for
Snape's sake, not for Harry's sake.
 
> Sydney:
> Why would D-dore be so upset when he was telling
> Harry that he couldn't imagine the remorse Snape felt when he found
> out the targets?  Seeing as by the LD theory Dumbledore's being kind
> of cute here, wouldn't he be calm or even downright twinkly?

Neri:
No. This is a matter of Snape's soul. Dunbledore would hardly been
twinkly. Being upset here further suggests that Dumbledore wasn't so
sure what would be Snape's choice after all.

> Sydney:
> Why would D-dore send Harry to get Snape and no one but Snape when he
> was incapacitated by a poison?

Neri:
Because Snape was the only person who could save him, and in addition
to Dumbledore preferring to stay alive if possible, Snape must be
given the choice.


> Sydney:
And where does the bit where Snape is
> described as being in as much pain as a dog on fire fit in with Snape
> having no problem AK-ing D-dore?

Neri:
But Snape scorned Harry's inability to use an Unforgivable just the
minute before. Doesn't look like he had any problem doing that
immediately after he AK'ed Dumbledore. 

*When* does Snape haul with pain? It's when Harry shouts at him "kill
me like you killed him". And I agree with Pippin that Snape was
probably interpreting "him" to be James, not Dumbledore. It was Snape
himself, after all, who had brought up James into this conversation
just the moment before. Twice, in fact. Harry doesn't even mention
Dumbledore's name at all. It's the thought about killing Harry like he
he was responsible for the killing of James that makes Snape haul in
pain. Smells like a one piece of strong Magic to me. Probably much
stronger than that dark mark scar that was givind Snape pains in GoF. 

> Sydney:
Or the bit where Snape's face is
> suffused with hatred and revulsion, gee, JUST like Harry's was when he
> was force-feeding D-dore the poison?  

Neri:
Er... where exactly is it written that Harry felt hatred towards
Dumbledore in the cave?

The explicit repetition here is that when Snape stands above Harry,
his "pale face, illuminated by the flaming cabin, was suffused with
hatred just as it had been before he had cursed Dumbledore." So Snape
felt towards Dumbledore what he feels towards Harry, and I don't think
it was tender feelings. 

> Sydney:
Of course he's cold and angry
> and jeering.  That's Snape's defense mechanism.  Hating Harry and
> James is totally Snape's defense mechanism.

Neri:
It's a defense mechanism that has never made much sense to me if Snape
is DDM. A person has such a strong remorse about his part in making
some boy an orphan, and he doesn't miss an opportunity to show his
hatred to this orphan and to his dead father? It hasn't been just a
defense mechanism for Snape, it's been a sport. His favorite pastime.
Doesn't strikes me like a very believable characterization on JKR's
part. But if Snape owes a Life Debt to James and is forced to protect
Harry, then I find Snape's hatred and anger totally believable.   

Throughout "The Flight of the Prince" all of Snape's behavior, if he's
LID, is completely straightforward. His scorn of Harry's inability to
use an Unforgivable, his anger, his hatred, bringing up James, his
strange hauling in pain when killing Harry is mentioned, saving Harry
from the Crucio ? all fit with LID *perfectly*.  

> Sydney:
And the next thing he has
> to do is apparate on over to V-mort and talk him out of offing Draco.
>  He has to have the Occlumency shields at full power for the
> foreseeable future.  It cracks for a second-- dog on fire-- and he
> refocuses by concentrating on the James/Harry hatred.
> 

Neri:
Ah, I knew the "Snape is acting" argument is going to come up soon.


Neri







From sopraniste at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 14 04:27:09 2006
From: sopraniste at yahoo.com (Maria Holub)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 20:27:09 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Snape good or evil?
In-Reply-To: <dv5fbm+ht5m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060314042709.53888.qmail@web35615.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149588

> Carol responds:
> Actually, I think you mean that the phrase "peaceful
> expression" was
> used to describe the sleeping portrait, not the dead
> Dumbledore, whose
> expression is not described. However, since he looks
> like he's asleep
> and Harry sees the "wise old face," evidently
> looking much like its
> usual self except that the eyes are closed since he
> feels neither
> revulsion nor horror, we can't rule out the
> possibility of a peaceful
> expression matching that of the portrait. It would
> fit with the
> touching moment you describe, in any case. And the
> open-eyed,
> surprised expression often associated with AK
> victims is markedly
> absent. So I don't think it's safe to conclude
> anything of the sort.
> Those of us who think the differences may be
> significant are as
> justified as those who see them as accidental or
> meaningless. :-)

Flop:
I can't help wondering if that has more to do with the
fact that most people seem to fear death, and
Dumbledore DOES NOT. After all, if death is the next
great adventure (that fickle temptress) then what is
there to be afraid of?

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 14 04:35:55 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 04:35:55 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: hbp12, Silver and Opals
In-Reply-To: <dv4fs5+um34@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv5h7b+45s3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149589

> >>lyraofjordan:
> CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince,       
> Chapter 12, Silver and Opals.
> <snip>
> The day of the first Hogsmeade weekend dawns, and we learn that 
> Harry, (like some members of this list) likes to while away his 
> Saturday mornings perusing his HBP book, looking for hidden clues. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Hee!  I loved this. 
 
> Discussion Questions: 
> 1)	In GoF, it says something to the effect of "four years in 
> the magical world had taught Harry it wasn't a good idea to stick 
> his hand into some unknown magical substance." But by 6th year, 
> Harry is willing to try incantations without a clue of what their 
> effect will be. Does this change of attitude tell us something    
> about Harry? Is he becoming reckless?

Betsy Hp:
Hmm.  Harry actually struck me as *less* reckless in this book.  
Though he was rather fast and loose with the Prince's spells.  Part 
of it might have been his comfort level with wand work versus 
potions. Part of it might have been the level of trust he had for 
the Prince.

> 2)	After using the Levicorpus spell, Harry is able to find the 
> counterspell handwritten in the HBP book. Later, when he uses 
> Sectumsempra on Draco, it turns out Snape also knows a            
> countercurse for that spell as well (though we don't know if he    
> invented it or just learned a spell that heals the cut).  Does the 
> fact that Snape apparently creates/learns counterspells to undo   
> his curses give us any insight into the man? 

Betsy Hp:
Other than increasing my desire to have ten million of his babies? 
<g>  I think it goes towards him not being a horrible person.  It 
also suggests a sense of responsibility as well as certain amount of 
methodicalness. 

> 3)	The Levicorpus spell is specifically noted as being 
> nonverbal. In DADA class, however, it seems that students are     
> using the same spells they learned verbally, but learning to cast 
> them as nonverbal spells. Do you think all spells can be cast      
> verbally and nonverbally, or are some used only as either verbal  
> or nonverbal? 

Betsy Hp:
I'm betting all spells can be cast nonverbally if one is strong 
enough.  It seems like there are some spells that can only be made 
nonverbally.

> Why?

Betsy Hp:
No clue. <g>

 
> 4)	Levicorpus is Harry's first successful nonverbal spell. Why 
> do you think he was able to do this one?

Betsy Hp:
Because the Prince showed him how. <g>  Again, I think there's a 
level of trust involved as well.  Harry really, really trusts the 
Prince.
 
> 5)	Some of the Prince's early jinxes included one to make 
> toenails grow fast, one to make the tongue stick to the roof of   
> the mouth, and Muffliato. Ron thinks they are the sort of spells   
> Fred and George might create; Hermione says they are the work of   
> someone who is not a nice person.  Do you think these are typical 
> schoolyard hexes, not much different from the bat bogey hex or     
> Ron's eat slugs curse, or do they hint at something darker? 

Betsy Hp:
I'd say they're typical schoolyard hexes.  They're not very nice, 
but they're not horribly mean, either.  They certainly don't strike 
me as particularly affiliated with the dark arts.  Especially the 
Muffliato, which isn't an attack spell at all.

Hermione's view on any of the Prince's stuff is suspect because she 
dislikes the book so much.  Sort of how she automatically dismissed 
any of Luna's ideas.

> 6)	Is there any particular symbolism or meaning to the opal 
> necklace (or to opals or necklaces), or is it simply a convenient 
> McGuffin?

Betsy Hp:
Already been well discussed, I think.  Overall though, I'd say it's 
a neat McGuffin.
 
> 7)	Most of JKR's characters, even those with walk-on parts, 
> have a complete name (Mark Evans, Piers Polkiss, and dozens of 
> students who have been sorted in the last few years and happily 
> taken their place in the Charms Society, Gobstones Club, or       
> whatever they do that keeps them from crossing paths with Harry    
> ever again).  
> But Katie Bell's friend Leanne gets six pages of center stage, yet 
> no last name. Did this bother anyone? Was JKR simply signaling    
> that Leanne wasn't really worth bothering with?

Betsy Hp:
I didn't even notice this!  I don't think it means anything 
important.  Leanne has served her purpose and I'm sure we won't see 
her again.  (Maybe in a few crowd scenes.)

> 8)	In OOTP Sirius says the barman at the Hogs Head threw 
> Mundungus out of his bar 20 years ago and has banned him since.    
> That seems to suggest some bad blood between the two. Yet Harry    
> sees the same two talking on the street in Hogsmeade. What are we 
> to think?

Betsy Hp:
I suspect that these two keep a keen eye on the WW's underground.  
The fact that they're publically disputing means that they can 
tackle leads from different ends.  And they can pool information 
that no one would expect to get pooled.  It could also provide 
Mundungus with a super secret line to Dumbledore.

> 9) Harry is upset at Mundungus for stealing "Sirius's stuff" (or 
> more specifically, I think, for violating Sirius's memory) and 
> totally forgets it's now his stuff. Does this surprise you? Is 
> Harry's almost total lack of interest in material goods (aside     
> from international-standard broomsticks) an important element of   
> his personality? Will it be important in the future?

Betsy Hp:
I loved this, because it was a perfect way to show Harry's 
continuing grief over Sirius' death, and completely in character.  
That Harry cares nothing for the stuff is absolutely in character 
too.  It's easier for him to not care about money, since he has so 
much.  But he's never come across as overly attached to things.

It is an important part of his personality, but in an overall sort 
of way.  In other words, it's part of what makes Harry, Harry, but I 
doubt it will be specifically mentioned in the next book.  I don't 
see Voldemort offering him a solid-gold broom or anything like that.
 
> 10) If Malfoy was in detention, how did the necklace end up at the 
> Three Broomsticks?

Betsy Hp:
And when did Rosmerta get imperiused?  Did Draco sneak out of the 
castle and into Hogsmeade or did someone else imperio Rosmerta?  If 
Rosmerta was under imperio before the Hogsmead weekend, Draco could 
have had the necklace mailed to her.  If not, he and Blaise may have 
changed places using polyjuice and then Draco zapped Rosmerta.  
Which means someone else was holding the necklace.

Which means, if I've thought this through correctly, that there was 
someone in Hogsmead assisting Draco.  Or at least, someone able to 
travel about more freely than he was. 

> 11) Hermione warns about using "unknown, handwritten spells" that 
> aren't "Ministry approved." But just a few chapters ago, she was 
> admiring the products at Weasley's Wizard Wheezes, which are most 
> likely not all Ministry approved.  And after her experiences with 
> Umbridge and Fudge, it seems Hermione would have suspicions about 
> the value of Ministry approval. Is this just a lame excuse she     
> comes up with, or is there some validity to her concern about      
> using spells that don't bear the MOM stamp of approval? 

Betsy Hp:
Totally lame excuse on Hermione's part.  For one, she's fully aware 
of what Ministry approved means having taken on Umbridge just the 
year before.  For another, I'm quite sure the Ministry would *not* 
have approved of twelve year olds brewing Polyjuice potions.

If she were really worried, Hermione would have looked over the 
spells herself.  She just really, really hates the book and how its 
replaced her (in her opinion) in Harry's life.

> 12) Harry only reluctantly tells McGonagall about his suspicions 
> concerning Malfoy. Why is he less open with her than with 
> Dumbledore? Will this be an issue as we move into book 7?

Betsy Hp:
I think it will be.  Harry actually has a very small circle of 
people he fully trusts.  Um, a circle of two, I guess.  He's always 
been this way and I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing.  Nor 
do I think it means that he thinks McGonagall is evil or 
untrustworthy.  He just doubts she'll get the full implications of 
what he's saying or doing, that she'll see him as a little kid.

> 13) Heightened security measures have Filch using the Secrecy     
> Sensor on students as they leave the school. Why is Filch checking 
> people as they *leave* the school? Is it wise to have a squib     
> doing tasks that could put him in contact with magical objects he 
> might not recognize or be able to counter or disable? And why is  
> Filch, who seemed solidly on Umbridge's side the previous school   
> year, still apparently in good graces at Hogwarts? Is this another 
> example of Dumbledore trusting people to do the job he's given     
> them, and is this a wise move on the Headmaster's part?

Betsy Hp:
I think Dumbledore trusts Filch to be Filch.  Umbridge sort of 
unleashed the worst side of Filch in tapping into his deep seated 
distrust of the students.  I think Dumbledore recognized this and 
reined Filch back in.  You know Filch checked and double checked any 
student going in or out of the castle (the checking while leaving 
was meant to be a bit of a joke on his paranoia, I think) which is a 
good thing.  But Dumbledore doesn't allow Filch to be in charge of 
punishment, because that's where he'd go too far.

As far as Filch being a squib...  I'm not sure that he'd have been 
expected to deal with any dark objects.  Snape would be in charge of 
that.  So probably Filch would alert him as soon as an alarm went 
off.

Anyway, really good summary and questions Lyraofjordan!

Betsy Hp







From belviso at attglobal.net  Tue Mar 14 05:09:19 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 00:09:19 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] What Dumbledore trusts Snape to do? WAS: Re: High Noon for OFH!Snape
References: <dv5f3l+tsat@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <013c01c64725$73951530$0fba400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 149591

Sydney:
> I'm also curious, of course, about how LD's will play out and what
> 'magic at it's deepest and most mysterious' looks like.  Perhaps the
> Life Debt is related the mercy thing, and possibly involves saving the
> life of someone you can't stand?  Because it's symbolically about the
> brotherhood of man whoever they are, or something?
>
> -- Sydney, who is now fantasizing about Harry owing a life debt to
> Draco, and wonders how well he would handle that!

Magpie:
That's honestly how I see the Life Debt working, absolutely.  People have
tried to go through canon and find all sorts of debts, but I definitely
wasn't surprised when Rowling said Ginny didn't owe one to Harry.  There's
only two: Snape/James and Peter/Harry.

It's the way most of Rowling's magic work--the TWT is a "binding magical
contract," which just means Harry has to be in the Tournament and play to
win,  so nobody tries to just find away around it.  Or like the Pensieve
just being a memory in a dish--don't think too hard about how far you can
roam in the memory or how you're seeing a memory of stuff the person in
question doesn't remember and never heard or saw.

It operates more on a kids' instinctive level--I think the vow does too.
You have to "feel" when it would kick in, and that basically happens when
you've been saved by someone you expect will kill you--maybe you even fear
they might deserve to kill you.  Like James and the kid who's trying to get
him in trouble.  Like Harry and the man he just found out betrayed his
parents and got them killed....

Or Harry and Draco.  Oh yeah, I've considered that.  It would be an elegant
way to cancel out Snape's vow, I think.  Think of a sort of transference,
like in The Jungle Book when Bageera kills a bull to repay the one he bought
Mowgli for.  Snape transfered his vow to James onto Harry.  It would work if 
somehow Harry was saved by the kid Snape is a father figure to, with whom
Harry shares a similar history.  Harry would be horrified, and somehow that 
seems to pay it back more completely than having Snape save Harry (he
already has worked to save his life, so it doesn't seem like that's going to 
release him from the vow ever--it will never work that way, because although 
Harry can't stand Snape, he hasn't sinned against him the right way, if that 
makes sense), even if Snape dies in the attempt.  No, I'm thinking you'd get 
more understanding if the "bad" kid to get a chance to save the "good" kid, 
thus the "bad" kid gets to be not the bad one for once, and the "good" kid 
has to be a little humble.  It sort of points out exactly what was 
disasterous about the Snape/James vow.  Of course, Draco and Harry have 
already deviated from the Snape/James path, but the fact that Harry is 
already carrying around some guilt from the Sectumsempra incident makes a 
potential life debt there all the more juicy.  Ooh, you can just see that 
moral edge slipping out from under Harry so he's all disoriented.:-)

-m 





From GAP5685 at AOL.com  Tue Mar 14 06:29:52 2006
From: GAP5685 at AOL.com (gwen_of_the_oaks)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 06:29:52 -0000
Subject: Defecting Draco?
In-Reply-To: <dv40p5+lelb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv5nt0+lprs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149592

Geoff wrote :
> <Snipping, for brevity's sake, much of an interesting post, which 
ends in comparing Draco on the tower to the biblical figure of Saul 
on the road to Damascus> 

> Taking the line of parallels  between real Christian experience and 
>the event of the Harry Potter books, I would like to 
> see something happen to young Mr.Malfoy and would also be 
interested to know whether 
> there are other candidates who members of the group feel might be 
put forward to be 
> "turned" to the good.
>

Now Gwen:

Thoughtful post, Geoff.  I don't know how many candidates there are 
for redemption, because to be redeemed requires that there first be 
some overt evil act.  The only ones who have really set themselves up 
for redemption in that sense are Pettigrew and Snape. Snape, at least 
according to DD, has repented and sacrificed to redeem his attachment 
to LV.  So either he is already redeemed or he never truly repented.  
If the latter is true, I can't see how a second, "for-real" 
redemption is in the cards for him.  IMHO, to get a second bite at 
the apple seems very unsatisfying.  The better candidate is Pettigrew 
who, because of the breadth and depth of his evil acts, would require 
an ultimate sacrifice to redeem himself.

Draco is redeemable, but it is not in the same way as Pettigrew.  I 
see his case, as you alluded to by comparing him to Saul, as more of 
a conversion than a redemption. There is the same potential for 
conversion in all of the other Death-Eater offspring, because they 
have not consciously chosen evil ? they are being towed in the wake 
of their parents' choices. They have not, on page, been forced to 
choose a side. Draco, as we have seen, has been blinded by vengence 
and seduced by power.  But he chose evil without understanding it.  
Since he ultimately failed to perform he has not "sealed the deal" as 
it were, and he could very well recant in book 7. 

After OOTP I had considered Petunia a candidate for a Saul-like 
conversion:

"All of a sudden, for the very first time in his life, Harry fully 
appreciated that Aunt Petunia was his mother's sister.  He could not 
have said why this hit him so very powerfully at this moment...Her 
large, pale eyes ...were wide and fearful. The furious pretense that 
Aunt Petunia had maintained all Harry's life ? that there was no 
magic and no world other than the world she inhabited with Uncle 
Vernon ? seemed to have fallen away"  OOTP  pg 38 Am. Hardcover.

This life-changing epiphany followed by the disembodied voice coming 
from the howler is very much a parallel to Saul on the road to 
Damascus. After years of persecuting Harry and denying the reality of 
his life and his mother's death, the dementor attack opens her eyes 
to the truth of fighting Voldemort a second time.  She could become 
an invaluable aid to Harry, bringing him closer to his mother's past 
and giving him an insight to her love that he could find nowhere else.

Of course, after this brief surfacing as a character with the 
potential for depth, by HBP she had reverted back to being a one-
dimensional wicked stepmother with a hankering for cleanser.  We'll 
see what book 7 brings.

Gwen








From sherriola at earthlink.net  Tue Mar 14 06:30:17 2006
From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 22:30:17 -0800
Subject: seeds of betrayal
Message-ID: <E1FJ332-0000HG-8M@elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 149593

As most listies probably know by now, I am not a DDM Snaper.  I believe he
murdered Dumbledore in cold blood, but I've got a completely different
theory as to why he did this than any I've seen proposed previously.

I recently reread POA and was hit in the face with Snape's melt down in the
hospital after Sirius escapes.  I started thinking about Snape's reactions,
and those thoughts led me to thinking about the prank.  I began to wonder if
we are all totally wrong in our complicated ideas of why Snape killed
Dumbledore, or if Snape killed Dumbledore and whether or not he did it for
the greater good, for Voldemort or for some other reason.  I think it could
be a very simple reason.  Simple rage at DD, a feeling of betrayal, a
feeling that to DD Snape will always come out behind the Marauders. 

In the little we know of the prank, Sirius told Snape how to get around the
womping willow, and Snape saw lupine transform, and James saved Snape's
life.  Snape has held a deep still painful grudge against all the marauders
for this.  He still hates James Potter and has treated Harry terribly
because of the grudge against his father.  Dumbledore even admits Snape
can't let go of that old hatred, and we have occasions of Snape speaking of
James to Harry with hatred and with intent to hurt Harry with his words.
Snape seems to be a man who hangs on to his hurts, who holds his grudges
closely to him, as if letting go and moving beyond it would somehow diminish
him.  Yet, if Sirius was punished for the prank, we don't know what that
was, and he was definitely not expelled for it.  For Snape, that must have
been absolutely infuriating!  we know he resents it all these years later,
or at least his words to Dumbledore seem to imply it.

Now move to POA.  Snape had what must have seemed to be the opportunity he'd
waited for many a long year.  He had Sirius and lupine at his mercy.  He
could see himself presenting them both to the dementors or at least to the
ministry to be sent back to Azkaban.  whether or not he really cared about
the Order of Merlin, I don't know.  But I think that what he really cared
about was the chance to pay back two of the people he hated so much and
against whom he had nursed that old grudge.

Suddenly, this is all taken away.  The trio stun him to prevent him
capturing Sirius and Lupine.  Then before he can get the kiss, Sirius
escapes.  Snape knows Harry had something to do with it, but Dumbledore
backs up Harry.  again, Dumbledore is taking the side of the marauders
against Snape.  Snape is the one, in his mind, who has been there all these
years, but Dumbledore protects the marauders again, and by extension Harry.
and in Snape's mind, Harry is too closely linked with his father, so it's
like James getting away with something all over again.

""You surely don't believe a word of Black's story?" Snape whispered, his
eyes fixed on Dumbledore's face.
"I wish to speak to Harry and Hermione alone." Dumbledore repeated.
Snape took a step towards Dumbledore.
"Sirius Black showed that he was capable of murder at the age of sixteen,"
he breathed. "You haven't forgotten that, Headmaster? You haven't forgotten
that he once tried to kill me?"
"My memory is as good as it ever was Severus", said Dumbledore quietly. -
PoA, hardcover, p.391,. am.ed.

"Fudge, Snape, and Dumbledore came striding into the  ward. Dumbledore alone
looked calm. Indeed he looked as though he was quite enjoying himself. Fudge
appeared angry. But Snape was beside himself.
"OUT WITH IT, POTTER!"  he bellowed. "WHAT DID YOU DO?"
"Professor Snape!" shrieked Madam Pomfrey. "Control yourself!"
"See here, Snape, be reasonable," said Fudge." This door's been locked, we
just saw--"
"THEY HELPED HIM ESCAPE, I KNOW IT!" Snape howled, pointing at Harry and
Hermione. His face was twisted; spit was flying from his mouth.
"Calm down, man!" Fudge barked. "You're talking nonsense!"
"YOU DON'T KNOW POTTER! shrieked Snape. "HE DID IT, I KNOW HE DID IT--"
***************
"Snape stood there, seething staring from Fudge, who looked thoroughly
shocked at his behaviour, to Dumbledore, whose eyes were twinkling behind
his glasses. Snape whirled about, robes swishing behind him and stormed out
of the ward.
"Fellow seems quite unbalanced," said Fudge, staring after him. "I'd watch
out for him if I were you, Dumbledore"
"Oh, he is not unbalanced," said Dumbledore quietly. "He is just suffered a
severe disappointment" _PoA - p.420-421.



I think it would be unrealistic to think Snape didn't feel resentment
against DD for always supporting the marauders.  They weren't thrown out of
school after the so-called prank.  Granted, JKR has said there is more to
know about the prank, but in Snape's mind, it was a plot to kill him.  For
some reason, Sirius was not expelled for the prank, and Snape could very
well have resented that fact.  why not?  I'd certainly resent someone trying
to seriously injure me not getting expelled.  And we know Snape can hold
those grudges, cling to his anger and hurt for years.  And then again, DD
takes the part of that same Marauder, Sirius.  Against Snape's own words, DD
very obviously believes what Harry and Sirius have told him.  Again, Snape's
feelings are being overlooked by his headmaster in defense of those hateful
marauders and Harry.

He would have to be a saint to feel no anger or resentment toward DD for
that seeming lack of support.  Whatever else Snape is or isn't, he is
certainly no saint.  I present the theory that it was a very personal
grudge, a very personal resentment, that caused Snape to fire that curse at
DD.  All the years of Dumbledore's betrayal, in Snape's mind, having to do
things he might not like to do, whether it's spying or helping Harry, take
your pick.  But I think it's a deep seated very personal resentment, that
Snape has had simmering inside him against DD, and at last he had his
chance.  He was certainly not going to let himself die with that now weak
and foolish old man at his mercy. the weak old man who has always taken the
side of Snape's enemies against Snape and yet expected unquestioning
loyalty.  With what we know of Snape, I see this as a very likely
possibility for why Snape murdered Dumbledore.

sherry
Thanks to alla for the quotes since my braille books are not with me!






From juli17 at aol.com  Tue Mar 14 06:54:26 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 06:54:26 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dv5fqi+3d6g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv5pb2+divk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149594

<big snip>

> 
> > Sydney: 
> > And, (I don't have my books with me, but off the top of my head),
> > Dumbledore testifies in court-- the sort of thing I presume he 
swore
> > an oath to -- that Snape came over to OUR side before V-morts 
fall,
> 
> Neri:
> But he doesn't say *why* Snape came over to our side. However, he 
did
> tell us that James saved Snape's life, and that Snape tried to save
> Harry's life in SS/PS because of his "debt" to James. So I ask you
> again ? doesn't this imply Snape owed a Life Debt to James? And what
> part did this Debt play in Snape coming over to "our" side?

Julie:
This could certainly be part of it, though I can't see Dumbledore 
trusting Snape so completely if his switch was based only on the 
debt. Dumbledore does later imply that Snape's remorse played a large 
part in his switch, which, given Dumbledore's character, is much 
stronger support for trusting Snape completely (assuming Dumbledore 
knows that remorse is genuine, of course). 

Sydney:
> > that "he's now no more a Death Eater than I am".  

> Neri:
> Even if Dumbledore had testified under oath (which we don't know 
for a
> fact) I doubt that this particular statement was part of his
> testimony. We know that Snape has an active dark mark, so either
> Dumbledore means here that he (Dumbledore) also has an active dark
> mark, or we must conclude that Dumbledore words (warning: big 
surprise
> coming) should be taken with a grain of salt.

Julie:
Er, um...huh? Why doesn't Dumbledore just mean what he says, that 
Snape was loyal follower of Voldemort (i.e., a Death Eater), but he 
is no longer?

 
> > Sydney:
> And Harry asks him
> > in HBP, "How can you be sure Snape's on OUR side?", and D-dore 
says,
> > "I'm sure.  I trust Severus Snape completely".  He's saying, he's 
on
> > OUR side.  Meaning, yours and mine.  Our.  Side.
> 
> Neri:
> "*Your* side, because he has to save your life. *My* side, because 
he
> has to save *your* life". Dumbledore wouldn't consider his own life 
as
> part of the deal. It's Harry that matters.
> 
> The Dumbledore in LID is similar to the Dumbledore in DDM in that 
he's
> absolutely ready to give his life for the plan. The difference is 
that
> the Dumbledore of LID is a more moral man. He'd never want Snape to 
be
> a killer. He *trusts* Snape not to be a killer, not in the sense 
that
> he's 100% sure Snape wouldn't do it, but in the sense that he puts 
his
> trust in Snape, that he leaves the choice to Snape. But if Snape
> chooses *not* to justify this trust ? Dumbledore's plan still works,
> because Snape is still InDebted. The fact the Dumbledore would die 
in
> such case is, for Dumbledore, immaterial.
> 
> It's moral *and* devious. No wonder Snape was furious.

Julie:
And here some talk about how DDM!Snapers must deviate from the 
straightforward to support their theories! Harry here certainly 
means "our side" to represent the Order's side/the Good side of the 
war against Voldemort in general. Dumbledore certainly knows what 
Harry means. Dumbledore answers Harry's question in a straightforward 
manner. Snape is on *our* side, i.e., Snape is on the side of teh 
Order, the side against Voldemort.

> 
> > Sydney:
>   This is another
> > argument that he's not actually saying he trusts Snape completely 
when
> > he says he trusts.. Snape ... completely... I dunno.  I think 
you're
> > clipping bits off the jigsaw-piece here.
> > 
> 
> Neri:
> I remind you we're talking about the person who said "I trust 
Severus
> Snape, but I forgot
 that some wounds run too deep for the healing. 
I
> thought professor Snape could overcome his feelings about your 
father
> -  I was wrong."
> 
> Evidently, Dumbledore saying he trusts Snape doesn't necessarily 
mean
> there isn't a but somewhere in there. A but that in certain
> circumstances might turn out to be a pretty big BUT. 

Julie:
Snape didn't betray Dumbledore's trust here. Dumbledore trusted Snape 
to try his best, and Dumbledore isn't implying that Snape didn't do 
exactly that. Instead Dumbledore admits it was *he* who incorrectly 
assessed that Snape's best could include overcoming his feelings 
about James, when it couldn't (some wounds run too deep). So, 
Dumbledore's complete trust in Snape remains intact.

> 
> 
> > Sydney: 
> > I still find Dumbledore's "Severus... please..." simply to not
> > fit in with this theory.  You say, he's asking Snape not to 
forget the
> > Life Debt.  But why would D-dore need to PLEAD for Snape not to 
forget
> > some sort of deadly magical compulsion that's been driving him for
> > over a decade? 
> 
> Neri:
> Because whatever the moral/magical mechanism of the Life Debt will
> turn out to be, for Dumbledore the moral meaning would always take
> first place. Dumbledore wants Snape to save Harry because it's the
> right thing to do, not because Snape is magically forced to.
> 
> The Dumbledore of LID doesn't plead with Snape to pay the Debt for 
the
> sake of the plan (which would probably work anyhow) but for the sake
> of Snape's soul.  

Julie:
This seems pretty non-supportive. Dumbledore is going to plead with 
any version of Snape to do the right thing. "Severus...please... Do 
the right thing, don't kill me and tear your soul... Do the right 
thing, finish me off to save Harry and Draco... Do the right thing, 
follow our plan for the greater good... Do the right thing and save 
Harry for the sake of your soul, which will also conveniently pay 
your Life Debt though don't let that be your primary motivation." 
Hmm, that last one is a little cumbersome though.

> 
> > Sydney:
> > Wouldn't he be using the 'stern and terrible' voice
> > he used to Petunia?  
> 
> Neri:
> No. Snape isn't Petunia. And like I said, Dumbledore is pleading for
> Snape's sake, not for Harry's sake.

Julie:
So, even though Dumbledore doesn't really completely trust Snape, and 
only *hopes* Snape will do the right thing, he's still more worried 
about Snape than about his protege and savior of the WW, Harry--who 
could well *die* if Dumbledore's trust in Snape is misplaced? For a 
man who doesn't completely trust someone, Dumbledore is putting a lot 
of trust in Snape...

I think I'm just getting confused! If your theory is the 
straightforward one, why is it giving me a headache?

>  
> > Sydney:
> > Why would D-dore be so upset when he was telling
> > Harry that he couldn't imagine the remorse Snape felt when he 
found
> > out the targets?  Seeing as by the LD theory Dumbledore's being 
kind
> > of cute here, wouldn't he be calm or even downright twinkly?
> 
> Neri:
> No. This is a matter of Snape's soul. Dunbledore would hardly been
> twinkly. Being upset here further suggests that Dumbledore wasn't so
> sure what would be Snape's choice after all.

Julie:
Why isn't Dumbledore upset for the obvious reason--he is relating the 
strength of Snape's feelings which he remembers all too vividly, and 
he can also see to his dismay that Harry is not accepting this well?

> 
> > Sydney:
> > Why would D-dore send Harry to get Snape and no one but Snape 
when he
> > was incapacitated by a poison?
> 
> Neri:
> Because Snape was the only person who could save him, and in 
addition
> to Dumbledore preferring to stay alive if possible, Snape must be
> given the choice.

Julie:
Snape must be given the choice to do what? Save Dumbledore from the 
poison, or let him die from it? As I recall, Draco isn't on the scene 
yet, so the choice relating to the UV isn't yet at hand.
> 
> 
> > Sydney:
> And where does the bit where Snape is
> > described as being in as much pain as a dog on fire fit in with 
Snape
> > having no problem AK-ing D-dore?
> 
> Neri:
> But Snape scorned Harry's inability to use an Unforgivable just the
> minute before. Doesn't look like he had any problem doing that
> immediately after he AK'ed Dumbledore. 

Julie:
Actually Snape first STOPPED Harry from even trying an AK, then 
scorned his *assumed* inability to use an Unforgivable. Snape 
scorning Harry is simply Snape. It is Snape stopping Harry from even 
making the attempt that is more interesting. After all, if Snape 
really believes Harry is incapable of doing it, why not let him try, 
then laugh at his failure? Because Harry might actually achieve an AK 
and harm his soul, something that Dumbledore has no doubt emphasized 
must *not* happen?

Neri:
> *When* does Snape haul with pain? It's when Harry shouts at 
him "kill
> me like you killed him". And I agree with Pippin that Snape was
> probably interpreting "him" to be James, not Dumbledore. It was 
Snape
> himself, after all, who had brought up James into this conversation
> just the moment before. Twice, in fact. Harry doesn't even mention
> Dumbledore's name at all. It's the thought about killing Harry like 
he
> he was responsible for the killing of James that makes Snape haul in
> pain. Smells like a one piece of strong Magic to me. Probably much
> stronger than that dark mark scar that was givind Snape pains in 
GoF. 

Julie:
Snape *just* killed Dumbledore, a man he respected to some degree, 
perhaps even loved. It doesn't really matter what Harry means, but 
what is foremost in Snape's mind, and I have no doubt Dumbledore is 
foremost in Snape's mind, and also a fresh and much, *much* more 
painful memory than James at the moment. (And I suspect Harry did 
mean Dumbledore, for the same reasons.)

As for the magic, again I'm not sure I follow. Snape thinks he wants 
to kill Harry, and feels severe pain because of the Life Debt? It 
doesn't track for me, because Snape becomes angry at being called a 
coward--and if he's so pained and infuriated by that appellation it 
logically must be because he thinks it's an unfair appellation. He's 
*not* a coward because he did something that in his mind took extreme 
courage. It sure wasn't getting James killed. But it could be killing 
Dumbledore for the greater good.


> > Sydney:
> Or the bit where Snape's face is
> > suffused with hatred and revulsion, gee, JUST like Harry's was 
when he
> > was force-feeding D-dore the poison?  
> 
> Neri:
> Er... where exactly is it written that Harry felt hatred towards
> Dumbledore in the cave?
> 
> The explicit repetition here is that when Snape stands above Harry,
> his "pale face, illuminated by the flaming cabin, was suffused with
> hatred just as it had been before he had cursed Dumbledore." So 
Snape
> felt towards Dumbledore what he feels towards Harry, and I don't 
think
> it was tender feelings. 

Julie:
We don't know the hatred Snape is feeling is directed *at* Harry. It 
may well be *toward* Harry as it was *toward* Dumbledore, while the 
focus of the hatred is the task itself--killing Dumbledore to save 
Harry and get the DEs away from Hogwarts--and Snape's own self-
loathing over what he was forced to do. 

> 
> > Sydney:
> Of course he's cold and angry
> > and jeering.  That's Snape's defense mechanism.  Hating Harry and
> > James is totally Snape's defense mechanism.
> 
> Neri:
> It's a defense mechanism that has never made much sense to me if 
Snape
> is DDM. A person has such a strong remorse about his part in making
> some boy an orphan, and he doesn't miss an opportunity to show his
> hatred to this orphan and to his dead father? It hasn't been just a
> defense mechanism for Snape, it's been a sport. His favorite 
pastime.
> Doesn't strikes me like a very believable characterization on JKR's
> part. But if Snape owes a Life Debt to James and is forced to 
protect
> Harry, then I find Snape's hatred and anger totally believable. 

Julie:
I think Snape did feel strong remorse over the deaths of James and 
Lily, and he also feels strong resentment toward Harry for being a 
constant reminder of his sins, and of his need for redemption. Add to 
that Harry's personality which is similar to James's in some of the 
most aggravating ways (to Snape), and that just feeds the resentment.

Neri:   
> 
> Throughout "The Flight of the Prince" all of Snape's behavior, if 
he's
> LID, is completely straightforward. His scorn of Harry's inability 
to
> use an Unforgivable, his anger, his hatred, bringing up James, his
> strange hauling in pain when killing Harry is mentioned, saving 
Harry
> from the Crucio ? all fit with LID *perfectly*.  

Julie:
If you twist it to fit perfectly ;-) It's all too convoluted for me. 
Give me DDM!Snape, which explains the same things--stopping Harry 
from using the Unforgivable, Snape's pain at being accused of 
cowardice, saving Harry from the Crucio, *not* taking Harry back to 
Voldemort, not to mention Dumbledore's abiding and complete trust in 
Snape, Dumbledore insisting Snape was remorseful, Snape saving 
Dumbledore from the first Horcrux curse, Snape helping save Harry's 
life several times...it all straightforwardly supports DDM!Snape. And 
it doesn't make me reach for two Tylenol ;-)
> 
> > Sydney:
> And the next thing he has
> > to do is apparate on over to V-mort and talk him out of offing 
Draco.
> >  He has to have the Occlumency shields at full power for the
> > foreseeable future.  It cracks for a second-- dog on fire-- and he
> > refocuses by concentrating on the James/Harry hatred.
> > 
> 
> Neri:
> Ah, I knew the "Snape is acting" argument is going to come up soon.
> 


Julie:
No, it's the "Snape is hiding his true feelings and intentions" 
argument. But that one is true for all versions of Snape. We *still* 
don't know the real Snape, not by a long shot, so he is pretty good 
at hiding his real self, whether from Voldemort, from Dumbledore, or 
from both...

Uh, wait a minute. I guess you could call that acting, couldn't you? 
So no matter what else he is, I guess he's definitely 
AcademyAwardWinner!Snape ;-)

Julie






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Mar 14 06:56:08 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 06:56:08 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dv5fqi+3d6g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv5pe8+qldt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149595


> 
> > Sydney: 
> > that "he's now no more a Death Eater than I am".  
> 
> Neri:
> Even if Dumbledore had testified under oath (which we don't know for a
> fact) I doubt that this particular statement was part of his
> testimony. We know that Snape has an active dark mark, so either
> Dumbledore means here that he (Dumbledore) also has an active dark
> mark, or we must conclude that Dumbledore words (warning: big surprise
> coming) should be taken with a grain of salt.

Pippin:
The dark mark was not active when Dumbledore gave his testimony. 
Obviously Snape did rejoin the Death Eaters, at Dumbledore's request,
when Voldemort returned. 


> 
> > Sydney:
> And Harry asks him
> > in HBP, "How can you be sure Snape's on OUR side?", and D-dore says,
> > "I'm sure.  I trust Severus Snape completely".  He's saying, he's on
> > OUR side.  Meaning, yours and mine.  Our.  Side.
> 
> Neri:
> "*Your* side, because he has to save your life. *My* side, because he
> has to save *your* life". Dumbledore wouldn't consider his own life as
> part of the deal. It's Harry that matters.
<snip> 
> The Dumbledore in LID is similar to the Dumbledore in DDM in that he's
> absolutely ready to give his life for the plan. The difference is that
> the Dumbledore of LID is a more moral man. He'd never want Snape to be
> a killer. He *trusts* Snape not to be a killer,

Pippin:
You're forgetting that some versions of DDM!Snape don't consider
that Snape killed Dumbledore at all. And I'll tell you who else trusted
Severus Snape. Sirius Black went to the DoM on Snape's information.
For all he knew Snape could have been lying. 
Yet the Order agreed to go into action "at once."
No debate, no attempt to check on whether Harry wasn't safe in
bed at the time.


> > Sydney:
> Of course he's cold and angry
> > and jeering.  That's Snape's defense mechanism.  Hating Harry and
> > James is totally Snape's defense mechanism.
> 
> Neri:
> It's a defense mechanism that has never made much sense to me if Snape
> is DDM. A person has such a strong remorse about his part in making
> some boy an orphan, and he doesn't miss an opportunity to show his
> hatred to this orphan and to his dead father?

Pippin:
Hatred can coexist with love, why not with remorse? And why
shouldn't it?  Is James going to be any less dead or Harry any 
less orphaned if Snape stops hating them? I'm sure Snape believes 
that his anger and hate are what keep  him alive, that he could 
have done nothing but cower (like the woman in the pensieve) 
under the abuse he's endured, if it weren't for his anger. 

Neri:
 It hasn't been just a defense mechanism for Snape, it's been a sport.
 His favorite pastime.

Pippin:
Just as picking on Snape was both defense mechanism and sport for
James and Sirius. The cool don't like to be reminded that the uncool
exist -- Snape was, just by existing,  a scary reminder that
all that made it cool to be James Potter and Sirius Black  could be taken 
away (as indeed it was.) Harry is, just by existing, an unpleasant 
reminder of James. I don't find this unbelievable at all. 

It beats me how people can be so concerrned that Harry may never
get over what he's been through, but not understand why
Snape's wounds haven't healed. At least in Harry's case, everyone
acknowledges that Voldemort tried to kill him. But Snape suffered
a sexual assault and an assault on his life  as a teenager, and 
everyone treats it like a joke. James is made out to be a hero for
saving his life, but Snape  is not the victim of a wouldbe murderer,
he's just the guy that James and his friends made a fool of.

No wonder Snape gets hyper when the subject comes up. It
all reminds me of something that happened here in Los Angeles
a few years ago. A Buddhist temple installed a gate 
with a swastika design. In India where the gate came from
it was innocently used as a token of  good fortune, but in Los 
Angeles there were holocaust survivors 
who would have had to look at it every day. There was no way 
they could see that symbol and not be reminded of the horrors 
in their past. When the Buddhists understood that, they had the 
gate remade. Unfortunately, Harry is stuck with his face.

Pippin






From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Tue Mar 14 07:11:13 2006
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 07:11:13 -0000
Subject: Too Big. (was: Is Snape good or evil?)
Message-ID: <dv5qah+spoa@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149596

They say you should never argue religion or politics, and it might be
wise to add the question "Is Snape Good or Evil". The idea is just too
big, everybody has a very strong opinion on the subject and before you
know it fists are flying and people start questioning the marital
status of their opponent's parents; and I'm as guilty as anyone, more
than most. In the interests of peace let me propose a much smaller and
simpler question: After you've read book 7 do you think your
admiration of Snape will be greater or smaller than it is now?

As for me I am absolutely certain I will admire Snape more because I
could not possibly detest the man more. After I've read book 7 I
believe I will still think Snape is a despicable evil bastard, but I
think I will be able to find one thing good thing to say the man,
something I can not do today.

Eggplant 







From kjones at telus.net  Tue Mar 14 08:11:40 2006
From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 00:11:40 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] What Dumbledore trusts Snape to do? WAS: Re:
 High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <dv5eip+jnt5@eGroups.com>
References: <dv5eip+jnt5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <44167ABC.40406@telus.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 149597


> Alla:
> 
> No, there is no limitation to the word "completely", but nothing
> stops JKR ( the way I see it) from specifying in book 7 what DD
> trusted Snape to do COMPLETELY.


   KJ writes:

     I think that this is a very good point, actually, and one that has
   crossed my mind more than once. I think that Snape has his own 
reasons
   for staying by Dumbledore all these years and that he has his own need
   to see Voldemorte destroyed. Dumbledore knows what that reason is and
   trusts Snape's desire to see it through at risk to his own life. I
   don't think that it is the result of a vow made to Dumbledore. I am,
   however, wondering if it might be because of a threat to Snape's own
   family. Keep in mind that JKR can not tell us which staff members have
   family because it would give too much away. I don't think any of us
   care who Sprout is married to or Minerva for that matter, so to me, it
   indicates Snape. Family is such an integral part of these books. With
   Draco, we are shown someone who is unable to do what he believes must
   be done to save his family. Perhaps that is the immediate comparison
   with Snape, who obviously is able to do what must be done. I don't
   think that it is the saving of the WW that drives Snape. He would be
   quite capable of disappearing, and fitting quite comfortably into
   Muggle life where he would not be found. I think that something else
   is his driving force. That is what Dumbledore trusts.
   KJ




From sydpad at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 14 08:40:48 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 08:40:48 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dv5fqi+3d6g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv5vig+um44@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149598


Neri:
So I ask you
> again ? doesn't this imply Snape owed a Life Debt to James? And what
> part did this Debt play in Snape coming over to "our" side?

In terms of, is Snape magically compelled to save James or Harry?  I
really don't think so.  I think it may have played a part as a debt of
honour.  It would be cool if there was some.. what's a good term,
'situational magic'?  like the DADA curse seems to involve.  But from
the basic root of this life debt theory:

"Well, they did rather detest each other. Not unlike yourself and Mr.
Malfoy. And then, your father did something Snape could never forgive."

"What?"

"He saved his life."

"What?"

"Yes..." said Dumbledore dreamily. "Funny, the way people's minds
work, isn't it? Professor Snape couldn't bear being in your father's
debt....

I do believe he worked so hard to protect you this year because he
felt that would make him and your father even. Then he could go back
to hating your father's memory in peace...." 


Why would Dumbledore be talking about how it's funny how people's
minds work?  If the debt works as you say it does, it wouldn't be
funny at all, in the sense of strange or illogical.  This doesn't
sound at all to me like Dumbledore's talking about a straight-out
compulsion like the House-Elf enslavement. I mean, would he say, "Yes,
Dobby served Lucius Malfoy all year because he felt it was required by
this spell.  Funny how people's minds work"?  If you found out about
the elf enchantment and then re-read D-dore saying something like
that, you'd be, 'what?  That doesn't even make sense'. 

Further, I think it's fairly clear in the text that Dumbledore is only
SURMISING the reason that Snape changed sides;  and that this is a
different thing from whatever it is that makes Dumbledore so certain
that he DID change sides.  He's "certain" that Snape is on their side.
But he only says, of finding out who V-mort's targets were, "I believe
it to be the greatest regret of his life and the reason he turned--".
It's a subtle difference and it's easy to see why Harry misquotes
Dumbledore at the end of HBP.  But in the context we're talking about
it's a vital difference.  If Dumbledore only 'believes' the targeting
of James was the cause of Snape's turning, but he's 'certain' that he
DID turn, then they can't be the same thing.  Like saying, "I believe
that Carravagio is genuine.  I'm certain that Rembrandt is genuine." 
If you say those two phrases right after the other, like D-dore does
about Snape reasons and Snape's turning, you can see that the frame of
mind and the standard of evidence is subtly, but importantly
distinguished.  He also says he 'believes' the debt Snape 'felt' he
owed to James was why he was working so hard to protect Harry in PS.  

 
> > that "he's now no more a Death Eater than I am".  
> 
> Neri:
> Even if Dumbledore had testified under oath (which we don't know for a
> fact) I doubt that this particular statement was part of his
> testimony. We know that Snape has an active dark mark, so either
> Dumbledore means here that he (Dumbledore) also has an active dark
> mark, or we must conclude that Dumbledore words (warning: big surprise
> coming) should be taken with a grain of salt.

Why would Dumbledore be lying here?  I don't get this part at all. 
Why would Dumbledore be spreading around to all and sundry, including
people whose lives depend on Snape independently of this LD, that he
trusts Snape completely and he's totally no longer a Death Eater, when
he doesn't actually think so?  Why wouldn't he give one sort of
assurance for Harry-related stuff, and a much more cautious reading
for everything else?  Why give these huge blanket statements when he
completely doesn't mean them?

I think my post just above yours appeared before you had time to
address it, so I'll just reiterate this bit:

"Would this LD theory now presume that, if asked by any Order member in
a general sense, post-GoF Dumbledore would say: "I trust Peter
Pettigrew completely"?  That he "wouldn't hear a word against
Pettigrew"?  Because that's what this theory implies."

> 
> > Sydney:
> And Harry asks him
> > in HBP, "How can you be sure Snape's on OUR side?", and D-dore says,
> > "I'm sure.  I trust Severus Snape completely".  He's saying, he's on
> > OUR side.  Meaning, yours and mine.  Our.  Side.
> 
> Neri:
> "*Your* side, because he has to save your life. *My* side, because he
> has to save *your* life". Dumbledore wouldn't consider his own life as
> part of the deal. It's Harry that matters.

Sophist!Dumbledore is a bit of a joker, isn't he?  I don't get why
he'd be jerking Harry around like this.  Or anybody else for that
matter.   Surely Harry is also concerned for people like Ginny or Ron
or anybody else when he refers to 'our side'?  What if Snape suddenly
had reason to kill Ginny, as a DE well might?  Why would Dumbledore
being doing everything he can to encourage Harry to trust not just his
own life, but other people's, to this guy when he's only relying on
him because of a narrow bond to one person?


> Neri:
> I remind you we're talking about the person who said "I trust Severus
> Snape, but I forgot
 that some wounds run too deep for the healing. I
> thought professor Snape could overcome his feelings about your father
> -  I was wrong."
> 
> Evidently, Dumbledore saying he trusts Snape doesn't necessarily mean
> there isn't a but somewhere in there. A but that in certain
> circumstances might turn out to be a pretty big BUT.

BUT... this isn't Dumbledore saying, I trusted Snape and I was wrong.
He says, I trust Snape, but this particular task he was too
handicapped to do.  It's Dumbledore saying, I thought Hagrid could
squeeze through that tiny hole, but it turns out he was just too big.
 That's not an "I don't trust Hagrid" moment, that's an "Hagrid turned
out to be unequipped for this thing I asked him to do".  
> 
> 
> > Sydney: 
> > I still find Dumbledore's "Severus... please..." simply to not
> > fit in with this theory.  You say, he's asking Snape not to forget the
> > Life Debt.  But why would D-dore need to PLEAD for Snape not to forget
> > some sort of deadly magical compulsion that's been driving him for
> > over a decade? 
> 
> Neri:
> Because whatever the moral/magical mechanism of the Life Debt will
> turn out to be, for Dumbledore the moral meaning would always take
> first place. Dumbledore wants Snape to save Harry because it's the
> right thing to do, not because Snape is magically forced to.
> 
> The Dumbledore of LID doesn't plead with Snape to pay the Debt for the
> sake of the plan (which would probably work anyhow) but for the sake
> of Snape's soul.  

I'm with Juli-- and people say DDM!theories are convoluted! 
Dumbledore only trusts Snape because of the LD, except when he trusts
Snape generally because he wants him to be a good person; he's
pleading with Snape to save Harry, knowing that he'd have to save
Harry anyways, but Dumbledore means, don't save him because you'd die
or come out in spots if you didn't but because it's right-- but hang
on, is D-dore for or against Snape AK-ing him at this point, because
how can Snape save Harry at all if he'd die from the Vow?  But
Dumbledore doesn't want Snape to tarnish his soul by killing him so
he's begging Snape NOT to kill Dumbledore.  Which doesn't have
anything to do with the Life Debt and would leave Harry vulnerable to
the 3 DE's plus Draco on the tower.  So maybe he IS begging about
Harry.  Can I borrow some of Juli's Tylenol?


> > Sydney:
> > Why would D-dore be so upset when he was telling
> > Harry that he couldn't imagine the remorse Snape felt when he found
> > out the targets?  Seeing as by the LD theory Dumbledore's being kind
> > of cute here, wouldn't he be calm or even downright twinkly?
> 
> Neri:
> No. This is a matter of Snape's soul. Dunbledore would hardly been
> twinkly. Being upset here further suggests that Dumbledore wasn't so
> sure what would be Snape's choice after all.

*flails arms about*  You mean, Dumbledore's upset because Snape might
have chosen NOT to honour the Life Debt?  But I thought the entire
point of this theory was that Snape HAD to honour the Life Debt, thus
meaning that Snape never actually made a choice at all?  And
Dumbledore's distressed because of what opinion Harry is forming of
Snape.  He's not remembering a past angst about Snape turning for good
reasons or bad reasons.  He sees Harry hating Snape and thinking he's
this awful person and D-dore's saying "You don't understand how
terrible he felt!  It was the worst moment of his whole life!  Please
don't hate him like this!"  Perhaps you think this is consistent with
him saying "Harry, if you only understood how remorseful Snape was
when he found out Snape himself could be hurt by turning in your
parents!  It was terrible for him!"  I don't.


>It's the thought about killing Harry like he
> he was responsible for the killing of James that makes Snape haul in
> pain. Smells like a one piece of strong Magic to me. Probably much
> stronger than that dark mark scar that was givind Snape pains in GoF. 

I knew the "Snape doesn't have real feelings, just magically-induced
ones" arguement was going to come up. <g>
> 
> > Sydney:
> Or the bit where Snape's face is
> > suffused with hatred and revulsion, gee, JUST like Harry's was when he
> > was force-feeding D-dore the poison?  
> 
> Neri:
> Er... where exactly is it written that Harry felt hatred towards
> Dumbledore in the cave?

It says, "Hating himself, repulsed by what he was doing, Harry forced
the goblet back to Dumbledore's mouth".  Snape face is described as 
"having revulsion and hatred etched on the harsh lines of his face".
If a third party was looking at Harry at that moment, he would have
seen some crazy kid with a face full of hatred and revulsion
force-feeding a helpless old man poison. 


> > Hating Harry and
> > James is totally Snape's defense mechanism.
> 
> Neri:
> It's a defense mechanism that has never made much sense to me if Snape
> is DDM. A person has such a strong remorse about his part in making
> some boy an orphan, and he doesn't miss an opportunity to show his
> hatred to this orphan and to his dead father? 

LOL, everytime someone is genuinely mystified by this, I wonder if
either they lead blameless lives, or maybe I just need therapy! 
Snape's treatment of Harry just screams 'guilt' to me.  I utterly and
completely recongnize it.  Personally, I'm never as furious and
illogical and unfair as I am when I'm trying to conceal that I'm
guilty about something.  I'm not saying Snape isn't one sick puppy,
but I really do recognize his sickness as one of guilt.  But if you've
never felt like that, well-- I'm jealous!  <g>


> >  He has to have the Occlumency shields at full power for the
> > foreseeable future.  It cracks for a second-- dog on fire-- and he
> > refocuses by concentrating on the James/Harry hatred.
> > 
> 
> Neri:
> Ah, I knew the "Snape is acting" argument is going to come up soon.

He's not acting.  He really DOES hate James.  His feelings towards
Harry seem more complicated but I'm sure he could be described as
hating him.  I'm saying, Snape has Death Eaters and Draco watching him
and he's on his way to see Voldemort.  He's upset (heck, he's probably
on the verge of a nervous breakdown), but there's just no way for him
to crack up and start crying about Dumbledore here.  If you put a
*total randomness* mandrake in a pot in front of him he'd probably
start screaming about how much he hated $%*@*% mandrakes and their
*@#$ baby faces.  You put Harry in front of him and that's even
better, now he can start kicking James' memory instead.  Haven't you
ever kicked your car when you've had a bad day, because you can't kick
your boss?  And Snape can't even THINK about kicking his boss. 

In conclusion... I think this is actually a groovy theory-- really! 
It reminds me a bit of my favorite tragically unfullfilled theories,
MemoryCharm!Neville and Imperio!Arthur Weasley.  It's clever and fun
and has a nice twist.  But I just think, as a theory, it's forcing the
facts to bend out of shape to suit it, rather than falling into place
in a fore-head slapping way.  Dumbledore in particular is doing some
pretty scary yoga to fit all these positions.  

-- Sydney, saying goodnight!










From zanelupin at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 14 09:29:48 2006
From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 09:29:48 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: hbp12, Silver and Opals
In-Reply-To: <dv4fs5+um34@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv62ec+p84p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149599

Hey All,

Great summary, Lyra!

Lyra wrote:

> 1)	In GoF, it says something to the effect of "four years in 
> the magical world had taught Harry it wasn't a good idea to stick 
> his hand into some unknown magical substance." But by 6th year, 
> Harry is willing to try incantations without a clue of what their 
> effect will be. Does this change of attitude tell us something about 
> Harry? Is he becoming reckless?

KathyK:

While I'm not sure I agree with Betsy that Harry has gotten less
reckless, he certainly isn't any more reckless in HBP than he's been
in the past.  That quote about Harry not sticking his hand into an
unknown substance is from "The Pensieve" in GoF.  And while Harry
might have learned he ought to prod the unknown substance with his
wand instead of his hand, he certainly didn't learn to control his
curiosity and ended up shoving his nose into the Pensieve instead of
his hand.  He was curious about the door in OoP, which, IMO, is the
main reason he could not master Occlumency.  He uses the spells in the
book for the same reason.  He may know (or be warned by others) he
ought to be cautious in this magical world of his, but curiosity
always wins over caution.   


Lyra:
 
> 5)	Some of the Prince's early jinxes included one to make 
> toenails grow fast, one to make the tongue stick to the roof of the 
> mouth, and Muffliato. Ron thinks they are the sort of spells Fred 
> and George might create; Hermione says they are the work of someone 
> who is not a nice person.  Do you think these are typical schoolyard 
> hexes, not much different from the bat bogey hex or Ron's 
> eat slugs curse, or do they hint at something darker? 

KathyK:

They're the typical schoolyard hexes.  Depending on your feelings
about typical schoolyard hexes, they *could* hint at something darker.
   But it may just say more about Harry that he chooses to use some of
these hexes on someone defenseless like Filch.  ;-)

 
> 7)	Most of JKR's characters, even those with walk-on parts, 
> have a complete name (Mark Evans, Piers Polkiss, and dozens of 
> students who have been sorted in the last few years and happily 
> taken their place in the Charms Society, Gobstones Club, or whatever 
> they do that keeps them from crossing paths with Harry ever again).  
> But Katie Bell's friend Leanne gets six pages of center stage, yet 
> no last name. Did this bother anyone? Was JKR simply signaling that 
> Leanne wasn't really worth bothering with?

KathyK:

Poor Leanne.  Used and cast aside.  She's a student unknown to Harry.
 She didn't even have a name until Katie conveniently shouted it
during their argument.  No room for introductions in the scene.  The
only place I could see where a last name could be inserted was when
McGonagall ordered Leanne up to the hospital wing.  She called her
"Leanne."  She could have called the girl by her surname, as I *think*
(can't remember a lot of specifics--memory's getting rusty) she
typically calls each student.  Either JKR didn't have a last name at
all or McGonagall just felt so sorry for the girl, she just had to
call her Leanne.  Maybe both?  
 
 
> 11) Hermione warns about using "unknown, handwritten spells" that 
> aren't "Ministry approved." But just a few chapters ago, she was 
> admiring the products at Weasley's Wizard Wheezes, which are most 
> likely not all Ministry approved.  And after her experiences with 
> Umbridge and Fudge, it seems Hermione would have suspicions about 
> the value of Ministry approval. Is this just a lame excuse she comes 
> up with, or is there some validity to her concern about using spells 
> that don't bear the MOM stamp of approval? 

KathyK:

It is a lame excuse for her suspicion the Half-Blood Prince is "a bit
dodgy."  Hermione needs reasons for Harry to get rid of the book.  
Even if she actually believed that Ministry approval for spells was 
important, she would be very foolish to believe *Harry* would find a 
lack of Ministry approval a compelling reason to stop doing anything.  
Very lame, indeed. 



KathyK







From olivier.fouquet at polytechnique.org  Tue Mar 14 09:42:51 2006
From: olivier.fouquet at polytechnique.org (Olivier Fouquet)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 18:42:51 +0900
Subject: LID!Snape rides again
Message-ID: <ED564F85-089D-49BB-A585-F790BC102F83@polytechnique.org>

No: HPFGUIDX 149600

Lot of Snape discussion here and there and again I find myself in the  
uncomfortable place of the non-theorizer. So what do we read in those  
books. We read that Snape can be unfair, cruel, bitter, that he is no  
stranger to irrational hate. We also discover that he has been a DE,  
thus that he has been part of schemes involving murder and torture on  
a vast scale. We also see him murdering Dumbledore (sidenote to  
Pippin, I accept your theory that Snape did not murder DD, just as I  
would have accepted a pre-PoA theory that Scabber was not a rat, only  
it is for the time being just a theory). Conclusion: he is not a nice  
guy. What does JKR say about him when asked? That he is not a nice  
guy (sometimes I wonder why she is considered manipulative, god do I  
find her straightforward).

What else do we read? That he has tried to save Harry's life on at  
least one unambiguous occasion (and arguably in several others), that  
he has had Dumbledore entirely at his mercy and that he not only did  
not kill him but also saved his life. We read that Dumbledore trusted  
him entirely. What does JKR say about that when asked? That Snape  
told Dumbledore his story and that DD believed him IIRC.

OK. Now I must confess. Where do you guys find room to argue?  
Whatever your theory, be it DDM! OFH! LID! ESE! Vampire! CLV! (the  
last one is Candy Loving Vegetarian Snape, I too sometimes want to  
have my own theory) what exactly do you find mysterious? Take the  
tower moment. If he is ESE! or OFH! of course he kills DD. And if he  
is DDM!? Well he has to kill DD or drop dead and have Dumbledore die  
anyway because someone will finish off. He could have tried to single- 
handedly defeat all the surrounding Death Eaters. That's what Sirius  
would have tried. But in all likelihood he would have failed. In  
fact, it is my opinion that we have no new information about Snape's  
allegiance after HBP.

As far as I can see no-one here argues that Snape is totally evil.  
That would contradict too many facts. Are there really proponent of a  
perfectly good Snape? Acting when he is mean and always doing LV  
deeds on Dumbledore's order? Pippin is probably the closest  
approximation but even her I believe doesn't deny that Snape knocked  
down Flitwick, thereby seriously endangering the students and  
children of Hogwarts (remember that Flitwick is a powerful wizard and  
that witnesses in the battle of Hogwarts say that the Order was  
loosing). So that was egregious (or maybe Pippin thought that it was  
Lupin who really did it?). Is he OFH? Then why would he stop DE  
hurting Harry? Is he LID? Well, then I don't see why JKR would have  
referred to a story he had told Dumbledore. "I have a life-debt to  
Harry" is a short story IMO. Is he a vampire? No, JKR said so. So I  
guess I win, he is most probably Candy Loving Vegetarian Snape.

But this is how it is, you start arguing with theorizers and you end  
up one. So here goes. IMO, Snape confessed the UV to DD and even  
managed to learn what Draco's mission was. After all, DD is not  
remotely surprised in his conversation with Draco on the tower. He  
told Draco he knew he was behind all the fishy things at Hogwarts and  
he seemingly guessed that Draco was trying to introduce DE only  
resorting to "crude and badly judged measure" when he thought his  
plan A would never succeed. So now DD has a dilemma. He knows that  
some day or another, DEs might enter Hogwarts, if not, Draco might  
die and Snape too. That's not something DD likes too much. While he  
is within the walls, nothing too bad can happen, but he has to hunt  
Horcruxes and there is the rub. So he makes an agreement with Snape.  
In case Draco succeeds while I'm away, try to hold on the Death Eater  
long enough so that I can come back and then use me as a magnet to  
distract them from their rampage. My evidence? Thin admittedly, but  
DD does say "Please don't hurt them please, please hurt me instead"  
and then screams "Kill me" when drinking the green potion. Dumbledore  
has always shown the greatest of concern for his student, so why not  
them being "them"? That would also explain why DD insisted on Harry  
only waking up Severus and not speaking to anybody else. In the case  
Draco was acting alone, Snape would then have knocked down Harry and  
Draco would have been sent to a little chat with DD. No harm to any  
student done.

Oh, and on the true allegiance debate? Well, the least I can say is  
that I'm convinced that part of Harry defeating Voldemort will  
include discovering and accepting something good about Snape. I  
believe that for entirely thematic reason. Apart from that, well, his  
true allegiance is to candy and vegetables.

Best regards,
Olivier 




From hubbada at unisa.ac.za  Tue Mar 14 10:02:38 2006
From: hubbada at unisa.ac.za (deborahhbbrd)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 10:02:38 -0000
Subject: Opals in HBP, CHAPDISC 12
Message-ID: <dv64bu+697k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149601

The symbolism of opals

Opals used to be considered unlucky ? certainly in England ? because
of their changing colours, which gave them a symbolic meaning of being
'false', disloyal, not what they seemed. A good choice of stone for a
booby-trapped necklace, in fact.


Deborah, who wears hers happily and wishes she had lots more






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 14 10:38:21 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 10:38:21 -0000
Subject: Defecting Draco?
In-Reply-To: <dv5nt0+lprs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv66et+n72u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149602

> Gwen:
> 
> Draco is redeemable, but it is not in the same way as Pettigrew.  I 
> see his case, as you alluded to by comparing him to Saul, as more of 
> a conversion than a redemption. 
<snip>
Draco, as we have seen, has been blinded by vengence 
> and seduced by power.  But he chose evil without understanding it.  
> Since he ultimately failed to perform he has not "sealed the deal" 
as 
> it were, and he could very well recant in book 7. 

a_svirn:
Redemption for those who sinned and conversion for those who failed to 
perform? That put the whole Road to Damascus experience into the new 
perspective. 






From spirittalks at gmail.com  Tue Mar 14 07:41:25 2006
From: spirittalks at gmail.com (Kim)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 02:41:25 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR has Mystery Writer-related to Tower Theories-long!
References: <dv4i5f+uf47@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001401c6473a$b394b360$2e01a8c0@your27e1513d96>

No: HPFGUIDX 149603

In reply to Magpie's post on the mysteries in the books.  

Magpie: 
A lot of us have obviously been spending a lot of time pointing to moments in canon and asking for a sign that certain things are going on, if they are and it seems like many people don't find it hard to believe that key moments are meant to be imagined or assumed to be covered up.  This 
always surprises me because in my experience it seems like JKR *always* writes those things in.  

Kim:
I agree.  I don't think that we'll figure out anything from book 7 by looking for hidden mysteries in 1 through 6.  

Magpie:    
I don't think you can really solve all of the mysteries at the 
center of the HP books....You can't do these things, because you don't have the information.  
We don't even know a Vanishing Cabinet works with its pair as a 
portal, and it's not like this is real world knowledge, so how could 
we guess it?  Had we heard Montague's story beforehand we could, but 
we didn't, so we can't.

Kim:
JKR is so clever, so original, that we can't pull these books apart and assume we can guess at what happens next.  We learn hints along the way so that we aren't completely shocked...

Magpie:  
Scabbers is just an ordinary rat for two books.  
However, in the book where Peter's story will be revealed, Scabbers 
suddenly gets a plot that, as usual, is not what it seems but has 
beats we can follow later.  It's not like he's just been sleeping on 
Ron's shoulder the whole book.  Suddenly he's got the authorial 
finger pointing at him.  

Kim:
But there's no way that we can anticipate what will happen from what we've read.  I'll admit, it's great fun reading all these posts, I really enjoy myself reading all the theories put forth.  Though I also admit I growl at anyone who so maligns Lupin's character as to make him evil.  He's my hero.  But I think that when the last book comes out we'll all find that we are way off track.  

I agree with Magpie post and add that we don't live in Harry's world.  Even for him, things like the tent at the Quidditch World Cup are astonishing.  Until we've walked a mile in JKRs moccasins (or spent a wild half hour in her imagination) we can't even guess what she's going to come up with next.

But I beg of you all to please keep on trying because your posts are a wonderful substitute to keep us fulfilled until the real thing comes along.  Just do me one favor, please?  Leave Lupin alone?  Thanks.  :-)

Kim

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






From whtwitch91 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 14 14:16:01 2006
From: whtwitch91 at yahoo.com (whtwitch91)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 14:16:01 -0000
Subject: Snape rides again
Message-ID: <dv6j71+7n2d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149604

Olivier said:
<My evidence? Thin, admittedly, but DD does say"Please don't hurt them 
please, hurt me instead" and then screams "Kill me" when drinking the 
green potion.>



Finally, a logical explaination for those strange statements.  DD, who 
depises divination, has a premonition of his own.  It make the whole 
thing work together.  Snape and DD use legilmens ability on the tower 
to come to an agreement and Snape acts.  I do agree with the previous 
listees who beliexeve that DD and Snape had discussed this possiblity 
previously so it does not come as a surprise to Snape, but I used to 
thnk that this tower scene had been previously set up, and now it 
seems that it was an improvised moment. I think DD and Snape have 
always had a rough plan in their minds about how things might work 
out, and that the plan may include DD's death.

I can't buy sweet-natured vegetarian Snape, he's a compl
ex, deep and abrasive person, but I do believe in DDM Snape.  Nothing 
else makes any kind of sense.

Sue, suffering with typing problems on her new laptop











From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Mar 14 15:14:12 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 15:14:12 -0000
Subject: seeds of betrayal
In-Reply-To: <E1FJ332-0000HG-8M@elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <dv6mk4+o8nu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149605

Sherry:
> 
> He would have to be a saint to feel no anger or resentment toward DD for
> that seeming lack of support.

Pippin:
Unless he realized, when he calmed down, that Dumbledore had prevented
him from repeating the mistake (Dumbledore's word) that led to James's
death. If we believe Dumbledore, Snape never wanted his hatred of James
to cause James's death. I can see that as being a sort of point of honor with
Snape -- Sirius, that pureblood paragon of nobility, had tried to kill him, but
Snape was not going to sink that low.

 Whatever James was, Snape didn't want him killed by Voldemort because of 
a prophecy. Whatever Sirius was, he didn't deserve to have his soul sucked 
out if he wasn't the person who betrayed the Potters. Snape seems to have 
accepted, reluctantly, that Sirius was innocent or he would have brought it 
up in their quarrel at GP. 

I think, as a DDM!Snaper, that one of the reasons Snape stuck so close to
Dumbledore was that he knew his own moral compass was faulty, and
he trusted Dumbledore to keep him from going astray again. Dumbledore
made himself vulnerable to Snape in return, so no cause for resentment there.

I think that JKR does feel that killing in self-defense is justifiable. We are
told that Mad-eye killed Rozier and others, but that he never killed anyone 
who gave themselves up. Sirius and Dumbledore both trusted him, and I 
don't think they would  if they considered him an unrepentant murderer. 

IMO, because JKR believes this, it's important to her to teach that
not everyone who hates would kill if they could. I think she wants to
show us that hatred has rational causes, that it doesn't lead inexorably
to murder, that it can be understood, controlled, even cured in some 
cases -- but not if we label every hater as a potential killer 
and think only of how to defend ourselves, trampling the rights of
others in the process.

Of course Voldemort *would* kill everyone that he hates if he could. 
Some of his allies are just as paranoid and vicious as he is. But
Quirrell makes a point of telling Harry that Snape is not like that --

"But Snape always seemed to hate me so much."
"Oh, he does," said Quirrell casually, "heavens, yes. He was at Hogwarts
with your father, didn't you know? They loathed each other. But he
never wanted you _dead_."

Pippin






From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net  Tue Mar 14 15:27:02 2006
From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 15:27:02 -0000
Subject: seeds of betrayal
In-Reply-To: <E1FJ332-0000HG-8M@elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <dv6nc6+mqjh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149606

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" <sherriola at ...> 
wrote:

<massive snippage> 
> I think it would be unrealistic to think Snape didn't feel 
resentment
> against DD for always supporting the marauders.  They weren't 
thrown out of
> school after the so-called prank.  Granted, JKR has said there is 
more to
> know about the prank, but in Snape's mind, it was a plot to kill 
him.  For
> some reason, Sirius was not expelled for the prank, and Snape 
could very
> well have resented that fact.  

Marianne:

I hope we will be told not only the definitive backstory of the 
prank, but also the immediate aftermath.  From the incomplete story 
we currently have I can't believe that DD didn't assign some sort of 
punishment to Sirius. I can see Snape not only resenting that Sirius 
was not expelled, but that possibly James received no punishment.  
Which of course would rankle if Snape believed that James and Sirius 
were both involved up to their necks.

I also wonder how DD handled the explanations afterwards.  We know 
that he doesn't always explain things to people.  Did he merely tell 
Snape "Sirius said he was solely responsible and I believe him" 
without making more of an effort to make Snape see that this was the 
truth?  Sort of in the manner of his "I trust Snape" statements to 
Harry which Harry is supposed to accept on blind faith.  

Sherry:
  And we know Snape can hold
> those grudges, cling to his anger and hurt for years.  And then 
again, DD
> takes the part of that same Marauder, Sirius.  Against Snape's own 
words, DD
> very obviously believes what Harry and Sirius have told him.  
Again, Snape's
> feelings are being overlooked by his headmaster in defense of 
those hateful
> marauders and Harry.

Marianne:
At what point would Snape come to know about DD's Legilimens 
abilities?  Since the only canon we have of DD actually talking to 
Sirius about the events surrounding the Potters' deaths was during 
that off-screen conversation in PoA when Sirius is locked in 
Flitwick's office waiting to be Kissed, I'm assuming that DD could 
have used Legilimency to probe Sirius's thoughts to try to acertain 
whether his story was true.  

Would DD, after the fact, have taken Snape aside and tried to 
explain, that, yes, Sirius was indeed innocent? Or did DD perhaps, 
once again, expect Snape to take his word of things on faith?  
Which, to Snape, would be a perfect echo of what he had heard in the 
aftermath of the Prank? 

Sherry:
I present the theory that it was a very personal
> grudge, a very personal resentment, that caused Snape to fire that 
curse at
> DD.  All the years of Dumbledore's betrayal, in Snape's mind, 
having to do
> things he might not like to do, whether it's spying or helping 
Harry, take
> your pick.  But I think it's a deep seated very personal 
resentment, that
> Snape has had simmering inside him against DD, and at last he had 
his
> chance.  He was certainly not going to let himself die with that 
now weak
> and foolish old man at his mercy. the weak old man who has always 
taken the
> side of Snape's enemies against Snape and yet expected 
unquestioning
> loyalty.  With what we know of Snape, I see this as a very likely
> possibility for why Snape murdered Dumbledore.

Marianne:
Not being a DDM Snape person either, I'm certainly happy with this 
theory;-).  But, does this seem Snapeish to other people, that all 
of his resentments would have finally reached a breaking point at 
that moment on the Tower?  

I can see this fitting into the redemption scheme that JKR has 
hinted about, where I assume Snape will not be the one to be 
redeemed (Draco will be).  Snape could not ultimately let go of all 
the wrongs (real and imagined) that were done to him in the past and 
he ends up killing DD.

Marianne, reluctantly commenting on Snape 






From little_scottie6 at hotmail.com  Tue Mar 14 07:33:23 2006
From: little_scottie6 at hotmail.com (Victoria Scott)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 18:33:23 +1100
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who calls Voldemort "Lord"
In-Reply-To: <dv2s6d+rin8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY109-F274AA1C4B9D9923CDB3FAAD9E10@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 149607

>David wrote:
>I thought I recalled reading that only deatheaters called Voldermort
>LORD Voldemort.  Is that true?  Because I thought Dumbledore did it
>once or twice.

Vic:
I think you're getting mixed up with the "dark lord" and "LORD Voldemort". 
Only Death Eaters called Voldemort the "Dark Lord"







From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 14 15:44:27 2006
From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 15:44:27 -0000
Subject: Portkey in GOF  - Logistics
In-Reply-To: <dv4l1t+n3kl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv6ocr+f8jv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149608

Steve wrote:
> Further, if everything had gone according to plan, there is a
> certain disgrace and lose of credibility for Harry to have been
> lost in the Tri-Wizards Tournement. It puts Dumbledore, Hogwarts,
> and the Ministry in a bad light. Whereas if Harry had just
> disappeared at a random time on a random day, it could be chalked
> up to Harry's own mischief making and disregard for the rules. So,
> in this sense, Voldemort want to weaken his enemies as well as
> gain his own power.

Amiable Dorsai:
I've said it before, I'll say it again: I think this is the single
most important factor in LV's decision to snatch Harry, not at some
random time, but when the whole Wizarding World is watching.  Think
about it: what turns little Tommy Riddle, nasty thug--a powerful 
thug, yes, but still, just a thug-- into *Lord Voldemort*, a being so
frightening that, even years after his supposed death, powerful
witches and wizards are afraid to say his name?

Theater.

This is a guy who doesn't just kill you, he does a little skywriting
afterwards, to mark the spot, in utter contempt of the secrecy laws.

Theater.

He gives his gang a scary name, "Death Eaters".  He makes allies of
magical beings--giants and werewolves--that most people fear and loathe.

Theater.

He makes his allies kiss his robe, and both punishes and rewards them
spectacularly and publicly.

Theater

His last show bombed, though.  Little Harry didn't die the way the
script said he should, and Lord Voldemort's image of invincibility
suffered.  He needs to rebuild it, both to his enemies, and more
importantly, to his followers.

It's not enough to just quietly use Harry's blood and drop his corpse
into a well, Tommy must demonstrate to the Death Eaters that *Lord
Voldemort* is back for real, that Harry's survival was a fluke, that
Dumbledore can be beaten.  

How better to do that than to snatch Harry right out from Dumbledore's
and the Ministry's noses, then duel and kill him in front of the Death
Eaters?  Go back and reread his monologue to the Death Eaters in the
graveyard: He sells himself, as shamelessly as any politician or TV
evangelist--he struts; he indulges in dramatic pauses; he practically
gets a call-and response going with his audience.  Then, at the
climax, he's all set to dispatch Harry effortlessly in a "fair" fight.

But that damned Harry, he keeps blowing his lines.

This has consequences. Compare Bellatrix's attitude at her trial,
where she seems like nothing so much as a martyr calmly strolling into
the arena, fully confident that the object of her worship will
eventually rescue her, to the Bella we see at Spinner's End, who
thinks that her Dark Lord is "mistaken".  

She's seen one too many of Tommy's dramas fizzle,  I think.

Amiable Dorsai










From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 14 15:16:13 2006
From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 15:16:13 -0000
Subject: What Dumbledore trusts Snape to do? WAS: Re: High Noon for OFH!Snape - the Pause
In-Reply-To: <dv5a5b+gk0g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv6mnt+j2q7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149609

> Alla:
> 
> Dumbledore looks as if he tries to make up his mind and THEN says 
> that he trusts Snape, if I may bring it up again. Could it be 
> because he is NOT sure that Snape is on our side and he does NOT say 
> that directly, he just says what you quoted. "I am sure. I trust 
> Severus Snape completely" Could it be that he is not answering 
> Harry's question directly, but just reaffirms his trust in Snape 
> paying his life debt? I think it is possible, personally.
> 
>
I am more inclined to believe that the pause means that DD has 
another, undisclosed reason for trusting Snape, and that he was trying 
to decide whether or not to tell Harry this reason.  If that would be 
the case it would bring up 2 questions: (1) what is the secret reason 
and (2) why is DD keeping it a secret from Harry?  To me, his feels 
similar to the unexplained "gleam" in DD's eyes at the end of GOF, 
something DD knows (and is not telling Harry) but we as the reader do 
not.

"steven1965aaa"







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Mar 14 16:59:07 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 16:59:07 -0000
Subject: Maligning Lupin was Re: JKR has Mystery Writer-related to Tower Theories-long!
In-Reply-To: <001401c6473a$b394b360$2e01a8c0@your27e1513d96>
Message-ID: <dv6sor+4pul@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149610

Kim:
.  Though I also admit I growl at anyone who so maligns Lupin's character 
as to make him evil.  He's my hero.  But I think that when the last book 
comes out we'll all find that we are way off track.  
<snip>
> But I beg of you all to please keep on trying because your posts are a 
wonderful substitute to keep us fulfilled until the real thing comes along.  
Just do me one favor, please?  Leave Lupin alone?  Thanks.  :-)

Pippin:
::looks innocent:: You're not talking about _me_ are you? <veg> I'm
not the one saying Lupin is too weak or passive to do the right thing.
I'm not even saying he's a monster (though I'll admit I've theorized it 
in the past.) I'm saying he's made  conscious, rational, human choices 
that set morality aside. 

That's not unthinkable for a hero...plenty of people have said they'd like 
to see Dumbledore or Harry do it, especially  if morality
means protecting people like the Dursleys or Voldemort, or 
Umbridge. And the books often seem to laud rule-breaking and even
law-breaking on occasion. But one view is that rules and laws are only 
machines to help us make moral choices, and like all machines they 
can't be  expected to function perfectly in every situation. Sometimes
what they ask you to do is not right.

But knowing that what the rule or the law asks him to do *is* right,
and yet choosing not to obey it  is a choice that Lupin has made,
by his own admission, many times. I think what Rowling wants to 
show us is that the moral sense is fragile -- it can be damaged even 
before birth, as Riddle's was--but it can be damaged also by misuse. 
Ignore your principles too often and maybe they won't kick in when 
you need them.

It's true that if JKR reveals Lupin in this light it will destroy
some of our sympathy for him -- but I think JKR might be okay
with that. She's an activist, you know -- just follow the
links from her site and you'll see. I don't think she means to allow
us the luxury of feeling sorry for werewolves -- or single parents, 
or people with ms or children in cage beds. She'd rather we were 
fighting mad.

She's got no use for sympathy, IMO. Sympathy says it wishes
there was something it could do. Sympathy turns the page. It's
anger that says, "This can't go on."

Pippin






From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Tue Mar 14 17:45:40 2006
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 09:45:40 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Portkey in GOF - Logistics
In-Reply-To: <dv6ocr+f8jv@eGroups.com>
References: <dv4l1t+n3kl@eGroups.com> <dv6ocr+f8jv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <700201d40603140945y181f4ca9r955f91a2acf9e789@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149611

  bboyminn:
>
> Other have already covered the subject nicely, but I'll add another
> point. Think about it from a practical perspective. To say, 'make some
> other object a Portkey' sounds easy, but think it through from
> beginning to end.
>
> Regardless of the object the Fake!Moody enchants, there is a good
> chance that some one other than Harry will pick it up. For example,
> people most often suggest Harry's toothbrush, but the phrase 'Ron,
> hand me my toothbruch' pretty much shoot that one down.
>
> Then Amiable Dorsai proposed:
> I've said it before, I'll say it again: I think this is the single
> most important factor in LV's decision to snatch Harry, not at some
> random time, but when the whole Wizarding World is watching.  Think
> about it: what turns little Tommy Riddle, nasty thug--a powerful
> thug, yes, but still, just a thug-- into *Lord Voldemort*, a being so
> frightening that, even years after his supposed death, powerful
> witches and wizards are afraid to say his name?
>
> Theater.
>
> -snip-
> Theater.
>
> -snip-
> Theater.
>
> -snip-
> Theater
>
>
..
.
Kemper now:
While Amiable D offers a good reason, I don't see Voldemort as attention
seeking.  What evidence we've seen is Tom and Voldemort as secretive.
Voldemort didn't leave his business card at Madam Bones residence as proof
he was the killer.  He shows up at the DoM not to battle.  He's there for
the desire to learn the prophecy as soon as possible: you'd think he'd learn
patience after 13 years of being less than spirit, less then the meanest
ghost.

However, Steve, I believe that Moody could've successfully gotton Harry to
grasp a portkey.  It goes something like this.

Harry knocked on Moody's office door.
"Come in, Potter. Oh... and can you bring be that book over there, no not
that one, the one that's called 'Moste Potente Potions'. Yes.  That's the
one. I sometimes brew up a little something-something from that book."
Harry grabs the book.  Instantly, Harry felt a jerk somewhere behind his
navel.  His feet had left the ground.  He could not unclench the hand
holding the potions book.  It was was pulling him onward in a howl of wind
and swirling color.

-Kemper


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




From meriaugust at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 14 18:12:03 2006
From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 18:12:03 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: hbp12, Silver and Opals
In-Reply-To: <dv4fs5+um34@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv711j+3phl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149612

lyraofjordan wrote:

> 1)	In GoF, it says something to the effect of "four years in 
> the magical world had taught Harry it wasn't a good idea to stick 
> his hand into some unknown magical substance." But by 6th year, 
> Harry is willing to try incantations without a clue of what their 
> effect will be. Does this change of attitude tell us something 
about Harry? Is he becoming reckless?

Meri here: I think this shows him becoming braver; not necissarily 
more reckless. From the nervous little kid at the beginning of SS 
who worried he'd be worst in the year he has developed enough 
confidence in his magical abilities to try new things. He also still 
has that "certain disregard for the rules" that allows him to think 
outside the box and lets him be a little more adventurous than, say, 
Hermione might be in trying something different or unknown. 

> 4)	Levicorpus is Harry's first successful nonverbal spell. Why 
> do you think he was able to do this one?

Meri: Because no one was breathing down his neck trying to force him 
to do it. It is amazing, IMHO, how successful people can be at 
things when they self-motivate. Plus learning from Snape has always 
been difficult for Harry (one of the reasons the Snape=HPB dynamic 
is so interesting on a reread). 
 
> 5)	Some of the Prince's early jinxes included one to make 
> toenails grow fast, one to make the tongue stick to the roof of 
the 
> mouth, and Muffliato. Ron thinks they are the sort of spells Fred 
> and George might create; Hermione says they are the work of 
someone 
> who is not a nice person.  Do you think these are typical 
schoolyard 
> hexes, not much different from the bat bogey hex or Ron's 
> eat slugs curse, or do they hint at something darker? 

Meri: They're your basic schoolyard pranks, the WW versions of 
pepper gum and disappearing ink. Hermione, who disapproves of just 
about anything outside the rules, would obviously find them 
distasteful while Ron, who has been the subject of not a few of Fred 
and George's pranks as a child, would probably not see the harm in 
them.  
 
> 9) Harry is upset at Mundungus for stealing "Sirius's stuff" (or 
> more specifically, I think, for violating Sirius's memory) and 
> totally forgets it's now his stuff. Does this surprise you? Is 
> Harry's almost total lack of interest in material goods (aside 
from 
> international-standard broomsticks) an important element of his 
> personality? Will it be important in the future?

Meri: I thought this was a great moment for Harry; he's really going 
to need to take an inventory of old No. 12 to make sure everything 
is there (including a certain gold locket...cough...cough...horcrux) 
that might come in handy later. Harry isn't really concerned with 
his own material possessions (as should be evidence by the general 
state of his things; how many times have we heard of Harry throwing 
things pell-mell into his trunk or about the mess in his room) 
except for those that have some real meaning to him: his 
broomsticks, for example, his Invisibility Cloak, his Maurader's 
Map. That he gets defensive about Sirius' things probably means that 
he is more concerned about what those things represent (ie: dead 
Sirius) than what they actually are. 
 
> 12) Harry only reluctantly tells McGonagall about his suspicions 
> concerning Malfoy. Why is he less open with her than with 
> Dumbledore? Will this be an issue as we move into book 7?

Meri: Harry has problems trusting people, we know that. But in OotP 
when DD has left the school one of the first people Harry thinks of 
for going to help from is McGonagall, so I don't think he'll have a 
problem with getting help from her. What will be the problem is, 
will McGonagall be at Hogwarts at all? Will Harry be there for that 
matter? And if they aren't there together will they be able to 
communicate? 
 
> 13) Heightened security measures have Filch using the Secrecy 
Sensor 
> on students as they leave the school. Why is Filch checking people 
> as they *leave* the school? 

Meri: I don't know, I just hope he's checking them on the way in, 
too! 

Meri - snaps for a good summary! 






From kfreimu at gmail.com  Tue Mar 14 16:24:58 2006
From: kfreimu at gmail.com (Krista Freimuth)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 10:24:58 -0600
Subject: What Dumbledore trusts Snape to do? WAS: Re: High Noon for OFH!Snape - the Pause
In-Reply-To: <dv6mnt+j2q7@eGroups.com>
References: <dv5a5b+gk0g@eGroups.com> <dv6mnt+j2q7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <977182740603140824x61a489b9rf7884c08d9af84b7@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149613

> "steven1965aaa":
> If that would be the case it would bring up 2 questions: (1) what 
> is the secret reason and (2) why is DD keeping it a secret from 
> Harry?


Could one of the reasons be that DD is keeping it a secret from 
Harry because Voldemort can possibly read Harry's mind & DD doesn't 
want Harry giving that secret about Snape away to Voldemort when 
Snape is supposed to be working with Voldemort?

Krista









From patriciah711 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 14 17:44:38 2006
From: patriciah711 at yahoo.com (Patricia Hurley)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 09:44:38 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Who calls Voldemort "Lord"
In-Reply-To: <20060313044636.63797.qmail@web35608.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20060314174438.62062.qmail@web52810.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149614

David <foodiedb at optonline.net> wrote:
> I thought I recalled reading that only deatheaters called Voldemort 
> LORD Voldemort. <snip> 

Flop <sopraniste at yahoo.com>:
> The Death Eaters don't call Voldemort ANYTHING Voldemort! They call 
> him "The Dark Lord". The only people who use the name Voldemort seem 
> to be Dumbledore, Harry, and a few select other Good Guys <snip>

Patricia:
I always thought that that was the give away that Snape may not be 
loyal to the OotP, him saying The Dark Lord. It's interesting how many 
people don't pick up on that though. Perhaps it's just coincidence.





From sopraniste at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 14 18:57:23 2006
From: sopraniste at yahoo.com (Maria Holub)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 10:57:23 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:  Who calls Voldemort "Lord"
In-Reply-To: <20060314174438.62062.qmail@web52810.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20060314185723.29481.qmail@web35614.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149615



--- Patricia Hurley <patriciah711 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> David <foodiedb at optonline.net> wrote:
> > I thought I recalled reading that only deatheaters
> called Voldemort 
> > LORD Voldemort. <snip> 
> 
> Flop <sopraniste at yahoo.com>:
> > The Death Eaters don't call Voldemort ANYTHING
> Voldemort! They call 
> > him "The Dark Lord". The only people who use the
> name Voldemort seem 
> > to be Dumbledore, Harry, and a few select other
> Good Guys <snip>
> 
> Patricia:
> I always thought that that was the give away that
> Snape may not be 
> loyal to the OotP, him saying The Dark Lord. It's
> interesting how many 
> people don't pick up on that though. Perhaps it's
> just coincidence.

Flop:
I'd always put it down to the fact that as a
double-agent he could NOT afford to slip up and call
Voldemort something inappropriate in front of other
Death Eaters, or Voldemort himself, so he just kept up
the habit at all times....

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From celizwh at intergate.com  Tue Mar 14 19:05:02 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 19:05:02 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped/Snape's half truths in "Spinner's End"
In-Reply-To: <018c01c64654$8dff3df0$1c9e400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <dv744u+gnv8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149616

Magpie:

> Here's my big picture problem with the scenario (besides 
> just feeling like the reasons given for why he takes the 
> vow still don't seem clear enough: The UV is a very 
> important thing to do.  It's life or death.  It's a 
> turning point in Snape's life; no going back. I have 
> a really hard time believing that the motivation behind 
> this is that he's trying to get a minor villain to stop 
> thinking he's a traitor, or find out about Voldemort's 
> latest plan.

houyhnhnm:

Granted making the UV is a perilous, life changing choice .  If Snape 
had had time to consider it, then I would agree with you, but he had 
to make an instantaneous decision. 

I don't agree that Bellatrix is a minor villain.  She is a fanatic 
who has been very close to LV in the past, whether or not she is 
currently on the outs. Among a group of sychophantic followers of a 
sociopath, the ins and outs can trade places on a daily basis. She 
suspects him, rightly I believe, of being a traitor to Voldemort.  
She may not have concrete proof at the time of her confrontation with 
Snape at Spinner's End, but she won't stop digging until she finds 
something she can take to the Dark Lord.  I think Snape is right to 
be afraid of her.

Voldemort's latest plan involves Draco Malfoy.  Therefore it involves 
Hogwarts.  I can't imagine anything that could have a higher priority 
with DDM!Snape.

That's the problem with "Spinner's End".  I don't think there is any 
information in that chapter which tells us which side Snape is on, if 
it is taken as a stand alone.  If I assume (based on other evidence 
in the books) that Snape is DDM and that he is unaware of the exact 
nature of LV's plot involving Draco, then to me all of Snape's 
actions appear consistant with that.  I guess what I'm trying to say 
is that Chapter 2 can be read with any set of assumptions, DDM, ESE, 
LID, or OFH and still make sense and I suspect Rowling did that on 
purpose.  

Magpie:

> If we'd seen Snape taking risk after risk like this 
> and this is the one that finally brought him down, that 
> would reflect on his character, but this is a first.

houyhnhnm:

But he must have been taking risk after risk, whether we've seen it 
or not.  He's been back in his spy role for a little over a year by 
the time of the meeting with Bellatrix and Narcissa.  He is in and 
out of Grimmauld Place all the time, the summer of OotP. He almost 
appears to be DD's (who only shows up three times all summer) second-
in-command.  ([paraphrasing]"*He's* here.  We can start the 
meeting".)  He has to teach Harry Occlumency knowing that LV has 
access to Harry's mind.  Snape has been walking a tightrope for about 
thirteen months.  I doesn't seem surprising to me or to require any 
further explanation that he finally makes a fatal misstep.  After all 
he hasn't read the book.    






From Nanagose at aol.com  Tue Mar 14 19:08:36 2006
From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 19:08:36 -0000
Subject: Maligning Lupin was Re: JKR has Mystery Writer-related to Tower Theories-long!
In-Reply-To: <dv6sor+4pul@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv74bk+5qoj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149617

> Pippin:
> But knowing that what the rule or the law asks him to do *is* right,
> and yet choosing not to obey it  is a choice that Lupin has made,
> by his own admission, many times. I think what Rowling wants to 
> show us is that the moral sense is fragile -- it can be damaged even 
> before birth, as Riddle's was--but it can be damaged also by misuse. 
> Ignore your principles too often and maybe they won't kick in when 
> you need them.
> 
> It's true that if JKR reveals Lupin in this light it will destroy
> some of our sympathy for him

Christina:

JKR has already revealed that Lupin is a man who has weaknesses
concerning moral choices.  People love him anyway.  We have to - if we
lost our sympathy and affection for characters who have made poor
moral choices, we'd have a precious few characters left to like (Lily
perhaps, and...that's basically it).

All characters have weaknesses.  Lupin's instances of poor moral
choice (if you want to call it that) make him human, not evil. 
Calling Lupin evil because of his tendency to make those choices is
like calling James evil because he has set aside morality in the past
(bullying), calling Dumbledore evil because he never stepped in on
Harry's behalf at the Dursleys (curiously similar to Lupin's failure
to step in to curtail the actions of his friends), calling Hermione
evil because she set aside morals to Confund McLaggen (IIRC), and
calling Harry evil because his first thoughts after Sirius's death set
aside morals ("She killed Sirius - I'll kill her!").  And yet, even
though all these characters have histories of making occasional poor
moral choices, their morality has not eroded enough to turn them to
evil.  

I agree that JKR is trying to show that morality is fragile - but in
the sense that everybody makes moral mistakes.  If they can learn from
them, then that is the key.  And as many mistakes as Lupin has made,
he always seems to be aware and ashamed of them.  His actions in OP
and HBP show him trying to "fix" his prior mistakes.  He clings
fiercely to DD's beliefs and orders to make up for keeping dangerous
secrets from him.  He is constantly being shown restraining Sirius, to
make up for all the times he should have as a child and didn't. 
Whether these are appropriate or useful "fixes" is questionable, but
the intent is there.


> Pippin:
> I don't think she means to allow us the luxury of feeling sorry for
> werewolves...

Christina:

Make way for Fenrir Greyback, seriously evil werewolf coming through!
 I could kiss JKR's feet for introducing him, creepy fellow though he
is.  *shudder*


> Pippin:
> She's got no use for sympathy, IMO. Sympathy says it wishes there 
> was something it could do. Sympathy turns the page. It's anger that
> says, "This can't go on."

Christina:

On first thought, I'm inclined to agree.  But thinking more about it,
I don't know.  Hermione shows anger against the establishment through
SPEW, but her indignation seems firmly rooted in sympathy for the
house elves ("All those poor elves I haven't set free yet, having to
stay over during Christmas because there aren't enough hats!").  

Harry's reaction towards Bella after Sirius's death is full of anger,
but what does it achieve?  Harry is angry in Dumbledore's office, but
what does *that* achieve?  The throwing of Dumbledore's possessions is
a childish moment, not one that JKR seems to approve of.  Harry gets
angry frequently at Umbridge in OotP, which only gets him landed in
detention.  He is even scolded by McGonagall for his lack of
restraint.  JKR shows Harry's anger towards Snape in the beginning of
HBP to be completely irrational, clouding his ability to reason
clearly and objectively.  Snape's Capslock of Rage episode at the end
of PoA is almost funny in how childish it is.  JKR paints one of
Harry's best moments as the one in which he puts aside anger to quell
the anger and thirst for revenge of others (Shrieking Shack, PoA). 
Others have posted about Harry's possible feelings of pity toward
Peter, rather than anger.  IIRC, Dumbledore tells Harry he should feel
sorry even for Merope Gaunt, even though I would think her actions of
coersion are very morally suspect.

Anger seems to be a rather "hot" emotion, one that perhaps might blind
us rather than assist us in eradicating evil.  I think that JKR would
rather us be loving and merciful than angry.  She's been banging us
over the head with the "beat evil with love" theme - Harry will
supposedly destroy Voldemort using some variant of love, Lily Potter
stumped him the first time around because of her love, Voldemort had
to evacuate Harry's mind because the love hurt him.

If I were to guess, I'd actually think that JKR would be a firm
subscriber to the Yoda school of philosophy: "Fear leads to anger. 
Anger leads to hate.  Hate leads to suffering."  JKR frequently has
shown anger to be a stepping stone to hatred - Harry is angry with
Snape, which turns into hatred; Snape's hatred toward James and Sirius
begins with anger (among other things).  Then again, maybe I'm
just one of those people who has "watched too much Star Wars."  :)

Christina







From darqali at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 14 17:59:04 2006
From: darqali at yahoo.com (darqali)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 17:59:04 -0000
Subject: Who calls Voldemort "Lord"
In-Reply-To: <E1FIfmr-00082q-Tp@smtpauth07.mail.atl.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <dv7098+cvhn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149618

> David:
> I thought I recalled reading that only deatheaters called Voldemort 
> LORD Voldemort.  Is that true?  Because I thought Dumbledore did it 
> once or twice.
> 
> Tiffany:
> You're on the right track, but wrong name. The death eaters call 
> Voldemort "The Dark Lord" which makes me wonder what was up with 
> Rita Skeeter. Was she being controlled by Voldemort in GOF or what? 
> But you're right. Dumbledore, Harry, Sirius, Lupin, and Hermione 
> after the fifth year, are, I believe, the only five people who use 
> Voldemort's name.


"darqali":
Dumbledore told Harry, most people of the WW do not know, or do not 
remember, the name of Tom Riddle.  They know the name "Lord 
Voldemort" {which Tom Riddle fashioned for himself},  but fear to 
speak it.

This ties into ancient magic, the power of names.  Remember the issue 
of Rumplestilskin {sp?}, who made an evil bargain, but who could be 
banished just by speaking his true name?  In many tales, characters 
are called many names, titles, or nick-names,  but their "real name" 
is hidden from most and known only to a few, if any.  In many myths, 
and in "fairy stories"  {from which the modern Fantasy Fiction tale 
descends}  to be able to give the "true name" to someone is to have 
power or  control over them.  Names themselves may also be powerful; 
to speak them is to give them power over you  ....

Dumbledore never feared to speak the name LV had chosen name for 
himself, and to his face, Dumbledore constantly used his actual, true 
given name, "Tom" or "Tom Riddle".  This was a clear indication of 
Dumbledore's power as a wizard and lack of fear.  Others in the 
Wizarding World generally were unaware that Voldemort was properly 
named Tom Riddle, and they showed their fear {and lack of power} by 
fearing to speak LV's *chosen* name, saying "He Who Must Not Be 
Named" instead.  His followers termed LV  "The Dark Lord".

I noted that Trelawney was an exception  in the {supposedly} "good" 
Wizarding camp, in that when she made her two "prophecies" concerning 
LV, she used the term "The Dark Lord"  {his *followers* term} and 
nothing else.  This is very curious, if she is not a LV follower, or 
a Death Eater, or a sympathizer.

No one commented, and I wonder why.  I note again, Trelawney's name 
is Cornish in origin, and Cornish figures are often "evil" in English 
tales.  Are we overlooking a clue?  If Trelawney is on the "good" 
side, why does she use the Death Eater's term for LV?  Her only other 
word for LV is "his Master", refering to Peter Pettigrew's "Master" 
in her second prophecy, made to Harry in Prisoner of Azkaban.

Rita Skeeter is another case ... but who considers her "on the side 
of good"?  She is an "Out For Herself" person who knows no boundries 
in getting what she wants, no matter the cost to others, which was  
considerable in the examples we were shown.  I am baffled that 
Hermione's solution to putting an end to Rita's abuses of her 
witches, wizards, and magical fellows drew such negative response 
from some, for Rita deserved to be "swatted" for the pest she is!  If 
Hermione has squashed her while in beetle form, that would have been 
over the top, but fitting and deserved for the abuses Rita heaped on 
others {such as Harry, Hagrid and Hermionie herself}.  As for the 
poor dear being unemployed for a year, goodness, why couldn't she 
simply have lived as a beetle, if being unemployed as a writer was so 
terrible and she had no other skill?  Insects get along *fine* 
without "jobs" of any kind!  Peter managed in rat form for *12 Years*!






From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Tue Mar 14 19:34:27 2006
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 14:34:27 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Many Faces of Snape was: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <dv5f2s+8i30@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY101-F352059FB3F4828E82EA4AA91E10@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 149619



Julie:
>...and stop. So far I'm with you, PJ, but here is where we start to
>diverge, from yourOFH!Snape to myDDM!Snape. (And while I diverge
>here, I commend you for an excellent presentation of your!Snape ;-)

PJ:
Thankyou!  Also, thankyou for keeping my "last nickel" safe and sound.  I'd 
have missed it.  lol!

Julie:
>However, with my!Snape, while this jealousy does bring out additional
>snarkiness toward Harry, I don't think it has altered Snape's
>fundamental sense loyalty to Dumbledore, which is where I think our
>two Snapes hop the fence away from each other, one to the OFH side,
>and one to the DDM side.

PJ:
I can clearly see your Snape and agree he's just as valid as mine.   The 
first handshake across the DDM! and OFH!Snape fence.  :-)

I guess sometimes it's the minute things that define our Snapes as DDM!, 
OFH! or ESE! rather than the big BANGY things.  Which is one reason why 
there are so many of them floating around.   But as we try to get a handle 
on why DDM! would do this, or why OFH! would bother to do that, it helps to 
know there's no one size fits all for *any* designator and that *our* idea 
of what would make a DDM!, etc. are not necessarily what the poster's idea 
of them are as we all interpret what we read in our own unique ways....

Might go a long way in avoiding misunderstandings (not to mention knock 
down, drag outs) <g>  It also shows why Sydney's plan to rid the world of 
OFH!Snape will never work regardless of how many showdowns at the OK Corral 
there are.  ;-)

PJ





From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 14 20:12:48 2006
From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 20:12:48 -0000
Subject: Portkey in GOF - Logistics
In-Reply-To: <700201d40603140945y181f4ca9r955f91a2acf9e789@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <dv7840+v5ch@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149620


 Amiable Dorsai proposed (As a reason for Voldemort to wait until the
Tri-Wizard to snatch Harry):

> > Theater

> Kemper now:
> While Amiable D offers a good reason, I don't see Voldemort as
> attention seeking.  What evidence we've seen is Tom and Voldemort
> as secretive. Voldemort didn't leave his business card at Madam
> Bones residence as proof he was the killer.  He shows up at the
> DoM not to battle.  He's there for the desire to learn the
> prophecy as soon as possible: you'd think he'd learn patience
> after 13 years of being less than spirit, less then the meanest
> ghost.

Amiable Dorsai:
Oh, I don't mean that he's a Tom Cruise type, always seeking the
spotlight, I mean that "Lord Voldemort" is a means to an end for Tommy
Riddle--a persona he uses, as he's used so many other personas, to con
people into doing what he wants.  He's done this most of his life--you
need merely look at the memories in Dumbledore's Pensieve to see it. 
To Armando Dippet, he was The Concerned Head Boy; to Hepzibah Smith,
he was the Ardent Young Suitor; to Horace Slughorn, he was the
Promising Student.  I think he figured out this approach once
Dumbledore showed him he couldn't just bully his way through life.

"Lord Voldemort" is a particularly effective role.  Look at Bella
Lestrange at her trial and Barty Crouch Jr. preparing to kill
Harry--they aren't just gang members, they're fanatics, devoted to
their Dark Lord.  Look at Fudge, willing to slander and ruin a 
teenage hero rather than admit to himself that
He-Who-Scares-the-Crap-Out-of-Most-People is back.

You don't get those kinds of responses out of people accidentally, it
takes deliberation, it takes selling, it takes, in a word, theater.
"Lord Voldemort" is a construct, established and maintained by exactly
the sort of grand gesture that Riddle was planning for Harry's demise
in Little Hangleton's graveyard.  Riddle needs spectacle, and he isn't
going to get it by Portkeying Harry out at just any old time.  He
needs to wait for the moment that creates maximum shock value.  He
would have gotten just that, if Harry would only have died on cue.  

Amiable Dorsai








From belviso at attglobal.net  Tue Mar 14 20:38:41 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 20:38:41 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped/Snape's half truths in "Spinner's End"
In-Reply-To: <dv744u+gnv8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv79kh+a5um@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149621


> houyhnhnm:

> I don't agree that Bellatrix is a minor villain.  She is a fanatic 
> who has been very close to LV in the past, whether or not she is 
> currently on the outs. Among a group of sychophantic followers of 
a 
> sociopath, the ins and outs can trade places on a daily basis. She 
> suspects him, rightly I believe, of being a traitor to Voldemort.  
> She may not have concrete proof at the time of her confrontation 
with 
> Snape at Spinner's End, but she won't stop digging until she finds 
> something she can take to the Dark Lord.  I think Snape is right 
to 
> be afraid of her.

Magpie:
Yes, she's got a bad reputation and she's violent and crazy, but 
within canon she's a minor villain so far--wait, let me change the 
word I'm using because I'm using "minor" the same way people often 
use it to describe characters who are not minor.  She's not a minor 
villian, she's a supporting villain.  Bellatrix's nemesis in canon 
is Neville Longbottom, imo.  She can certainly cause trouble, but I 
see no reason to make her the person who inspired Snape's biggest 
mistake ever.  Yes, she is going to dig until she can take back 
something to LV in this scene.  This makes her an inconvenience to 
Snape, but there's, imo, little drama to her bringing him down 
completely without any big relationship between them that we know of-
-even Sirius, whom she brought down with a lucky shot, was her 
cousin.  So I still feel that while Bellatrix is fine as the 
catalyst for the vow, the vow's got to be bigger than convincing 
Bellatrix of anything.  I can't see Snape risking his life over her.

> Magpie:
> 
> > If we'd seen Snape taking risk after risk like this 
> > and this is the one that finally brought him down, that 
> > would reflect on his character, but this is a first.
> 
> houyhnhnm:
> 
> But he must have been taking risk after risk, whether we've seen 
it 
> or not.  He's been back in his spy role for a little over a year 
by 
> the time of the meeting with Bellatrix and Narcissa.  He is in and 
> out of Grimmauld Place all the time, the summer of OotP. He almost 
> appears to be DD's (who only shows up three times all summer) 
second-
> in-command.  ([paraphrasing]"*He's* here.  We can start the 
> meeting".)  He has to teach Harry Occlumency knowing that LV has 
> access to Harry's mind.  Snape has been walking a tightrope for 
about 
> thirteen months.  

Magpie:
Us seeing it makes all the difference, though.  Snape's job, by 
definition, is a big risk, but that does not mean he takes lots of 
risks by double agent standards.  All the things you listed are just 
part of his job.  You used the phrase "walking a tightrope" and 
that's just how I'd describe it: the act itself is risky, but the 
tightrope walker is focused and balanced with his eyes straight 
ahead.  Lupin, too, is taking a big risk by spying on the 
werewolves, but I wouldn't say risk-taking is the center of his 
personality either.  Lupin has taken big risks in his life, but for 
reasons that are related to things more at the center of who Lupin 
is.  Sirius and James may feel the risk adds to the challenge, 
because that's more at the heart of who they are.  Lupin just wants 
friends.

I can only think of one big risk we've seen Snape take in canon 
onscreen, and that was the decision to return to the DEs. The words 
leading up to it are very, imo, significant (which is probably why 
some of them became the title of a major Snape fanfic epic): If you 
are ready.  If you are prepared...  I take those words to describe 
Snape's mindset as a double agent--and I think they describe most of 
his actions as such. He loses it when faced with Marauders or Harry 
Potter, but as a double agent he's prepared.  Telling me after the 
fact that oh, actually Snape takes huge risks like this all the time 
and this is the one that brought him down is telling me after the 
fact.  I have to know the risk-taker to see him taken down by his 
taking of risks.  

JKR's characters really do tend to be based around a single conflict 
and action that they do all the time--those choices that tell us who 
they are.  Neville is timid, but when he feels someone needs 
protecting or fighting for he throws himself bravely into the fray.  
Hermione is a stickler for order--but when she sees things not 
working the way she thinks they should she lays justice down 
herself, stepping outside the rules to do so.  Ron is down on 
himself and jealous but in a pinch you have to get through him to 
get to Harry.  If any of them are going to die, I think it's most 
dramatic if they die doing these things---that seems JKR's style.

Snape is not built around taking wild risks and seeing how the chips 
fall.  On the contrary, he seems really methodical, a planner.  He's 
got dramatic ties to other characters, but Bellatrix, pre-the-vow 
scene, is definitely not one of them.  It's not like Snape isn't a 
really important character.  I actually can't think of too many 
things he's done where we've had a motivation explained where it 
didn't go to the heart of the man, touching on the same few issues. 

So I can certainly accept that he would sometimes have to gamble on 
something (think of him bluffing Umbridge by claiming she'd used all 
the Veritaserum), but I think this important a scene is going to 
plug into greater issues of his. If he's DDM, for instance, then 
Dumbledore is on board with the vow and Snape knew it or knows he 
will be.  If he's something else the motivation for the vow has to 
satisfy some of this primal stuff.  Which means he's got to want to 
potentially die for some reason, imo.  I can believe him wanting to 
potentially die as DDM, and the vow could give him that option.  I 
could see him wanting to die for LV if he was a loyal DE too--but I 
can't see how the vow gives him that option.  

-m







From R.Vink2 at chello.nl  Tue Mar 14 20:59:50 2006
From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 20:59:50 -0000
Subject: Maligning Lupin was Re: JKR has Mystery Writer-related to Tower Theories-long!
In-Reply-To: <dv74bk+5qoj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv7as6+lpko@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149622

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "spotsgal" <Nanagose at ...> wrote:
>
> > Pippin:
> >I think what Rowling wants to 
> > show us is that the moral sense is fragile -- it can be damaged even 
> > before birth, as Riddle's was--but it can be damaged also by misuse. 
> > Ignore your principles too often and maybe they won't kick in when 
> > you need them.
> > 
> > It's true that if JKR reveals Lupin in this light it will destroy
> > some of our sympathy for him

> Christina:
> 
> JKR has already revealed that Lupin is a man who has weaknesses
> concerning moral choices.  People love him anyway.  We have to - if we
> lost our sympathy and affection for characters who have made poor
> moral choices, we'd have a precious few characters left to like 
> (Lily perhaps, and...that's basically it).
> 
>  
> > Pippin:
> > I don't think she means to allow us the luxury of feeling sorry 
> > for werewolves...
> 
> Christina:
> 
> Make way for Fenrir Greyback, seriously evil werewolf coming through!
>  I could kiss JKR's feet for introducing him, creepy fellow though
>> he is.  *shudder*
> 
> 
> > Pippin:
> > She's got no use for sympathy, IMO. Sympathy says it wishes there 
> > was something it could do. Sympathy turns the page. It's anger 
> > that says, "This can't go on."
> 
> Christina:
> 
> On first thought, I'm inclined to agree.  But thinking more about it,
> I don't know.  Hermione shows anger against the establishment through
> SPEW, but her indignation seems firmly rooted in sympathy for the
> house elves ("All those poor elves I haven't set free yet, having to
> stay over during Christmas because there aren't enough hats!").  
> 
> Harry's reaction towards Bella after Sirius's death is full of anger,
> but what does it achieve?  Harry is angry in Dumbledore's office, but
> what does *that* achieve?  T

<snip>

> Anger seems to be a rather "hot" emotion, one that perhaps might blind
> us rather than assist us in eradicating evil.  I think that JKR would
> rather us be loving and merciful than angry.  She's been banging us
> over the head with the "beat evil with love" theme.

<snip>

Renee:
Why not both sympathy *and* anger? Sympathy directed at persons: the
oppressed, the afflicted, the victims of prejudice. And the sympathy
resulting in anger at the *situation* - the productive kind of anger
mentioned by Pippin, the anger that wants to fight for change, not the
 negative anger that only wants to avenge, hurt and destroy. Yet even
the latter often has its roots in love and sympathy. Harry wouldn't
have tried to Crucio Bellatrix if Sirius had left him indifferent.
There's a direct link between the sympathy and the anger. 

If Fenrir Greyback would be the only werewolf in the series we got to
know, we'd hardly become indignant over the anti-werewolf prejudice.
ESE!Lupin, especially the variant who is responsible for almost all
the murders in the series that can't be laid at Voldemort's feet,
would forfeit, say, 99% of the reader's sympathy (my estimate - others
may have slightly different percentages in mind) and do about as much
good to the werewolf cause as Greyback. A werewolf we can sympathise
with is essential to JKR's message. We won't be introduced to any
major new characters, she says. So guess who.









From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 14 21:20:28 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 21:20:28 -0000
Subject: Portkey in GOF - Logistics
In-Reply-To: <700201d40603140945y181f4ca9r955f91a2acf9e789@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <dv7c2s+vflb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149623

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kemper <iam.kemper at ...> wrote:
>
>   bboyminn:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Regardless of the object the Fake!Moody enchants, there is a good
> > chance that some one other than Harry will pick it up. ...
> >
> > Then Amiable Dorsai proposed:
> > I've said it before, I'll say it again: I think this is the 
> > single most important factor in LV's decision to snatch Harry,
> > not at some random time, but when the whole Wizarding World is 
> > watching.  ...
> >
> > Theater.
> >
> > -snip-
> > Theater.
> >
> > ...-snip-
> > 
> >
> >
> ..
> .
> Kemper now:
> While Amiable D offers a good reason, I don't see Voldemort as 
> attention seeking.  What evidence we've seen is Tom and Voldemort
> as secretive. Voldemort didn't leave his business card at Madam 
> Bones ....  He shows up at the DoM not to battle.  He's there for
> the desire to learn the prophecy ...
> 

bboyminn:

Once again, I'm reminded of several blind men 'looking' at an
elephant. Considering that Voldemort's objective is to /take over the
world/; that's hardly an occupation for a quiet reluctant recluse.
Yes, Voldemort is secretive, but that doesn't eliminate the fact that
he is an egomaniacal megalomaniac. He holds power by holding the
illusion of power. People are afraid of him because he wields the
force that maintains the illusion of fear. He is ruthless and brutal,
but also a great orator; one who knows how to tell people the things
they WANT to hear, no matter how irrational those things are. An
extention of this talent is to tell the most blatant and outrageous
lies and in doing so to make people believe that those lies are the
absolute irrefutable gospel truth.

If that isn't pure theater on the world stage, then I don't know what is. 

We can see similar examples in the real world today. Take Osama Bin
Laden. He is very secretive. He feeds his followers on the most
blatant and irrational lies, and they believe it with deathly fervor.
He is constantly re-assering his absolute power. He takes action on
the world stage that make him one of the most well known crimials. 

Yet, to anyone who is rational, to anyone who can divorce themselves
from the hyper-inflamed rhetoric and blatant lies, we see that he is a
weak, deranged, irrational, and hopelessly doomed soul. Very much as
Voldemort is. 

Voldemort is doomed to failure because he is promoting a flawed
irrational system, and the world simply can't be governed by that
degree of irrationality for long (Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot,
Ide Amine, Sadam, etc...). Even if Voldemort should win this war and
take over, he is still doomed to failure. 

> Kemper contiues:
> However, Steve, I believe that Moody could've successfully gotten 
> Harry to grasp a portkey.  It goes something like this.
> 
> Harry knocked on Moody's office door.
> "Come in, Potter. Oh... and can you bring be that book over there, 
> ...edited...
> 
> -Kemper


bboyminn: 

Yes, but you are missing to crucial points, first is timing and second
is that they want to get away with it. Not just get Harry, but get
Harry and get away with it. You seem to have missed this bit of my
previous post -

"Further, I suspect that fake!Moody intends to get away with it and go
on to serve the Dark Lord. If he enchants Harry's toothbrush, odds are
he will have been seen lurking around an area where he would have no
logical reason to lurk; ie: the Commons Room and the Dorms."

In your scenario, Harry steps into Moody's office and is never seen
again. Certainly in a busy school someone would have seen or known
about this, and Moody would be stuck trying to explain that which
could not be explained. 

There is a reason why so many criminal DO get caught, and it is
because they are too stupid to consider the possibility of getting
caught. 

Again, while it is not impossible for Moody to transport Harry under
random circumstances, it is to much grander effect to have him
disappear with no known explanation at a high profile event, and with
no known person associated with that disappearance. In other word, the
'theater' aspect of taking Harry from the maze, and it's corresponding
effect on the wizard world is much greater using the method they used.
It also makes for a much better book.

Ultimately, that last statement is the most important. Fictional Evil
Overlords make the choice they ultimately make because that is what
makes for a good story. One quick look at the 'Evil Overlords
Handbook' would show them the folly of their ways, but it would make
for very dull stories.

That said, I once again refer to real world villains who are
constantly disregarding the 'Evil Overlords Handbook' very much to
their ultimate detriment.

Just passing it along.

Steve/bboyminn






From rkdas at charter.net  Tue Mar 14 21:32:24 2006
From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 21:32:24 -0000
Subject: Maligning Lupin was Re: JKR has Mystery Writer-related to Tower Theories-long!
In-Reply-To: <dv7as6+lpko@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv7cp8+udqg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149624

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Renee" <R.Vink2 at ...> wrote:
>(Vicious werewolf-like snipping)
> 
> If Fenrir Greyback would be the only werewolf in the series we got to
> know, we'd hardly become indignant over the anti-werewolf prejudice.
> ESE!Lupin, especially the variant who is responsible for almost all
> the murders in the series that can't be laid at Voldemort's feet,
> would forfeit, say, 99% of the reader's sympathy (my estimate - 
others
> may have slightly different percentages in mind) and do about as much
> good to the werewolf cause as Greyback. A werewolf we can sympathise
> with is essential to JKR's message. We won't be introduced to any
> major new characters, she says. So guess who.

Jen D. here,
I know Pippin said this much better than I can when I posed a similar 
question "How can JKR take the only sympathetic werewolf in the series 
and make him the spy?" She said 

 Pippin said in message# 146839
> I'm talking about what happens when it looks like a respected person 
> went wrong...OJ Simpson or someone like that. It's not easy to judge
> a person  by their individual choices when you know that 
> unfortunately some people are going to take it as confirming
> their prejudices about a whole group.
> 
> Fenrir isn't admired by Dumbledore or Harry, and he isn't 
> caught in a moral quicksand, either.  He obviously
> enjoys what he's doing. The way I see Lupin, he believes because
> he's a werewolf he wouldn't be forgiven the slightest transgression,
> so to hide each crime he commits another, and they keep getting
> worse and worse.

I think that giving us a character we know we should sympathize with 
and making him the traitor/spy would be a very fine line JKR would be 
willing to walk. I don't know that she's interested in making sure 
she's politically correct. Difficult situations that are heart-
breaking and make you want to scream "No! It can't be!" seem to be her 
speciality.
Jen D.
> 

>







From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Tue Mar 14 21:34:29 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 21:34:29 -0000
Subject: Who calls Voldemort "Lord"
In-Reply-To: <20060314174438.62062.qmail@web52810.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dv7ct5+m5ls@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149625

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Patricia Hurley <patriciah711 at ...> wrote:
>
> David <foodiedb at ...> wrote:
> > I thought I recalled reading that only deatheaters called Voldemort 
> > LORD Voldemort. <snip> 
> 
> Flop <sopraniste at ...>:
> > The Death Eaters don't call Voldemort ANYTHING Voldemort! They call 
> > him "The Dark Lord". The only people who use the name Voldemort seem 
> > to be Dumbledore, Harry, and a few select other Good Guys <snip>
> 
> Patricia:
> I always thought that that was the give away that Snape may not be 
> loyal to the OotP, him saying The Dark Lord. It's interesting how many 
> people don't pick up on that though. Perhaps it's just coincidence.

Geoff:
But don't forget that Sybill Trelawney also calls Voldemort the Dark Lord when she gives 
the prophecy in "Prisoner of Azkaban":

"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 before. Tonight... before midnight... the servant...  will set out... to 
rejoin... his master...."
(POA "Professor Trelawney's Prediction" p.238 UK edition)







From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 14 22:05:01 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 22:05:01 -0000
Subject: The number 7 rune on JKR's website
Message-ID: <dv7emd+47ec@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149626

While exploring some of what I think JKR maybe using as the basis 
for her books I came upon an interesting discovery.  I stopped 
reading and said "that's it!!"  That is the Rune symbol for the 
number 7 on her website!!  Now it is not 100% the same, but I think 
that she used the same picture that I saw and tweaked it just a 
bit.  I have seen this symbol before, but never like the one I saw 
in this picture.

It was a picture from ancient Egypt.  And the symbol was the Ankh.  
Now as I said, I have seen this symbol before and it just didn't 
register. But the way this picture was printed brings out different 
features of the item in a way that I had not seen it before.  All 
one has to do is to just round down the two sides and add a forth 
leg and *** presto*** like magic you have the symbol on JKR's  
website.

And what does the book say that the Ankh symbol represents?  It says 
that it is the ancient (remember ancient magic) symbol of life, the 
universe, and man. 

Now to speculate a bit. Perhaps the fact that there are 4 instead of 
3 appendages represent the 4 houses of Hogwarts.  I think that JKR 
said in an interview that she wanted the Houses to represent the 4 
directions. (I can't find the quote, but if anyone else can please 
direct me to it. Thanks.)

I think that JKR is using her own version of the Egyptian Ankh.  
(There must be some reason we kept hearing about Egypt in the other 
books.) I just intutively think that the Ankh symbol and what it 
represents is going to be somehow, with a bit of a twist of course, 
be important in book 7.

Tonks_op







From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Tue Mar 14 22:05:43 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 22:05:43 -0000
Subject: Defecting Draco?
In-Reply-To: <dv5nt0+lprs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv7enn+av66@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149627

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gwen_of_the_oaks" <GAP5685 at ...> wrote:
>
> Geoff wrote :
> > <Snipping, for brevity's sake, much of an interesting post, which 
> ends in comparing Draco on the tower to the biblical figure of Saul 
> on the road to Damascus> 
> 
> > Taking the line of parallels  between real Christian experience and 
> >the event of the Harry Potter books, I would like to 
> > see something happen to young Mr.Malfoy and would also be 
> interested to know whether 
> > there are other candidates who members of the group feel might be 
> put forward to be 
> > "turned" to the good.
> >
> 
Gwen (in post 149592):

> Thoughtful post, Geoff.  I don't know how many candidates there are 
> for redemption, because to be redeemed requires that there first be 
> some overt evil act.  The only ones who have really set themselves up 
> for redemption in that sense are Pettigrew and Snape. Snape, at least 
> according to DD, has repented and sacrificed to redeem his attachment 
> to LV.  So either he is already redeemed or he never truly repented.  
> If the latter is true, I can't see how a second, "for-real" 
> redemption is in the cards for him.  IMHO, to get a second bite at 
> the apple seems very unsatisfying.  The better candidate is Pettigrew 
> who, because of the breadth and depth of his evil acts, would require 
> an ultimate sacrifice to redeem himself.
> 
> Draco is redeemable, but it is not in the same way as Pettigrew.  I 
> see his case, as you alluded to by comparing him to Saul, as more of 
> a conversion than a redemption. There is the same potential for 
> conversion in all of the other Death-Eater offspring, because they 
> have not consciously chosen evil ? they are being towed in the wake 
> of their parents' choices. They have not, on page, been forced to 
> choose a side. Draco, as we have seen, has been blinded by vengence 
> and seduced by power.  But he chose evil without understanding it.  
> Since he ultimately failed to perform he has not "sealed the deal" as 
> it were, and he could very well recant in book 7. 

a_svirn (in post 149602):
Redemption for those who sinned and conversion for those who failed to
perform? That put the whole Road to Damascus experience into the new
perspective.

Geoff:
Redemption is not just needed because of an overt evil act. 

In the Sermon on the Mount (New Testament Matthew chapter 5), Jesus draws the 
attention of his listeners to the fact that even thinking of the deed itself will draw down 
judgment on the perpetrator.

"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder', and anyone who 
murders will be subject to judgment. But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his 
brother will be subject to judgment." (verses 21-22)

"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who 
looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (verses 
27-28)

So Jesus is saying that if you seriously think about an evil act and dwell on it in your heart 
and thoughts, it is as if you have actually done it in the eyes of God.

Draco has, up to OOTP, been largely malicious in his behaviour and a lot of his utterances 
and behaviour have been meant to bolster his status as the kingpin of the Slytherins. 

More theatre, to borrow from another thread.

But in HBP, his actions are bringing him into the area above; he is thinking about evil in his 
heart - the necklace and the potion and the intent to kill Dumbledore. Perhaps fortunately, 
we see him wavering with the last of these as he finds it is not so easy to carry out this 
task despite trying to convince himself during the year.

With regard to "conversion" and "redemption", viewing them from the standpoint of being 
an evangelical Christian, I do not see them as exclusive but inclusive. Christian teaching is 
that conversion leads to redemption. We see that we are doing wrong in the eyes of God 
and turn to him asking for forgiveness and, from that comes redemption. Draco has begun 
to turn aside from the thoughts which Dumbledore highlighted in the conversation on the 
tower. Will that turning become a move to redeem himself with the Wizarding World by 
seeing the futility of continuing to support Voldemort and giving some sort of assistance 
to the side of good?






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 14 22:29:11 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 22:29:11 -0000
Subject: Raging Snape / Draco's Redemption / JKR's Plots (was:Re: seeds of betrayal)
In-Reply-To: <dv6nc6+mqjh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv7g3n+n2rg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149628

> >>Sherry:
> > I present the theory that it was a very personal grudge, a very 
> > personal resentment, that caused Snape to fire that curse at
> > DD.  
> > <snip>
 
> >>Marianne:
> Not being a DDM Snape person either, I'm certainly happy with this 
> theory;-).  But, does this seem Snapeish to other people, that all 
> of his resentments would have finally reached a breaking point at 
> that moment on the Tower?  

Betsy Hp:
Snape does hold onto his grudges.  And they can blind him, 
especially if the Marauders are involved.  So I can buy Snape 
finally snapping and killing someone in a massive rage of hurt and 
betrayal and making sure he can never be hurt again.

But, that's not what happened on the Tower, is it?  I mean, Snape 
wasn't *anything* like the snarling, spitting man that begged Sirius 
to give him a reason back in PoA.  That relished Sirius' fear of 
being soul-sucked.

I know this point has been made before, so I know it won't change 
any minds, but if Snape really did have a vast well of slow boiling 
resentment towards Dumbledore that finally pushed him into murder 
why was the explosion so... methodical?  Where was the ranting, the 
glotting, the pre-killing drama, the after-killing giddiness?

At the time, Snape wasn't under any sort of time pressure.  The 
Order couldn't get onto the Tower, and he must have known it.  So 
why not take a few moments for himself?  For that matter, why not 
watch and gloat while Dumbledore died of the ring curse?  That 
would've been a perfect opportunity to get a bit of revenge.  He 
wouldn't have even been charged with murder.

Also, and this has always struck me, especially when compared to 
Sirius and Lupin, Snape begged Sirius to *give him a reason*.  Huh?  
Sirius was an escaped convict in a small room with three students.  
Why did Snape need a reason to kill him?  He had reasons a plenty.  
Sirius and Lupin certainly didn't ask Peter to give them a reason to 
kill him.  But the evil Death Eater, kicker of puppies, etc., 
suddenly needs a reason?

> >>Marianne:
> I can see this fitting into the redemption scheme that JKR has 
> hinted about, where I assume Snape will not be the one to be 
> redeemed (Draco will be).  Snape could not ultimately let go of   
> all the wrongs (real and imagined) that were done to him in the   
> past and he ends up killing DD.

Betsy Hp:
I still see Draco's "redemption" story as being a bit dull.  He just 
hasn't done anything really, really bad.  In fact, I get the sense 
that his dabbling in evil has quite turned him off the whole Death 
Eater thing.

I like what Gwen says here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149592

> <snip>
> I see his [Draco's] case, as you alluded to by comparing him to   
> Saul, as more of a conversion than a redemption. There is the same 
> potential for conversion in all of the other Death-Eater           
> offspring, because they have not consciously chosen evil ? they   
> are being towed in the wake of their parents' choices.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Draco was never allowed a choice until Dumbledore offered him one on 
the Tower.  And we're still waiting to see how that turns out.  
(Though I agree with Harry.  Draco did start to lower his wand.)  I 
see the act of choosing to be Draco's story, rather than the 
redemption of a bad choice already made.

Whereas Snape *did* make a choice, didn't he?  He's got the ugly 
brand to prove it.  It may have been a choice made out of pain and 
rage and fear, but it was a choice.  I think that he's been making 
up for that choice for years now.

Because I don't think JKR is going to cram her redemption story all 
into book 7.  Nothing elegant or forshadowy about that.  And it 
totally overlooks JKR's style of writing, as Magpie illustrates in 
her post here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149559
> <snip>
> Reading back the book doesn't become less satisfying because
> we know who done it, but more satisfying because we know what's
> really going on and can follow along with the secret plot.
> <snip>
> There's no elaborate plot that comes out of nowhere,
> there's an elaborate plot hiding in plain sight.
> <snip>

I have a feeling that when Snape's full story is revealed, we'll 
realize that we've seen the redemption plot playing out throughout 
the books.  And that, in my opinion, will be much more satisfying 
than a hurry-up type redemption (Peter Pettigrew), or light-weight 
redemption (Draco Malfoy).

Betsy Hp






From sydpad at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 14 22:30:55 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 22:30:55 -0000
Subject: The Many Faces of Snape was: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <BAY101-F352059FB3F4828E82EA4AA91E10@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <dv7g6v+7vm3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149629

PJ:
>It also shows why Sydney's plan to rid the world of 
> OFH!Snape will never work regardless of how many showdowns at the OK
Corral 
> there are.  ;-)

*pumps another round in to OFH!Snape*  He.. just.. won't.. stop..
twitching... 

Hee! This thread should be called, "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly"!

Lupinlore:
>thinks that Sydney is probably right about another
>thing, which is that JKR will likely reveal a Snape whose character
>and fate are ambivalent enough to draw in a working majority from
>all sides

LOL, when will people just realize that I'm right about EVERYTHING? 
Anyhow... I'm pretty sure this will be the case.  I mean, look at
Sirius.  I think the way I understand his character is not too
different from people who like him.  The thing is, the things people
who like about him-- his rebel-without-a-cause, passionate,
free-spirit, loose-canon nature-- is just exactly what I can't stand
about him.  Sirius fans see his major storyline-- the Secret-keeper
switch and the stint in Azkaban and his solo escape-- and think, wow,
that guy is so full of life and love and the cruel world betrayed him,
but he stayed true to himself to the end.  I see the exact same story
and think, for the love of mike, if this guy had just sat down for 10
minutes and got a hold of himself, at the very least the 12 bystanders
who got killed when he did his rebel-cop vengeance routine on Peter
might still be around. Sirius fans will go, 'how could you say that!
Sirius was in anguish because of his friends and he still thought of
Peter as his school chum, how could he have guessed Peter would do
such a thing?'  And I would retort, if you're cornering a desperate
armed guy, the first thing you really should do is make sure the area
is clear of civilians.  And they would retort something else.  And so
it goes... 

I think nearly everyone agrees that under the identical situation that
Snape was in on the tower, Sirius would have died rather than fulfill
the Vow.  The result-- of D-dore being killed by Greyback and Draco by
Voldemort and Harry probably by one of the other DE's-- would have
been viewed by people who like Sirius' pure values as tragic.  It
would be viewed by people who prefer Snape's result-oriented values as
idiotic.  Weirdly, both parties would probably view the disliked
character's action as selfish (hey, I paged Dr. Kant days ago and he
still hasn't show up... one of these days I'm going to write a big
post about Kantian!Snape, probably when I'm under multiple deadlines
on projects that I'm actually being paid for).

Whatever way Snape's arc pans out, it's going to be (assuming JKR
doesn't have a brain hemmorage or something between now and the next
book) something dramatic that is true to his nature.  Those of us who
like his nature already will like how it plays out in the arc.  Those
of us who can't stand him will also like how it plays out in the arc.
Because Snape isn't going to turn into a fluffy bunny, he's going to
stay a deeply conflicted guilt-ridden Dark-magic jackass, and his
actions and motives will be likewise.  I can even see Lupinlore and
myself coming here (fingers crossed) sometime in 2007, and Lupinlore
being satisfied with the scene where Snape is 'humiliated' and me
being satisfied about the beautiful 'catharsis' Snape scene, and we
will be talking about the exact same scene.  There will probably be
just enough to make both sides uncomfortable, because complex
characters should do that. 

Olivier:
>CLV! (the last one is Candy Loving Vegetarian Snape, I too sometimes
want to have my own theory)

You realize of course that CLV!Snapers will immediately split into
shifting factions of rootVeg!Snapers and legume!Snapers...

--Sydney, procrastinating.






From R.Vink2 at chello.nl  Tue Mar 14 23:04:54 2006
From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 23:04:54 -0000
Subject: Maligning Lupin was Re: JKR has Mystery Writer-related to Tower Theories-long!
In-Reply-To: <dv7cp8+udqg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv7i6m+efps@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149630

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "susanbones2003" <rkdas at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Renee" <R.Vink2@> wrote:
> >(Vicious werewolf-like snipping)
> > 
> > If Fenrir Greyback would be the only werewolf in the series we got to
> > know, we'd hardly become indignant over the anti-werewolf prejudice.
> > ESE!Lupin, especially the variant who is responsible for almost all
> > the murders in the series that can't be laid at Voldemort's feet,
> > would forfeit, say, 99% of the reader's sympathy (my estimate - 
> others
> > may have slightly different percentages in mind) and do about as much
> > good to the werewolf cause as Greyback. A werewolf we can sympathise
> > with is essential to JKR's message. We won't be introduced to any
> > major new characters, she says. So guess who.
> 
> Jen D. here,
> I know Pippin said this much better than I can when I posed a similar 
> question "How can JKR take the only sympathetic werewolf in the series 
> and make him the spy?" She said 
> 
>  Pippin said in message# 146839
> > I'm talking about what happens when it looks like a respected person 
> > went wrong...OJ Simpson or someone like that. It's not easy to judge
> > a person  by their individual choices when you know that 
> > unfortunately some people are going to take it as confirming
> > their prejudices about a whole group.
> > 
> > Fenrir isn't admired by Dumbledore or Harry, and he isn't 
> > caught in a moral quicksand, either.  He obviously
> > enjoys what he's doing. The way I see Lupin, he believes because
> > he's a werewolf he wouldn't be forgiven the slightest transgression,
> > so to hide each crime he commits another, and they keep getting
> > worse and worse.
> 
> I think that giving us a character we know we should sympathize with 
> and making him the traitor/spy would be a very fine line JKR would be 
> willing to walk. I don't know that she's interested in making sure 
> she's politically correct. Difficult situations that are heart-
> breaking and make you want to scream "No! It can't be!" seem to be her 
> speciality.
> Jen D.
> > 
> 
Renee:

Unfortunately, Pippin's answer doesn't solve my problem, which is that
the *only* two members of this particular group we get acquainted with
would be evil if Lupin is ESE. We have no basis left within canon to
assume werewolves could ever be okay and are a cause worth fighting for. 

Political correctness does not apply here. If someone writes a book
that shows us two Jewish or Muslim characters who are both evil in one
way or another, readers can check this against primary world reality -
though lots of them would still be up in arms against the author. We
can't do so with werewolves. If JKR were to say after Book 7: `Yes,
well, werewolves are basically okay, but these two just happened to be
bad eggs,' it would cast a rather poor light on her handling of the
anti-prejudice theme running through the books. (The theme itself
suggests to me that political correctness is not something JKR would
shy from, but that's a tangential discussion.) 

Even assuming she wanted to give us `a character we know we should
sympathize with and make him the traitor/spy' to show that nice isn't
necessarily good - which I'm not convinced she does - there are better
choices for her to make than a person who already carries the heavy
burden of showing that `not all werewolfs are bad'. In its almost
pathetical insistence that among a known majority of bad werewolfs,
maybe a few are actually okay if you get to know them, this gloss from
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them speaks volumes. 

Renee


    













From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com  Tue Mar 14 23:12:29 2006
From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (IreneMikhlin)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 23:12:29 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Many Faces of Snape was: High Noon for
 OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <dv7g6v+7vm3@eGroups.com>
References: <dv7g6v+7vm3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <44174DDD.5050504@btopenworld.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149631

Sydney wrote:

> Whatever way Snape's arc pans out, it's going to be (assuming JKR
> doesn't have a brain hemmorage or something between now and the next
> book) something dramatic that is true to his nature.  Those of us who
> like his nature already will like how it plays out in the arc.  Those
> of us who can't stand him will also like how it plays out in the arc.
> Because Snape isn't going to turn into a fluffy bunny, he's going to
> stay a deeply conflicted guilt-ridden Dark-magic jackass, and his
> actions and motives will be likewise. 

I like your ideas, and I agree with most of them. However, what scares 
me is the following possibility for book 7:
JKR will leave most of the Snape-related stuff behind the scenes, and 
all that we get will be the final confrontation, where Snape will either 
push Voldemort's hand during his final Avada, or else will stand in 
front of Harry to take it.
Then we'll spend the next 20 years arguing whether it was a part of the 
original "Snape-the-deep-mole" plan, for which Dumbledore sacrificed 
himself, or the last moment spontaneous remorse of the hardened villain, 
a-la Star Wars VI. I'll really hate it if she leaves it *that* ambiguous.

Irene



From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 14 23:13:03 2006
From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 23:13:03 -0000
Subject: Portkey in GOF - Logistics
In-Reply-To: <dv7c2s+vflb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv7ilv+ilge@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149632


> bboyminn:
<Big Snips>
> Yes, Voldemort is secretive, but that doesn't eliminate the fact
> that he is an egomaniacal megalomaniac. He holds power by holding
> the illusion of power. People are afraid of him because he wields
> the force that maintains the illusion of fear. He is ruthless and
> brutal, but also a great orator; one who knows how to tell people
> the things they WANT to hear, no matter how irrational those things
> are. An extention of this talent is to tell the most blatant and
> outrageous lies and in doing so to make people believe that those
> lies are the absolute irrefutable gospel truth.
> 
> If that isn't pure theater on the world stage, then I don't know
> what is. 

<More Snips>

> Again, while it is not impossible for Moody to transport Harry under
> random circumstances, it is to much grander effect to have him
> disappear with no known explanation at a high profile event, and
> with no known person associated with that disappearance. In other
> word, the 'theater' aspect of taking Harry from the maze, and it's
> corresponding effect on the wizard world is much greater using the
> method they used...

Amiable Dorsai:

Exactly.

A common criminal, a Wormtail, maybe, would sneak Harry out of the
castle behind everyone's back.  *Lord Voldemort*, bold as brass,
snatches Harry while Dumbledore and half the Ministry are watching.

Think of the message this sends to his enemies: "I can get anybody,
anywhere.  The Ministry can't stop me, Dumbledore can't save you. 
Capitulate now, while you still can."

I'll bet Act 2 would have had a Death Eater Portkey back to Hogwarts
with Harry's corpse, fire a Dark Mark into the sky, and Portkey back
out, leaving Harry's lifeless body behind. Imagine the propaganda value.

On the other end, an ordinary murderer would use Harry's blood, then
kill him while he was still tied down, but that doesn't do much to
re-establish Lord Voldemort in his follower's (disciple's?) minds. 
Dueling Harry, and effortlessly converting him to the Boy Who Snuffed
It, while the Death Eaters watch, that's the way to get back that old
mystique.

Pity it didn't go according to script.

Amiable Dorsai






From rkdas at charter.net  Tue Mar 14 23:28:23 2006
From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 23:28:23 -0000
Subject: Maligning Lupin was Re: JKR has Mystery Writer-related to Tower Theories-long!
In-Reply-To: <dv7i6m+efps@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv7jin+4fdn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149633

> > 
> Renee:
> 
> Unfortunately, Pippin's answer doesn't solve my problem, which is 
that
> the *only* two members of this particular group we get acquainted 
with
> would be evil if Lupin is ESE. We have no basis left within canon 
to
> assume werewolves could ever be okay and are a cause worth 
fighting for. 
> 
> Political correctness does not apply here. If someone writes a book
> that shows us two Jewish or Muslim characters who are both evil in 
one
> way or another, readers can check this against primary world 
reality -
> though lots of them would still be up in arms against the author. 
We
> can't do so with werewolves. If JKR were to say after Book 7: `Yes,
> well, werewolves are basically okay, but these two just happened 
to be
> bad eggs,' it would cast a rather poor light on her handling of the
> anti-prejudice theme running through the books. (The theme itself
> suggests to me that political correctness is not something JKR 
would
> shy from, but that's a tangential discussion.) 
> 
> Even assuming she wanted to give us `a character we know we should
> sympathize with and make him the traitor/spy' to show that nice 
isn't
> necessarily good - which I'm not convinced she does - there are 
better
> choices for her to make than a person who already carries the heavy
> burden of showing that `not all werewolfs are bad'. In its almost
> pathetical insistence that among a known majority of bad werewolfs,
> maybe a few are actually okay if you get to know them, this gloss 
from
> Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them speaks volumes. 
> 
> Renee

Hi there,
I must admit at first I was taken aback by your argument but then I 
realized JKR doesn't have to follow your formula. "To prove some are 
good, please show us one good one!" I think if Lupin proves to be 
bad and gets to explain in any detail why he decided to go that way, 
that may be more important for the hearers in understanding what 
their prejudice does. But let's look at werewolves. Not Lupin since 
he was raised with a furry little problem, but the ones who embrace 
their lives, the Fenrir-type. Pretending a little here, but who 
would want them in society? How would a real society fit them in? 
I'm not talking in eliptical symbolic terms but if the real thing 
presented itself. How would it be possible? Even if LV were to win 
his war, what could it accomplish? Chaos, widespread mayhem? Lupin 
is on the horns of a huge dilemma. He is the odd man out. Good or 
bad. He is tragedy beheld. 

Jen D.






From chnc1024 at earthlink.net  Wed Mar 15 01:00:09 2006
From: chnc1024 at earthlink.net (chnc1024 at earthlink.net)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 17:00:09 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] The number 7 rune on JKR's website
Message-ID: <410-220063315109565@earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 149634

> Now to speculate a bit. Perhaps the fact that there are 4 instead of 
> 3 appendages represent the 4 houses of Hogwarts.  I think that JKR 
> said in an interview that she wanted the Houses to represent the 4 
> directions. (I can't find the quote, but if anyone else can please 
> direct me to it. Thanks.)

> Tonks_op
>


***********************************
Chancie:

Here is the quote I think you were looking for.
It's from the interview after HBP with Melissa
from TLC, and Emerson from Mugglenet.

JKR: Probably. I hear you. It is the tradition to have four 
houses, but in this case, I wanted them to correspond 
roughly to the four elements. So Gryffindor is fire, 
Ravenclaw is air, Hufflepuff is earth, and Slytherin is water, 
hence the fact that their common room is under the lake. 
So again, it was this idea of harmony and balance, that 
you had four necessary components and by integrating 
them you would make a very strong place. But they 
remain fragmented, as we know.


Hope that helps!





From celizwh at intergate.com  Wed Mar 15 01:17:10 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 01:17:10 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped/Snape's half truths in "Spinner's End"
In-Reply-To: <dv79kh+a5um@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv7pum+u4d7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149635


Magpie:

> She can certainly cause trouble, but I 
> see no reason to make her the person who inspired Snape's biggest 
> mistake ever.  Yes, she is going to dig until she can take back 
> something to LV in this scene.  This makes her an inconvenience to 
> Snape, but there's, imo, little drama to her bringing him down 
> completely without any big relationship between them that we know [...] 
> I can't see Snape risking his life over her.

houyhnhnm:

I don't understand.  Why does there have to be a relationship between
them? If she can bring down DD's only known spy in Voldemort's camp,
then she's a threat to DD, the Order, Hogwarts, Harry, the defeat of
LV, and the whole Wizarding World.  This is not enough to risk one's
life over?

Magpie:

> Us seeing it makes all the difference, though.

houyhnhnm:

Why?  Sirius turns up (his head anyway) in GoF with shorter hair.  We
don't have to see him getting a haircut to make the reasonable
assumption that he did so.  






From babyhrndz at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 14 22:52:33 2006
From: babyhrndz at yahoo.com (Amanda Shoffner)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 14:52:33 -0800 (PST)
Subject: SPOILER :Re: JKR's website
In-Reply-To: <duqpub+1l26@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060314225233.92632.qmail@web30802.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149636

Tonks:
<SNIP>
> ...Mugglenet...radio...turn it on by pushing the off
button.The announcer will give you instructions to go
to the room with the door and bring the dead plant back
to life with 6 drops of red and 3 of green...I recognize
it as a peace lily...The red is a rejuicer and the green
a rejuvenator. The two together give the plant the "breath
of life".I wonder what it all means.  Of course, I think 
it means that DD will come back from the dead.  But what
are the 6 drops of red and 3 of green?  6 something from
Gryffindor and 3 of >Slytherin??? 6 of Gryffindor+3 
of Slytherin==peace==something >dead comes back to 
life.  
peace == no war == no LV. right?
<SNIP>

Alla:
<snip>
but no I don't think that would have any relation to
Dumbledore but to the end of the story and some kind 
of potion which Harry will drink and it allows him to
come back to life or something like that. I think this
may somehow symbolize the ending of the series. Wildly
speculating here of course, but I think six of red 
and three green means six Gryffs and three Slyths 
which will play pivotal role in helping Harry defeating
 Voldie.

Amanda:
   
  Hmmm
6 Gryffs & 3 Slyths
if this were true
who do you think it would be???
   
  Gryffindor: These five would be obvious to me
   1.    Harry
  2.       Ron
  3.       Hermione
  4.       Neville
  5.       Ginny
  The last one could be any of these:
     Seamus
  Lavender
  Parvati
  Dean
   
  Slythern:
  1.    Malfoy
  2.       Crabbe
  3.       Goyle
    
  ~Amanda...Any ideas????
   

		






From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 14 20:35:31 2006
From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 20:35:31 -0000
Subject: What Dumbledore trusts Snape to do? WAS: Re: High Noon for OFH!Snape - the Pause
In-Reply-To: <977182740603140824x61a489b9rf7884c08d9af84b7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <dv79ej+efac@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149637

 

> > "steven1965aaa":
> > If that would be the case it would bring up 2 questions: (1) what 
> > is the secret reason and (2) why is DD keeping it a secret from 
> > Harry?
> 
> Krista <kfreimu at ...>
> Could one of the reasons be that DD is keeping it a secret from 
> Harry because Voldemort can possibly read Harry's mind & DD doesn't 
> want Harry giving that secret about Snape away to Voldemort when 
> Snape is supposed to be working with Voldemort?


"steven1965aaa":
I think that's probably right but there may be more to it than that, 
something to do with Lily/James/Snape/GH which we do not have enough 
information to figure out.










From babyhrndz at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 14 20:56:51 2006
From: babyhrndz at yahoo.com (Amanda Shoffner)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 12:56:51 -0800 (PST)
Subject: ::raises hand::
In-Reply-To: <700201d40603101903w1a172b3ch8f735a8ddcb3d16f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20060314205651.13494.qmail@web30804.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149638

> A. Breese Cyndale wrote:
> I've tried, but could someone just quick explain what OFT   
> (OFH?) ESE & LID stand for?

> kchuplis:
> LID = "Life in debted" Snape.

  Amanda:
   
  OFH = "Out For Himself" Snape (Not for LV or DD, but himself)
  ESE = "Ever So Evil" Snape (LV's Man)
  DDM = "Dumbledore's Man" Snape (DD's Man)
   
  ~Amanda...Hope that clears it up for you.






From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Wed Mar 15 02:55:20 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 21:55:20 EST
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape
Message-ID: <1fe.129cc79f.3148dc18@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149639

>Carol
>On a side note, the question has been raised about  Narcissa's
>motivation in adding the third provision. It seems to be a  spontaneous
>thought, occurring after Snape has agreed informally to the  first
>provisions. (I don't think, BTW, that Narcissa planned the UV from  the
>beginning. It seems that she didn't want Bella's company, which  would
>have been necessary if she intended from the outset to  manipulate
>Snape into taking the vow.) I'm not sure what she has to gain  from it
>unless, as has been suggested, she wanted to protect her son  from
>becoming a murderer at Snape's expense.  I suspect  that
>the third provision is the consequence of the DADA curse, silently  and
>automatically operating to trap both Snape and Dumbledore and  to
>benefit Voldemort. .

Nikkalmati:
    Most listees seem to agree that clause 3 in the UV  was unanticipated by 
Snape.  I think he was moved by Narcissa's pleas (and  as someone said he was 
reminded of Lily's sacrifice), but I think he trusted  Narcissa or 
underestimated her.  Never underestimate a mother protecting  her child (or a wolf 
protecting her cub i.e. Jungle Book).  I believe  NM thought Draco would not 
succeed, but, if DD was killed, LV would not be too  upset and because SS would be 
obliged by the UV to argue in Draco's  favor, Draco would not die.  Everybody is 
willing to sacrifice  poor SS for their own ends!
Nikkalmati   






From celizwh at intergate.com  Wed Mar 15 03:03:41 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 03:03:41 -0000
Subject: Who calls Voldemort "Lord"
In-Reply-To: <20060314185723.29481.qmail@web35614.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dv806d+resm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149640

Flop:

> I'd always put it down to the fact that as a
> double-agent he could NOT afford to slip up and call
> Voldemort something inappropriate in front of other
> Death Eaters, or Voldemort himself, so he just kept up
> the habit at all times....

houyhnhnm:

I have also assumed that to be the case. He could he slip up in front
of DEs.  He would also be creating a memory of the boldness he felt
when he uttered Voldemort's name, something which LV might be able to
detect.

In addition, at the time he is forbidding the use of the Dark Lord's
name, he is in the very process of opening Harry's mind further to
Voldemort.






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 15 03:13:49 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 03:13:49 -0000
Subject: seeds of betrayal
In-Reply-To: <dv6nc6+mqjh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv80pd+nq8e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149641

> Marianne:
> 
> I hope we will be told not only the definitive backstory of the 
> prank, but also the immediate aftermath.  From the incomplete 
story 
> we currently have I can't believe that DD didn't assign some sort 
of 
> punishment to Sirius. I can see Snape not only resenting that 
Sirius 
> was not expelled, but that possibly James received no punishment.  
> Which of course would rankle if Snape believed that James and 
Sirius 
> were both involved up to their necks.

Alla:

Oh, totally, Marianne, I can totally see that, but I can bet you 
anything that Sirius WAS punished just not expelled and of course no 
punishment but expulsion would satisfy Snape.

Hmmm.I should record that as my prediction for book 7 :)
 
> Sherry:
> I present the theory that it was a very personal
> > grudge, a very personal resentment, that caused Snape to fire 
that 
> curse at
> > DD.  All the years of Dumbledore's betrayal, in Snape's mind, 
> having to do
> > things he might not like to do, whether it's spying or helping 
> Harry, take
> > your pick.  But I think it's a deep seated very personal 
> resentment, that
> > Snape has had simmering inside him against DD, and at last he 
had 
> his
> > chance. 

Alla:

Hee. Are you surprised that I like it? That I really really do? I 
think that argument in the forest fits into this pattern well - 
meaning Dumbledore again asking Snape to do things he does not want 
to do again, although of course if we assume that the argument was 
about DD asking Snape to do him in, when the time comes, then it is 
not fitting in the pattern you describe, but Oooo, if this was say 
about Snape wanting to stop spying or Snape wanting to stop doing 
something else. Then yes, here we have again Dumbledore asking Snape 
to do things he does not want to.

Oh, and come to think of famous "if you are ready, if you are 
prepared" in GoF, I am going to take a wild guess here and yes, I 
know not supported by much evidence and suggest that if Dumbledore 
was ASKING Snape to start spying, Snape did not exactly volunteer to 
do it. So, here maybe we have again DD asking Snape to do things he 
does not really want to do?

Although I am not sure how likely this is, since maybe Snape wanted 
to get back to his old pals, to see how they are doing, to evaluate 
that maybe his old boss is strong enough to keep him in mind when 
betting which side is going to win at the end.

JMO,

Alla
 







From bartl at sprynet.com  Wed Mar 15 03:18:22 2006
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 22:18:22 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:  ::raises hand::
In-Reply-To: <20060314205651.13494.qmail@web30804.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20060314205651.13494.qmail@web30804.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4417877E.7030000@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149642

Amanda Shoffner wrote:
>   OFH = "Out For Himself" Snape (Not for LV or DD, but himself)
>   ESE = "Ever So Evil" Snape (LV's Man)
>   DDM = "Dumbledore's Man" Snape (DD's Man)

Bart:
And let's not forget my own addition:

ESEDDM: Evil, but recognizing that Voldemort is a much greater evil, 
willing to work for Dumbledore. Kind of like Dung.

	Bart




From sue.stanley at sbcglobal.net  Wed Mar 15 03:36:47 2006
From: sue.stanley at sbcglobal.net (suehpfan1)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 03:36:47 -0000
Subject: Who calls Voldemort "Lord"
In-Reply-To: <dv806d+resm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv824f+9tek@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149643

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" <celizwh at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Flop:
> 
> > I'd always put it down to the fact that as a
> > double-agent he could NOT afford to slip up and call
> > Voldemort something inappropriate in front of other
> > Death Eaters, or Voldemort himself, so he just kept up
> > the habit at all times....
> 
> houyhnhnm:
> 
> I have also assumed that to be the case. He could he slip up in 
front
> of DEs.  He would also be creating a memory of the boldness he felt
> when he uttered Voldemort's name, something which LV might be able 
to
> detect.
> 
> In addition, at the time he is forbidding the use of the Dark Lord's
> name, he is in the very process of opening Harry's mind further to
> Voldemort.
>

Sue(hpfan) visiting...haven't been here in a while and I'm jumping in 
on this one because it interests me.  I have always thought that the 
Death Eaters are unable to utter Voldemort's name once they have the 
mark.  I think that if they were to utter his name, they would be 
called to him immediatly for punishment or that they would only utter 
the name with permission to let him know they had completed a task 
and could therefore be brought to his side for "debriefing".  

They all seem afraid of the name, even more so than regular wizard 
Joes.  

That's my thought, anyway.

Sue(hpfan)heading back to the Hogs Head but glad to visit this huge 
list for a minute!  (If you're here, "Hi! SSS!")







From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Wed Mar 15 03:26:39 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 22:26:39 EST
Subject: High Noon for OFH!Snape
Message-ID: <318.5d09d.3148e36f@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149644

>Carol
>So what I see (as of Book 6) is
>not Salvation!Snape or  Suicidal!Snape but maybe Tragic!Snape (or
>Atonement!Snape), paying dearly  for his long-ago choice to become a
>Death Eater and reveal the Prophecy  to the Dark Lord. He's doomed and
>anguished, but Harry, in many ways his  foil as well as his antagonist,
>will have to accept his help before the  end. (I hope.)

Nikkalmati
    
    To me it would be highly unrealistic if Harry and  friends are able to 
defeat LV and Snape if they are working together, especially  because Harry is 
continuing his pattern of rejecting adult help  (McGonagal).   Not only is LV 
the most powerful wizard in the UK  after DD is gone, but SS is shown as very 
strong, - plus think of all that  he knows about the Good side.  He knows the 
personalities and strengths and  weakness of  the Trio; he knows the same about 
the members of the OOP  as well as their hideouts, their plans, their 
patronuses, their characters; he  knows all about Hogwarts.  He is clever where most 
of the DEs are pretty  stupid.  He knows a good bit about what DD was thinking 
and doing.  He  can do spells and potions and legimancy.   Harry and Snape 
have to  work together, but the way HBP ended I have trouble seeing how JKR will 
ever set  that up (through a third party? Lupin?  or Hermione?).  Three  
teenagers defeat two extremely powerful wizards by themselves?  Not  likely.
Nikkalmati







From exodusts at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 15 03:55:20 2006
From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 03:55:20 -0000
Subject: Number 7 Ankh rune
In-Reply-To: <dv7emd+47ec@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv8378+e6dj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149645

> Tonks:
>
> While exploring some of what I think JKR maybe using as the basis 
> for her books I came upon an interesting discovery.  I stopped 
> reading and said "that's it!!"  That is the Rune symbol for the 
> number 7 on her website!!  Now it is not 100% the same, but I think 
> that she used the same picture that I saw and tweaked it just a 
> bit.  I have seen this symbol before, but never like the one I saw 
> in this picture.
> 
> It was a picture from ancient Egypt.  And the symbol was the Ankh.  
> Now as I said, I have seen this symbol before and it just didn't 
> register. But the way this picture was printed brings out different 
> features of the item in a way that I had not seen it before.  All 
> one has to do is to just round down the two sides and add a forth 
> leg and *** presto*** like magic you have the symbol on JKR's  
> website.
> 
> And what does the book say that the Ankh symbol represents?  It 
says 
> that it is the ancient (remember ancient magic) symbol of life, the 
> universe, and man. 
> 
> Now to speculate a bit. Perhaps the fact that there are 4 instead 
of 
> 3 appendages represent the 4 houses of Hogwarts.  I think that JKR 
> said in an interview that she wanted the Houses to represent the 4 
> directions. (I can't find the quote, but if anyone else can please 
> direct me to it. Thanks.)
> 
> I think that JKR is using her own version of the Egyptian Ankh.  
> (There must be some reason we kept hearing about Egypt in the other 
> books.) I just intutively think that the Ankh symbol and what it 
> represents is going to be somehow, with a bit of a twist of course, 
> be important in book 7.
> 
> Tonks_op


Exodusts:

I'll make you another crazy Book 7 prediction right now, for separate 
reasons that I'll keep to myself:

Ancient Egypt is going to play a role in the last book. Something to 
do with Bill Weasley and his Egyptian tombs. A curse.

That's it! :-)






From kchuplis at alltel.net  Wed Mar 15 04:08:36 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 22:08:36 -0600
Subject: Dementors
Message-ID: <602A5B86-B3D9-11DA-823D-000393B04DDE@alltel.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 149646

This was probably discussed years ago, but I'm really tired of Snape 
posts and I have wondered about this forever. How does one communicate 
with dementors? How did the ministry? How does LV? I mean, they were 
always talking about the dementors not being happy or Fudge bringing 
the one with and of course, good ol' Dolores set them on Harry. Is 
there a special charm that you can protect yourself with while you 
converse? You obviously can't send a patronusgram.  What was the 
consensus here?

kchuplis
Who still thinks LV might meet his doom via Dementoids.




From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 15 04:15:49 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 04:15:49 -0000
Subject: seeds of betrayal
In-Reply-To: <E1FJ332-0000HG-8M@elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <dv84dl+o9ep@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149647

Sherry's excellent post tracing the roots of Snape's betrayal (in her 
view) has inspired me to write up my own recent ideas about PoA. I, 
too, have reread PoA carefully in light of the new information we 
have from HBP. My views are rather the reverse of Sherry's. HBP has 
caused me to see the events of PoA, most especially Snape's actions 
at the end of the book, in an entirely different light. And one which 
(surpise!) is a DDM!Snape view of the events.

And my conclusion is that the Prank, and `Snape's Grudge' may well 
serve as red herrings, to explain Snape's otherwise inexplicable 
behavior to the reader in PoA without leading us to suspect things 
which will later become important. This is not to say that Snape has 
no resentment of the Marauders left over from his school days. In 
fact, I think Snape's view of Lupin in particular does reflect his 
view of Lupin's actions as a schoolboy.

It is interesting (to me, anyway!) that Snape actually says NOTHING 
about Sirius and his involvement in the infamous Prank, or about the 
Marauder/Snape conflict more generally, AT ALL in the entire 
Shrieking Shack scene. It is other characters (Lupin and Harry) who 
keep bringing it up, reinforcing for the reader the idea that Snape's 
CAPSLOCK behavior in this scene is based on his bitterness towards 
Sirius for the Prank (and possible other bullying). 

However, HBP has hinted at a possible alternative reason for Snape to 
be so murderously angry with Sirius. We now know that Snape was the 
eavesdropper who reported the Prophecy to Voldemort. And, Dumbledore 
believes that Snape felt great remorse about this when he realized 
the Potters were Voldemort's targets-which would mean that he now 
feels a great deal of guilt for the Potters' deaths. If the Potter's 
Secret Keeper had not betrayed them, they might still be alive and 
Snape would not have that burden of guilt. So, it is certainly 
possible that in PoA, Snape blames Sirius for causing the death of 
the Potters even while Snape was trying to make up for his initial 
reporting of the prophecy.

Let's recap. Snape enters the Shack under Harry's Invisibility Cloak, 
while Lupin is talking. (They hear the door creak). Then Lupin 
resumes speaking and gives the tale of how he was bitten, and how he 
nonetheless got to go to school and make great friends who all became 
Animagi. Lupin admits he feels badly that he has not warned 
Dumbledore all year about Sirius being an Animagus, saying 'Snape's 
been right about me all along'.

Sirius wonders what Snape had to do with anything, Lupin explains 
that Snape is teaching at Hogwarts and launches into his explanation 
of the Prank. Harry says, "So that's why Snape doesn't like you, 
because he thought you were in on the joke?"
Snape reveals himself, saying "That's right". So, the Prank is first 
brought to our attention in this scene by Lupin.

Snape explains how he saw Lupin on the Map, and how is pleased to 
finally have the proof for his suspicions of Lupin. He's not nice 
about it at all, but he makes no reference to the Prank/Marauders 
treatment of him more generally. 

Lupin says (again, the grudge is brought up, but not by Snape!), "You 
fool, is a schoolboy grudge worth putting an innocent man back inside 
Azkaban?"

Snape neither confirms nor denies the motive which Lupin attributes 
to him. He responds by tying up Lupin. When Sirius responds by 
roaring at him in rage and starting at him, Snape says 'Give me a 
reason. Give me a reason to do it, and I swear I will.' Again, 
totally nonspecific.

Now, Hermione intervenes. Snape berates the Trio for being out of 
bounds, and then goes CAPSLOCK: "KEEP QUIET YOU STUPID GIRL! DON'T 
TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!" Which certainly again has 
nothing to do with the Prank or Snape's schooldays, and, arguably, is 
reflecting Snape's opinion that the others present do not understand 
what his motives. (Which, if he's all upset about Sirius's betrayal 
of the Potters, is the simple truth.)

There follows an interaction in which Snape gloats about how he 
wanted to be the one to catch Sirius, and about taking him to the 
Dementors. Again, with no explanation offered by Snape why he wants 
vengeance, or to be the one to catch Sirius.

Then Harry steps in. He defends Lupin, pointing out Lupin did not 
harm him when he had the opportunities during the school year. Snape 
tells him to get out of the way, again, no mention of the Potters, or 
of the Prank. 

Now Harry goes CAPSLOCK: "JUST BECAUSE THEY MADE A FOOL OF YOU AT 
SCHOOL YOU WON'T EVEN LISTEN-" (Again, the prank is brought up, and 
again, NOT by Snape.)

Snape's reponse: "SILENCE! I WILL NOT BE SPOKEN TO LIKE THAT! 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! Just like your father, too arrogant to believe you might 
be mistaken in Black-now get out of the way, or I will make you. GET 
OUT OF THE WAY, POTTER!"
THIS, I claim, is a reference to the betrayal of the Potters by 
Sirius. And it is the ONLY mention of a past event which could be a 
motive for his actions by Snape in the entire scene. The mentions of 
the Prank are by Lupin (thrice) and Harry.

Snape is knocked out at this point.

I am increasingly convinced that Rowling introduced the Prank at this 
point in the series (PoA) as a red herring. To provide for the 
readers a convincing motive for Snape's behavior, (and one which I 
bought hook, line, and sinker for years) in order to hide a different 
motive she was saving for later. Post HBP, though, the scene just 
looked very different. I do not think it is a coincidence that the 
Prank is brought up several times in the Shack, but never by Snape. I 
think it was done by design, and quite cleverly, to get the readers 
thinking about it. It is not very noticeable that it wasn't Snape 
going on about the Prank at all, since he was being so extremely 
nasty for no other apparent reason that would have occured to us at 
that time.

If this is the case, then Snape might in the long run harbor no 
resentment of Dumbledore for his interference that night. Once he 
learned Sirius was not the Potter's Secret Keeper (and no, none of 
the discussions of the Secret Keeper switch that night occurred while 
Snape was present AND conscious), he quite possibly would not want 
Sirius dead. We might even imagine that Snape would appreciate not 
having a Kiss for Sirius on his conscience. (As he deeply regrets his 
involvement in James's death, perhaps
)

--zgirnius, wishing Irene Mikhlin had not posted her thoughts on 
possible Book 7 handling of Snape, since precisely that scenario has 
been a little nightmare of hers since sometime in August...






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 15 04:30:50 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 04:30:50 -0000
Subject: seeds of betrayal
In-Reply-To: <dv84dl+o9ep@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv859q+il7c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149648

Zgirnius:
<HUGE SNIP>
Post HBP, though, the scene just 
> looked very different. I do not think it is a coincidence that the 
> Prank is brought up several times in the Shack, but never by 
Snape. I 
> think it was done by design, and quite cleverly, to get the 
readers 
> thinking about it. It is not very noticeable that it wasn't Snape 
> going on about the Prank at all, since he was being so extremely 
> nasty for no other apparent reason that would have occured to us 
at 
> that time.

Alla:

Erm... yes, Snape DOES go on about Prank at the very least in the 
Hospital wing, that is of course unless we will learn about another 
attempt on Snape's life made by Sirius. ( I don't believe that 
Sirius attempted to kill Snape at all of course, but we are talking 
about Snape POV here, right?)

"Sirius Black showed that he was capable of murder at the age of 
sixteen," he breathed. "You haven't forgotten that. Headmaster? You 
haven't forgotten that he once tried to kill me?" - PoA, p.391.

If this is not the sign of seething resentment, I don't know what is.

Zgirnius: 
> If this is the case, then Snape might in the long run harbor no 
> resentment of Dumbledore for his interference that night. Once he 
> learned Sirius was not the Potter's Secret Keeper (and no, none of 
> the discussions of the Secret Keeper switch that night occurred 
while 
> Snape was present AND conscious), he quite possibly would not want 
> Sirius dead. We might even imagine that Snape would appreciate not 
> having a Kiss for Sirius on his conscience. (As he deeply regrets 
his 
> involvement in James's death, perhaps
)

Alla:

I am willing to assume that this was ONE of the reasons Snape could 
have been angry at Sirius, but IMO he expresses his resentment over 
Prank very clearly in the quote I brought up. 

 







From belviso at attglobal.net  Wed Mar 15 04:34:00 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 23:34:00 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione must be stopped/Snape's half truths in "Spinner's End"
References: <dv7pum+u4d7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00ae01c647e9$af8a8240$cf80400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 149649

> houyhnhnm:
>
> I don't understand.  Why does there have to be a relationship between
> them? If she can bring down DD's only known spy in Voldemort's camp,
> then she's a threat to DD, the Order, Hogwarts, Harry, the defeat of
> LV, and the whole Wizarding World.  This is not enough to risk one's
> life over?

Magpie:
My point isn't that she can't, physically, be a threat.  I'm talking about 
the drama in the story.  Is there really much to be gained by Bellatrix 
LaStrange suddenly becoming a central character?  I *don't* think she's a 
character who dramatically should be able to take down the greatest spy this 
way. Bellatrix can be the person who makes the vow happen, but I think 
Snape's got to take it for reasons that go to the heart of who he is, not 
the passing need to shut Bellatrix LaStrange up one night. That, imo, is 
just a device, and I don't think the vow is just a device.
>
> Magpie:
>
>> Us seeing it makes all the difference, though.
>
> houyhnhnm:
>
> Why?  Sirius turns up (his head anyway) in GoF with shorter hair.  We
> don't have to see him getting a haircut to make the reasonable
> assumption that he did so.

Magpie:
Getting a haircut is a totally superficial, shallow thing!  The point is you 
don't want to treat possibly the most important thing about a character like 
a haircut.  I'm talking about the entire creation of a character here. 
JKR's really clear about characters and their motivations. Having Snape 
brought down by a stupid risk is like having Snape brought down by wanting 
to be liked or trusting people too much.  It's not what his character is 
about, so I don't think JKR is going to make his story turn on it.  In life 
or death situations, I think characters show their true colors in HP.

-m 





From belviso at attglobal.net  Wed Mar 15 04:34:07 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 23:34:07 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: seeds of betrayal
References: <dv84dl+o9ep@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00af01c647e9$b3a86ef0$cf80400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 149650

zgirnius:
If this is the case, then Snape might in the long run harbor no
resentment of Dumbledore for his interference that night. Once he
learned Sirius was not the Potter's Secret Keeper (and no, none of
the discussions of the Secret Keeper switch that night occurred while
Snape was present AND conscious), he quite possibly would not want
Sirius dead. We might even imagine that Snape would appreciate not
having a Kiss for Sirius on his conscience. (As he deeply regrets his
involvement in James's death, perhaps.)


Magpie:
That's a really excellent thought!  The thing about this whole line of 
thought (Sherry's and the following posts) is I do think the Prank etc. is 
important in somewhat the same way Sherry described--only I think it's 
mostly important in influencing Snapes first fall and joining of the DEs.

What I think he may be more driven by now--and I think Sydney has suggested 
this as well--is the fallout from his own eavesdropping and the murder of 
the Potters.  It's not that he's lying when he rants about his almost dying 
or James and his friends bullying.  In many ways the two ideas probably run 
together in his mind: MWPP influenced him to join the DEs in the first 
place, and then when he tried to get out that messed him up again for life. 
The one leads to the other.

The righteous anger over the Prank, though, he can handle.  As DD says, he'd 
be happy to go back to hating James in peace.  What's got him howling like a 
dog on fire needs some guilt in there.  As much as he probably hated the 
humiliation of the Prank, he liked knowing he was right.  He can't do that 
anymore.

-m 





From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com  Wed Mar 15 04:35:26 2006
From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (Jazmyn Concolor)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 20:35:26 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:  Who calls Voldemort "Lord"
In-Reply-To: <20060314174438.62062.qmail@web52810.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20060314174438.62062.qmail@web52810.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4417998E.2000209@pacificpuma.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149651



Patricia Hurley wrote:

>Patricia:
>I always thought that that was the give away that Snape may not be 
>loyal to the OotP, him saying The Dark Lord. It's interesting how many 
>people don't pick up on that though. Perhaps it's just coincidence.
>
>
>
>  
>
Doesn't Dobby also call Voldemort 'the dark lord' as well?  Can't quite 
picture Dobby as a Death Eater.. Too short.  Like Sirius said, the world 
is not divided neatly into normal people and death eaters.  People read 
too much into titles and who uses them.  Harry is after all, often 
reminded to call his teachers 'professor' or 'sir'.  You don't see other 
kids having to be reminded to show respect to their teachers by using 
their titles.

Jazmyn




From belviso at attglobal.net  Wed Mar 15 04:41:04 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 23:41:04 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: seeds of betrayal
References: <dv84dl+o9ep@eGroups.com> <00af01c647e9$b3a86ef0$cf80400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <00cc01c647ea$b21aad90$cf80400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 149652

Magpie:
As much as he probably hated the
> humiliation of the Prank, he liked knowing he was right.  He can't do that
> anymore.

Magpie again:
Making myself clear hopefully before I'm corrected--I mean Snape can't know 
he was right about everything anymore.  He still thinks he's right about the 
Prank, obviously.

-m 





From sopraniste at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 15 04:44:41 2006
From: sopraniste at yahoo.com (Maria Holub)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 20:44:41 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:  Who calls Voldemort "Lord"
In-Reply-To: <4417998E.2000209@pacificpuma.com>
Message-ID: <20060315044441.32714.qmail@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149653

> Doesn't Dobby also call Voldemort 'the dark lord' as
> well?  Can't quite 
> picture Dobby as a Death Eater.. Too short.  Like
> Sirius said, the world 
> is not divided neatly into normal people and death
> eaters.  People read 
> too much into titles and who uses them.  Harry is
> after all, often 
> reminded to call his teachers 'professor' or 'sir'. 
> You don't see other 
> kids having to be reminded to show respect to their
> teachers by using 
> their titles.
> 
> Jazmyn

Flop:
Again, I feel there's a fairly simple explanation for
this. Dobby was the MALFOYS House Elf for who knows
how many years. I can't imagine Lucius Malfoy ever
even THINKING of The Dark Lord as "You-Know-Who" so if
ever he was mentioned he would have been referred to
as The Dark Lord.

Here's a thought. Do we know anything about the
lifespans of House Elves? Because some of the things
Dobby said about the plight of House Elves before
Harry triumphed over Voldemort in VW1 kind of implies
that he (Dobby) was AROUND for VW1, and likely already
belonged to the Malfoys. Bears thinking about, doesn't
it?...

Flop

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 15 05:17:49 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 05:17:49 -0000
Subject: seeds of betrayal
In-Reply-To: <dv859q+il7c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv881t+4qoi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149654

> Alla:
> 
> Erm... yes, Snape DOES go on about Prank at the very least in the 
> Hospital wing, that is of course unless we will learn about another 
> attempt on Snape's life made by Sirius. ( I don't believe that 
> Sirius attempted to kill Snape at all of course, but we are talking 
> about Snape POV here, right?)
> 
> "Sirius Black showed that he was capable of murder at the age of 
> sixteen," he breathed. "You haven't forgotten that. Headmaster? You 
> haven't forgotten that he once tried to kill me?" - PoA, p.391.
> 
> If this is not the sign of seething resentment, I don't know what 
is.

zgirnius:
Oh yes, the hospital wing. My post was already sooo long, but now 
that you mention it:

What does Snape believe is Sirius's entire defense, by the time he 
gets to the hospital wing? Based on the various snippets he has 
heard, I think he grasps that Peter Pettigrew may be alive. But I 
think that is the entirety of it, as far as Snape has figured out. In 
other words, Snape thinks Sirius is just trying to say he didn't 
murder Peter. Hence the comment he makes-it goes to Sirius's supposed 
defense. ('Does it really matter he didn't kill some particular 
person? We know he's *capable* of it...') 

After the escape of Sirius, Snape has a discussion with Fudge in 
which he accuses Harry of being involved in the escape. Dumbledore 
interrupts him, points out the kids have been locked in the room all 
this time, and says, "Unless you are suggesting that Harry and 
Hermione are able to be in two places at once, I'm afraid I don't see 
any point in troubling them further." Snape leaves the room without a 
word. My take on this is that Snape realizes that Harry and Hermione 
CAN be in two places at one time, and concludes from Dumbledore's 
statement that HE told then to Time Turn (and is thus very much 
himself involved in helping Black to escape, indicating that he does 
trust Black.) Since Snape knows Dumbledore (like him) holds Sirius 
responsible for the deaths of the Potters, it is probably only at 
this point that he has to consider that he may not know the whole 
story.

He still hasn't figured out the Secret Keeper switch, but he realizes 
that, for whatever reason, Dumbledore trusts Sirius. Presumably he 
thereafter figures it out, or has it explained to him by Dumbledore.







From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Wed Mar 15 06:04:01 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 06:04:01 -0000
Subject: Meanwhile, back at the ranch...(High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dv1pho+b6bl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv8aoh+8ctr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149655

Carol responds:
> I don't quite agree. Snape spends the first half of the chapter
> doing exactly what you say he doesn't need to do--proving himself
> to Bella. You're right that she is no longer in the Dark Lord's 
> confidence (a fact he takes pains to ascertain before answering
> her questions), but he makes his reason quite clear: The Death
> Eaters are talking about him behind his back, spreading rumors
> that he's really Dumbledore's Man (as Bella also believes), and he
> wants those rumors to stop <snip canon>

Jen: Spinner's End is like a rubik's cube puzzle to me, I get one 
side all the same color only to turn it and see another side is 
messed up. Your interpretation of Snape and Bella was my 
interpretation my first read-through, it makes narrative sense and 
is followed later by the scene on the tower where the DE's seem to 
be looking to Snape for directions.

Turn the rubic's cube: So Snape took great pains to tell Bella his 
story and for her to watch the UV. Bella then goes around to the 
DE's to extol the virtues of Snape far and wide and soon word gets 
back to.....Voldemort. 

Voldemort had to know about the UV and as far as we know, there was 
no punishment for talking about the secret plan that no one should 
have been talking about. It just seems fishy to me his minions are 
cutting deals supposedly behind his back and there are no 
repercussions. That tells me he *liked* the idea of the UV, or imo, 
he was behind it in some way to begin with. I know we don't agree on 
that Carol, it's just Voldemort has been behind every plan in the 
series. Things don't add up for this plan for me unless his finger 
is in the pie somewhere. He doesn't simply give orders and let 
things unfold, he's a micro-manager. Having a UV taken without his 
orders, one soon to be well-known in the circle of DE's, is 
suspicious to me. 

Carol:
> I don't agree that Narcissa had a plan when she sought his help,
> certainly not to trap him into an Unbreakable Vow, since she
> clearly didn't want Bellatrix following her and interfering. Nor
> do I think that Narcissa knew the whole plan involving the
> Vanishing Cabinet or Snape could have seen it in her mind using 
> Legilimency. 

Jen: I don't think Narcissa knew about the Vanishing cabinents, or 
that she would be killed if Draco failed (heck, I don't think Draco 
knew about that last part until he started failing and Voldemort 
upped the ante). Still, Narcissa talked to Bellatrix about what to 
do. She told Bella she was going to Snape's and the two argued 
before arriving at Spinner's End: "I've listened already. I've made 
my decision. Leave me alone." Bella did not know where Snape lived 
and yet she was able to follow Narcissa, something MOM officials 
seem unable to do when the DE's apparated from the camground in 
GOF.  Again, I find parts of it suspcious even though your reading 
is all there in black and white.

> Jen wrote:
> So the next question is....Why [did Snape agree to the third
> provision of the UV]? <snip> Snape seems to have attached himself
> to the two most powerful wizards in the world for most of his
> adult life. Some people see that as firm canon for OFH, while I 
> see another version of the oft-played theme of father figures. As
> a teen and young man, he believed Voldemort would deliver
> salvation. When none came, and in fact Snape only found more 
> emotional pain from Voldemort's actions, Snape returned to
> Dumbledore.

Carol responds:
> Well, maybe not salvation but certainly the recognition for his
> intelligence and talents that he wanted and didn't receive from 
> DD. <snip> There is evidence throughout the books of his feeling 
> like a son striving for the approval of a father who favors
> another brother or brothers <snip> So, yes, I think one reason he
> went to Voldemort was the hope that LV would recognize and reward
> his talents,the old "honor him above all others" lie we hear so
> often. And when he found out what service to LV really entailed,
> he *returned* (DD's own word, used in GoF and again in HBP to his
> original father figure, the great wizard whose trust and respect 
> and perhaps affection he craved.

Jen: OK, that works. I like the drama of salvation because most of 
what Snape does seems a little over the top, but your scenario gets 
to the heart of the matter. I'm in total agreement Snape felt 
Dumbledore failed him after the Prank and he went seeking *whatever* 
it is he sought from Voldemort. Voldemort specifically, I should 
say, not being a DE or Muggle torture or the rest. He likely engaged 
in some heinous activities and cut off his compassion since that's 
the route JKR mentioned Draco was headed toward in HBP. Was that the 
reason Snape became a DE? I doubt it.

> Carol responds:
> Now this is an interesting perspective. Snape knew that DD had been
> injured by a curse (I think he must have deduced that the cursed
> object was a Horcrux, but that's beside the point), but he knew
> that DD had sent Fudge and company packing and defeated Voldemort
> in the MoM. He could not possibly have anticipated a weak (dying?)
> and wandless Dumbledore on the tower, and he seems (later) to have
> trusted to the protections that DD placed on Hogwarts (and to 
> Draco's incompetence). It's possible that he felt a dim hope that
> Dumbledore, his father figure, would rescue him. I think, though,
> that the sinister imagery at the end of the chapter suggests 
> otherwise. 

Jen: You mean the sinister imagery of the Vow? I think that makes 
for a dramatic moment for Snape to "chose to risk dooming himself, 
to lose either his life or his soul, to save Draco and maintain his 
cover as a DE" as you said later on. But I like the idea better that 
the dramatic choice for Snape came on the tower. The once abstract 
third clause became a harsh reality and Dumbledore couldn't make his 
decision for him. Up to that point, Dumbledore was directing the 
action; On the tower, Snape was alone.

Carol responds:
> This I agree with, but I also think that Snape felt that following
> and talking to Draco was futile (the brat wasn't listening to him
> or confiding in him) and DD told him to keep doing it. And had
> Snape not followed that order, keeping an eye on Draco (or 
> Harry?), Draco would have died from Harry's Sectum Sempra curse 
> (and Snape, having failed to protect Draco, would have died as
> well). 

Jen: Your thoughts reminded me how carefully JKr wrote this story: 
Did Snape save Draco because of the Vow or because it was the right 
thing to do? Did he save Dumbledore from the ring curse because he 
knew Voldemort wanted Draco (and Snape) to kill him or because he 
wanted to save DD? I'm suddenly struck by how either path could be 
justified by canon.

Jen wrote:
> I think that interview in TIME when JKR talked about father figures
> and evil flourishing where fathers are bad or absent is fertile
> ground for growing Snape's motivations. It's certainly connected
> to a major theme and would place Snape in the already crowded room
> of abandoned sons, but as the only one who found an acceptable
> father substitute on the Right side.
 
> Carol responds:
> Or rather, the only one besides Harry who did so. The parallels
> between Snape and Harry are mounting. I really like the parallel
> between him and Lily, too--a father figure placing himself at risk 
> to save the "son" that Narcissa should have sacrificed herself to
> save if the pattern of the dying mother (Lily, Mrs. Crouch) had 
> continued. 

Jen: You know, the UV is an odd perversion of Lily's or Mrs. 
Crouch's sacrifice. Instead of possibly freely sacrificing himself 
for Draco without the Vow, Snape instead forced a situation where he 
must choose who will be sacrificed. 

Carol:
> And the pattern resumes with DD dying to save *three* sons--Harry,
> Draco,and his beloved black sheep, Severus Snape, who still has an
> important role to play. 

Jen: Dumbledore's death seems more along the lines of Lily's death 
to me, dying to protect others and perhaps confer some benefit we 
don't know about yet. 

Carol:
> He's doomed and anguished, but Harry, in many ways his foil as 
> well as his antagonist, will have to accept his help before the
> end. (I hope.)


Jen: I think it will be Harry's mercy that matters in the end <g>.








From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 15 07:24:18 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 07:24:18 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dv5vig+um44@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv8ff2+sidg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149656

It looks like some DDM!Snapers begin to realize that Snape's debt to
James must have some role in the plot. But it seems to me that
plotwise the logic of LID!Snape isn't fully appreciated yet. So before
I answer some of the posts, lets take a quick look at how JKR has been
developing the plot of Snape's debt throughout the series:

First, in Book 1, JKR has Dumbledore tell us that James saved Snape's
life, that Snape hates it and that he tried to save Harry's life in
order to repay the "debt".

In Book 3 JKR tells us, in a pretty dramatic way I might add, about
The Prank.  She also shows us Snape trying to save Harry's life from
Sirius and Lupin, and refusing to accept, again in a very dramatic
way, that they actually weren't after Harry's life. As Dumbledore
says, "he suffered a great disappointment".

Also in Book 3, JKR has Dumbledore telling us about the Life Debt
magic, and that it's magic "in its deepest, most impenetrable". She
has us expecting this very mysterious magic to make an impressive
appearance sometime in the series, but by Book 6 it still hasn't
(well, not in name anyway).

In Book 5 JKR takes Harry and us through the pensieve to show us
directly, again in a very dramatic scene, why Snape had hated James so
much even before the Prank.

In Book 6 she tells us, again in a very dramatic scene, that Snape was
the one who told Voldemort about the Prophecy. IOW he had made
himself, unknowingly but as a result of his own Choice, a part of a
plot to kill the person he was indebted to. JKR also has Dumbledore
tell us that this is why Snape changed sides.

And throughout the series JKR continues to raise the stakes by making
Snape repeatedly torment Harry, ending with the AK on the tower that
puts Snape officially back in the DEs camp.

Now, if all the above isn't buildup toward the resolution of Snape's
Debt in Book 7, then I don't know what buildup is. I'd bet money on
one thing: in Book 7 Snape is going to finally repay his Debt, and
that scene is going to be more dramatic than any of the above scenes.
Which is saying something.

Now, it so happens that Snape owing a Life Debt to James would explain
the mystery of Snape's motivations and loyalties throughout the series
in the simplest and most complete manner. In fact, the only things
left for JKR to do in Book 7 are to explain the exact nature of the
Life Debt magic (which she probably has to do anyway because of the
Wormtail plot) and explain why Snape took the UV (which would be easy
if Snape wasn't actually committed to guarding DD's life. ACID POPS
would do the job, or a certain clause to the Life Debt magic itself,
or any of several other theories). All the rest JKR has already laid
down, some of it implicitly but easy to figure out once you know the
solution.

So as I see it, the question of Snape's motivations on the one side
and the buildup of the Debt plot on the other side are a mystery and a
solution, both moving like two trains on well-laid rails throughout
the series toward their meticulously scheduled collusion in Book 7. I
fully expect this explosion to lit the sky.

Now, to some of the questions:

> Julie:
> Er, um...huh? Why doesn't Dumbledore just mean what he says, that 
> Snape was loyal follower of Voldemort (i.e., a Death Eater), but he 
> is no longer?
>

Neri:
My point was that when Dumbledore tells us things about Snape he
always neglects to mention a few interesting details that later turns
out to be quite important. Which makes me wonder what does he neglect
to mention when he says things like "I trust Snape completely" or
"he's now no more a DE than I am". 

After all, even most ESE!Snapers agree that Dumbledore still hides
from us the true reason he trusts Snape. So is Dumbledore allowed to
hide from us things that help Snape's case, but is not allowed to hide
things that hurt it?  


>Sydney:
> Sophist!Dumbledore is a bit of a joker, isn't he?  

Neri:
Yes! Couldn't put it better myself <g>.


>Sydney:
> I don't get why
> he'd be jerking Harry around like this.  Or anybody else for that
> matter.   Surely Harry is also concerned for people like Ginny or Ron
> or anybody else when he refers to 'our side'?  What if Snape suddenly
> had reason to kill Ginny, as a DE well might?  Why would Dumbledore
> being doing everything he can to encourage Harry to trust not just his
> own life, but other people's, to this guy when he's only relying on
> him because of a narrow bond to one person?

> Julie:
> And here some talk about how DDM!Snapers must deviate from the 
> straightforward to support their theories! Harry here certainly 
> means "our side" to represent the Order's side/the Good side of the 
> war against Voldemort in general. Dumbledore certainly knows what 
> Harry means. Dumbledore answers Harry's question in a straightforward 
> manner. Snape is on *our* side, i.e., Snape is on the side of teh 
> Order, the side against Voldemort.

Neri:
There is in fact a very simple reason why Dumbledore would regard the
Life Debt as placing Snape's in "our side". I discussed it in detail
in two of my recent posts, regarding the LID explanation of the
Occlumency lessons and the MoM battle. The short story is: Snape had
to save Harry's life and repay the Debt before he could go back to
Voldemort's side, but he somehow had to do it without Voldemort
realizing that he did. Until he could do that the Life Debt was very
effectively trapping Snape in "our side". 

In fact, I think Dumbledore was almost correct in this estimation.
Snape indeed did not intend to go back to Voldemort's side before he
managed to repay the Debt. It was Draco who foiled the plans of both
Dumbledore and Snape, and practically forced Snape, on the pain of
death, to end the double-agent game and go to Voldemort's side before
he paid the Debt. And assuming also Dumbledore didn't know about the
third clause of the UV he indeed had a very good reason to think Snape
is on "our side", at least until he manages to pay the Debt.

Not to mention that, since the only way "our side" can win the war is
by Harry vanquishing Voldemort, a Snape who is compelled to save
Harry's life is indeed on "our side", whether he wants to be or not.
And I predict that in *this* estimation Dumbledore will turn out fully
correct.


> Julie:
> So, even though Dumbledore doesn't really completely trust Snape, and 
> only *hopes* Snape will do the right thing, he's still more worried 
> about Snape than about his protege and savior of the WW, Harry--who 
> could well *die* if Dumbledore's trust in Snape is misplaced? For a 
> man who doesn't completely trust someone, Dumbledore is putting a lot 
> of trust in Snape...
> 
> I think I'm just getting confused! If your theory is the 
> straightforward one, why is it giving me a headache?

> Sydney:
> I'm with Juli-- and people say DDM!theories are convoluted! 
> <snip>  Can I borrow some of Juli's Tylenol?


Neri:
I wouldn't want to give anybody headaches. Lets see if I can make it
clearer: 

Dumbledore trusts Snape *completely* to save Harry's life because
Snape is InDebted, which is a straightforward interpretation of
Dumbledore's words in SS/PS and PoA.

Dumbledore pleads with Snape to save Harry *of his own free will*,
because it's the right thing to do. This is straightforward
interpretation of Dumbledore's character the way it is presented
throughout the series, and also fits with one of JKR's major themes.

It really doesn't look that complicated to me.


> > Neri:
> > It's a defense mechanism that has never made much sense to me if Snape
> > is DDM. A person has such a strong remorse about his part in making
> > some boy an orphan, and he doesn't miss an opportunity to show his
> > hatred to this orphan and to his dead father? 

> Sydney:
> LOL, everytime someone is genuinely mystified by this, I wonder if
> either they lead blameless lives, or maybe I just need therapy! 
> Snape's treatment of Harry just screams 'guilt' to me.  I utterly and
> completely recongnize it.  Personally, I'm never as furious and
> illogical and unfair as I am when I'm trying to conceal that I'm
> guilty about something.  I'm not saying Snape isn't one sick puppy,
> but I really do recognize his sickness as one of guilt.  But if you've
> never felt like that, well-- I'm jealous!  <g>

Neri:
I'm far from saying I have never felt guilt, and even lashed out
because of it. But remorse isn't guilt. On the contrary ? remorse is
the conscious recognition of guilt and the resolve to correct it. The
DDM!Snapers would have us believe that Snape's remorse about making
Harry an orphan is so deep, that 15 years after the fact he is risking
his life in Dumbledore's service because of it. Seems to me that such
a powerful remorse should induce a man to at least hide his hatred
from that very same orphan. Certainly not making a sport of tormenting
him. That might be guilt, but remorse it most certainly ain't.


> Julie:
> Actually Snape first STOPPED Harry from even trying an AK, then 
> scorned his *assumed* inability to use an Unforgivable. Snape 
> scorning Harry is simply Snape. 

Neri:
What you dub "simply Snape" is for me a series size contradiction
between deeply- remorseful!Snape and
what-fun-tormenting-the-orphan-I'm-supposed-to-be-remorseful-about!Snape.
And in this specific passage, this contradiction achieves pinnacles of
absurdity such as never attained previously in the series.


> Julie:
> It is Snape stopping Harry from even 
> making the attempt that is more interesting. After all, if Snape 
> really believes Harry is incapable of doing it, why not let him try, 
> then laugh at his failure? Because Harry might actually achieve an AK 
> and harm his soul, something that Dumbledore has no doubt emphasized 
> must *not* happen?

Neri:
You are sidestepping my original question. Snape shouts at Harry "no
Unforgivable Curses for you, Potter! You haven't got the nerve or the
ability." He has no problem saying that only several moments after he
killed Dumbledore with an Unforgivable, and no sign of remorse. His
manner is described as "sneering and jeering". Why then should we
think that, when another minute later he screams in pain with his face
suddenly "demented, inhuman", it's because he's remorseful? What
happened during the moment in between that brought such a dramatic change?

But it's written right there, what brought the dramatic change. Harry
said to him "kill me like you killed him". A pretty impressive effect
for such simple words, don't you think? Or should I say, a magical effect?


> Julie:
> Snape *just* killed Dumbledore, a man he respected to some degree, 
> perhaps even loved. It doesn't really matter what Harry means, but 
> what is foremost in Snape's mind, and I have no doubt Dumbledore is 
> foremost in Snape's mind, and also a fresh and much, *much* more 
> painful memory than James at the moment. (And I suspect Harry did 
> mean Dumbledore, for the same reasons.)
>

Neri:
In case I failed to make it clear, I certainly agree that by "him"
Harry meant Dumbledore. But I think Snape was thinking that by "him"
Harry meant James. Read this interesting conversation again from
Snape's point-of-view. Dumbledore's name was never brought up at all.
James was brought up twice, both times by Snape himself. It's actually
quite amazing, if you think about it, how he insists on discussing
James, even at such hour, right after he AK'ed Dumbledore. Sounds like
a severe fixation to me.


> Julie:
> We don't know the hatred Snape is feeling is directed *at* Harry. It 
> may well be *toward* Harry as it was *toward* Dumbledore, while the 
> focus of the hatred is the task itself--killing Dumbledore to save 
> Harry and get the DEs away from Hogwarts--and Snape's own self-
> loathing over what he was forced to do.

Neri:
Just when Snape's hatred is described he is closing in and looking
down on Harry. If the hatred is self-loathing, why should he close in?
I can understand that on the tower he had no choice but to kill
Dumbledore, but here he has a choice. Draco and the DEs had already
disaparated away, and Snape can easily follow them. Is he closing in
on Harry in order to loath himself? The DDM interpretation of this
conversation gets more and more convoluted, it seems. 

The LID interpretation remains completely straightforward: when
Snape's hatred is described it's because he feels hatred, not
self-loathing. When he insists on bringing up James it's because James
is the very subject, not a diversion. When his manner changes
abruptly, it's because what Harry had just said. When he screams as if
in pain, it's because he really is in pain. All those strange
occurrences fit LID perfectly.

> Julie:
> As for the magic, again I'm not sure I follow. Snape thinks he wants 
> to kill Harry, and feels severe pain because of the Life Debt? 

Neri:
Yes. While we don't know how Life Debts work exactly, this would be
the most obvious explanation here.

> Julie:
> It 
> doesn't track for me, because Snape becomes angry at being called a 
> coward--and if he's so pained and infuriated by that appellation it 
> logically must be because he thinks it's an unfair appellation. He's 
> *not* a coward because he did something that in his mind took extreme 
> courage. It sure wasn't getting James killed. But it could be killing 
> Dumbledore for the greater good.

Neri:
I suspect the coward thing *is* a diversion, because the first time
Harry calls Snape a coward, just a minute before, Snape doesn't act
perturbed at all. The second time Harry says "kill me like you killed
him ? you coward". *Then* Snape suddenly gets demented with pain and
screams: DON'T -- CALL ME A COWARD!" This stopping short and changing
tack is significant. As Pippin suggested once, I think the "call me a
coward" is a last second save. He was starting to say something else.


> Sydney:
> In terms of, is Snape magically compelled to save James or Harry?  I
> really don't think so.  I think it may have played a part as a debt of
> honour.  It would be cool if there was some.. what's a good term,
> 'situational magic'?  like the DADA curse seems to involve.  

Neri:
Aren't you forgetting that when one wizard saves the life of another,
a certain bond is created between them, that this is magic in its
deepest, most impenetrable?


> Sydney:
But from
> the basic root of this life debt theory:
> 
> "Well, they did rather detest each other. Not unlike yourself and Mr.
> Malfoy. And then, your father did something Snape could never forgive."
> 
> "What?"
> 
> "He saved his life."
> 
> "What?"
> 
> "Yes..." said Dumbledore dreamily. "Funny, the way people's minds
> work, isn't it? Professor Snape couldn't bear being in your father's
> debt....
> 
> I do believe he worked so hard to protect you this year because he
> felt that would make him and your father even. Then he could go back
> to hating your father's memory in peace...." 
> 
> 
> Why would Dumbledore be talking about how it's funny how people's
> minds work?  If the debt works as you say it does, it wouldn't be
> funny at all, in the sense of strange or illogical.  This doesn't
> sound at all to me like Dumbledore's talking about a straight-out
> compulsion like the House-Elf enslavement. I mean, would he say, "Yes,
> Dobby served Lucius Malfoy all year because he felt it was required by
> this spell.  Funny how people's minds work"?  If you found out about
> the elf enchantment and then re-read D-dore saying something like
> that, you'd be, 'what?  That doesn't even make sense'. 

Neri:
Cm'on Sydney, there are limits to even being straightforward.
Dumbledore could have well told Harry: "you see Harry, Snape worked so
hard to save you this year because he has a magical Debt to your
father. This is the solution to the mystery of Snape's motives and
loyalties, which we are going to run throughout the next six books.
Just don't tell the readers about it, OK? Because it really going to
ruin the series for them."

Dumbledore was supposed to give us just enough of a clue there, before
we were even told that there's such magic as a Life Debt, before we
knew Snape was a DE, before we knew he changed sides, before we knew
he told Voldemort about the prophecy, before we knew that there was a
prophecy at all. Dumbledore had to do that in such manner that
wouldn't scream "REMEMBER THESE WORDS, THIS IS THE SOLUTION TO THE
SNAPE MYSTERY". What exactly did you expect him to say in these
circumstances?


> Sydney:
> I think my post just above yours appeared before you had time to
> address it, so I'll just reiterate this bit:
> 
> "Would this LD theory now presume that, if asked by any Order member in
> a general sense, post-GoF Dumbledore would say: "I trust Peter
> Pettigrew completely"?  That he "wouldn't hear a word against
> Pettigrew"?  Because that's what this theory implies."
> 

Neri:
The answer is irrelevant. Pettigrew doesn't even pretend to be on
Dumbledore's side. The question of trusting him had never come up.
Dumbledore wasn't fighting to save Pettigrew's soul, he was fighting
to save Snape's soul.

But yes, even before GoF Dumbledore was totally cool with Pettigrew
running away to bring Voldemort back. And I'd bet money that he is
going to prove right about this in Book 7.


>Sydney:
> BUT... this isn't Dumbledore saying, I trusted Snape and I was wrong.
> He says, I trust Snape, but this particular task he was too
> handicapped to do.  It's Dumbledore saying, I thought Hagrid could
> squeeze through that tiny hole, but it turns out he was just too big.
>  That's not an "I don't trust Hagrid" moment, that's an "Hagrid turned
> out to be unequipped for this thing I asked him to do".  

Neri:
An interesting analogy. Hagrid doesn't have a choice about having a
big body. It seems that logically Snape should have a choice, if not
about his feelings then at least about how he handles them. Does
Dumbledore, the champion of Choices, believe Snape didn't have a
choice here? Why? Is Snape compelled? Perhaps Dumbledore compromising
his principles here should have been a warning to us. Perhaps it
should have been a warning to Dumbledore himself. 


Neri







From OctobersChild48 at aol.com  Wed Mar 15 06:12:15 2006
From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 01:12:15 EST
Subject: Portkey in GoF
Message-ID: <280.747a4ad.31490a3f@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149657

Tonks:
> > I was under the impression that just as you can not apparate out of 
> > Hogwarts you also can not transport out via a portkey either. The 
> > only reason the goblet portkey worked was because DD had make it 
> > into one that would have transported the winner out of the mass. I 
> > assume that because DD lowered the defenses to allow for that one 
> > object to be a portkey that this was the only object that 
> > Crouch/Moody could use. And he just changed the location of 
> > transport, which for some reason bypassed any defense system that 
> > should have been in place to prevent a change of location. 

Geoff:
> This opinion has been expressed on a number of occasions except
> that there has been a general view that Crouch!Moody didn't
> change the location but added an intermediate stop, the thought
> being that, having killed Harry, Voldemort would take great
> pleasure in returning the body to Hogwarts via Dumbledore's
> original setting.


Sandy here:

How thought provoking this list is. It's wonderful!

The opinion Geoff expressed makes sense. I admit to having wondered how it 
was that the Cup took Harry and Cedric's body back to Hogwarts. It was my 
impression that a portkey was a one-way ticket, so to speak. That impression was 
formed with our introduction to portkeys early in the book. They traveled to the 
QWC via portkey and there were Ministry workers collecting all of the portkeys 
that had been used to transport everyone there. Based on that I formed the 
impression that the portkeys were *programmed* to a certain destination and that 
once there would have to be re-programmed for use again. Otherwise, those 
collecting the portkeys would have been transported back to the portkey's point 
of origin.

Sandy






From hubbada at unisa.ac.za  Wed Mar 15 08:16:31 2006
From: hubbada at unisa.ac.za (deborahhbbrd)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 08:16:31 -0000
Subject: Who calls Voldemort "Lord"
Message-ID: <dv8igv+sb5j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149658

Darqali speculates, amidst vast snipped acreage of good stuff:

<<I noted that Trelawney was an exception  in the {supposedly} "good" 
Wizarding camp, in that when she made her two "prophecies" concerning 
LV, she used the term "The Dark Lord"  {his *followers* term} and 
nothing else.  This is very curious, if she is not a LV follower, or 
a Death Eater, or a sympathizer.>>

But in my little logical mind, it wasn't Trelawney actually doing it.
She was out of control, not present in her own head, at the time of
her two prophecies. So presumably she was channelling in some way.
Channelling who or what? Merlin's Beard, I don't know! No idea how
this could work ... maybe Grindelwald from behind the veil?  Or one of
the many casualties of VWI? There were many, on both sides. 

Trelawney, if anyone, seems to me to be OFH. She needs her job, needs
her status, needs the admiration of her special students, in a pretty
excessive way. She's fanatically OFH. Which would make her a lousy
follower of anyone. She's the only marcher on parade who's always in
step. Perhaps she might have it in her to be a fellow-traveller, but
she looks more like an inadvertently useful idiot!  DD was protecting
her, that's for sure, but why protect her from her own side? No, she's
DD's woman, though she would have no clear idea why.

Deborah, fond of Sybil at a distance but glad they'll never meet







From R.Vink2 at chello.nl  Wed Mar 15 08:52:20 2006
From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 08:52:20 -0000
Subject: Maligning Lupin
In-Reply-To: <dv7jin+4fdn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv8kk4+1c0i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149659

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "susanbones2003" <rkdas at ...> wrote:
>
> > > 
> > Renee:
> > 
> > Unfortunately, Pippin's answer doesn't solve my problem, which is 
> that
> > the *only* two members of this particular group we get acquainted 
> with
> > would be evil if Lupin is ESE. We have no basis left within canon 
> to
> > assume werewolves could ever be okay and are a cause worth 
> fighting for. 
> > 
> > Political correctness does not apply here. If someone writes a book
> > that shows us two Jewish or Muslim characters who are both evil in 
> one
> > way or another, readers can check this against primary world 
> reality -
> > though lots of them would still be up in arms against the author. 
> We
> > can't do so with werewolves. If JKR were to say after Book 7: `Yes,
> > well, werewolves are basically okay, but these two just happened 
> to be
> > bad eggs,' it would cast a rather poor light on her handling of the
> > anti-prejudice theme running through the books. (The theme itself
> > suggests to me that political correctness is not something JKR 
> would
> > shy from, but that's a tangential discussion.) 
> > 
> > Even assuming she wanted to give us `a character we know we should
> > sympathize with and make him the traitor/spy' to show that nice 
> isn't
> > necessarily good - which I'm not convinced she does - there are 
> better
> > choices for her to make than a person who already carries the heavy
> > burden of showing that `not all werewolfs are bad'. In its almost
> > pathetical insistence that among a known majority of bad werewolfs,
> > maybe a few are actually okay if you get to know them, this gloss 
> from
> > Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them speaks volumes. 
> > 
> > Renee
> 
> Hi there,
> I must admit at first I was taken aback by your argument but then I 
> realized JKR doesn't have to follow your formula. "To prove some are 
> good, please show us one good one!" I think if Lupin proves to be 
> bad and gets to explain in any detail why he decided to go that way, 
> that may be more important for the hearers in understanding what 
> their prejudice does. But let's look at werewolves. Not Lupin since 
> he was raised with a furry little problem, but the ones who embrace 
> their lives, the Fenrir-type. Pretending a little here, but who 
> would want them in society? How would a real society fit them in? 
> I'm not talking in eliptical symbolic terms but if the real thing 
> presented itself. How would it be possible? Even if LV were to win 
> his war, what could it accomplish? Chaos, widespread mayhem? Lupin 
> is on the horns of a huge dilemma. He is the odd man out. Good or 
> bad. He is tragedy beheld. 
> 
> Jen D.
>

Renee:

But what you seem to be saying now is that werewolves *are* bad, that
the prejudice of the Wizarding World is justified, and that Lupin's
tragedy is that he tried to be good, but failed. Failed, because the
prejudice is justified and his attempt to be good was futile anyway,
werewolves being bad and inevitably disruptive. (Which you ought to
know isn't true, because there's such a thing as the Wolfsbane potion.) 

If you're really saying this, I'm afraid you've ceased to make sense
to me. If I thought for a moment JKR had introduced the anti-werewolf
bias merely to justify it in the end, I'd have to conclude I'd been
wasting my time on the series. Fortunately for me, I believe the contrary.

Renee

   






From rkdas at charter.net  Wed Mar 15 12:55:32 2006
From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:55:32 -0000
Subject: Maligning Lupin
In-Reply-To: <dv8kk4+1c0i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv92s4+8gmp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149660

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Renee" <R.Vink2 at ...> wrote> >
> 
> Renee:
> 
> But what you seem to be saying now is that werewolves *are* bad, 
that
> the prejudice of the Wizarding World is justified, and that Lupin's
> tragedy is that he tried to be good, but failed. Failed, because 
the
> prejudice is justified and his attempt to be good was futile 
anyway,
> werewolves being bad and inevitably disruptive. (Which you ought to
> know isn't true, because there's such a thing as the Wolfsbane 
potion.) 
> 
> If you're really saying this, I'm afraid you've ceased to make 
sense
> to me. If I thought for a moment JKR had introduced the anti-
werewolf
> bias merely to justify it in the end, I'd have to conclude I'd been
> wasting my time on the series. Fortunately for me, I believe the 
contrary.
> 
> Renee

Wow,
You can really talk a good game. I feel bad now!  You really put me 
in my place! (Didn't you always want to hear someone on this site 
admit that!) I don't know if I can work out all the ends and outs 
of "what the series means" on my own but I think Lupin might turn 
out to be bad not because he's a werewolf (because he has tried to 
control his problem) or because he's got character flaws. I do know 
about wolfsbane but the werewolves Lupin is hanging with right now, 
they don't seem to be so keen on that. That kind of werewolf, well 
they are definitely bad. Don't you agree? The wolfsbane kind, they 
are like Lupin perhaps and are trying to pass in "society." They 
know they have a problem and are doing their best to control it. But 
how would you work the non-wolfsbane type into your society? I know 
you don't want Lupin to be bad because it would violate something 
you hold dear, but contemplating it can't hurt you!
Jen D.
>








From little_scottie6 at hotmail.com  Wed Mar 15 09:16:36 2006
From: little_scottie6 at hotmail.com (Victoria Scott)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 20:16:36 +1100
Subject: Snape's past and Voldemort
In-Reply-To: <44167ABC.40406@telus.net>
Message-ID: <BAY109-F365EDFF921055E2579B51FD9E60@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 149661

Vic:

I was thinking about why Snape is connected to Voldemort, other than his 
love for the Dark Arts and also why he would have turned to Dumbledore to 
get back on the 'right' side.

We know by Tom Riddle's diary that he was at Hogwarts 50 years ago, and we 
also learn in book 7 that Eileen (spelling??) Prince was also at Hogwarts 50 
years ago because of Snape's potion book. Do you think that there is any 
connection between Voldemort and Miss Prince?? Maybe there was a connection 
between the two and Snape has told Voldemort of his one brush with love that 
was taken from him?

There is also the connection that Riddle was a top student with the highest 
of marks for everything, and we know that Miss Prince was also highly 
skilled in Potions, could there also have been a connection that way that 
didn't include love?

I can't shift the thought that Snape and Voldmort are connected in more ways 
then just their love for the Dark Arts, Voldemort/Riddle and Miss Prince 
MUST have had a connection some how. I can't pin point it, any ideas??
Vic









From maria8162001 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 15 10:31:50 2006
From: maria8162001 at yahoo.com (Maria Vaerewijck)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 02:31:50 -0800 (PST)
Subject: SPOILER :Re: JKR's website
In-Reply-To: <20060314225233.92632.qmail@web30802.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20060315103150.52093.qmail@web53202.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149662


Amanda Shoffner <babyhrndz at yahoo.com> wrote:
   
> Hmmm
6 Gryffs & 3 Slyths
if this were true
who do you think it 
> would be???
>   
> Gryffindor: These five would be obvious to me
> 1. Harry
> 2. Ron
> 3. Hermione
> 4. Neville
> 5. Ginny
> The last one could be any of these:
> Seamus
> Lavender
> Parvati
> Dean
>  
> Slythern:
> 1. Malfoy
> 2. Crabbe
> 3. Goyle

   
maria8162001:
   
   For 6 Gryffs;
  1 Harry
  2 Ron
  3 Hermione
  4 Neville
  5 Ginny
  6 Dean
   
  We should include Dean, he was in the original drawing oc the COS, 
JKR didn't remove him for nothing there so, maybe, just maybe he's 
going to finally put him together with the 5 in book 7.
  For 3 Slyths if not the 3 students you mentioned, it would be; 
Snape, Draco and Sluggy.
   
   
  
            










From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 15 13:03:57 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:03:57 -0000
Subject: seeds of betrayal
In-Reply-To: <dv881t+4qoi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv93bt+nm5u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149663

> Zgirnius:
> Oh yes, the hospital wing. My post was already sooo long, but now 
> that you mention it:
> 
> What does Snape believe is Sirius's entire defense, by the time he 
> gets to the hospital wing? Based on the various snippets he has 
> heard, I think he grasps that Peter Pettigrew may be alive. But I 
> think that is the entirety of it, as far as Snape has figured out. 
In 
> other words, Snape thinks Sirius is just trying to say he didn't 
> murder Peter. Hence the comment he makes-it goes to Sirius's 
supposed 
> defense. ('Does it really matter he didn't kill some particular 
> person? We know he's *capable* of it...') 


Alla:

Okay, sorry but you lost me here a little bit. Wasn't the main point 
of your previous post( sorry if I misunderstood) that Prank in the 
Shack was brought up as red herring and Snape really would not be 
upset at Sirius, unless he thought that Sirius is the main reason of 
Potters deaths, thus Snape covers up his own guilt?

And the reason you thought so ( the way I understood you at least) 
is because Snape never brings up prank himself in the shack only 
reacting to others?

I mean, for me it is unnecessary, it is clear to me from the way HOW 
Snape reacts to Lupin bringing it up  that he is very angry, but I 
gave you the quote where Snape himself brings up Prank and really 
really upset about it. And he does not say that Sirius tried to kill 
just SOME person, he says ME with the italics, so JKR really 
stresses it out IMO that Snape cannot forget it.

And you are saying that Snape does not really bring up the Prank? he 
just thinks that Sirius tries to justify himself? I am confused, 
sorry.

But we probably won't agree on this one, because obviously  the way 
Sherry interpretes Shack is very inconsistent with DD!M Snape(or at 
least many varieties of it) :)

JMO,

Alla








From maria8162001 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 15 12:45:44 2006
From: maria8162001 at yahoo.com (Maria Vaerewyck)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:45:44 -0000
Subject: JKR website - Quintaped
Message-ID: <dv929o+uvmj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149664

Hi, I am just wondering if anybody thinks that there's a connection 
on the Quintaped at JKR's website (rubbish bin and ancient runes 
book) and the quintaped skeleton in the RoR in HBP. Harry found or 
saw a cage with a five legged skeleton. I was thinking of this 
skeleton with 5 legs as quintaped. Latin word for quintaped is five-
footed. Could this have something to do in book 7? Another red 
herring, perhaps? Just wondering. And according to the HPL, 
quintaped are highly dangerous carnivore covered in thick reddish 
brown hair, having five clufooted legs and a low slung body. It has 
a particular taste for humans.

Most of these beasts (demeguise, unicorn, graphorn?, runespoor? 
Fwooper, salamander, acromantula and hydra?) have their used for 
potions or something in the pasts books, but the quintaped, we never 
heard or see yet except in the RoR. Maybe it's worth thinking of.
I read it somewhere and I'm trying to find that page now, about 
origins of the Quintaped. Quintaped are from the Isle of Drear in 
Scotland. This Isle was inhabited by 2 warring wizarding clans, the 
McClivet and the McBoons. In a drunken fight the McBoon chief killed 
the McClivet chief or something like that and then one night the 
McClivets decided to have their revenge so they went to the place of 
the McBoons clans and turned everyone of the McBoons into quintaped, 
only then did they realized that they turned their enemies into more 
dangerous creatures. McBoons/quintaped ate every members of the 
McClivets to the last one, only to realized at the end that none 
from the McClivets was left to hold a wand to transform them back 
into their human forms so they spent their lives living as 
quintaped. 

If that is how it was, how did the quintaped get inside Hogwarts 
into RoR, who brought it in? It surely cannot be Hagrid or he would 
have put Aragog there too. Could it be that, that is the last of the 
member of the McBoons? Anybody have any ideas? Maybe it will appear 
again in book 7. Maybe this is worth pursuing? Thanks and sorry for 
any mispelled words and my grammar.

maria8162001









From celizwh at intergate.com  Wed Mar 15 13:34:42 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:34:42 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped/Snape's half truths in "Spinner's End"
In-Reply-To: <00ae01c647e9$af8a8240$cf80400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <dv955i+a5pi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149665

Magpie:

> My point isn't that she can't, physically, be a 
> threat.  I'm talking about the drama in the story.  
> Is there really much to be gained by Bellatrix LaStrange 
> suddenly becoming a central character?  I *don't* 
> think she's a character who dramatically should be 
> able to take down the greatest spy this way. Bellatrix 
> can be the person who makes the vow happen, but I think 
> Snape's got to take it for reasons that go to the heart 
> of who he is, not the passing need to shut Bellatrix 
> LaStrange up one night. That, imo, is just a device, 
> and I don't think the vow is just a device.

houyhnhnm:

I sort of see what you are trying to say--that Snape couldn't have 
been motivated to take the UV by his fear of Bella because he would 
have known that to be brought down by Bella would violate some rule 
of draumaturgy, thus she couldn't really be a threat.  That seems 
awfully convoluted to me.

I'm not one of the English profs on the list, so maybe I shouldn't 
have gotten involved in this discussion in the first place.  I'm just 
a reader, and the characters of the Potterverse interest me to that 
the extent that they remind me of real people or their situations 
remind me of real life.  In RL people are more likely to be brought 
down by a moment of stupid inattention than a Nemesis.  That's why 
Snape's behavior in "Spinner's End" resonates with me rather than 
puzzling me.  It's totally believable.  Been there.  Done that. :-)






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Mar 15 14:29:57 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 14:29:57 -0000
Subject: Who calls Voldemort "Lord"
In-Reply-To: <dv8igv+sb5j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv98d5+jfa8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149666

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "deborahhbbrd" <hubbada at ...> wrote:
>
> Darqali speculates, amidst vast snipped acreage of good stuff:
> 
> <<I noted that Trelawney was an exception  in the {supposedly} "good" 
> Wizarding camp, in that when she made her two "prophecies" concerning 
> LV, she used the term "The Dark Lord"  {his *followers* term} and 
> nothing else.  This is very curious, if she is not a LV follower, or 
> a Death Eater, or a sympathizer.>>
> 
> But in my little logical mind, it wasn't Trelawney actually doing it.
> She was out of control, not present in her own head, at the time of
> her two prophecies. So presumably she was channelling in some way.

Geoff:
This does in fact raise a question in my mind. Where do prophecies come from? Why are 
they sent?

In Christian and Jewish terms, prophecies are sent to believers. There are numerous 
examples in the Bible. But in the Wizarding World?

The fact that Dumbledore heard the first and Harry the second almost suggests that they 
are sent to the "good" side to warn them and that characters like Voldemort only get hold 
of them because they hear second-hand that they have been revealed.

What do the rest of you guys out there think?

I prophesy that this might start a new thread.
:-)







From kchuplis at alltel.net  Wed Mar 15 14:51:47 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 08:51:47 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: SPOILER :Re: JKR's website
References: <20060315103150.52093.qmail@web53202.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <006f01c6483f$fc45cc10$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local>

No: HPFGUIDX 149667


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Maria Vaerewijck 
  To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 4:31 AM
  Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: SPOILER :Re: JKR's website



  Amanda Shoffner <babyhrndz at yahoo.com> wrote:
     
  > Hmmm.6 Gryffs & 3 Slyths.if this were true.who do you think it 
  > would be???
  >   
  > Gryffindor: These five would be obvious to me
  > 1. Harry
  > 2. Ron
  > 3. Hermione
  > 4. Neville
  > 5. Ginny
  > The last one could be any of these:
  > Seamus
  > Lavender
  > Parvati
  > Dean
  >  
  > Slythern:
  > 1. Malfoy
  > 2. Crabbe
  > 3. Goyle

     
  maria8162001:
     
     For 6 Gryffs;
    1 Harry
    2 Ron
    3 Hermione
    4 Neville
    5 Ginny
    6 Dean
     
    We should include Dean, he was in the original drawing oc the COS, 
  JKR didn't remove him for nothing there so, maybe, just maybe he's 
  going to finally put him together with the 5 in book 7.
    For 3 Slyths if not the 3 students you mentioned, it would be; 
  Snape, Draco and Sluggy.
     
   
  kchuplis:
  I thought Dean's backstory was really interesting. I wish it could have been explored somehow.  But since it wasn't, I don't see him getting in the limelight now.

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




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Mar 15 16:02:26 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:02:26 -0000
Subject: Maligning Lupin
In-Reply-To: <dv8kk4+1c0i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv9dqi+n24t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149668

 
 Renee:

> > > Unfortunately, Pippin's answer doesn't solve my problem, which is 
that the *only* two members of this particular group we get acquainted 
with would be evil if Lupin is ESE. We have no basis left within canon 
to  assume werewolves could ever be okay and are a cause worth 
 fighting for. 

Pippin:

Wait, wait. As we're always telling each other on this list, inadequate
evidence does not become adequate by virtue of being the only
evidence available.

If two werewolves are evil will  our heroes  feel justified
in believing that  all the bad things they've heard about werewolves are 
true?  That werewolves are too scary to be given their rights and their
freedoms? I hope not, because that would mean they were prejudiced.

They  would have been influenced by  rumours and 
judged any number of people on the basis of their bad experience 
with two of them.   They would have decided that human rights aren't 
worth fighting for. 

If Lupin is ESE, I  think they'll be forced to consider the issue.
But I think we all know what they'll do. Don't we? 

Unfortunately there  are people,  in the WW as in the real world, who make 
human rights look like a bad idea. But if people are to be judged
by their choices rather than their abilities, we have to give them the
right to choose, even if others with those abilities have chosen poorly. 

Should wizarding law  and wizarding society grant werewolves the  
same rights and  freedoms as other wizards, even if, like other wizards, 
werewolves may abuse them? I think so.


I firmly believe that JKR will show us that ESE!Lupin's efforts to be good 
weren't  futile because  he was a werewolf. They were 
futile because he never had the courage to make himself accountable 
for what he'd done.

Note his utter incredulity that Dumbledore believed in  Snape's
remorse. 

Of course if lots of werewolves have adapted to their outcast way of
life, it's going to be difficult to integrate them into wizarding society,
just as freeing the House Elves is turning out to be a lot more difficult
than just telling them that they should be free. Social change is
*hard*. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.

Whenever anyone tells me that Lupin can't be evil because it 
would make things look bad for the werewolves, I'm reminded of
something I think Ben Gurion said:  that he would know anti-Semitism
was over when no one was afraid to say  that Israel's jails were full of
Jewish murderers and thieves.


Pippin






From belviso at attglobal.net  Wed Mar 15 16:19:11 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:19:11 -0000
Subject: Hermione must be stopped/Snape's half truths in "Spinner's End"
In-Reply-To: <dv955i+a5pi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv9epv+ldfd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149669

> houyhnhnm:
> 
> I sort of see what you are trying to say--that Snape couldn't have 
> been motivated to take the UV by his fear of Bella because he 
would 
> have known that to be brought down by Bella would violate some 
rule 
> of draumaturgy, thus she couldn't really be a threat.  That seems 
> awfully convoluted to me.

Magpie:
It's not that Snape would know anything about the rule, it's that 
the writer would so she's not going to write that situation. As, to 
make a more obvious example, she would know that Voldemort shouldn't 
be hit by a bus or killed by Dumbledore.  Fiction isn't like real 
life--especially this series isn't--meaning that random things 
happen.  There's nothing random in fiction, only things the author 
has chosen to have happen and have her characters do to make her own 
point. 

>From Snape's pov, it makes sense characterwise.  This is an 
Unbreakable Vow--you're pledging your life to something.  I don't 
think Snape's going to pledge his life to blocking one of many petty 
attempts of Bellatrix LeStrange to make herself Voldemort's 
favorite.  I think it fits with his character as well as dramatic 
good sense to not take a vow like this that lightly--this character 
is no stranger to vows and obligations.  It's not just going off on 
a tangent for the author, it's going off on a tangent for Snape, 
imo.  Perhaps if we were privvy to all of Snape's spy games with the 
DEs this exact scenario would work really well, because the author 
would have created a situation where we knew exactly why Snape had 
to take the vow.  But I think it would be a different story.

-m









From tifflblack at earthlink.net  Wed Mar 15 17:13:25 2006
From: tifflblack at earthlink.net (Tiffany Black)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 09:13:25 -0800
Subject: Prophesies RE: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who calls Voldemort "Lord"
In-Reply-To: <dv98d5+jfa8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <E1FJZY6-0005Zl-LL@smtpauth07.mail.atl.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 149670


Geoff:
This does in fact raise a question in my mind. Where do prophecies come
from? Why are they sent?

In Christian and Jewish terms, prophecies are sent to believers. There are
numerous examples in the Bible. But in the Wizarding World?

The fact that Dumbledore heard the first and Harry the second almost
suggests that they are sent to the "good" side to warn them and that
characters like Voldemort only get hold of them because they hear
second-hand that they have been revealed.

What do the rest of you guys out there think?

I prophesy that this might start a new thread.
:-)

Tiffany:
Actually, own of my greatest fears for the seventh book is that Voldemort
will get hold of Trelawney and figure out that she only prophesies drunk, so
he'll feed her on cooking sherry and keep her locked up where only he can
hear her, kind of like a human sized bird cage.

Tiffany





Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/HBF_Text__MUST
_READ

Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from
posts to which you're replying!
 
Yahoo! Groups Links



 






From sydpad at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 15 19:25:33 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 19:25:33 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dv8ff2+sidg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv9pnd+v1hr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149671



> >Sydney:
> > Sophist!Dumbledore is a bit of a joker, isn't he?  
> 
> Neri:
> Yes! Couldn't put it better myself <g>.

How amusing of him to joke around with everone's lives like that!  You
still have to assume that every single time Dumbledore assured any
Order member that he trusted Snape, every single time he "wouldn't
hear a word against him", your theory has to narrow down each and
every off-stage conversation so that it is principally about Harry.
So, no conversation could ever have taken place where, say, Lupin
would ask, "Snape know an awful lot about what I'm doing with the
werewolves, and he hates my guts, I'm a bit worried-- are you sure I
can trust him?"  And Dumbledore would say "Ho ho ho, oh yes- of
course, I trust Snape completely."  *snigger*  And then in a stage
whisper joker!Dumbledore would say, "Hee!  I mean, with Harry, of
course!"  It would be incredibly easy for Snape to trip up any Order
member at any time, and to do it in such a way that it couldn't really
be pinned on him.  And, well, LD!Snape couldn't be trusted.

I just think your theory still comes down to basically ignoring every
single thing Dumbledore has every said.  Snape didn't really feel
remorse, in any commonly understood sense of the word remorse,
Dumbledore doesn't really trust him, in any commonly understood sense
of the word trust.  I wouldn't say, "The accountant was really
remorseful about cooking the books-- he got caught".  That's not
remorse.  I wouldn't say, "I trust Joe not to break parole-- he's got
one of those ankle monitors".  That's not trust, if you trust Joe
completely, you trust him with or without the monitor.  If JKR wanted
the books to make sense on rereading, she would have Dumbledore say
things like "Harry, I am certain that Professor Snape would do nothing
to harm you", or "Lupin, Mcgonnegal-- there are many things I cannot
tell you about Severus, but I am sure of one thing: at this point in
time he will do everything he can to protect Harry."


> Not to mention that, since the only way "our side" can win the war is
> by Harry vanquishing Voldemort, a Snape who is compelled to save
> Harry's life is indeed on "our side", whether he wants to be or not.

Well, no he's not.  Again, this is a version of the term "on our side"
that I don't recognize. If LD!Snape still shares Voldemort's goals,
he's not on 'our side'.  He's on their side but handicapped.


> Dumbledore trusts Snape *completely* to save Harry's life because
> Snape is InDebted, which is a straightforward interpretation of
> Dumbledore's words in SS/PS and PoA.

Dumbledore doesn't "trust Snape completely to save Harry's life".  He
trusts Snape completely, full stop.  This is the teeny tiny problem
with you theory.  He has not been telling Harry and the Order that he
"trusts Snape completely to save Harry's life".  He's been telling
them, "I trust Snape completely".  

Surely when Dumbledore is telling Harry that he trusts Snape
completely, he would be fine if Harry took this to mean, well, he
should trust Snape too?  Like, in a complete way?  Like, if a
situation ever came up when Ginny was in danger, Harry could trust
Snape to help her?  I mean, there's a war on, and lots of bad stuff
can happen to lots of peope for lots of reasons.  If Harry DID trust
Snape to help Ginny, because he took D-dore's assurances in good
faith, when D-dore didn't in fact give them in good faith, and
essentially DE! OFH! totally
untrustworthy-except-for-the-ankle-bracelet! Snape let Ginny die...
joker!Dumbledore suddenly isn't so funny, is he?


> Dumbledore pleads with Snape to save Harry *of his own free will*,
> because it's the right thing to do. This is straightforward
> interpretation of Dumbledore's character the way it is presented
> throughout the series, and also fits with one of JKR's major themes.

Straightforward?  Let's go back to Joe and the ankle monitor--
appearantly an ankle monitor that gives incredibly painful electric
shocks.  And he's right on the edge of his legal range, and his loving
parole officer who is totally certain that Joe will do anything to
avoid the shock, but wants him to be good guy at heart is saying,
"Joe.. please..".  And it's totally straightforward that he's pleading
with Joe not to step over the line because it's the right thing, even
though the officer is certain Joe won't step over the line anyways
because for 6 books he's been saying, "Joe will never risk getting a
shock."

The LD theory requires Dumbledore to be saying all sorts of
complicated things like "I know you're going to save Harry anyways but
I'm pleading you in a voice I've never used before because I'm
concerned that your motives won't be pure, I know "Severus, please"
doesn't make that obvious in any way, even to you, but let me look
into your eyes and give you some image that makes this very murky
concept crystal clear".  How is the text even ever going to explain this?

By the way, have you resolved if Dumbledore is pleading about
protecting Harry, or not killing Dumbledore?  Neither of them seem to
work very well.


> Neri:
> I'm far from saying I have never felt guilt, and even lashed out
> because of it. But remorse isn't guilt. On the contrary ? remorse is
> the conscious recognition of guilt and the resolve to correct it. The
> DDM!Snapers would have us believe that Snape's remorse about making
> Harry an orphan is so deep, that 15 years after the fact he is risking
> his life in Dumbledore's service because of it. Seems to me that such
> a powerful remorse should induce a man to at least hide his hatred
> from that very same orphan. Certainly not making a sport of tormenting
> him. That might be guilt, but remorse it most certainly ain't.

We'll just have agree to disagree on this. Snape is practical man who
is contemptuous of emotion.  He is resolving to correct his guilt by
doing everything in his power to protect Harry and bring down
Voldemort.  I don't see where being tender of Harry's feelings would
even register on Snape's radar.  He just honestly doesn't care how
people feel-- or perhaps, it seems like he'd prefer that people hated
him.  He doesn't care if he makes his kids feel like crap, he cares if
they pass their exams.  That's just who he is. 


> Neri:
> Snape shouts at Harry "no
> Unforgivable Curses for you, Potter! You haven't got the nerve or the
> ability." He has no problem saying that only several moments after he
> killed Dumbledore with an Unforgivable, and no sign of remorse <snip
>Why then should we
> think that, when another minute later he screams in pain with his face
> suddenly "demented, inhuman", it's because he's remorseful? What
> happened during the moment in between that brought such a dramatic
change?

I wouldn't say, 'remorseful', I'd say, 'in pain'.  I don't see where
talking about Unforgivables is as, well, to the point as "kill me like
you killed him".  Which is what happened in that moment. 

> But it's written right there, what brought the dramatic change. Harry
> said to him "kill me like you killed him". A pretty impressive effect
> for such simple words, don't you think? Or should I say, a magical
effect?

Or, you know, a human effect.  "You killed him".  Simple words indeed.

>It's actually
>quite amazing, if you think about it, how he insists on discussing
>James, even at such hour, right after he AK'ed Dumbledore. Sounds
>like a severe fixation to me.

Sure Snape always talks about James when he's around Harry.  So does
Sirius.  Harry looks exactly like James, he's chasing after Snape
throwing curses, like James used to do.  Throwing HIS curses, like
James used to do. He's not 'discussing' James, he's seeing a
James-shaped guy doing Jamesy things and saying, 'god I hate that
James guy'.  It is a bit of a fixation, but I don't dispute that Snape
hates James passionatly and probably blames him both for pushing Snape
towards the DE's, and for causing Snape to be a murderer by not
heeding his advice about Sirius.  The reason the LD fits so neatly
into everything is that it's just a magical prosthetic for accepting
that Snape is, below the surface, a decent person who hated being
directly responsible for the deaths of people he had an emotional
connection to-- James by honour, and Lily, IMO, by love, and wants to
atone for his sins.  I can see the attraction for anyone who simply
cannot view Snape as having honest emotions and real honour.


> Neri:
> Just when Snape's hatred is described he is closing in and looking
> down on Harry. If the hatred is self-loathing, why should he close in?
> I can understand that on the tower he had no choice but to kill
> Dumbledore, but here he has a choice. Draco and the DEs had already
> disaparated away, and Snape can easily follow them. 

He sends Draco and the DE's through the gate and provides cover fire
against Harry.  Harry's been throwing curses and pushing his buttons
all the way across the grounds.  Then Harry throws one of his own
curses-- Sectusempra, his darkest curse, a curse that Snape probably
invented when he was really starting to go seriously wrong-- Snape is
furious and upset and , Draco's nearly in the clear, and he just plain
reacts, I don't know why this is so mysterious.  His face is full of
hatred because he hates Harry, he hates himself, he hates $#*&
mandrakes, I'm pretty sure there's nothing in the world Snape doesn't
hate at that moment.  

> Neri:
> I suspect the coward thing *is* a diversion, because the first time
> Harry calls Snape a coward, just a minute before, Snape doesn't act
> perturbed at all. The second time Harry says "kill me like you killed
> him ? you coward". *Then* Snape suddenly gets demented with pain and
> screams: DON'T -- CALL ME A COWARD!" This stopping short and changing
> tack is significant. 

"Kill me like you killed him you coward" is the first time Dumbledore
is brought up directly, as you say.  And personally I think the
'coward' thing is related to the arguement in the forest that Hagrid
overheard.  I think Dumbledore told Snape that he promised to kill him
and that he should do it-- "Dumbledore told Snape that he promised to
do something and he should do it".  I think Snape said that he
wouldn't-- in a 'heated' way.  And Dumbledore told him that was
suicide and that was a coward's way out.  Just my theory, although it
does slot rather neatly, I think, into the "Severus... please..." and
the pleading the moment Snape comes in, and why Snape would find it
particularily painful to be accused of being a coward for killing
Dumbledore. 
  
> > Sydney:
>It would be cool if there was some.. what's a good term,
> > 'situational magic' [involved in the life debt]?  like the
>>DADAcurse seems to involve.  
 
> Neri:
> Aren't you forgetting that when one wizard saves the life of another,
> a certain bond is created between them, that this is magic in its
> deepest, most impenetrable?

"Deep and impenetrable" does not mean "blunt and obvious like a
shock-jolting ankle bracelet".  How is that deep or impenetrable? 
It's shallow and.. penetrable. <g>  The DADA curse is much more deep
and impenetrable-- it's unpredictable, impossible to pin down to one
effect, there's no point at which you can say, "ah, that was
definitely the DADA curse right there".  It affects it's victims in
ways that could be described as poetical and that they aren't even
aware of, somehow maneouvering them into situations where they true
selves are revealed.  Why, it almost acts like a literary device for
highlighting people's personalities! 

Sydney:
> > Why would Dumbledore be talking about how it's funny how people's
> > minds work?  If the debt works as you say it does, it wouldn't be
> > funny at all, in the sense of strange or illogical.  This doesn't
> > sound at all to me like Dumbledore's talking about a straight-out
> > compulsion like the House-Elf enslavement. I mean, would he say, "Yes,
> > Dobby served Lucius Malfoy all year because he felt it was required by
> > this spell.  Funny how people's minds work"?  If you found out about
> > the elf enchantment and then re-read D-dore saying something like
> > that, you'd be, 'what?  That doesn't even make sense'. 
> 
> Neri:
> Cm'on Sydney, there are limits to even being straightforward.
> Dumbledore could have well told Harry: "you see Harry, Snape worked so
> hard to save you this year because he has a magical Debt to your
> father. <snip> What exactly did you expect him to say in these
> circumstances?

There are a zillion ways you could write that without putting in stuff
that is directly contradictory.  "Funny how people's minds work" is an
unnecessary thing for D-dore to say, and directly contradictory to the
magical compulsion theory.  You can't just ignore it by saying,
"Dumbledore didn't mean that bit.  Just the bits that conform to my
theory".  As Magpie put in her excellent Mysteries post, these books
are meant to be re-read as much as read.  Everything that is told to
us should slide neatly into place and make perfect sense with what
follows.  "Funny how people's minds work" doesn't slide neatly into
place, it  sort of just out like a piece of a jigsaw that doesn't fit.

And are you still arguing that Dumbledore is telling Harry here,
because he's upset at Harry hating Snape:

"You have no idea of the remorse Professor Snape felt when he realized
how V. interpreted the Prophecy, Harry.  I believe it to be the
greatest regret of his life and the reason he turned--"

meaning:

"Harry, if you only understood how remorseful Snape was
when he found out Snape himself could be hurt by turning in your
parents!  It was terrible for him!"  

Yes, I know you think Dumbledore is being ironic or joking or
sophistical here.  Personally, I don't see how that makes any
emotional or narrative sense.

> >Sydney:
> > BUT... this isn't Dumbledore saying, I trusted Snape and I was wrong.
> > He says, I trust Snape, but this particular task he was too
> > handicapped to do.  It's Dumbledore saying, I thought Hagrid could
> > squeeze through that tiny hole, but it turns out he was just too big.
> >  That's not an "I don't trust Hagrid" moment, that's an "Hagrid turned
> > out to be unequipped for this thing I asked him to do".  
> 
> Neri:
> An interesting analogy. Hagrid doesn't have a choice about having a
> big body. It seems that logically Snape should have a choice, if not
> about his feelings then at least about how he handles them. Does
> Dumbledore, the champion of Choices, believe Snape didn't have a
> choice here? 

Well, yeah. That's why Dumbledore talks about "wounds too deep for
healing".  Also a physical analogy.  

-- Sydney, guiltily eyeing the clock...







From pegdigrazia at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 15 16:19:59 2006
From: pegdigrazia at yahoo.com (Peg DiGrazia)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 08:19:59 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Raging Snape / Draco's Redemption / JKR's Plots (was:Re: seeds of betrayal)
In-Reply-To: <dv7g3n+n2rg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060315161959.98554.qmail@web42202.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149672

Betsy Hp:
>I still see Draco's "redemption" story as being a bit dull.  He 
>just hasn't done anything really, really bad.  In fact, I get the
>sense that his dabbling in evil has quite turned him off the whole >Death Eater thing.
   
  Peg now:
  I've never understood this argument.  While I agree that Draco has likely changed his mind about wanting to be a DE, I don't see at all that he hasn't done anything really, really bad.  The ONLY reason that Draco isn't a murderer is that his first two attempts at murder were somewhat inept.  Katie nearly died; Ron nearly died.  I don't think Draco would have felt any remorse if he'd been successful in committing one of these more antiseptic murders.  The fact that he was face-to-face with Dumbledore on the tower is, IMO, the thing that made him back down and begin to rethink his position.  (I imagine it's much more difficult to kill someone who's looking you in the eye and speaking to you than it is to kill from a distance.)
   
  I'm not saying I believe Draco can't or won't be redeemed -- I believe he probably will be -- but I don't understand how being a foiled murderer is any less of a moral offense than being a successful murderer.  The fact that he seems much more concerned about LV killing him (I think it's notable that he doesn't say anything about LV killing his family to Myrtle -- that point doesn't come up until the tower) than about the effect committing murder will have on his soul (not just the physical tearing of the soul, but the emotional and psychological effects) doesn't make me like him much more, either.
   
  Peg, who didn't realize how strongly she felt about this point until she started typing!

		





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Mar 15 19:30:34 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 19:30:34 -0000
Subject: Prophesies RE: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who calls Voldemort "Lord"
In-Reply-To: <E1FJZY6-0005Zl-LL@smtpauth07.mail.atl.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <dv9q0q+ia1f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149673

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tiffany Black" <tifflblack at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> Geoff:
> This does in fact raise a question in my mind. Where do prophecies come
> from? Why are they sent?
> 
> In Christian and Jewish terms, prophecies are sent to believers. There are
> numerous examples in the Bible. But in the Wizarding World?
> 
> The fact that Dumbledore heard the first and Harry the second almost
> suggests that they are sent to the "good" side to warn them and that
> characters like Voldemort only get hold of them because they hear
> second-hand that they have been revealed.
> 
> What do the rest of you guys out there think?
> 
> I prophesy that this might start a new thread.
> :-)


> Tiffany:
> Actually, own of my greatest fears for the seventh book is that Voldemort
> will get hold of Trelawney and figure out that she only prophesies drunk, so
> he'll feed her on cooking sherry and keep her locked up where only he can
> hear her, kind of like a human sized bird cage.

Geoff:
You are maligning the dear Professor because she only seems to have taken to the bottle 
after her run-in with Dolores Umbridge in OOTP.

When she prophesies in POA, it is during the exams and occurs at the very end of Harry's 
individual session with her. She has been testing students from her group for some long 
time and, although she seems to be her usual slightly detached self, no one suggests 
anything more sinister than that. When she met with Dumbledore in early 1980 at the 
Three Broomsticks, she was applying for a teaching post and would hardly be inebriated 
for such a meeting.








From lady_blackfurry at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 15 16:44:59 2006
From: lady_blackfurry at yahoo.com (KnIgHtRyDeR)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 08:44:59 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Hermione must be stopped/Snape's half truths in "Spinner's End"
In-Reply-To: <dv9epv+ldfd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060315164459.89952.qmail@web53414.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149674

> houyhnhnm:
> <snip> Snape <snip> would have known that to be brought down by 
> Bella would violate some rule of draumaturgy, thus she couldn't 
> really be a threat.  

Magpie:
> It's not that Snape would know anything about the rule, it's that 
> the writer would so she's not going to write that situation. 

Susan:
Does anyone know the rules of the UV? Will Snape die because he didn't 
fulfill the promise? Or did he by "killing" Dumbledore and helping Draco?






From agdisney at msn.com  Wed Mar 15 19:37:59 2006
From: agdisney at msn.com (Andrea Grevera)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 14:37:59 -0500
Subject: Opals RE: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: hbp12, Silver and Opals
References: <E1FItLO-00012L-W2@smtpauth07.mail.atl.earthlink.net> <001d01c646e3$08553440$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local>
Message-ID: <BAY108-DAV18B1E7B0B3F7A11C5C19E9CFE60@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 149675




    Lyarofjordan:
    6)      Is there any particular symbolism or meaning to the opal 
    necklace (or to opals or necklaces), or is it simply a convenient McGuffin?

    Tiffany:
    I can't remember where I've read it, but it seems that there are some RL
    opals that have a story about a curse associated with them, because anyone
    who has owned them has died. I read about it something like 20 years ago, so
    my memory might not be all that accurate.
    Tiffany




    kchuplis:

    REally? I know my mother won't have them around, considering them unlucky because her sister who died at 14 was named Opal and her brother (who died fairly early at 64) loved them. I didn' t know they were more widely considered unlucky.

  Andie:

  Opal's are the birthstone for October.  Accordingly, for anyone who receives/wears opals and their birthday is not in October, that person will have bad luck.
  I had an opal ring surrounded by diamonds for many years.  Many things did not go "right" during that time.
  I gave the ring to my niece (who's birthday in Oct. 20).  Since that time, I've met my husband, had two beautiful children and life has been good.  
  I believe that opal's are very unlucky if they are not your birthstone.
  JMO

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




From belviso at attglobal.net  Wed Mar 15 19:59:51 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 19:59:51 -0000
Subject: Raging Snape / Draco's Redemption / JKR's Plots (was:Re: seeds of betrayal)
In-Reply-To: <20060315161959.98554.qmail@web42202.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dv9rnn+disp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149676

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Peg DiGrazia <pegdigrazia at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Betsy Hp:
> >I still see Draco's "redemption" story as being a bit dull.  He 
> >just hasn't done anything really, really bad.  In fact, I get the
> >sense that his dabbling in evil has quite turned him off the 
whole >Death Eater thing.
>    
>   Peg now:
>   I've never understood this argument.  While I agree that Draco 
has likely changed his mind about wanting to be a DE, I don't see at 
all that he hasn't done anything really, really bad.  The ONLY 
reason that Draco isn't a murderer is that his first two attempts at 
murder were somewhat inept.  Katie nearly died; Ron nearly died.  I 
don't think Draco would have felt any remorse if he'd been 
successful in committing one of these more antiseptic murders.  The 
fact that he was face-to-face with Dumbledore on the tower is, IMO, 
the thing that made him back down and begin to rethink his 
position.  (I imagine it's much more difficult to kill someone who's 
looking you in the eye and speaking to you than it is to kill from a 
distance.)

Magpie:
While I would agree that "hasn't done anything really bad" is not 
very accurate, I think Betsy's point is a good one.  Even DD says 
that "no real harm" has been done in the Tower--it's a bizarre 
statement in many ways (would Katie's family agree no real harm was 
done??) but in the context he means it it makes sense.  He means 
that there is nothing done that has not been undone--so far.  JKR is 
very careful about doling out murders and permanant effects.  CoS, 
for instance, is full of almost-murders.  Perhaps JKR didn't want 
murders that early in the series, but I think it was also important 
to keep Ginny murder-free.  Had any of the basilisk's victims died 
Ginny would obviously be innocent in that she was possessed, but as 
a human being she would no doubt still feel guilty and her character 
would be stained in some way.  JKR carefully kept her from that.

With Draco I think she was equally careful.  He *has* done things 
that are very bad--in fact, he himself responds to Dumbledore saying 
he's not a killer by saying DD "doesn't know what [he's] done."  I 
think that's a good sign, actually, because Draco is not denying his 
own part in what happened to Katie and Ron.  On the contrary, I 
think it's significant that both times Harry notices Malfoy looking 
physically unwell it's after one of these murder attempts (attempts 
that were subconciously meant to not kill their victim, as 
Dumbledore surmises--it's like pointing a gun but aiming badly) has 
harmed someone.  So I disagree that Draco would have felt no remorse 
if these two had been killed.  His physical disintegration is no, 
imo, due to just frustration at things going awry.  Iow, I agree 
with Dumbledore that these attempts are signs that he's not a 
killer, not that he's just a bad planner.  

It's true it is more difficult to kill when looking your victim in 
the eye, which is why Draco first tries to kill from a distance.  
But I don't at all think Draco was just going along and then got 
surprised by how hard things were on the Tower.  His whole arc, imo, 
is about murder and death becoming more real for him in different 
ways so that in the Tower he has far more than just Dumbledore's 
face to contend with.  He's already starting to crack.  Not only 
does he have Ron and Katie's near deaths on his hands, he's got his 
own near death in the bathroom.  He's been facing mortality all 
year, having to take it seriously in ways he hasn't before.  In 
every single book before this one there is some storyline or scene 
that highlights the fact that death is nothing to Draco.  

Peg:>    
>   I'm not saying I believe Draco can't or won't be redeemed -- I 
believe he probably will be -- but I don't understand how being a 
foiled murderer is any less of a moral offense than being a 
successful murderer.  The fact that he seems much more concerned 
about LV killing him (I think it's notable that he doesn't say 
anything about LV killing his family to Myrtle -- that point doesn't 
come up until the tower) than about the effect committing murder 
will have on his soul (not just the physical tearing of the soul, 
but the emotional and psychological effects) doesn't make me like 
him much more, either.

Magpie:
It's definitely not morally superior to be a non-murderer through 
sheer force of luck, which is all that's saved Draco.  I would just 
say that I don't think Draco would deny this either.  I don't mean 
to imply he's a great moral role model of course, but he's not Peter 
Pettigrew who 20 years after the murders still says it wasn't his 
fault, there was nothing else he could do.  Draco is trying to be 
completely unremorseful on the Tower.  I think him and his family's 
being threatened being the last thing we hear about is significant 
because after all his protestations we finally come to the real 
incentive.

So basically, I just see Rowling being very careful about exactly 
what's going on with Draco "Bad Faith" here, and part of that is 
having him come so very close to death in different ways before the 
moment of truth arrives.  The whole storyline, imo, is about Draco's 
gaining real knowledge through experience.  In the end there is one 
thing that Draco does himself that is lasting, which is to let 
Fenrir Greyback into the school where he mauls Bill Weasley.  Bill's 
scars are something that will not go away.  Yet even there Draco's 
cushioned a little--he explicitly states that he *didn't* intend to 
bring Fenrir to the school.  He's still got the responsibility, but 
it adds up to something else. 

It's like every step he takes forces him to confront the reality of 
Death more clearly.  Hermione theorizes that whoever poisoned Ron is 
dangerous because they are "ruthless," not caring who they hurt on 
their way to their intended victim.  Ironically, she's wrong.  It 
was Draco's not having the stomach (or the heart, as DD puts it) 
that are partially to blame for such crude attempts.  He didn't 
truly want the wine or the necklace to get to DD--and that's how it 
got to Katie and Ron.  So the "not-so-bad" intention there (from our 
view, in Draco's eyes his lack of heart is a bad thing) isn't 
enough; it just makes him more dangerous and more guilty.  He didn't 
intend for the werewolf to come into the school--but he's still 
responsible for him showing up.  He can't get away from it or keep 
himself really clean.

-m







From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 15 20:35:20 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 20:35:20 -0000
Subject: Dementors
In-Reply-To: <602A5B86-B3D9-11DA-823D-000393B04DDE@alltel.net>
Message-ID: <dv9tq8+n0ns@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149677

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Karen <kchuplis at ...> wrote:
>
> This was probably discussed years ago, but I'm really tired of Snape 
> posts and I have wondered about this forever. How does one communicate 
> with dementors? How did the ministry? How does LV? ...  What was the 
> consensus here?
> 
> kchuplis

bboyminn:

Actually, I have often wondered the same thing, and even with my
immense imagination for unfounded speculation, I'm stumped.

Of course, the question is not so much how do you talk to a Dementor,
but how do they talk back. Certainly if you just speak to them, they
would understand; though whether that understanding is telepathic or
acoustic is unclear. 

We do know that the Dementors draw breath, Harry speak of the sound
and smell of their breath often, but does that mean that they can also
vocalize? I'm not sure, one implies the other, but doesn't guarantee
it. It could be that they answer telepathically. Further, it is
possible that Dementors don't engage in extended dialogs. You tell
them what you want them to do, and they either nod or shake their
head. When the treaty by which the Dementor guard Azkaban was
proposed, there really wasn't a need for dialog or discussion. The
Ministry proposed, and the Dementors either agreed or disagreed. 

So, I'm not really sure, but it has been something I wondered about,
and despite all my endless past speculation, this was one thing I
assumed we were never meant to ponder.

Just a thought.

Steve/bboyminn






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 15 20:40:20 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 20:40:20 -0000
Subject: Raging Snape / Draco's Redemption / JKR's Plots (was:Re: seeds of betrayal)
In-Reply-To: <dv9rnn+disp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv9u3k+per8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149678

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > > I still see Draco's "redemption" story as being a bit dull.    
> > > He just hasn't done anything really, really bad. <snip>    

> >>Peg:
> >  I've never understood this argument.  While I agree that Draco 
> > has likely changed his mind about wanting to be a DE, I don't    
> > see at all that he hasn't done anything really, really bad.
> > <snip>

> >>Magpie:
> While I would agree that "hasn't done anything really bad" is not 
> very accurate, I think Betsy's point is a good one.  Even DD says 
> that "no real harm" has been done in the Tower--it's a bizarre 
> statement in many ways (would Katie's family agree no real harm   
> was done??) but in the context he means it it makes sense.  He    
> means that there is nothing done that has not been undone--so     
> far.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I was a bit lazy in my statement above, so let me take the moment to 
clarify:  Draco *did* do bad things in HBP.  I'm not trying to sugar 
coat or deny that his actions nearly killed Ron and Katie and led to 
Bill being permently disfigured.

What I do think is that, relatively speaking, Snape's actions were 
much worse.  So therefore, a redemption story based on Snape's 
history would be much more dramatic than a redemption story based on 
Draco's history. There will be elements of redemption to Draco's 
story, I'm sure.  But I feel like the bulk of that particular theme 
will rest on Snape's shoulders.  

I tried to include all of the above with a second "really", which 
obviously, wasn't a successful short-cut. <g>

Betsy Hp






From R.Vink2 at chello.nl  Wed Mar 15 21:04:12 2006
From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 21:04:12 -0000
Subject: Maligning Lupin
In-Reply-To: <dv92s4+8gmp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv9vgc+lksm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149679

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "susanbones2003" <rkdas at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Renee" <R.Vink2@> wrote> >
> > 
> > Renee:
> > 
> > But what you seem to be saying now is that werewolves *are* bad, 
> that
> > the prejudice of the Wizarding World is justified, and that Lupin's
> > tragedy is that he tried to be good, but failed. Failed, because 
> the
> > prejudice is justified and his attempt to be good was futile 
> anyway,
> > werewolves being bad and inevitably disruptive. (Which you ought to
> > know isn't true, because there's such a thing as the Wolfsbane 
> potion.) 
> > 
> > If you're really saying this, I'm afraid you've ceased to make 
> sense
> > to me. If I thought for a moment JKR had introduced the anti-
> werewolf
> > bias merely to justify it in the end, I'd have to conclude I'd been
> > wasting my time on the series. Fortunately for me, I believe the 
> contrary.
> > 
> > Renee


Jen D: 
> Wow,
> You can really talk a good game. I feel bad now!  You really put me 
> in my place! (Didn't you always want to hear someone on this site 
> admit that!) 

Renee:

My secret vice... you've found me out :)

Jen D:
> I don't know if I can work out all the ends and outs 
> of "what the series means" on my own but I think Lupin might turn 
> out to be bad not because he's a werewolf (because he has tried to 
> control his problem) or because he's got character flaws. 

Renee:
If character flaws automatically made someone evil, there would be no
good people at all, so I agree they wouldn't explain Lupin turning
bad. But I thought one of the reasons behind the ESE!Lupin theory was,
that it would show how prejudice could get the better of a potentially
decent person who gave in to resentment and hatred of the society that
rejected him. Without the lycanthropy, we're left with a character who
goes bad because... You tell me, for I can't think of a reason that
has a basis in canon, as we're shown Lupin's flaws are ultimately
related to his being a werewolf.             

Jen D:
I do know 
> about wolfsbane but the werewolves Lupin is hanging with right now, 
> they don't seem to be so keen on that. That kind of werewolf, well 
> they are definitely bad. Don't you agree? The wolfsbane kind, they 
> are like Lupin perhaps and are trying to pass in "society." They 
> know they have a problem and are doing their best to control it. But 
> how would you work the non-wolfsbane type into your society? I know 
> you don't want Lupin to be bad because it would violate something 
> you hold dear, but contemplating it can't hurt you!
> Jen D.
> >

Renee:
The Wolfsbane potion appears to be a rare commodity. We know it's
difficult to make. From what he says in HBP we can deduce that Lupin
only had it at his disposal while he was teaching at Hogwarts, because
Snape brewed it for him. So it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to
assume it's expensive - and finding a paid job is notoriously
difficult for werewolves, especially after Umbridge issued her laws
(for which Lupin bears part of the blame; he's certainly no saint).

So if werewolves don't take the potion, it's probably because they
can't afford it, not because they don't want it (Greyback and possibly
a few of his likes excepted). Yet without it, they're dangerous. The
obvious thing to do for the Wizarding World would be to provide it for
free and help werewolves of good will to function (more or less)
normally in wizarding society, which would be to the benefit of
everyone involved. And once they do, this might begin to work against
the prejudice - a prejudice that ultimately is only counterproductive.  

This hasn't happened yet: as long as Greyback and those of his ilk are
running free and wreaking havoc, the WW has an excuse to sit back,
pretend that werewolves are irredeemably bad and refuse to spend their
money and efforts on them. A werewolf shown to have actually served
the good of the community by fighting against Voldemort could have a
positive effect. That's why I think a good Lupin is so important. 

Jen D.:
>I know 
> you don't want Lupin to be bad because it would violate something 
> you hold dear, but contemplating it can't hurt you!

Renee:
Ultimately, the ESE!Lupin theory bugs me because it's defeatist and
goes against the grain of the books. It's as if JKR message is that
someone who is basically willing to do his best is automatically
doomed to fail when society is against them. To me this feels like a
denial of human responsibility, human dignity and human freedom. 

But I'll try to calm down now :)

Renee












From Nanagose at aol.com  Wed Mar 15 21:10:14 2006
From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 21:10:14 -0000
Subject: Maligning Lupin
In-Reply-To: <dv9dqi+n24t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dv9vrm+5bs2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149680

> >Renee:
> >Unfortunately, Pippin's answer doesn't solve my problem, which is 
> >that the *only* two members of this particular group we get 
> >acquainted with would be evil if Lupin is ESE. We have no basis 
> >left within canon to assume werewolves could ever be okay and are a
> >cause worth 

> Pippin:
> 
> If two werewolves are evil will  our heroes  feel justified
> in believing that  all the bad things they've heard about werewolves
> are true?  That werewolves are too scary to be given their rights 
> and their freedoms? I hope not, because that would mean they were 
> prejudiced.

Christina:

But it isn't just two.  We only know two werewolves personally, but we
know OF many more.  Fenrir Greyback has a nice little group going, and
as Lupin says, they don't take to wizards nicely.  The werewolves are
attracted to Fenrir because of his opinion that "we werewolves deserve
blood, that we ought to revenge ourselves on normal people."  They
don't sound very nice to me.  Lupin is held up as the exception to the
rule, and so erasing that exception isn't just a "we only know two
werewolves and they happen to both be evil" kind of thing.  It's a
"Lupin has finally joined his brethren in a werewolf evil-fest."

It is only after Ron comes to know that Lupin is good and trustworthy
that he loses his prejudice against werewolves.  And that follows real
life, where sometimes people just have to get to know a person from
the group they fear/dislike to lose their prejudice.  I don't think
that an ESE!Lupin situation would feature Ron saying, "Well gosh,
guys, Lupin was the only good werewolf we know, so I guess they're all
rotten now," but when you use a character to make others overcome
their prejudice, and then make the character evil, I see it as a sort
of thematic hole.  Then again, I suppose you see it as good trickery :)


> Pippin:
> Unfortunately there  are people,  in the WW as in the real world, 
> who make human rights look like a bad idea.
....<snip>...
> Whenever anyone tells me that Lupin can't be evil because it 
> would make things look bad for the werewolves, I'm reminded of
> something I think Ben Gurion said:  that he would know anti-Semitism
> was over when no one was afraid to say  that Israel's jails were 
> full of Jewish murderers and thieves.

Christina:

Prior to HBP, I would have agreed with you.  Now, absolutely not. 
Because we DO admit freely that there are werewolves that are bad,
even while fighting for their rights.  Even while Lupin is a walking
poster-boy for the poor, rejected werewolf, even he admits that there
are those of his kind that enjoy infecting children for sport.  JKR
even puts him through a philosophical transformation of sorts, by
having him feel sorry for the werewolf initially and then realizing
that Fenrir was evil.

JKR gave you an example of somebody that makes human rights look bad
in Fenrir Greyback.  It really IS hard to go around shouting about
werewolf rights when the most famous werewolf of them all is tearing
up innocent children.  That particular role has been filled.  That's
why I don't see the need for an evil Lupin - what would it achieve?


> Pippin:
> I firmly believe that JKR will show us that ESE!Lupin's efforts to 
> be good weren't  futile because  he was a werewolf. They were
> futile because he never had the courage to make himself accountable
> for what he'd done.

Christina:

This is why ESE!Lupin is so paradoxical to me...Lupin is "too
cowardly" to admit to his mentor that he betrayed his trust, but he
has the guts to kill his supposed best friend with DD standing in the
same room?  Lupin's canonical sins are of the passive sort (he doesn't
give DD important information, he doesn't stop his friends), but
ESE!Lupin seems overwhelmingly active, killing Sirius when Bella was
doing fine on her own, framing Peter when Sirius would have taken the
blame anyway, purposefully forgetting to take his wolfsbane when his
evil goals would have been more directly served by just apprehending
Sirius at the Shack.  In terms of holding himself accountable, I find
it interesting to compare Lupin and Peter (especially since you've
said in the past that Peter is a decoy of sorts).  When Sirius blames
Peter, Peter points to external forces - "He was taking over
everywhere!...What was there to be gained by refusing him?"  But even
when Sirius pays Lupin's virtue a compliment, Lupin responds by
pointing out his character flaws - "Did I ever have the guts..."


> Pippin:
> Note his utter incredulity that Dumbledore believed in  Snape's
> remorse.

Christina:

He is incredulous because Harry presents Snape's remorse as the
iron-clad reason DD trusted him.  A lot of us agree that DD had better
proof that he never told Harry, but Harry speaks with authority to the
adults in the hospital.  They have no reason to think he's lying.


Christina







From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 15 21:19:55 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 21:19:55 -0000
Subject: Portkey in GoF
In-Reply-To: <280.747a4ad.31490a3f@aol.com>
Message-ID: <dva0dr+dqvl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149681

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, OctobersChild48 at ... wrote:
> ...edited...
> 
> Sandy here:
> 
> How thought provoking this list is. It's wonderful!
> 
> The opinion Geoff expressed makes sense. I admit to having 
> wondered how it was that the Cup took Harry and Cedric's body
> back to Hogwarts. It was my impression that a portkey was a 
> one-way ticket, so to speak. ... Based on that I formed the 
> impression that the portkeys were *programmed* to a certain 
> destination and that once there would have to be re-programmed
> for use again. Otherwise, those collecting the portkeys would
> have been transported back to the portkey's point of origin.
> 
> Sandy
>

bboyminn:

One of the many subject on which I have a /theory/. Like you didn't
already know that.

In the course of the now many books, we see Portkeys used several
different ways. Some are time activated in the sense that they will be
triggered at exactly 12:37pm Tuesday March 28, 2006. Others are time
activated in the sense that they are activated 'now', or more
accurately on the count of three. These are probably more likely
/intent/ activated. Dumbledore intends for the Portkey to take Harry
back to Hogwarts on the count of three. Others seem to be touch
activated; in a sense, these are the true 'now' activated Portkeys.
The time is variable, open ended, and activated by touch. 

Touch activated would be the Tri_Wizards Cup in the Maze and the
return from the graveyard.

Specific time activated would be the Portkey taking everyone to the
World Cup.

Intent activated would be the Portkeys that Dumbledore uses to
transport Harry. 

As to whether fake!Moody added a new stop, or an intermediate stop, or
reprogrammed the Tri-Wizard Cup in the Maze, is a matter of
perspective. I have always viewed it as a LIFO queue or stack. LIFO is
an computer term meaning 'Last In, First Out'. Think of it as a stack
of dinner plates. The last plate you put on the stack is the first one
you take off.

So, Dumbledore put the 'outside the maze' destination and enchantment
on the cup. On top of that Moody added the 'graveyard' destination.
When the Cup was touched, it activated the top most destination. Once
that was used and gone, all that remained on the Cup was the original
destination to the outside of the Maze. 

This would seem a reasonable way to make a multiple destination
Portkey. Let's say you wanted to go to Hogwarts, then to Diagon Alley,
then back home. You would stack the enchantments on the Portkey in
this manner -

3-Hogwarts
2-Diagon Alley
1-Home

Each activation would pull a destination off the top of the stack
thereby making the next destination available for the next transport.

In the past, I have speculated that the resticted use of Portkeys was
because of the complex and precise programming and enchantments needed
to create one. At one point I speculated that it was a combinations of
complex potions and magical enchantments that took a significant
amount of time, and posed a great risk of error, similar to cooking
blow or puffer fish. Of course, since then books have established that
it is a simple 'Portus' spell. Yet, I still imagine a great deal of
room for error in creating them even though the spell-work is straight
forward. There must be some reason why the Ministry resticts them. The
 logical conclusion is that it take an exceptionally skilled wizard to
get all the parameters correct, so that the Portkey can be used
safely. Remember that behind that simple word 'Portus' is a complex
combinations of intent that is creating the activation method and
setting the destination. 

Just a few thoughts.

Steve/bboyminn






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 15 21:44:41 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 21:44:41 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dv8ff2+sidg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dva1s9+2jjo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149682

> >>Neri:
> There is in fact a very simple reason why Dumbledore would regard 
> the Life Debt as placing Snape's in "our side". I discussed it in 
> detail in two of my recent posts, regarding the LID explanation of 
> the Occlumency lessons and the MoM battle. The short story is:    
> Snape had to save Harry's life and repay the Debt before he could 
> go back to Voldemort's side, but he somehow had to do it without   
> Voldemort realizing that he did. Until he could do that the Life  
> Debt was very effectively trapping Snape in "our side".
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I pretty much agree with everything Syndey said in her reply, but I 
wanted to point out a logistical problem I see here.  Snape joined 
the Order, joined Dumbledore's side *before* James was killed by 
Voldemort.  And Dumbledore says he trusted Snape before the Potters 
were killed.  So how does LID, which wouldn't have come into play 
yet, explain this?

Remember, by reporting the Prophecy Snape put *Harry* in mortal 
danger, not James and Lily.  So, especially if you're looking at LID 
as a magical power that forces its victims into behaviors unnatural 
to them, isn't this a hole in the theory?

> >>Neri:
> <snip>
> Why then should we think that, when another minute later he       
> screams in pain with his face suddenly "demented, inhuman", it's  
> because he's remorseful? What happened during the moment in       
> between that brought such a dramatic change? 
> But it's written right there, what brought the dramatic change.   
> Harry said to him "kill me like you killed him". A pretty         
> impressive effect for such simple words, don't you think? Or      
> should I say, a magical effect?

Betsy Hp:
Okay, this is another hole, I think.  So the mere reminder of an 
unfilled life debt is enough to trigger magical pain, if I'm 
following you correctly.  Then how was it that Peter was able to 
stoically take allowing Harry, to whom he owes a direct life debt, 
to get into such mortal danger in GoF?  Shouldn't he have been given 
a massive magical shock?  What about when he deliberatly caused 
Harry pain?

For that matter, why is Peter able to work with Voldemort, who is 
actively seeking Harry's death, while Snape is somehow "trapped" to 
Dumbledore's side? 

> >>Neri:
> <snip>
> Pettigrew doesn't even pretend to be on Dumbledore's side. The     
> question of trusting him had never come up.  Dumbledore wasn't     
> fighting to save Pettigrew's soul, he was fighting to save Snape's 
> soul.

Betsy Hp:
Why?  I don't understand why you think Dumbledore would waste so 
much time and effort on a man who for almost two decades is only 
serving Dumbledore's interests because he's been magically trapped 
into doing so.  Why does Snape's soul rate more than Peter's?

Betsy Hp






From imontero at iname.com  Wed Mar 15 21:42:10 2006
From: imontero at iname.com (lunamk03)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 21:42:10 -0000
Subject: seeds of betrayal: Why was Snape upset about the Pottters' deaths?
In-Reply-To: <dv84dl+o9ep@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dva1ni+7vj5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149683

Zgirnius wrote: 
Snip
> And my conclusion is that the Prank, and `Snape's Grudge' may well 
> serve as red herrings, to explain Snape's otherwise inexplicable 
> behavior to the reader in PoA without leading us to suspect things 
> which will later become important. This is not to say that Snape 
> has no resentment of the Marauders left over from his school days. 
> In fact, I think Snape's view of Lupin in particular does reflect 
> his view of Lupin's actions as a schoolboy.
snip 
> However, HBP has hinted at a possible alternative reason for Snape 
> to be so murderously angry with Sirius. We now know that Snape was 
> the eavesdropper who reported the Prophecy to Voldemort. And, 
> Dumbledore believes that Snape felt great remorse about this when 
> he realized the Potters were Voldemort's targets-which would mean 
> that he now feels a great deal of guilt for the Potters' deaths. If
> the Potter's Secret Keeper had not betrayed them, they might still 
> be alive and Snape would not have that burden of guilt. So, it is 
> certainly possible that in PoA, Snape blames Sirius for causing the 
> death of the Potters even while Snape was trying to make up for his 
> initial reporting of the prophecy.
>snip
> Snape would appreciate not having a Kiss for Sirius on his 
> conscience. (As he deeply regrets his involvement in James's death,
> perhaps?)


Luna: 
Excellent analysis! I agree that the prank was indeed a red herring.

But somehow I don't find Snape as naive as to report the prophecy to 
Voldemort and expect that no one will be harmed. Now, my questions 
are:
- Would Snape be as upset if it was the Longbottoms the ones who got 
killed instead of the Potters? Why wasn't he upset about Voldemort 
disappearance after killing the Potters? After all, he was his 
master. 

I posted before my theory, but reading this post, I find this could 
be new evidence to what I think is at the heart of Snape's desire 
for revenge and remorse for the Potters' deaths: Snape was in love 
with Lily.

Somehow, I don't see Snape upset about James dying; after all, it is 
evident from book 1 that Snape utterly despised James. Why should he 
be upset to see the man who gave him his worst memory in life being 
killed? I have 2 possible explanations:

1-	Life debt: this, I also view as red herring, but it is 
possible that he was upset because he couldn't repay James for 
saving his life. Then again, James' son was left alive, he still has 
Harry to repay his debt. So James is death, big deal, he can still 
save Harry.
2-	Snape loved Lily: as horrible the idea of Snape in love 
could be, I think this is the direction that the books seem to be 
pointing at.

Snape desire for vengeance is fiery, as we see in POA. He hated 
Sirius for "betraying the Potters" and hates Voldemort for killing 
them. Snape wants to be close to Voldemort to kill him, not to serve 
him. This is why he killed DD: DD was the only thing standing 
between Snape and his revenge.

Clues in the books and JKR Interviews:
-	Snape's worst memory is him being ridiculed in the presence 
of Lily.
-	Lily was the best Potion maker of her year, she probably 
was helping Snape in potions. It is evident that Lily went to 
Sirius aid because she feels compelled to defend him. Why? Don't get 
me wrong, I don't think that she was actually in love with Snape. I 
think she wanted to be friends with him, maybe pitied him for being 
a kind of outsider and wanted to help him. Maybe she saw he was 
brilliant too and felt attracted to that part of Snape.
-	Voldemort asked Lily to step aside instead of killing her. 
Why would Voldemort do that? Maybe because Snape begged him not to 
kill her as a reward for the info he gave him?
-	JKR's interview in Mugglenet:

"ES: Was James the only one who had romantic feelings for Lily?
JKR: No. [Pause.] She was like Ginny, she was a popular girl.
MA: Snape?
JKR: That is a theory that's been put to me repeatedly. 
ES: What about Lupin?
JKR: I can answer either one.
ES: How about both? One at a time.
JKR: I can't answer, can I, really?
ES: Can you give us any clue, without misleading us [Emerson 
misspoke; he meant 'without giving too much away'] --?
JKR: I've never, to my knowledge, lied when posed a question about 
the books. To my knowledge. You can imagine, I've now been asked 
hundreds of questions; it's perfectly possible at some point I 
misspoke or I gave a misleading answer unintentionally, or I may 
have answered truthfully at the time and then changed my mind in a 
subsequent book. That makes me cagey about answering some questions 
in too much detail because I have to have some leeway to get there 
and do it my way, but never on a major plot point. 
Lupin was very fond of Lily, we'll put it like that, but I wouldn't 
want anyone to run around thinking that he competed with James for 
her. She was a popular girl, and that is relevant. But I think 
you've seen that already. She was a bit of a catch."

Now, this also answers another question about Lupin: Why did James 
and Sirius suspected Lupin of being the "double agent?" Did James 
felt threatened by Lupins's feelings for Lily?

To me, these notions of Lupin and Snape having more than friendly 
feelings for popular Lily answer a lot of questions.









From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Thu Mar 16 00:52:33 2006
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:52:33 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Portkey in GOF - Logistics
In-Reply-To: <dv7c2s+vflb@eGroups.com>
References: <700201d40603140945y181f4ca9r955f91a2acf9e789@mail.gmail.com>
	 <dv7c2s+vflb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <700201d40603151652o3c09101ay30e26d616366c86b@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149684

 > Kemper now:
> > While Amiable D offers a good reason, I don't see Voldemort as
> > attention seeking.  What evidence we've seen is Tom and Voldemort
> > as secretive. Voldemort didn't leave his business card at Madam
> > Bones ....  He shows up at the DoM not to battle.  He's there for
> > the desire to learn the prophecy ...
> >
>
> bboyminn:
>
> Once again, I'm reminded of several blind men 'looking' at an
> elephant. Considering that Voldemort's objective is to /take over the
> world/; that's hardly an occupation for a quiet reluctant recluse.
>

Kemper now:
He doesn't even want to take over the British WW, what makes you think he
wants to take over the world?!  He had opportunity as a young man to go into
politics but didn't take it.  He could've changed things from the inside to
become Emperor someday (see Sen. Palpatine) but he chose differently.  Your
despots went this route, but the Voldemort you see hasn't.



> Steve continues:
>
>
 Yes, Voldemort is secretive, but that doesn't eliminate the fact that
> he is an egomaniacal megalomaniac. He holds power by holding the
> illusion of power. ... He is ruthless and brutal,
> but also a great orator; one who knows how to tell people the things
> they WANT to hear, no matter how irrational those things are. An
> extention of this talent is to tell the most blatant and outrageous
> lies and in doing so to make people believe that those lies are the
> absolute irrefutable gospel truth.
>
> If that isn't pure theater on the world stage, then I don't know what is.
>

Kemper now:
If by 'world stage' you mean 'secret meetings' similar to Klan meetings or
to Cheny's energy meetings, then I totally agree with you because the world,
the public aren't privy to secret meetings.



> Steve continues: We can see similar examples in the real world today. Take
> Osama Bin
> Laden. He is very secretive. He feeds his followers on the most
> blatant and irrational lies, and they believe it with deathly fervor.
> He is constantly re-assering his absolute power. He takes action on
> the world stage that make him one of the most well known crimials.
>
> Yet, to anyone who is rational, to anyone who can divorce themselves
> from the hyper-inflamed rhetoric and blatant lies, we see that he is a
> weak, deranged, irrational, and hopelessly doomed soul. Very much as
> Voldemort is.
>

Kemper now:
Though this is OT, I don't see Bin Laden that way.  He isn't like the
despots you listed.  They kill just because.  He kills for a cause.  I'm so
rational that I don't assume to understand Arabic and Sunni culture and/or
language.  If you have been emerged in that language and culture, and have a
fluency and understanding of the nuances in both, then I'll have to take
your word.



> > Kemper contiues:
> > However, Steve, I believe that Moody could've successfully gotten
>
> > Harry to grasp a portkey.  It goes something like this.
> >
> > Harry knocked on Moody's office door.
> > "Come in, Potter. Oh... and can you bring be that book over there,
> > ...edited...
> >
> > -Kemper
>
>
> bboyminn:
>
> Yes, but you are missing to crucial points, first is timing and second
> is that they want to get away with it. Not just get Harry, but get
> Harry and get away with it. You seem to have missed this bit of my
> previous post -
>
>
> "Further, I suspect that fake!Moody intends to get away with it and go
> on to serve the Dark Lord. If he enchants Harry's toothbrush, odds are
> he will have been seen lurking around an area where he would have no
> logical reason to lurk; ie: the Commons Room and the Dorms."
>
> In your scenario, Harry steps into Moody's office and is never seen
> again. Certainly in a busy school someone would have seen or known
> about this, and Moody would be stuck trying to explain that which
> could not be explained.
>

Kemper now:
Seriously, Steve, in so many of your posts you present very logical
possibililties to various senarios.  Why is it so hard to see my scenario
(which by the way, addressed your early post that you re-posted)?  For those
who are just reading, hear it is:

1st from steve: Regardless of the object the Fake!Moody enchants, there is a
good chance that some one other than Harry will pick it up. For example,
people most often suggest Harry's toothbrush, but the phrase 'Ron,hand me my
toothbruch' pretty much shoot that one down.

2nd from me:
Harry knocked on Moody's office door.
"Come in, Potter. Oh... and can you bring be that book over there, no not
that one, the one that's called 'Moste Potente Potions'. Yes.  That's the
one. I sometimes brew up a little something-something from that book."
Harry grabs the book.  Instantly, Harry felt a jerk somewhere behind his
navel.  His feet had left the ground.  He could not unclench the hand
holding the potions book.  It was was pulling him onward in a howl of wind
and swirling color.

...now, yes he steps in the office and is never seen again.  Are you
thinking that in my scenario, Moody goes back to grading papers?!  In my
scenario, Moody walks out of Hogwarts, out of the grounds and disapparates
without a trace.  Or, even better, he makes a portkey for himself and heads
for the graveyard.


> Steve continues:
>
>
 Again, while it is not impossible for Moody to transport Harry under
> random circumstances, it is to much grander effect to have him
> disappear with no known explanation at a high profile event, and with
> no known person associated with that disappearance. In other word, the
> 'theater' aspect of taking Harry from the maze, and it's corresponding
> effect on the wizard world is much greater using the method they used.
> It also makes for a much better book.
>

Kemper now:
Who's argueing that the book should have been different?  I'm saying that
Voldemort, though narcisistic, isn't an attention whore.  You're saying he
is.  He wasn't interested in the blood of any old wizard for his potion, he
was interested Harry's for narcistic reasons not theatre.


> Ultimately, that last statement is the most important. Fictional Evil
> Overlords make the choice they ultimately make because that is what
> makes for a good story. One quick look at the 'Evil Overlords
> Handbook' would show them the folly of their ways, but it would make
> for very dull stories.
>

Kemper now:
Again, who's argueing that the book should be different?  I'm argueing your
belief that it is Voldemort a drama queen more than an Evil Overlord.  I
worked out Voldemort's reason to wait til the third task instead of
earlier as follows:
he wanted to return to Hogwarts with his Death Eaters using the portkey for
a multiple-school (Beauxbatons, Drumstrang, Hogwarts) massacre that would
leave the WW emotionally lost and dark.
That isn't theater, that's terror.

-Kemper


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




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 16 02:17:36 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 02:17:36 -0000
Subject: What Dumbledore trusts Snape to do?
In-Reply-To: <dv5eip+jnt5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvahs0+f7vg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149685

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214"
<dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> > > >>Sydney:
> > > > And Harry asks him in HBP, "How can you be sure Snape's on 
> OUR   
> > > > side?", and D-dore says, "I'm sure.  I trust Severus 
> Snape      
> > > > completely".
> > > > <snip>
> > 
> > Betsy Hp:
> > There you go, Alla.  There is no limitation to the world 
> completely.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> No, there is no limitation to the word "completely", but nothing 
> stops JKR ( the way I see it) from specifying in book 7 what DD 
> trusted Snape to do COMPLETELY.

Carol responds:
>From a purely grammatical standpoint, the adverb "completely" modifies
the verb "trust." Putting the words in a different order does not
change the meaning (the adverb still modifies the ver, regardless) but
may make that meaning clearer:

DD actually says "I trust Severus Snape completely." But putting the
modifier and the word it modifies together, we have "I *completely
trust* Severus Snape."

His *trust* in Snape is *complete*. That is to say, it is total and
absolute. Dumbledore is not trusting Snape to do any one particular
thing. He is trusting him to do whatever must be done. 

Dumbledore trusts Snape to teach and look after the students, notably
Harry, in all the books. He trusts him to risk his life spying on
Voldemort and his Death Eaters, and to provide true and complete
information on their activities. In HBP, he trusts him to teach a
course they both know is cursed, and he trusts him, as DADA professor,
to save the lives of anyone encountering a deadly curse or cursed
object, including DD himself, Katie Bell, and Draco.

The people Dumbledore appears to trust most are Hagrid (in the early
books), Harry (in HBP only), and Snape (in every book, with the
statements of trust intensifying in books 4 through 6). 

Dumbledore says in SS/PS (IIRC) that he would trust Hagrid with his
life. That he also trusts *Snape* with his life is evident from his
going to Snape, not Madam Pomfrey, to be saved from the ring Horcrux
before HBP begins and from his asking Harry to go to Snape, not Madam
Pomfrey, when they return from the cave near the end of HBP. And while
Dumbledore says that he would trust Hagrid with his life, when the
time comes that he really needs to be saved, it's Snape that he turns
to, Snape whose skill and loyalty together save Dumbledore from
Voldemort's terrible curse. 

Dumbledore (in HBP) trusts *Harry* to follow his orders even if he
doesn't want to, even if that means feeding DD poison saving himself
and leaving DD to die. But not even Harry can be trusted to
deliberately end Dumbledore's life if Dumbledore sees the need. Only
Severus Snape, alone in the WW, can be trusted *completely.*

Carol, noting that the absence of qualifiers like "almost" or
"virtually" means that the completeness of the trust cannot be
doubted. Dumbledore may be wrong to trust Snape, but the trust itself
is absolute.







From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 16 03:05:57 2006
From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 03:05:57 -0000
Subject: Portkey in GOF - Logistics
In-Reply-To: <700201d40603151652o3c09101ay30e26d616366c86b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <dvakml+jdug@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149686


> Kemper:
> 
> That isn't theater, that's terror.

Terrorism is theater.

http://tinyurl.com/po9eg

Amiable Dorsai






From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Thu Mar 16 04:11:14 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 04:11:14 -0000
Subject: What Dumbledore trusts Snape to do?
In-Reply-To: <dvahs0+f7vg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvaoh2+kf5v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149687

Carol:
> DD actually says "I trust Severus Snape completely." But putting the
> modifier and the word it modifies together, we have "I *completely
> trust* Severus Snape."
> 
> His *trust* in Snape is *complete*. That is to say, it is total and
> absolute. Dumbledore is not trusting Snape to do any one particular
> thing. He is trusting him to do whatever must be done.  <snip>

> Carol, noting that the absence of qualifiers like "almost" or
> "virtually" means that the completeness of the trust cannot be
> doubted. Dumbledore may be wrong to trust Snape, but the trust itself
> is absolute.

Jen: Hehe, I just couldn't resist pulling this one out because it has 
some bearing on Dumbldore's communication style....

"I am going to tell you everything."

Dumbledore has a way of telling the truth and nothing but the truth, 
but perhaps not the *whole* truth of the matter. Like many, I think 
what he's hiding is the reason he trusts Snape, not that he has doubts 
about the trust. 

Jen, not directing this at Carol in particular, just ran across that 
DD phrase tonight reading OOTP to her son and remembered 
how 'everything' turned out not to mean the same as 'everything'.






From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 16 04:27:50 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 04:27:50 -0000
Subject: seeds of betrayal
In-Reply-To: <dv93bt+nm5u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvapg6+1mtk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149688


> Alla:
> 
> Okay, sorry but you lost me here a little bit. Wasn't the main 
point 
> of your previous post( sorry if I misunderstood) that Prank in the 
> Shack was brought up as red herring and Snape really would not be 
> upset at Sirius, unless he thought that Sirius is the main reason 
of 
> Potters deaths, thus Snape covers up his own guilt?

zgirnius:
Snape has (as far as I can tell at present) good reasons for hating 
Sirius, and he seems to, as far as I can tell, in GoF and OotP. The 
reason for this hatred IS the Prank and more generally the Marauders' 
treatment of Snape in school. The red herring aspect is only that I 
do not believe Snape wanted Sirius dead before he believed Sirius had 
betrayed the Potters. But in PoA we are led to believe this IS the 
reason. (And after PoA, Snape would more or less revert to his less-
than-deadly feelings about Sirius, once he became convinced Sirius 
was indeed not the Secret Keeper.)

Alla:
> I mean, for me it is unnecessary, it is clear to me from the way 
HOW 
> Snape reacts to Lupin bringing it up  that he is very angry, but I 
> gave you the quote where Snape himself brings up Prank and really 
> really upset about it. And he does not say that Sirius tried to 
kill 
> just SOME person, he says ME with the italics, so JKR really 
> stresses it out IMO that Snape cannot forget it.
> 
> And you are saying that Snape does not really bring up the Prank? 
he 
> just thinks that Sirius tries to justify himself? I am confused, 
> sorry.

zgirnius:
Other than the incident of Pettigrew and the Muggles, the only 
other 'proof' that Sirius is capable of murder that Snape has at his 
disposal is the Prank, which is a reason to bring it up when he does. 
He's trying to persuade Dumbledore not to believe (what he thinks is) 
a lame cover story.
 
Alla:
> But we probably won't agree on this one, because obviously  the way 
> Sherry interpretes Shack is very inconsistent with DD!M Snape(or at 
> least many varieties of it) :)

zgirnius:
I didn't really expect to convince Sherry (or you!) with my post ;o). 
I just wanted to bring up a way it seems to me PoA can reasonably be 
read in light of the new information about Snape hinted at in HBP.






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 16 04:30:34 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 04:30:34 -0000
Subject: What Dumbledore trusts Snape to do?
In-Reply-To: <dvaoh2+kf5v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvapla+4j0p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149689

> > Carol, noting that the absence of qualifiers like "almost" or
> > "virtually" means that the completeness of the trust cannot be
> > doubted. Dumbledore may be wrong to trust Snape, but the trust 
itself
> > is absolute.
> 
> Jen: Hehe, I just couldn't resist pulling this one out because it 
has 
> some bearing on Dumbldore's communication style....
> 
> "I am going to tell you everything."
> 
> Dumbledore has a way of telling the truth and nothing but the 
truth, 
> but perhaps not the *whole* truth of the matter. Like many, I 
think 
> what he's hiding is the reason he trusts Snape, not that he has 
doubts 
> about the trust. 


Alla:

Yes, indeed, Jen. Thank you for bringing this up. Dumbledore can be 
pretty evasive, didn't he?

I think this was VERY telling how he escaped the accusations of 
being a liar when Harry confronted him about "you said you will tell 
me everything" ( paraphrase)

DD says that now we are going into realm of speculations, while does 
anybody doubt that what he said about Tom and Horcruxes will be 
completely true? Not me in any event.

Do I think that DD saying I trust Snape completely can turn into 
something else, not quite as complete as we think? YES, absolutely 
and your example is one of the very best examples by analogy IMO as 
to how it can turn out. 

Thank you, Jen. I realise that you don't share the point about DD 
trust being incomplete, but thank you for illustrating DD 
evasiveness.

Alla, who believes that DD does not lie, but VERY often evades the 
complete story.






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 16 04:42:13 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 04:42:13 -0000
Subject: seeds of betrayal
In-Reply-To: <dvapg6+1mtk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvaqb5+5ki0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149690

> Alla:
> > I mean, for me it is unnecessary, it is clear to me from the way 
> HOW 
> > Snape reacts to Lupin bringing it up  that he is very angry, but 
I 
> > gave you the quote where Snape himself brings up Prank and 
really 
> > really upset about it. And he does not say that Sirius tried to 
> kill 
> > just SOME person, he says ME with the italics, so JKR really 
> > stresses it out IMO that Snape cannot forget it.
> > 
> > And you are saying that Snape does not really bring up the 
Prank? 
> he 
> > just thinks that Sirius tries to justify himself? I am confused, 
> > sorry.
> 
> zgirnius:
> Other than the incident of Pettigrew and the Muggles, the only 
> other 'proof' that Sirius is capable of murder that Snape has at 
his 
> disposal is the Prank, which is a reason to bring it up when he 
does. 
> He's trying to persuade Dumbledore not to believe (what he thinks 
is) 
> a lame cover story.

Alla:

Right, that is what I think too. I doubt that Snape thinks about 
Sirius murder attempt which we are not aware of.

I suppose all what I am trying to understand is why are you so sure 
that Snape would not want Sirius' dead because of the Prank.

I mean, to me he is in absolute rage when he says that DD did not 
forget that Sirius tried to kill HIM and you are saying that Snape 
is just trying to persuade DD not to believe Sirius' story.

Okay, I agree he does not want Dumbledore believing Sirius' story, I 
am just not getting why you so easily dismiss Snape's rage in this 
quote.

I am not dismissing that Snape is mad at Sirius for betraying 
Potters, it sure adds to the mix of his reasons.

I just don't understand how is it at all possible to read Prank as 
red herring for Snape wanting to get Sirius kissed, when IMO Snape 
looks absolutely pissed in this quote.


> zgirnius:
> I didn't really expect to convince Sherry (or you!) with my 
post ;o). 
> I just wanted to bring up a way it seems to me PoA can reasonably 
be 
> read in light of the new information about Snape hinted at in HBP.
>

Alla:

You KNOW that I often see your interpretations as very reasonable, 
unfortunately I don't see this one at all - I mean I don't see where 
you see the support that Snape would not be pissed if the only 
reason he had to hate Sirius would be Prank.

Oh, boy. I am sorry Zara. I am probably not making much sense at 
this point, because I see my sentences are rather awkwardly 
constructed and I am not sure how to make them more elegant and 
easily uderstandable. I am very tired and should go to bed. Sorry, 
if I misunderstood you again.

JMO,

Alla







From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 16 04:55:56 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 04:55:56 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dv9pnd+v1hr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvar4s+bdin@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149691

> > >Sydney:
> > > Sophist!Dumbledore is a bit of a joker, isn't he?  
> > 
> > Neri:
> > Yes! Couldn't put it better myself <g>.

> Sydney:
> How amusing of him to joke around with everone's lives like that!  You
> still have to assume that every single time Dumbledore assured any
> Order member that he trusted Snape, every single time he "wouldn't
> hear a word against him", your theory has to narrow down each and
> every off-stage conversation so that it is principally about Harry.
 
> So, no conversation could ever have taken place where, say, Lupin
> would ask, "Snape know an awful lot about what I'm doing with the
> werewolves, and he hates my guts, I'm a bit worried-- are you sure I
> can trust him?"  And Dumbledore would say "Ho ho ho, oh yes- of
> course, I trust Snape completely."  *snigger*  And then in a stage
> whisper joker!Dumbledore would say, "Hee!  I mean, with Harry, of
> course!"  


Neri:
Very funny, but I really don't see why you had to resort to fanfiction
here, when we can so easily convict that irresponsible joker,
Sophist!Dumbledore, with hard canon:


****************************
Harry: did Professor McGonagall told you what I told her after Katie
was hurt? About Draco Malfoy?

Dumbledore: She told you of your suspicions, yes.

Harry: and do you ? 

Dumbledore: I shall take all appropriate measures to investigate
anyone who might have had a hand in Katie's accident".
***************************

Neri:
I like the term "Katie's accident" here. By this time Dumbledore knows
Draco is trying to do him in, and has quite enough reason to suspect
he was involved in Katie's "accident". And yet he doesn't even bother
warning Harry to be on his guard, or indicating in any way that
Harry's suspicions might indeed be in the right direction. Here's
another canon example of Sophist!Dumbledore:

***************************
Harry: It's about Malfoy and Snape.

Dumbledore: *Professor* Snape, Harry.

Harry: "Yes Sir, I overheard them during Professor Slughorn's party...
<describes what he overheard>.

Dumbledore: Thank you for telling me this, Harry, but I suggest that
you put this out of your mind. I do not think this is of great
importance."
**************************

Neri:
You just got to love that "no great importance". Sophist!Dumbledore at
his best. Several days later Ron, Harry and Professor Slughorn very
nearly get poisoned to death. But in their next lesson, it's
Sophist!Dumbledore who manages to make *Harry* feel guilty. Not a word
regarding the ongoing murder attempts. And here's more irresponsible
Sophist!Dumbledore:

***********************************
Harry: Professor Trelawney was just in the room of requirement ... and
she heard Malfoy wooping! Celebrating! He's trying to mend something
in there and if you ask me, he's fixed it at last and you're about to
walk out of the school without ?

Dumbledore: Enough. Do you think that I have once left the school
unprotected during my absences this year? I have not. Tonight, when I
leave, there will again be additional protection in place. Please do
not suggest that I do not take the safety of my students seriously, Harry.
*********************************

Neri:
I really can't detect any false statement in there. Sophist!Dumbledore
just somehow neglected to mention his own suspicions regarding Draco.
Also, he apparently doesn't station Snape or anybody else to follow
Draco that night, and he doesn't instruct the Order guards to watch
the RoR. But "there will be additional protection" and " I take the
safety of my student seriously". Gee, don't you feel safer already?

Sadly, the canon Sophist!Dumbledore isn't as funny as your fanfiction
Sophist!Dumbledore. But still, he's excellent at telling very literal
truths while keeping all the critical pieces of information to
himself, and he is every bit as irresponsible as you present him. He
knew for sure, as he later admits on the tower, that Draco was working
for Voldemort, and yet he endangered the whole school, his own
precious students, in order to give Draco a true chance to choose
right from wrong. Are you so sure that Sophist!Dumbledore would deny
that same right from LID!Snape, even if it endangers some Order
members? After all, LID!Snape is practically insured, by the deepest
magic there is, to save Harry's life, and unlike Draco he wasn't yet
working for Voldemort, at least not that Dumbledore knew. 

So what would our Sophist!Dumbledore say to Lupin or another Order
member who suspects LID!Snape? If he says "I trust Snape to save
Harry's life but I don't *really* trust him", this would just alienate
Snape more. Pretty quick nobody in the Order will want any connection
with him, and in the end he'll have no choice but going to Voldemort's
side. 

But you see, I was actually thinking about the positive meaning of the
word sophism. Sophists tend to judge truth not by its literal content,
but by the end result. You know, as in self-fulfilling prophecies. And
in this case I suspect Sophist!Dumbledore will indeed prove right
about the end result, in regard to both Draco and Snape. After all,
Sophist!Dumbledore probably has the Author on his side. 



>>  Neri (previously):
> > Not to mention that, since the only way "our side" can win the war is
> > by Harry vanquishing Voldemort, a Snape who is compelled to save
> > Harry's life is indeed on "our side", whether he wants to be or not.

> Sydney:
> Well, no he's not.  Again, this is a version of the term "on our side"
> that I don't recognize. If LD!Snape still shares Voldemort's goals,
> he's not on 'our side'.  He's on their side but handicapped.
> 
 
Neri:
Like I explained several times before, LID!Snape *doesn't* share
Voldemort's goals. At the very least he must save Harry's life at
least once before he can truly be on Voldemort's side. Even after the
end of Book 6, when he is officially on Voldemort's side, he still
must save Harry's life, so he is effectively an agent of "our side"
within the enemy's camp. Does that means he's on "our side" or not?
Well, do you want to argue semantics with Sophist!Dumbledore and JKR?
I wouldn't.


> Sydney:
> Dumbledore doesn't "trust Snape completely to save Harry's life".  He
> trusts Snape completely, full stop.  This is the teeny tiny problem
> with you theory.  He has not been telling Harry and the Order that he
> "trusts Snape completely to save Harry's life".  He's been telling
> them, "I trust Snape completely".  
> 
 
Neri:
Actually it's not really a problem with LID!Snape, not even a teeny
tiny one, because if Dumbledore fully believed in Snape's remorse, LID
still works just as well. Dumbledore simply believed Snape's remorse
was genuine, really trusted him completely, and was wrong about it. It
is just that personally I prefer Sophist!Dumbledore over
Sometimes-making-big-mistakes!Dumbledore, although they are both
supported very well in canon, so in the end it will probably turn out
to be mixture of them both. 


> Sydney:
> The reason the LD fits so neatly
> into everything is that it's just a magical prosthetic for accepting
> that Snape is, below the surface, a decent person who hated being
> directly responsible for the deaths of people he had an emotional
> connection to-- James by honour, and Lily, IMO, by love, and wants to
> atone for his sins.  I can see the attraction for anyone who simply
> cannot view Snape as having honest emotions and real honour.

Neri:
Or maybe LID fits so neatly into everything simply because it's true,
while DDM is always able find explations by inventing an arbitrarily
complex and self-contradictory character following a convoluted plot. 


> Sydney:
> "Deep and impenetrable" does not mean "blunt and obvious like a
> shock-jolting ankle bracelet".  How is that deep or impenetrable? 
> It's shallow and.. penetrable. <g>  The DADA curse is much more deep
> and impenetrable-- it's unpredictable, impossible to pin down to one
> effect, there's no point at which you can say, "ah, that was
> definitely the DADA curse right there".  It affects it's victims in
> ways that could be described as poetical and that they aren't even
> aware of, somehow maneouvering them into situations where they true
> selves are revealed.  Why, it almost acts like a literary device for
> highlighting people's personalities! 
 
> <snip>
 
> There are a zillion ways you could write that without putting in stuff
> that is directly contradictory.  "Funny how people's minds work" is an
> unnecessary thing for D-dore to say, and directly contradictory to the
> magical compulsion theory.  
 
Neri:
Ah, I see that you simply prefer another version of LID!Snape. Say, a
version in which the Life Debt is kind of a poetical magic
highlighting Snape's own remorse. Well, I'm quite open to this
version, if it works well with the canon. As I said, LID!Snape can
have as many versions as LOLLIPOPS. 

Neri









From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 16 04:56:48 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 04:56:48 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: hbp12, Silver and Opals
In-Reply-To: <dv4fs5+um34@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvar6g+8nik@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149692

<snip Lyra's excellent summary>
 
> 1)	<snip> But by 6th year, Harry is willing to try incantations
without a clue of what their effect will be. Does this change of
attitude tell us something about Harry? Is he becoming reckless?

Carol responds:
Recklessness was Sirius Black's fatal flaw, and James Potter also
seems to have had his share of it. ("The danger would have made it fun
for him," or something like that.) Harry has always been willing to
tak chances, but usually there was some justification for doing so.
Now he's playing with spells invented by an unknown student, obviously
a genius in Potions and spells of all types but otherwise mysterious,
 for the fun, or the thrill, of discovering what will happen when he
follows the Prince's directions. It's an obsession, a compulsion, much
like the lure of reading HP books and responding to posts, but
potentially more dangerous. The Prince never fails him--the potions
and spells always work--and he's lured in deeper and deeper, much as
he was lured by the dream of the door in OoP but without any direct
link to Voldemort. I think Harry's behavior here is very natural. He's
inspired, not to emulate the unknown boy (he lacks the Prince's
inventiveness and depth of knowledge), but to follow in his footsteps,
to learn what he has to teach. For the first time, learning has become
an adventure. Granted, he should have learned from Levicorpus that you
really shouldn't wave your wand around and think unknown nvbl spells
with the intent of finding out what they are, but since Ron laughs it
off, Harry has no incentive to question his action. And besides, he's
seen his father cast the same spell on young Snape, and he wants to
think that his father invented it. (Whatever sympathy for Severus and
disappointment in James he initially felt seems to have disappeared;
not a good sign, IMO, but perfectly understandable since he thinks
that Snape is helping Draco carry out Voldemort's dark plot.)

I may be wrong, but what I see when I read the pages on the Potions
book and the experimental spells in particular is not Harry's
recklessness so much as his affinity with young Severus Snape, and the
irony that Harry *is* learning from Snape--he just doesn't know it.

> 
> 2)	After using the Levicorpus spell, Harry is able to find the
counterspell handwritten in the HBP book. Later, when he uses
Sectumsempra on Draco, it turns out Snape also knows a countercurse
for that spell as well (though we don't know if he invented it or just
learned a spell that heals the cut).  Does the fact that Snape 
apparently creates/learns counterspells to undo his curses give us 
any insight into the man? 

Carol responds:
It's early in the book to draw conclusions about Snape and
countercurses since the first-time reader doesn't know yet that the
HBP is Snape, but certainly Severus inventing his own counterhex for
Levicorpus does suggest a thoroughness about him, a sense that you
don't cast a spell you can't undo; you have to do the job right. Just
as a poison must have an antidote, a curse must have a countercurse
(unless it's an AK, or a Crucio or Imperio that lasts as long as the
caster wills it). Teen!Snape is already an intellectual, an inventor
and scientist, and he's not going to leave the job half-done, not to
mention that inventing a countercurse is presumably as much of a
challenge as inventing the curse in the first place. This particular
instance gives us grounds for suspecting that the countercurse for
SectumSempra was also his own invention. Either that or he did some
impressive research to come up with a healing incantation that could
cure an otherwise potentially lethal spell. (I have more to say about
that chant and the image it creates of Snape as Healer, but I'll save
it for the later chapter discussion.) Another thought regarding Harry
and SectumSempra--it's unlikely that the long incantation was squeezed
into the Prince's marginal notes. Harry should have noticed the
absence of a countercurse (along with the notation "for enemies") and
been forewarned.
> 
> 3)	The Levicorpus spell is specifically noted as being 
> nonverbal. In DADA class, however, it seems that students are using 
> the same spells they learned verbally, but learning to cast them as 
> nonverbal spells. Do you think all spells can be cast verbally and 
> nonverbally, or are some used only as either verbal or nonverbal? 
> Why?

Carol:
The only clue we have that some spells are intended to be nonverbal is
the notation "nvbl." Maybe Levicorpus is one of only a handful of
spells that are intended to be cast silently. Maybe it's one of a
kind.(?) It's interesting that Harry had no trouble learning it, and
that it apparently became something of a fad in SS/MWPP's day. The
secret must have been spread by SS to a few chosen friends, who in
turn passed it to their friends. Or maybe some of the weaker
Slytherins cast it by speaking it and the Gryffindors picked it up
from them. Lupin, at least, had no idea that Snape had invented it.
Either that, or he was concealing the information from Harry, and I
didn't get that impression. As for Harry having trouble learning
nonverbal spells, at least in DADA, that could be a mental block
against Snape or simply the idea that he's already mastered those
spells and doesn't need to learn to cast them silently. Snape, of
course, has other ideas.
> 
> 4)	Levicorpus is Harry's first successful nonverbal spell. Why 
> do you think he was able to do this one?

Carol:
See above. Either it's meant to be cast silently, as opposed to spells
that are meant to be cast orally, or the obstacle of Harry's mental
block against Snape's methods and ideas was removed. He trusted the
Prince; he was excited and curious. He already knows what Expelliarmus
and Protego do. There's no adventure to learning them.
> 
> 5)	Some of the Prince's early jinxes included one to make 
> toenails grow fast, one to make the tongue stick to the roof of the 
> mouth, and Muffliato. Ron thinks they are the sort of spells Fred 
> and George might create; Hermione says they are the work of someone 
> who is not a nice person.  Do you think these are typical schoolyard 
> hexes, not much different from the bat bogey hex or Ron's 
> eat slugs curse, or do they hint at something darker? 

Carol:
I agree with Ron. Assuming that the spell that causes the tongue to
stick to the roof of the mouth is short-lived (as it must be if they
used it on Filch twice), it and the toenail jinx are no different
from, say, Densuageo, which Draco intended to use on Harry (it was
deflected onto Hermione), and which was easily cured by Madam Pomfrey.
(We don't see Crabbe suffering from Mandarin-style toenails all year.)
And Muffliato isn't dark; it's just a useful little charm for anyone
who doesn't want to be overheard. It's interesting that Severus would
have invented it. He must have had at least one friend to talk to in
class or the library or he'd have had no need to invent it. (I wonder
how James, Sirius, and Remus would have reacted to these clever little
jinxes, hexes, and charms if Severus had been sorted into Gryffindor.
I have a feeling that they'd have been as impressed as Harry is.) IMO,
these spells aren't as bad as Hermione's SNEAK jinx because they're
cast openly and they're either short-lived or easily cured. 

> 6)	Is there any particular symbolism or meaning to the opal 
> necklace (or to opals or necklaces), or is it simply a convenient 
> McGuffin?

Carol:
I wouldn't call it a McGuffin, exactly, but certainly a plot device.
(I wish we'd been told whether Snape removed the curse from the
necklace or merely determined what it was so that he could stabilize
Katie Bell. Given what we see in this book of his powers, I'm guessing
that he did remove the curse and that we won't see the necklace
again.) But McGonagall's order to Filch to take it to Professor Snape
immediately certainly shows faith in his abilities. BTW, thanks to
Steve for the interesting link on the superstitions connected with
opals. Interesting that JKR would use that obscure bit of folklore (or
obscure to me, at least!).
 
> 
> 7)	Most of JKR's characters, even those with walk-on parts, have a
complete name (Mark Evans, Piers Polkiss, and dozens of students who
have been sorted in the last few years and happily taken their place
in the Charms Society, Gobstones Club, or whatever they do that keeps
them from crossing paths with Harry ever again).  But Katie Bell's
friend Leanne gets six pages of center stage, yet no last name. Did
this bother anyone? Was JKR simply signaling that Leanne wasn't really
worth bothering with?

Carol:
I didn't notice it at the time, but I think it just reflects the
limitations of Harry's POV. He only knows that the girl's name is
Leanne because Hermione does. I think it's good that JKR is belatedly
giving us a few more names of fellow Gryffindors (I'm guessing that
Hermione knows her name because she's in their house but not their
year) to add a touch of realism, but I don't think we'll see Leanne again.

> 
> 8)	In OOTP Sirius says the barman at the Hogs Head threw 
> Mundungus out of his bar 20 years ago and has banned him since. That 
> seems to suggest some bad blood between the two. Yet Harry sees the 
> same two talking on the street in Hogsmeade. What are we to think?

Carol:
Well, i think they're both spies for the Order. This isn't Mundungus's
first appearance in the Hog's Head. He was there in OoP, disguised as
a witch, when the kids held their first DA meeting. Not that I'm
altogether sure that Mundungus is a good guy. He's a sleazebag and he
was AWOL when Harry was attacked by the Dementors. Possibly Dung
trying to sell stolen goods to Aberforth is a cover for what they're
really concerned about, Order business or security or whatever. I
think that Aberforth, at least, will be important in Book 7, possibly
in connection with the locket Horcrux.

> 
> 9) Harry is upset at Mundungus for stealing "Sirius's stuff" (or
more specifically, I think, for violating Sirius's memory) and 
totally forgets it's now his stuff. Does this surprise you? Is Harry's
almost total lack of interest in material goods (aside from
international-standard broomsticks) an important element of his 
personality? Will it be important in the future?

Carol:
Well, the contents of Dung's suitcase are described as looking like
they came from a junkshop. Harry would have been wholly uninterested
if he hadn't recognized the silver goblets, and I don't think the fact
that 12 GP is his property has ever fully sunk in. Maybe Sirius
Black's death hasn't, either, or he wouldn't have been so indignant
(in fact, violent, almost strangling Mundungus) on his behalf. But
Harry is in a strange position regarding worldly possessions. In the
MW he's had to go without; in the WW, he has a small fortune and can
buy whatever he wants (within reason). I don't think the value of the
cups ever entered his mind, whereas it was Dung's first consideration
("This real silver, Sirius, mate?"). All that mattered was where they
came from and whom they had belonged to.
> 
> 10) If Malfoy was in detention, how did the necklace end up at the 
> Three Broomsticks?

Carol:
Good question! Draco couldn't have taken it on the train and dropped
it off at Hogsmeade instead of taking the carriages to Hogwarts. I
think that he bought it by owl order once he started to worry about
not being able to fix the Vanishing Cabinet but had Borgin send it,
wrapped in plain brown paper, to Madam Rosmerta, to be picked up by
its owner later. He may have had the idea for the Imperius curse
working through a coin and the bottle of poisoned mead at about the
same time. All he'd need to do would be to use the cursed coin to buy
some butterbeer on the first Hogsmeade weekend, and once she was under
his control, he could carry out the rest of his plan. (As for the Hand
of Glory, which wasn't mentioned in this chapter, it stayed at B&B's
with the second cabinet until he was ready for it.) BTW, someone made
the suggestion that "Zabini" in this chapter was polyjuiced Draco, but
that would have to mean that Blaise was cooperating with Draco and
taking his detention for him. I didn't get the idea that they were
close, or that Blaise is a budding DE despite his snooty personality.
But I do wonder what he was doing there. (If it had been Theo Nott,
I'd have been more worried. I'm starting to fear that he'll be
following Draco down the DE path.)
> 
> 11) Hermione warns about using "unknown, handwritten spells" that 
aren't "Ministry approved." But just a few chapters ago, she was 
admiring the products at Weasley's Wizard Wheezes, which are most
likely not all Ministry approved.  And after her experiences with 
Umbridge and Fudge, it seems Hermione would have suspicions about the
value of Ministry approval. Is this just a lame excuse she comes up
with, or is there some validity to her concern about using spells that
don't bear the MOM stamp of approval? 

Carol:
Well, she's right to be concerned about what Harry is doing, just as
she's right to be concerned that he's taking credit for someone else's
work in Potions. The trouble is, she's being a bit hypocritical in
both instances. She's always been Harry's (and Ron's) walking
encyclopedia, and the Prince is not only better in Potions than she is
but smarter than the textbook! It was okay for *her* to do their
homework for them, but she was (in her view) helping them; the Prince
is an unknown commodity with no awareness of them and no concern for
their welfare. But because she has the personal motive of jealousy,
Harry can't (or won't) listen to her warnings about the possible
consequences of unknown spells (and potion alterations)--especially
since they've produced such promising results so far. And for Hermione
to bring in the Ministry after their experiences with Umbridge smacks
of desperation as well as hypocrisy. So I'd say that her main argument
is valid, but her reasons are not. (On a sidenote, her view of the
Prince changes when she learns that he was Severus Snape, even thoough
the adult Snape has recently killed Dumbledore. "'Evil' is a strong
word, Harry." Not sure of the significance of her altered view, but it
jumped out at me when I read it the first time.)
> 
> 12) Harry only reluctantly tells McGonagall about his suspicions
concerning Malfoy. Why is he less open with her than with Dumbledore?
Will this be an issue as we move into book 7?

Carol:
I think he remembers that she tried to stop him from entering the
third-floor corridor in SS/PS, and she didn't believe his accusation
of Draco Malfoy regarding the opal necklace. But I don't think it will
matter much in Book 7; she'll almost certainly be headmistress of
Hogwarts and he'll be spending most of his time elsewhere--unless the
ending of HBP has given us a completely distorted view of what's to come.
> 
> 13) Heightened security measures have Filch using the Secrecy Sensor
on students as they leave the school. Why is Filch checking people as
they *leave* the school? Is it wise to have a squib doing tasks that
could put him in contact with magical objects he might not recognize
or be able to counter or disable? And why is Filch, who seemed solidly
on Umbridge's side the previous school year, still apparently in good
graces at Hogwarts? Is this another example of Dumbledore trusting
people to do the job he's given them, and is this a wise move on the
Headmaster's part?

Carol:
I think Filch jumps at any opportunity to use a magical instrument and
have control over the students. I suppose he's trying to confiscate
anything that got by his sensors the first time, even if it's on its
way out of the school. Logic was never his strong suit. But I'm not at
all sure it's wise to have him checking for dnagerous objects when he
can't tell potions from perfume and could easily rip the paper off a
cursed object and be killed or incapacitated by it. I don't know if DD
had anything to do with assigning him the job. McGonagall is assistant
headmistress. Maybe she's in charge of seemingly mundane matters, or
maybe DD has other protections on the school. Tonks keeps showing up
in unexpected places. I think she's keeping watch on the gates, and
sometimes in the school itself, in an Invisibility Cloak. As for
Draco, he's in detention, at least this time around.

Carol, thanking Lyra for the interesting questions






From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 16 05:04:53 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 05:04:53 -0000
Subject: seeds of betrayal
In-Reply-To: <dvaqb5+5ki0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvarll+g91n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149693

Alla:
> I just don't understand how is it at all possible to read Prank as 
> red herring for Snape wanting to get Sirius kissed, when IMO Snape 
> looks absolutely pissed in this quote.

zgirnius:
I find Snape's interactions with Sirius in GoF (just the handshake-
end of PoA Snape would NOT have shaken hands, IMO) and OotP rather 
different than in PoA. Perhaps you do not. But in GoF and OotP, the 
real difference from Snape's point of view is that, while Sirius is 
still Sirius of the Marauders, who made his schooldays miserable (or 
whatever), he is not longer Sirius Black, who betrayed the Potters to 
Voldemort. 

> Alla:
> 
> You KNOW that I often see your interpretations as very reasonable, 
> unfortunately I don't see this one at all - I mean I don't see 
where 
> you see the support that Snape would not be pissed if the only 
> reason he had to hate Sirius would be Prank.

zgirnius:
I'm not trying to argue Snape would not be pissed. He would be. The 
question is, would he consider taking Sirius to the Dementors 
himself, if it was just about the Prank? 

I think, though, that we are running into our usual problem. You want 
to SEE Snape be sorry about the Potters, before you believe it. 
(Quite a reasonable position, that). He is therefore a character you 
can see casually killing someone (or worse) over a school prank, 
until you see PROOF to the contrary. 

I no longer see him that way, because I buy Dumbledore's account of 
him. 










From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Thu Mar 16 06:21:25 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 06:21:25 -0000
Subject: "End it, Dumbledore"
Message-ID: <dvb055+c6dp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149694

Re-reading OOTP at the moment and the scene where Voldemort is 
possessing Harry caught my eye. Here's the quote:

"If death is nothing, Dumbledore, kill the boy..."

Let the pain stop, thought Harry. Let him kill us....End it, 
Dumbledore...Death is nothing compared to this...

(Chap. 36, page 816, Scholastic)

Mainly I think we're meant to get the idea that Harry, unlike 
Voldemort, believes there are things worse than death.  There could 
be a bit of foreshadowing in that sequence, though. Since Harry is 
the moral eyes through which we will understand the story of the 
tower, I think he could empathize with a Dumbledore who also wanted 
to be killed to stop something painful. It's doubtful physical pain 
would be enough for Dumbledore to want to be killed, but I do think 
it's very possible he was in a parallel situation with Harry by 
experiencing physical incapacitation and mental anguish so complete 
that he felt as powerless as Harry did while being possessed. And of 
course that exact scenario was foreshadowed in the cave 
sequence, "KILL ME!"

Jen, thinking a crucial part of a believable DDM Snape will be if 
Harry can identify and empathize with the reason why Dumbledore felt 
there was no option in that moment except being killed. 







From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 16 06:35:43 2006
From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 06:35:43 -0000
Subject: JKR website - Quintaped
In-Reply-To: <dv929o+uvmj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvb0vv+1o23@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149695

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Maria Vaerewyck" 
<maria8162001 at ...> wrote:
>
> Hi, I am just wondering if anybody thinks that there's a 
connection 
> on the Quintaped at JKR's website (rubbish bin and ancient runes 
> book) and the quintaped skeleton in the RoR in HBP. Harry found or 
> saw a cage with a five legged skeleton. I was thinking of this 
> skeleton with 5 legs as quintaped. Latin word for quintaped is 
five-
> footed. Could this have something to do in book 7? 

Doddie here:
Well there is another hint to this in book six and within the 
interviews that jk gave later.

1. In one of Harry's classes there is a textbook 
titled, "Quintessence a Quest".(I believe)

2. In an interview, JK once made alusions to not only the four 
founders but uniting the elements...

Hence you can unite the four houses but there needs "something more" 
apparently...(perhaps this is why there has been little 
reunification of the houses has not happened in the 
past)...Apparently the hinderances of this cannon wise may have been 
1. Tom Riddle when he opened the chamber of secrets both in Hagrids 
day and again in Harry's.

2. Perhaps Grindenwald in the past?!?!?

3. There may be a sneaking hint it may have almost happened with 
Harry in OOP with Dumbledore's Army..(was there a slytherin in 
there, if not, how did Malfoy find out about the Galleons Hermione 
created--the only guess I can make is he may have overheard Dumbridge
(I doubt it)--or perhaps Moaning Myrtle, OR was there a slytherin 
present???

<<snip>> 

Maria wrote:
> If that is how it was, how did the quintaped get inside Hogwarts 
> into RoR, who brought it in? It surely cannot be Hagrid or he 
would have put Aragog there too. Could it be that, that is the last 
of the 
> member of the McBoons? Anybody have any ideas? Maybe it will 
appear 
> again in book 7. Maybe this is worth pursuing? Thanks and sorry 
for 
> any mispelled words and my grammar.
> 
> maria8162001
>


My guess is the quintaped got into Hogwarts via a student or 
professor in the past trying to creat "quintessence" via magical 
creatures...I honestly do not believe Hagrid had either the ability 
or desire to put a living creature through that.(too tender hearted 
to the most ghastliest of creatures.

We only see two other characters (that I can remember right now) 
that had major ties with magical creatures... Hagrid(aragog, 
buckbeack) and Voldemort(nagini/baskilisk)..



Other characters with ties with magical creatures include:

Harry: Owns Hedwig, Buckbeak/Witherwings

Hermione: Owns Crookshanks

Sirius Black: once owned buckbeack.

Dumbledore: Fakes once chose DD, friend to Centaurs, Mermaids..

Ron: once owned Wormtail(but not really as wormtail was a wizard who 
hid under Rons and Percy's care), also owns pidgewidegon

Percy: Once kept Scabbers as ron did above..owns Hermes

Ginny: owns arnold the pigmy puff

Hagrid: minor ties with a great deal many creatures on Hogwarts 
grounds.

Weasleys in general: own Errol

Snape: in my opionion seems to have a weakness as far as magical 
creatures are involved---attacked by buckbeak and 
fluffy...apparantly is not so strong against "instinctual" attacks 
perhaps what if DD trusted snape because Fawkes was not alarmed by 
him?

Lavender Brown: once had a bunny who died via fox attack.

Fred & George:  Bred pygmy puffs

And I suppose we can lump in the animagi(McConogal, Sirius, James, 
PP, Rita)...

and Lupin and Fenrir as an aside.

Anywhoo I have given this matter some thought...I think I have 
enought to lead somewhere but I am stuck because I get off on a 
tangent each time I come to snape.

Doddiemoe,
(who wonders if her response was worth it)









From sherriola at earthlink.net  Thu Mar 16 06:42:41 2006
From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 22:42:41 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Maligning Lupin
In-Reply-To: <dv9vrm+5bs2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <E1FJmC8-0000pX-W1@elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 149696

Christina:

But it isn't just two.  We only know two werewolves personally, but we know
OF many more.  Fenrir Greyback has a nice little group going, and as Lupin
says, they don't take to wizards nicely.  The werewolves are attracted to
Fenrir because of his opinion that "we werewolves deserve blood, that we
ought to revenge ourselves on normal people."  They don't sound very nice to
me.  Lupin is held up as the exception to the rule, and so erasing that
exception isn't just a "we only know two werewolves and they happen to both
be evil" kind of thing.  It's a "Lupin has finally joined his brethren in a
werewolf evil-fest."

It is only after Ron comes to know that Lupin is good and trustworthy that
he loses his prejudice against werewolves.  And that follows real life,
where sometimes people just have to get to know a person from the group they
fear/dislike to lose their prejudice.  I don't think that an ESE!Lupin
situation would feature Ron saying, "Well gosh, guys, Lupin was the only
good werewolf we know, so I guess they're all rotten now," but when you use
a character to make others overcome their prejudice, and then make the
character evil, I see it as a sort of thematic hole.  Then again, I suppose
you see it as good trickery :)


Sherry now:

Since JKR has said that lupine represents disability or illness, ESE lupine
is an outcome I just can't accept, and it would probably be the worst
possible scenario for me of any possible outcomes.  Of course, there are
disabled people who are criminals, just as there are disabled people who are
doctors, lawyers, home makers, teachers, customer service reps and any other
cross section of society you can think of.  But the world hasn't come far
enough in its acceptance of disabled people for an ESE Lupine and an ESE
Greyback to be the visible representations of werewolves we see.  looking at
lupin's life is often like looking into a mirror.  His difficulty in finding
work, his society's fear of him, it's all very true in the real world.  What
Christina said above, about Ron only getting to know lupine before
overcoming his prejudices is right on target.  I can't tell you how many
people have told me they were afraid of me, till circumstances caused them
to get to know me.  JKR has had a strong theme running through the books of
showing the wrong in the Wizarding world's prejudice against all kinds of
different peoples, creatures and species.  If she turns around and now does
a flip and implies, I fooled you, all that I wrote about prejudice was not
true when it comes to werewolves, then all she has written about anti
prejudice will be a lie.  And in a practical sense, there just isn't enough
room in the next book, I'm thinking, to add a whole new plot twist.  she has
so much to clear up as it is.

Sherry





From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 16 06:43:23 2006
From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 06:43:23 -0000
Subject: Dementors
In-Reply-To: <dv9tq8+n0ns@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvb1eb+4lm5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149697

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Karen <kchuplis@> wrote:
> >
> > This was probably discussed years ago, but I'm really tired of 
Snape 
> > posts and I have wondered about this forever. How does one 
communicate 
> > with dementors? How did the ministry? How does LV? ...  What was 
the 
> > consensus here?
> > 
> > kchuplis
> 
I have no idea what the concensus was back in the day...I always 
thought Voldemort had control over them because he had not much of a 
soul left yet had powers over them. (Hence a dementor would find 
Voldie a sad snack indeed. However a starving dementor could be 
readily used to sniff out a horcrux.)

Voldie probably promised them magical powers beyond what they 
already have (soul sucking, limited psychic ability and flying) I 
suppose; besides which, what wizard, besides voldemort/grindenwald 
would/could allow a dementor to live among them?  Leads me to wonder 
if Grindenwald actually created Dementors..

Doddie,

(Who would pay a great deal of money to purchase the book 
of "history of magic")







From aceworker at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 16 04:02:12 2006
From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 20:02:12 -0800 (PST)
Subject: HBP Chapter discusiion Ch 12 : Silver and OPals
In-Reply-To: <1142329081.1082.34112.m19@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060316040212.11832.qmail@web30209.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149699

> > lyraofjordan:
> 7) Most of JKR's characters, even those with walk-on parts, 
> have a complete name (Mark Evans, Piers Polkiss, and dozens of 
> students who have been sorted in the last few years and happily 
> taken their place in the Charms Society, Gobstones Club, or       
> whatever they do that keeps them from crossing paths with Harry    
> ever again).  
> But Katie Bell's friend Leanne gets six pages of center stage, yet 
> no last name. Did this bother anyone? Was JKR simply signaling    
> that Leanne wasn't really worth bothering with?

>Betsy Hp:
>I didn't even notice this!  I don't think it means anything 
>important.  Leanne has served her purpose and I'm sure we won't see 
>her again.  (Maybe in a few crowd scenes.)

Leanne isn't even a real character. The truth is she was originally
probably Alicia Spinnet. We know from various interviews, JKR's 
website too also I believe, also that Half-Blood Prince was an 
original working title for Chamber of Secrets. We know that the opal 
necklace that Draco eventually buys was mentioned in COS. I'm taking 
an educated guess here, that this part of Chapter 12 is lifted nearly 
intact from her original drafts. Of course she couldn't use Alicia 
Spinnet, Katie's friend, because Alicia had graduated so she just 
inserted a made up name.  

A rare case of lazy writing by JKR in my opinion. She could have used 
another character here that she made up in HBP, how about Victoria 
Frobisher or Demelza. Of course can't be Angelina because it doesn't 
fit with her established character. Angelina would not cry.

One flaw of JKR which is actually endearing is that when she writes 
herself into a corner she often gets out of it by creating a 
character (i.e Barty Crouch Jr is the worst example.) Of course is 
leaves her with 300+ named characters, and a fan base that demands 
resolution for most of them. Easiest way out, kill about 250 of them 
or otherwise make their stories disappear by way of a time reversal
or something like that.  
 
Or she might do something with Leanne now that she has made such a 
dramatic entrance. Perhaps she is one of the good Slytherins (I think
another is Tonks). She probably can't be of Gryffindor house because 
the trio don't know her. I think that if she were in Gryffindor they 
would probrably know the first name of one of Katie's best friends 
(or at least Harry would). I could see Katie with a Slytherin friend. 

D.A Jones








From bercygirl2 at aol.com  Thu Mar 16 08:16:39 2006
From: bercygirl2 at aol.com (bercygirl2)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:16:39 -0000
Subject: JKR website - Quintaped
In-Reply-To: <dvb0vv+1o23@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvb6t7+heql@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149700

> Maria Vaerewyck <maria8162001@> wrote:
> Hi, I am just wondering if anybody thinks that there's a connection 
> on the Quintaped at JKR's website (rubbish bin and ancient runes 
> book) and the quintaped skeleton in the RoR in HBP. Harry found or 
> saw a cage with a five legged skeleton. I was thinking of this 
> skeleton with 5 legs as quintaped. Latin word for quintaped is 
> five-footed. Could this have something to do in book 7? 

bercygirl2: 
I had a thought about the Quintaped....JKR has said that the four 
houses (Gryffindor, Slytherin, Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw) correspond to 
the four elements (fire, water, earth and air). However, there are 
actually 5 elements: fire, water, earth, air and metal. Could there 
have once been a fifth house? Or possible there will be a fifth house 
in the future?








From R.Vink2 at chello.nl  Thu Mar 16 13:04:16 2006
From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:04:16 -0000
Subject: Maligning Lupin
In-Reply-To: <dv9dqi+n24t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvbnog+s9af@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149701

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:
>
>  
>  Renee:
> 
> > > > Unfortunately, Pippin's answer doesn't solve my problem, which is 
> that the *only* two members of this particular group we get acquainted 
> with would be evil if Lupin is ESE. We have no basis left within canon 
> to  assume werewolves could ever be okay and are a cause worth 
>  fighting for. 
> 
> Pippin:
> 
> Wait, wait. As we're always telling each other on this list, inadequate
> evidence does not become adequate by virtue of being the only
> evidence available.

Renee:
?? I thought I was talking about zero evidence, actually. If every
sheep anyone had ever seen in the world was black, would we have
reason to believe in the existence of white sheep?  

Pippin:
 
> I firmly believe that JKR will show us that ESE!Lupin's efforts to
be good 
> weren't  futile because  he was a werewolf. They were 
> futile because he never had the courage to make himself accountable 
> for what he'd done.
>

Renee:
It looks as if you're wielding your own theory as an argument again.
Lupin has held himself accountable for the things we've seen him do,
or rather, omit in canon. The rest is speculation. 

Also, if your ESE!Lupin's failure to be good was not caused or
influenced by his lycanthropy, then neither was his turning evil. Yet
you do relate his fall to his rejection by society, if I recall
correctly. And his rejection by society has everything to do with his
being a werewolf. I also seem to recall it had something to do with
being sent to spy on the werewolves during the first Voldemort War,
and identifying with them to such a degree that he turned against the
Wizarding World. 

But if you've changed your mind and ESE!Lupin didn't go bad because of
his furry little problem, you need to give him another motive, one
that has nothing to do with this problem. And references to the
mysterious ways in which the mind of a werewolf works don't count. 

Renee









From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 16 13:36:04 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:36:04 -0000
Subject: seeds of betrayal
In-Reply-To: <dvarll+g91n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvbpk4+oigj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149702

> zgirnius:
> I'm not trying to argue Snape would not be pissed. He would be. The 
> question is, would he consider taking Sirius to the Dementors 
> himself, if it was just about the Prank? 

Alla:

Right, to me the answer is absolutely yes, BUT again I am not saying 
that Snape is angry with Sirius ONLY about the Prank, quite possible 
that secret keeper business also adds to it, it is just trying hard as 
I may I cannot find the evidence that Snape would NOT do that. IMO of 
course.

Zgirnius: 
> I think, though, that we are running into our usual problem. You 
want 
> to SEE Snape be sorry about the Potters, before you believe it. 
> (Quite a reasonable position, that). He is therefore a character you 
> can see casually killing someone (or worse) over a school prank, 
> until you see PROOF to the contrary. 
> 
> I no longer see him that way, because I buy Dumbledore's account of 
> him.

Alla:

Well, yes that is true of course, but woudn't you agree that the only 
reason for Snape's anger we DO see in the Shack is the Prank?

I mean, yes, maybe Snape is hiding the real reasons really well, and 
that is certainly possible, but I am trying to find it and all that I 
can see is " do you remember that he tried to kill ME?" not "do you 
remember that he betrayed Lily and James?" - quote like this would 
tell me that Snape tries to convince DD not to believe Sirius' story. 
And I don't see why JKR cannot put it forward as a clue of Snape being 
upset which we could get fully only after HBP. She does not have to 
say anything about Snape being involved in Potters death, to uncover 
plot secrets early, since we already know that Snape owed life debt to 
James and that would be quite reasonable to show that Snape is pissed 
because Potters died due to Sirius.

But Snape does not bring up Lily and James in the Hospital Wing to 
Dumbledore he brings "Tried to kill ME" and it tells me something very 
different.

JMO,

Alla, who thinks that the fact that JKR is still about to tell us more 
about the Pranks means that Prank was very far from being red herring 
in the shack, and who will not be surprised if Snape's grudges would 
be the driving forces behind his actions at the end, but who is 
prepared to be wrong of course.









From sopraniste at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 16 14:06:25 2006
From: sopraniste at yahoo.com (Maria Holub)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 06:06:25 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR website - Quintaped
In-Reply-To: <dvb6t7+heql@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060316140625.71971.qmail@web35614.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149703



--- bercygirl2 <bercygirl2 at aol.com> wrote:

> > Maria Vaerewyck <maria8162001@> wrote:
> > Hi, I am just wondering if anybody thinks that
> there's a connection 
> > on the Quintaped at JKR's website (rubbish bin and
> ancient runes 
> > book) and the quintaped skeleton in the RoR in
> HBP. Harry found or 
> > saw a cage with a five legged skeleton. I was
> thinking of this 
> > skeleton with 5 legs as quintaped. Latin word for
> quintaped is 
> > five-footed. Could this have something to do in
> book 7? 
> 
> bercygirl2: 
> I had a thought about the Quintaped....JKR has said
> that the four 
> houses (Gryffindor, Slytherin, Hufflepuff and
> Ravenclaw) correspond to 
> the four elements (fire, water, earth and air).
> However, there are 
> actually 5 elements: fire, water, earth, air and
> metal. Could there 
> have once been a fifth house? Or possible there will
> be a fifth house 
> in the future?

Flop:
I have never seen metal referred to as an element, but
various other fantasy series that I have read have
introduced a fifth element. Elizabeth Haydon has Ether
as the fifth element, the substance her world's
legends say the stars are made from. My personal
favourite is in Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time, in
which the fifth element is Spirit. Or how about the
movie The Fifth Element, in which the fifth element
was... Mila Jovovich.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From quigonginger at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 16 14:16:36 2006
From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:16:36 -0000
Subject: Moaning Myrtle
Message-ID: <dvbs04+8amp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149704

I just had a few thoughts about Myrtle, and they raised some 
questions, so I thought I'd share them with you nice folks.  Lucky 
you.

Let's take a brief overview of Myrtle's life and afterlife, such as 
it is.

She was a young witch (Muggleborn, per Draco, who could have been 
spouting assumptions).  She was homely and teased for it.  She went 
in the loo to have a cry, heard a guy's voice and was bassilized.  
She came back as a ghost, and, after being sent back to Hogwarts 
after annoying Olive, has hung out in the plumbing ever since.  

We know she was present for the Polyjuicing, was asked by Harry and 
Ron how she died, and witnessed the return trip of Harry and company 
from the C of S. 

She gave Harry a bit of a hint on his egg, (admitting to watching the 
males of the school bathe), and was his underwater guide during the 
2nd task.  She seems to have a crush on Harry both in CoS and GoF.  

In HBP, she is Draco's confidante and sympathizer.  

So now for the questions:  If she was killed by LV (or Tom, as he was 
then) and fancies Harry, what sort of council did she give Draco when 
he was spilling his heart out to her?

Does she know that Tom, who killed her, is now LV, for whom Draco is 
supposed to kill?  Did she know it was DD who was Draco's intended 
victim?  Does she still fancy Harry?  Or has Draco become her new 
intrest?  Is she actually interested, or does she just recognize a 
kindred spirit (or somesuch) in a guy as depressed as Draco is then?
  
She has shown a certain touchiness about being dead.  Does it bother 
her that Draco was intending murder, or do those who have died view 
death differently than those of us who have not?  She wasted no time 
sounding the alarm when Harry cursed Draco.  Was that for attention?  
Or did she really care about saving Draco's life?

How much does she know about what goes on in the castle?  By 
extention, how much do the rest of the ghosts know?  Is she self-
absorbed enough that she would have missed out on the 2 murder 
attempts that almost killed Katie and Ron?  Does she know it was 
Draco behind it?  

I could go on all day, but I think you get where my thoughts are 
heading.  I'd love to hear what anyone thinks on these issues.  

Personally, I think the ghosts would be a great source of 
information, should anyone care to consult them.  Surely they would 
have known the legend of the C of S.  Did DD ask for their input?  He 
seems to have missed the Myrtle/bassilisk connection.

I'll shut up now.  

Oh, wait, one more:  Do ghosts show up on the Maurader's Map?
Now I'll shut up.

Ginger, who thinks bathrooms wouldn't be the worst place to haunt.  
Gossip and naked men.  A teen's dream come true.  Think of the havoc 
one could unleash!







From kchuplis at alltel.net  Thu Mar 16 14:59:43 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:59:43 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: hbp12, Silver and Opals
References: <dvar6g+8nik@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <005001c6490a$4275b9f0$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local>

No: HPFGUIDX 149705


  Carol:
  Well, i think they're both spies for the Order. This isn't Mundungus's
  first appearance in the Hog's Head. He was there in OoP, disguised as
  a witch, when the kids held their first DA meeting. Not that I'm
  altogether sure that Mundungus is a good guy. He's a sleazebag and he
  was AWOL when Harry was attacked by the Dementors. Possibly Dung
  trying to sell stolen goods to Aberforth is a cover for what they're
  really concerned about, Order business or security or whatever. I
  think that Aberforth, at least, will be important in Book 7, possibly
  in connection with the locket Horcrux.

  kchuplis:

  You know, I've wondered for a LONG time if Mundungus isn't an ESE turncoat or at least major OFHness that causes major mayhem. The one reason is because his name has popped up from time to time since the very first book and rarely does a minor character make that many appearances without becoming, eventually, something important. It is suspicious to me that he was lured from Harry. 

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




From hickengruendler at yahoo.de  Thu Mar 16 14:57:20 2006
From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:57:20 -0000
Subject: Moaning Myrtle
In-Reply-To: <dvbs04+8amp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvbucg+bvc1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149706

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "quigonginger" 
<quigonginger at ...> wrote:
  
> 
> So now for the questions:  If she was killed by LV (or Tom, as he 
was 
> then) and fancies Harry, what sort of council did she give Draco 
when 
> he was spilling his heart out to her?
> 
> Does she know that Tom, who killed her, is now LV, for whom Draco 
is 
> supposed to kill?  Did she know it was DD who was Draco's intended 
> victim?  

Hickengruendler:

I think she knows neither of these things. In the Sectumsempra 
chapter, shortly before Draco sees Harry, she urges him to tell him 
what's going on and he refuses. He only says, that he had to do 
something and that if he doesn't do it, someone will kill him. I 
assume that's what Myrtle knows and not much more. 

Maybe she could make some conclusions after what happened to Katie 
and Ron, but since she lives pretty withdrawn, I'm not sure how much 
she knows. I think even most students thought, that Ron's poisoning 
was an accident, because he was in the Potions' master's office. Or 
am I misremembering this? Therefore it's hardly surprising, if Myrtle 
doesn't susprct Draco to be behind this.

 






From belviso at attglobal.net  Thu Mar 16 15:05:31 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:05:31 -0000
Subject: seeds of betrayal
In-Reply-To: <dvbpk4+oigj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvburr+10lhj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149708

Alla:
> Well, yes that is true of course, but woudn't you agree that the 
only 
> reason for Snape's anger we DO see in the Shack is the Prank?

Magpie:
This isn't directed at me, but I wouldn't agree it's the only reason 
for Snape's anger we see.  Snape's primarily trying to get Sirius 
captured as the murderer of James and Lily.  I believe he references 
James' arrogance at not believing Snape back then as well.  I've 
never read that scene as being primarily about the Prank--the Prank 
is part of the history, and it's something Snape is always going to 
see as important, but part of the reason for that is that it can't 
be untangled from everything that happened after that--things got 
worse.  I read it as Snape wanting to be the capturer of the Traitor 
Sirius Black--which imo fits Snape's later behavior towards Sirius.  
He still hates him just as much, but he's not desperate to get him 
sent to Azkaban or have his soul sucked out. Sirius is still guilty 
of the Prank, but is no longer guilty of betraying James' secret.  
The Prank will always probably be a prime example of Sirius' 
worthlessness to Snape, but I don't think it's the only thing 
fueling him all year in PoA, or in that last scene.

-m








From mgrantwich at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 16 15:53:50 2006
From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 07:53:50 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's half truths in "Spinner's End"
In-Reply-To: <dv53ku+89r7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060316155350.93835.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149709

--- justcarol67 <justcarol67 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Carol responds:
> I agree with Magpie that Snape would have known from the
> face-stomping
> incident that Harry was not the target. More important, why would
> Narcissa be so fearful about Draco trying to kill Harry? It would
> be easy, at least in Narcissa's view. 


I don't quite understand why Snape would have known that Harry wasn't
the target from the face-stomping incident.  All that would have
"proved" was that Draco hadn't succeeded in his attempt: he might
have been interupted, he might have chickened out, he might have been
not clear how to do it properly.  And why would Snape know that he'd
simply stepped on Harry rather than tried something more dangerous? 
I would assume that a neophyte would need more than one chance to get
it right.  So I don't see this objection as valid.

As for Narcissa being fearful or thinking that killing Harry is easy
- I very much disagree!  There would be a very good likelihood that
Draco would get caught quite quickly, assuming he didn't muff it and
out himself as a wanna-be killer first.  Killing Harry in a setting
where everyone knows you've hated him and his friends for six years
would be a good way to be the Number One Suspect in a matter of
seconds.  

I think my theory is quite plausible, based on characters'
motivations and thought processes.  I certainly don't think it's
obvious that DUmbledore was the target.

Magda 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From sydpad at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 16 17:14:06 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 17:14:06 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dvar4s+bdin@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvc6cu+in1g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149710

Pre-note from Sydney:

***************************

Okay, I just realized that for this entire post I'd been
writing "anklebracelet!Snape" when I meant "anklemonitor!Snape".
Must.. stop.. being.. such.. a girl..

Anklemonitor!Snape is dangerous, essentailly unreformed Death Eater
who is bound by a magical Life Debt Ankle Monitor that gives powerful
shocks;  this ensures that he will protect Harry from harm but has no
other effect on his personality or goals.

Anklebracelet!Snape lives in Malibu and enjoys surfing and long walks
on the beach.  He hasn't been a Death Eater since he went to that
Buddhist retreat in Ojai, dude.  He's much, much scarier.

I was just going to leave it with the correction in the reply, but I
couldn't read the initial post without cracking up, so... deleted
inital post, replaced the offending phrase, re-posted.  I didn't touch
anything else in the post, even my horrible spelling.

On with the show:

*******************************************************



*rubs hands together*

> ****************************
> Harry: did Professor McGonagall told you what I told her after Katie
> was hurt? About Draco Malfoy?
>
> Dumbledore: She told you of your suspicions, yes.
>
> Harry: and do you ?
>
> Dumbledore: I shall take all appropriate measures to investigate
> anyone who might have had a hand in Katie's accident".

And so he did.  He's being evasive, for the very good reason that if
Draco was caught he'd be killed by Voldemort, but he's not lying.  "I
trust Snape completely" is lying, in your initial scenario of
anklemonitor!Snape.

>And yet he doesn't even bother
> warning Harry to be on his guard, or indicating in any way that
> Harry's suspicions might indeed be in the right direction.

Well, of course not.  Harry having the smallest encouragement to pay
MORE attention to Draco would endanger BOTH of them MORE.  Draco isn't
targeting Harry.  And as Dumbledore says to Draco on the tower, he
didn't dare involve anyone else because V-mort would kill Draco if he
suspected he was wavering or going to get caught.  It's pretty clear
to me what D-dore is doing here.

Wheras, the Order would most definitely have to be on their guard
against anklemonitor!Snape. And while it would be important for
'D-dore doesn't really trust him but gives it a go'!Snape to maintiain
his cover on V-mort's side by appearing pretty in with the Order, it's
not clear to me at all why Dumbledore would go whole hog and start
telling all and sundry that he trusts Snape completely and not hearing
a word against him.  It's not necessary, the way D-dore's sophistry,
if you will, was necessary above.  Nothing could be easier than for
D-dore to keep Snape useful as spy to both sides, enough so that
V-mort wouldn't kill him, but not so close as to endanger other people
by saying things like (I hate to keep bringing this up) "I trust
Severus Snape completely".  Kind of like he did with Draco, actually.
I mean, geez, Dumbledore never told Harry to trust Draco or that Draco
was harmless, he told him that what Draco was doing wasn't important
to Harry and that Dumbledore was doing what he could to take care of
it, and it would be best if Harry just kept out of it. All true.

You say D-dore wouldn't say "I trust Pettigrew completely" because
it's not necessary, Peter isn't in a position of trust.  Well, of
course he's not. You'd have to be insane to put Peter in a position of
trust just because of a Life Debt to one person.  Because you would
know that he would still find a way to do damage and you, well,
couldn't trust him.  Because Peter is just exactly the sort of shifty,
amoral, totally OFH! guy that anklemonitor!Snape is meant to be.  Who
no one in their right mind would go around cheerfully telling people
they 'trust completely' because of a life debt.

> ***************************
> Harry: It's about Malfoy and Snape.
>
> Dumbledore: *Professor* Snape, Harry.
>
> Harry: "Yes Sir, I overheard them during Professor Slughorn's party...
> <describes what he overheard>.
>
> Dumbledore: Thank you for telling me this, Harry, but I suggest that
> you put this out of your mind. I do not think this is of great
> importance."

It's not of great importance, to Dumbledore (because he already knows
what's going on), or to Harry, because it has nothing to do with him.
  Ron getting hit with the potion was a co-oincidence that could never
have been foreseen by Dumbledore.  Anklemonitor!Snape getting a bit
of petty vengeance on Lupin by arranging for him to be at the wrong
place at the wrong time could be anticipated by any idiot, especially
after Snape's antics in PoA.


> ***********************************
> Harry: Professor Trelawney was just in the room of requirement ... and
> she heard Malfoy wooping! Celebrating! He's trying to mend something
> in there and if you ask me, he's fixed it at last and you're about to
> walk out of the school without ?
>
> Dumbledore: Enough. Do you think that I have once left the school
> unprotected during my absences this year? I have not. Tonight, when I
> leave, there will again be additional protection in place. Please do
> not suggest that I do not take the safety of my students seriously,
Harry.
> *********************************

Okay, here I don't even see the pervarications at all.  He had the
Order there, he says on the tower he thought is was impossible for
Draco to succeed in bringing DE's to the school.  As far as he has any
reason to expect, it's half the Order against one scared kid (OMG--
shades of the DoM!).  He takes the saftey of all his students,
including Draco, seriously.  Like Ron and the poison, you're nudging
what was an unanticipated, and unaticipatable, error, into something
Dumbledore was pervaricating about, in order to prove that D-dore is
habitually lying.  He habitually conceals information if he thinks it
will make people safer (although he had to balance the immideate
danger to Draco against a slight chance of danger to Harry and others
in the first two examples, a choice which must have been difficult but
which was probably the right one).  I don't think he conceals
information to put people MORE in danger, as he would be doing by
issuing his blanket statements about Snape.

> Also, he apparently doesn't station Snape or anybody else to follow
> Draco that night, and he doesn't instruct the Order guards to watch
> the RoR But "there will be additional protection" and " I take the
> safety of my student seriously". Gee, don't you feel safer already?

By the way, I have a theory about why Snape wasn't watching Draco that
night!  Want to hear it? <g> It's merely a little theory.  It's just
that I can't get over how weird it was that Dumbledore tells Harry to
go 'wake' Snape.  I mean, Snape is a known insomniac, it's just like,
midnight, it's the big crazy night where everything is about to Go
Down.  And Snape-- busybody SNAPE?!-- is going to say, "Yawn!  well, I
guess I'll go to bed.  Wake me up if anything interesting happens".
Yeah, right.  I happen to think that after the heated argument in the
forest, Snape told Dumbledore that he could sod off, he was through,
he was just going to kick back and let the s**t hit the fan and if he
dropped dead, well that was just too bad for the Good side, because
they wouldn't have Severus Snape to kick around any more.  I think, in
fact, that that night, Snape was all set to do his Hero thing, stop
Draco from doing the deed, and drop dead, oh Poor Martyred Snape.  And
Dumbledore knocked him out.  Which is why he was so sure Snape would
need waking, and why he was just sitting fully dressed in his office
when Flitwick burst in. Anyways, like I said, it's just a little
theory.  I'm not putting money on it.

Neri:
> He knew for sure, as he later admits on the tower, that Draco was
working
> for Voldemort, and yet he endangered the whole school, his own
> precious students, in order to give Draco a true chance to choose
> right from wrong.

No, he put his school in some danger, which he did everything he could
to stem, from a very frightened kid, in order to definitely save that
kid's life.  "I knew that you would have been murdered if Lord
Voldemort realized that I suspected you".

>Are you so sure that Sophist!Dumbledore would deny
> that same right from LID!Snape, even if it endangers some Order
> members?

Yup.

I mean, I'm sure Dumbledore would have chosen his words as cautiously
with them as he did in Draco's situation, in order to maximize
EVERYONE'S saftey.

>After all, LID!Snape is practically insured, by the deepest
> magic there is, to save Harry's life, and unlike Draco he wasn't yet
> working for Voldemort, at least not that Dumbledore knew.

See, now, you throw these little things in, and I just have to know
what you mean.  At what point did Dumbledore not know that Snape was
working for Voldemort?


> So what would our Sophist!Dumbledore say to Lupin or another Order
> member who suspects LID!Snape? If he says "I trust Snape to save
> Harry's life but I don't *really* trust him", this would just alienate
> Snape more. Pretty quick nobody in the Order will want any connection
> with him, and in the end he'll have no choice but going to Voldemort's
> side.

*furrows brow*.  Erm... I thought the whole point was that Snape had
no choice but to stay on Dumbledore's side?  Which is why Dumbledore
trusts him completely?  *tries to furrow brow and raise brow at the
same time, hurts self*.  What have we been arguing about again?  Have
I been missing your whole point?  Could anklebracelet!Snape actually
just return to Voldemort if his feelings were sufficiently hurt?

[ed.:  I left this instance in, because anklebracelet!Snape would
totally have his feelings hurt]


Neri:
> Like I explained several times before, LID!Snape *doesn't* share
> Voldemort's goals. At the very least he must save Harry's life at
> least once before he can truly be on Voldemort's side. Even after the
> end of Book 6, when he is officially on Voldemort's side, he still
> must save Harry's life, so he is effectively an agent of "our side"
> within the enemy's camp. Does that means he's on "our side" or not?

Um, not?

"Kill Harry" is only one item on Voldemort's to-do list.  Last time I
checked, 'terrorize people', 'kill all who oppose me', 'randomly
torture muggles', and 'take over the world' were also on the list.
Oh, and 'conquer death' (note to Voldemort:  you might have more
success at achieving your goals if you narrow your focus.  Hey, I have
the same problem, I empathise).  Nothing in the Life Debt would
prevent Snape from participating in any of those, which would be
rather more to the point to all these people Dumbledore is telling
that Snape is on their side.  Anyways, I see no reason to believe that
Snape is in agreement with Dumbledore that Harry is the only person
who can kill Voldemort.  Doesn't he keep telling him that he's neither
special nor important?

> Neri:
> if Dumbledore fully believed in Snape's remorse, LID
> still works just as well. Dumbledore simply believed Snape's remorse
> was genuine, really trusted him completely, and was wrong about it.

<SNIP>

> Ah, I see that you simply prefer another version of LID!Snape. Say, a
> version in which the Life Debt is kind of a poetical magic
> highlighting Snape's own remorse. Well, I'm quite open to this
> version, if it works well with the canon. As I said, LID!Snape can
> have as many versions as LOLLIPOPS.

So, basically you're a DDM!Snaper? <g> Because to me it looks like
you're just taking the basic DDM!Snape, the angry guy who hates most
people on his side but feels duty-bound to see out the defeat of
Voldemort, and using a magical prosthesis (using the term again
because it makes me feel clever) to replace the emotional content.  I
think anklemonitor!Snape sort of works with Snape from the text,
because obviously his motives are being kept off-screen and he's
actively trying to conceal them; and whatever is making him serve the
Good side, it isn't making him very happy.  Anguished remorse over
Lily does the same thing but:

--works with Snape's 'hearts on sleeves' speech which is like the
Snape rosetta stone if you ask me;

--works better with the Love theme (remember?  theme of the books?);

--makes sense of why it's suddenly important that Lily was a potions
whiz and gives her a role in book 7 ('awful boy', anyone?);

--prevents Dumbledore from turning into a dangerous liar for no reason;

--keeps "Severus... please..." clear and meaningful and heartbreaking--

--Oh!  and actually demands some emotional movement from Harry, which
seems pretty vital for any sort of Snape theory.

-- Sydney, who supposes she's a LD!Snape in the sense that she thinks
it will come up again, but in that case, isn't everybody?

*********************************

Sydney, thanking everyone for their patience, and hoping she doesn't
crack up randomly in meetings today imagining dialogue for
anklebracelet!Snape.






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 16 18:41:20 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:41:20 -0000
Subject: Portkey in GOF - Logistics
In-Reply-To: <dv7ilv+ilge@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvcbgg+kn27@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149711

Amiable Dorsai wrote:
<snip> 
> A common criminal, a Wormtail, maybe, would sneak Harry out of the
> castle behind everyone's back.  *Lord Voldemort*, bold as brass,
> snatches Harry while Dumbledore and half the Ministry are watching.
> 
> Think of the message this sends to his enemies: "I can get anybody,
> anywhere.  The Ministry can't stop me, Dumbledore can't save you. 
> Capitulate now, while you still can."
> 
> I'll bet Act 2 would have had a Death Eater Portkey back to Hogwarts
> with Harry's corpse, fire a Dark Mark into the sky, and Portkey back
> out, leaving Harry's lifeless body behind. Imagine the propaganda value.
> 
> On the other end, an ordinary murderer would use Harry's blood, then
> kill him while he was still tied down, but that doesn't do much to
> re-establish Lord Voldemort in his follower's (disciple's?) minds. 
> Dueling Harry, and effortlessly converting him to the Boy Who
Snuffed It, while the Death Eaters watch, that's the way to get back
that old mystique.
> 
> Pity it didn't go according to script.


Carol responds:
I agree that Voldemort wants drama, but that's not the only reason
that he and Crouch!Moody (who also likes drama, IMO) arrange this
complicated plan.

As I said in an earlier post, 149551,

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149551

the portkey can't just be casually presented to Harry so that he'll go
zooming to wherever Voldemort is at the time. Voldemort has to know
exactly when and where Harry will appear--in the graveyard, where his
father's bones lie, when the heavy cauldron is in place and the potion
is prepared. All of the ingredients--bone of the father, flesh of the
servant, blood of the enemy--must be at hand, along with the
preliminary potion to which the key ingredients are added. And *then*
the drama comes into play: Harry snatched from under the eyes of all
those spectators; resurrected!Voldemort appearing to his followers and
defeating the Boy Who Lived once and for all under their eyes. But
that, too, requires specific timing and a specific place, the site of
his resurrection and the desecration of his father's grave. 

Even if Crouch!Moody could have managed to enchant some other object
as a portkey, give it to Harry in his office, and send Harry to the
Riddle House or wherever Voldie was at the time, Voldie would have had
to keep Harry around as a captive until the huge, heavy cauldron was
in the graveyard and the potion was ready, which may have been a
time-consuming process. If Veritaserum takes a full-moon cycle to
prepare (OoP) and polyjuice potion takes about a month to prepare
(CoS), surely a potion to restore a vaporized body would take many
months. This potion is so complicated that it requires an incantation
as well as the proper ingredients--whatever was in that sparkling,
bubbling potion *before* the bone, flesh, and blood were added--and
Wormtail is in no position to run down to Diagon Alley or Knockturn
Alley to buy the other ingredients. He has to obtain them himself,
even if that means killing a unicorn.

Much better for Voldie if Crouch!Moody acts according to plan, waiting
till everything is ready for the moment of triumph. Voldie can, in
theory, kill Harry any time, but his restoration to semi-human form
must be carefully orchestrated and carefully timed. Having the TWT cup
as the portkey (and having Crouch!Moody insure that Harry wins it)
guarantees that Harry will be in the right place at the right time for
Voldie to carry out his plan. No other object would have the same effect.

Carol, noting that Barty Jr. probably got some sadistic pleasure out
of watching Harry suffer along the way to what was supposed to be a
very short-lived victory






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Mar 16 18:56:35 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:56:35 -0000
Subject: Maligning Lupin
In-Reply-To: <dvbnog+s9af@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvccd3+u32s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149712

> 
> Renee:
> ?? I thought I was talking about zero evidence, actually. If every
> sheep anyone had ever seen in the world was black, would we have
> reason to believe in the existence of white sheep?  
> 
 Pippin:

We haven't heard from everyone in the wizarding world.
We've heard from Lupin saying nearly all the werewolves are on 
Voldemort's side because they think they'd be better off under his
rule than under the ministry. He says they're out for blood. It sounds 
monstrous.

But...

Hermione  was out for Umbridge's blood, so is she a monster too?

One could also say that nearly all wizards are on Umbridge's side 
because they think they'd be better off under the Ministry than 
under Voldemort. Was Dumbledore abetting evil when he rescued
Umbridge from the centaurs? 

We might, if we knew something about animals but not much about 
sheep, remind ourselves that animals come in all colors, and be 
suspicious of the motives of anyone trying to convince us that sheep 
are different by virtue of being sheep.


Pippin:
 > I firmly believe that JKR will show us that ESE!Lupin's efforts to
> be good weren't  futile because  he was a werewolf. They were 
 futile because he never had the courage to make himself accountable 
 for what he'd done.
> >
> 
> Renee:
> It looks as if you're wielding your own theory as an argument again.
> Lupin has held himself accountable for the things we've seen him do,
> or rather, omit in canon. The rest is speculation. 

Pippin:
Nope, not speculating. When did he tell Snape that he was sorry he'd
performed so miserably as a prefect? When did he apologize to  Harry
for letting Pettigrew escape? When did he apologize to Dumbledore 
for failing to tell him about Sirius or the Marauder's Map? Resigning 
his job doesn't count since he'd have lost it anyway. 


 He let Harry think he'd be available at the end of OOP when he knew 
he was going on  secret missions (OOP ch 6 p 118-US) and 
might not be around. 

When has he said, "Hey, I let you down and I'd like to make amends."


Renee:
> Also, if your ESE!Lupin's failure to be good was not caused or
> influenced by his lycanthropy, then neither was his turning evil. Yet
> you do relate his fall to his rejection by society, if I recall
> correctly. And his rejection by society has everything to do with his
> being a werewolf. I also seem to recall it had something to do with
> being sent to spy on the werewolves during the first Voldemort War,
> and identifying with them to such a degree that he turned against the
> Wizarding World. 

Pippin:
::sigh:: Why does it have to be either or? 

I've said many times that I can't prove ESE!Lupin. I can only show that
if you read the books that way it all works. It passes the Magpie Test
with flying colors. The rationale for Lupin joining Voldemort can be 
foreseen in the Marauder outings and in his failure to report what he 
knew about Sirius:

a)  society presented him with a forbidden, guilt-inducing opportunity
 that was more attractive than doing what he felt was right
and
b) Lupin chose to pursue it

It's true that all the characters have flaws. There are times when
the reader thinks a character's conscience ought to kick in and it doesn't:
Harry's lying, Dumbledore's detachment, Hermione's meddling, Ron's
chauvinism and general cluelessness. 

But when Harry does feel remorseful about something, he changes his 
ways. Most of the other good characters do too: the only one I can 
think of who didn't is Hagrid, whose promise in PS/SS to give up 
drinking bore no fruit. 

But that only happens once. Lupin does the same thing,
he tells us, over and over again. He argues his conscience into
submission or he forgets his guilty feelings. Again and again
and again. Harry doesn't do that.


Sherry:
Since JKR has said that lupine represents disability or illness, ESE lupine
is an outcome I just can't accept, and it would probably be the worst
possible scenario for me of any possible outcomes. 

Pippin:
Erm, no. If we're thinking of the same quote, she said that Lupin is
a metaphor for the *attitudes* of people toward illness and disability.
Not the same thing at all. He's a vehicle for showing how other 
people react. If he disillusions us and we say, you know, I'm usually
against prejudice, but in this case the wizards have a point, what does 
that say about us? That we're only against prejudice as long as we're
sure that the only victims we'll have to deal with are sweet old
Uncle Toms? Bleh!


JKR really upped the stakes by introducing Fenrir. It made anti-werewolf
bias a lot more understandable but no less wrong. If Lupin is bad
it will be even more understandable. And it will still be wrong. I trust
JKR to be able to get that across. 

Christina:

This is why ESE!Lupin is so paradoxical to me...Lupin is "too
cowardly" to admit to his mentor that he betrayed his trust, but he
has the guts to kill his supposed best friend with DD standing in the
same room? 

Pippin:
He's more afraid of being found out than of killing. Again this is
not speculation: we see it in the Shrieking Shack. If you're asking
me why some people are like this, I don't know, but it seems the
same as the guy who'd kill his wife rather than be caught cheating
on her. I'd guess it's a control thing, which would tie it to the
theme of power vs love. 

Pippin







From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Thu Mar 16 19:09:45 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 19:09:45 -0000
Subject: JKR website - Quintaped
In-Reply-To: <20060316140625.71971.qmail@web35614.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dvcd5p+2ltp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149713

Flop:
> I have never seen metal referred to as an element, but
> various other fantasy series that I have read have
> introduced a fifth element. Elizabeth Haydon has Ether
> as the fifth element, the substance her world's
> legends say the stars are made from. My personal
> favourite is in Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time, in
> which the fifth element is Spirit. Or how about the
> movie The Fifth Element, in which the fifth element
> was... Mila Jovovich.

Ceridwen:
In Chinese Feng Shui, there are five elements: Earth, Water, Wood, 
Fire, and Metal (not sure about the order, but the order counts).  
The Western system has four elements: Fire, Earth, Air and Water.  
Some New Age sites cite Ether as a fifth element or the 'center', the 
person himself, and some cite Spirit.

If there is any symbolism to the five-legged Quintaped, then maybe 
Hogwarts itself is the 'fifth', or the 'joining'?

Ceridwen.






From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Thu Mar 16 19:46:05 2006
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:46:05 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Portkey in GOF - Logistics
In-Reply-To: <dvakml+jdug@eGroups.com>
References: <700201d40603151652o3c09101ay30e26d616366c86b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <dvakml+jdug@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <700201d40603161146j6347f179y8a719d6912fb9fd1@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149714

 > Kemper:
>
> >
> > That isn't theater, that's terror.
>
> Amiable Dorsai counters:  Terrorism is theater.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/po9eg
>

..
.
Kemper now:
Your link is to an article by The Council of Foreign Affairs, a powerful,
private organization with heavy influence on US foreign policy.  Besides
Jimmy Carter (best ex-prez ever, except for his disdain for not wanting to
label Frankenfood), I find it difficult to believe that other members, past
and present (Big Bush, Clinton, Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Rice, Powell,
Kissinger, Nixon, McNamara, and Gingrich) have or had the People of
America's best interest in mind when privately developing foreign policy.

That said, are you saying that if the TWT wasn't happening, Harry wouldn't
be snatched until the next big event, like the QWC because there wouldn't be
enough people around to appreciate the theater?

Kemper, who earlier said what Carol said, only much less articulately, and
who appreciates her gift of clarity


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




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Mar 16 19:48:27 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 19:48:27 -0000
Subject: seeds of betrayal
In-Reply-To: <dvbpk4+oigj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvcfeb+c148@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149715


> Alla:
> 
> Well, yes that is true of course, but woudn't you agree that the only 
> reason for Snape's anger we DO see in the Shack is the Prank?
> 

Pippin:
Um, no. Snape makes it clear that he is considering the betrayal
of the Potters, and upset because Harry doesn't recognize
the danger he is in and is protecting his parents' betrayer

"I have just saved your neck, you should be thanking me on 
bended knee! You'd have been well served if he'd killed you!
You'd have died like your father, too arrogant to believe you 
might be mistaken in Black -- now get out of the way or I will 
*make* you, GET OUT OF THE WAY, POTTER!"

Dumbledore says himself there was ample reason to consider Sirius
guilty.  Snape brings up the prank in the HW instead of any of those other
reasons because Sirius would have had to account for them already
to convince Dumbledore he was innocent. 

Pippin






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 16 20:28:53 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 20:28:53 -0000
Subject: When did Draco Imperius Rosmerta? (was: Re: CHAPDISC: hbp12, Silver and Opals)
In-Reply-To: <dvar6g+8nik@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvchq5+50dt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149716

> >>lyraofjordan:
> > > 10) If Malfoy was in detention, how did the necklace end up at 
> > > the Three Broomsticks?
 
> >>Carol:
> Good question! Draco couldn't have taken it on the train and      
> dropped it off at Hogsmeade instead of taking the carriages to    
> Hogwarts. I think that he bought it by owl order once he started  
> to worry about not being able to fix the Vanishing Cabinet but had 
> Borgin send it, wrapped in plain brown paper, to Madam Rosmerta,   
> to be picked up by its owner later. He may have had the idea for   
> the Imperius curse working through a coin and the bottle of       
> poisoned mead at about the same time. All he'd need to do would be 
> to use the cursed coin to buy some butterbeer on the first         
> Hogsmeade weekend, and once she was under his control, he could   
> carry out the rest of his plan.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
But, this chapter occurs *during* the first Hogsmeade weekend.  I 
can see delivery being made to the Three Broomsticks (students must 
get their contrabrand sent *somewhere* and I can see Madam Rosmerta 
turning a fond blind-eye) but when does Draco Imperius her?   
According to McGonagall he's had no opportunity to get down to 
Hogsmead that day because of his detention.

> >>Carol:
> BTW, someone made the suggestion that "Zabini" in this chapter was 
> polyjuiced Draco, but that would have to mean that Blaise was     
> cooperating with Draco and taking his detention for him. I didn't 
> get the idea that they were close, or that Blaise is a budding DE 
> despite his snooty personality.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
That was me!  And it's only because I'm trying to figure out *when* 
Draco got down to Hogsmeade to Imperius Madam Rosmerta.  It couldn't 
have been before time, unless Prefects have some sort of special 
pass we've never heard of.  The stepped up security would make it 
very hard for Draco to sneak off campus, I'd think.

I'm not positive Blaise was a polyjuiced Draco.  It's just strange 
that his presence was even brought to our attention, so I'm making a 
leap.  Though if it *was* polyjuice there's no reason to assume that 
Blaise is in on the plan.  In fact, given Crabbe and Goyle, I 
seriously doubt Draco told *anyone* about his activities.  But it'd 
have been easy enough for him to either pay Blaise (as he does with 
his Quidditch substitute), or to recognize that he seriously owes 
Blaise one.  He and Blaise seem to get on, and I can see Draco 
wheedling that sort of favor out of him.  (Crabbe or Goyle would be 
a bad choice since McGonagall has Draco doing academic work.)

However, if Blaise is Blaise, it still leaves the question of 
exactly *when* Draco put Madam Rosmerta under the Imperius.

Betsy Hp






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 16 20:35:49 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 20:35:49 -0000
Subject: Barty Crouch Jr (was:Re: HBP Chapter discusiion Ch 12 : Silver and OPals)
In-Reply-To: <20060316040212.11832.qmail@web30209.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dvci75+6pme@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149717

> >>D.A Jones:
> <snip>
> One flaw of JKR which is actually endearing is that when she        
> writes herself into a corner she often gets out of it by creating   
> a character (i.e Barty Crouch Jr is the worst example.)
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I like your thought that Leanne was probably Alicia Spinnet (see 
upthread) but I'm surprised by what you say about Barty Crouch, Jr.  I 
loved the back story to this character and I thought it was a good 
forshadowing of the fall of the house of Black.  I'm curious what you 
see about this character that makes him the "worst example" of... 
well, an empty or wasted character I guess.

I'm also curious as to what corner JKR wrote herself into that needed 
the Crouch family story to get out of it.

Betsy Hp






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 16 20:59:03 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 20:59:03 -0000
Subject: Raging Snape / Draco's Redemption / JKR's Plots (was:Re: seeds of betrayal)
In-Reply-To: <dv9rnn+disp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvcjin+2tid@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149718

> Magpie:
> 
> With Draco I think she was equally careful.  He *has* done things 
> that are very bad--in fact, he himself responds to Dumbledore 
saying 
> he's not a killer by saying DD "doesn't know what [he's] done."  I 
> think that's a good sign, actually, because Draco is not denying 
his 
> own part in what happened to Katie and Ron.  

a_svirn:
No, he's not denying it. He's boasting about it. When Voldemort is 
boasting about his heroic deeds is it also a good sign? 

> Magpie:
>
>On the contrary, I 
> think it's significant that both times Harry notices Malfoy 
looking 
> physically unwell it's after one of these murder attempts 
(attempts 
> that were subconciously meant to not kill their victim, as 
> Dumbledore surmises--it's like pointing a gun but aiming badly) 
has 
> harmed someone.  

a_svirn:
What does it mean "subconsciously meant"? Either it is meant or it 
is not. If you aiming your gun badly because you are a bad shot or 
so sick with fear, that you your aim is unsteady, then it is nothing 
to you credit. If, on the contrary, you are deliberately aiming your 
gun off the mark, then you are damn well *consciously* deloping. 


> Magpie:
>So I disagree that Draco would have felt no remorse 
> if these two had been killed.  

a_svirn:
So what if he did feel remorse? Would it make him any less of a 
murderer? I am sure Pettigrew feels remorse. Maybe even Lucius now 
and then who's to say? 

> Magpie:
>His physical disintegration is no, 
> imo, due to just frustration at things going awry.  Iow, I agree 
> with Dumbledore that these attempts are signs that he's not a 
> killer, not that he's just a bad planner.  

a_svirn:
He's not such a bad planner after all. Dumbledore is dead, isn't he? 







From Nanagose at aol.com  Thu Mar 16 21:04:43 2006
From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 21:04:43 -0000
Subject: Maligning Lupin
In-Reply-To: <dvccd3+u32s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvcjtb+p33a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149719

> Pippin:
> But...
> Hermione was out for Umbridge's blood, so is she a monster too?

Christina:

Hermione leading Umbridge to the Centaurs is a decision that she makes
when Umbridge is about the Crucio Harry.  Self-defense.  The
werewolves purposefully attack innocent people.  There's a difference.


>> Renee:
>> It looks as if you're wielding your own theory as an argument 
>> again. Lupin has held himself accountable for the things we've seen
>> him do, or rather, omit in canon. The rest is speculation. 

> Pippin:
> Nope, not speculating. When did he tell Snape that he was sorry he'd
> performed so miserably as a prefect? When did he apologize to  Harry
> for letting Pettigrew escape? When did he apologize to Dumbledore 
> for failing to tell him about Sirius or the Marauder's Map? 

Christina:

Like you said yourself,

> Wait, wait. As we're always telling each other on this list, 
> inadequate evidence does not become adequate by virtue of being the
> only evidence available.

Christina:

We are extremely limited in the information we get from the books
because of Harry's POV.  If Lupin was going to apologize to Dumbledore
or to Snape, why on earth would he do it in front of Harry?  And as
for letting Pettigrew escape...Lupin obviously recognizes that he has
made a mistake.  The fact that he resigned isn't important - what
matters is the fact that he resigned *because* he recognized the
danger he had put everyone in... "And after last night, I see their
point.  I could have bitten any of you....That must never happen
again."  Not everybody apologizes in the same way, and Lupin is not an
emotional man.  "I mustn't do it again," is an apology itself.

And...When did the twins apologize to Dudley for enlarging his tongue?
 When did Hagrid apologize to Dudley for giving him a tail?  When did
Harry apologize to his aunt for blowing her up?  When did Sirius tell
Snape he was sorry for bullying him as a child?  When did Sirius
apologize to Lupin for the outings when they were younger?  When did
Sirius apologize to Lupin for leading Snape to the Shack?  And on, and
on.  People do not always come out and apologize for things, but they
can try to right their wrongs, which I and other posters have shown
for Lupin.


> Pippin:
> He let Harry think he'd be available at the end of OOP when he knew 
> he was going on  secret missions (OOP ch 6 p 118-US) and 
> might not be around. 

Christina:

Do we know when DD asked Lupin to start spying on the werewolves?


> Pippin:
> The rationale for Lupin joining Voldemort can be 
> foreseen in the Marauder outings and in his failure to report what 
> he knew about Sirius:
> 
> a)  society presented him with a forbidden, guilt-inducing 
> opportunity that was more attractive than doing what he felt was 
> right and
> b) Lupin chose to pursue it

Christina:

I still feel that this completely ignores the reasons behind Lupin's
decisions.  He ignored his guilt over his outings with the Marauders
because they were his friends and he wanted friends.  He failed to
report what he knew about Sirius because he didn't want to admit his
failures to DD.  So why would he consciously choose to go around
killing those friends and continuing to rack up actions that would
disappoint DD?  Lupin keeps his mouth shut because he *likes* what the
WW has done for him and he wants to keep those benefits.  That just
does not swing with a Lupin that believes that he would have a better
life under Voldemort.  And I still think that using the Marauder
outings as evidence for Lupin's tendencies to ignore evildoings is a
stretch - after all, it was James and Sirius (and Peter) that led him
on those outings in the first place.  And they *never* show remorse
for that.  The same goes for SWM.


> Pippin:
> But that only happens once. Lupin does the same thing, he tells us,
> over and over again. He argues his conscience into submission or he
> forgets his guilty feelings. Again and again and again. Harry 
> doesn't do that.

Christina:

Again, I and other posters have made the case for Lupin's "changing of
his ways."  Lupin let his friends get away with stuff as a kid, but he
keeps Sirius firmly in check during OotP.  He lied via omission to DD,
but clings fiercely to his ways in HBP.

And then we have the hallmark case of the guy who just can't change
his ways - Sirius, who *still* needles Snape, who has never uttered a
single word of remorse for bullying him and putting him and Lupin in
danger.  Even after James cleans up his act for Lily, he also
continues his rivalry with Snape.


>> Sherry:
>> Since JKR has said that lupine represents disability or illness, 
>> ESE lupine is an outcome I just can't accept, and it would probably
>> be the worst possible scenario for me of any possible outcomes. 
 
> Pippin:
> Erm, no. If we're thinking of the same quote, she said that Lupin is
> a metaphor for the *attitudes* of people toward illness and 
> disability. Not the same thing at all. He's a vehicle for showing 
> how other people react.

Christina:

He is not a vehicle to simply show us how other people react, he is a
vehicle to show us that how other people react is wrong.

> Pippin:
> JKR really upped the stakes by introducing Fenrir.  It made 
> anti-werewolf bias a lot more understandable but no less wrong. If 
> Lupin is bad it will be even more understandable. And it will still
> be wrong. I trust JKR to be able to get that across.

Christina:

But why would she want to?  It sounds like JKR had exactly the
thoughts you did - we must still fight for justice even when people of
a minority group fulfill our fears - and slipped in Fenrir Greyback to
solve that problem.


>> Christina:
>> This is why ESE!Lupin is so paradoxical to me...Lupin is "too
>> cowardly" to admit to his mentor that he betrayed his trust, but he
>> has the guts to kill his supposed best friend with DD standing in
>> the same room? 

> Pippin:
> He's more afraid of being found out than of killing. Again this is
> not speculation: we see it in the Shrieking Shack. If you're asking
> me why some people are like this, I don't know, but it seems the
> same as the guy who'd kill his wife rather than be caught cheating
> on her. I'd guess it's a control thing, which would tie it to the
> theme of power vs love. 

Christina:

That was my point.  Perhaps I should have emphasized it.  You say that
ESE!Lupin is afraid to get caught, but he apparently sends his best
friend through the veil **with DD standing in the same room**.  For
somebody that is terrified of getting caught doing something wrong,
Lupin is awfully brazen here.  And the kicker is - there is no need
for him to be!  Lupin has a hundred opportunities to kill Sirius
throughout the series, not the least of which being the Shrieking
Shack scene in PoA, where Lupin could have easily apprehended Sirius
or called for more help instead of taking the time to *exonerate* him.
 ESE!Lupin is terrified of being caught - so terrified, in fact, that
he murders his best friend while in the same room as Albus Dumbledore,
the head of the Auror department, and a paranoid ex-Auror.  That isn't
even taking into account the fact that Harry Potter is staring in
rapture at the duel.  I can't help but find all of that a bit ridiculous.

And...that Lupin is more afraid of being found out than of killing is
not an appropriate conclusion to draw from the Shrieking Shack.  Maybe
if killing Peter would have covered Lupin's tracks somehow, but it
doesn't.  With a straight reading, Peter is really nasty and has
wronged Sirius and Lupin in an intimate way.  You can't say that Lupin
isn't afraid of killing just because he is willing to kill a lying,
back-stabbing murderer.  Sirius is willing to do the same, and Harry
has shown desire to inflict harm on people who have wronged him before
also.

The example of somebody rather killing their wife rather than admit to
cheating is also off - Lupin doesn't try to kill Dumbledore, he tries
to kill an evil and dangerous traitor.

Christina






From sydpad at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 16 21:25:56 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 21:25:56 -0000
Subject: When did Draco Imperius Rosmerta? (was: Re: CHAPDISC: hbp12, Silver and Opals)
In-Reply-To: <dvchq5+50dt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvcl54+cc7q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149721


> Betsy Hp:
> But, this chapter occurs *during* the first Hogsmeade weekend.  I 
> can see delivery being made to the Three Broomsticks (students must 
> get their contrabrand sent *somewhere* and I can see Madam Rosmerta 
> turning a fond blind-eye) but when does Draco Imperius her? 

*raises hand*  Are we sure that it was even Draco who performed the
Imperius Curse?  JKR didn't seem to want to have Draco successfully
kill anyone, and he was cut off before he could try the Crucio; I'm
not sure she'd want to have him do what is literally called an
Unforgivable successfully. 

Dumbledore asks how long Rosmerta has been under Imperius, and Draco
says "Figured it out at last?".  It would be lot safer to rely on
someone experienced like Bellatrix, who we know already taught him
Occlumency in order to help him with his mission (and stymie Snape!).
 And Draco tells Snape that he has 'other help, better help', directly
after the incident, IIRC.

-- Sydney, who thinks "Obliviate" is every bit as sinister as
"Imperio" if not more so, but obviously JKR doesn't agree.







From belviso at attglobal.net  Thu Mar 16 21:30:53 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 21:30:53 -0000
Subject: Raging Snape / Draco's Redemption / JKR's Plots (was:Re: seeds of betrayal)
In-Reply-To: <dvcjin+2tid@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvcled+mcpm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149722

> a_svirn:
> No, he's not denying it. He's boasting about it. When Voldemort is
> boasting about his heroic deeds is it also a good sign?

Magpie:
No, I don't think boasting is an accurate description at all.  If
Draco was able to boast in this scene he'd be in a very different
place.  He's trying to sound like a killer, but it's falling flat--
he's described as seeming compelled to keep talking (confessing), 
but we've seen boasting in the series and this isn't it.  I don't 
even recall Draco being the one to describe these things in detail. 
Not even any nasty remarks about how great it would have been had 
Ron Weasley died.  Dumbledore describes these plots as feeble 
attempts his heart isn't in and Draco "vehemently" insists that it 
was, but Dumbledore really seems to be right throughout.  Draco's on 
the defensive.  The best he can come up with is, "Yeah, well, you 
didn't figure out it was me, did you?"  (Which, of course, DD did.)  
Draco's in no shape to boast in this scene.  He's not asking 
forgiveness or expressing remorse either, of course.  But saying 
this scene is about boasting, imo, is like saying Peter Pettigrew's 
scene in the Shrieking Shack is about making amends to his friends.

> a_svirn:
> What does it mean "subconsciously meant"? Either it is meant or it
> is not. If you aiming your gun badly because you are a bad shot or
> so sick with fear, that you your aim is unsteady, then it is
nothing
> to you credit. If, on the contrary, you are deliberately aiming
your
> gun off the mark, then you are damn well *consciously* deloping.

Magpie:
He is deliberately aiming his gun off the mark, but he is certainly
not dwelling on that fact.  That's what Dumbledore is describing.

> a_svirn:
> So what if he did feel remorse? Would it make him any less of a
> murderer? I am sure Pettigrew feels remorse. Maybe even Lucius now
> and then who's to say?

Magpie:
Of course it wouldn't make him any less a murderer.  That's the
whole point of my post, that he is responsible for what happens to
Katie and Ron.  I just also happen to disagree with the idea that if
Ron and Katie had died he wouldn't have felt remorse at becoming a
murderer.

> > Magpie:
> >His physical disintegration is no,
> > imo, due to just frustration at things going awry.  Iow, I agree
> > with Dumbledore that these attempts are signs that he's not a
> > killer, not that he's just a bad planner.
>
> a_svirn:
> He's not such a bad planner after all. Dumbledore is dead, isn't
he?

Magpie:
Narcissa is, anyway. Draco didn't plan on Snape killing Dumbledore.:)

-m









From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 16 21:49:50 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 21:49:50 -0000
Subject: Raging Snape / Draco's Redemption / JKR's Plots (was:Re: seeds of betrayal)
In-Reply-To: <dvcled+mcpm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvcmhu+8otp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149723

> Magpie:
> No, I don't think boasting is an accurate description at all.  If
> Draco was able to boast in this scene he'd be in a very different
> place.  He's trying to sound like a killer, but it's falling flat--
> he's described as seeming compelled to keep talking (confessing), 
> but we've seen boasting in the series and this isn't it.  I don't 
> even recall Draco being the one to describe these things in 
detail. 
> Not even any nasty remarks about how great it would have been had 
> Ron Weasley died.  Dumbledore describes these plots as feeble 
> attempts his heart isn't in and Draco "vehemently" insists that it 
> was, but Dumbledore really seems to be right throughout.  

a_svirn:

My dictionary says: "boast 1) speak proudly about possessions and 
accomplishments; transitive and intransitive verb, to praise 
yourself, or speak arrogantly about things you possessed or have 
achieved." That's exactly what Draco's doing. So what if he fails to 
impress Dumbledore when he speaks about things he's accomplished? He 
failed to impress Harry when he spoke about things he possessed too. 

> Magpie:
>Draco's on 
> the defensive.  The best he can come up with is, "Yeah, well, you 
> didn't figure out it was me, did you?"  (Which, of course, DD 
did.)  
> Draco's in no shape to boast in this scene.  He's not asking 
> forgiveness or expressing remorse either, of course.  But saying 
> this scene is about boasting, imo, is like saying Peter 
Pettigrew's 
> scene in the Shrieking Shack is about making amends to his friends.

a_svirn:
Erm
 I'm no more saying that this scene is about boasting than you 
are saying that it is *about* "Draco's not denying his part in what 
happened to Katie and Ron". I'm merely pointing out that Draco does 
not show any signs of regret, on the contrary ? he is trying to 
impress (however unsuccessfully). 


> Magpie:
> He is deliberately aiming his gun off the mark, but he is certainly
> not dwelling on that fact.  That's what Dumbledore is describing.

a_svirn:
If he is , he lying through his teeth. Because Draco *did* aim his 
gun. He just wasn't being discriminating, but that's only making it 
worse. 









From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 16 22:02:38 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 22:02:38 -0000
Subject: When did Draco Imperius Rosmerta? (was: Re: CHAPDISC: hbp12, Silver and Opals)
In-Reply-To: <dvcl54+cc7q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvcn9u+3n0i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149724

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip> ...but when does Draco Imperius her? 

> >>Sydney:
> *raises hand*  Are we sure that it was even Draco who performed the
> Imperius Curse?  JKR didn't seem to want to have Draco successfully
> kill anyone, and he was cut off before he could try the Crucio; I'm
> not sure she'd want to have him do what is literally called an
> Unforgivable successfully. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
We don't know.  And we even have a heads-up in the first chapter 
that Imperius is not an easy curse (I doubt any of the Unforgivables 
are) with the flubbed Imperius done on the Muggle guy.  So either 
Draco is an incredible wizard himself (and I seriously doubt JKR 
will have him be a stronger wizard than Harry) or someone else did 
the Imperius on Rosmerta.

Which would make Blaise's appearance a redherring.  Which could be 
entirely possible.  Except (and this is my problem with the entire 
mystery) no one wonders about it.  Harry never once suggests that 
maybe Blaise was really a polyjuiced Draco; Hermione and Ron are 
never given chances to shoot that idea down.  So if a mystery isn't 
discussed does it mean it never existed?  Or, will this come up in 
book 7 when the question of trusting Draco is raised?

> >>Sydney:
> Dumbledore asks how long Rosmerta has been under Imperius, and    
> Draco says "Figured it out at last?".  It would be lot safer to   
> rely on someone experienced like Bellatrix, who we know already   
> taught him Occlumency in order to help him with his mission (and  
> stymie Snape!). And Draco tells Snape that he has 'other help,     
> better help', directly after the incident, IIRC.

Betsy Hp:
I had toyed with the idea that Draco's "better help" was the hidden 
Death Eater, to be revealed in book 7.  But now that I'm not even 
sure there will be an ESE character in the end, I've gone wishy-
washy on this.  It could well be Bellatrix snuck into Hogsmead to do 
the deed.  (Very creepy image of Rosmerta waking up in the dead hour 
to find Bellatrix standing at the foot of her bed.  It'd be like 
something out of "The Ring". ::shiver::)

But you've raised another important point: Rosmerta is Imperiused 
well enough that Dumbledore, who tells Harry that he's been spending 
time at the Three Broomsticks to cover those times he actually 
leaves the area, doesn't catch it.  Again, if Draco had the 
neccessary skill (developed over a two month crash course, remember) 
it would make him a pretty formidable wizard.

Betsy Hp






From belviso at attglobal.net  Thu Mar 16 22:37:45 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 22:37:45 -0000
Subject: Raging Snape / Draco's Redemption / JKR's Plots (was:Re: seeds of betrayal)
In-Reply-To: <dvcmhu+8otp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvcpbp+1n0t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149725


> a_svirn:
> 
> My dictionary says: "boast 1) speak proudly about possessions and 
> accomplishments; transitive and intransitive verb, to praise 
> yourself, or speak arrogantly about things you possessed or have 
> achieved." That's exactly what Draco's doing. So what if he fails 
to 
> impress Dumbledore when he speaks about things he's accomplished? 
He 
> failed to impress Harry when he spoke about things he possessed 
too. 

Magpie:
He doesn't speak proudly about those attempted murders, or praise 
himself over them or speak arrogantly about them.  

> a_svirn:
> Erm
 I'm no more saying that this scene is about boasting than you 
> are saying that it is *about* "Draco's not denying his part in 
what 
> happened to Katie and Ron". I'm merely pointing out that Draco 
does 
> not show any signs of regret, on the contrary ? he is trying to 
> impress (however unsuccessfully). 

Magpie:
I see both being important to his story.
 
> > Magpie:
> > He is deliberately aiming his gun off the mark, but he is 
certainly
> > not dwelling on that fact.  That's what Dumbledore is describing.
> 
> a_svirn:
> If he is , he lying through his teeth. Because Draco *did* aim his 
> gun. He just wasn't being discriminating, but that's only making 
it 
> worse.

Magpie:
I didn't think Dumbledore was lying--it seemed like this scene 
turned on just how much Dumbledore understood Draco's mindset and 
actions.

-m







From sydpad at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 16 23:05:34 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 23:05:34 -0000
Subject: When did Draco Imperius Rosmerta? (was: Re: CHAPDISC: hbp12, Silver and Opals)
In-Reply-To: <dvcn9u+3n0i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvcqvu+k4qi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149726


> But you've raised another important point: Rosmerta is Imperiused 
> well enough that Dumbledore, who tells Harry that he's been spending 
> time at the Three Broomsticks to cover those times he actually 
> leaves the area, doesn't catch it.  Again, if Draco had the 
> neccessary skill (developed over a two month crash course, remember) 
> it would make him a pretty formidable wizard.


Yeah, this is where it makes me go, uh...  I don't really have a dog
in this fight, because I'm not a big Draco fan and the Imperious Curse
doesn't bother me as much as say, Crucio would.  It just seemed to jar
with the structural stuff of Draco as a wannabe, that, oh, he can't
kill anyone properly but he can preform this immensely subtle advanced
Dark curse over a protracted period and at a distance, like Barty
Crouch Jr.or something.  

I mean, what did Draco's murder attempts consist of?  Sending someone
jewerly, poisoning fine wine, and, uh, repairing furniture.  What is
he, Martha Stewart?  Draco putting down Rosmerta with a cruel comic
song set to a Gilbert and Sullivan tune, yes;  Draco with the fiendish
focus to control her from a distance for weeks... not so much. 
'Focused' is about the last word I would use for Draco throughout HBP.


-- Sydney, apologizing to Magpie for disrespecting Draco..  








From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Thu Mar 16 23:27:58 2006
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:27:58 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] When did Draco Imperius Rosmerta? (was: Re: CHAPDISC:
 hbp12, Silver and Opals)
In-Reply-To: <dvchq5+50dt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY101-F389DA70397090C40AB6AD191E70@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 149727



Betsy Hp:
>But, this chapter occurs *during* the first Hogsmeade weekend. <snip>
>I can see Madam Rosmerta
>turning a fond blind-eye) but when does Draco Imperius her?
>According to McGonagall he's had no opportunity to get down to
>Hogsmead that day because of his detention.


PJ:
Draco tells Snape at Slughorn's party that he has someone *much* better than 
Crabbe and Goyle working with him on his task and, at least to me, he makes 
it sound as though it's an adult who knows what she/he is doing.  Could this 
person be Draco's helper in Hogsmead as well?

I always assumed (and yes, I know the "definition" of that word <g>) that he 
meant a teacher or person in authority.  It would have to be someone who 
wouldn't raise eyebrows being seen in Hogwarts any time, night or day, as 
well as someone with the freedom to leave the grounds as they pleased 
without anyone asking too many uncomfortable questions...

So, I see 3 options.  There's either a mole inside of Hogwarts itself.  
Kreacher was faking in "Will or Won't" and really answers to someone other 
than Harry or it's Peter in rat form sneaking in and out of the building 
through the tunnels.

PJ





From kchuplis at alltel.net  Fri Mar 17 00:24:05 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:24:05 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] When did Draco Imperius Rosmerta? (was: Re: CHAPDISC: hbp12, Silver and Opals)
In-Reply-To: <dvcn9u+3n0i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <57C2D43A-B54C-11DA-A9DA-000393B04DDE@alltel.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 149728


On Thursday, March 16, 2006, at 04:02 PM, horridporrid03 wrote:

> But you've raised another important point: Rosmerta is Imperiused
> well enough that Dumbledore, who tells Harry that he's been spending
> time at the Three Broomsticks to cover those times he actually
> leaves the area, doesn't catch it.? Again, if Draco had the
> neccessary skill (developed over a two month crash course, remember)
> it would make him a pretty formidable wizard.
>

kchuplis:

Just a thought; it might be akin to Harry learning the patronus. 
Perhaps someone gave Draco a crash course, and it's something he pretty 
desperately needed to carry out *his* mission. I don't think it 
necessarily means he is a wizard of outstanding power, but if you 
concentrate on learning one thing well, if you are any good at all, I 
imagine you can do it.




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 17 01:12:50 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 01:12:50 -0000
Subject: Portkey in GOF - Logistics  - Perspective
In-Reply-To: <700201d40603151652o3c09101ay30e26d616366c86b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <dvd2ei+dhap@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149729

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kemper <iam.kemper at ...> wrote:
>

> > >
> >
> > bboyminn:
> >
> > ... Considering that Voldemort's objective is to /take over the
> > world/; that's hardly an occupation for a quiet reluctant recluse.
> >
> 
> Kemper now:
> He doesn't even want to take over the British WW, what makes you
> think he wants to take over the world?!  He had opportunity as a 
> young man to go into politics but didn't take it.  He could've 
> changed things from the inside to become Emperor someday ... but
> he chose differently.  Your despots went this route, but the 
> Voldemort you see hasn't.
> 

bboyminn:

He doesn't want to take over the British WW? Really? Then what is this
all about? Why is he doing the things he's doing? Just a rabble-rouser
or malcontent? 

Clearly, Voldemort wants to take over. Characters in the book have
impied as much several times. JKR has said it herself. While his short
term goal is to take over the British wizard world, power hungry
deranged men like this are seldom satisfied, so I don't think it is
such a great leap to think that his long range goal is world
domination (ala-Pinky and the Brain). He may not achieve it, but I
have no doubt that he intends to extend his influence as far and wide
as he possibly can.

> 
> 
> > Steve continues:
> >
> >
> > Yes, Voldemort is secretive, but that doesn't eliminate the 
> > fact that he is an egomaniacal megalomaniac. ...
> >
> > If that isn't pure theater on the world stage, then I don't 
> >know what is.
> >
...

> > ...One quick look at the 'Evil Overlords Handbook' would show
> > them the folly of their ways, but it would make for very dull 
> > stories.
> >
> 
> Kemper now:
> I'm saying that Voldemort, though narcisistic, isn't an attention
> whore.  You're saying he is.
> ...
> ...  I'm argueing your belief that it is Voldemort a drama queen 
> more than an Evil Overlord.  

bboyminn:

Ahhh... now we are at the heart of it. I'm not saying Voldemort is an
'attention whore' or 'drama queen', but what I am saying is defined in
a narrow and specific context. I'm trying not trying to deny or claim
anything, I am attempting to find a balanced view of the nature of
Voldemort's attention seeking.

Yes, both Voldemort and Osama are somewhat recluses. We are not likely
to see either of them strutting down High Street in a clown costume
shouting at the top of their lungs 'Look at me! Look at me!'. But
great and terrible deeds are done in their name and at their bidding,
and Voldemort has created a name that is so feared it is never or
rarely spoken. It's hard to accept that that level of self-inflicted
notoriety is not 'attention seeking'. 

One does not actively and aggressively work to make one's name known
and fear as the most great, powerful, and terrible wizard in the
world, if one is a true recluse.

So, I am not saying - Attention Seeking - Yes or No. What I am doing
is trying to put Voldemort's attention seeking into perspective
because it is clearly there. But at the same time, you are right, he
is not an overt active High Street strutting attentions seeking whore. 
I guess one could say he is more of a passive-aggressive attention
seeking whore.

When I speak of the 'world stage' what I am saying is that you are not
likely to see Voldemort sitting in a cafe engaged in rousing political
discussion. If fact you are not likely to see him anywhere at anytime,
until he makes his presents known on the world stage. Whether that
'world stage' is the media given attention to Osama's latest video
proclamation, or given attention to the results of action instigated
by him. You never see the man on the local stage, but his actions are
alway present on the 'world stage' because that is how terroism
produces it's greatest effects.

> Kemper concludes:
>
> I worked out Voldemort's reason to wait til the third task 
> instead of  earlier as follows:
> he wanted to return to Hogwarts with his Death Eaters using the 
> portkey for a multiple-school ... massacre that would leave the 
> WW emotionally lost and dark.
> That isn't theater, that's terror.
> 
> -Kemper

bboyminn:

As others have already established Terror is precisely grand theater
on the 'world stage'. 

As far as your proposed 'captuure Harry' scenario, I responded to it
as far as you took it. As far as you took it, it was flawed. Now that
you've taken it a little farther, it is in the realm of possibility.
That is unless you are playing on the world stage. 

For Harry to simply randomly disappear, or even to disappear from of
Moody's office, creates too slow and too soft a response on the world
stage (ie: in the media). For him to disappear at a major high profile
event, in front of the Ministry, Dumbledore, and the world, that plays
much better and induces much greater fear when it play so vividly on
the world stage.

Once again, this is an example of Voldemort taking 'center stage'
while never setting foot on the stage. At once both reclusive and
attention seeking.

I'm not denying you or your point, but again, I am attempting to put
some perspective on the discussion. 

Steve/Bboyminn






From darqali at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 16 17:45:15 2006
From: darqali at yahoo.com (darqali)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 17:45:15 -0000
Subject: Prophesies Re: Who calls Voldemort "Lord"
In-Reply-To: <dv9q0q+ia1f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvc87b+j0bb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149730

Large snips:

> > Geoff:
> > This does in fact raise a question in my mind. Where do 
prophecies come
> > from? Why are they sent?

> > 
> > I prophesy that this might start a new thread.
> 
> When she prophesies in POA, it is during the exams and occurs at 
the very end of Harry's 
> individual session with her. She has been testing students from her 
group for some long 
> time and, although she seems to be her usual slightly detached 
self, no one suggests 
> anything more sinister than that. When she met with Dumbledore in 
early 1980 at the 
> Three Broomsticks, she was applying for a teaching post and would 
hardly be inebriated 
> for such a meeting.

Addressing  issues:  1] "Where do prophecies come from?"  2] "What is 
the nature of Prophecy in JKR's books"  3] "What is Sibyll 
Trelawney's role {Good?  Bad?  Out for Herself?} in the HP series?"

Dumbledore tells Harry that Trelawney is descended from a very 
reknown Seer; he {Dumbledore} seems to have respected the "powers" of 
Trelawney's  ancestor ... he calls Trelawney's Great Great 
Grandmother "a very famous, very gifted Seer"; though in the same 
conversation, Dumbledore also tells Harry, ".. it was against my 
inclaination to allow the subject of Divination to continue at all 
...."  {OotP, U.S. Hardcover p 840}

So Dumbledore, who is our source for many explainations about the WW, 
tells us he hasn't much use for Divination, yet that there are some 
Seers who have real powers, and Trelawney is descended from one such 
Seer; and that he [Dumbledore] considered her Prophecy concerning LV 
of value.  [In the same conversation, Dumbledore remarks,"I had not 
dreamed, when I set out to meet Sibyll Trelawney, that I would hear 
anything worth overhearing ....." Meaning, Dumbledore thinks the 
Prophecy had value to LV, and {presumably} to himself, *even though* 
Dumbledore is generally disinclined to give much value to the "art" 
of Divination.

This seems at odds with Dumbledore's  view of "Prophecy" in general; 
he later tells Harry that if LV had not *acted upon* the part of the 
Prophecy he knew {reported to him by Snape} it wouldn't have *been* 
true.  By going after Harry, he gave Harry some of his own Power 
{"Marking him as his equal"} and also, that in making Harry an 
orphan, he gave Harry the desire {as well as some of  Powers} to seek 
LV out to destroy him.  By believing the Prophecy, and acting upon 
his belief, LV helped it to come true {helped make Harry into 'The 
Chosen One'}.

But where did the content of the Prophecy come from to begin with?  
Does its content, such as the term "The Dark Lord", come from some 
source external to Sibyll Trelawney, so that the choice of words 
{such as, "The Dark Lord" to designate LV} are not of her choosing?  
Or does it come from the depths of Sibyll's own mind?  If she is 
"channeling" some exterior source, does the choice of words reflect 
the "good vs bad" orinetation of that source?  If the "source" is 
"bad"  {designated by the use of "The Dark Lord" for LV}, why would 
it channel through a "good" character?

Remember, her *second* Prophecy concerning LV, made to Harry at the 
close of his Divination exam, came true.  No one acted as they did 
"because they believed" her words.  Harry hadn't told them to anyone 
{before Pettigrew "broke his chains" and went off to re-join LV}, and 
he didn't understand them himself, save after the events which 
followed, in hindsight and with considerably more information than he 
had at the time he heard Sibyll's words.

If the Prophecy comes "from Beyond" or "out of the ether waves", from 
what force is it drawn?  And why, if that Force is "good" and sending 
information, or "warnings" to "the good side", does this force name 
LV "The Dark Lord", which is the Death Eater's term for Tom Riddle?

One should not discount the import of Trelwaney's use of the name.  
*Names are almost always important in Fairy Tales*, and this is a 
Fairy Story {the old name for Fantasy Fiction}.  Powerful figures 
almost always have many names, and very often, the true name cannot 
be spoken {I mean, even in the Bible, in the origional text, one 
could not speak the name of God, it was "I Am that I Am" instead}.

Trelawney's character is drawn much like Quirrel's was.  He affected 
a Turban, she her huge glasses, many beads,  and shawls.  Quirrel 
spoke with a stutter, Trelawney with a "soft misty voice".  While 
Quirrel was known to be very intelligent, he is thought to have had 
his brain addled by bad experiences with vampires and a hag, and was 
regarded as something of a joke by most of the other Hogwart's staff 
when Harry meets him .... just as Sybll Trelawney is clearly regarded 
as something of a fraud by most of the staff {and many students} as 
well.

I myself wonder what "side" Trelawney serves.  We are led to discount 
her by her odd manners; we may laugh, or pity her.  But see her as an 
agent of evil?  No, we are led to disregard Sibyll.  Yet again, I 
note, her last name is Cornish, usually a signal of an "evil" 
character in English tales.  And her first name is no accident, 
either.

Well, how about it, folks?  What is the nature of Prophecy?  Does it 
come *from* some person, or just *through* the person?  Does the 
choice of words {such as "The Dark Lord"} have significance?  Has JKR 
been *consistant* in her  use of the concept of Prophecy in the HP 
series?  After all, she tells us Prophecies don't have to come true; 
that often, when they do, it is because people *believed* what they 
said, and acted to *make* them true ... yet, we see Sibyll's second 
Prophecy about LV come true at once .....

Darqali.










From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 17 02:56:51 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 02:56:51 -0000
Subject: seeds of betrayal
In-Reply-To: <dvburr+10lhj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvd8hj+7iqf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149731


> Alla:
> > Well, yes that is true of course, but woudn't you agree that the 
> only 
> > reason for Snape's anger we DO see in the Shack is the Prank?
> 
> Magpie:
> This isn't directed at me, but I wouldn't agree it's the only reason 
> for Snape's anger we see.  Snape's primarily trying to get Sirius 
> captured as the murderer of James and Lily.  I believe he references 
> James' arrogance at not believing Snape back then as well. 
<SNIP>  
> The Prank will always probably be a prime example of Sirius' 
> worthlessness to Snape, but I don't think it's the only thing 
> fueling him all year in PoA, or in that last scene.

Alla:
I think we disagree as to the gradation of what makes Snape being 
pissed at Sirius more so to speak. I said upthread that I do not doubt 
that it is very likely that Sirius supposedly betraying Lily and James 
plays a part into it.

I think it goes back to Zara's original point or the way I understood 
it anyways - that Prank will turn out to be completely red herring and 
if Snape would not be thinking that Sirius betrayed Lily and James, 
Snape would not have wanted Sirius dementorkissed.

I am not dismissing Snape being mad at Sirius for Potters death. I AM 
though disagreeing that Snape IS able to handle the Prank memories. I 
do think that it makes him completely irrational ( and of course he 
has a right to be irrational, since even though I am pretty positive 
that Sirius did not mean to kill Snape, I do think that Snape honestly 
believes that he did mean to do exactly that).

So,where does it lead me? Back to Sherry's point of course. Do I think 
Shack adequately shows the possibility of Snape's resenting to 
Dumbledore for siding with Marauders again? YES, I absolutely think it 
is possible.

Not that I think that Dumbledore EVER sided with Marauders or that he 
was favoring them, or anything like that.

But would Snape think so? I think yes.

JMO,

Alla







From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 17 03:41:41 2006
From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 03:41:41 -0000
Subject: Portkey in GOF - Logistics
In-Reply-To: <700201d40603161146j6347f179y8a719d6912fb9fd1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <dvdb5l+3rub@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149732

Kemper:
>
> >
> > That isn't theater, that's terror.
>
> Amiable Dorsai counters:  Terrorism is theater.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/po9eg
>

Kemper:
Your link is to an article by The Council of Foreign Affairs, a
powerful,private organization with heavy influence on US foreign
policy.  Besides Jimmy Carter (best ex-prez ever, except for his
disdain for not wanting to label Frankenfood), I find it difficult to
believe that other members, past and present (Big Bush, Clinton,
Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Rice, Powell, Kissinger, Nixon,
McNamara, and Gingrich) have or had the People of America's best
interest in mind when privately developing foreign policy.


Amiable Dorsai:
Uhm, I wasn't claiming anything about anybody's motives in developing
foreign policy for America, I was simply hoping to elucidate my claim
that "Terrorism is theater" without repeating things I've already
written.  The idea is an old, well-established one, and has guided my
thinking about Voldemort's tactics.  Google "terrorism is theater", as
I did, and pick an article by someone you like.  I doubt you'll have
much trouble finding one.

Kemper:
That said, are you saying that if the TWT wasn't happening, Harry
wouldn't be snatched until the next big event, like the QWC because
there wouldn't be enough people around to appreciate the theater?

Amiable Dorsai:
Nah, I'm saying that the opportunity to accomplish several goals at
once presented itself to Riddle, and he went for it:
1.	Get a new body. 
2.	Defeat the blood protection.
3.	Kill the Prophecy Child.
4.	Re-establish the Death Eaters belief in his invincibility.
5.	Re-establish the Wizarding World's fear that he might be invincible.

It was to accomplish (4) and (5) that Riddle employed what I call
"theater".  I call it that because... well, what would you call it? 
In the graveyard, for instance, Riddle set a stage, gathered his
audience, warmed it up with a monologue, and then started his little
drama.  Looked like theater to me.  All that was missing was a lobby
with a popcorn machine.

This exercise is put down as simple ego-stroking by a lot of fans.  I
think it's much, much more than that. (Though I doubt Riddle is averse
to stroking his own ego.  Or getting Bella to do it.) I see it as
analogous to the behavior of a lot of real-life dictators--Saddam
Hussein, Stalin, and Donald Trump, for examples.  Its purpose is to
act as a warning to those who would oppose him, and to prove to his
followers that they are on the winning team.  The Romans used to do
much the same, and I'm sure the practice was old when they came along.

I'm sure Riddle would have settled for less, if he had to, but I'm
also sure he thought the potential gain was worth the risk.

Amiable Dorsai







From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 17 03:56:27 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 03:56:27 -0000
Subject: When did Draco Imperius Rosmerta? (was: Re: CHAPDISC: hbp12, Silver and Opals)
In-Reply-To: <dvcqvu+k4qi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvdc1c+jvl4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149733

> >>Betsy Hp:
> <snip>
> > Again, if Draco had the neccessary skill (developed over a two   
> > month crash course, remember) it would make him a pretty        
> > formidable wizard.

> >>Sydney: 
> <snip>
> It just seemed to jar with the structural stuff of Draco as a     
> wannabe, that, oh, he can't kill anyone properly but he can       
> preform this immensely subtle advanced Dark curse over a          
> protracted period and at a distance, like Barty Crouch Jr.or      
> something.  

Betsy Hp:
Oh, I doubt Draco's inability to kill was based on lack of skill; it 
was more lack of desire.  But, IMO, killing requires less skill than 
long term, undetectable mind control.  As you say, Draco would 
suddenly be displaying the skills of a Barty Crouch, Jr.  And that 
would be strange.  Especially when you consider the limited study 
time and the fact that Bellatrix was probably concentrating on his 
killing skills.

> >>Sydney: 
> <snip>
> I mean, what did Draco's murder attempts consist of?  Sending      
> someone jewerly, poisoning fine wine, and, uh, repairing          
> furniture. What is he, Martha Stewart?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Ooh, I'd be careful about dissing Martha Stewart's assassin skills.  
You don't want to see her angry. <g>  But yes, Draco does not behave 
like a boy relishing the life of killing for the Dark Lord.  Not 
when the game becomes real.

> >>Sydney:
> 'Focused' is about the last word I would use for Draco throughout 
> HBP.

Betsy Hp:
Really?  "Focused" is *exactly* the word I'd used to describe Draco 
in HBP.  I've never seen the boy so focused.  He gave up everything 
important to him (quidditch, being Prefect, his friends, his 
studies, his grooming, getting Harry Potter) to fix a cabinet the 
expert wasn't sure he could fix.  I was quite impressed with Draco's 
focus. 

> -- Sydney, apologizing to Magpie for disrespecting Draco..

Betsy Hp:
So what am I, chopped liver? <g>  ::snuggles Draco::

> >>PJ:
> Draco tells Snape at Slughorn's party that he has someone *much*   
> better than Crabbe and Goyle working with him on his task and, at 
> least to me, he makes it sound as though it's an adult who knows   
> what she/he is doing.  Could this person be Draco's helper in     
> Hogsmead as well?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
For the sake of simplicity, I think it's safe to assume (hee!) that 
Draco is referring to one person when he mentions a helper.  The 
reason Bellatrix springs to mind is the way he turns on Snape and 
her belief that he could possibly acheieve his task in Spinner's 
End.  I suspect she was hoping to get a good chunk of the glory 
success would bring.  And we know Bellatrix does not like to share.

> >>PJ:
> It would have to be someone who wouldn't raise eyebrows being seen 
> in Hogwarts any time, night or day, as well as someone with the    
> freedom to leave the grounds as they pleased without anyone asking 
> too many uncomfortable questions...

Betsy Hp:
Hmm, why does this person need to have access to Hogwarts?  Is there 
anything in the text to suggest Draco receives help while on school 
grounds?  In many ways Draco is trapped within the school, so I 
wonder if outside assistance might be of more worth?  Especially 
with his magic coins giving him an easy communication line. 

> >>PJ:
> So, I see 3 options.  There's either a mole inside of Hogwarts    
> itself. Kreacher was faking in "Will or Won't" and really answers 
> to someone other than Harry or it's Peter in rat form sneaking in 
> and out of the building through the tunnels.

Betsy Hp:
I doubt it's Kreacher.  I can't see house elves being able to 
Imperius wizards or witches.  Plus, there's Draco's prejudice.  I 
don't think he'd refer to Kreacher so positively.  

Peter is interesting....  I'd be really shocked if there weren't 
some wards preventing animagus slipping onto the grounds though.  
And a watch kept on the Marauder's old entry ways.  Lupin has 
nothing to be conflicted about now.

The inside mole goes back to a "To Be Revealed" ESE!character, which 
I'm wishy-washy on.  This was my original thought too, but now I'm 
not so sure.  But it'd probably be embarrasingly easy to win me 
over. <g>

> >>kchuplis:
> Just a thought; it might be akin to Harry learning the patronus.
> Perhaps someone gave Draco a crash course, and it's something he   
> pretty desperately needed to carry out *his* mission. I don't     
> think it necessarily means he is a wizard of outstanding power,   
> but if you concentrate on learning one thing well, if you are any 
> good at all, I imagine you can do it.

Betsy Hp:
Well, far be it for me to argue that Draco doesn't have the ability 
to show us some mad skills. <g>  However, JKR does make the point 
that the Imperius curse isn't easy.  And it was an incredibly subtle 
job.  Again, *Dumbledore* missed it.  I suppose Draco could have 
spent his summer working and working on his Imperius curse.  But I 
feel like Bellatrix would have worked more on his killing 
abilities.  

Remember, Draco decided that he was going to kill Dumbledore by 
using his furniture repair skills.  The necklace and the poisoned 
mead were panicked attempts made without much thought.  So I don't 
know if he would have considered the Imperius curse an important 
skill to work on.  Though of course, he may have. I'm still bugged 
by the fact that this particular mystery was never discussed in the 
text.

Betsy Hp (fourth post, sorry!)







From bartl at sprynet.com  Fri Mar 17 03:57:06 2006
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 22:57:06 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR website - Quintaped
In-Reply-To: <dvb6t7+heql@eGroups.com>
References: <dvb6t7+heql@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <441A3392.4030804@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149734

bercygirl2 wrote:
> I had a thought about the Quintaped....JKR has said that the four 
> houses (Gryffindor, Slytherin, Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw) correspond to 
> the four elements (fire, water, earth and air). However, there are 
> actually 5 elements: fire, water, earth, air and metal. Could there 
> have once been a fifth house? Or possible there will be a fifth house 
> in the future?

Bart:
	Metal? I know that, in China, metal and wood are included. However, the 
Western 4 elements correspond to solid, liquid, gas, and energy. When 
one includes subjective points of view (elemental characteristics of 
personality), the concept of the 4 elements becomes much more 
understandable. If a 5th element is added, that would probably be 
spirit/mind.

	Bart




From djklaugh at comcast.net  Fri Mar 17 04:37:03 2006
From: djklaugh at comcast.net (Deb)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 04:37:03 -0000
Subject: JKR website - Quintaped
In-Reply-To: <dvcd5p+2ltp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvdedf+65sd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149735



 Flop:
 > I have never seen metal referred to as an element, but
 > various other fantasy series that I have read have
 > introduced a fifth element. Elizabeth Haydon has Ether
 > as the fifth element, the substance her world's
 > legends say the stars are made from. My personal
 > favourite is in Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time, in
 > which the fifth element is Spirit. Or how about the
 > movie The Fifth Element, in which the fifth element
 > was... Mila Jovovich.
 
> Ceridwen:
> In Chinese Feng Shui, there are five elements: Earth, Water, Wood, 
> Fire, and Metal (not sure about the order, but the order counts).  
> The Western system has four elements: Fire, Earth, Air and Water.  
> Some New Age sites cite Ether as a fifth element or the 'center', 
the 
> person himself, and some cite Spirit.
> 
> If there is any symbolism to the five-legged Quintaped, then maybe 
> Hogwarts itself is the 'fifth', or the 'joining'?
Ceridwen

Deb here:

  Metal comes from the earth and in order to be made useable it must 
be melted with fire and formed through air and cooled with water. 
Imagine the forging of a sword - where the metal is heated red hot 
in a fire made hottest possible through the use of the bellows to 
fan the flames. And when the metal is glowing red hot the smith 
pounds it into shape then cools it by dunking it into cool water.  
The Chinese Feng Shui systems do include it as a separate element 
yet also refer to metal as the coming together of all the other 
elements. Someone up thread mentioned the movie "The Fifth Element" -
 in that film the fifth element is Love! Harry's capacity to love is 
a key element in the HP saga ... and we have seen him successfully 
wield metal in previous books - using Griffindor's sword to slay the 
basilisk is one example. 
 So the 5th "leg" of the metaphorical Quintaped might be metal. On 
the other hand if it is referring more to the 4 houses ... I think 
the 5th part is Hogwarts Castle itself! I've always thought the 
castle is a very important character - with a very important role to 
play in the education of young wizards. At times the castle is like 
another professor - teaching students to be wary of hiding vanishing 
steps, teaching them to look for alternative routes to their goals, 
teaching them to look for the hidden treasures that are all around 
them. It shelters, protects, informs, and gathers together all 
houses, all students, all teachers... and contains the elements of 
all with in its walls.   

Deb (aka djklaugh) who wonders which rooms in the castle were 
created by Rowena Ravenclaw  and Helga Hugglepuff - Chamber of 
Secrets= Slytherin, Headmaster's office= Griffindor (IMO)... maybe 
library and kitchen respectively?  







From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 17 04:48:32 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 04:48:32 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dva1s9+2jjo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvdf30+gk2d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149736

> Betsy Hp:
> I pretty much agree with everything Syndey said in her reply, but I 
> wanted to point out a logistical problem I see here.  Snape joined 
> the Order, joined Dumbledore's side *before* James was killed by 
> Voldemort.  And Dumbledore says he trusted Snape before the Potters 
> were killed.  So how does LID, which wouldn't have come into play 
> yet, explain this?

Neri
I'm not sure I understand your question. First, when does Dumbledore
say he trusted Snape before the Potters were killed?

But assuming he did, the question is how the Life Debt works exactly.
It is actually quite possible that a deep magic like that doesn't have
defined rules, in the same way that Lily's Ancient Magic doesn't seem
to have very defined rules. It just works when the Author needs it to.
The thematic content is more important than the exact details. So
maybe the same way Dumbledore trusts that Wormtail's Debt would save
Harry in the end, he trusts that Snape's Debt would also do that.

If OTOH we assume that the Life Debt magic is really more similar the
UV. Say, it kills you if you kill the one you owe to, or I you take a
part in killing him. And (in order to account for Snape's strange
behavior  in "The Flight of the Prince") lets say that the Debt is
kind enough to give you a painful warning or a reminder if you are
*about* to kill or hurt that person. So by informing Voldemort about
the prophecy, Snape made himself a part of Voldemort's scheme to kill
the Potters. He realized that he would die if Voldy kills James. Snape
has no way to convince Voldy to give this up, so he ran to Dumbledore
and told him about it.

Both Dumbledore and Snape would realize that this effectively places
Snape in Dumbledore's side. Snape can only stay alive if Dumbledore
and the Order manage to win the war and guard James, so Snape would be
a fool to harm anybody in the Order. And if the Order wins and
Voldemort loses, Snape would need Dumbledore to save him from Azkaban.
In such a situation Dumbledore has a very good reason to trust that
Snape is on his side.


>  Betsy Hp:
> Remember, by reporting the Prophecy Snape put *Harry* in mortal 
> danger, not James and Lily.  

Neri:
Er... what? Do you think Snape believed for one moment that Voldy
would leave James and Lily alive?


> Betsy Hp:
> Okay, this is another hole, I think.  So the mere reminder of an 
> unfilled life debt is enough to trigger magical pain, if I'm 
> following you correctly.  Then how was it that Peter was able to 
> stoically take allowing Harry, to whom he owes a direct life debt, 
> to get into such mortal danger in GoF?  Shouldn't he have been given 
> a massive magical shock?  What about when he deliberatly caused 
> Harry pain?
> 
> For that matter, why is Peter able to work with Voldemort, who is 
> actively seeking Harry's death, while Snape is somehow "trapped" to 
> Dumbledore's side? 
> 

Neri:
I suspect that Snape has a more severe form of the Life Debt than
Peter has, because after all, James *was* killed by Voldemort as a
result of Snape's action. So strictly speaking, (assuming now the
UV-like sub-theory of the Life Debt magic) Snape *should* have died
when James did. My hunch is that Dumbledore had to do some very
difficult magic there in order to save Snape's life. I even
hypothesized that this is what Dumbledore was occupied with during the
24 Hours after GH. My best guess is that Dumbledore saved Snape by
performing a magical transaction that transferred Snape's Debt from
James to Harry. And if I'm right about this, then Snape ended up
having a Life Debt to Dumbledore too, for saving his life from the
first Debt, which would give Dumbledore even more reason to trust him.

Whether this sub-theory is true or not, Snape *is* now on his "second
chance" from the Life Debt magic, after he had already failed to pay
the first time, so it makes sense to me that his Debt is much more
severe than that of Peter. 


> Betsy Hp:
> Why?  I don't understand why you think Dumbledore would waste so 
> much time and effort on a man who for almost two decades is only 
> serving Dumbledore's interests because he's been magically trapped 
> into doing so.  Why does Snape's soul rate more than Peter's?
> 

Neri:
Apparently Snape told Dumbledore that he felt great remorse. And if
this pain that Snape was screaming with during The Flight was a small
sample, then I shudder to think what he was suffering when James
actually died. I'd imagine it wouldn't be at all difficult for him to
feel remorse while suffering so badly. Like Dumbledore said to Harry,
"you have no idea".

So Dumbledore would naturally want to give Snape a second chance, same
as he gave Draco and Kreacher. Probably he was aware that Snape's
remorse wasn't that durable, but Dumbledore was a great believer in
second chances, and he'd also believe that such deep magic must play
its part in the end.   

> Olivier:
> What else do we read? That he has tried to save Harry's life on at  
> least one unambiguous occasion (and arguably in several others), that  
> he has had Dumbledore entirely at his mercy and that he not only did  
> not kill him but also saved his life.

Neri:
Snape saving Dumbledore's life fits very well with my Double Life-Debt
theory: LID!Snape should have died when James died, but Dumbledore
saved him somehow (as I speculate, by transferring his Debt from James
to Harry) and thus Snape ended up InDebted to Dumbledore too. But
after Snape saved Dumbledore's life and repaid this Debt he was again
free to kill Dumbledore. And indeed, just several days after Snape
saved Dumbledore's life he took a UV. 

> Olivier:
> OK. Now I must confess. Where do you guys find room to argue?  
> Whatever your theory, be it DDM! OFH! LID! ESE! Vampire! CLV! (the  
> last one is Candy Loving Vegetarian Snape, I too sometimes want to  
> have my own theory) what exactly do you find mysterious? Take the  
> tower moment. If he is ESE! or OFH! of course he kills DD. And if he  
> is DDM!? Well he has to kill DD or drop dead and have Dumbledore die  
> anyway because someone will finish off.

Neri:
You are forgetting again the UV. The question isn't really why Snape
killed Dumbledore on the tower. As you say, he had to do that to stay
alive. So the real question here is what possessed him in Spinner's
End to take the third part of the UV. Admittedly either DDM, ESE, OFH
or LID don't explain it. However, DDM still has a much harder time
with it, because a Snape who is loyal to Dumbledore and takes a Vow to
kill him is, er... shall we say mysterious?

Neri








From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Fri Mar 17 05:27:17 2006
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 21:27:17 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Portkey in GOF - Logistics
In-Reply-To: <dvdb5l+3rub@eGroups.com>
References: <700201d40603161146j6347f179y8a719d6912fb9fd1@mail.gmail.com>
	 <dvdb5l+3rub@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <700201d40603162127o42d6a3eesb5056b8ca891ea40@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149737

 Kemper:
>
> That said, are you saying that if the TWT wasn't happening, Harry
> wouldn't be snatched until the next big event, like the QWC because
> there wouldn't be enough people around to appreciate the theater?
>
> Amiable Dorsai:
> Nah, I'm saying that the opportunity to accomplish several goals at
> once presented itself to Riddle, and he went for it:
> 1.      Get a new body.
> 2.      Defeat the blood protection.
> 3.      Kill the Prophecy Child.
> 4.      Re-establish the Death Eaters belief in his invincibility.
> 5.      Re-establish the Wizarding World's fear that he might be
> invincible.
>
> It was to accomplish (4) and (5) that Riddle employed what I call
> "theater".  I call it that because... well, what would you call it?
> In the graveyard, for instance, Riddle set a stage, gathered his
> audience, warmed it up with a monologue, and then started his little
> drama.  Looked like theater to me.  All that was missing was a lobby
> with a popcorn machine.
>
> This exercise is put down as simple ego-stroking by a lot of fans.  I
> think it's much, much more than that. ... I see it as
> analogous to the behavior of a lot of real-life dictators--Saddam
> Hussein, Stalin, and Donald Trump, for examples.  Its purpose is to
> act as a warning to those who would oppose him, and to prove to his
> followers that they are on the winning team.  The Romans used to do
> much the same, and I'm sure the practice was old when they came along.
>
> I'm sure Riddle would have settled for less, if he had to, but I'm
> also sure he thought the potential gain was worth the risk.
>
..
.
Kemper now:
I think I understand what you're saying.  But instead of theater, how 'bout
something like: terrorism is rutting season, or terrorism is establishing
dominance, or terrorism is territorial tinkling.  I like the last one for
its alliteration.  These suggestions seem more accurate than 'theater' which
seems light, frivolous, and gay (not homosexual unless you can appreciate
stereotypes... please no howlers)

Kemper


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




From exodusts at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 17 05:47:00 2006
From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 05:47:00 -0000
Subject: Portkey in GOF - Logistics
In-Reply-To: <700201d40603162127o42d6a3eesb5056b8ca891ea40@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <dvdigk+qcft@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149738

> Kemper now:
>
> I think I understand what you're saying.  But instead of theater, 
how 'bout
> something like: terrorism is rutting season, or terrorism is 
establishing
> dominance, or terrorism is territorial tinkling.  I like the last one 
for
> its alliteration.  These suggestions seem more accurate 
than 'theater' which
> seems light, frivolous, and gay (not homosexual unless you can 
appreciate
> stereotypes... please no howlers)


Exodusts:

Say Terrorism is Performance.






From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Fri Mar 17 06:22:26 2006
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 01:22:26 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] When did Draco Imperius Rosmerta? (was: Re: CHAPDISC:
 hbp12, Silver and Opals)
In-Reply-To: <dvdc1c+jvl4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY101-F11D88678C1D0C51EE9C2F491E40@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 149739

Betsy Hp:

>As you say, Draco would
>suddenly be displaying the skills of a Barty Crouch, Jr.  And that
>would be strange.  Especially when you consider the limited study
>time and the fact that Bellatrix was probably concentrating on his
>killing skills.

PJ:
I thought she'd been concentrating on his occlumency skills.  Isn't that 
what Snape and Draco discussed at the party?

Betsy Hp:
>Really?  "Focused" is *exactly* the word I'd used to describe Draco
>in HBP.  I've never seen the boy so focused.  He gave up everything
>important to him (quidditch, being Prefect, his friends, his
>studies, his grooming, getting Harry Potter) to fix a cabinet the
>expert wasn't sure he could fix.  I was quite impressed with Draco's
>focus.

PJ:
I'd have to agree with you.  I wish Harry would focus even half as much on 
some of his tasks!

Betsy Hp:
>For the sake of simplicity, I think it's safe to assume (hee!) that
>Draco is referring to one person when he mentions a helper.  The
>reason Bellatrix springs to mind is the way he turns on Snape and
>her belief that he could possibly acheieve his task in Spinner's
>End.  I suspect she was hoping to get a good chunk of the glory
>success would bring.  And we know Bellatrix does not like to share.

PJ:
All very true but how could Bellatrix be in the RoR to help Draco fix the 
cabinet?  I may very well be *wrong* (it happens....often) but there was 
something in the way he worded it that made me read "help" as meaning 
*physical* assistance.  His frustration was with the cabinet so it would 
make sense imo to have someone with him who was somewhat familiar with how 
the cabinet worked and could help him repair it.  It's not just a matter of 
putting a few screws into it.  Anyone can do that.  But I think the magic 
would have to be realligned with the other piece or they wouldn't work as a 
set.

As you said, Draco was unable to leave the grounds before Hogsmead weekend 
and was in detention during it. I'm not sure that coin alone could do it 
all... not for an underage wizard. And that, at least to my understanding, 
is why he'd need someone who could move around Hogwarts without being seen 
as out of place. The outside communication,imperiusing Rosmerta, etc. could 
also be done by this individual

Betsy Hp:
>I doubt it's Kreacher.  I can't see house elves being able to
>Imperius wizards or witches.  Plus, there's Draco's prejudice.  I
>don't think he'd refer to Kreacher so positively.

PJ:
We have Winky and Barty Crouch Jr.  Again, I may be all wet but didn't you 
see it as part of her duties to make sure he stayed under the imperius?  If 
not, why would Crouch Sr. be upset enough to dismiss her when Jr breaks free 
of the spell?  It seemed to me that she was to use any means at her disposal 
to keep him out of trouble which, considering the size difference, wouldn't 
mean tackling him to the ground. <g> So  I really dont' see it as a major 
stretch to have a house elf follow *any* directive it's Master gives it, 
including imperius if necessary, and Kreacher thinks the sun rises and sets 
on both Bellatrix and Draco.

And there *was* all that confusion about who the house really belonged to.  
Dumbledore assumes it belongs to Harry when he tells Kreacher to shut up and 
he obeys, but what if it was planned to look that way?  All Bellatrix would 
have to do is tell Kreacher to follow any directive Harry gave him.  He 
wouldn't like it, but he'd do it in a heartbeat for her.

As for Draco, he's used to servants at his disposal.  If Kreacher was useful 
to his task  I think he'd jump at the chance to have him assist. After all, 
House Elves can apparate around Hogwarts without being noticed, we don't 
hear that they're under any rules to stay inside Hogwarts (huge amounts of 
groceries need to be purchased, etc), he's absolutely loyal to the family 
and was instrumental in getting Harry to the MoM by lying about Sirius' 
whereabouts.

Draco may not consider Kreacher good enough to take to a ballgame but I'm 
sure he'd gladly take any help he could give him.  :-)

Betsy Hp:
>Peter is interesting....  I'd be really shocked if there weren't
>some wards preventing animagus slipping onto the grounds though.
>And a watch kept on the Marauder's old entry ways.  Lupin has
>nothing to be conflicted about now.

Perhaps Dumbledore knows all about the different tunnels leading into 
Hogwarts now but that still doesn't mean Peter couldn't be the helper.  
Someone could easily have brought him onto the grounds in a pocket.  We've 
seen Filch with a detecting device but would it pick up Animagus?  I doubt 
it. PP knows he could live very comfortably as a rat in Hogwarts because 
he's already done it.

Betsy Hp:
>The inside mole goes back to a "To Be Revealed" ESE!character, which
>I'm wishy-washy on.  This was my original thought too, but now I'm
>not so sure.  But it'd probably be embarrasingly easy to win me
>over. <g>

PJ:
I don't much care for the idea either because I like most of the teachers 
that are left at Hogwarts.  If not a teacher then it would have to be 
someone from the MoM, which means Aurors since they're the only people seen 
wandering around Hogwarts besides staff and students.

I suppose this is where all the ESE!McG, Tonks and Slughorn theories get to 
pop up again, huh?  :-)

PJ (just throwing out ideas)





From bercygirl2 at aol.com  Fri Mar 17 05:48:48 2006
From: bercygirl2 at aol.com (bercygirl2)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 05:48:48 -0000
Subject: JKR website - Quintaped / Elements
In-Reply-To: <dvdedf+65sd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvdik0+t373@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149740

> Ceridwen:
> In Chinese Feng Shui, there are five elements: Earth, Water, 
> Wood, Fire, and Metal (not sure about the order, but the order 
> counts).  

bercygirl2:
I had another thought, based on the Feng Shui mention...all the 
animals in the Chinese horoscope have been mentioned in the HP 
books:  Rat, Ox, Tiger, Rabbit, Dragon, Snake, Horse, Sheep, 
Monkey, Rooster, Dog, and Pig. I don't know if there's any 
connection here, but I just thought I'd mention it!









From olivier.fouquet at polytechnique.org  Fri Mar 17 08:37:55 2006
From: olivier.fouquet at polytechnique.org (Olivier Fouquet)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:37:55 +0900
Subject: LID!Snape rides again and again
Message-ID: <B88A37E9-D461-4CA4-92B5-7DDAD818E9DB@polytechnique.org>

No: HPFGUIDX 149741

 > Neri:
 > You are forgetting again the UV. The question isn't really why Snape
 > killed Dumbledore on the tower. As you say, he had to do that to stay
 > alive. So the real question here is what possessed him in Spinner's
 > End to take the third part of the UV. Admittedly either DDM, ESE, OFH
 > or LID don't explain it. However, DDM still has a much harder time
 > with it, because a Snape who is loyal to Dumbledore and takes a  
Vow to
 > kill him is, er... shall we say mysterious?

Olivier
Hum, I believe Snape did not know what he was swearing to do. We have  
no evidence from Spinner's End that he did and we have evidence that  
he tried to obtain informations from Draco, which suggests that he  
didn't know exactly what was going on around Christmas. He probably  
knew in March though, since he has this little disagreement with  
Dumbledore. Can DDM explain Snape vowing to do some unspecified  
mission for Voldemort? Well yes. DDM! advocates will readily tell you  
that Snape fully intended to die for the cause so he had no problem  
taking the vow. You have to admit that it gave him a pretty credible  
cover. Besides, if he can be sure that Draco is making progress while  
not endangering Dumbledore too much, it's perfectly okay. That said,  
if Snape is DDM and if he didn't know what was Draco's mission, he  
made a very foolish decision to lie to Bellatrix and Narcissa. That  
set in motion dire events. Not the first time that DDM!Snape was not  
too effective by the way, the way he handled Occlumency was  
incredible. He knew perfectly well that Dumbledore's "shrewd  
idea" (which turned out to be very effective) could work only if  
Harry learnt Occlumency and yet he allowed that to stop!

Anyway, I, for one, never believed in AllGoodDDM!Snape. Snape is not  
a nice guy. That is canon, not theory. In JKR's opinion, he is "in  
some ways more culpable even than Voldemort".

By the way, I would like to point that when Dumbledore is dying on  
the top of the tower, he instructs Harry to "go and wake Severus" and  
to "tell him what has happened". This is quite remarkable because it  
suggests that Snape knows about the Horcruxes seek and destroy mission.

Having reread a bit of JKR's interview, I must say I feel vindicated  
in my non-theorizing approach. Gee, Grindelwald, the gleam,  
Dumbledore's family, the Founders, who loved Snape? All that is  
enormously important. No chance we can guess something even remotely  
close to the truth in my humble opinion.

Best regards,
Olivier







From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Fri Mar 17 11:32:14 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 11:32:14 -0000
Subject: Prophesies Re: Who calls Voldemort "Lord"
In-Reply-To: <dvc87b+j0bb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dve6nu+50c7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149742

Darqali:
> Well, how about it, folks?  What is the nature of Prophecy?  Does it 
> come *from* some person, or just *through* the person?  Does the 
> choice of words {such as "The Dark Lord"} have significance?  Has JKR 
> been *consistant* in her  use of the concept of Prophecy in the HP 
> series?  After all, she tells us Prophecies don't have to come true; 
> that often, when they do, it is because people *believed* what they 
> said, and acted to *make* them true ... yet, we see Sibyll's second 
> Prophecy about LV come true at once .....

Ceridwen:

The last thing I want to do here is sound like a mystic.  I am not out 
for Trelawney's job!  But there's really no other way to talk about 
it.  Here goes!

The way I see the prophecies working in HP, a person who is sensitive 
to vibrations in the... not air, but about as pervasive... picks up on 
these vibrations when they've been set off by outside events.  The 
inner part of the seer then takes over to deliver the prophecy.  Maybe 
the difference between Sybil and Cassandra (wasn't that gggmthr's 
name?) could be that Cassandra allowed her waking mind to actually be 
more aware of these inner workings and so was able to control the 
setting and the audience for her predictions, while Sybil may not feel 
truly gifted and so forces a false personna (the change between her 
misty-voiced false personna and the harsh voice of prophecy) that masks 
the goings-on of her 'inner seer', even, or especially, to herself.

So, when Sybil made the prophecy to Dumbledore, events were beginning 
to dovetail down toward the fulfillment of the prophecy.  If this was 
anywhere from October to January, Lily and Alice would have just become 
pregnant or just have learned or suspected as much; meanwhile, 
Voldemort is, as always, Pinky, 'trying to take over the world'.  The 
two knife-edges slice at angles toward the same point: the end of the 
Dark Lord.  (Think of it as a slice of pie)

Sybil's inner seer must have some control over who it reveals its 
gleaned knowledge.  So, Dumbledore, as one who is powerful and opposed 
to LV, is seen as worthy of hearing that prophecy.  Harry, as the 
prophecy boy and as someone with a vested interest in what is going on, 
is worthy to hear the other.  So, the way I see it, everything depends 
on the sympaties of the seer as to who gets the propecies.

These prophecies do not have to come true.  Choice determines which of 
several threads will come together.  These are just red-flagged threads 
which, if they do intertwine, will be significant.  LV could have 
chosen to scoff at the idea of seers; Peter could have been captured if 
it hadn't been for DADACurse!Lupin forgetting his potion.  As these 
threads did come together, then the propecies came true.

As for calling LV the 'Dark Lord', he *is* a Dark Lord.  At the time, 
he is the only Dark Lord in operation.  It's more of a formal 
designation despite who uses it.  It isn't his name, any more 
than 'God' is the true name of God.  And, there are plenty of Gods, as 
there can be plenty of Dark Lords.  Apologies to sensitive believers, 
btw.

Cassandra was a seer in Greek mythology.  Apollo gave her the gift of 
prophecy.  When she spurned him, he cursed her so that no one would 
believe her predictions.  A Sybil was the priestess/prophet of Apollo 
at the temple at Delphi, and was a designation that has become a name.

The first prophecy was acted on, and so it became true.  That is always 
one possiblity when events are floating out there 'in the ether'.  For 
the second prophecy, the curse was a factor that was floating around, 
as well as Pettigrew's increasing nervousness and anticipation(?).  
These threads did not have to come together, or other threads could 
have gotten into the jumble to warp or prevent the pure course from 
taking place.  But the curse (LV acting on the prophecy again, though 
from distance in time and space this time) was strong enough to prevent 
other threads from tangling things up.  This is a magical world, so we 
have to take magic into account.

Ceridwen.






From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 17 13:50:05 2006
From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 13:50:05 -0000
Subject: Portkey in GOF - Logistics
In-Reply-To: <700201d40603162127o42d6a3eesb5056b8ca891ea40@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <dveeqd+9tdk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149743


> Kemper then:
> I think I understand what you're saying.  But instead of theater,
> how 'bout something like: terrorism is rutting season, or terrorism
> is establishing dominance, or terrorism is territorial tinkling.  I
> like the last one for its alliteration.  These suggestions seem more
> accurate than 'theater' which seems light, frivolous, and gay (not
> homosexual unless you can appreciate stereotypes... please no howlers)

Amiable Dorsai:
I begin to see the problem.  You're thinking Andrew Lloyd Webber, I'm
thinking Grand Guignol.  

http://www.grandguignol.com/

Or, better maybe, the old soviet show trials.  In any case, the goal
is to manipulate the audience into buying your version of reality,
and, well, "seeing is believing".  Amother name for it might be
propaganda, but the word seems imprecise for the idea I'm trying to
get across.  

As I've said before, Riddle is a passed master of this.  Just look at
the bit of improv he put on to frame Hagrid.  Look at any of the
Pensieve memories of young Riddle. He learned quickly, from his first
meeting with Dumbledore, that his crude intimidation, so effective
with Muggle children, wasn't going to get him what he wanted from
adult wizards.  So he learned to act.

And he loves acting, he's proud of his skill.  Remember how Diary
Riddle bragged to Harry about conning Ginny Weasley?

"It's very boring, having to listen to the silly little troubles
of an eleven- year-old girl," he went on. "But I was patient. I
wrote back. I was sympathetic, I was kind. Ginny simply loved me. No
one's ever understood me like you, Tom .... I'm so glad I've got
this diary to confide in .... It's like having a friend I can carry
around in my pocket . . . .

Riddle laughed, a high, cold laugh that didn't suit him. It
made the hairs stand up on the back of Harry's neck.

"If I say it myself, Harry, 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 on a diet of her deepest fears, her darkest secrets. I
grew powerful, far more powerful than little Miss Weasley. Powerful
enough to start feeding Miss Weasley a few of my secrets, to start
pouring a little of my soul back into her. . ."   CoS

The older Tom Riddle uses his skill at "theater" as a force
multiplier--murdering one enemy is good, doing it in a manner that
convinces ten others to capitulate is better.  Riddle's so good at
this that people are afraid to even use the name he's chosen for his
greatest role.

Amiable Dorsai










From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Fri Mar 17 15:16:09 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:16:09 -0000
Subject: Draco's Redemption
In-Reply-To: <dvcmhu+8otp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvejrp+sfei@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149744

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

a_svirn: 
> My dictionary says: "boast 1) speak proudly about possessions and 
> accomplishments; transitive and intransitive verb, to praise 
> yourself, or speak arrogantly about things you possessed or have 
> achieved." That's exactly what Draco's doing. So what if he fails to 
> impress Dumbledore when he speaks about things he's accomplished? He 
> failed to impress Harry when he spoke about things he possessed too. 

Magpie:
> >Draco's on 
> > the defensive.  The best he can come up with is, "Yeah, well, you 
> > didn't figure out it was me, did you?"  (Which, of course, DD 
> did.)  
> > Draco's in no shape to boast in this scene.  

Geoff:
My interpretation of the scene on the tower is probably diametrically opposed to yours ? 
which seems to be our traditional stance(!)

I see two things about Draco to underline his lack of confidence and feelings of 
uncertainty about the development of events.

Firstly, his boasting is a fa?ade; he is indulging in bravado, he is whistling in the dark, 
Secondly, there is the evidence of his nervousness, his feeling of being ill at ease, his 
general body language, So often, when he says something boastful, it is belies by other 
factors.

Let's look at some canon: 

`"I came on ahead. I ? I've got a job to do."
"Well, then, you must get on and do it, my dear boy,@ said Dumbledore softly.
There was silence


Draco Malfoy did nothing but stare at Albus Dumbledore
'

`Somewhere in the depths of the castle below Harry, heard a muffled yell. Malfoy stiffened 
and glanced over his shoulder. "Somebody is putting up a good fight," said Dumbledore 
conversationally. "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?"
But Malfoy said nothing: he was still listening to whatever was happening below and 
seemed almost as paralysed as Harry was.'

`"Perhaps you should get on with the job alone," suggested Dumbledore. "
 I have no 
wand at the moment
 I cannot defend myself."
Malfoy merely stared at him.'

`Malfoy looked as though he was fighting down the urge to shout, or to vomit. He gulped 
and took several deep breaths, glaring at Dumbledore, his wand pointing directly at the 
latter's heart.'

`There was another yell from below, rather louder than the last. Malfoy looked nervously 
over his shoulder again
'

`"Enchanted coins," said Malfoy, as though he was compelled to keep talking, though his 
wand hand was shaking badly.'

`Malfoy gave a harsh laugh.
"You care about me saying `Mudblood' when I'm about to kill you?"
"Yes, I do," said Dumbledore and Harry saw his feet slide a little on the floor as he 
struggled to remain upright. "But as for being about to kill me, Draco, you have had 
several long minutes now. We are quite alone. I am more defenceless than you can 
dreamed of finding me and still you have not acted
"'

`Malfoy did not speak. His mouth was open, his wan hand still trembling. Harry thought he 
saw it drop by a fraction.'

`"We've got orders. Draco's got to do it. Now, Draco, and quickly."
Malfoy was showing less resolution than ever. He looked terrified as he stared into 
Dumbledore's face
'

`"Now, Draco, quickly!" said the brutal-faced man angrily.
But Malfoy's hand was shaking so badly that he could barely aim.'

(HBP "The Lightning-Struck Tower"  sections from pp.546-555 UK edition)

Right. Now imagine that, like Harry, you are an invisible observer to this action, maybe not 
party to all that has gone on in the past involving Draco. Does this boy strike you as a 
hardened amoral killer, prepared to stop at nothing to gain his goal of killing Dumbledore? 
Someone basking in the golden light of being praised by all Voldemort's evil supporters 
for carrying out possibly the second biggest blow for the Dark side short of Harry's death?

I suspect that our unseen and impartial observer would see someone for whom the 
imagined glow and satisfaction of carrying out a deed for Voldemort has been replaced by 
a douche of cold water in the face as the enormity of the step he has been planning strikes 
home. Truth, with its face of agony, stands face to face with him. Can he kill in cold blood? 
Does he so much want to be a Death Eater that he can mortgage his conscience?

Has he, like Lady Macbeth, got the bottle to say:
"We fail? 
But screw your courage to the sticking-place,
And we'll not fail"

Judging by his reactions here, I have my doubts. Perhaps it is for his own good and the 
good of his soul that the choice was taken from his hands,







From R.Vink2 at chello.nl  Fri Mar 17 15:47:46 2006
From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:47:46 -0000
Subject: Maligning Lupin
In-Reply-To: <dvccd3+u32s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dveln2+244b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149745

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:
>
> > 
> > Renee:
> > ?? I thought I was talking about zero evidence, actually. If every
> > sheep anyone had ever seen in the world was black, would we have
> > reason to believe in the existence of white sheep?  
> > 
>  Pippin:
> 
> We haven't heard from everyone in the wizarding world.
> 
> We might, if we knew something about animals but not much about 
> sheep, remind ourselves that animals come in all colors, and be 
> suspicious of the motives of anyone trying to convince us that sheep 
> are different by virtue of being sheep.

Renee:
We haven't heard from everyone in the wizarding world, no. But
werewolves are classified as non-human and considered Dark Creatures.
When Snape says "Who knows how the mind of a werewolf works?" he is
not just making a nasty remark, he is referring to the non-human
status of Lupin while in human form (in non-human form, werewolves
don't even have minds). 

The official view of the Wizarding World is that werewolves *are*
different by virtue of being werewolves. Unlike vampires, they're not
even considered part human, despite the fact  that they are human most
of the time. Even Hermione, who wasn't raised to hate and fear
werewolves, falls for the suggestion that they're no good at the very
first opportunity: the moment she suspects Lupin of being in league
with Sirius she shouts out that he's a werewolf, as if this would
automatically explain why. We're lightyears removed from Ben-Gurion's
ideal here. 

(Maybe the werewolves need a state of their own?)      
 
 
> Pippin:
>  > I firmly believe that JKR will show us that ESE!Lupin's efforts to
> > be good weren't  futile because  he was a werewolf. They were 
>  futile because he never had the courage to make himself accountable 
>  for what he'd done.
> > >
> > 

> Renee:
> > If your ESE!Lupin's failure to be good was not caused or
> > influenced by his lycanthropy, then neither was his turning evil. Yet
> > you do relate his fall to his rejection by society, if I recall
> > correctly. And his rejection by society has everything to do with his
> > being a werewolf. I also seem to recall it had something to do with
> > being sent to spy on the werewolves during the first Voldemort War,
> > and identifying with them to such a degree that he turned against the
> > Wizarding World. 
> 
> Pippin:
> The rationale for Lupin joining Voldemort can be 
> foreseen in the Marauder outings and in his failure to report what he 
> knew about Sirius:
> 
> a)  society presented him with a forbidden, guilt-inducing opportunity
>  that was more attractive than doing what he felt was right
> and
> b) Lupin chose to pursue it
> 

Renee:
Both the Marauder outings and his failure to report what he knew about
Sirius are related to his being a werewolf, the former directly, the
latter indirectly. (The former seems a pretty weak motive to me, and
the latter happened after he'd allegedly joined Voldemort, so this
doesn't count as a motive, but that's less relevant here). I asked for
a non-werewolf related motive. Apparently such a motive doesn't exist.
But I've come to realise it's a moot point anyway. Even if a werewolf
were to join Voldemort for reasons that had nothing to do with his
lycanthropy, the Wizarding World would still maintain it did, instead
of ascribing it to human fallibility.   

Renee



 
  









From nrenka at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 17 15:52:53 2006
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:52:53 -0000
Subject: The Many Faces of Snape was: High Noon for OFH!Snape
In-Reply-To: <dv7g6v+7vm3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvem0l+rh8e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149746

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" <sydpad at ...> wrote:

<snip>

> It would be viewed by people who prefer Snape's result-oriented 
> values as idiotic.  Weirdly, both parties would probably view the 
> disliked character's action as selfish (hey, I paged Dr. Kant days 
> ago and he still hasn't show up... one of these days I'm going to 
> write a big post about Kantian!Snape, probably when I'm under 
> multiple deadlines on projects that I'm actually being paid for).

When you speak of Kantian!Snape, are you thinking of Snape as being a
Kantian?  Because your own description of Snape up there,
'result-oriented values', is the ultimate opposite of what Kant makes
the total foundation of his metaphysics of morals: intention.

Nothing perfectly good except for the perfectly good will, and treat
every person as an end in and of himself.  Someone put it once,
interpretively, as means being the ends to Kant, and means are thus
very tightly regulated.  I can't imagine Snape fitting together in his
spy role and many of his other actions with Kant, the man who made the
serious argument that it's better not to lie to a man who has come to
kill your friend than to lie and save your friend's life accordingly.

-Nora dredges up her fond memories of struggling through the stuff as
a wee first-year






From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Fri Mar 17 17:44:31 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:44:31 -0000
Subject: Prophesies Re: Who calls Voldemort "Lord"
In-Reply-To: <dve6nu+50c7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dveshv+5222@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149747

Darqali:
> Well, how about it, folks?  What is the nature of Prophecy?  Does
> it come *from* some person, or just *through* the person?  Does
> the choice of words {such as "The Dark Lord"} have significance?
> Has JKR been *consistant* in her  use of the concept of Prophecy 
> in the HP series?  After all, she tells us Prophecies don't have
> to come true; that often, when they do, it is because people 
> *believed* what they said, and acted to *make* them true ... yet,
> we see Sibyll's second Prophecy about LV come true at once .....

Jen: By nature the prophecies and outcomes would have to be 
inconsistent. With the shelves and shelves of prophecies lining that 
cathedral-like room in the DOM, there can't be any consistency to 
how they are heard, acted on or not, and etc.  Some are likely 
fraudulent, made up by unethical Seers. Some were likely never acted 
on and came to nothing or conversely, came true anyway without 
action taken. That's what happened with the prophecy in POA, Harry 
didn't even remember it during the events of the evening and wasn't 
manipulating a certain outcome but it still came to pass.

No matter Dumbledore's (biased against Divination) explanation of 
events, he doesn't explain how he happened to be the one who heard 
the prophecy in the first place, the one person equipped to actually 
*do* something about it should Voldemort act on it. I find that 
compelling enough information to think prophecies are meant to be 
taken as the real deal sometimes. JKR can't make them completely the 
Will of the Fates because her choice theme would be undermined, yet 
there's an undercurrent of fate going on there.
 
Ceridwen: 
> Maybe the difference between Sybil and Cassandra (wasn't that
> gggmthr's name?) could be that Cassandra allowed her waking mind 
> to actually be more aware of these inner workings and so was able
> to control the setting and the audience for her predictions, while
> Sybil may not feel truly gifted and so forces a false personna 
> (the change between her misty-voiced false personna and the harsh 
> voice of prophecy) that masks the goings-on of her 'inner seer',
> even, or especially, to herself.

Jen: Trelawney's got the gift, I think, just covers it up by 
pursuing 'fortune-telling' as the centaurs called it. Maybe doesn't 
have the discipline or can't focus her vibes. ;)

Ceridwen:
> So, when Sybil made the prophecy to Dumbledore, events were
> beginning to dovetail down toward the fulfillment of the
> prophecy.  If this was anywhere from October to January, Lily and 
> Alice would have just become pregnant or just have learned or
> suspected as much; meanwhile, Voldemort is, as always, 
> Pinky, 'trying to take over the world'.  The two knife-edges slice 
> at angles toward the same point: the end of the Dark Lord.  (Think
> of it as a slice of pie)

Jen: So prophecies would be more a reflection of the time at hand 
rather than directing it? I think that's what you're saying here and 
I agree. Something in the ether (another moment of the fifth leg of 
the quintaped, eh?) can intepret and respond.

Cerdiwen:
> Sybil's inner seer must have some control over who it reveals its 
> gleaned knowledge.  So, Dumbledore, as one who is powerful and 
> opposed to LV, is seen as worthy of hearing that prophecy.  Harry,
> as the prophecy boy and as someone with a vested interest in what
> is going on, is worthy to hear the other.  So, the way I see it,
> everything depends on the sympaties of the seer as to who gets the
> propecies.

Jen: Maybe I just like the idea of Fate having a hand in the WW but 
I felt like Trelwaney didn't choose DD so much as the ether or 
whatever initiates the prophecy in the first place. She was tuned 
into the possibilty of delivering the prophecy until the time when 
the right moment and right person came together. 

Ceridwen:
> These prophecies do not have to come true.  Choice determines
> which of several threads will come together.  These are just red-
> flagged threads which, if they do intertwine, will be 
> significant.  LV could have chosen to scoff at the idea of seers;
> Peter could have been captured if it hadn't been for DADACurse!
> Lupin forgetting his potion.  As these threads did come together,
> then the propecies came true.

Jen: And JKR said she was bad at maths! That sounds like 
probabilities at work there. Maybe she's better at the theory than 
the practical application <g>. 


Ceridwen: 
> As for calling LV the 'Dark Lord', he *is* a Dark Lord.  At the
> time, he is the only Dark Lord in operation.  It's more of a
> formal designation despite who uses it.  

Jen: I chalked this one up to a dramatic literary moment more than 
anything else. That, and the impersonal nature of the Fates--it 
refers to an unknown person and a theoretically unknown Dark Lord; 
the listener has to intepret what the prophecy means rather than be 
spoon-fed. And from what the centaurs say, the door is open for 
Dumbleore and Voldemort to have made a mistake.

Jen R.








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 17 18:08:41 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:08:41 -0000
Subject: Prophesies Re: Who calls Voldemort "Lord"
In-Reply-To: <dve6nu+50c7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvetv9+a3d5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149748

Ceridwen wrote:
<snip stuff on Trelawney>
> As for calling LV the 'Dark Lord', he *is* a Dark Lord.  At the
time, he is the only Dark Lord in operation.  It's more of a formal
designation despite who uses it.  It isn't his name, any more than
'God' is the true name of God.  <snip>

Carol responds:
I agree. (I always think of Sauron, the Dark Lord in LOTR, when this
term is used.) I don't think Trance!Trelawney (for lack of a better
name) has any control over the designation used in the Prophecies;
"Dark Lord" is generic and mysterious and fits the harsh voice (not
Sibyll's own) that speaks through her.

Almost everyone except Dumbledore (who calls Voldemort "Tom" to his
face and uses the assumed name "Voldemort" in the third person) and
Harry and eventually Hermione uses some sort of label or euphemism to
avoid saying "Voldemort." "He Who Must Not Be Named" (shades of Rider
Haggard's "She") is long, awkward, and pompous, suitable only for an
occasional article in the Daily Prophet. "You Know Who" is short but
timid, and is used by those who have been taught to cringe when they
hear the name. The Twins, sensing that this particular euphemism is
silly, ridicule it (and LV himself) with "You Know Poo." The Death
Eaters, in general, tend to use "the Dark Lord," which is also short
but dignified rather than timid. It makes their self-appointed "lord"
sound sinister, dangerous, and powerful--worthy, in their view, of
being followed. 

Snape, who has kept his connections with the Death Eaters even after
(apparently) changing sides, carefully retains his habit of calling LV
the Dark Lord, not wanting them or their children, whose HOH he is, to
suspect his change of allegiance. (As an aside, surely there are more
than four children of DEs in Hogwarts and surely they're not all in
Harry's class. that seems too big a coincidence to me.) It seems, too,
that the name "Voldemort" causes Snape's Dark Mark to hurt him. I
don't see any sign of a similar reaction by the DEs in the MoM when
Harry speaks the name "Voldemort" (OoP Am. ed. 784). Bellatrix is
outraged and some of the DEs hiss indignantly, but neither none of
them grabs his or her left forearm as Snape does in the first
Occlumency lesson when Harry speaks the name. Snape hisses (okay,
"spits") at Harry, "*Do not speak the Dark Lord's name!*" and absently
rubs his arm as if it hurts him (OoP 532). I've mentioned this gesture
of his repeatedly, to no avail, but I think his Dark Mark senses his
disloyalty to its master when he hears the name (or when his loyalty
is challenged by Crouch!Moody under cover of detesting DEs in
general), and the last thing he wants is for this disloyalty to be
revealed during Occlumency lessons. It's not a matter of calling
Voldemort the Dark Lord because he's still a DE; it's a matter of
concealing his true loyalties (and protecting himself from pain).

Ceridwen:
>  A Sybil was the priestess/prophet of Apollo at the temple at
Delphi, and was a designation that has become a name. <snip>
> 

Carol:
Right. "The god" (Apollo) was speaking through the Sybils, just as
someone or something is speaking through Trelawney about events that
*may* happen if the persons involved encounter one another in
particular circumstances. (I'm reminded of Galadriel's Mirror, which
showed events that often "came to pass" only when the quester (or
questioner?) turned back to prevent them from happening--and, of
course, of instances in which acting to thwart a prophecy--or to make
it come true--leads to disaster for the person making the attempt,
whether it's Oedipus's parents or Macbeth or the historical king who
was told that he would destroy a mighty army that he didn't realize
was his own.) We don't know whose voice is speaking to Trelawney, but
it's impersonal, like the warnings of impending doom (war? violence?
bloodshed?) that the Centaurs see in the planets ("Mars is bright
tonight"). But, IMO, the use of the term "Dark Lord" in the two
prophecies is not a reflection of pro-Voldemort sympathies on
Trelawney's part or on the part of the voice that speaks through her.

BTW, someone expressed concern that Trelawney was a Cornish name. I
don't think that has any particular significance considering JKR's
obvious dislike of prejudice of any kind. Maybe there's some sort of
Cornish connection with Seers, though?

Carol, for whom Trelawney is the adventurer who removed the dead Lord
Byron's silk stockings to see the extent of the deformity of the
poet's club foot (or feet)






From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Fri Mar 17 18:52:14 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:52:14 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dvdf30+gk2d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvf0gu+fl8m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149749

> Neri:
> I suspect that Snape has a more severe form of the Life Debt than
> Peter has, because after all, James *was* killed by Voldemort as a
> result of Snape's action. So strictly speaking, (assuming now the
> UV-like sub-theory of the Life Debt magic) Snape *should* have died
> when James did. My hunch is that Dumbledore had to do some very
> difficult magic there in order to save Snape's life. I even
> hypothesized that this is what Dumbledore was occupied with during
> the 24 Hours after GH. My best guess is that Dumbledore saved
> Snape by performing a magical transaction that transferred Snape's
> Debt from James to Harry. And if I'm right about this, then Snape
> ended up having a Life Debt to Dumbledore too, for saving his life
> from the first Debt, which would give Dumbledore even more reason
> to trust him.

Jen: This adds a layer the story doesn't need, though, and is 
surprisingly convoluted for Faith <g>. In HBP we're meant to be left 
wondering whether Snape saved Dumbledore from the ring curse because 
he's loyal and is doing the right thing or because he's keeping him 
alive so Voldemort can exact his revenge on the Malfoy's (and Snape) 
in the end. And if you tell me that doesn't make sense I'll have to 
refer you you back to Voldemort to answer that one, He Who Overlooks 
The Flaws In All His Plans. 

Another thing, Dumbledore seems to honor ancient magic in a way he 
doesn't honor human laws. Meddling with the life-debt seems counter 
to his actions so far, like believing Harry must compete in the 
Triwizard Tournament. Not sure that was ancient magic per se, but as 
a 'binding magical contract' Dumbledore still didn't interfere even 
though very wary of the outcome.

But hey, I'm completely biased. My gut feeling is the life-debt was 
a done deal in PS: 1) Snape didn't kill James himself and didn't 
know the prophecy would be interpreted to mean James when he 
delivered it to LV; 2) when James died the debt ended; and 3) Snape 
himself prolonged the agony of feeling indebted because that's what 
he *does*. If life-debts work another way Peter should have been 
incapacitated in his ability to actively help Voldemort kill Harry. 


> Neri:
> Apparently Snape told Dumbledore that he felt great remorse. And if
> this pain that Snape was screaming with during The Flight was a
> small sample, then I shudder to think what he was suffering when 
> James actually died. I'd imagine it wouldn't be at all difficult
> for him to feel remorse while suffering so badly. Like Dumbledore 
> said to Harry,"you have no idea".

Jen: Again with the same objection, we're left wondering from HBP 
whether Snape's remorse was a genuine emotion as Dumbledore believes 
or a story as he tells Bella. Adding another layer to the remorse 
changes the big question of HBP. 

Maybe we're in for another "And now I will tell you everything" 
moment here, but if that's the case, I don't think it's over the 
definition of the word 'remorse'.


> Neri:
> You are forgetting again the UV. The question isn't really why
> Snape killed Dumbledore on the tower. As you say, he had to do
> that to stay alive. So the real question here is what possessed
> him in Spinner's End to take the third part of the UV. Admittedly 
> either DDM, ESE, OFH or LID don't explain it. However, DDM still
> has a much harder time with it, because a Snape who is loyal to
> Dumbledore and takes a Vow to kill him is, er... shall we say
> mysterious?

Jen: Technically Snape agreed to the clause: "And if it should prove 
necessary...if it seems Draco will fail....will you carry out the 
deed that the Dark Lord has ordered Draco to perform?"

There's a lot of space around the taking of that Vow and the clause 
itself for JKR to fill in, and we've seen what she can do with a 
vacuum. 

Jen R.







From juli17 at aol.com  Fri Mar 17 18:54:32 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:54:32 -0000
Subject: seeds of betrayal
In-Reply-To: <dvd8hj+7iqf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvf0l8+4jok@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149750

Alla wrote:
> 
> So,where does it lead me? Back to Sherry's point of course. Do I 
think 
> Shack adequately shows the possibility of Snape's resenting to 
> Dumbledore for siding with Marauders again? YES, I absolutely think 
it 
> is possible.
> 
> Not that I think that Dumbledore EVER sided with Marauders or that he 
> was favoring them, or anything like that.
> 
> But would Snape think so? I think yes.
> 

Julie:
I agree with you that Snape resented Dumbledore for favoring the 
Mauraders from his POV, *when* he was a teenager. I suspect it was a 
good part of what sent Snape to Voldemort in the first place. 
Dumbledore betrayed him in his mind, so he turned to the Dark Side (er, 
Voldemort, that is). But Snape came back to Dumbledore, of his own free 
will (IMO), and that implies to me that Snape made some sort of peace 
with Dumbledore over that incident. Even with it coming up again in 
POA, I can't really see Snape suddenly re-resenting Dumbledore on the 
same level again over something they would have resolved long ago. 

OTOH, he could resent the repeat of that favoritism in the form of 
Dumbledore's devotion to Harry. Once again Snape comes in second! In 
fact, I believe Snape does harbor some resentment on that issue. I just 
don't think it's enough for him to betray Dumbledore again. But that's 
just my opinion ;-)

Julie 







From juli17 at aol.com  Fri Mar 17 19:24:32 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 19:24:32 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape falls off his horse (was LID!Snape rides again and again
In-Reply-To: <B88A37E9-D461-4CA4-92B5-7DDAD818E9DB@polytechnique.org>
Message-ID: <dvf2dg+4pru@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149751

Okay, I'm not really going to knock Snape off his horse, I just liked 
the title ;-) Neri did a great job of proposing a workable theory, 
though I still don't think it's more workable than DDM!Snape. All the 
Snape theories have weak areas, whether they alter the characters too 
much, don't explain key scenes, etc. And Oliver wrote something on that 
subject:

Oliver:
> Having reread a bit of JKR's interview, I must say I feel vindicated  
> in my non-theorizing approach. Gee, Grindelwald, the gleam,  
> Dumbledore's family, the Founders, who loved Snape
 All that is  
> enormously important. No chance we can guess something even remotely  
> close to the truth in my humble opinion.
> 

Julie:
I agree, and I'm thrilled about it! As much fun as it is trying to 
figure out a GUT tying together all the unanswered questions and 
hanging plot threads in the HP books, I want to be surprised when we 
finally get the real answers. I want that AHA! moment when it all falls 
together and it makes perfect sense :-)

In the meantime, I think the only thing that really separates the 
various versions of Snape is what we each think is his primary 
motivation--or, probably more accurately, *want* it to be. LID assumes 
Snape is compelled by the Life Debt and feels no real loyalty to DD, 
DDM assumes Snape chose freely to switch sides and is loyal to DD, OFH 
assumes Snape is playing both sides against each other, ready to side 
with whoever comes out on top, and ESE assumes loyalty to Voldemort. No 
doubt FinalRevelation!Snape will have shades of several of these 
qualities, like a paint pallet with colors mixed together, but one will 
have to come out as the prime motivator, the main reason Snape acts as 
he does. And on that issue, to each his/her own My!Snape :-)

Julie  







From sydpad at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 17 19:40:05 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 19:40:05 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dvdf30+gk2d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvf3al+f2r3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149752

 
> Neri
> I'm not sure I understand your question. First, when does Dumbledore
> say he trusted Snape before the Potters were killed?

Well, he says in his testimony that he changed sides before the
Potters were killed, and in his talk with Harry he goes on about the
remorse he felt before the Potters were killed-- when he found out who
the targets were.  It's an assumption, but then there's never been any
indication in the text that anything changed in Snape by the actual
death of the Potters, just by discovering that they were the target.

> But assuming he did, the question is how the Life Debt works exactly.
> It is actually quite possible that a deep magic like that doesn't have
> defined rules, in the same way that Lily's Ancient Magic doesn't seem
> to have very defined rules. It just works when the Author needs it to.

*cough* Or the theorist....

> The thematic content is more important than the exact details. So
> maybe the same way Dumbledore trusts that Wormtail's Debt would save
> Harry in the end, he trusts that Snape's Debt would also do that.

Sorry, what's the thematic content again of anklemonitor!Snape?  It's
not symbolic of remorse, because remorse is a selfless feeling, and
the ankle-monitor life debt is a profoundly selfish motivation.  When
I said I liked a Life Debt that worked more like the DADA curse, as
situation magic, I meant that it created a situation that didn't
artificially impose itself on the character, it created a situation--
that could easily be coincidental-- that brought out something hidden
in the character.  In a deep and impenetrable way.


> If OTOH we assume that the Life Debt magic is really more similar the
> UV. Say, it kills you if you kill the one you owe to, or I you take a
> part in killing him. 

I take it Pettigrew is unaware of this whole Life Debt thing, because
he had a very narrow escape!  It's amazing how such an overt, obvious,
and un-mysterious magical operation would fail to be taken account of
by him.  Seeing as he actually took part in an attempt to kill Harry,
wheras Snape just reported a conversation.  And Snape was desperate
enough when he realized this to change sides, whereas Peter tied Harry
to a rock right in front of Voldemort and figured he could take his
chances.


>And (in order to account for Snape's strange
> behavior  in "The Flight of the Prince") lets say that the Debt is
> kind enough to give you a painful warning or a reminder if you are
> *about* to kill or hurt that person.

Liiiiike, Peter? 


>So by informing Voldemort about
> the prophecy, Snape made himself a part of Voldemort's scheme to kill
> the Potters. He realized that he would die if Voldy kills James. 

I might mention that it's Lily that Voldemort gives the chance to
stand aside.  Just sayin'.

Snape
> has no way to convince Voldy to give this up, so he ran to Dumbledore
> and told him about it.

Dumbledore only says he BELIEVES the targeting of James and Lily was
why he changed sides.  Also just sayin'.


> Both Dumbledore and Snape would realize that this effectively places
> Snape in Dumbledore's side. Snape can only stay alive if Dumbledore
> and the Order manage to win the war and guard James, so Snape would be
> a fool to harm anybody in the Order. And if the Order wins and
> Voldemort loses, Snape would need Dumbledore to save him from Azkaban.
> In such a situation Dumbledore has a very good reason to trust that
> Snape is on his side.

Okay, now I understand.  Still, not a way I would ever use the words
"on our side".  Wouldn't Snape formulate the much more safe and
sensible plan of capturing James, killing Harry, and keeping James in
a cage or something?  Surely he could have worked that one out with
Voldemort, who would probably be downright amused by it.  What I don't
understand is why Peter doesn't seem to be aware of this pretty
straightforward (as opposed to deep and impenetrable) magical thingie.  


> >  Betsy Hp:
> > Remember, by reporting the Prophecy Snape put *Harry* in mortal 
> > danger, not James and Lily.  
> 
> Neri:
> Er... what? Do you think Snape believed for one moment that Voldy
> would leave James and Lily alive?

I think Betsy just means that your ankle-monitor Life Debt, while in
it's actual operation is as complicated as, well, and ankle monitor,
seems amazingly subtle in it's choice of targets.  You might as well
say Snape endangered James the second he joined the Voldemort, seeing
as the Order was being picked off one by one by the DE's.  Snape
reported a conversation that targeted someone who wasn't the debtee. T 


>Why is Peter able to work with Voldemort, who is 
> > actively seeking Harry's death, while Snape is somehow "trapped" to 
> > Dumbledore's side? 
> > 
> 
> Neri:
> I suspect that Snape has a more severe form of the Life Debt than
> Peter has, because after all, James *was* killed by Voldemort as a
> result of Snape's action.

Well, but Peter, at the point at which he was plotting with Voldemort
to kill Harry in GoF, would have moved into Stage 2 of your debt,
wouldn't he?  I mean, you have an out with Snape because of your
Dumbledore-used-magic-to-transfer-the-debt plug-in, but Peter's
working away all through GoF to kill Harry, and he knows perfectly
well that Harry saved his life, so he ought to die as soon as Harry
does.  What's Peter's brilliant plan?  Did he expect V-mort to be able
to work around it, using D-dore debt-transfer plan?  But why wouldn't
Snape have thought of that?

If the anklemonitor gives a shock of pain when you endanger the person
you owe a life debt to, why didn't Peter feel it?  How does the
2-stage life debt WORK with people not lucky enough to have Dumbledore
around to transfer it?  At what point do they move into the pain
stage?  If it's, debt stage 1, no real effect;  debt stage 2, you
endanger your debtor's life, then you die if they die.  Isn't Peter
starting to wonder why he's in agonizing pain pretty much all the
time, seeing as he's working for Voldemort?  Or do only rare cases of
stage 3, debtor killed but debt transfered people move into the pain
stage?   And this is the straightforward theory?


> Neri:
> Apparently Snape told Dumbledore that he felt great remorse. And if
> this pain that Snape was screaming with during The Flight was a small
> sample, then I shudder to think what he was suffering when James
> actually died. I'd imagine it wouldn't be at all difficult for him to
> feel remorse while suffering so badly. 

Is english your first language?  I'm not trying to be insulting, but
that's not 'remorse'.  If you're trying to demonstrate that you feel
remorse to a parole board, you tend to avoid going on about how sorry
you are that you got caught.  You feel guilt and remorse because of
something that happens to someone else, not something that happens to
you.  Dumbledore would be LESS inclined to think Snape felt remorse if
he was getting shocks from an ankle monitor, not more.  


> So Dumbledore would naturally want to give Snape a second chance, same
> as he gave Draco and Kreacher. Probably he was aware that Snape's
> remorse wasn't that durable, 

Or, you know, wasn't remorse.  


but Dumbledore was a great believer in
> second chances, and he'd also believe that such deep magic must play
> its part in the end.   

'Deep' magic?  What part of this is deep?  


> And indeed, just several days after Snape
> saved Dumbledore's life he took a UV. 

Where is the bit where Snape is aware that Narcissa is going to add
the third clause on?  You're making it sound like Snape was mostly
into swearing to kill Dumbledore, and the Draco stuff was an
afterthought.  But it's the other way around.  


> Neri:
> You are forgetting again the UV. The question isn't really why Snape
> killed Dumbledore on the tower. 


Indeed.  The question is why Dumbledore says, "Severus.. please.."
before Snape has done anything.  The overheard argument in the forest
plus the 'severus, please', plus the way the tower situation is set up
to mean Dumbledore's death would take Draco and Harry with him,
suggest to me that the MOST straightforward reading is that Snape
didn't want to kill Dumbledore at all, and would rather have died
himself.  Taking the UV at all supports, rather than undermines this--
if Snape just wanted to kill Dumbledore, the Vow doesn't help him it
just raises the stakes to the stratosphere.  If Snape doesn't mind
dying, it makes a lot more sense.


>So the real question here is what possessed him in Spinner's
> End to take the third part of the UV. Admittedly either DDM, ESE, OFH
> or LID don't explain it. However, DDM still has a much harder time
> with it, because a Snape who is loyal to Dumbledore and takes a Vow to
> kill him is, er... shall we say mysterious?

Not really.  Snape undertook the Vow, on a practical level, to protect
Draco-- I assume from Voldemort, because Voldemort couldn't kill Draco
without killing Snape.  How very peculiar of Snape to walk with eyes
wide open into the identical situation you say has been ruining his
lovely life, which would otherwise be spent serving Voldemort and
torturing muggles!  But I forget-- your LD sprouted a tentacle that
covers this, by like, the magic of the UV interfering with the
original LD or something?  Bit dangerous to fool around with
interactions like this, with magic so deep and impenetrable and all.
And protecting Draco from Voldemort looks every bit as hard as
protecting Harry from Voldemort.  So now he'll die if Voldemort kills
either boy.  And he'll die if he doesn't kill Dumbledore.  All part of
Snape's evil plan!

Or maybe, Snape is trying to be a good person, to try to save Draco's
life in the only way he can think of, by essentially putting himself
in front of V-mort's line of fire. Like Lily did.  But he used Dark
Magic to do it (at least, red snakes and dropping dead look like Dark
magic to me), and it cost him dearly.

The bottom line of the UV, seeing as Snape went willingly into it, is
that he's willing to die.  I still haven't heard an argument against
this, unless it's that it didn't occur to him that it would be really,
really hard to protect Draco from all harm,and kill Dumbledore, at the
same time.  Voldemort couldn't successfully kill Dumbledore. 
Voldemort wants Draco dead.  This is hard.  Not saying that Snape
didn't think he couldn't do it, but did he think it was SO EASY that
he might as well take the Vow as not?  And wouldn't killing Dumbledore
put Harry now in extreme and unprotected danger?  Especially as Snape
wouldn't be around any more to watch over him?  Ankle-monitor!Snape is
in a worse position than ever now.  

-- Sydney, who has no problem with deep and impenetrable life debts
that bring out people's true characters, but who finds
ankelmonitor!Snape to fly like a lead balloon, structurally,
thematically, and practically.









From belviso at attglobal.net  Fri Mar 17 20:15:23 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 20:15:23 -0000
Subject: When did Draco Imperius Rosmerta?/Seeds of Betrayal/LiD!Snape rides again
In-Reply-To: <dvcqvu+k4qi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvf5cr+mi38@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149753

Sydney:

apologizing to Magpie for disrespecting Draco..

Magpie:
Heh--I confess I didn't even catch the diss since I agree.:-)  It's 
very hard to reconcile the kid who, after months of effort with crying 
breaks, managed to fix the furniture with the kid keeping a grown 
woman bent to his will for months.  I don't know how hard Imperio is 
supposed to be (we hear about a "badly performed one" early on), but 
it really seems like you need a certain force of personality that 
Draco doesn't have.  Is it ironic that Draco, who is not in control 
and feels bullied, is keeping someone else a slave?  Or does it just 
make it that much harder to believe he's able to sustain Imperio?  My 
instinct says the latter.

I do agree with Betsy that he was focused, though. :-) 

I haven't given much thought to Draco's helper, but the more people 
talk about it the more sense it makes that he could have had a helper 
outside the school who was responsible for Imperio-ing Rosmerta in 
case Draco needed her.  In the scene where we find out about it I 
believe the language is very impersonal "How long has she been under 
Imperius?" as opposed to "You imperiused her."  

I remember Blaise's appearence really sticking out in my mind in that 
chapter at the pub, but I'm not sure if maybe he wasn't a red 
herring.  Like he was just there for us to suspect him, since Draco 
was in detention.

PJ:
All very true but how could Bellatrix be in the RoR to help Draco fix 
the cabinet?  I may very well be *wrong* (it happens....often) but 
there was something in the way he worded it that made me read "help" 
as meaning *physical* assistance.  His frustration was with the 
cabinet so it would make sense imo to have someone with him who was 
somewhat familiar with how the cabinet worked and could help him 
repair it.  It's not just a matter of putting a few screws into it.  
Anyone can do that.  But I think the magic would have to be realligned 
with the other piece or they wouldn't work as a set.

Magpie
I think the Cabinet was one thing that was absolutely secret, with 
only Draco and Borgin knowing (and Borgin only a little).  I just 
can't imagine that he had anyone actually physically helping him fix 
it.  It seems important, somehow, that he did that on his own (making 
him feel alone, having it all be on his shoulders, his wanting it to 
be his triumph, explaining why it took so long).  I think the 
reference to outside help fits bets if Draco is hinting about 
Rosemerta and possibly whoever Imperiused her for him (like a gift!).  
The story's over now, so I don't see much point to not revealing until 
Book VII that there was someone else in the school.  I think the 
Rosemerta story is supposed to go with Draco's claim to have help.  
Revealing that Bella or someone did something outside the school is 
more set up and takes less explaining post-HBP than someone in the 
school.

Geoff:
My interpretation of the scene on the tower is probably diametrically 
opposed to yours ?which seems to be our traditional stance(!)

Magpie:
Do you mean me or a_svirn?  Because I thought I agreed with your 
description here.:-)  Though in that discussion I was specifically 
talking about Draco's speaking of the two attempted murders that 
resulted in Ron and Katie being hurt, and there he allows most of 
Dumbledore's criticism to stand unchallenged.  Had he bragged about 
these things, we might know more about the details.  

Alla:
I am not dismissing Snape being mad at Sirius for Potters death. I AM
though disagreeing that Snape IS able to handle the Prank memories. I
do think that it makes him completely irrational ( and of course he
has a right to be irrational, since even though I am pretty positive
that Sirius did not mean to kill Snape, I do think that Snape honestly
believes that he did mean to do exactly that).

Magpie:
Oh, I think he does get irrational when the Prank comes up, yes.  But 
it seems much more natural a progression for the Prank to lead into 
other things.  The stuff that potentially resulted from the Prank (his 
first feeling indebted to James and perhaps it contributing to his 
joining to the DEs) is more related to the story now.  For Snape to 
betray Dumbledore based on a complete regression to his thoughts about 
the Prank seems to, imo, require far more explanation that's 
completely off-screen.  When's the moment Snape regressed completely 
and why and how, given the history?  How is he clearly, in retrospect, 
different before and after that turning point? And why does he take 
the vow, in that case?  Hmm...now I'm thinking about PoA and how 
Dumbledore's "My memory is as good as it ever was" is reminding me 
of "Yes, Harry, I heard every word you said about Snape and Malfoy and 
understood it just fine."

-m








From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Mar 17 21:14:59 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:14:59 -0000
Subject: Maligning Lupin
In-Reply-To: <dveln2+244b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvf8sj+btn4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149754

> Christina:
> 
> Hermione leading Umbridge to the Centaurs is a decision that she makes
> when Umbridge is about the Crucio Harry.  Self-defense.  The
> werewolves purposefully attack innocent people.  There's a difference.

Pippin:
Werewolves attack people whom they believe are depriving them of their
rights and freedoms.  YMMV.

Christina:
  Not everybody apologizes in the same way, and Lupin is not an
> emotional man.  "I mustn't do it again," is an apology itself.

Pippin:
Erm, it's an apology for something Lupin didn't do -- bite someone.
I'd like to see an apology or at least some remorse  for something 
that Lupin did do, expressed to someone who could actually impose 
a consequence on him, one that he wouldn't have faced if he hadn't 
confessed. 

You know, like the confession of remorse Dumbledore says
Snape made to him. 
 


> > Pippin:
> > The rationale for Lupin joining Voldemort can be 
> > foreseen in the Marauder outings and in his failure to report what 
> > he knew about Sirius:
> > 
> > a)  society presented him with a forbidden, guilt-inducing 
> > opportunity that was more attractive than doing what he felt was 
> > right and
> > b) Lupin chose to pursue it
> 
> Christina:
> 
> I still feel that this completely ignores the reasons behind Lupin's
> decisions. 

Pippin:
The reasons aren't important. If you get in the habit of ignoring 
danger signs, that's going to have a consequence.Think of
 the villagers in the story of the boy who cried wolf. They stopped
listening to the boy for good reasons, but then they
didn't listen when they should have. What if Lupin's conscience is still
crying wolf, but  he's not listening anymore?

Christina:
 So why would he consciously choose to go around
> killing those friends and continuing to rack up actions that would
> disappoint DD?  Lupin keeps his mouth shut because he *likes* what the
> WW has done for him and he wants to keep those benefits.  That just
> does not swing with a Lupin that believes that he would have a better
> life under Voldemort. 

Pippin:
Where do you see that Lupin likes being poor, jobless,  an unpopular
dinner guest, and being persecuted by the Ministry?  He needs his 
wizard friends to shelter him from things  which he wouldn't have 
to suffer in the first place if wizarding society was fair. 

I doubt he believes now that he'd have a better life under Voldemort.
But that might not have stopped young Lupin from trying to use
Voldemort's emnity for his own purposes, just as Hermione tried to
use the centaurs. I'm sure Hermione didn't think she'd have a better
life if the centaurs took over -- but her immediate situation took
precedence. 



> > Pippin:
> > JKR really upped the stakes by introducing Fenrir.  It made 
> > anti-werewolf bias a lot more understandable but no less wrong. If 
> > Lupin is bad it will be even more understandable. And it will still
> > be wrong. I trust JKR to be able to get that across.
> 
> Christina:
> 
> But why would she want to?  It sounds like JKR had exactly the
> thoughts you did - we must still fight for justice even when people of
> a minority group fulfill our fears - and slipped in Fenrir Greyback to
> solve that problem.

Pippin:
As it stands, readers can feel smugly superior to the wizards, who are
so handicapped by their prejudice that they can't be bothered to tell
the difference between a rank-smelling bloodstained thug like Fenrir
and a kindly sweet-natured professor. That's demeaning to the
wizards, because it pooh-poohs their fears, and it's demeaning to
the werewolves because it says they can't disguise their evil as
cunningly as other wizards can.

It's not just that some members of a minority group may fulfill our
fears, it's that even after we get to know them, it's not  going to be
so easy to tell who those people are. We handicap ourselves
in the fight against prejudice if we think it's all based on unrealistic
fears, because we're going to be denigrating those fears instead
of building up courage.

As Ginny discovered, when you open your heart and mind
to a stranger, you are taking a genuine risk. It's a risk that's 
worthwhile, far more often than not, IMO. But it's a real one.

> Christina:
> 
> That was my point.  Perhaps I should have emphasized it.  You say that
> ESE!Lupin is afraid to get caught, but he apparently sends his best
> friend through the veil **with DD standing in the same room**.  For
> somebody that is terrified of getting caught doing something wrong,
> Lupin is awfully brazen here.


Pippin:
Sirius yelled "Harry take the prophecy and run!" Those words were his
death warrant, IMO. Think about what Dumbledore said.  Harry should 
have known there was no need for him to go to the Department of 
Mysteries.  The inference is that Dumbledore was protecting the
prophecy only because it offered an opportunity to out Voldemort
when he tried to steal it. In HBP we find out that he regards the
prophecy as essentially worthless.

For some reason Sirius, though he knows about the prophecy,
does not know this; he tells  Harry to take the prophecy. If
Sirius had been in Dumbledore's confidence, he'd have told
Harry to drop it.

Who told Sirius of the prophecy and made him think that it was worth
risking Harry for? Not Dumbledore, I think. ESE!Lupin might  prefer not
to  kill Sirius, but in that moment he had more to lose by Sirius
surviving. Being caught as a murderer would not be worse than being 
caught as a DE spy. Either way, Sirius and Dumbledore would not want 
to be his friends any more. But if Sirius died,  Dumbledore's
precious trust could be preserved.

Harry and Neville were behind him, Moody had lost his magical
eye, Tonks was down, and Dumbledore had his hands full with
the captured DE's. There was a chance. There was no chance at
all if Sirius lived.

Christine:
  You can't say that Lupin isn't afraid of killing just because he is 
willing to kill a lying, back-stabbing murderer. 

Pippin:
But I do say that. "Killing is not  nearly as easy as the innocent believe."
Draco thinks that Dumbledore is a muggle-loving, half-witted
fool who put his father in prison, and further that killing him
is the only way he can save himself and his family. Yet he 
hesitates and finally lowers his wand. Lupin, OTOH,
only lowers his wand when Harry throws himself in front
of Peter. 

Sirius is white and shaking as he prepares to kill Peter.
Lupin actually gloats. It's a quiet gloat, but what would we think
of Snape if he'd said, "You should have known, Albus, if
Voldemort didn't kill you, we would. Goodbye."? Even a hardcore 
DDM!Snaper would find that hard to explain.


> >  Pippin:
> > 
> > We haven't heard from everyone in the wizarding world.
> > 
> > We might, if we knew something about animals but not much about 
> > sheep, remind ourselves that animals come in all colors, and be 
> > suspicious of the motives of anyone trying to convince us that sheep 
> > are different by virtue of being sheep.
> 
> Renee:
> We haven't heard from everyone in the wizarding world, no. But
> werewolves are classified as non-human and considered Dark Creatures.
> When Snape says "Who knows how the mind of a werewolf works?" he is
> not just making a nasty remark, he is referring to the non-human
> status of Lupin while in human form (in non-human form, werewolves
> don't even have minds). 
 
> The official view of the Wizarding World is that werewolves *are*
> different by virtue of being werewolves. 

Pippin:

I  don't think so.

I don't think we're supposed to take Snape's opinions on werewolves
as authoritative or official. Scamander says that when not transformed the
werewolf is as "harmless as any other human." As  stated above in 
a Ministry approved text,  they are indeed humans when not transformed. 
(What goes unstated, of course, is that other humans are extremely 
dangerous, known wizard killers too. <g>)

 The Bloomsbury site tells us that half-breed is supposed to refer to
beings who are part human and part some other animal. The
inference is that Umbridge was using it incorrectly, as a slur,
to refer to Professor Lupin. 

That Snape can't tell how Lupin's mind works is explained by the
"odd, closed expression" Lupin bears in an earlier chapter. That's
an anvil-sized hint if there ever was one. Lupin is probably using 
occlumency to block Snape. Snape's opinion that werewolves' minds work
differently should thus be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism, much
like his opinion that kappas are more commonly found in Mongolia. He
really should have spent more time reading his FBAWTF instead
of scribbling in his potions book and  messing around with
curses in school. <g> 

Renee:
 Even if a werewolf were to join Voldemort for reasons that had 
nothing to do with his lycanthropy, the Wizarding World would 
still maintain it did, instead of ascribing it to human fallibility.   

Pippin:
Yes! Yes! And they'd be wrong. That's my point. Att the end of HP and the Final
Thrilling Conclusion, the Trio, assuming they survive, will know
that, IMO. They'll know there isn't going to be an instant, sugar-coated 
After School Special solution to the problems of werewolves.
But they will resolve (I think) to change attitudes that can be changed.

 But we're prejudiced ourselves if we think that prejudiced people 
are all the same. IMO. 

Some, like Ron, just don't know better. 

Some, like Snape, have wounds too deep for the healing.

And some, including some victims, because humans are really very clever, 
are exploiting other peoples' prejudices for their own ends.  The latter 
two groups, unfortunately, have a vested interest in seeing prejudice continue. 

As Dumbledore says, if you want to fight evil, you have to be prepared
to fight what seems to be a losing battle. That's not defeatism. That's
courage.

Pippin






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Mar 17 21:21:49 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:21:49 -0000
Subject: When did Draco Imperius Rosmerta?/Seeds of Betrayal/LiD!Snape rides again
In-Reply-To: <dvf5cr+mi38@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvf99d+bmpu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149755


> Magpie
> I think the Cabinet was one thing that was absolutely secret, with 
> only Draco and Borgin knowing (and Borgin only a little).  I just 
> can't imagine that he had anyone actually physically helping him fix 
> it.  It seems important, somehow, that he did that on his own (making 
> him feel alone, having it all be on his shoulders, his wanting it to 
> be his triumph, explaining why it took so long).  I think the 
> reference to outside help fits bets if Draco is hinting about 
> Rosemerta and possibly whoever Imperiused her for him (like a gift!).  
> The story's over now, so I don't see much point to not revealing until 
> Book VII that there was someone else in the school.  I think the 
> Rosemerta story is supposed to go with Draco's claim to have help.  
> Revealing that Bella or someone did something outside the school is 
> more set up and takes less explaining post-HBP than someone in the 

Pippin:
It could be someone with access to Rosmerta and access to the school.
Interesting that JKR's website tells us that Lupin was (or was supposed
to be) stationed in Hogsmeade.

Someone had to check on Draco's progress and deliver news of 
Voldemort's displeasure. One of the things that make me more and
more positive that there is a traitor in the Order is that I don't have
to keep thinking up things for the traitor to do. Other people keep
doing it for me! 

Pippin







From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 17 21:19:49 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:19:49 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV(was:Re: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dvdf30+gk2d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvf95l+gnug@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149756

> >>Neri:
> <snip>
> The question isn't really why Snape killed Dumbledore on the      
> tower. As you say, he had to do that to stay alive. So the real   
> question here is what possessed him in Spinner's End to take the  
> third part of the UV. Admittedly either DDM, ESE, OFH or LID don't 
> explain it. However, DDM still has a much harder time with it,     
> because a Snape who is loyal to Dumbledore and takes a Vow to
> kill him is, er... shall we say mysterious?

Betsy Hp:
I wanted to hone in on this particular question, because I think it 
makes *more* sense for a DDM!Snape to take the UV than any other 
type of Snape, if we go with only what we know from canon.  And I 
want to explain why I think this way.  (No, I don't expect to change 
any minds. <g>)

ESE, or Voldemort's Man!Snape would have *never* taken the UV.  It 
directly defies Voldemort who made clear that Draco was pretty much 
on his own.

As Sydney pointed out, it makes little sense for LID!Snape to take 
the Vow because he's tying his life to yet another kid on a 
dangerous mission.

Out For Himself!Snape also makes little sense tying his survival to 
someone else.  One could argue a strong tie to the Malfoy family 
that cuts through his keen survival instincts, but I'm trying to 
stick with known canon.

But, especially in light of Dumbledore's actions throughout HBP, 
someone loyal to Dumbledore *would* risk his own life to protect a 
student.  It's been argued several times that Dumbledore put 
Hogwarts and himself at risk to try and save Draco from Voldemort 
(both physically and spiritually).  If Snape really is DDM, if he 
really is following Dumbledore's core code of behavior, than of 
course he'd be willing to risk his life to save a student.  Which is 
what the Vow is asking him to do.

(To try and head off one particular argument: I'm not arguing for 
Saint!Snape with this.  It is a student Snape is directly 
responsible for and one being threatened by an evil Snape is in a 
unique position to counter.  So I'm not suggesting Snape wonders 
around randomly looking for students to risk his life for.)

Betsy Hp






From lealess at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 17 21:28:27 2006
From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:28:27 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape falls off his horse (was LID!Snape rides again and again
In-Reply-To: <dvf2dg+4pru@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvf9lr+fudd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149757

---  "juli17ptf" wrote:
>
> Okay, I'm not really going to knock Snape off his horse, I just 
> liked the title ;-) Neri did a great job of proposing a workable 
> theory, though I still don't think it's more workable than DDM!
> Snape. All the Snape theories have weak areas, whether they 
> alter the characters too much, don't explain key scenes, etc. 
> And Oliver wrote something on that subject:
> <BIG SNIP>
> 
> In the meantime, I think the only thing that really separates the 
> various versions of Snape is what we each think is his primary 
> motivation--or, probably more accurately, *want* it to be. LID 
> assumes Snape is compelled by the Life Debt and feels no real 
> loyalty to DD, DDM assumes Snape chose freely to switch sides and 
> is loyal to DD, OFH assumes Snape is playing both sides against 
> each other, ready to side with whoever comes out on top, and ESE 
> assumes loyalty to Voldemort. No doubt FinalRevelation!Snape will 
> have shades of several of these qualities, like a paint pallet with 
> colors mixed together, but one will have to come out as the prime 
> motivator, the main reason Snape acts as he does. And on that
> issue, to each his/her own My!Snape :-)
> 

Do we have a AVM!Snape, that is, against Voldemort and committed to 
defeating him by any means necessary?  He is not exactly OFH! -- his 
own welfare is not the issue, and he might even sacrifice himself if 
it was certain to lead to his goal, Voldemort's death.  Other 
loyalties do not come into play, either.  He can take the chance on 
the Vow, if it might lead to information on how to thwart Voldemort's 
plans and perhaps end his life.  He can follow Dumbledore, on the 
chance that the old wizard really does have the know-how to defeat 
the Dark Lord.  He can pretend to kill Dumbledore when he realizes 
Dumbledore has thrown away his life, gambling that the apparent 
murder will bring him closer to Voldemort and knowing his secrets.  
He doesn't have to kill anyone else; those deaths would not further 
his goal.  He can protect Harry, the possible Chosen One, and even 
assist him.  He can show his Dark Mark to Fudge, not to support 
Dumbledore, but to get the Ministry fighting Voldemort again.  He can 
remain independent of Dumbledore, or he can agree to follow 
Dumbledore, until he feels they are getting no closer to eradicating 
Voldemort.  Then, he can argue with Dumbledore in the forest -- he 
fails to see the point of making inquires in his own house, and 
Dumbledore takes his patience far too much for granted, especially 
now that Voldemort is back.  LID! and the UV are only potholes on the 
road.  He has to swerve around them in order to reach his final 
destination: eliminating Voldemort.  (Not so great at going through 
canon point-by-point, but of course, I am writing while I eat lunch 
at work.)

Perhaps Voldemort has affronted Snape to such a degree that the Dark 
Lord's death is the only remedy.  Perhaps it had something to do with 
Lily, or Snape's mother, or a family we don't know he had.  We've 
seen how Snape can hold a grudge.  Perhaps the grudge against 
Voldemort is the defining factor in his life.  Perhaps this is why 
Dumbledore trusts him; he knows Snape will move heaven and earth to 
eliminate Voldemort.

I guess this is the Kill Bill Snape, though I haven't seen Kill Bill.

Ah, who am I kidding?  I honestly want to see a DDM!Snape in the end, 
a man who has known forgiveness and, moreover, earned it.

lealess







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 17 21:50:29 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:50:29 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dvf3al+f2r3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvfav5+p7pu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149758

Sydney wrote:
> Sorry, what's the thematic content again of anklemonitor!Snape? 
It's not symbolic of remorse, because remorse is a selfless feeling,
and the ankle-monitor life debt is a profoundly selfish motivation. 
<snip>

Carol responds:
While I generally agree with you (notably on the important point that
Snape's remorse predates the Potters' deaths and coincides roughly
with his changing sides to spy for DD "at great personal risk"), I'm
not so sure that remorse is a selfless emotion. It's more like a deep,
biting anguish resulting from guilt for a sin or crime that can't be
undone, and IMO that remorse would certainly have intensified once the
Potters were dead and all Snape's efforts to save them had come to
nothing. (That would apply whether Snape's concern was for the hated
James or the innocent Lily and her orphaned child.)

I think that those posters who think that Snape didn't feel remorse
might want to reconsider what remorse *is*--not some altruistic,
selfless feeling, not a desire for forgiveness, not even penitence,
but more like an obsession that the guilty person can't help torturing
himself over. Here's Merriam-Webster's definition:

Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French remors, from Medieval
Latin remorsus, from Late Latin, act of biting again, from Latin
remordEre to bite again, from re- + mordEre to bite -- more at MORDANT
1 : a gnawing distress arising from a sense of guilt for past wrongs :
SELF-REPROACH  

Surely Snape, who is constantly reliving the past, would feel exactly
this type of guilt rather than the kind that seeks forgiveness? He
sees Harry and remembers that his eavesdropping triggered Voldemort's
attack, and James Potter's "arrogance" kept him from accepting Snape's
warning. Guilt and resentment are all mixed up together, especially
now that he can no longer shift part of the blame to Sirius Black as
the Betrayer. And killing Dumbledore, the one man who trusted him,
whether because of the DADA curse or the UV or Voldemort or DD's
wishes or all of them together is many times worse because he cast the
spell himself--hence the pain like that of the howling dog in the
burning house. Snape in hell, a hell of his own making, a hell he
cannot escape, except perhaps through Occlumency ("The mind is its own
place/And can make a hell of heaven or a heaven of hell.")

REMORSE (M-W again) suggests prolonged and insistent self-reproach and
mental anguish for past wrongs and especially for those whose
consequences cannot be remedied [whereas] PENITENCE implies sad and
humble realization of and regret for one's misdeeds <snip>. REPENTANCE
adds the implication of a resolve to change.

So maybe what Snape feels is Remorse that has not yet reached the
stage of Penitence, which requires humility, and consequently his
efforts to atone for his sins (reporting the Prophecy and joining the
DEs in the first place) have not been entirely successful because
without Penitence (humbly admitting that yes, he is at fault), he
can't truly Repent and resolve to change. Anguish (remorse) is not
enough. Joining Dumbledore's side and risking his life is not enough.
Following DD's orders, even at the cost of still more personal anguish
is not enough. He must be truly penitent, humbly accepting the guilt
for his own sins, before he can live a new life.

I think that's the Christian (Anglican) perspective, reflected in the
confession from The Book of Common Prayer (the old version, which I'm
quoting here, is much more detailed and emotional than the newer
variants, which can be found at
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/worship/liturgy/commonworship/texts/hc/penitential.html
):

                . . . We do earnestly repent,
	  	and are heartily sorry for these our misdoings;
	  	the remembrance of them is grievous unto us;
	  	the burden of them is intolerable.
	  	Have mercy upon us,
	  	have mercy upon us, most merciful Father;
	  	for thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ's sake,
	  	forgive us all that is past;
	  	and grant that we may ever hereafter
	  	serve and please thee in newness of life <snip>.
	  	
So, from a Christian perspective (JKR's, as evident from her
interviews and DD's words on mercy), Snape *already feels* the
intolerable burden of his misdeeds (Remorse), horribly compounded by
the events on the tower. His next step, from this perspective, would
be to admit them and humbly ask for mercy and forgiveness (Penitence),
not from God or from Christ (this is the WW, after all), but from the
person who has suffered most from his "misdoings": Harry.

Now, I don't really want to see Snape humbling himself to Harry,
especially after trying so hard for six years to protect Harry and
save his life on more than one occasion, but I think that's where this
talk of remorse and of mercy (DD on the tower) *may* be leading, and
certainly *Harry* will have to forgive Snape whether Snape reaches the
stage of Penitence or not if he's going to triumph over his true
enemy, Voldemort, through Love.

Carol, noting that the sullen and rather cowardly Draco is still at
the stage of making excuses ("He'll kill me if I don't do it": "I
didn't ask *him* [Greyback] to come") and has yet to join Snape in the
agony of remorse






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 17 22:05:54 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 22:05:54 -0000
Subject: When did Draco Imperius Rosmerta? (was: Re: CHAPDISC: hbp12, Silver and Opals)
In-Reply-To: <BAY101-F11D88678C1D0C51EE9C2F491E40@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <dvfbs2+tf59@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149759

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > Especially when you consider the limited study time and the fact 
> > that Bellatrix was probably concentrating on his killing skills.

> >>PJ:
> I thought she'd been concentrating on his occlumency skills.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Oh yeah, that's right. I'm sure she must have taught him how to kill 
too.  I mean, that just makes sense.  So it doesn't leave much time 
for Draco to become a world-class Imperiuser.

> >>PJ:
> All very true but how could Bellatrix be in the RoR to help Draco 
> fix the cabinet?  
> <snip>
> As you said, Draco was unable to leave the grounds before Hogsmead 
> weekend and was in detention during it. I'm not sure that coin     
> alone could do it all... not for an underage wizard. And that, at 
> least to my understanding, is why he'd need someone who could move 
> around Hogwarts without being seen as out of place. The outside    
> communication,imperiusing Rosmerta, etc. could also be done by    
> this individual.

Betsy Hp:
I agree with Magpie that Draco did the cabinet all by himself.  So 
it's still possible that his help came from outside of Hogwarts. Of 
course there are communication issues:  How did Voldemort dial up 
the pressure, how did Draco request the Imperius of Rosmerta, how 
did he communicate with Borgin regarding the cabinet and the 
necklace for that matter, etc.  The coins do seem a bit small for 
the level of conversation that seems required.

But would Dumbledore have monitered Draco's owls?  On the one hand 
it would seem rather stupid not to.  On the other hand, Dumbledore 
was trying to appear unaware of his danger and unsuspecting of 
Draco, so your guess is as good as mine. <g>

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > I doubt it's Kreacher.  I can't see house elves being able to
> > Imperius wizards or witches.  Plus, there's Draco's prejudice.  I
> > don't think he'd refer to Kreacher so positively.

> >>PJ:
> We have Winky and Barty Crouch Jr.  Again, I may be all wet but    
> didn't you see it as part of her duties to make sure he stayed    
> under the imperius?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I didn't, no.  I thought it was more she'd keep an eye on him and 
let his father know if the Imperius was slipping.  We don't see her 
attempt to recast an Imperius when Barty got free at the QWC, 
instead she tied him to her physically (well, magically, but in a 
physical form in that it wasn't mind control) and dragged him away 
from the action.  Barty only slips loose after Winky is knocked out 
by the Ministry wizards.  But while he couldn't break free of 
Winky's bonds, he *was* able to cast the Dark Mark in the sky.  IOW, 
his mind was free.

I think Mr. Crouch was upset because she'd talked him into letting 
his son attend the event in the first place, and also that she was 
unable to keep his son physically bound.

> >>PJ:
> As for Draco, he's used to servants at his disposal.  If Kreacher 
> was useful to his task  I think he'd jump at the chance to have    
> him assist. 
> <snip> 
> Draco may not consider Kreacher good enough to take to a ballgame 
> but I'm sure he'd gladly take any help he could give him.  :-)

Betsy Hp:
Oh, I agree that Draco would've leapt at the chance to have a house 
elf help him (talk about an excellent lookout!).  However, he'd look 
at the house elf as a *servant*, not someone to brag about to Snape 
in a "my helper is more bad-assed than you!" sort of way.  Because 
that's just not how he'd look at house elves, IMO.

> >>PJ:
> <snip>
> We've seen Filch with a detecting device but would it pick up     
> Animagus?  I doubt it. PP knows he could live very comfortably as 
> a rat in Hogwarts because he's already done it.

Betsy Hp:
If there were a way to detect Animagus, I'm sure it was in use.  Of 
course, we've got nothing saying there is, so... <g>   Another 
argument I have against Peter, that I doubt you'll buy <g>, is that 
Snape is aware of his movements.  At least as per Spinner's End.  
But if he was recruited to help Draco, I think Snape would have 
sussed that out.  Whereas with Bellatrix, well, we *know* those two 
aren't talking.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > The inside mole goes back to a "To Be Revealed" ESE!character...
> > <snip>
 
> >>PJ:
> <snip>
> I suppose this is where all the ESE!McG, Tonks and Slughorn       
> theories get to pop up again, huh?  :-)

Betsy Hp:
Don't forget ESE!Lupin!  Actually, if there is an ESE!Character to 
be revealed, the "who Imperiused Rosmerta" question could be a way 
for JKR to shows us that.  Which would explain why this mystery is 
being left for book 7.

If there's *not* an ESE!Character, than I'm not sure the question 
will be all that important.  Unless it helps muddy the "can I trust 
Draco?" waters for Harry.  Or it sets up a villain for Draco to 
break away from.  Though, hmmm, if it's Bellatrix would that cause 
Draco to step on Neville's toes?

Just following PJ's lead and throwing out ideas. <g>

Betsy Hp






From R.Vink2 at chello.nl  Fri Mar 17 22:20:31 2006
From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 22:20:31 -0000
Subject: Maligning Lupin
In-Reply-To: <dvf8sj+btn4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvfcnf+8r6m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149760

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:
>
> Pippin:
> Werewolves attack people whom they believe are depriving them of their
> rights and freedoms.  YMMV.

Renee:
Such as the five year old Montgomery boy? Or little Remus Lupin,
because of an insult made by his father? 
> 
 
> > > Pippin:
> > > The rationale for Lupin joining Voldemort can be 
> > > foreseen in the Marauder outings and in his failure to report what 
> > > he knew about Sirius:
> > 
> > Christina:
> > 
> > I still feel that this completely ignores the reasons behind
Lupin's > > decisions. 
> 
> Pippin:
> The reasons aren't important. If you get in the habit of ignoring 
> danger signs, that's going to have a consequence.

Renee:
Of course the reasons are important. Of course ESE!Lupin needs a
motive to be plausible. Ignoring danger signs may be hazardous and
even lead to a premature demise, but to turn your back on the only
people who ever helped and friended you and side with their mortal
enemy it takes a stronger reason than a habit of recklesness.   


> > Renee:
> > > > werewolves are classified as non-human and considered Dark
Creatures.
> > >  
> > The official view of the Wizarding World is that werewolves *are*
> > different by virtue of being werewolves. 
> 
> Pippin:
> 
> I  don't think so.

Renee:
I do. We also read that werewolves are contstantly shunted between the
Beast and Being department of the Ministry. To me, this says they're
considered to be different. 


> Renee:
>  Even if a werewolf were to join Voldemort for reasons that had 
> nothing to do with his lycanthropy, the Wizarding World would 
> still maintain it did, instead of ascribing it to human fallibility.   
> 
> Pippin:
> Yes! Yes! And they'd be wrong. That's my point. Att the end of HP
and the Final
> Thrilling Conclusion, the Trio, assuming they survive, will know
> that, IMO. They'll know there isn't going to be an instant,
sugar-coated 
> After School Special solution to the problems of werewolves.
> But they will resolve (I think) to change attitudes that can be changed.
> 

Renee:
They'd be wrong, but - and now we're back to where we were a couple of
posts ago - they won't have any reason to change their minds about
werewolves. In order to do so they'd need an incentive in the form of
a good werewolf who has fought for the good cause. The Trio will
undoubtedly be resolved to make changes, but to make headway they need
an argument to convince the WW that werewolves deserve this change.
And who else bu Lupin is going to provide such an argument? 

Renee











From saberbunny at yahoo.ca  Fri Mar 17 15:52:24 2006
From: saberbunny at yahoo.ca (catherine higgins)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:52:24 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Portkey in GOF - Logistics
In-Reply-To: <700201d40603161146j6347f179y8a719d6912fb9fd1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20060317155224.667.qmail@web37002.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149762

Hi...
  I thought the reason the portkey was done this way was because the TWT was a very good way to distract those who protect Harry. Everyone was so busy trying to make sure that Harry stayed alive, get him through the tasks, figure out who at Hogwarts was to blame...nobody looked to the true source. It was the perfect distraction. Voldemort used a muggle magic trick, the art of causing the audience to look away from the hand that's *really* pulling the strings. 
   
  Catherine






From srbecca at hotmail.com  Fri Mar 17 16:22:20 2006
From: srbecca at hotmail.com (Rebecca Dreiling)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 16:22:20 +0000
Subject: Portkey in GOF - Logistics
In-Reply-To: <dveeqd+9tdk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY104-F3356971C5B662F02F5DADCA8E40@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 149763

> > Kemper:
> > I think I understand what you're saying.  But instead of theater,
> > how 'bout something like: terrorism is rutting season, or 
> > terrorism is establishing dominance, or terrorism is territorial 
> > tinkling.  I like the last one for its alliteration.  These 
> > suggestions seem more accurate than 'theater' which seems light, 
> > frivolous, and gay (not homosexual unless you can appreciate 
> > stereotypes... please no howlers)
>
>Amiable Dorsai said:
>I begin to see the problem.  You're thinking Andrew Lloyd Webber, 
>I'm thinking Grand Guignol.
>
>As I've said before, Riddle is a passed master of this.  Just look at
>the bit of improv he put on to frame Hagrid.  Look at any of the
>Pensieve memories of young Riddle. He learned quickly, from his first
>meeting with Dumbledore, that his crude intimidation, so effective
>with Muggle children, wasn't going to get him what he wanted from
>adult wizards.  So he learned to act.
>
>And he loves acting, he's proud of his skill.  Remember how Diary
>Riddle bragged to Harry about conning Ginny Weasley?
>
>The older Tom Riddle uses his skill at "theater" as a force
>multiplier--murdering one enemy is good, doing it in a manner that
>convinces ten others to capitulate is better.  Riddle's so good at
>this that people are afraid to even use the name he's chosen for his
>greatest role.


Rebecca says:

Like any good sociopath he does have a flare for the theatrical.  Not unlike that other infamous leader who would hold many a rally in which great theatrics were used and purifiing the race was one of the "hot topics" of the diatribe.

These leaders tend to have a "character" they play which can be seductive and manipulative.  Like any good actor they can turn on a dime and become whatever will serve them best at any given moment.

His flare for the dramatic tends to let him down.  Pride,over confidence and his need show off to his public (ie death eaters) has hurt him in the past (the graveyard scene in GOF..he wants to have this battle with Harry in front of his "crowd" in which he alone is the star..a real star doesn't need help do they?).

Rebecca







From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 17 23:28:00 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 23:28:00 -0000
Subject: Raging Snape / Draco's Redemption / JKR's Plots (was:Re: seeds of betrayal)
In-Reply-To: <dvcpbp+1n0t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvfgm0+lk8d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149764

> Magpie:
> He doesn't speak proudly about those attempted murders, or praise 
> himself over them or speak arrogantly about them.  

a_svirn:
He did praise himself for working diligently on Dumbledore's 
destruction under Dumbledore's own nose. He's preening himself on 
his poisoning plot and all logistics involved ? Rosmerta's enforced 
co-operation, charmed coins. He was actually very pleased with 
himself about it.
  
> > a_svirn:
> > If he is , he lying through his teeth. Because Draco *did* aim 
his 
> > gun. He just wasn't being discriminating, but that's only making 
> it 
> > worse.
> 
> Magpie:
> I didn't think Dumbledore was lying--it seemed like this scene 
> turned on just how much Dumbledore understood Draco's mindset and 
> actions.
> 
a_svirn:
Well, I don't think he was lying too. I just happen to think that 
your interpretation of Dumbledore's words is inaccurate. You 
effectively compared Draco's botched murder attempts to deloping in 
a duel ? a deliberate conscious *avoiding* murder by firing into the 
air. There seem to be a contradiction here ? either you are 
attempting murder, or you are deliberately sabotaging it. Draco did 
not sabotage his own attempts; he just didn't aim very 
discriminatively. Which, as I said before, is an aggravating 
circumstance rather than mitigating. Because he did not care how 
many lives he'd claim in the process of eliminating Dumbledore. 






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 17 23:45:59 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 23:45:59 -0000
Subject: When did Draco Imperius Rosmerta? (was: Re: CHAPDISC: hbp12, Silver and Opals)
In-Reply-To: <dvfbs2+tf59@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvfhnn+q561@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149766

Betsy Hp wrote:
> I agree with Magpie that Draco did the cabinet all by himself.  So
> it's still possible that his help came from outside of Hogwarts. Of
> course there are communication issues:  How did Voldemort dial up
> the pressure, how did Draco request the Imperius of Rosmerta, how
> did he communicate with Borgin regarding the cabinet and the
> necklace for that matter, etc.  The coins do seem a bit small for
> the level of conversation that seems required.
>
> But would Dumbledore have monitered Draco's owls?  On the one hand
> it would seem rather stupid not to.  On the other hand, Dumbledore
> was trying to appear unaware of his danger and unsuspecting of
> Draco, so your guess is as good as mine. <g>

> Don't forget ESE!Lupin!  Actually, if there is an ESE!Character to
> be revealed, the "who Imperiused Rosmerta" question could be a way
> for JKR to shows us that.  Which would explain why this mystery is
> being left for book 7.
>
> If there's *not* an ESE!Character, than I'm not sure the question
> will be all that important.  Unless it helps muddy the "can I trust
> Draco?" waters for Harry.  Or it sets up a villain for Draco to
> break away from.  Though, hmmm, if it's Bellatrix would that cause
> Draco to step on Neville's toes?

Carol responds:
This is an unresearched, off-the-top-of-my-head, tossing-out-ideas
post. I'm not committed to anything I suggest here, but I agree that
something is going on with Draco and the Imperius Curse.

We have hints from Draco to Snape that he has someone more powerful
and important than Crabbe and Goyle helping him. We have Draco's
insinuation to Dumbledore that Rosmerta was under the Imperius Curse,
and the poisoned mead and mysteriously delivered package (with a
secondary Imperius placed on Katie Bell) to support the claim. (And
it's Madam Rosmerta who points out the Dark Mark to DD, if that's
important.) We have Draco's awareness of new threats from Voldemort,
implying some form of communication between them. We have the cursed
necklace wrapped in plain brown paper somehow arriving at the Three
Broomsticks (apparently mailed by Borgin or hand-delivered by Draco's
accomplice since Draco could not have gottent it into or out of
Hogwarts). We have Draco's claim that he got the idea for the cursed
coins from Hermione (overheard in the library, IIRC), who in turn got
the idea from the Dark Mark (which, inconveniently, we don't fully
understand, either).

How does it all fit together? No idea. However, we do know that the
spell Hermione put on the coins to summon the students to the DA
meetings was not an Imperius curse. (IIRC, it was a NEWT-level Protean
Charm), which Draco could probably have mastered with a little
practice, much more easily than he could have mastered Imperio.) The
question is how the coins worked and what they could do. Maybe
Rosmerta's turned warm in her pocket, telling her that it was time to
report for orders? Doesn't seem very efficient. Maybe Draco asked Aunt
Bella (who was also teaching him a crude form of Occlumency to block
Snape from interfering) to put an Imperius Curse on the coins to help
him manipulate some as yet unknown helper? Not very likely. When have
we seen Draco thinking ahead? And yet he did arrange to pick up the
Hand of Glory at a later time, or rather, have the DEs do it when they
showed up at B&B to enter the other Vanishing Cabinet, so maybe he's
smarter than we think. And he must have bought the Peruvian Darkness
Powder in advance, too.

Once he had the coins in hand, how did he get the second coin to
Rosmerta? Maybe that's where Blaise comes in? Maybe *he* was
temporarily under the influence of the coin just long enough to get it
to Rosmerta while Draco was in detention? (Or, as Betsy suggested,
Draco talked Blaise into drinking polyjuice potion, trading identies,
and taking his detention while Draco, as Blaise, went to Hogsmeade. If
they were good friends, I could see that, but they seem to be on
formal and distant terms, with Blaise as a pureblood bigot who
nevertheless is not a budding DE. Draco is on better terms with Theo
Nott than with Blaise in HBP, and yet it's Blaise we see lolling
against a column. In character, but why is he there?) Or maybe there's
another helper in Hogsmeade, but how would that person get the coin?
Was anyone checking the owls coming in and out of the school? Surely
Filch and Mrs. Norris didn't have a 24/7 watch on the owlery, and
Draco's eagle owl, which routinely delivered sweets from his mother,
wouldn't call any undue attention to itself, even if it delivered a
pair of Imperiused coins--or a message from Voldemort.

Who was the mysterious helper, then? ESE!Rosmerta? Bellatrix, who
certainly couldn't show her face in Hogsmeade without being arrested?
Kreacher, who was under orders from Harry to follow "the Malfoy boy"
without speaking to him? How about ESE!Tonks, who shows up outside the
RoR (how did she know Harry would be there?) and again outside the
Hog's Head (but not the Three Broomsticks), both times out of nowhere,
as if she'd emerged from beneath an Invisibility Cloak? ESE!Mundungus,
whom we also see outside the Hog's Head (but, again, not the Three
Broomsticks)? Peter Pettigrew, who would not be recruited to help
Bellatrix and would have no stake in helping Draco, especially when LV
wanted Draco to fail?

And why, if the coins are not really Imperiused, only under the
influence of a Protean Charm, does Draco taunt Dumbledore with "Got
there at last, have you?"

Okay, based on these ramblings, my tentative conclusions are

1) The owls were not being monitored (which might be why Filch was
checking for dark or cursed objects being taken out of school into
Hogsmeade), and Draco communicated with LV and Borgin using them

2) Either Bellatrix put an Imperius Curse on the coins or Draco put a
Protean Charm on them and merely used them to communicate with
Rosmerta, who was Imperio'd by someone else (the unknown DE or traitor)

3) The unknown helper in Hogsmeade was not Bellatrix, PP, or Kreacher,
for the reasons stated above, nor was it a kid like Blaise. It must
have been either a DE whose identity had not been publicly proclaimed
in Harry's article or arrested at the MoM or, more likely, a renegade
Order member. Aberforth is a remote possibility, but the most likely
candidates appear to be the two we've seen in the streets of
Hogsmeade, Tonks and Mundungus. And Tonks, who claims to be depressed
and unable to metamorph herself, *could* be lying, but then we'd have
to account for the changed Patronus. (Or Tonks isn't Tonks, but if
she's Narcissa, why does she twice--no, thrice--help Harry?) And, of
course, for Pippin, I have to throw in ESE!Lupin. ;-)

Carol, wondering if ESE!Rosmerta might be a simpler and more logical
answer that would not require complicated means of communication or
Draco's ability to cast an Imperius Curse







From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Sat Mar 18 00:05:47 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 19:05:47 EST
Subject: LID!Snape rides again and again; and necklace
Message-ID: <25e.8df4e4f.314ca8db@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149767

>Olivier:
>That said, if Snape is DDM and if he didn't know what was Draco's 
>mission, he made a very foolish decision to lie to  Bellatrix and 
>Narcissa. That set in motion dire events.
 

 Nikkalmati:
 
Happy St. Patrick's day to all!
 
It seemed like a good idea at the time! <g>
 
Seriously, I believe the events at Spinner's End are very important 
to interpreting the story.  I have a very hard time seeing any 
ESESnape or LIDSnape or OFHSnape payoff for taking the vow.  OFHSnape 
would never make such a binding commitment.  ESESnape would not 
openly go against Voldemort's plan.  LIDSnape does not help Harry by 
protecting Draco. We are talking about instant death here.  Snape 
must know that binding magical contracts can go astray and turn to 
bite you.  He could not reasonable assume he would escape unscathed, 
therefore,he needs a reason to take the vow beyond comforting 
Narcissa or impressing Bella IMO.  My personal interpretation is 
that he was fishing for information about Draco's assignment.  I 
cannot believe he would take the vow if he knew Draco was assigned 
to kill DD.  Was he lying about knowing? Yes. 
 
Further speculation leads to the question, when did he know?  Well,  
once the poisoned wine was sent to DD, it would be pretty clear what 
was going on.  A question I want to raise is, what was the purpose of 
poisoning the necklace?  Was Katie Bell going to walk up to DD and 
say "here I brought you this necklace"? Therefore, I don't think it 
was clear after this incident who was the intended victim.  Perhaps, 
the victim was someone else, but who would it have been?

Nikkalmati







From belviso at attglobal.net  Sat Mar 18 02:31:41 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:31:41 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups]  Draco's Redemption / LiD!Snape rides again
References: <dvfgm0+lk8d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <007e01c64a34$17936bd0$3366400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 149768

> Magpie:
> He doesn't speak proudly about those attempted murders, or praise
> himself over them or speak arrogantly about them.

a_svirn:
He did praise himself for working diligently on Dumbledore's
destruction under Dumbledore's own nose. He's preening himself on
his poisoning plot and all logistics involved - Rosmerta's enforced
co-operation, charmed coins. He was actually very pleased with
himself about it.

Magpie:
There are things that Draco shows pride in in the scene--and things that 
Dumbledore praises as well.  However, Dumbledore calls the wine plot and the 
necklace plot feeble and Draco does not disagree. He does not defend the 
plan he's so proud of it, just "vehemently" insists (unconcincingly) that 
his heart really was in it (which suggests he's even more useless).  I'd 
think gloating over the collateral damage would at least make him sound more 
like the killer he's trying to sound like.

> Magpie:
> I didn't think Dumbledore was lying--it seemed like this scene
> turned on just how much Dumbledore understood Draco's mindset and
> actions.
>
a_svirn:
Well, I don't think he was lying too. I just happen to think that
your interpretation of Dumbledore's words is inaccurate. You
effectively compared Draco's botched murder attempts to deloping in
a duel - a deliberate conscious *avoiding* murder by firing into the
air. There seem to be a contradiction here - either you are
attempting murder, or you are deliberately sabotaging it. Draco did
not sabotage his own attempts; he just didn't aim very
discriminatively. Which, as I said before, is an aggravating
circumstance rather than mitigating. Because he did not care how
many lives he'd claim in the process of eliminating Dumbledore.

Magpie:
Dumbledore says Draco's heart was not in these murder attempts with the 
necklace and the wine.  I don't see how that could possibly translate into 
saying Draco is not only intent on killing Dumbledore but didn't care who 
else he took out along with him.  That suggests his heart being very much in 
it, imo.  I think if that's what Dumbledore meant he would have said that, 
spoken more about Katie and Ron and basically just had a completely 
different conversation with Draco--if he wasn't dead at the hand of Draco 
and his strong intent to kill. It's not uncommon for people sabotage their 
own attempts at things without owning their sabotage.

Carol:

> Carol, noting that the sullen and rather cowardly Draco is still at
> the stage of making excuses ("He'll kill me if I don't do it": "I
> didn't ask *him* [Greyback] to come") and has yet to join Snape in the
> agony of remorse

Magpie:
Well, yeah he hasn't.  That would be skipping way ahead to get him to 
agonized remorse from a story that ends at the moment of truth--and then 
getting him all the way to sullen excuses for the whole thing (he's not 
sullen on either of those lines).  Those lines aren't part of a Snape-like 
arc.  It's like saying that since Snape isn't losing weight or sleep he 
hasn't joined Draco in seeing this as a bad situation--it's two different 
stories and two different journeys.

The biggest reason Draco hasn't yet (if he's going to, which he may not, of 
course) joined Snape in the agony of remorse is, imo, Dumbledore's 
controversial line about "no real harm" being done. If he was going to feel 
remorse, it would be at the earliest after this scene in the Tower. 
Dumbledore seemed to want to save him from that agony.  Snape may have as 
well.

-m 





From sydpad at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 18 02:56:34 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 02:56:34 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dvfav5+p7pu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvfst2+g12a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149769

*************
Yikes, another delete and repost-- I forgot to attribute justCarol,
and I gave the impression that I thought she agreed with Neri! 
Corrected post:
********************

justCarol:

I'm
> not so sure that remorse is a selfless emotion. It's more like a deep,
> biting anguish resulting from guilt for a sin or crime that can't be
> undone, and IMO that remorse would certainly have intensified once the
> Potters were dead and all Snape's efforts to save them had come to
> nothing. <SNIP>
>
> Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French remors, from Medieval
> Latin remorsus, from Late Latin, act of biting again, from Latin
> remordEre to bite again, from re- + mordEre to bite -- more at MORDANT
> 1 : a gnawing distress arising from a sense of guilt for past wrongs :
> SELF-REPROACH
>
> Surely Snape, who is constantly reliving the past, would feel exactly
> this type of guilt rather than the kind that seeks forgiveness?

[this is more riffing of the Life Debt thing, but I'll leave it in,
because it goes to the remorse angle:]
Of course all moral feeling is felt internally, whether
warm-and-fuzzies from helping your friends or guilt from doing
something you realize is bad.  The ankle-monitor Life Debt would be a
poor symbol for remorse, though, because it's not tied into doing
wrong, it's tied into to making a stupid error.  It's as though there
was a spell whereby someone got a little drug thrill every time they
did something nice for a friend.  It would feel sinister and ugly and
selfish, not friendly.  You wouldn't refer to one character's feelings
for another that way as 'friendship'.  Likewise, giving someone an
electric shock when they hurt someone isn't 'remorse' or an
appropriate symbol for it.  I just don't see it as something JKR would
do-- she doesn't tend to magic away people's feelings.  It's just...
ugh.  It would be like having Sirius actually just haven taken an
overdose of Recklessness Potion, or Dumbledore hits himself with
cheering charms every morning, or Lupin's actually just on sedatives.
  Ankle-monitor remorse is fake, and seems rather to negate real
remorse than reinforce it.


>Snape in hell, a hell of his own making, a hell he
> cannot escape, except perhaps through Occlumency ("The mind is its
own place/And can make a hell of heaven or a heaven of hell.")

Yeah, Occlumency is much more how JKR uses magic to represent emotion,
because, well, Occlumency IS repression!  You try to make your mind
blank and calm and stuff the uncomfortable feelings into a closed part
of your mind.


>His next step, from this perspective, would
> be to admit them and humbly ask for mercy and forgiveness (Penitence),
> not from God or from Christ (this is the WW, after all), but from the
> person who has suffered most from his "misdoings": Harry.

Room of Love, anybody?  This is where I can see the anti-Snape
'humiliation' scene or the Snape-lover's catharsis scene.  Because
both Snape-lovers and haters, oddly enough, share the desire to see
him suffer!  It just seems necessary for him to break down, so he can
reform, or re-form himself.  He's got to let go of trying to 'fix'
things from the outside, and deal with things on an emotional level. 
I think it's so much more frightening to Snape to have to confront
himself, and move on to justCarol's forgiveness stage, than it is for
him just to hammer forward, just on the other side.  I think this
relates back to the stuff about the shadow-side that came up a few
weeks ago, that it has to be embraced, and accepted, not attacked and
repressed, because it just can't be got rid of.  Snape might think he
can get rid of his anguish by Occlumency, by Dark Magic, by destroying
Voldemort, but he can't-- his pain is going to stay inside him until
he faces it.  


-- Sydney

***************
Sydney, again, who will sleep for a couple of days before attempting
to post, or do anything requiring higher brain function






From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 18 04:11:01 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 04:11:01 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dvf0gu+fl8m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvg18l+8leg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149770

> Olivier:
> Hum, I believe Snape did not know what he was swearing to do. We have 
> no evidence from Spinner's End that he did and we have evidence that 
> he tried to obtain informations from Draco, which suggests that he 
> didn't know exactly what was going on around Christmas. He probably 
> knew in March though, since he has this little disagreement with 
> Dumbledore. Can DDM explain Snape vowing to do some unspecified 
> mission for Voldemort? Well yes. DDM! advocates will readily tell you 
> that Snape fully intended to die for the cause so he had no problem 
> taking the vow. You have to admit that it gave him a pretty credible 
> cover. Besides, if he can be sure that Draco is making progress while 
> not endangering Dumbledore too much, it's perfectly okay. That said, 
> if Snape is DDM and if he didn't know what was Draco's mission, he 
> made a very foolish decision to lie to Bellatrix and Narcissa. That 
> set in motion dire events. Not the first time that DDM!Snape was not 
> too effective by the way, the way he handled Occlumency was 
> incredible. He knew perfectly well that Dumbledore's "shrewd 
> idea" (which turned out to be very effective) could work only if 
> Harry learnt Occlumency and yet he allowed that to stop!
>

Neri:
You pretty much nail the problems I have with this version of DDM.
Lying to Bella about anything Voldemort knows would be a very stupid
thing to do. If Bella or Wormtail report this conversation, Snape
would be summoned to the Dark Lord to explain how come he pretends to
know about plans he wasn't told about.

But mostly for me it's just that I can't buy such unbelievable
incompetence in Snape. After all, secret agent Snape already had a
pretty poor track record even before HBP. Not only the way he handled
the Occlumency lessons, but also how he failed to prevent Harry from
going to the DoM when he was the last Order member at Hogwarts. And
when did secret agent Snape ever save the day with inside information
from Voldemort's camp? So in HBP secret agent Snape attempts to save
Draco and uncover Voldy's plan, and he ends up killing Dumbledore
himself. And on the top of that he doesn't even manage to save Draco
from Voldemort. I simply can't buy such incompetence. It would make
the whole spying career of DDM!Snape look like one big joke. Even if
he finally manage to save the day in Book 7 it would probably come out
like "sure, if you didn't make such a huge mess of things in the first
place, there wouldn't be a need to save the day now". Personally I
have no principle problem with DDM!Snape if it makes sense plotwise
and character-wise, but Snape as a pathetic DDM? Doesn't work for me.
I'd rather have him as a competent and complex villain.
 
> Olivier:
> Anyway, I, for one, never believed in AllGoodDDM!Snape. Snape is not 
> a nice guy.

Neri:
Oh, I believe this would place you right in the mainstream of
DDM!Snapers <g>. In fact, "not nice" seems to be one of his big
selling points.

> Olivier:
> That is canon, not theory. In JKR's opinion, he is "in 
> some ways more culpable even than Voldemort".
>

Neri:
You know, somehow this one sounds to me significantly worse than just
"not nice".

> Olivier:
> By the way, I would like to point that when Dumbledore is dying on 
> the top of the tower, he instructs Harry to "go and wake Severus" and 
> to "tell him what has happened". This is quite remarkable because it 
> suggests that Snape knows about the Horcruxes seek and destroy mission.
>

Neri:
Hmm, the thing is that this direction of Dumbledore clashes with his
previous direction not to tell anybody except Ron and Hermione about
the Hxs. And Harry takes this previous direction very seriously. He
even refuses to tell McGonagall after Dumbledore is already dead, and
he had never had any doubts about *her* loyalty.

 I think that by "tell him what happened" Dumbledore meant something
more like "Professor Dumbledore drank Voldemort's potion and is
gravely ill", which would be the relevant information at that moment,
and not "we were searching after one of Voldemort's six Horcruxes in a
cave by the sea."


> Jen: This adds a layer the story doesn't need, though, and is
> surprisingly convoluted for Faith <g>. In HBP we're meant to be left
> wondering whether Snape saved Dumbledore from the ring curse because
> he's loyal and is doing the right thing or because he's keeping him
> alive so Voldemort can exact his revenge on the Malfoy's (and Snape)
> in the end. And if you tell me that doesn't make sense I'll have to
> refer you you back to Voldemort to answer that one, He Who Overlooks
> The Flaws In All His Plans.
>

Neri:
I'm not sure I follow you. Suppose we were indeed meant to wonder
between two possibilities (BTW, I'm not saying the second doesn't make
sense but I didn't think about it when I read the book). How does this
preclude that in the end there will be a third one? I don't think this
is convoluted, especially if this third possibility turns out less
convoluted than the first two.

> Jen:
> Another thing, Dumbledore seems to honor ancient magic in a way he
> doesn't honor human laws. Meddling with the life-debt seems counter
> to his actions so far, like believing Harry must compete in the
> Triwizard Tournament. Not sure that was ancient magic per se, but as
> a 'binding magical contract' Dumbledore still didn't interfere even
> though very wary of the outcome.
>

Neri:
Well, Dumbledore *did* meddle with Lily's Ancient Magic, or at least
he made use of it in order to enact Petunia's pact. Now that I think
about it, this seems to have some interesting parallels with LID!Snape.

So why didn't he meddle with the TWT contract? I don't know. Probably
because the plot didn't need it  <g>.

> Jen:
> But hey, I'm completely biased. My gut feeling is the life-debt was
> a done deal in PS

Neri:
Nah, that would be an anticlimax. First, if the life debt was still
active by SS/PS then it was active when Snape heard the prophecy and
when he changed sides, so this must have been at least a part of his
motivation. So do we have JKR finishing with his Debt in SS/PS and
*then* writing so much conflict and emotion into the
Snape/James/Prophecy story? No, no, she's a much better storyteller
than that. The culmination of the Debt plot must arrive in Book 7.
 
> Jen:
: 1) Snape didn't kill James himself and didn't
> know the prophecy would be interpreted to mean James when he
> delivered it to LV;

Neri:
But this would be a major thematic moral. Snape working for the evil
overlord, thinking he doesn't care about the consequences of the
information he brings him, and suddenly discovering that it affects
him personally.

 
> Jen:
 2) when James died the debt ended;

Neri:
That would make the whole Life Debt magic meaningless. If you owed a
Debt to somebody you don't like, you could get rid of it simply by
arranging his death, or by doing nothing when you know another person
is going to kill him.

As we have recently learned, JKR built the Fidelius so that it doesn't
break if the secret keeper dies, because she understood that this
would make the Fidelius meaningless. You could simply kill the secret
keeper and the secret would be revealed. Surely she'd understand the
equivalent situation about the Life Debt magic?

> Jen:
and 3) Snape
> himself prolonged the agony of feeling indebted because that's what
> he *does*. If life-debts work another way Peter should have been
> incapacitated in his ability to actively help Voldemort kill Harry.
>

Neri:
Well, I guess I'll just have to conclude that the pain symptoms only
start with the death of the first person you owe to <g>.

I also remind you that Peter did risk a lot trying to convince Voldy
to use another wizard for the resurrection.

> Jen: 
> Technically Snape agreed to the clause: "And if it should prove
> necessary...if it seems Draco will fail....will you carry out the
> deed that the Dark Lord has ordered Draco to perform?"
>
> There's a lot of space around the taking of that Vow and the clause
> itself for JKR to fill in, and we've seen what she can do with a
> vacuum.
>

Neri:
Maybe, but in the meantime it looks like this is precisely what
happened on the tower. Draco failed in killing Dumbledore and Snape
killed him instead. So if Snape was trying to fool the third term
somehow it seems he failed. See above for my problems with Snape's
incompetence.


Neri







From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 18 05:46:24 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 05:46:24 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dvdf30+gk2d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvg6rg+afhd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149771

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Neri" <nkafkafi at ...> wrote:
> Snip, snip...
> Neri said:
>Snape *should* have died
>when James died. My hunch is that Dumbledore had to do some very
>difficult magic there in order to save Snape's life. I even
>hypothesized that this is what Dumbledore was occupied with during 
>the 24 Hours after GH. My best guess is that Dumbledore saved Snape 
>by performing a magical transaction that transferred Snape's Debt 
from James to Harry. And if I'm right about this, then Snape ended up
>having a Life Debt to Dumbledore too, for saving his life from the
>first Debt, which would give Dumbledore even more reason to trust 
him.


Tonks:

I like this idea of Snape possibly having a life debt to DD. I have 
posted on other occasions a theory very close to this, except for 
the life debt to DD. You have a very interesting idea. I might take 
this one step further, I thing that the debt he has to DD involves 
not just his life, but his soul.  Snape's soul is probably damned 
forever for his involvement in the death of James. I am sure that DD 
did perform some ancient magic to help Snape and I agree that we 
will hear more about it in book 7.
SNIP

Neri said:
>So the real question here is what possessed him in Spinner's
>End to take the third part of the UV. Admittedly either DDM, ESE, 
>OFH or LID don't explain it. However, DDM still has a much harder 
>time with it, because a Snape who is loyal to Dumbledore and takes 
>a Vow to kill him is, er... shall we say mysterious?

Tonks:
I have an answer for that which I posted earlier in my T-Bay Ship 
post.  The short version is that I have reread chapter 2 very, very 
carefully and have come up with the following conclusion:

Narcissa is upset and when she "began to cry in earnest, gazing
beseechingly all the while at Snape", Snape must have been looking
into her eyes.  She then goes on to think about the task that Draco
has been assigned saying "it's too dangerous! This is vengeance for
Lucius's mistake, I know it!"

 I think that at this time Snape uses Legilmency to read the task in 
Narcissa's eyes.  Then Snape looks away. We are led to believe that 
he looks away because he can not bear to see her tears. I think he 
looks away to compose himself after he sees what the task is.

I suspect that LV told him this "I have a little task for Draco, 
being young he may not be up to it, and so if he can't succeed in 
doing it I will expect you to do it for him".  LV would not have 
told Snape the whole story.  Snape only realizes the position that 
he is placed in when he see the task in Narcissa's eyes.

It is a small step from this to his taking the third part of the 
vow. He is already damned anyway and he knows it. 

For the full text of these ideas I invite you to take a day trip on 
my T-bay Ship, the HMS. DESIRE.  here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149518

Tonks_op














From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Sat Mar 18 07:18:26 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 07:18:26 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dvg18l+8leg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvgc82+rvoo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149772

Oh good, I was on my way to think up questions for the next chapter 
discussion and found a Neri post to sink my brain into <g>.

Neri to Olivier:
> You pretty much nail the problems I have with this version of DDM.
> Lying to Bella about anything Voldemort knows would be a very
> stupid thing to do. If Bella or Wormtail report this conversation,
> Snape would be summoned to the Dark Lord to explain how come he
> pretends to know about plans he wasn't told about.

Jen: Unless Voldemort already knows about the UV or finds it to be 
to his advantage when word gets back to him. The only way I can make 
Spinner's End work is to have Voldemort plugged into the equation 
somewhere, no matter what flavor of Snape you prefer.

Neri:
> But mostly for me it's just that I can't buy such unbelievable
> incompetence in Snape. After all, secret agent Snape already had a
> pretty poor track record even before HBP. Not only the way he
> handled the Occlumency lessons, but also how he failed to prevent
> Harry from going to the DoM when he was the last Order member at
> Hogwarts. And when did secret agent Snape ever save the day with
> inside information from Voldemort's camp? So in HBP secret agent
> Snape attempts to save Draco and uncover Voldy's plan, and he ends 
> up killing Dumbledore himself. And on the top of that he doesn't 
> even manage to save Draco from Voldemort. I simply can't buy such
> incompetence. It would make the whole spying career of DDM!Snape
> look like one big joke. 

Jen: But geez, look at his career for the *other* side, it's pretty 
sad as well: Stopped Voldy from taking the Stone, interfered with 
Quirrell's attempts to kill Harry, notified the Order (almost too 
late if you prefer) of Harry & Co. going to the DOM, enables 
Voldemort to underestimate Harry by feeding him the "getting by on 
luck and more talented friends" line, doesn't tell Voldemort of 
Dumbledore's very unusual injury but instead blames his slowed 
reactions on the fight with Voldemort. *Then*, Snape caps off his 
illustrious career by undermining the Dark Lord's big revenge plan 
when he takes an *Unbreakable* Vow behind the Dark Lord's back just 
because a pretty woman shed a few tears on his chest. Pathetic. 

So, I deal with it by putting the Voldemort puzzle piece into place 
and things look a little brighter, don't they? Even Dumbledore was 
bested by Voldemort in the end, there's no shame in Snape being 
twisted into a pretzel and made to suffer by the Greatest Dark Lord 
ever.  The mouse in the trap, the fly in the web--Voldemort found 
Snape's weakness once again as he did the first time Snape foolishly 
wore his heart on his sleeve, manipulating him into the position of 
killing the Only One Who Ever Believed In Him.

It's just so vintage Voldemort I don't get why people don't buy this 
one. Would someone argue with me so I can understand the objections 
to Voldemort being behind this plot? Most people seem to want Snape 
to be the hero or villain here and he's just NOT. 

Neri:
> Even if he finally manage to save the day in Book 7 it would 
> probably come out like "sure, if you didn't make such a huge mess
> of things in the first place, there wouldn't be a need to save the
> day now". Personally I have no principle problem with DDM!Snape if
> it makes sense plotwise and character-wise, but Snape as a 
> pathetic DDM? Doesn't work for me. I'd rather have him as a 
> competent and complex villain.

Jen: I understand your position better with this information. 
Personally, I don't see Snape saving the day no matter what else 
happens. He will likely help Harry along the way, yes, and Harry 
will find out more about him when he learns of the Prank or other 
backstory. Maybe Lily will somehow shed a little light on the 
subject? I can see Harry learning some truths about him, but as for 
his moment in the sun....I think his zenith dramatic moment from 
JKR's perspective, along the lines of outing Pettigrew as the 
Maruader spy, sending Sirius through the Veil or Dumbledore changing 
dramatically in the cave, was Snape's moment on the tower. She's 
notorious for giving the adults one last Moment and then shuffling 
them into the background. I can't see Snape having a different fate, 
just a later one.

Jen previous:
> > In HBP we're meant to be left wondering whether Snape saved 
> > Dumbledore from the ring curse because he's loyal and is doing
> > the right thing or because he's keeping him alive so Voldemort
> > can exact his revenge on the Malfoy's (and Snape) in the end. 
 
> Neri:
> I'm not sure I follow you. Suppose we were indeed meant to wonder
> between two possibilities (BTW, I'm not saying the second doesn't
> make sense but I didn't think about it when I read the book). How 
> does this preclude that in the end there will be a third one? I
> don't think this is convoluted, especially if this third 
> possibility turns out less convoluted than the first two.

Jen: Oops, didn't finish that thought. What I meant was that if 
Snape saved Dumbledore's life because of a life debt to him, we have 
absolutely no clue that's going on. We have a clue why Snape would 
save Dumbledore if he's DDM, we have the possibility he saved 
Dumbledore to divert suspicion (OFH) or to save him for the Dark 
Lord's later plan (ESE), but no life debt option. That's what I 
meant about Faith, there should be something to tip us off in the 
text.

Neri:
> Well, Dumbledore *did* meddle with Lily's Ancient Magic, or at
> least he made use of it in order to enact Petunia's pact. Now that
> I think about it, this seems to have some interesting parallels
> with LID!Snape.

Jen: He made use of Lily's sacrifice, but he didn't prevent it, 
mitigate it, undermine it, manipulate it, plan it or otherwise mess 
with the ancient magic involved. I don't he would do that and in the 
case of the life debt, I don't think he *can*. My speculation.

Jen previous:
> > 2) when James died the debt ended;

Neri:
> That would make the whole Life Debt magic meaningless. If you owed
> a Debt to somebody you don't like, you could get rid of it simply
> by arranging his death, or by doing nothing when you know another
> person is going to kill him. As we have recently learned, JKR
> built the Fidelius so that it doesn't break if the secret keeper
> dies, because she understood that this would make the Fidelius 
> meaningless. You could simply kill the secret keeper and the 
> secret would be revealed. Surely she'd understand the equivalent
> situation about the Life Debt magic?

Jen: I still think there's a difference between knowingly aiding, 
abetting or planning a person's death you are indebted to and having 
them die for other reasons. In magical terms I don't believe Snape 
telling Voldemort the prophecy about an unknown person 
was 'knowingly' attempting to kill James Potter. Whatever impartial 
powers-that-be determine these outcomes can surely tell the 
difference between Snape's actions and Wormtail's! Snape should get 
some bonus brownie points in magical terms for *not* knowing James 
was going to die as a result of his actions <g>.  OK, fine. That's 
not very persuasive but it's all I've got tonight.

Oh, I didn't think I had anything to add to the other points you 
made because my opinions on life-debts are just that, opinions. But 
you said this about Snape not realizing James would be the one to 
die: "But this would be a major thematic moral. Snape working for 
the evil overlord, thinking he doesn't care about the consequences 
of the information he brings him, and suddenly discovering that it 
affects him personally."  No, no, it's the *remorse* that fits the 
theme. Snape either felt true remorse or he lied to Dumbledore; 
otherwise the core of his story doesn't hang together. LID 
undermines the whole juicy remorse angle. 

Basically it all comes down to personal preference for me, I'll 
admit it: I want a tortured, *suffering* Snape who actually does 
care about something (destroying Voldemort) and someone (Dumbledore) 
other than himself, but he can't get past his deep flaws to be 
effective at really much of anything until that moment on the tower. 
There he finally did something right but it looked oh-so-wrong to 
everyone else on the same side except Dumbledore. LID just doesn't 
have the deep pain and drama necesary to work with my ideal. ;) 

Jen, wanting to add if her version of Snape sounds *noble* to anyone 
that's not how she sees him in her own head.






From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Sat Mar 18 07:33:29 2006
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 07:33:29 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV
In-Reply-To: <dvf95l+gnug@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvgd49+9mt7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149773

"horridporrid03" <horridporrid03 at ...> wrote:

> ESE, or Voldemort's Man!Snape would have
> *never* taken the UV.

Nonsense, if he was Voldemort's man (and I don't think he was) he
would have every reason to watch over Draco "as he attempts to fulfill
the Dark Lord's wishes"  

> it makes little sense for LID!Snape
> to take the Vow 

I believe this lifetime debt business is vastly overrated, just
another of Dumbledore's many mistakes. Harry saved Wormtail's life 
in book 3 but that didn't stop him from helping to torture Harry in
book 4.

> Out For Himself!Snape also makes little
> sense tying his survival to someone else.

I believe it makes absolutely perfect sense for reasons I've explained
more than once. But I'll tell you what doesn't make sense, I'll tell
you what's absolutely screwy, I'll tell you what's completely insane,
it's the idea that Snape vowing to murder Dumbledore proves that Snape
is loyal to Dumbledore. Even JKR couldn't make a good book out of that
cockeyed premise.  

Eggplant   
 








From Nanagose at aol.com  Sat Mar 18 08:38:52 2006
From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal)
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 08:38:52 -0000
Subject: Maligning Lupin
In-Reply-To: <dvf8sj+btn4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvggus+kk1h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149774

> > Christina:
> >  Not everybody apologizes in the same way, and Lupin is not an
> > emotional man.  "I mustn't do it again," is an apology itself.

> Pippin:
> Erm, it's an apology for something Lupin didn't do -- bite someone.

Christina:

Lupin obviously knows he didn't bite anyone; he is saying that he 
put them in a situation where they *could* have been bitten, and 
that *that* must never happen again.  Lupin recognizes the danger 
that he put the children in, and voices that recognition to Harry.  
An acknowledgement of one's mistakes is an apology, or at least the 
beginnings of one.

> Pippin:
> I'd like to see an apology or at least some remorse  for something 
> that Lupin did do, expressed to someone who could actually impose 
> a consequence on him, one that he wouldn't have faced if he hadn't 
> confessed. 
>
> You know, like the confession of remorse Dumbledore says
> Snape made to him. 

Christina:

Again, Lupin's crime here was that he put the children in danger.  
He recongizes that fact ("I could have bitten any one of you"), and 
takes steps to ensure that the children will be removed from the 
danger by his leaving Hogwarts.

And I don't see how this relates to DD and Snape at all.

>>> Pippin:
>>> The rationale for Lupin joining Voldemort can be foreseen in the 
>>> Marauder outings and in his failure to report what he knew about 
>>> Sirius:
>>> a)  society presented him with a forbidden, guilt-inducing 
>>> opportunity that was more attractive than doing what he felt was 
>>> right and
>>> b) Lupin chose to pursue it
 
>> Christina: 
>> I still feel that this completely ignores the reasons behind 
>> Lupin's decisions. 

> Pippin:
> The reasons aren't important.

Christina:

Of course they are!  The key to a person's character 
(not 'character' as in moral value, but 'character' as in the set of 
traits that are attributed to a certain person) is not in the things 
they do, but in their motivations.  You cannot possibly claim to be 
able to make predictions based on prior actions, because people do 
all sorts of different things for strange reasons.  By looking at 
Lupin's actions without analyzing the reasons behind those actions, 
you are not doing true justice to his character.  Lupin does not 
always ignore his conscience, and in every example given of times 
when he does, he shows remorse later.  And again, there is a 
difference between Lupin's passive choices to "look the other way," 
so to speak, from the bad choices of others, and a conscious 
decision to actively pursue evil.


>> Christina:
>>So why would he consciously choose to go around killing those 
>>friends and continuing to rack up actions that would disappoint 
>>DD?  Lupin keeps his mouth shut because he *likes* what the WW has 
>>done for him and he wants to keep those benefits.  That just does 
>>not swing with a Lupin that believes that he would have a better 
>>life under Voldemort. 

> Pippin:
> Where do you see that Lupin likes being poor, jobless,  an 
> unpopular dinner guest, and being persecuted by the Ministry?  He 
> needs his wizard friends to shelter him from things which he 
> wouldn't have to suffer in the first place if wizarding society 
> was fair. 


Christina:

Lupin's only words about his time as a young person are very 
complimentary - his schoolboy transformations were "the best times 
of my life."  Lupin says that the Animagi around him helped him keep 
his mind more human during the transformations, and that he liked 
that.  And isn't that the theme of the entire series? - who cares 
how much money you have, as long as you have friends who love you 
and stand by you?  By JKR's standards, Lupin was a very lucky young 
man indeed.

We have no canonical evidence that Lupin's young life was anything 
like you described.  Harry's vision of Lupin in the pensieve is 
perhaps the only time Lupin is ever introduced *without* mention of 
shabby and patched robes.  Sirius points out that Umbridge's *new* 
laws (it looks like they were passed after PoA) make it "almost 
impossible" for Remus to get a job, meaning that it was possible 
beforehand.  Lupin isn't a popular dinner guest post-PoA because his 
status as a werewolf is found out.  He seems to have kept it a great 
secret beforehand.  And even in OotP, Lupin has a group of people 
that follow his lead and accept his authority without question - 
even Molly, who raised get-away-from-me-werewolf!Ron, shuts up when 
Lupin puts her in her place.  He is obviously respected within the 
Order.

I also find it interesting that the werewolves (and other groups) 
are willing to accept Voldemort's claims of a "better life" under 
his reign when his entire philosophy is stemmed from pure-blooded 
prejudices.  It shouldn't be too hard to entice werewolves that are 
poorly educated, starving, and stealing, but Lupin?  He would see 
right through such a charade.  Especially considering the fact that 
his young life doesn't really seem like it was all that bad.


>> Christina:
>> Hermione leading Umbridge to the Centaurs is a decision that she 
>> makes when Umbridge is about the Crucio Harry.  Self-defense.  The
>> werewolves purposefully attack innocent people.  There's a 
>> difference.

> Pippin:
> Werewolves attack people whom they believe are depriving them of 
> their rights and freedoms.  YMMV.
<snip>
> I'm sure Hermione didn't think she'd have a better
> life if the centaurs took over -- but her immediate situation took
> precedence. 

Christina:

That is exactly my point.  It is the difference between a slave 
executing secret plots to murder rich white men (who may or may not 
have ever held slaves in the first place), and a slave attacking a 
slave owner who is coming at his daughter with a whip.  Hermione's 
decision was a split-second one, based on the threat of immediate, 
physical danger.  She doesn't care about who has the better 
philosophy - she just wants Harry to escape imminent pain.  There is 
nothing to show that Lupin was ever under pressure even remotely 
similar, and so comparisons between their actions are difficult to 
pull off.  The werewolves also don't operate under the same 
conditions that Hermione does - their violence is done against 
innocents, as *vengeance* for wrongs done to them.  And as JKR has 
told us, although retribution is an understandable human response, 
there is a wide world of difference between "getting even" (at the 
wrong people, even!) and protecting oneself from hurt in the first 
place.  She only reinforced this idea in HBP - Lucius Malfoy messes 
up, and Voldemort punishes Draco.


> Pippin:
> In HBP we find out that he regards the prophecy as essentially 
> worthless...<snip>...If Sirius had been in Dumbledore's 
> confidence, he'd have told Harry to drop it.

Christina:

Because when Dumbledore shares information with you, he always tells 
the *whole* truth, right? :)  It isn't all-or-nothing with 
Dumbledore - he feeds out information, little by little, when he 
believes you need to know.  He doesn't have confidants, but he 
*does* tell others his "shrewd ideas."  Whether back in the first 
war or now, it's easy to believe that DD told Sirius about the 
prophecy, but did not wax poetic on his full views.  Or maybe DD 
told James and Lily about it (he certainly should have, if it was 
about their son), and James told Sirius.


> Pippin:
> ESE!Lupin might prefer not to kill Sirius, but in that moment he 
> had more to lose by Sirius surviving. Being caught as a murderer 
> would not be worse than being caught as a DE spy. Either way, 
> Sirius and Dumbledore would not want to be his friends any more. 
> But if Sirius died,  Dumbledore's precious trust could be 
> preserved.

Christina:

And you've lost me.  First of all, there's no need for Lupin to risk 
killing Sirius himself - the man is standing in front of a cursed 
veil, goading his insane murderer of a cousin.  Honestly, I don't 
think she needed any extra help.  

And I also don't see how Sirius living would have led to Lupin being 
caught as a murderer.  Dumbledore never asks Harry why he runs with 
the prophecy (Sirius's words to him never come up), and there's no 
reason to believe that that would change with Sirius living.  Also, 
Lupin allows Sirius to talk quite a bit about the prophecy at the 
dinner table in the beginning of OotP (not referring to it as such, 
but strongly suggesting that Voldemort wants to use it as a 
weapon).  Pretty stupid, if Lupin is giving this information to 
Sirius in secret (and while we're on it, why would he do that in the 
first place?).  We can also assume that Lupin was going to allow 
Sirius to keep talking.  It is *Molly* who stops the flow of 
information.  Note the way she does not seem to be surprised by the 
information that is being shared...perhaps because she knows it 
too?  She also says that if Lupin and Sirius tell them any more, 
they might as well induct Harry into the Order, so she also knows 
that there is more to the story).


>> Christine:
>> You can't say that Lupin isn't afraid of killing just because he 
>> is willing to kill a lying, back-stabbing murderer. 

> Pippin:
> But I do say that...<snip>...Sirius is white and shaking as he 
> prepares to kill Peter. Lupin actually gloats. It's a quiet gloat, 
> but what would we think of Snape if he'd said, "You should have 
> known, Albus, if Voldemort didn't kill you, we would. Goodbye."? 
> Even a hardcore DDM!Snaper would find that hard to explain.

Christina:

Peter Pettigrew is bad.  Dumbledore is good.  Therein lies the 
difference in killing and gloating at each of them.  Oh yes, there 
are bits of good and bits of evil in everyone, but if Book 7 
featured Harry gloating at an ESE!Snape, a fair amount of people 
would be cheering him on.  You can't infuse the scene in the Shack 
with your theory and then use that to make conclusions to support 
your theory.  Peter is presented as Evil Guy and is treated as 
such.  We are meant to praise Harry for his sense of justice and 
fairness, but...most of us can't *really* blame Sirius and Remus for 
their actions.  Everyone knows that fists aren't the answer, but 
there is still that little part a lot of people that cheers when 
Harry lunges at Draco in OotP.

So, then...the difference between Sirius and Remus's reactions to 
killing Peter.  The problem is that Remus is not an emotional man.  
He is shown remaining calm and light on his feet in tough 
situations, particularly of the emotional sort.  It's a character 
trait of his.  An ability to hide his true emotions may have helped 
an ESE!Lupin hide his dirty little secret, but it doesn't make him 
evil in and of itself.  Lupin doesn't show the emotion that Sirius 
does in the Shack scene, but Lupin doesn't ever show the emotion 
that Sirius does.

And really, what is Sirius really upset about here?  Emotions are 
running high - is he white and shaking because he finally has to 
kill?  Or perhaps because he is remembering the anguish over finding 
his best friend's dead body in the rubble of his home?  Or maybe he 
is overcome with the guilt of being the instrument that let it all 
happen?  Sirius IS shown as getting a bit shaky in other points in 
the Shack scene; it isn't just when he is faced with killing Peter.  
It seems more likely to me that Sirius's emotional state at that 
point is less a matter of it being hard to kill somebody and more a 
matter of the entirety of Sirius's horrible ordeal finally coming to 
a head.


Christina









From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Sat Mar 18 14:54:46 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 09:54:46 EST
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
Message-ID: <283.7909c3d.314d7936@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149775

>Sydney
>Room of Love, anybody?  This is where I can see the  anti-Snape
'>humiliation' scene or the Snape-lover's catharsis  scene.  Because
>both Snape-lovers and haters, oddly enough, share  the desire to see
>him suffer!  It just seems necessary for him to  break down, so he can
>reform, or re-form himself.  He's got to let  go of trying to 'fix'
>things from the outside, and deal with things on an  emotional level. 
>I think it's so much more frightening to Snape to have  to confront
>himself, and move on to justCarol's forgiveness stage, than  it is for
>him just to hammer forward, just on the other side.  I  think this
>relates back to the stuff about the shadow-side that came up a  few
>weeks ago, that it has to be embraced, and accepted, not attacked  and
>repressed, because it just can't be got rid of.  Snape might  think he
>can get rid of his anguish by Occlumency, by Dark Magic, by  destroying
>Voldemort, but he can't-- his pain is going to stay inside him  until
>he faces it.  

Nikkalmati
 Unfortunately, that would be another story.  The next book will  focus on 
Harry and his tasks.  I think Snape is a take him or leave him  character. Love 
him or hate him.  We will learn more about him and his  past, but I don't 
think we will see any major changes in his thinking and  philosophy, whether he 
survives or not.  Maybe, if he survives, he  will achieve some peace, but we 
won't see it.  We will see Harry  learn to appreciate Snape and accept his help.  
(How JKR will do this after  HBP is a major mystery, but it will happen).  
Snape will learn that Harry,  after Harry matures a bit and becomes less 
self-centered and judgmental, is  not just like James and they will work together.  
Snape was able to keep  his eye on the goal of getting rid of LV even if it 
means working with Sirius,  and we know he hated Sirius.  (Obviously, I don't 
blame SS for what  happened to Sirius at the DOM).
 
Nikkalmati    



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







From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 18 17:00:32 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 17:00:32 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV
In-Reply-To: <dvgd49+9mt7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvhebg+l2b4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149776

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" 
<eggplant107 at ...> wrote:
>
But I'll tell you what doesn't make sense, I'll tell
> you what's absolutely screwy, I'll tell you what's completely 
insane, it's the idea that Snape vowing to murder Dumbledore proves 
that Snape is loyal to Dumbledore. Even JKR couldn't make a good 
book out of that cockeyed premise.  
> 

Tonks:
It makes sense if DD told Snape to do whatever it took to maintain 
his cover. Having Snape in LV's camp may be even more important than 
we think. DD would give his life and the lives of the members of the 
Order as long as it brings an end to LV. More is at stake here than 
just the life of one or two men.  This is war and the stakes are 
very high. The fate of both the WW and the Muggle world hang in the 
balance. I see no problem with DDM Snape taking the vow.

Tonks_op 
Who thinks that it is not DDM, LID, etc. It is ALL of them together 
that makes sense. = HMS.DESIRE. We have extra cabins available for 
anyone that wants to join up. 









From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 18 18:44:08 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:44:08 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dvgc82+rvoo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvhkdo+fvbb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149777

Neri wrote:
> > But mostly for me it's just that I can't buy such unbelievable
incompetence in Snape. After all, secret agent Snape already had a
pretty poor track record even before HBP. Not only the way he handled
the Occlumency lessons, but also how he failed to prevent Harry from
going to the DoM when he was the last Order member at Hogwarts. And
when did secret agent Snape ever save the day with inside information
from Voldemort's camp? So in HBP secret agent Snape attempts to save
Draco and uncover Voldy's plan, and he ends up killing Dumbledore
himself. And on the top of that he doesn't even manage to save Draco
from Voldemort. I simply can't buy such incompetence. It would make
the whole spying career of DDM!Snape look like one big joke. 
> 
> Jen: But geez, look at his career for the *other* side, it's pretty 
> sad as well: Stopped Voldy from taking the Stone, interfered with 
> Quirrell's attempts to kill Harry, notified the Order (almost too 
> late if you prefer) of Harry & Co. going to the DOM, enables 
> Voldemort to underestimate Harry by feeding him the "getting by on 
> luck and more talented friends" line, doesn't tell Voldemort of 
> Dumbledore's very unusual injury but instead blames his slowed 
> reactions on the fight with Voldemort. *Then*, Snape caps off his 
> illustrious career by undermining the Dark Lord's big revenge plan 
> when he takes an *Unbreakable* Vow behind the Dark Lord's back just 
> because a pretty woman shed a few tears on his chest. Pathetic.

Carol responds:
Not to mention that the Occlumency lessons failed primarily because of
Harry, who let his hatred of Snape interfere with them, didn't
practice, wouldn't close his mind at night because he *wanted* to have
that dream, and finally stuck his nose into that Pensieve because he
couldn't resist an impulse he knew was wrong. Oops. And he did get the
Order members--and Dumbldore--to the DoM on time (I know your
arguments about the delay, but in the end the delay, if there was one,
didn't matter). We don't know what he did for the Order, but they
certainly seemed interest in his report in OoP; they knew he was doing
something important and dangerous. And DD wouldn't continue to trust
him in SS weren't providing useful information (such as LV's reaction
when Lucius Malfoy confessed the diary stunt). And it must have been
Snape who informed DD that LV was after the Prophecy in the first
place. As for Snape not saving Draco from Voldemort, how do you know
that, Neri? I'm guessing that Snape reported to LV as soon as possible
and persuaded him not to hurt the boy because he had succeeded in
repairing the Vanishing Cabinet and letting the DEs into Hogwarts,
enabling Snape to kill DD. Mission accomplished. If Snape *doesn't* do
something of the sort, he's a dead man. The first two provisions of
the UV, so far as we know, are still in effect until Narcissa removes
them. So I disagree that Spy!Snape is a disaster. YMMV, as Nora says. 

As for DDM!Snape killing DD, killing DD, you know the arguments and
I'm not going to repeat them except to say that there was no saving DD
from the DEs if Snape or the poison didn't kill him, and both Draco
and Harry would almost certaingly have died with DD and Snape if Snape
had allowed the UV to kill him. Only Snape could get Harry safely off
the tower and the DEs and Draco off the Hogwarts grounds. (The
arguments and evidence for this idea have already been presented by
many people in many threads. Anyone who does a search can find them.)

Jen wrote:
> Unless Voldemort already knows about the UV or finds it to be
to his advantage when word gets back to him. The only way I can make
Spinner's End work is to have Voldemort plugged into the equation
somewhere, no matter what flavor of Snape you prefer. <snip paragraph
above presented out of sequence>
 
> So, I deal with it by putting the Voldemort puzzle piece into place
and things look a little brighter, don't they? Even Dumbledore was
bested by Voldemort in the end, there's no shame in Snape being 
twisted into a pretzel and made to suffer by the Greatest Dark Lord
ever.  The mouse in the trap, the fly in the web--Voldemort found
Snape's weakness once again as he did the first time Snape foolishly
wore his heart on his sleeve, manipulating him into the position of
killing the Only One Who Ever Believed In Him.
> 
> It's just so vintage Voldemort I don't get why people don't buy this
one. Would someone argue with me so I can understand the objections 
to Voldemort being behind this plot? <snip>

Carol responds:
Okay, here goes. Narcissa is going to Snape for help behind LV's back.
*She's* not going to tell him. Peter Pettigrew has been ousted from
the room with what appears to be an Impervius (sp?) Charm on the door.
He has nothing to report except that Bella and Narcissa came to see
Snape. And he is hunchbacked and suffering from the treatment he's
received from LV (repeated Crucios, apparently). He's not going to
give up his (relatively) cushy position as Snape's "assistant" by
revealing such a tiny bit of info to LV. And Bellatrix has aided her
sister by acting as bonder in the LV, which protects Draco from
Voldemort. She's not going to report that to LV. And Snape has
carefully established that Bella is on the outs with LV before
answering her questions. And there's the point I raised
before--Narcissa at first attempts to go to Snape by herself, against
Bella's objections. Had she succeeded, there would have been no third
person (except the universally despised PP, who is excluded from the
conversation) to perform the UV. It cannot have been planned by
Narcissa or by Voldemort, and certainly not by Bellatrix, who's as
surprised by it as Snape is.

I think that the UV is the manifestation of the DADA curse, which
falls into place as Slughorn accepts the Potions position. At that
point, Narcissa is inspired to ask Snape to take the vow, carefully
concealing from him the third provision (or it's a late inspiration
after he's agreed to the other two). So Voldemort is behind it, all
right, but not directly or consciously. His *will* is at work to
destroy both Dumbledore and Snape. So, yes, Snape is caught in a trap,
but he's not a mouse or a fly. The spider is caught in his own web. In
attempting to persuade Bellatrix of his loyalty, he has further
strengthened *Narcissa's* belief in him. And DDM!Snape will have
promised Dumbledore (whom DDM!Snape has already told about Draco's
mission to kill DD) to do everything in his power not only to maintain
his cover but to protect Draco from harm, death, or the act of murder
(see the argument in the forest)--hence his willing agreement to the
first two provisions and his forced and reluctant agreement to the
third. (Interpretation, not fact, I know!)

I see no way that Voldemort could consciously have engineered the UV
and talked Narcissa (who is terrified that LV will kill Draco) into
trapping Snape, nor do I see how word of the UV could have gotten back
to him. Certainly, neither Bellatrix nor Narcissa would tell LV about
the provisions involving Draco, which clearly violate LV's will. But
since the third provision trapped Snape, forcing him to kill DD or die
himself (unless he and DD could find a way around it, as Snape must
have hoped), I don't think Voldemort would disapprove of that part in
the unlikely event that he did hear about it. I think he would laugh
shrilly at Snape's dilemma and his own diabolical cleverness,
recognizing the DADA curse at work: his scheme of forty-odd years ago
falling into place at last.

Just my reading, which otherwise is not all that different from yours.
No LID!Snape anywhere in sight. Just DDM!Snape, trapped by his
all-too-effective double agent role and thwarted, perhaps doomed, by
the DADA curse.

Carol






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Mar 18 18:47:43 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:47:43 -0000
Subject: Maligning Lupin
In-Reply-To: <dvfcnf+8r6m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvhkkf+f410@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149778

Replies to Renee and Christina --

> Renee:
>  Even if a werewolf were to join Voldemort for reasons that had
> nothing to do with his lycanthropy, the Wizarding World would
> still maintain it did, instead of ascribing it to human fallibility.
>
> Pippin:
> Yes! Yes! And they'd be wrong. <snip>
>

Renee:
They'd be wrong, but - and now we're back to where we were a couple of
posts ago - they won't have any reason to change their minds about
werewolves. In order to do so they'd need an incentive in the form of
a good werewolf who has fought for the good cause. 

Pippin:

There are many Muggleborns and halfbloods who should
understand that human fallibility, exacerbated by poverty and
discrimination, can precipitate crime and terrorism without 
any help from Dark Magic or mind-altering diseases. Those
people are going to have more influence once Voldemort is 
defeated, or so I hope.


As for the Trio, they've got Bill. They may even be able to salvage
Lupin's reputation. That'd be a very Agatha Christie type ending, 
where the guilty party dies but his crimes are covered up to keep 
from discrediting his life's work. 

I can just see a scenario where Lupin dies, Snape
takes the rap and is punished as a traitor, and listies debate forever
whether Snape nobly sacrificed himself or got just what he deserved.
Shades of Sydney Carton. JKR did say that ATOTT is on her favorites
list. 



Renee:
 We also read that werewolves are contstantly shunted between the
Beast and Being department of the Ministry. To me, this says they're
considered to be different.

Pippin:
The educated opinion about werewolves is that they're human,
FBAWTFT tells us so, and that's a ministry approved text. 

My thought is the tug of war between the Beast and Being divisions is
mostly logistical. The Beasts folks would have all the staff and
equipment they need to deal with transformed werewolves, so why
duplicate it in Beings? The Beings folks would counter that 
werewolves, being human, deserve a sensitivity to their needs 
which the Beasts folks don't have. 

Bottom line, it's a rare bureaucrat that'd vote to make his
department smaller.<g>


Christina:

Lupin obviously knows he didn't bite anyone; he is saying that he
put them in a situation where they *could* have been bitten, and
that *that* must never happen again.  Lupin recognizes the danger
that he put the children in, and voices that recognition to Harry.
An acknowledgement of one's mistakes is an apology, or at least the
beginnings of one.

Pippin:
Let me try an analogy. 

Suppose someone almost runs you over with his car. He admits
he's a dangerous driver and says it must never happen again, 
but he says nothing about the fact  that he'd been drinking
or that  the accident allowed a murderer to escape.

Would you call that an adequate acknowledgment of his
mistakes?


Even with the most charitable, non-ESE interpretation of events,
Lupin's failure to take the potion was totally preventable
on his part. He didn't acknowledge that it had anything
to do with what happened. He also completely ignored the
fact that Pettigrew's escape was a bigger threat to Harry
and the other children than anything Lupin could
have done. Lupin might have bitten any one of them.
But Pettigrew could have killed them all.

Lupin leaves Harry blaming himself for Peter's escape
and blaming Snape for forcing Lupin out of a job that Lupin
later acknowledges  he'd have had to leave anyway.

Lupin quite see the parents' point that he's dangerous.
What he doesn't appear to see is that it's his carelessness
that made him dangerous, not his lycanthropy. I think
that's important.

Christina:
I still feel that this completely ignores the reasons behind
Lupin's decisions.



Pippin:
The reasons aren't important.


Christina:

Of course they are!  The key to a person's character
(not 'character' as in moral value, but 'character' as in the set of
traits that are attributed to a certain person) is not in the things
they do, but in their motivations. 

Pippin:
I guess I didn't make myself clear. I meant that Lupin's motivations
for disabling his conscience don't matter in determining the results. 

If you'll forgive another analogy, I've been known to disconnect the smoke
detector  when I broil a steak. Obviously it's
not because I want to be caught in a burning house. But if I
don't hook it up again when I'm finished, it could still happen. 

Lupin tells us he  still forgets his guilty feelings or
finds reasons to think they are unrealistic. In other words, he 
disconnected his conscience because, like my smoke detector, it 
was oversensitive.

Is it unreasonable to think he might have paid a price for that?

I'm not saying Lupin put "Wednesday: dentist, Thursday: actively 
pursue evil" in his pocket diary. But  Lupin does *not* 
see a twinge from his conscience as a reason to immediately stop
doing something.  That's a crack in his defenses that someone as
cunning as Voldemort could easily find a way through. 


Pippin:
Where do you see that Lupin likes being poor, jobless,  an
unpopular dinner guest, and being persecuted by the Ministry?  He
needs his wizard friends to shelter him from things which he
wouldn't have to suffer in the first place if wizarding society
was fair.



Christina:


We have no canonical evidence that Lupin's young life was anything
like you described. <snip>

Pippin:
"...he let me into Hogwarts as a boy, and he gave me a job,
when I have been shunned *all my adult life* (emphasis mine),
unable to find paid work because of what I am."

I'm afraid young Lupin's life post-Hogwarts wasn't as rosy as you 
think. His school days were the happiest of his life. Then he 
couldn't find paid work (did the word get out on the QT?)  Order
members started dying, and his friends started thinking he might 
be a spy.

I don't know why James didn't say "Look, Padfoot old chum, 
I know we're all on edge and  someone close to us is a traitor, 
but Moony is no more a Death Eater than I am. I trust Remus
Lupin completely. And if you think otherwise, you've got a twig loose."

 Heaven knows, *I've* heard words to that effect often enough <g> 

What I know is that James switched secret keepers, and Remus was not told. 

I know there's a honking big gap between Hogwarts and
 Godric's Hollow. On one side  we've got the
Four Musketeers. On the other side, James is dead, Peter is a fugitive,
Sirius is a convicted criminal, and Lupin is ... a big fat
question mark. 

We can assume that adult Lupin is angry on the werewolves' behalf because
he's mad about Umbridge's new laws and they don't 
affect him personally. (They can't, since he's only had one
paid job and he lost it before they were passed.)

The werewolves think they'll have a better life under Voldemort, and
with Umbridge out there, it's hard to argue with them. 

If she was willing to set dementors on an innocent boy and even
crucio him, what do you think she's been doing to werewolves? 
Just passing laws? 

Can you blame the werewolves for thinking they should fight fire with
fire? Well, of course. But plenty of wizards felt that Crouch
was justified in doing that. Interesting that we don't have Lupin's
opinion on Barty Sr. 



Pippin:
ESE!Lupin might prefer not to kill Sirius, but in that moment he
had more to lose by Sirius surviving. Being caught as a murderer
would not be worse than being caught as a DE spy. Either way,
Sirius and Dumbledore would not want to be his friends any more.
But if Sirius died,  Dumbledore's precious trust could be
preserved.


Christina:

And you've lost me.  First of all, there's no need for Lupin to risk
killing Sirius himself - the man is standing in front of a cursed
veil, goading his insane murderer of a cousin.  Honestly, I don't
think she needed any extra help.


Pippin:
Excuse me? What canon do we have that Bella had ever killed anyone?
Crucio seems to be her specialty. Sirius was known to be a formidable
wizard and a clever warrior -- how on earth could Lupin be sure
that he would lose the duel? And then Sirius would certainly ask Harry if
the prophecy was safe, and Lupin would have had some 'splainin' to do.


Christina:
  We can also assume that Lupin was going to allow
Sirius to keep talking.  It is *Molly* who stops the flow of
information. 

Pippin:
Since when has Sirius done what Molly wanted? It's
*Lupin* who shuts him up. "I think Molly's right,
Sirius. We've said enough."

Molly knows where the 'weapon' Voldemort wants is located,
and that Order members will be stationed to guard it.
I doubt very much she knows any more, since Dumbledore lays
such emphasis on the point that he and he alone could have 
prevented Harry from going to the MoM. 

Christina:
 Everyone knows that fists aren't the answer, but
there is still that little part a lot of people that cheers when
Harry lunges at Draco in OotP.

Pippin:
And that part of people is solidly rebuked when Fake!Moody
bounces ferret Draco, and we later realize that's one of the
things that should have tipped us off.

You're telling me Remus is not emotional, but he expresses emotion
all the time in the shack. He's tense, he turns pale, his voice
shakes, his face hardens and his voice fills with self-disgust --
but not over killing his old school friend Peter. 


I'm curious about that.

The bottom line for you, I guess,  is that you can't see Lupin betraying
the friends who did so much for him. What I see is that Lupin did
consider that he'd betrayed Dumbledore, who'd done so much for him,
for the sake of a good time with his friends. 

If he could do that, betray a man who'd helped him so much just for a 
lark,   couldn't he betray his friends for the far nobler cause of 
werewolf liberation? 

Pippin







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 18 19:37:40 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 19:37:40 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV
In-Reply-To: <dvhebg+l2b4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvhni4+5l5u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149779

Tonks wrote:
> It makes sense [to agree to the third provision] if DD told Snape to
do whatever it took to maintain his cover. Having Snape in LV's camp
may be even more important than we think. DD would give his life and
the lives of the members of the Order as long as it brings an end to
LV. More is at stake here than just the life of one or two men.  This
is war and the stakes are very high. The fate of both the WW and the
Muggle world hang in the balance. I see no problem with DDM Snape
taking the vow.
> 
> Tonks_op 
> Who thinks that it is not DDM, LID, etc. It is ALL of them together
that makes sense. = HMS.DESIRE. We have extra cabins available for
anyone that wants to join up.
>
Carol responds:
Hi, Tonks. I agree that DD would give his own life to defeat and that
he trusted Snape to do the same (which is not quite the same as DD
sacrificing Snape or anyone else to the cause, which makes him sound
like Bellatrix sacrificing her imaginary son to the cause of LV). But,
yes, the whole WW is at stake and both DD and Snape know it. And, yes,
DD would expect and *want* Snape to agree to vow, third provision and
all. It's Snape who, quite understandably, doesn't want to do it.
Killing Dumbledore costs him everything he has. Much easier to die
than to murder your mentor and suffer infamy, mental anguish, and a
fractured soul as the result.

The part of your theory that troubles me is having Snape "damned" for
the relatively small transgression of revealing the Prophecy when he
had no idea that it involved the young man to whom he owed a Life Debt
(or by James' death at *Voldemort's* hands). That doesn't seem
consistent with the WW (which doesn't involve damnation as we know it,
though the Dementors provide something close to Limbo--poor unbaptized
babies who didn't deserve that fate!). The whole idea behind
Christianity (besides belief in Christ, which doesn't apply here) is
that if you repent, you'll be forgiven. And surely the crime or sin
for which Snape most needs forgiveness is not the eavesdropping or the
death of James (and Lily), which he tried to prevent and has been
trying to atone for, but the murder of DD on the tower. And JKR, as a
Christian, will (IMO) find a way for him to atone for that sin and
receive forgiveness (not God's but Harry's). I can't see him eternally
damned. He may die, but I think he will die reconciled to himself and
to the Order and to Dumbledore, whose spirit he will encounter beyond
the Veil.

I think the Life Debt was *part* of Snape's reason for turning to
Dumbledore for turning to DD and risking his life spying on LV
*before* Godric's Hollow, but it probably wasn't the whole reason. It
certainly doesn't explain his remorse (anguished regret for a misdeed
that can't be undone) as opposed to selfish concern for his own soul
(or whatever the consequences of an unfulfilled life debt may be). I
do think that in his own mind, the Life Debt was transferred to Harry,
but I don't think that debt is magically binding, nor do I think it
was transferred to Dumbledore, fulfilled by saving DD from the ring
Horcrux, and then transferred back to Harry, whom he managed to get
safely off the tower and rescue from a Crucio. Far from explaining
anything simply, LID!Snape just complicates matters needlessly.

Another thing, too. If Snape's soul was already eternally and
inevitably damned, why go to DD at all? Why not just stay with LV and
be a murderer and torturer and poison maker? Why risk his life spying
for DD? Why try to save Harry's life? Why continually "slither out of
action" as Bellatrix accuses him of doing.

Carol, not ready to sign up for a bunk on HMS.DESIRE till it's
seaworthy but liking the acronym almost as much as ACID POPS ;-)
 






From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 17 19:22:10 2006
From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 19:22:10 -0000
Subject: seeds of betrayal: Why was Snape upset about the Potters' deaths?
In-Reply-To: <dva1ni+7vj5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvf292+nk9h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149780

Luna mk03 wrote:

> 2-	Snape loved Lily: as horrible the idea of Snape in love 
> could be, I think this is the direction that the books seem to be 
> pointing at.
> 
> Snape desire for vengeance is fiery, as we see in POA. He hated 
> Sirius for "betraying the Potters" and hates Voldemort for killing 
> them. Snape wants to be close to Voldemort to kill him, not to 
serve him. This is why he killed DD: DD was the only thing standing 
> between Snape and his revenge.
> 
> Clues in the books and JKR Interviews:
> -	Snape's worst memory is him being ridiculed in the presence 
> of Lily.
> -	Lily was the best Potion maker of her year, she probably 
> was helping Snape in potions. It is evident that Lily went to 
> Sirius aid because she feels compelled to defend him. Why? Don't 
get > me wrong, I don't think that she was actually in love with 
Snape. I > think she wanted to be friends with him, maybe pitied him 
for being a kind of outsider and wanted to help him. Maybe she saw 
he was > brilliant too and felt attracted to that part of Snape.
> -	Voldemort asked Lily to step aside instead of killing her. 
> Why would Voldemort do that? Maybe because Snape begged him not to 
> kill her as a reward for the info he gave him?

Steven1965aaa says:

Luna, I think you may well be on the right track.  Let me
try to add something.  First, perhaps Snape's worst memory is NOT
being ridiculed and "de-pantsed" in front of Lily, maybe his worst
memory was when he called Lily "Mudblood".  If she had been kind to 
him and he liked her, he could feel pretty guilty about that, creep 
though he may be, and that could also have been the moment when he 
blew any chance he ever had with her or lost her friendship.  Maybe 
that would have been a worse moment for him that being humiliated by 
James and Sirius which was probably a fairly regular occurrance.  
Also, I doubt it was Lily helping  Snape in potions, I think it was 
the other way around.  Lily's sucess in potions may have been 
because of Snape's help, just like Harry was being helped by the 
book.  At the very end of the "fight" between Harry and Snape when 
Harry tries to use Levicorpus on Snape, Snape says something 
like "you're trying to turn my own spells against me, just like your 
filthy father did."  (I know I don't have that quote exactly 
right).  Lily may have shown the book to James, and that's where he 
got Levicorpus which we saw him use in "Snape's Worst Memory".

Another wild speculation I have: We learn at the end of HBP that 
Snape's father was a muggle.  We also suspect from Snape's memory in 
the pensieve that Snape's father was a bully (hook nose man yelling 
at cowering woman).  Maybe he caused the family to live in the 
muggle world.  If so (and now this is real wild speculation) maybe 
Snape and Lily knew each other from the muggle world, and that's 
where that relationship came from.

Steven1965aaa










From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 18 20:31:57 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 20:31:57 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dvhkdo+fvbb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvhqnt+ffn8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149781

> >>Neri:
> > But mostly for me it's just that I can't buy such unbelievable
> > incompetence in Snape. After all, secret agent Snape already had 
> > a pretty poor track record even before HBP. Not only the way he 
> > handled the Occlumency lessons, but also how he failed to       
> > prevent Harry from going to the DoM when he was the last Order   
> > member at Hogwarts.

Betsy Hp:
I think you've hit on the exact reason Snape has so many problems 
with Harry.  Because Harry totally screws with Snape's efforts and 
never seems to realize what he's done.

The Occlumency lessons were doomed from the start.  Harry didn't 
want to learn them, and so he didn't.  Massive frustration for 
Snape, I'm sure, who was as unthrilled to be there as Harry but at 
least put in an effort.

Then Harry passes on his message about Sirius being in danger, and 
then, stupidly, doesn't bother to check with Snape before flying off 
to the DoM with his little friends in tow.  (I can imagine the 
moment Snape starts to realize what Harry has done, stomping through 
the forest and thinking, "No, not even Harry could be this big of an 
idiot... Oh, hell, yes he can!" and then running his ass back to 
Hogwarts to put in an emergency call to the Order. (threw in Jogging!
Snape for Sydney) <g>) 

I'd say the debacle in PS/SS where Harry very nearly died was also a 
time he screwed with Dumbledore's plan, messed up Snape's hard work 
with Quirrell, and only Dumbledore's quick thinking saved the day.  
So an early precedent was set.

> >>Neri:
> And when did secret agent Snape ever save the day with inside     
> information from Voldemort's camp?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
IIRC, it was inside information that told Dumbledore that Voldemort 
was after the prophecy.  And yes, the Harry-factor nearly screwed 
the plan Dumbledore spun from that information, but the result was 
the same: Voldemort was outed to the WW.

Also, Snape told Dumbledore that Voldemort was sending Draco in to 
kill him.  I suspect there's more that Snape's done that we haven't 
been privy to, mainly because JKR is still trying to keep Snape's 
character ambiguous.

> >>Carol:
> <snip>
> We don't know what he did for the Order, but they  certainly      
> seemed interest in his report in OoP; they knew he was doing      
> something important and dangerous. And DD wouldn't continue to    
> trust him in SS weren't providing useful information (such as LV's 
> reaction when Lucius Malfoy confessed the diary stunt). 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
So yeah, Snape *was* getting information to the Order.  And most 
importantly, Snape helped Dumbledore realize exactly how Voldemort 
has attempted to acheive immortality.  And that ain't nothing. <g>

> >>Jen:
> > Unless Voldemort already knows about the UV or finds it to be
> > to his advantage when word gets back to him. The only way I can 
> > make Spinner's End work is to have Voldemort plugged into the   
> > equation somewhere, no matter what flavor of Snape you prefer. 

Betsy Hp:
Is there anything in canon to suggest that Voldemort knows about the 
UV?

> >>Jen:
> > <snip>
> > The mouse in the trap, the fly in the web--Voldemort found      
> > Snape's weakness once again as he did the first time Snape       
> > foolishly wore his heart on his sleeve, manipulating him into   
> > the position of killing the Only One Who Ever Believed In Him.
> > It's just so vintage Voldemort I don't get why people don't buy 
> > this one. Would someone argue with me so I can understand the    
> > objections to Voldemort being behind this plot? <snip>

> >>Carol:
> <snip>
> I see no way that Voldemort could consciously have engineered the 
> UV and talked Narcissa (who is terrified that LV will kill Draco) 
> into trapping Snape, nor do I see how word of the UV could have   
> gotten back to him. Certainly, neither Bellatrix nor Narcissa     
> would tell LV about the provisions involving Draco, which clearly 
> violate LV's will. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I agree with Carol that, logistically, it makes sense that Voldemort 
doesn't know about the Vow.  Another problem I have with Voldemort 
using Narcissa to trap Snape into the Vow is that it weakens the 
emotion going on in Spinner's End.  These three people (not 
including Peter here since Snape threw him out) are going *against* 
Voldemort.  They all realize this.

Narcissa is going against Voldemort to save her family.  She's a 
wreck, and she's terrified, but she's intent on doing whatever she 
can to save her son.

Bellatrix is going against Voldemort in her desperate need to 
undermine Snape.  It's a nice bit of irony, but in her eagerness to 
prove Snape's disloyalty she undertakes a bit of disloyalty 
herself.  (I think she may also see a way back into Voldemort's good 
graces with Draco's task and is attempting to keep Narcissa from 
messing with her plan.  More irony. <g>)

Snape, of course, is totally disloyal to Voldemort and is willing to 
do what it takes to prevent him from achieving his goals.  And if he 
can tie the Malfoy family to Dumbledore's side, all the better.  
Which means he's the least honest character in the room.

But Narcissa's fear and determination, Bellatrix's suspicions, those 
all struck me as entirely honest.  I cannot see either woman playing 
a deeper game here, so I cannot see Voldemort being behind the Vow.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > ESE, or Voldemort's Man!Snape would have *never* taken the UV.

> >>Eggplant:
> Nonsense, if he was Voldemort's man (and I don't think he was) he
> would have every reason to watch over Draco "as he attempts to    
> fulfill the Dark Lord's wishes"

Betsy Hp:
Ah.  So we'll ignore the whole "I want Draco to do this on his own" 
thing?  That's the thing about Evil Overlords, they're *so* 
understanding when someone violates a direct order.  Except for how 
they're totally not. <g>

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Out For Himself!Snape also makes little sense tying his survival 
> > to someone else.

> >>Eggplant:
> I believe it makes absolutely perfect sense for reasons I've      
> explained more than once.

Betsy Hp:
That's the, "Snape as third most powerful wizard on the planet looks 
to Harry to kill the number one most powerful wizard, while Snape 
takes care of the number two most powerful wizard" theory right?  
Actually, if there were any hints of Snape forming his own power 
base, or being interested in that sort of thing, I *could* see that 
flavor of OFH!Snape taking the Vow.  Though there's still the whole, 
if Draco dies so does Snape thing, that I just cannot see the third 
smartest and most powerful wizard on the planet overlooking.  After 
all, Snape can kill Dumbledore without Vowing to do so.  Your Snape 
would have killed Dumbledore on the Tower, Vow or no Vow.  So again, 
no reason for him to take it.

> >>Eggplant:
> But I'll tell you what doesn't make sense, I'll tell you what's   
> absolutely screwy, I'll tell you what's completely insane,
> it's the idea that Snape vowing to murder Dumbledore proves that   
> Snape is loyal to Dumbledore. Even JKR couldn't make a good book   
> out of that cockeyed premise.

Betsy Hp:
Oh, that's totally true.  Taking the Vow doesn't *prove* Snape's 
loyalty to Dumbledore, and neither does killing Dumbledore on the 
Tower.  All I'm saying is, the only flavor of Snape that *would* 
take the Vow is the DDM variety.  And yes, a DDM!Snape would murder 
Dumbledore.  We saw that in the cave when DDM!Harry force fed 
Dumbledore poison on Dumbledore's orders.

Betsy Hp






From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 18 21:16:05 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 21:16:05 -0000
Subject: seeds of betrayal
In-Reply-To: <dvbpk4+oigj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvhtal+5u8l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149782


> > zgirnius:
> > I'm not trying to argue Snape would not be pissed. He would be. 
The 
> > question is, would he consider taking Sirius to the Dementors 
> > himself, if it was just about the Prank? 

> Alla:
> 
> Right, to me the answer is absolutely yes, BUT again I am not 
saying 
> that Snape is angry with Sirius ONLY about the Prank, quite 
possible 
> that secret keeper business also adds to it, it is just trying hard 
as 
> I may I cannot find the evidence that Snape would NOT do that. IMO 
of 
> course.
> 


zgirnius:
Right. Your judgment of his character is that he would kill (probably 
HAS killed) for petty reasons, fairly casually. Pre HBP, I might have 
accepted this, and I would probably have pointed to precisely the 
canon we are discussing here as support: his actions at the end of 
PoA.

However, having read HBP and reconsidered all the previous books in 
light of this new information, I simply do not see the evidence to 
support this judgment. And I NOW see evidence which suggests to me 
rather the opposite. I would not now be surprised to learn that 
Dumbledore is the first man Snape has ever, personally, killed. 

To be clear, I'm not putting forward fluffy!bunny!Snape. And I'm not 
claiming I can PROVE Snape has never killed before. Just explaining 
why it now does not strike me as implausible. He joined the Death 
Eaters, a terrorist organization led by a super-evil Dark Lord. This 
COULD be because it was his ambition to kill, maim, and torture 
people for fun, but I'm with Julie. I think he did out of anger and 
frustration with his life. He felt betrayed by the way Dumbledore 
handled the Prank, angry that James became Head Boy, and jealous that 
Lily choosing James, unloved because of his lousy home life, 
unpopularity at school, and a Head of House who probably undervalued 
him due to his, shall we say, lack of social graces. He was going to 
show them all. But, as Dumbledore said, killing is not as easy as it 
looks. I'm just not so convinced that being a Death Eater means 
you've killed someone, in and of itself.

Reasons to suppose Snape may not have: there are certainly other 
things he could do for Voldemort-he did, for example, act as a spy. 
And, by Bella's account, Snape's reputation among other Death Eaters 
was that of someone who is good at `slithering out of action'.  (This 
is not to say Snape was never connected to anyone's death. He may 
have provided potions and information others used.)

Then, we learn that when Snape learned Voldemort planned to kill the 
Potters, he was deeply remorseful. It seems a mighty squeamish 
reaction to me, for a person so untroubled by pangs of conscience. (I 
know, you think Dumbledore could have been wrong about this. I'm 
giving both Snape and Dumbledore the benefit of the doubt, here.)

In PoA, Snape on a couple of occasions brings up the murderous nature 
of the Prank. Hypocrisy? Could be. Or maybe he's just expressing his 
honest opinion of the action itself. In the Shack there is a moment 
when Sirius, enraged, lunges at Snape. Snape's reaction is to issue a 
threat. A *threat*? No nasty sectumsempra (or other, less Dark) 
curse? This would be a case of self-defense! He's really missing his 
opportunity here. 

And then we have his one canon murder. Not casual at all, I'd say. 
Whichever side he is on, Snape has plenty of serious reasons behind 
his action, nothing petty at all. Starting with, he'll die himself if 
he doesn't do it. It is not a *moral* justification, but it is a far 
better reason than "Dumbledore was once mean to me." If he's 
Voldemort's man, it is also his Master's desire. If he has some 
attachment to the Malfoys, he saves Draco by this action as well. If 
he's Dumbledore's man, he may be following orders again, protecting 
Harry and Draco and the students, and his cover. Rowling sure wrote 
him into a tight corner before having him kill on page. And, well, to 
me at least, Snape seemed none to happy about it.

Also, Rowling said something suggestive in an interview: (2004 
Edinburgh World Book Day Interview). Not that I'm much into interview 
analyzing-I think she does try to avoid telling us anything we don't 
already know, which is exactly what she should do, IMO.
>Apart from Harry, Snape is my favourite character because he is so 
complex >and I just love him. Can he see the Thestrals, and if so, 
why? 
>He can see Thestrals, but in my imagination most of the older people 
at >Hogwarts would be able to see them because, obviously, as you go 
through life >you do lose people and understand what death is. But 
you must not forget that >Snape was a Death Eater. He will have seen 
things that
 
zgirnius: I am intrigued by the use of the word seen.,,,did he not DO 
things? 
> Alla:
> 
> Well, yes that is true of course, but woudn't you agree that the 
only 
> reason for Snape's anger we DO see in the Shack is the Prank?

zgirnius:
The point of my initial post was precisely that the only reason we 
see for his anger in the Shack is NOT the Prank. His two CAPSLOCKS 
moments are telling Hermione not to talk about things she does not 
understand (which I take to be Snape's motives, namely Sirius' 
betrayal and not the Prank) and the speech he gives Harry about James 
trusting Sirius. Which is not even veiled.

Alla:
> But Snape does not bring up Lily and James in the Hospital Wing to 
> Dumbledore he brings "Tried to kill ME" and it tells me something 
very 
> different.

zgirnius:
I'll try again. `Tried to kill ME'
 as in "He says he didn't kill 
PETTIGREW, but we both know he tried to kill ME so why should we 
believe him?" (If Sirius had tried to kill John Doe while in school, 
Snape could have said `Tried to kill JOHN DOE' in an analogous 
argument, but unfortunately for Snape HE was the target of the Prank.)

Not saying you have to agree with me or anything
just trying to 
clarify my previous post.








From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 18 21:49:09 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 21:49:09 -0000
Subject: Have Snape ever killed anybody before? WAS: Re: seeds of betrayal
In-Reply-To: <dvhtal+5u8l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvhv8l+l2c3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149783

> zgirnius:
> Right. Your judgment of his character is that he would kill 
(probably 
> HAS killed) for petty reasons, fairly casually. 

Alla:

Actually, not quite. I certainly think Snape killed before, because 
yeah, it would seem very strange to me that the member of terrorist 
organization would not have killed before, but I think that the 
reasons were quite important to Snape.


Zgirnius:
Pre HBP, I might have 
> accepted this, and I would probably have pointed to precisely the 
> canon we are discussing here as support: his actions at the end of 
> PoA.
> 
> However, having read HBP and reconsidered all the previous books in 
> light of this new information, I simply do not see the evidence to 
> support this judgment. And I NOW see evidence which suggests to me 
> rather the opposite. I would not now be surprised to learn that 
> Dumbledore is the first man Snape has ever, personally, killed. 
> 
> To be clear, I'm not putting forward fluffy!bunny!Snape. And I'm 
not 
> claiming I can PROVE Snape has never killed before. Just explaining 
> why it now does not strike me as implausible. He joined the Death 
> Eaters, a terrorist organization led by a super-evil Dark Lord. 
This 
> COULD be because it was his ambition to kill, maim, and torture 
> people for fun, but I'm with Julie. I think he did out of anger and 
> frustration with his life. He felt betrayed by the way Dumbledore 
> handled the Prank, angry that James became Head Boy, and jealous 
that 
> Lily choosing James, unloved because of his lousy home life, 
> unpopularity at school, and a Head of House who probably 
undervalued 
> him due to his, shall we say, lack of social graces. He was going 
to 
> show them all. But, as Dumbledore said, killing is not as easy as 
it 
> looks. I'm just not so convinced that being a Death Eater means 
> you've killed someone, in and of itself.

Alla:

Okay, as far as I can remember there is zero known evidence in canon 
as to why Snape joined DE, no? Please refer me to it, if there is any 
factual evidence, which I don't remember as to why Snape joined in 
the first place.

That is why speculation is a very fair game to me, so of course your 
speculation is just as valid as mine. You can say that he was so 
angry at Marauders and Dumbledore and that is why he joined and I am 
saying (speculating of course) that he was so engrossed in Dark Arts 
and in the very early age he joined someone who promised him free 
study of Dark Arts and glory that it could bring.

I will acknowledge that your speculation is as valid as mine, but 
will not go further than that.

Now, I understand that you said you cannot prove that Snape never 
killed before, but even on speculation level, doesn't it strike you 
as more reasonable that a member of terrorist organization, which 
DOES kill and torture Muggles and muggleborns, erm... never actually 
did it. He received such an honor why? Why would Voldemort be ready 
and willing to let one member of his gang NOT torture and kill, while 
everybody else did do so?

It is interesting, because I have read preHBP arguments very similar 
to yours as to Snape never killing someone and just preparing potions 
for Voldie and funnily enough it seemed to me to be more plausible 
prior to HBP ( not very plausible, but I was ready to keep such 
possibility in the back of my mind), but post HBP Snape who never 
killed anybody before? I just don't see him anywhere in canon. Sorry!

Snape, who had no problem inventing Sectusemptra, Snape who joined 
the gang of  murderers, Snape who has enough hate to power Avada in 
HBP ( unless one subscribes to fake Avada, which I of course don't), 
you are telling me that this Snape never killed anyone before?

Snape who claims that he took hand in Vance and Black killings, THAT 
Snape never killed before?

I am sorry, I don't buy it at all. IMO of course.


Zgirnius:
> Reasons to suppose Snape may not have: there are certainly other 
> things he could do for Voldemort-he did, for example, act as a spy. 
> And, by Bella's account, Snape's reputation among other Death 
Eaters 
> was that of someone who is good at `slithering out of action'.  
(This 
> is not to say Snape was never connected to anyone's death. He may 
> have provided potions and information others used.)

Alla:

Yes, of course he may have had, I just don't see why he would have 
been allowed to by Voldemort.

Zgirnius: 
> Then, we learn that when Snape learned Voldemort planned to kill 
the 
> Potters, he was deeply remorseful. It seems a mighty squeamish 
> reaction to me, for a person so untroubled by pangs of conscience. 
(I 
> know, you think Dumbledore could have been wrong about this. I'm 
> giving both Snape and Dumbledore the benefit of the doubt, here.)

Alla:

How does that show that Snape had never killed anybody, even if he 
was remorseful about Potters?

I mean, yes, I won't buy it till I hear it from Snape's mouth, but 
even if he was remorseful, who knows how many times he killed before 
and felt remorse.
 

Zgirnius:
> >He can see Thestrals, but in my imagination most of the older 
people 
> at >Hogwarts would be able to see them because, obviously, as you 
go 
> through life >you do lose people and understand what death is. But 
> you must not forget that >Snape was a Death Eater. He will have 
seen 
> things that
 
> zgirnius: I am intrigued by the use of the word seen.,,,did he not 
DO 
> things? 

Alla:

Could you clarify, please? I read it as he seen Thestrals, because he 
saw death.

> zgirnius:
> I'll try again. `Tried to kill ME'
 as in "He says he didn't kill 
> PETTIGREW, but we both know he tried to kill ME so why should we 
> believe him?" (If Sirius had tried to kill John Doe while in 
school, 
> Snape could have said `Tried to kill JOHN DOE' in an analogous 
> argument, but unfortunately for Snape HE was the target of the 
Prank.)
> 
> Not saying you have to agree with me or anything
just trying to 
> clarify my previous post.


Alla:

Oh, thanks, but that is my point. How do you know that Snape brings 
up this for the reason you are describing and not because he is 
mightily pissed at DD for believing Sirius again? And what is most 
importantly, how do you know that Snape would have brought it if 
Sirius tried to kill somebody else?

I think Snape is very fixed on the harm that was done to him and I 
would be surprised if he did not.


JMO,

Alla, realizing that she drifts away from Zara's explanation for 
Snape's actions more and more. :-)







From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 19 00:31:26 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 00:31:26 -0000
Subject: Have Snape ever killed anybody before? WAS: Re: seeds of betrayal
In-Reply-To: <dvhv8l+l2c3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvi8ou+lco4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149784

> Alla:
> That is why speculation is a very fair game to me, so of course 
your 
> speculation is just as valid as mine. You can say that he was so 
> angry at Marauders and Dumbledore and that is why he joined and I 
am 
> saying (speculating of course) that he was so engrossed in Dark 
Arts 
> and in the very early age he joined someone who promised him free 
> study of Dark Arts and glory that it could bring.

zgirnius:
Absolutely! Speculate away <g>!

Alla:
> Now, I understand that you said you cannot prove that Snape never 
> killed before, but even on speculation level, doesn't it strike you 
> as more reasonable that a member of terrorist organization, which 
> DOES kill and torture Muggles and muggleborns, erm... never 
actually 
> did it. He received such an honor why? Why would Voldemort be ready 
> and willing to let one member of his gang NOT torture and kill, 
while 
> everybody else did do so?

zgirnius:
Everybody else may not have done so either. A reason to excuse 
someone from torturing and killing is if you wish them to have an 
acceptable image. I would guess, for example, that the Unspeakable 
whom Karkaroff fingered in the GoF Pensieve scene may not have killed 
anyone either. He was valuable to the organization for other things.

Alla: 
> Snape, who had no problem inventing Sectusemptra, Snape who joined 
> the gang of  murderers, Snape who has enough hate to power Avada in 
> HBP ( unless one subscribes to fake Avada, which I of course 
don't), 
> you are telling me that this Snape never killed anyone before?
> 
> Snape who claims that he took hand in Vance and Black killings, 
THAT 
> Snape never killed before?

zgirnius:
Snape, whose response to Harry's taunt 'Kill me like you killed him, 
you coward!' is inhuman, unbearable emotional pain...
> zgirnius: 
> > Then, we learn that when Snape learned Voldemort planned to kill 
> the 
> > Potters, he was deeply remorseful. It seems a mighty squeamish 
> > reaction to me, for a person so untroubled by pangs of 
conscience. 
> (I 
> > know, you think Dumbledore could have been wrong about this. I'm 
> > giving both Snape and Dumbledore the benefit of the doubt, here.)
> 
> Alla:
> 
> How does that show that Snape had never killed anybody, even if he 
> was remorseful about Potters?
> 
> I mean, yes, I won't buy it till I hear it from Snape's mouth, but 
> even if he was remorseful, who knows how many times he killed 
before 
> and felt remorse.

zgirnius:
It makes sense to me that the act which finally drove him to switch 
sides should be something, well, worse, than whatever he did before. 
If he was involved in getting people killed before, I could picture 
the Prophecy situation as seeming worse because it is easier to 
ignore the death of nameless, faceless people tat one just hears 
about than of those we know. But people he had killed, himself, would 
not be faceless, at least. 

> Alla:
> 
> Could you clarify, please? I read it as he seen Thestrals, because 
he 
> saw death.

zgirnius:
She could have left it at her comment about her adult characters 
mostly seeing Thestrals because by then they had seen death, and 
Snape being one of them. But she first brought in the fact that he 
was a Death Eater, and then said he had seen things. Meaningful? 
Meaningless? Who knows?


> > zgirnius:
> > I'll try again. `Tried to kill ME'
 as in "He says he didn't kill 
> > PETTIGREW, but we both know he tried to kill ME so why should we 
> > believe him?" (If Sirius had tried to kill John Doe while in 
> school, 
> > Snape could have said `Tried to kill JOHN DOE' in an analogous 
> > argument, but unfortunately for Snape HE was the target of the 
> Prank.)
> > 
> > Not saying you have to agree with me or anything
just trying to 
> > clarify my previous post.
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Oh, thanks, but that is my point. How do you know that Snape brings 
> up this for the reason you are describing and not because he is 
> mightily pissed at DD for believing Sirius again? And what is most 
> importantly, how do you know that Snape would have brought it if 
> Sirius tried to kill somebody else?

zgirnius: 
I don't. Having noticed that Snape never brings up the prank in the 
Shack, however, I have decided this is possibly what Snape meant.

Also, the moment at which I think Snape decides that Dumbledore 
believes Sirius and not Snape is considerably later in the book, when 
Dumbledore tells Snape to be reasonable, because Harry could not 
possibly be in two places at the same time. 

Alla:
> Alla, realizing that she drifts away from Zara's explanation for 
> Snape's actions more and more. :-)

zgirnius:
And that's fine with me. This is not an issue on which I expect to be 
proved right by Book 7. (Though I could certainly be proved wrong, if 
Snape gives that whole 'why I hated and resented Dumbledore who was 
SOOO unfair to me' speech which was so obviously missing in HBP.)








From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 19 00:34:33 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 00:34:33 -0000
Subject: When did Draco Imperius Rosmerta?
In-Reply-To: <dvf99d+bmpu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvi8up+drbu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149785

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:

> Pippin:
> It could be someone with access to Rosmerta and access to the 
> school. Interesting that JKR's website tells us that Lupin was 
> (or was supposed to be) stationed in Hogsmeade.
> 
> Someone had to check on Draco's progress and deliver news of 
> Voldemort's displeasure. One of the things that make me more 
> and more positive that there is a traitor in the Order is that
> I don't have to keep thinking up things for the traitor to do. 
> Other people keep doing it for me! 
> 
> Pippin
>

bboyminn:

Hummm... This really is a baffling subject. Clearly someone is helping
Draco both inside and outside Hogwarts. Yet on the otherhand, Draco
has been assigned to accomplish that task alone; quite an impossible
and unlikely task I might add.

When Draco and Snape talk outside Slughorn's party and Draco says he
has better people than Crabbe and Goyle helping him, that could really
be the limit of his statements. In short, what he is saying is that 'I
have fellow classmates who are smarter than Crabbe and Goyle helping
me'. In otherwords, the context of that conversation is limited.

Still there are the other questions. Who Imperiused Rosmerta? Who is
helping Draco solve the Vanishing Cabinet problems? To who and how is
Draco sending and receiving information? 

I believe he does have student who are smarter that Crabbe and Goyle
helping him, but like Crabbe and Goyle, Draco is not very forthcoming
with information on the purpose of their actions. 

As far as his outside contact, it could very easily be his mother. She
is always sending him 'care packages'; that has been established in
every book. Further, they could be sending coded messages; not really
that hard. I also speculate that Draco and his outside contact might
have talking-mirrors similar to Harry and Sirius. That would create
very fast timely communication. 

We know his mother is associated with Voldemort, and is a strong
cooperative supportive sympathizer even if she is not a full fledged
Death Eater; although, I suspect she probably is.

So, she Imperiused Rosmerta. She bought and delivered the necklace.
She induced Rosmerta to produce and deliver the poisoned mead. All at
Draco's request. Notice that at Snape's house, Mrs. Malfoy is somewhat
desperate and borderline irrational with fear that Draco will fail.
Despite how pathetic Draco's plans are, I suspect Mrs. Malfoy would go
along with them out of desperation. 

While Mr. Malfoy is suspect, you will note that he is not without
influence and power. For his nasty deeds of attempted murder and such
in the Dept of Mysteries, Mr. Malfoy was given something like 6 months
or so for breaking and entering. The charges were extremely mild
compared to his actions. He wasn't even charged by the court with
being a Death Eater.  I suspect by the beginning, or just after, of
the next book, Lucius will have served his time. 

My point here is that Mrs. Malfoy is not considered a criminal and is
free to roam the wizard world to her heart's content. That would make
it very easy for her to show up in Hogmead on various occassion for
aledged shopping trips or whatever. Stopping by the Three Broomsticks
for lunch or a drink would not be out of the ordinary. She is one of
the few remaining Death Eaters for whom it is still safe to show her
face in public.

Still, is that enough? Do we need a traitor on Hogwarts staff? Do we
really need a traitor in the Order? 

The most logical Hogwart's traitor would be Slughorn. Still, I'm
having trouble buying it. He has his faults, very Slytherin-esque
faults, but I get no sense that he is evil or even a Voldemort
supporter. Can't prove that of course, it's just my sense of the man.

As far as a traitor in the Order, many suggest Lupin, but again, I
just can see that. Yes, he is bitter, but he seems truly sincere in
his actions. Mundungus could inadvertantly betray the Order, but I'm
having trouble picturing him doing it willfully and/or for personal
gain. True he is a petty criminal, but that doesn't make him prone to
evil, and it is said that he is fiercely loyal to Dumbledore. Other
than Kingsley Shacklebolt, who I do not suspect, the remaining members
of the Order are too far into the background to play any strong role
in the story. 

Now, I could and would expect spies in the Ministry. We see time and
time again just how corrupt that organization is. Who, I can't say,
but certainly there are spies in the Ministry. Yet, I don't
necessarily see them having any part in Draco's effort.

To my central point, do I believe that it IS Mrs.Malfoy who is helping
Draco? Not really, it was just a thought. While I rarely have any
shortage of wild speculation, I confess myself somewhat baffled by the
whole 'Draco' situation, and suspect that this is exactly how JKR
intended to leave us. 

For what it's worth, there it is.

Steve/bboyminn






From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Sat Mar 18 01:51:43 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 20:51:43 EST
Subject: Prophesies Re: Who calls Voldemort "Lord"
Message-ID: <237.8d72fbb.314cc1af@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149786

>Ceridwen
>These prophecies do not have to come true.  Choice  determines which of >
>several threads will come together.  These  are just red-flagged threads 
>which, if they do intertwine, will be  significant.  LV could have 
>chosen to scoff at the idea of seers;  Peter could have been captured if 
>it hadn't been for DADACurse!Lupin  forgetting his potion.  As these 
>threads did come together, then  the propecies came true.

<snip>
>Cassandra was a seer in Greek mythology.  Apollo gave her the gift  of 
>prophecy.  When she spurned him, he cursed her so that no one  would 
>believe her predictions.  A Sybil was the priestess/prophet  of Apollo at 
Delphi
 
Nikkalmati:
I just wanted to note, the prophecy stated to Harry in POA did not come  true 
exactly at given.  Trelwaney (sp?)recited that "innocent blood  will be 
spilled" (from memory without canon at hand), but thanks to H and H  and the 
timeturner no innocent blood was spilled.  Both Buckbeak and Sirius  were rescued. 
So a prophecy can be thwarted. 
 
Nikkalmati









From exodusts at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 19 05:09:38 2006
From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 05:09:38 -0000
Subject: When did Draco Imperius Rosmerta?
In-Reply-To: <dvi8up+drbu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvip2i+qdfe@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149787

> bboyminn:
> 
> Hummm... This really is a baffling subject. Clearly someone is 
helping
> Draco both inside and outside Hogwarts. Yet on the otherhand, Draco
> has been assigned to accomplish that task alone; quite an impossible
> and unlikely task I might add.
> 
> When Draco and Snape talk outside Slughorn's party and Draco says he
> has better people than Crabbe and Goyle helping him, that could 
really
> be the limit of his statements. In short, what he is saying is 
that 'I
> have fellow classmates who are smarter than Crabbe and Goyle helping
> me'. In otherwords, the context of that conversation is limited.
> 
> Still there are the other questions. Who Imperiused Rosmerta? Who is
> helping Draco solve the Vanishing Cabinet problems? To who and how 
is
> Draco sending and receiving information? 
> 
> I believe he does have student who are smarter that Crabbe and Goyle
> helping him, but like Crabbe and Goyle, Draco is not very 
forthcoming
> with information on the purpose of their actions. 
> 
> As far as his outside contact, it could very easily be his mother. 
She
> is always sending him 'care packages'; that has been established in
> every book. Further, they could be sending coded messages; not 
really
> that hard. I also speculate that Draco and his outside contact might
> have talking-mirrors similar to Harry and Sirius. That would create
> very fast timely communication. 
> 
> We know his mother is associated with Voldemort, and is a strong
> cooperative supportive sympathizer even if she is not a full fledged
> Death Eater; although, I suspect she probably is.
> 
> So, she Imperiused Rosmerta. She bought and delivered the necklace.
> She induced Rosmerta to produce and deliver the poisoned mead. All 
at
> Draco's request. Notice that at Snape's house, Mrs. Malfoy is 
somewhat
> desperate and borderline irrational with fear that Draco will fail.
> Despite how pathetic Draco's plans are, I suspect Mrs. Malfoy would 
go
> along with them out of desperation. 
> 
> While Mr. Malfoy is suspect, you will note that he is not without
> influence and power. For his nasty deeds of attempted murder and 
such
> in the Dept of Mysteries, Mr. Malfoy was given something like 6 
months
> or so for breaking and entering. The charges were extremely mild
> compared to his actions. He wasn't even charged by the court with
> being a Death Eater.  I suspect by the beginning, or just after, of
> the next book, Lucius will have served his time. 
> 
> My point here is that Mrs. Malfoy is not considered a criminal and 
is
> free to roam the wizard world to her heart's content. That would 
make
> it very easy for her to show up in Hogmead on various occassion for
> aledged shopping trips or whatever. Stopping by the Three 
Broomsticks
> for lunch or a drink would not be out of the ordinary. She is one of
> the few remaining Death Eaters for whom it is still safe to show her
> face in public.
> 
> Still, is that enough? Do we need a traitor on Hogwarts staff? Do we
> really need a traitor in the Order? 
> 
> The most logical Hogwart's traitor would be Slughorn. Still, I'm
> having trouble buying it. He has his faults, very Slytherin-esque
> faults, but I get no sense that he is evil or even a Voldemort
> supporter. Can't prove that of course, it's just my sense of the 
man.
> 
> As far as a traitor in the Order, many suggest Lupin, but again, I
> just can see that. Yes, he is bitter, but he seems truly sincere in
> his actions. Mundungus could inadvertantly betray the Order, but I'm
> having trouble picturing him doing it willfully and/or for personal
> gain. True he is a petty criminal, but that doesn't make him prone 
to
> evil, and it is said that he is fiercely loyal to Dumbledore. Other
> than Kingsley Shacklebolt, who I do not suspect, the remaining 
members
> of the Order are too far into the background to play any strong role
> in the story. 
> 
> Now, I could and would expect spies in the Ministry. We see time and
> time again just how corrupt that organization is. Who, I can't say,
> but certainly there are spies in the Ministry. Yet, I don't
> necessarily see them having any part in Draco's effort.
> 
> To my central point, do I believe that it IS Mrs.Malfoy who is 
helping
> Draco? Not really, it was just a thought. While I rarely have any
> shortage of wild speculation, I confess myself somewhat baffled by 
the
> whole 'Draco' situation, and suspect that this is exactly how JKR
> intended to leave us. 
> 
> For what it's worth, there it is.
> 
> Steve/bboyminn


Exodusts:

Hasn't anyone mentioned Fenrir Greyback, the family friend, as one of 
Draco's "better" assistants (and Borgin)?

P.S. Eggplant said it was insane to construct a situation where Snape 
kills DD to prove his loyalty to DD. What if DD was mortally wounded? 
But I digress. If I read one more post on Snape I will snape, I mean 
snap, and start gibbering, and chanting "Snape-is-bad-Snape-is-good-
Snape-is..." over and over again as my mantra, then tape it, play it 
backward, and listen for the message that says: "Satan is good. Satan 
is my master. I must kill. Kill all people. People must die. Satan is 
Lord." Can't you hear it? It sounds like a hissing snape, I mean 
snake, I mean snape, I mean snape...

All work and no play makes Snape a dull boy.
All work and no snape makes Snape a dull boy.
All snape and no snape makes Snape a dull boy.
All snape and no snape snapes Snape a dull boy.
All snape and no snape snapes Snape a dull snape.
All snape and no snape snapes Snape a snape snape.
All snape and no snape snapes Snape snape snape snape.
All snape and snape snape snapes Snape snape snape snape.
All snape snape snape snape snapes Snape snape snape snape.
Snape snape snape snape snape snapes Snape snape snape snape.
Snape snape snape snape snape snapes Snape snape snape snape.
Snape snape snape snape snape snap



P.P.S. Lupin is definitely NOT evil.






From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca  Sun Mar 19 05:11:31 2006
From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 05:11:31 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dvhqnt+ffn8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvip63+10ccu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149788

> > >>Jen:
> > > <snip>
> > > The mouse in the trap, the fly in the web--Voldemort 
found      
> > > Snape's weakness once again as he did the first time 
Snape       
> > > foolishly wore his heart on his sleeve, manipulating him 
into   
> > > the position of killing the Only One Who Ever Believed In Him.
> > > It's just so vintage Voldemort I don't get why people don't 
buy 
> > > this one. Would someone argue with me so I can understand 
the    
> > > objections to Voldemort being behind this plot? <snip>
> 
> > >>Carol:
> > <snip>
> > I see no way that Voldemort could consciously have engineered 
the 
> > UV and talked Narcissa (who is terrified that LV will kill 
Draco) 
> > into trapping Snape, nor do I see how word of the UV could 
have   
> > gotten back to him. Certainly, neither Bellatrix nor 
Narcissa     
> > would tell LV about the provisions involving Draco, which 
clearly 
> > violate LV's will. 
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> I agree with Carol that, logistically, it makes sense that 
Voldemort 
> doesn't know about the Vow.  Another problem I have with Voldemort 
> using Narcissa to trap Snape into the Vow is that it weakens the 
> emotion going on in Spinner's End.  These three people (not 
> including Peter here since Snape threw him out) are going 
*against* 
> Voldemort.  They all realize this.
> 
> Narcissa is going against Voldemort to save her family.  She's a 
> wreck, and she's terrified, but she's intent on doing whatever she 
> can to save her son.
> 
> Bellatrix is going against Voldemort in her desperate need to 
> undermine Snape.  It's a nice bit of irony, but in her eagerness 
to 
> prove Snape's disloyalty she undertakes a bit of disloyalty 
> herself.  (I think she may also see a way back into Voldemort's 
good 
> graces with Draco's task and is attempting to keep Narcissa from 
> messing with her plan.  More irony. <g>)
> 
> Snape, of course, is totally disloyal to Voldemort and is willing 
to 
> do what it takes to prevent him from achieving his goals.  And if 
he 
> can tie the Malfoy family to Dumbledore's side, all the better.  
> Which means he's the least honest character in the room.
> 
> But Narcissa's fear and determination, Bellatrix's suspicions, 
those 
> all struck me as entirely honest.  I cannot see either woman 
playing 
> a deeper game here, so I cannot see Voldemort being behind the Vow.

I personally push the involvement of Voldemort back one step further

one of the reasons that he gave Draco his task was the chance the 
Narcissa would ask the Unbreakable Vow of Snape. Well it may sound 
strange and complicated (and likely untrue
but I like to speculate) 
in a way it makes sense to me for several reasons:

1)	The Narcissa angle: Voldemort gives her a son 
an "impossible" mission with the seeming intention to kill Draco. 
Narcissa's husband is in jail and the only person that can turn to 
help her son at Hogwarts is Snape. Voldemort has seen desperate 
mother's before (i.e. Lily) and well he may not understand the love 
that drives them I see no reason why he can't use it for his own 
ends (also one of Narcissa's emotions seems to be fear
something I 
think Voldemort does understand in his on way). Voldemort must know 
that Snape is a Malfoy family friend (Sirius certainly thought so) 
and as the only Death Eater in Hogwarts (that we know of) surely he 
must have realized that Narcissa would go Snape for help after 
learning of the mission.

2)	The Bellatrix angle: Utterly genuine I think.
 
3)	The Peter angle: Basically, IMO, if Voldemort's plan(s) all 
along was to set up the scene for an Unbreakable Vow then Peter's 
presence may make a little more sense. Peter wasn't there to check 
on Snape's loyalties or to gather hard information on what Snape was 
doing. He was there to note when Narcissa and a second person (in 
this case Bellatrix) visited Snape. And Snape went ahead and let 
Peter bring wine to the women and then caught him when he listened 
under the door. Peter wasn't listening under the door to spy on 
Snape, he only wanted Snape to think that so that Snape would think 
he was there to spy. 

4)	The CoS and GoF angle: In both CoS and GoF an assumption is 
made about Voldemort's plans
that there going to drive the 
muggleborns out of the school or that Harry was put in the 
tournament to be killed. So I don't see why that can't happen HBP as 
well, everyone assumes the plan is to punish the Malfoys when really 
it's about getting Snape to kill Dumbledore.

5)	The Endgame angle: By the end of HBP we know the standing of 
most the major characters, as in what they're planning on doing in 
the next book
the Trio is going Horcrux hunting, Snape and Draco 
will have to deal with the Tower incident among Voldemort's camp 
(although the hiding argument could also be made), and Dumbledore 
appears to be dead. The only character whose plans seem to be hidden 
are those of Voldemort. Two things could be happening, IMO
either a 
Voldemort plan will be revealed in book 7 (and remember JK has said 
that books 6 & 7 are like one novel) or Voldemort's plan in book 6 
was the "phase one" of his endgame plan. Throughout HBP I didn't 
really get the impression that they was a larger Voldemort plan at 
work in the wizarding world, the attacks seemed mostly to be random 
acts of violence. In OotP on the other hand the main Voldemort 
activity (and noticeable) seemed to be very focused
regroup (hence 
the breakouts) and get the prophecy. That to me implies that 
Voldemort's plan (after OotP) required the death of Dumbledore. And 
I simply can't see him having so much faith in Draco that he based 
all of his future plans on Draco's ability to kill Dumbledore

however it makes more sense if he knows Snape is going to have his 
hand forced (unless you mean to imply that Voldemort understand what 
Draco can do better then anyone except Harry). I guess what I'm 
saying it that Voldemort's plan in HBP seems to have been to kill 
Dumbledore and allow for the endgame to begin
and the only move he 
makes in that direction is sending Draco, who everyone thinks is 
being used to get revenge on Lucius. So I tend to think that he had 
reason, more then his faith in Draco, to think that Dumbledore was 
going to be dying soon (and I don't believe that the ring curse was 
killing Dumbledore
at least not until he had drank the potion) and 
Voldemort knowing about the UV would explain that faith. 

Quick_Silver (realizing that he's probably wrong)    

   







From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 19 05:24:38 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 05:24:38 -0000
Subject: Prophesies Re: Who calls Voldemort "Lord"
In-Reply-To: <237.8d72fbb.314cc1af@aol.com>
Message-ID: <dvipum+kktf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149789

> Nikkalmati:
> I just wanted to note, the prophecy stated to Harry in POA did not 
come  true 
> exactly at given.  Trelwaney (sp?)recited that "innocent blood  
will be 
> spilled" (from memory without canon at hand), but thanks to H and 
H  and the 
> timeturner no innocent blood was spilled.  Both Buckbeak and 
Sirius  were rescued. 
> So a prophecy can be thwarted. 
>  

zgirnius:
You are misremembering:

'IT WILL HAPPEN TONIGHT.'
Harry wheeled around. Professor Trelawney had gone rigid in her 
armchair; her eyes were unfocused and her mouth sagging.
'S--sorry?' said Harry. 
But Professor Trelawney didn't seem to hear him. Her eyes started to 
roll. Harry sat there in a panic. She looked as though she was about 
to have some sort of seizure. He hesitated, thinking of running to 
the hospital wing -- and then Professor Trelawney spoke again, in the 
same harsh voice, quite unlike her own:
'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 THAT EVER HE WAS. TONIGHT ... BEFORE MIDNIGHT ... 
THE SERVANT WILL SET OUT TO REJOIN HIS MASTER ...' 







From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Sun Mar 19 07:02:51 2006
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 07:02:51 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV
In-Reply-To: <dvhebg+l2b4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvivmr+fbmc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149790

"Tonks" <tonks_op at ...> wrote:

> It makes sense if DD told Snape to
> do whatever it took to maintain his cover.

What it would take to maintain his cover is for Snape to aim his wand
at the Death Eaters rather than Dumbledore and then tell Voldemort
that Dumbledore had killed them.

> DD would give his life and the lives
> of the members of the Order as long
> as it brings an end to LV.

And yet, according to the good Snape theory, this same pragmatic
Dumbledore suddenly turns all warn and fuzzy and risks everything
including victory over Voldemort just to save the life of an evil
little slime ball like Draco. Then Dumbledore turns back into the cold
and calculating mode and orders a good Snape to become a murderer.
Then Dumbledore orders Snape to take acting lessons so when he
murdered him he would have hatred etched into the harsh lines of his
face. I don't think so.

> This is war and the stakes are very high.

And a well known military tactic is to make sure your best warrior is
killed at the very start of the war, and then to make sure your secret
weapon (Harry) is kept in the dark so he is distracted and goes on a
pointless wild goose chase, like finding and killing Snape. I don't
think so. 

Nobody, not ever JKR, could make a good book out of that preposterous
plot. A redeemed Snape would have been difficult but perhaps possible
before book 6, but not now; what Snape did was unforgivable under ANY
circumstances and the "I was only following orders" defense doesn't
cut it with me even if he had such orders. And he didn't. 

Eggplant








From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 19 08:42:33 2006
From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:42:33 -0000
Subject: Draco..could do a great many things
Message-ID: <dvj5hp+a43g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149791



  Draco had the power of the polyjuice potion.....(a huge power when 
you consider what happened in GOF)...

If Draco truly became a DE and with Crabbe and Goyle polyJ-morphing 
into little girls...why would they not morph into Malfoy during the 
hogsmeade trip when the necklace transaction occurred?!???

THIS *I* KNOW!!!


However....

MY Massive question is HOW ON EARTH did malfoy know about the 
coins?!?!?!?(what malfoy used to pass messages to madame rosemerta)


Deedee







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sun Mar 19 15:12:59 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 15:12:59 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV
In-Reply-To: <dvivmr+fbmc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvjsdr+lgoh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149792

> "Tonks" <tonks_op@> wrote:
> 
> > It makes sense if DD told Snape to
> > do whatever it took to maintain his cover.

Eggplant: 
> What it would take to maintain his cover is for Snape to aim his wand
> at the Death Eaters rather than Dumbledore and then tell Voldemort
> that Dumbledore had killed them. 

Pippin:
Well, that brings us right back to Oscarwinner!Snape, doesn't it?
It *is*  hard to get away from him, since he's canon. Where would he
be if he didn't know how to act? 

But there's another flaw in this little plan...

Does it strike you that the crew on the tower are such devoted
Voldemort loyalists that they would die rather than surrender?
Well, Fenrir probably is. But Alecto and Amycus don't strike me
as the type. They'd drop their wands and plead for mercy.
 
Then what? Memory charms can be broken. And killing a DE
who's given himself up is murder, and Dumbledore would
surely rather die than murder anyone, even a slimeball
DE.  That's just who he is. 

Eggplant:
> And a well known military tactic is to make sure your best warrior is
> killed at the very start of the war, and then to make sure your secret
> weapon (Harry) is kept in the dark so he is distracted and goes on a
> pointless wild goose chase, like finding and killing Snape. I don't
> think so. 

Pippin:
Um, how do we know that Dumbledore is a better warrior than
Snape? Narcissa thought  Snape could kill Dumbledore, not
a sick wandless Dumbledore but the Dumbledore whom not
even the Dark Lord himself could conquer.

Harry needs a cover story, because if Voldemort guesses that
Harry is hunting horcruxes, he can easily give up his plan
of seven only, hidden in significant objects, and come up
with something sensible. Hunting Snape will do, especially
since Harry has about as much chance of killing Snape as
Draco had of killing Dumbledore. 

So why not let Harry in on the plan? 

Harry, unlike Snape, has not had much experience with
feigning hatred. He's never been as good at lying as he
thinks he is.  Dumbledore  would hardly  trust the life 
of his mightiest warrior to Harry's feeble powers of 
dissimulation.

Pippin






From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Sun Mar 19 16:06:37 2006
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 16:06:37 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV
In-Reply-To: <dvjsdr+lgoh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvjvid+63cv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149793

"pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:

> Memory charms can be broken. And
> killing a DE who's given himself up is murder

Snape had a decision to make, he could fight the Death Eaters and
possibly kill them OR he could murder Dumbledore. Snape, the man you
ask us to admire decided the moral thing to do is murder Dumbledore. I
don't think so.
 
> Dumbledore would surely rather 
> die than murder anyone

The devil with Dumbledore, he has nothing to do with it! Severus Snape
decided to become a murderer and there is only one man responsible for
that decision, Severus Snape.

> how do we know that Dumbledore is 
> a better warrior than Snape? 

Even if it were true that Snape was a more powerful warrior than
Dumbledore I don't see the relevance. But it's not true. Voldemort,
the most powerful dark wizard in a thousand years feared only one man
and his name wasn't Snape. 

> So why not let Harry in on the plan? [
.]
> Dumbledore  would hardly  trust the life
> of his mightiest warrior to Harry's feeble 
> powers of dissimulation.

Better to distract the only man who has a chance of killing Voldemort
and send him off looking for someone he hates at least as much as the
Dark Lord himself. I don't think so. 

Eggplant
 
 








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 19 17:16:32 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 17:16:32 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV
In-Reply-To: <dvivmr+fbmc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvk3lg+d5nr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149794

Eggplant wrote:
> What it would take to maintain his cover is for Snape to aim his
wand at the Death Eaters rather than Dumbledore and then tell
Voldemort that Dumbledore had killed them. <snip>

Carol responds:
Not even Snape could simultaneously protect the helpless (IMO dying)
Dumbledore and the boy he was sworn to protect and fend off four Death
Eaters, including one who intended to eat Dumbledore for "afters" even
if he weren't bound by the UV. And at some point, probably the moment
he attempted to heal or protect Dumbledore or the moment harm came to
Draco, the vow would kick in and Snape would die--if the DEs didn't
kill him first. Then they'd kill Dumbledore and Draco and Harry, whom
DD had frozen to protect him, would rush out and meet the same fate as
Snape.

The moment Snape aimed his wand at the Death Eaters, he would die.

Carol, noting that our ideas of a preposterous storyline differ markedly








From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Sun Mar 19 15:07:02 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:07:02 EST
Subject: Prophesies WAS:Re: Who calls Voldemort "Lord"
Message-ID: <2f0.176923b.314ecd96@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149795

zgirnius:
>You are misremembering:

>'IT WILL HAPPEN  TONIGHT.'
>Harry wheeled around. Professor Trelawney had gone rigid in her  
>armchair; her eyes were unfocused and her mouth  sagging.
'>S--sorry?' said Harry. 
>But Professor Trelawney didn't  seem to hear him. Her eyes started to 
>roll. Harry sat there in a panic.  She looked as though she was about 
>to have some sort of seizure.  <snip>
>THE DARK LORD WILL RISE AGAIN WITH HIS SERVANT'S AID, GREATER  
>AND MORE TERRIBLE THAT EVER HE WAS. TONIGHT ... BEFORE MIDNIGHT ...  
>THE SERVANT WILL SET OUT TO REJOIN HIS MASTER ...'  
 
Nikkallmati:
 
Oops, mea culpa. I fear "contamination."  I promise in the future to  check 
my sources before posting any more half-baked ideas.
BTW to avoid wasting a post:
The Sibyl was the seer, probably Etruscan, who offered the Romans a set of  9 
books of oracular utterances.  The price was too high so Tarquin, the  king, 
rejected the offer.  He ended up paying the same price for 3 books  (the other 
6 were destroyed by the Sibyl).
Roman priests consulted these  books on all important occasions.

The Delphic oracle was named or called the Pythia.
 
Nikkalmati







From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Sun Mar 19 18:16:51 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 18:16:51 -0000
Subject: Voldemort & the UV (LID!Snape rides again)
In-Reply-To: <dvhqnt+ffn8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvk76j+ngmu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149796

Jen previous:
> Unless Voldemort already knows about the UV or finds it to be
> to his advantage when word gets back to him. The only way I can 
> make Spinner's End work is to have Voldemort plugged into the   
> equation somewhere, no matter what flavor of Snape you prefer. 
 
Betsy Hp:
> Is there anything in canon to suggest that Voldemort knows about
> the UV?

Jen: I'm glad you asked, I think there is. Or rather I think there's 
enough evidence to build a case for it because there's not an actual 
sentence in the book stating that <g>.

1) "The Dark Lord always knows." This is said by a Voldemort fanatic 
of course, but it represents why Voldemort is so fearsome. What 
he 'always knows' is where a person is weak and he's been capable of 
using weakness against people since he was very young, i.e. Billy 
and his rabbit, the kids in the cave. He doesn't understand love 
having never felt it; he understands weakness and hatred better than 
anyone else in Potterverse. 

2) Each book hinges on a Voldemort plan that requires the use of 
someone whom Voldemort cruelly manipulates to his own ends by 
playing on a weakness: Quirrell in PS; Ginny in COS; Peter 
restrospectively in POA; Bertha/CrouchSr/Moody in GOF; Harry in 
OOTP. Draco is one such person in HBP, yet he is of no real 
consequence to LV and everyone agrees he is incapable of completing 
the task. There needs to be someone Voldemort is *really* using in 
HBP if not Draco. Narcissa presents the plan as 'punishing Lucius' 
and that's a nice side benefit, but the real plan is killing 
Dumbledore to eventually get to Harry. If Draco is capable of only 
getting the DE's into Hogwarts, then Voldemort still needs a person 
among his ranks who is capable of completing the real task. 

3) Snape sarcastically asks Bellatrix if she thinks he has been 
capable of hoodwinking the greatest wizard and most accomplished 
Legilimens the world has ever seen. Well no, he didn't fool him. The 
narrative so far demands that Voldemort not be undercut as the 
primary villain. He is meant to bring *himself* down by his own 
underestimation of anicent magic and love, but not to be bested by 
anyone other than the "Only Wizard He Ever Feared" and eventually, 
Harry. Snape, as neither the hero nor the villain, will not be in 
the position to outrank him. But Voldemort still needs Snape as the 
only one he deems capable of actually killing Dumbledore so there 
has to be a way to *ensure* Snape won't slither out this time.
 
Like quick_silver, I tend to believe Voldemort was actually behind 
the UV in some way rather than merely being informed of it after the 
fact. Carol gives legitimate reasons why none of the four people in 
the room at Spinner's End would want to talk about the UV and no one 
was punished that we know of. (Although I just want to add 
speculation that if Wormtail really was there to spy on Snape, I 
doubt he was the only thing in the house with ears. Somehow I don't 
think Voldemort would rely merely on Wormtail.)

Moving on, here was quick_silver's take which I agree with:

> The Endgame angle: By the end of HBP we know the standing of
> most the major characters, as in what they're planning on doing in
> the next book. <snip>The only character whose plans seem to be 
> hidden are those of Voldemort. Two things could be happening, IMO

> either a Voldemort plan will be revealed in book 7 (and remember
> JK has said that books 6 & 7 are like one novel) or Voldemort's 
> plan in book 6 was the "phase one" of his endgame plan. I guess
> what I'm saying it that Voldemort's plan in HBP seems to have been
> to kill Dumbledore and allow for the endgame to begin.

Jen again: I think both are happening actually, phase one was 
killing Dumbledore and phase two will be another attempt at the 
prophecy and Harry. With 6 & 7 forming the last book together, 
Voldemort's last plan must be very fearsome and all encompassing, 
better than any before and more crucially for the story, one of his 
plans needs to succeed. That's the main reason I see him being 
behind the story in HBP, because the plan appeared to succeed with 
Dumbledore's death and the only way to ensure that happening was to 
make certain Snape didn't slither.

Betsy Hp:
> I agree with Carol that, logistically, it makes sense that
> Voldemort doesn't know about the Vow.  Another problem I have with
> Voldemort using Narcissa to trap Snape into the Vow is that it 
> weakens the emotion going on in Spinner's End.  These three people 
> (not including Peter here since Snape threw him out) are going 
> *against* Voldemort.  They all realize this.

Jen: And they should not be successful at going against him. Snape 
IS a pawn in this game, as are Narcisssa and Bella. Well, maybe he's 
more like a bishop <g>. I think Snape chose to switch his allegiance 
to the good king instead of the evil king, but *he's* not a king 
himself unless JKR is going for a twist where Snape turns out to be 
more important than Voldemort.  

Carol:
> I think that the UV is the manifestation of the DADA curse, which
> falls into place as Slughorn accepts the Potions position. At that
> point, Narcissa is inspired to ask Snape to take the vow, carefully
> concealing from him the third provision (or it's a late inspiration
> after he's agreed to the other two). So Voldemort is behind it, all
> right, but not directly or consciously. His *will* is at work to
> destroy both Dumbledore and Snape. So, yes, Snape is caught in a
> trap, but he's not a mouse or a fly. The spider is caught in his
> own web. 

Jen: OK, I can agree with this as I've always liked the DADA curse 
and agree Voldemort's plan involved destroying Snape as well as 
Dumbledore. I'd say Voldemort is behind Snape getting the DADA 
position if this is the case, knowing full well how the curse works 
and that Snape will be 'impaled on his on sword'. Perhaps he doesn't 
know that it will be the UV in play exactly, he just understands the 
curse will force Snape's hand. Maybe he even thinks without 
Dumbledore to vouch for Snape, Snape will truly rejoin the DE's. 

Carol:
> I see no way that Voldemort could consciously have engineered the
> UV and talked Narcissa (who is terrified that LV will kill Draco)
> into trapping Snape, nor do I see how word of the UV could have
> gotten back to him. Certainly, neither Bellatrix nor Narcissa 
> would tell LV about the provisions involving Draco, which clearly 
> violate LV's will. 

Jen: I don't see it being an order to Narcissa, no. I believe 
something much more subtle took place because Voldemort can 
manipulate in many ways, including being charming. We don't know 
exactly how Narcissa learned about Draco's task but it's odd she 
even knows, isn't it? You'd think Voldemort would inform Draco of 
his task, forbid him to speak and then send him on his way. If all 
he wanted was for Draco to fail & be killed, punishing Lucius, he 
would have his wish. No, instead the desperate mother hears about 
the plan as well, the mother who claims 'there's nothing I wouldn't 
do anymore', including hurting her sister and bringing down a family 
friend instead of Draco. With friends like that....! 

Voldemort learned at Godric's Hollow that desperate mothers will go 
to any lengths, and since he naturally understands a woman like 
Narcissa better than Lily, he would rightly estimates her lengths 
would be dark magic instead of ancient magic. That would play right 
into the DADA curse and Snape's two weaknesses, imo--attraction to 
the Dark Arts and wearing his heart on his sleeve re: his father 
figure, Dumbledore. 

Carol:
> But since the third provision trapped Snape, forcing him to kill 
> DD or die himself (unless he and DD could find a way around it, as
> Snape must have hoped), I don't think Voldemort would disapprove 
> of that part in the unlikely event that he did hear about it. I
> think he would laugh shrilly at Snape's dilemma and his own 
> diabolical cleverness, recognizing the DADA curse at work: his 
> scheme of forty-odd years ago falling into place at last.

Jen: I completely agree and would even extrapolate further to say 
Snape's hand twitch indicated reluctance but not a sense of 
finality. He's watched Dumbledore accomplish nearly miraculous 
things, after all. 

As you said "Just my reading, which otherwise is not all that 
different from yours." I see Voldemort as having more of a direct 
hand rather than merely his symbolic will at work, but really we're 
not so far apart in our interpretations. My focus is less Snape-
centric and more Voldemort-centric, but only because I think that's 
where JKR is headed. 

Jen R.






From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Sun Mar 19 18:42:21 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 18:42:21 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV
In-Reply-To: <dvjvid+63cv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvk8md+c6oc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149797

Eggplant:
> Snape had a decision to make, he could fight the Death Eaters and
> possibly kill them OR he could murder Dumbledore. Snape, the man
> you ask us to admire decided the moral thing to do is murder
> Dumbledore. I don't think so.

Jen: I always think the same thing when I read this argument: 
Dumbledore didn't ask Harry to go fetch a Shoot-Em-Up hero to the 
tower like Sirius or James, someone who would rather die fighting 
than betray his friends. Nope, Dumbledore asked Harry to bring back 
the so far morally ambiguous anti-hero, Snape. 

I don't really think Dumbledore intended Harry & Snape to make it 
back to the tower before he either saved Draco and himself or 
allowed himself to be killed by the enemy. But if by some chance 
they arrived, Dumbledore wasn't requesting Snape so he could 
administer an antidote with glowering Death Eaters taking a smoke 
break until he finished. He wanted Snape because of who he *is*.

Jen R., not expecting Eggplant to buy that because that would be the 
end of Dirty Harry and SuperVillain!Snape who have a certain appeal 
<beg>.







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 19 18:59:25 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 18:59:25 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV
In-Reply-To: <dvk8md+c6oc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvk9md+8l15@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149798

> Eggplant:
> > Snape had a decision to make, he could fight the Death Eaters and
> > possibly kill them OR he could murder Dumbledore. Snape, the man
> > you ask us to admire decided the moral thing to do is murder
> > Dumbledore. I don't think so.
> 
> Jen: 
I always think the same thing when I read this argument: 
> Dumbledore didn't ask Harry to go fetch a Shoot-Em-Up hero to the 
> tower like Sirius or James, someone who would rather die fighting 
> than betray his friends. Nope, Dumbledore asked Harry to bring 
back 
> the so far morally ambiguous anti-hero, Snape. 

> I don't really think Dumbledore intended Harry & Snape to make it 
> back to the tower before he either saved Draco and himself or 
> allowed himself to be killed by the enemy. But if by some chance 
> they arrived, Dumbledore wasn't requesting Snape so he could 
> administer an antidote with glowering Death Eaters taking a smoke 
> break until he finished. He wanted Snape because of who he *is*.

Alla:

But aren't you forgetting tiny thing, Jen ( I know you are not, so 
of course I am kidding here, but at the same time not quite 
kidding :))? Both James and Sirius ARE dead at this point, died 
trying to defend the loved ones ( the code of behaviour if you give 
interviews at least a little bit of importance as I do JKR does 
expect her heroes to follow, IMO), so isn't it possible that 
Dumbledore summons Snape precisely because he expects Snape at such 
critical time to change his nature AND behave like a hero?

What I am trying to say is that Dumbledore has no other capable and 
powerful adults at this point to summon to his help( I mean, of  
course he has the Order, but Snape seems to be the most pwoerful 
magic strength wise IMO) ,so maybe just maybe he was hoping that 
Snape would behave not quite as who he is?
And maybe just maybe Dumbledore, who of course not afraid of death, 
but who IMO was not very keen on dying yet because Harry needed his 
help so badly, maybe Dumbledore was sorely dissapointed the minute 
Snape showes up on the Tower?
 
> Jen R., not expecting Eggplant to buy that because that would be 
the 
> end of Dirty Harry and SuperVillain!Snape who have a certain 
appeal 
> <beg>.
>

Alla,

who does not share Eggplant's desire to see Dirty!Harry AT ALL, but 
who IS with Eggplant in her incapability to see Snape doing anything 
decent or moral on the Tower.






From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Sat Mar 18 15:17:09 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 10:17:09 EST
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
Message-ID: <34e.a0f9c.314d7e75@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149799

>Tonks said: Narcissa is upset and when she "began to cry in earnest,  gazing
>beseechingly all the while at Snape", Snape must have been  looking
>into her eyes.  She then goes on to think about the task  that Draco
>has been assigned saying "it's too dangerous! This is  vengeance for
>Lucius's mistake, I know it!"

>I think that at  this time Snape uses Legilmency to read the task in 
>Narcissa's  eyes.  Then Snape looks away. We are led to believe that 
>he looks  away because he can not bear to see her tears. I think he 
>looks away to  compose himself after he sees what the task is.

Nikkalmati
 
I love your ship and for the most part I believe it holds water!.  I  do have 
a problem here, because I don't think this is how Legilmency  works.  We know 
that one can see pictures, but I don't think we have  ever heard any speech 
through Legilmency.  Moreover, you are assuming  a silent spell here done very 
quickly.  I don't know it is  that easy.  I have the same problem with those 
who propose Legilmency  on the Tower too.  It takes a sustained gaze.  I also 
don't  think it can be done without alerting the victim, although it  
apparently can be done by force.
 
Nikkalmati  







From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 19 18:31:45 2006
From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 18:31:45 -0000
Subject: Draco..could do a great many things
In-Reply-To: <dvj5hp+a43g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvk82h+31om@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149800

Deedee wrote:

> MY Massive question is HOW ON EARTH did malfoy know about the 
> coins?!?!?!?(what malfoy used to pass messages to madame rosemerta)


Steven1965aaa:

IMO Umbridge got this information from Marietta the informant and she 
then shared it with the Inquisitorial Squad.









From celizwh at intergate.com  Sun Mar 19 19:41:59 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 19:41:59 -0000
Subject: When did Draco Imperius Rosmerta?/Seeds of Betrayal/LiD!Snape rides again
In-Reply-To: <dvf99d+bmpu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvkc67+cemd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149801

Pippin:

> It could be someone with access to Rosmerta and 
> access to the school. Interesting that JKR's website 
> tells us that Lupin was (or was supposed to be) stationed 
> in Hogsmeade.

houyhnhnm:

Lupin is a murky figure to me.  I have to admit that whether I believe
he is ESE or a Good Man Who Does Nothing depends on whose post I have
read last. I lean towards the latter.  In fact it's hard for me to see
Lupin as an out-and-out coldblooded ESE, but I can imagine him as
someone whose moral cowardice could extend as far as allowing himself
to be used as a traitor, while abhoring the results of his treason.  

I have been thinking of the question of who helped Draco at the same
time that Lupin's anguished cry upon learning of DD's death has been
playing in the back of my mind.  

"'No!'  Lupin looked wildly ... Lupin collapsed into a chair beside
Bill's bed, his hands over his face."  And just in case we don't get
the significance "Harry had never seen Lupin lose control before; he
felt as though he were intruding upon something private, indecent."

When I read the passage the first time I was still in shock after the
events on the tower. It didn't make much of an impression on me.  It
was only when reading the quote again on the list a few weeks (?) ago,
that it struck me in a new way.  

It is exactly the response I would have expected from Lupin in PoA,
had Sirius actually been a traitor, lured Harry to the Shrieking Shack
and killed him.  It stikes me as the lament of someone who saw it
coming and either did nothing to stop it or was half unwillingly
helping things along.  Remorse, such as Snape felt when he realized
that his own actions would end up bringing about the death of Lily (if
you believe that--and I do.)

Did Lupin see it coming--the assault on Hogwarts--and either failed to
act for whatever reason Lupin habitually fails to act, or did not
consider what the loss of Dumbledore would mean to him?  

Draco boasted of his connections with Fenrir Greyback at the beginning
of HBP, so when the DEs showed up at Hogwarts with Greyback, I took it
for granted that he was one of the "better people" helping Draco. 
Possibly directed by Narcissa since Draco calls Greyback a "family
friend".  Either Narcissa or Greyback could have then enlisted other
DEs.  Any one of them could have imperioused Rosmerta, it seems to me.
 Draco could have been summoned and threatened by Voldemort during the
Christmas break.  He's still pretty cocky up until then, even though
he has already failed with the necklace. 

But clearly, whoever imperioused Rosmerta, however Draco was
communicating with the Dark Order while at Hogwarts, Greyback was
involved in the plot.  And Lupin's job was to act as a spy among the
werewolves.

Could there have been a scene (unseen) which was a mirror image of the
one with Snape at Spinner's End.  One in which Lupin got a whiff from
his werewolf contacts that something was up, but whereas Snape went
too far to obtain information (some think), Lupin failed to follow up
on it at all.  Or was he actively involved?  LIH, LIHOP, or MIHOP?

Whatever the answer, I am convinced that Lupin knew something about
the impending attack against Hogwarts and failed to share it with the
Order, and that his anguished cry of "No!" bespoke remorse as well as
grief over Dumbledore's death.








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 19 19:42:45 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 19:42:45 -0000
Subject: Have Snape ever killed anybody before? WAS: Re: seeds of betrayal
In-Reply-To: <dvhv8l+l2c3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvkc7l+7fad@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149802

Alla wrote:
><snip> I certainly think Snape killed before, because yeah, it would
seem very strange to me that the member of terrorist organization
would not have killed before, but I think that the reasons were quite
important to Snape. <snip>

> Snape, who had no problem inventing Sectusemptra, Snape who joined 
> the gang of murderers, Snape who has enough hate to power Avada in 
> HBP (unless one subscribes to fake Avada, which I of course don't), 
> you are telling me that this Snape never killed anyone before?
> 
> Snape who claims that he took hand in Vance and Black killings, THAT 
> Snape never killed before?
> 
> I am sorry, I don't buy it at all. IMO of course. <snip>

Carol responds:

Yes. IMO, THAT Snape never killed before.

And as for the hatred required to power an AK, we don't really know
how the spell works since Harry, our POV character, has yet to cast
it, and self-hatred combined with revulsion at what he's expected, or
forced, to do (a la Harry in the cave) works better than mere
resentment of DD for failing to appreciate him (or whatever) to
explain the expression on Snape's face when he looks at DD but has yet
to raise his wand. It takes a second, pleading speech ("Severus,
please . . .") to make him "do the deed."

I've already explained that Snape's claim to have had a hand in
killing Sirius Black is baseless, but here it is again. *Wormtail*
would have told LV back in VW1 that Black was an Order member. If he
didn't tell LV then that Black was an Animagus (and the form he took)
then, he certainly would have done so when he explained his return to
Voldemort at the end of PoA. *Kreacher* told the Malfoys that Sirius
Black was the one person that Harry cared enough about to save, and
the plan was to make Harry think that LV held Black captive to lure
*Harry* to the MoM. The Order members, including Black, weren't
supposed to be there. Snape told Black *not* to go to the MoM, but
Black chose to disregard him and ordered Kreacher to wait for DD
instead. Black carelessly taunted Bellatrix as they fought near the
Veil and she sent him through it. Where does Snape fit in? What could
have have told LV that he didn't already know? Only that Black was
back in England and had returned to the Order. But since he didn't
know at first where the Order HQ would be and later could not reveal
the HQ because of the Fidelius Charm, Black was perfectly safe as long
as he stayed at 12 GP. Snape even told Black that he (Black) had been
seen and recognized by Lucius Malfoy on Platform 9 3/4. Snape is in no
way responsible for Black's death, and he has taken care to give
Bellatrix "credit" for the murder before claiming a small share in it.
As for Emmeline Vance, perhaps as a double agent he provided some
small bit of information on her (probably with DD's permission) but he
clearly didn't kill her or he would have said so. 

And note, please, that ESE!OFH!Snapers are willing to attribute lies
to Snape at "Spinner's End"--just not to acknowledge that particular
lie as possible or plausible because it doesn't support their
argument. At least we agree that not everything Snape says in
"Spinner's End" can be taken at face value!

We have seen Snape *refrain* from killing Sirius Black, whom he
thought to be a murderer--even, Snape reminds DD, attempting to murder
*him* (Severus) at age sixteen--and whom Snape knew to have broken
into Hogwarts twice to kill someone in Harry's dorm room (like
everyone else, he could not have known that it was the rat Animagus
Pettigrew and not Harry). "Give me a reason," he says--but he doesn't
do it. (Admittedly, the Dementors provide an attractive--and
legal--alternative, but both Black and Lupin were willing to murder
Pettigrew, taking vengeance into their own hands, while Snape was not.)

We have Bellatrix's testimony that Snape repeatedly "slithered out of
action." We have the marked *absence of evidence* in Karkaroff's
testimony in the Pensieve scene in GoF. While he specifies particular
crimes for other DEs, none of whom is accused of more than one or two
murders or torture sessions (though Mulciber did *Imperio* a lot of
people to get non-DEs to do LV's dirty work), he does not associate
the young Snape with any of these crimes. And Crouch cleared young
Snape of all charges, hardly likely if he'd been suspected of any
major crimes, believing DD's statement that Snape was no longer at DE
and had spied for him (DD) at great personal risk.

What do we actually know that Snape did? He joined the DEs (we can all
speculate about reasons, but none of us knows exactly why) some time
after he left Hogwarts. He eavesdropped on DD and Trelawney and
overheard the Prophecy (note "eavesdropped" rather than "spied," which
implies that he acted on an impulse rather than planning to spy on
DD). He applied for the DADA position on LV's orders (though he was
already spying on the DEs *for* DD at the time) and was hired to teach
Potions, conveniently taking him away from the DEs and placing him at
Hogwarts, where he couldn't kill anyone if he wanted to. Two months
later, the Potters died at Godric's Hollow and the DEs were either
rounded up and placed in Azkaban or killed fighting Aurors or "walked
free" claiming they were Imperio'd. Snape alone had the charges
dropped, his name unpublished in the newspapers, because of DD's
testimony. Would he have believed Snape's remorse over the revelation
of the Prophecy if he believed Snape to be a murderer? I think not.

Note DD's statement to Draco about how hard it is to kill, and note
that Severus Snape in his DE days was not much older than Draco (who
is on the cusp of his seventeenth birthday when he tries to kill
DD)--eighteen when he graduated and perhaps joined the DEs; about
twenty when he revealed the Prophecy to LV and twenty-one when Harry
was born some five to nine months later, the point at which, it
appears, young Snape defected to DD.

Note the interview quotation that Zara cited earlier regarding Snape's
ability to see Thestrals: "[As a Death Eater,] he will have seen
things that . . . ." (ellipses in original). Seen? *Seen*? Not *done*?
And note where JKR breaks off, fearing that she's revealed too much.
"Things that . . . ." what? "Things that" caused him to regret joining
the DEs and/or revealing the Prophecy? Evidently, he witnessed more
than one murder ("things" is plural), and "things that . . . ."
suggests that he found at least one of these "things" profoundly
disturbing--perhaps the murder of Regulus Black, who was even younger
than SS and in the same House at Hogwarts with him only a few years
earlier. The timing of Regulus's death is very close to that of
Snape's (secret) defection from the DEs. It may have followed closely
on the heels of the Prophecy and contributed to his remorse. I'm
guessing, I know. But the quote suggests that young DE Snape
*witnessed* more than one death. It does not suggest that he murdered
anyone himself.

The time frame for Snape to have committed murder is very
limited--between his joining the DEs and his "return to our side,"
which must have coincided roughly with Harry's birth when Snape was
21. He clearly has not committed any murders since rejoining the DEs
on Dumbledore's orders at the end of GoF or Bellatrix would not accuse
him of "slithering out of action" (and besides, he's been at Hogwarts
most of the time.

To return to the young Snape, whose many talents LV must have quickly
recognized. According to Lupin, the DEs at that time outnumbered the
Order members ten to one. Unless Lupin is mistaken or lying to Harry
(and why would he do that?) or JKR is mixed up in her maths again,
there were about 200 DEs at the time, and yet Karkaroff identifies
only one murderer, Travers, who "helped murder the McKinnons") and
none to the Imperius specialist Mulciber, the MoM spy Rookwood, or
even the cruel Crucio expert Dolohov, who specialized in torturing
Muggles and non-DEs. LV, if Lupin is right, had plenty of DEs at his
disposal, many of them apparently specialists in a particular curse or
task (Bellatrix, not mentioned by Karkaroff, is surely another Crucio
expert), and Mulciber was Imperioing "countless" non-DEs to make them
commit horrible crimes, leaving the DEs in the clear. Why would LV
bother to train you Severus Snape, so obviously intelligent and
multi-talented, to do the work that others could do? Why not assign
him to invent spells and make potions (including poisons)? And, most
important, who better than this young master of both the Dark Arts and
Healing, who had invented both SectumSempra and, AFWK, its
countercurse, to help LV pursue *earthly* mortality? He had his
Horcruxes to protect his soul, but what good was a protected soul if
his body was subject to aging, disease, poison, or corruption?
Speculation, yes, but look at DD's view of Snape in HBP and the uses
to which he puts him and consider what LV would want to do with a
young man of such unusual talents. *Not*, IMO, send him out into the
field to torture and kill, which any DE could do (especially fanatics
like Bellatrix and Barty Jr. and sadists like Dolohov and the would-be
hippogriff killer, Macnair), when he could be of so much use in other
ways?

We simply have no evidence that Snape killed anybody before he was
forced by the UV to choose between saving Draco and himself or dying
in a futile effort to save Dumbledore. Any statement that Snape must
have killed because he belonged to a gang of terrorists is not only an
assumption, it ignores Karkaroff's testimony that not all of the DEs
were murderers and those whose tasks he identifies were specialists in
a particular curse or task.

And in HBP, the evidence points in the other direction, to Snape the
Healer, who indirectly saved Ron from the poisoned mead (Harry would
not have known about bezoars without Snape), and directly saved DD
from the ring Horcrux curse, Katie Bell from the cursed necklace, and
Draco from Sectum Sempra. (Either Snape invented the countercurse to
his own spell, or, failing to find a simple spell that worked to
counter the curse, researched and memorized an elaborate chant that
healed wounds caused by Dark spells.) As previously stated, he is at
once a Dark Arts specialist and a Healer whose skills exceed Madam
Pomfrey's bone mending and tooth shrinking, and for that reason he is
uniquely valuable to Dumbledore. And, as we see in HBP, he's a superb
duellist and master of nonverbal spells. I'm guessing that Voldemort,
whatever doubts he had or has about where Snape's loyalties lie, would
not have risked the life (or arrest) of a uniquely valuable servant by
sending him out to maim and kill when others were ready and eager to
do exactly that.

Carol, attempting to base her argument on the limited canon available
rather than on assumptions about what the DEs as "terrorists" must
have done







From belviso at attglobal.net  Sun Mar 19 19:26:29 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 14:26:29 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: DDM!Snape &  the UV
References: <dvk9md+8l15@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <008c01c64b8b$06989c80$0798400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 149803

Alla:>
> What I am trying to say is that Dumbledore has no other capable and
> powerful adults at this point to summon to his help( I mean, of
> course he has the Order, but Snape seems to be the most pwoerful
> magic strength wise IMO) ,

Magpie:

LOL--So Dumbledore has no other capable and powerful adults...except for 
that small army of capable and powerful adults waiting at the ready that 
you're going to arbitrarily dismiss so that he has to call Snape?  No, even 
if Snape is a god amongst mortal wizards, which I don't think he is, there's 
no reason Dumbledore needs him alone to fight off Death Eaters.  Even if he 
thought this was important enough to blow the cover of the Double Agent he's 
nurtured for years, he could call him as part of the team.


Alla:
so maybe just maybe he was hoping that
> Snape would behave not quite as who he is?
> And maybe just maybe Dumbledore, who of course not afraid of death,
> but who IMO was not very keen on dying yet because Harry needed his
> help so badly, maybe Dumbledore was sorely dissapointed the minute
> Snape showes up on the Tower?

Magpie:
Why and when is he disappointed?  Because he was hoping Snape would not be 
who he is?  Dumbledore starts pleading the minute Snape shows up.  There is 
no change in Dumbledore from hope to disappointment and no catalyst for this 
change to occur. So you seem to be suggesting that Dumbledore not only hoped 
Snape would arrive at the Tower and act like a different person but that 
Dumbledore was hoping he'd literally arrive as a different person--so was 
disappointed when he showed up with a hooked nose, yellow teeth and greasy 
black hair.  Darn, he's still Snape.  I was hoping he'd turn up as Barbara 
Cartland.  Now I'm disappointed!  (Not that I'm showing any sign of it 
whatsoever.)

-m 





From sherriola at earthlink.net  Sun Mar 19 19:56:45 2006
From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 11:56:45 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Have Snape ever killed anybody before? WAS: Re: seeds of betrayal
In-Reply-To: <dvkc7l+7fad@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <E1FL41A-0004hS-7o@smtpauth08.mail.atl.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 149804

Alla wrote:
><snip> I certainly think Snape killed before, because yeah, it would
seem very strange to me that the member of terrorist organization would not
have killed before, but I think that the reasons were quite important to
Snape. <snip>

> Snape, who had no problem inventing Sectusemptra, Snape who joined the 
> gang of murderers, Snape who has enough hate to power Avada in HBP 
> (unless one subscribes to fake Avada, which I of course don't), you 
> are telling me that this Snape never killed anyone before?
> 
> Snape who claims that he took hand in Vance and Black killings, THAT 
> Snape never killed before?
> 
> I am sorry, I don't buy it at all. IMO of course. <snip>

Carol responds:

Yes. IMO, THAT Snape never killed before.

And as for the hatred required to power an AK, we don't really know how the
spell works since Harry, our POV character, has yet to cast it, and
self-hatred combined with revulsion at what he's expected, or forced, to do
(a la Harry in the cave) works better than mere resentment of DD for failing
to appreciate him (or whatever) to explain the expression on Snape's face
when he looks at DD but has yet to raise his wand. It takes a second,
pleading speech ("Severus, please . . .") to make him "do the deed."




Sherry now:

I just can't buy it.  Warm fuzzy innocent Sevvy, who never did a mean bad
thing at all in his life.  sorry, carol, I know well that you don't think
he's an innocent babe, but if contrary to what I hope and believe, there is
to be redemption for Snape, it's pretty diluted if he's a poor misunderstood
hero who never dirtied his hands.  Dumbledore's murder doesn't count as
dirtying his hands, if as so many believe, he was doing it for some
ridiculous notion of Dumbledore's that it is somehow for the greater good to
have him dead and Snape alive.  The only way redemption for Snape can be
emotionally satisfying--which I doubt it can ever be--is if he really has
done terrible deeds that deserve redemption.  It diminishes all the DDM
Snape arguments, Dumbledore's unflinching trust and everything else, if
Snape never did any evil deed in his death eater days.  It makes everything
about him a kind of cheap dirty trick for me.  He's not a cuddly bunny
rabbit after all.  If he's truly had some kind of life changing event that
brought him back to DD and for which he experienced genuine remorse, it only
works for me, if he's done something truly terrible.  I don't really buy the
deaths of the Potters as the single shattering event that turned him around.
but then, I don't buy Snape loving Lily.  The mere thought makes me
nauseated.  Sherry




From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Mar 19 19:56:49 2006
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 19 Mar 2006 19:56:49 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 3/19/2006, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1142798209.13.28185.m21@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149805


 Reminder from the Calendar of HPforGrownups
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal

Weekly Chat
Sunday March 19, 2006
1:00 pm - 1:00 pm
(This event repeats every week.)

Notes:
Don't forget, chat happens today, 11 am Pacific, 2 pm Eastern, 7 pm UK time. Chat times do not change for Daylight Saving/Summer Time. Chat generally goes on for about 5 hours, but can last as long as people want it to last.

To get into Chat, just go to the group online:  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups and click on "Chat" in the lefthand menu.  If you have problems with this, go to http://www.yahoo.com and in the bottom box on the left side of the page click on "Chat".  Once you're logged into any room, type /join *g.HPforGrownups ; this should take you right in.  If you have an


Set up birthday reminders!
 http://us.rd.yahoo.com/cal_us/rem/?http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal?v=9&evt_type=13

Copyright 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All Rights Reserved.
 http://www.yahoo.com

Privacy Policy:
 http://privacy.yahoo.com/

Terms of Service:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20060319/264c75ef/attachment.html>

From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sun Mar 19 20:23:10 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 20:23:10 -0000
Subject: Draco..could do a great many things
In-Reply-To: <dvk82h+31om@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvkeje+fl42@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149806

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "steven1965aaa" <steven1965aaa at ...> wrote:

Deedee:
> > MY Massive question is HOW ON EARTH did malfoy know about the 
> > coins?!?!?!?(what malfoy used to pass messages to madame rosemerta)

Steven1965aaa:
 > IMO Umbridge got this information from Marietta the informant and she 
> then shared it with the Inquisitorial Squad.

Geoff:
There is also the possibility that he got it the same way as the idea of poisoning the mead - 
he overheard Hermione talking about it. He does say he got the idea from "them", rather than 
Marietta whom I think he might have named since he seems to be happy to release 
information to perhaps try to upset Dumbledore before trying to kill him.






From kchuplis at alltel.net  Sun Mar 19 20:32:58 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 14:32:58 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco..could do a great many things
In-Reply-To: <dvkeje+fl42@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <8D70C6E6-B787-11DA-A5AB-000393B04DDE@alltel.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 149807


On Sunday, March 19, 2006, at 02:23 PM, Geoff Bannister wrote:

> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "steven1965aaa" 
> <steven1965aaa at ...> wrote:
>
> Deedee:
> > > MY Massive question is HOW ON EARTH did malfoy know about the
> > > coins?!?!?!?(what malfoy used to pass messages to madame rosemerta)
>
> Steven1965aaa:
> > IMO Umbridge got this information from Marietta the informant and she
> > then shared it with the Inquisitorial Squad.
>
> Geoff:
> There is also the possibility that he got it the same way as the idea 
> of poisoning the mead -
> he overheard Hermione talking about it. He does say he got the idea 
> from "them", rather than
> Marietta whom I think he might have named since he seems to be happy 
> to release
> information to perhaps try to upset Dumbledore before trying to kill 
> him.
>
>
>

kchuplis:

You know, I never thought about it before, but poor Draco doesn't have 
much of an imagination,does he. One thing I've noticed about the 
successful wizards good or dark is they are imaginative.  He doesn't 
stand much of a chance, does he. I sometimes wonder if Draco isn't 
going to be the sacrificial <cough> lamb <cough> in Seven.




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 19 21:07:48 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:07:48 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV/Have Snape ever killed anybody?
In-Reply-To: <dvkfjl+v7no@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvkh74+u0ru@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149809

Alla:>
> > What I am trying to say is that Dumbledore has no other capable
and
> > powerful adults at this point to summon to his help( I mean, of
> > course he has the Order, but Snape seems to be the most powerful
> > magic strength wise IMO) ,
>
> Magpie:
>
> LOL--So Dumbledore has no other capable and powerful
adults...except for
> that small army of capable and powerful adults waiting at the
ready that
> you're going to arbitrarily dismiss so that he has to call Snape?
No, even
> if Snape is a god amongst mortal wizards, which I don't think he
is, there's
> no reason Dumbledore needs him alone to fight off Death Eaters.
Even if he
> thought this was important enough to blow the cover of the Double
Agent he's
> nurtured for years, he could call him as part of the team.

Alla:

I said "of course he has the Order", didn't I? But in any event, was
just speculating, not holding to this idea, although I see nothing
strange in speculating that the wizard who is more capable in
fighting Dark Wizards is the wizard who had the most exposure, most 
direct contacts with those wizards than anybody else in the order,.

I am still to discover that ANYBODY in the order was inventing dark
curses except Snape, to me it seems quite reasonable to speculate
that former DE will have the most knowledge how to fight them.

> Carol responds:
<SNIP>
> I've already explained that Snape's claim to have had a hand in
> killing Sirius Black is baseless, but here it is again.

Alla:

We shall see, Carol, we shall see when the book seven comes
along . :) In any event, addressing few small points.

Carol:
  *Wormtail*
> would have told LV back in VW1 that Black was an Order member. If
he
> didn't tell LV then that Black was an Animagus (and the form he
took)
> then, he certainly would have done so when he explained his return
to
> Voldemort at the end of PoA.

Alla:

Why would he have done so? Why would he be interested AT ALL in
giving Voldemort information about Sirius first thing he returned?
Wouldn't he be interested in doing more pressing things like
convincing Voldemort in his ultimate loyalty and talking about
whatever he knows about Harry, not Sirius? But of course we don't
know what Wormtail told Voldemort,so my only contention of your
speculation is to word "certainly". Could you refer me to relevant
canon?

Carol:

  *Kreacher* told the Malfoys that Sirius
> Black was the one person that Harry cared enough about to save, and
> the plan was to make Harry think that LV held Black captive to lure
> *Harry* to the MoM. The Order members, including Black, weren't
> supposed to be there. Snape told Black *not* to go to the MoM, but
> Black chose to disregard him and ordered Kreacher to wait for DD
> instead. Black carelessly taunted Bellatrix as they fought near the
> Veil and she sent him through it. Where does Snape fit in? What
could
> have told LV that he didn't already know?

Alla:

Where does Snape fit in? Let's say he went to Voldemort's or Malfoys
EARLIER than Kreacher did and first alerted Malfoys as to bond of
love existing between Sirius and Harry, or alerted Voldemort of such
bond earlier than Kreacher. Considering that Snape confirms that he
played a part of Sirius death, I consider that to be more than
speculation, but canon supported argument.

After all, do we know that Malfoys were surprised to learn what
Kreacher told them or they just smiled knowingly or something like
that?

Carol:
> As for Emmeline Vance, perhaps as a double agent he provided some
> small bit of information on her (probably with DD's permission)
but he
> clearly didn't kill her or he would have said so.

Alla:

Perhaps, or perhaps he did more than that, since played a part in
the death (paraphrasing) sounds like pretty significant
participation to me.

Carol:

<SNIP>
Any statement that Snape must
> have killed because he belonged to a gang of terrorists is not
only an
> assumption, it ignores Karkaroff's testimony that not all of the
DEs
> were murderers and those whose tasks he identifies were
specialists in
> a particular curse or task.

Alla:

Please refer me to the part of Karkarov's testimony where he says
that those DE whom he sells out as spies or torture specialists
never killed anybody? He mentions their tasks yes, where does he say
that they never killed at all?

You are telling me that Dolohov for example who tortured Muggles
never killed anybody? How likely it is? Not likely if you ask me.


Carol:
<SNIP>
  I'm guessing that Voldemort,
> whatever doubts he had or has about where Snape's loyalties lie,
would
> not have risked the life (or arrest) of a uniquely valuable
servant by
> sending him out to maim and kill when others were ready and eager
to
> do exactly that.

Alla:

And I am asking again. How do you know that Snape received such an
honor of being allowed not to kill anybody? Sure, he has many
talents suitable for Voldemort's, but as far as we know other DE
also can have many talents and Snape is the only one who never got
his hands dirty?

> Sherry now:
<SNIP>
   If he's truly had some kind of life changing event that
> brought him back to DD and for which he experienced genuine
remorse, it only
> works for me, if he's done something truly terrible.
<SNIP>


Alla:

Yep, that's a million dollar question for me too. Why would Snape
fans ( well, I am a Snape fan too, but as a villainous, dark, dark
character, so I am not counting myself here) want Snape to not do
anything terrible? What kind of redemption that would be? Wouldn't
one want such character to travel to the depths of hell before he
gets redeemed? Only then that would be truly meaningful redemption
in my book.


JMO,

Alla












From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 19 21:42:49 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:42:49 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dvfav5+p7pu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvkj8p+ai8s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149810

>
> Sydney wrote:
> > Sorry, what's the thematic content again of anklemonitor!Snape? 
> It's not symbolic of remorse, because remorse is a selfless feeling,
> and the ankle-monitor life debt is a profoundly selfish motivation. 
> <snip>
> 

> Carol:
> <snip>
> Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French remors, from Medieval
> Latin remorsus, from Late Latin, act of biting again, from Latin
> remordEre to bite again, from re- + mordEre to bite -- more at MORDANT
> 1 : a gnawing distress arising from a sense of guilt for past wrongs :
> SELF-REPROACH  
> 
> So maybe what Snape feels is Remorse that has not yet reached the
> stage of Penitence, which requires humility, and consequently his
> efforts to atone for his sins (reporting the Prophecy and joining the
> DEs in the first place) have not been entirely successful because
> without Penitence (humbly admitting that yes, he is at fault), he
> can't truly Repent and resolve to change. 


Neri:
Very good points, although there is one problem with your argument: if
Snape's Remorse is on the stage of anguish from guilt, and hadn't yet
reached the stage of Penitence, why does Dumbledore trust him so
completely? 

As we've seen in the Shrieking Shack and the Occlumency lessons,
Snape's anguish tends to be more destructive than helpful where Harry
and James are involved. Dumbledore himself admitted this in the end of
OotP. And yet it looks like Dumbledore was very sure that at the most
critical moment Snape's remorse would reach the stage of Penitence.
How come he was so sure?

Now, since I was accused of attaching shock bracelets to poor Snapie
<g>, lets see if I can explain why LID!Snape is thematic, and also
explain why Dumbledore was so sure. I think JKR's theme is that Evil
comes from the denial of parts of one's soul. Why does murder splits
the soul? And *what* part of the soul does it split? Surely the part
that is capable of feeling empathy for the victim's suffering. Why
would a repenting wrongdoer feel remorse as anguish? Because he is
still connected with the part of his soul that feels the pain of the
victim. True Evil, like that of Voldemort, depends on detaching
yourself completely from the victim's emotions, and from that part of
your soul that must empathize with them. 

Now, how does Dumbledore describe the Life Debt magic? When one wizard
saves another wizard's life, it creates a certain *bond* between them.
Dumbledore doesn't give us any details regarding the nature of this
bond, but if the Life Debt is magic "in its deepest, most
impenetrable", then naturally this would be a bond between the souls. 
If you owe a Life Debt to another wizard, this bond will force you to
feel his suffering as if it was yours, especially if you share
responsibility for that suffering. If this wizard dies, you would feel
the pain of dying, perhaps so strongly that you would die yourself.
What the Life Debt magic does is to bind you to that deep part of your
soul that empathizes with the other wizard. The Life Debt magic
doesn't force a magically conjured remorse on you, it prevents you
from denying your *own* remorse. 

Remember what JKR said when she was asked if Ginny has a Life Debt to
Harry:

**********************************************
http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-3.htm

No, not really. Wormtail is different. You know, part of me would just
love to explain the whole thing to you, plot of book seven, you know,
I honestly would.
********************************************

But of course, Ginny wouldn't hurt Harry, or if she hurts him she
wouldn't fail to feel remorse about it. She has never detached herself
from the part of her soul that must feel Harry's pain. The Life Debt
magic is irrelevant to her.

Snape OTOH would generally be very good at detaching himself from his
deep emotions. He is a superb occlumen, after all. Here is what JKR
said about Occlumency:

*******************************************
http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-2.htm

I think Draco would be very gifted in Occlumency, unlike Harry.
Harry's problem with it was always that his emotions were too near the
surface and that he is in some ways too damaged. But he's also very in
touch with his feelings about what's happened to him. He's not
repressed, he's quite honest about facing them, and he couldn't
suppress them, he couldn't suppress these memories. But I thought of
Draco as someone who is very capable of compartmentalizing his life
and his emotions, and always has done. So he's shut down his pity,
enabling him to bully effectively. He's shut down compassion ? how
else would you become a Death Eater? So he suppresses virtually all of
the good side of himself. 
**************************************************

So young Severus, just like Draco, shuts down compassion ? how else
would he become a Death Eater? He is happy to work for Voldemort and
supply him with critical information, because he is able to
efficiently suppress the part of his soul that knows somebody is going
to suffer because of that information. He had successfully
compartmentalized the part that can actually *feel* that theoretical
suffering. But a twist of fate (or rather of JKR) makes this somebody
the very wizard Snape owes a Life Debt to. Snape is still a superb
occlumen, but until he repays his Debt, there is one thing he is
unable to close his mind to, no matter how hard he tries ? his own
remorse about James' death.


Neri    








From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Sun Mar 19 21:48:49 2006
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:48:49 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV
In-Reply-To: <dvk3lg+d5nr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvkjk1+hrqa@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149811

"justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:

> Not even Snape could simultaneously protect
> the helpless (IMO dying) Dumbledore and the
> boy he was sworn to protect and fend off
> four Death Eaters

It would have involved a certain amount of danger to Snape, the Death
Eaters might have gotten off a lucky shot, but I think Snape would
have had a good chance ok killing all 4 before they knew what was
happening; he was more powerful than they were and had the element of
surprise. Instead Snape chouse to murder Dumbledore, and that involved
no danger to him at all.

> the vow would kick in and Snape would die

Yes, but I hope you're not trying to use that fact as a defense of the
man. All that proves is that when Snape made that vow he was either
being incredibly evil or three stooges grade stupid. There are only 2
things on the menu, brilliant and sinister or good hearted and retarded. 

Did Dumbledore know Snape made that vow? If not why not? And if he did
why on earth would he trust Snape, or respect him?     

> our ideas of a preposterous storyline differ markedly

Indeed.

> We have seen Snape *refrain* from killing Sirius Black

He kept him alive so he could suffer a horrific fate that was worse
than death, and Lupin too if he had his way.

> Note DD's statement to Draco about how hard it is to kill

Some people find it difficult to kill but others find it remarkably
easy. Snape sure didn't make it seem very hard that terrible night in
the tower. 

Eggplant
 








From belviso at attglobal.net  Sun Mar 19 22:09:33 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 17:09:33 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Original wizards/LiD!Snape
References: <8D70C6E6-B787-11DA-A5AB-000393B04DDE@alltel.net>
Message-ID: <00ce01c64ba1$cdf39b70$0798400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 149812


> kchuplis:
>
> You know, I never thought about it before, but poor Draco doesn't have
> much of an imagination,does he. One thing I've noticed about the
> successful wizards good or dark is they are imaginative.  He doesn't
> stand much of a chance, does he. I sometimes wonder if Draco isn't
> going to be the sacrificial <cough> lamb <cough> in Seven.

Magpie:
I wouldn't worry about him too much on that score (as opposed to any number 
of things threatening him or his other personal flaws).  Hermione got the 
idea from the coins for the DEs Dark Marks to begin with.  Nothing wrong 
with using something you see someone else using--he and Hermione both seem 
to be taking an idea and changing it to suit their own purposes. Neither of 
them are really primarily concerned with getting points for originality. 
Snape sometimes invented spells, sometimes improved on Potions formulas. 
We've heard about a few wizard inventors, but that doesn't seem to usually 
be the key to victory  in the books.  HBP was more about "the other side can 
use magic too" (so don't be too cocky about the stuff you create because it 
may get used on you in ways you don't expect)--that was brought up a number 
of times: Snape's spells at school were used against him, as were the coins 
and the Twins' actions against Montague, and their products.  Sometimes the 
same idea is used independently by different wizards (animagi, polyjuice, 
etc.)  I don't know how "original" the Cabinet plot was, but Dumbledore 
didn't see it coming and didn't prepare for it so he hadn't thought of it. 
Sometimes even unoriginal thinkers can do something original just due to the 
fact they're individuals.  That seems to be more the kind of originality JKR 
highlights.  So Harry, for instance, doesn't make up his own spells, but he 
thinks very differently from everyone else because he's a unique individual.

Alla:

I said "of course he has the Order", didn't I?

Magpie:
You said it but then you dismissed it without reason.  I just don't see how 
one does that.  To me it's like saying, "If Harry doesn't play Seeker then 
they have no other capable players to fill the position (I mean, of course 
they have Ginny but Harry seems to be the most gifted Seeker talent-wise)." 
Yes, Harry seems to be the most talented, but that doesn't make Ginny any 
less of a valid choice or mean that the team *must* have Harry or forfeit. 
So if one remembers Ginny or any of the other Quidditch players one must 
reject the whole point.

Similarly, we can speculate on all the skills Snape has that others don't 
have, but Dumbledore still did indeed have many competent and powerful 
wizards at his disposal so "he had to go to Snape because there was no other 
powerful or competent wizards" can't be evidence of anything.  Whatever 
reason he had for sending Harry to summon Snape to him on the Tower, it can 
not have been that Snape was the only person able to fight Death Eaters.

Alla:
I am still to discover that ANYBODY in the order was inventing dark
curses except Snape, to me it seems quit reasonable to speculate
that former DE will have the most knowledge how to fight them.

Magpie:
I wouldn't argue that Snape couldn't be the most knowledgeable but that 
doesn't mean Dumbledore had to go to Snape alone and no one else.  We have 
canon of these people fighting Death Eaters.  Even if Dumbledore felt 
Snape's expertise was necessary to this fight it doesn't explain why he 
didn't summon him as well as the others.

-m






From kchuplis at alltel.net  Sun Mar 19 22:18:35 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 16:18:35 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Original wizards/LiD!Snape
In-Reply-To: <00ce01c64ba1$cdf39b70$0798400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <4EEB2261-B796-11DA-AE5E-000393B04DDE@alltel.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 149813

>
>
> Magpie:
> I wouldn't worry about him too much on that score (as opposed to any 
> number
> of things threatening him or his other personal flaws).?
>

kchuplis:

I was also thinking of it in terms of Snape's opening speech in DADA.  
I just don't see Draco having "what it takes" necessarily to even be a 
Death Eater. Just expressing a bit of pity for a kid in a hard spot. 
No, I don't like him much, but he was handed some pretty rock and a 
hard place choices too, like Harry, and he hasn't really dealt well 
with them. Just kind of interesting to think about.




From mgrantwich at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 19 22:21:28 2006
From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 14:21:28 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Have Snape ever killed anybody before? WAS: Re: seeds of betrayal
In-Reply-To: <dvkc7l+7fad@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060319222128.15795.qmail@web53113.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149814

--- justcarol67 <justcarol67 at yahoo.com> wrote:

>Why would LV bother to train you Severus Snape, 
>so obviously intelligent and multi-talented, to do the 
>work that others could do? Why not assign him to invent 
>spells and make potions (including poisons)? And, most
>important, who better than this young master of both the 
>Dark Arts and Healing, who had invented both SectumSempra
>and, AFWK, its countercurse, to help LV pursue *earthly* 
>mortality? He had his Horcruxes to protect his soul, but 
>what good was a protected soul if his body was subject to aging, 
>disease, poison, or corruption?
>
>Speculation, yes, but look at DD's view of Snape in HBP 
>and the uses to which he puts him and consider what LV 
>would want to do with a young man of such unusual talents. 
>*Not*, IMO, send him out into the field to torture and kill, 
>which any DE could do (especially fanatics like Bellatrix 
>and Barty Jr. and sadists like Dolohov and the would-be
>hippogriff killer, Macnair), when he could be of so much 
>use in other ways?

Exactly: like going to Hogwarts to teach DADA and learn from
Dumbledore - the collaborator of Nicholas Flamel, let us recall - how
to make a Philosopher's Stone which grants immortal life.

Magda

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 19 23:29:50 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 23:29:50 -0000
Subject: When did Draco Imperius Rosmerta? (was: Re: CHAPDISC: hbp12, Silver and Opals)
In-Reply-To: <dvfhnn+q561@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvkphf+pnp5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149815

> >>Carol:
> <snip>
> We have hints from Draco to Snape that he has someone more powerful
> and important than Crabbe and Goyle helping him. We have Draco's
> insinuation to Dumbledore that Rosmerta was under the Imperius    
> Curse, and the poisoned mead and mysteriously delivered package   
> (with a secondary Imperius placed on Katie Bell) to support the   
> claim. (And it's Madam Rosmerta who points out the Dark Mark to    
> DD, if that's important.) We have Draco's awareness of new threats 
> from Voldemort, implying some form of communication between them. 
> We have the cursed necklace wrapped in plain brown paper somehow  
> arriving at the Three Broomsticks (apparently mailed by Borgin or 
> hand-delivered by Draco's accomplice since Draco could not have   
> gottent it into or out of Hogwarts). We have Draco's claim that he 
> got the idea for the cursed coins from Hermione (overheard in the 
> library, IIRC), who in turn got the idea from the Dark Mark       
> (which, inconveniently, we don't fully understand, either).
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Really good summary, Carol.  Though I'll point out that Draco 
probably picked up the coin idea *before* returning to Hogwarts.  
Hermione doesn't mention the communication coins in the library, so 
this was probably something he learned about the previous year.  
It's quite possible then, that Draco's helper has a coin to give to 
Rosmerta when he or she Imperiuses her.

> >>Carol:
> Okay, based on these ramblings, my tentative conclusions are
> 1) The owls were not being monitored (which might be why Filch was
> checking for dark or cursed objects being taken out of school into
> Hogsmeade), and Draco communicated with LV and Borgin using them

Betsy Hp:
In the library conversation Harry mentions that the owls are being 
searched which is why the love potions have to be smuggled in.  This 
means, IMO, that Dumbledore has a pretty good excuse to read Draco's 
mail without appearing to single him out.

> >>Carol:
> 2) Either Bellatrix put an Imperius Curse on the coins or Draco    
> put a Protean Charm on them and merely used them to communicate   
> with Rosmerta, who was Imperio'd by someone else (the unknown DE   
> or traitor)

Betsy Hp:
Since we've not heard mention of an object baring the Imperius Curse 
I think that idea is a stretch.  It seems like Draco mainly used 
Rosmerta to tell him when Dumbledore was out of Hogwarts, which 
would be easy to sum up in a word or two to fit on a coin.

And if there *is* a helper, then they were responsible for the 
necklace incident.  And Draco himself would have been able to 
arrange for the poisoned mead.  So those orders would have occured 
face to face.

> >>Carol: 
> 3) The unknown helper in Hogsmeade was not Bellatrix, PP, or      
> Kreacher, for the reasons stated above, nor was it a kid like     
> Blaise.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I still think Bellatrix is an option.  Because her attack on 
Rosmerta and the orders she delivered could well have occured in the 
cover of darkness.  Total freedom of movement doesn't seem to be all 
that necessary for Draco's helper, I think.

> >>Pippin:
> <snip>
> Someone had to check on Draco's progress and deliver news of
> Voldemort's displeasure.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
It makes sense that there's some form of communication between 
Voldemort and Draco. And yet, Draco panicks and does his rather 
desperate necklace thing before he's free to leave the castle.  So 
does that mean his helper has access to the school?  Or, and this 
seems simpler, did Draco merely have a deadline he knew he was going 
to miss?

I don't think Draco starts talking about his family paying the price 
of his failure until after Christmas break.  So he may have had a 
less than pleasant meeting with Voldemort (or received an ultimatum) 
at that time.

> >>bboyminn:
> Hummm... This really is a baffling subject. Clearly someone is    
> helping Draco both inside and outside Hogwarts.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
What do you see pointing towards Draco receiving clear help *inside* 
Hogwarts?

> >>bboyminn:
> <snip>
> Who is helping Draco solve the Vanishing Cabinet problems?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I really get the sense that Draco is working on this problem all by 
himself.  I think Borgin maybe pointed him in a direction, but I 
think Draco is using his own intelligence and the rather extensive 
Hogwarts' library to fix the cabinet.

> >>bboyminn:
> <snip>
> As far as his outside contact, it could very easily be his mother.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I have two problems with Draco's mother being his mysterious 
helper.  The first is that she would have strongly encouraged him to 
work with Snape, which we know Draco doesn't do.  And second, 
in "Draco's Detour" Draco is pulling *away* from his mother.  
There's nothing to suggest a close, working relationship there.

I think Narcissa would have *liked* to be Draco's support system, 
but Draco, as growing children do, is trying to stand on his own.  
HBP is all about Draco growing up, so I doubt he's depending on his 
mother to save the day.

> >>Exodusts:
> Hasn't anyone mentioned Fenrir Greyback, the family friend, as one 
> of Draco's "better" assistants (and Borgin)?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I think Borgin does give Draco a few tips on the cabinet, but that's 
about it.  I can't see him Imperiusing Rosmerta.  I'm not sure 
Fenrir Greyback can even do magic.  But even if he can, it's canon 
that Draco is scared of werewolves (they may be his equivilent to 
Ron's spiders) so I can't see Draco calmly working with Greyback.  
(I suspect the "family friend" comment was at best an exaggeration 
and more than likely an out and out lie.  Unless he's thinking of 
Auntie Bellatrix.)

I'm leaning more strongly towards Bellatrix being the helper, and 
the help being fairly limited at that.  (Though there's still the 
dramatic pull of an ESE!character waiting to suck me in. <g>)

Betsy Hp






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 19 23:42:35 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 23:42:35 -0000
Subject: Draco's Redemption / LiD!Snape rides again
In-Reply-To: <007e01c64a34$17936bd0$3366400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <dvkq9b+fijj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149816

> Magpie:
> There are things that Draco shows pride in in the scene--and 
things that 
> Dumbledore praises as well. 

a_svirn:
These things being ... murder attempts, aren't they? It's not like 
they are discussing childish pranks. 


> Magpie:
>However, Dumbledore calls the wine plot and the 
> necklace plot feeble and Draco does not disagree. 

a_svirn:
Well, they didn't achieve their objective, so I guess they can be 
called feeble. Still with wine plot, at least, Draco came close and 
was clearly proud of it.


> Magpie:
> Dumbledore says Draco's heart was not in these murder attempts 
with the 
> necklace and the wine.  I don't see how that could possibly 
translate into 
> saying Draco is not only intent on killing Dumbledore but didn't 
care who 
> else he took out along with him.  

a_svirn:
Yet it *was* his intent. He slipped poisoned mead to Slughorn, 
because he knew that Slughorn intended to give it to Dumbledore. 
Unless he'd written Dumbledore down as a heavy drunkard he should 
have realised that he'd probably share the mead (with Slughorn and 
any number of others). 


> Magpie:
That suggests his heart being very much in 
> it, imo.  

a_svirn:
It does, doesn't it? 

> Magpie:
I think if that's what Dumbledore meant he would have said that, 
> spoken more about Katie and Ron and basically just had a 
completely 
> different conversation with Draco--if he wasn't dead at the hand 
of Draco 
> and his strong intent to kill. 

a_svirn:
Dumbledore is trying simultaneously to placate and threaten Draco in 
this scene. He's doing what he does best ? pulling the right 
strings. Not to mention that he's being held at wandpoint. What is 
he saying to Draco, therefore, is a judicious mixture of truths and 
half-truths, rather like Snape at Spinner's End. Not that I blame 
him for that -- desperate times calls for desperate measures and all 
that. Besides he's genually trying to save the boy. However, his 
proclaiming Draco's innocence and saying that "his heart weren't in 
it" is certainly pushing the bounds of the believable. 


> Magpie:
It's not uncommon for people sabotage their 
> own attempts at things without owning their sabotage.

a_svirn:
If you say so. However it's not the case with Draco. He did send the 
poisoned wine and the cursed necklace, knowing full well what damage 
they could cause. He did also repair the cabinet and was ecstatic 
and triumphant about it to the point of whooping jubilantly. And he 
knew very well what it means ? the end of Dumbledore (and everyone 
else who gets in the way of the DE). So no, he did not sabotage his 
own attempts. 








From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 20 00:11:35 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 00:11:35 -0000
Subject: Have Snape ever killed anybody before? WAS: Re: seeds of betrayal
In-Reply-To: <E1FL41A-0004hS-7o@smtpauth08.mail.atl.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <dvkrvn+s7ki@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149817

> >>Sherry:
> I just can't buy it.  Warm fuzzy innocent Sevvy, who never did a   
> mean bad thing at all in his life. sorry, carol, I know well that 
> you don't think he's an innocent babe, but if contrary to what I   
> hope and believe, there is to be redemption for Snape, it's pretty 
> diluted if he's a poor misunderstood hero who never dirtied his    
> hands.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I agree.  Snape's hands are dirty.  He was a Death Eater after all.  
The question is, are they bloody.  I think *Snape* would say his 
hands are bloody because of the Potters' deaths.  But I'm not sure 
that he's got anyone else's blood on his hands.  (Though there is 
the intriguing idea that he may have helped recruite Regulus into 
the Death Eaters.  No canon of course, but it'd be cool.)

However, that doesn't make him a misunderstood hero.  I think Snape 
was an angry, emotional and foolish boy who joined with Voldemort 
without fully understanding what being a Death Eater really meant.  
And by the time he did realize the extent of his folly there were 
two people marked for death by his information.  For this I believe 
Snape has been working for redemption since returning to 
Dumbledore's side.

> >>Sherry: 
> Dumbledore's murder doesn't count as dirtying his hands, if as so 
> many believe, he was doing it for some ridiculous notion of       
> Dumbledore's that it is somehow for the greater good to have him   
> dead and Snape alive.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I'm betting Snape will consider killing Dumbledore as bloodying his 
hands.  Though I think Sydney gave an excellent analogy as to what 
happened on the Tower (in a post I can't find, sorry).  There's a 
scene in the movie, Master & Commander where the captain has to cut 
the ropes to a fallen mast, even though it condemns one of his 
sailors to die, in order to keep his ship from being dragged under.  
If the captain had been the one in the water he'd have ordered, and 
expected, those ropes to be cut.  Dumbledore was in a position where 
saving his life would have sacrificed his school.  Snape did what he 
had to do.  What I suspect Dumbledore ordered him to do.

As horrifying as Snape's action on the Tower was, I think it goes 
*towards* his redemption.  Though Snape would probably argue against 
me. <g>

> >>Sherry:
> I don't really buy the deaths of the Potters as the single        
> shattering event that turned him around.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I agree.  Snape came back to Dumbledore *before* the Potters died.  
I'm not sure if there was a "single shattering event" or if it was a 
gradual realization of what the Death Eaters and Voldemort were 
really after.  If there was a single event it could well have been 
the death of Regulus.  The timing is certainly suggestive.

Betsy Hp






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Mar 20 01:22:08 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 01:22:08 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV/Have Snape ever killed anybody?
In-Reply-To: <dvkh74+u0ru@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvl040+m7f7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149818


> Alla:
> 
> Where does Snape fit in? Let's say he went to Voldemort's or Malfoys
> EARLIER than Kreacher did and first alerted Malfoys as to bond of
> love existing between Sirius and Harry, or alerted Voldemort of such
> bond earlier than Kreacher. Considering that Snape confirms that he
> played a part of Sirius death, I consider that to be more than
> speculation, but canon supported argument.
> 
> After all, do we know that Malfoys were surprised to learn what
> Kreacher told them or they just smiled knowingly or something like
> that?

Pippin:
If Voldemort knew all along about Harry's feelings for Sirius, why
would he bother appealing to Harry's curiosity about the prophecy
first? 

No, I think canon already tells us the information Snape must have
given about  Sirius. The Malfoys must have already known that Sirius
was back in England  and sheltered by Fidelius, or they
would have leaked the information to the ministry when they
spotted him on the platform.


But  why should the DE's need to kill personally
unless, like Voldemort, they enjoy it? They can use Imperius to
get others to do their killing for them. Do you think that
every member of a real life terrorist group is a hit man? Nonsense.

> 
> Alla:
> 
> Yep, that's a million dollar question for me too. Why would Snape
> fans ( well, I am a Snape fan too, but as a villainous, dark, dark
> character, so I am not counting myself here) want Snape to not do
> anything terrible? What kind of redemption that would be? Wouldn't
> one want such character to travel to the depths of hell before he
> gets redeemed? Only then that would be truly meaningful redemption
> in my book.
> 

Pippin:
Arranging the death of someone to whom you owe your life, plus 
his  wife who defended you from bullies,  and their infant son
sounds pretty bad to me. Not to mention all the poisons Snape
could have prepared or the curses he could have taught to others.


Pippin







From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 20 01:38:36 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 01:38:36 -0000
Subject: Have Snape ever killed anybody before? WAS: Re: seeds of betrayal
In-Reply-To: <dvkrvn+s7ki@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvl12s+u67g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149819

Part of me wants to think that Snape never killed before he killed 
DD.  On the other hand, I like to think of him as a fully competent 
adult DE, which means that he isn't a virgin.  For this type of man, 
a man of power, a man the other Death Eaters respect and may even 
fear, he will have had to kill before. He has to really KNOW the 
dark side, all of it.  I want my Snape to not be naive in any way.  
He is a man of the world, the Dark World.  He knows what evil lurks 
in the hearts of men; he knows what evil lurks in his own heart.  He 
is one of the most powerful and competent wizards in the WW.  He is 
not afraid of the Dark.  He knows the Darkness.  He knows how to use 
it.  He is almost as powerful as DD, and perhaps more powerful and 
shred than LV.

Also to be redeemed Snape must have something seriously evil to be 
redeemed from.  Not as bad and psychopathic as LV perhaps.  But it 
is a shallow redemption if he is little different than the bad boy 
next door.  To show the true and complete depth of redeeming Love, 
Snape has to have done an act that was not just misunderstood, not 
just the wrong place and wrong time sort of thing.  Snape must have 
done something that he "Chose" to do and that choice resulted in the 
death of someone other than DD.   Love in its very highest form 
would redeem LV himself.  If there is going to be a redemption of 
some sort then to truly show the height of Love Snape must have 
killed someone in cold blood when he first joined the DE.  Maybe it 
was his mean, abusive father??

Which brings me to a question that I was going to pose before:  
Snape is a young man.  Yet during the summers, he lives in his 
parents home, alone.  What happened to them?  Did his father murder 
his mother and then Snape killed him??  Not enough time left in the 
series to bring that in, so probably not.  But I would think that if 
LV himself is not going to be redeemed, then Snape has to be even 
more of a bad boy than we have seen so far for the redeeming Love 
theme to work.  

Tonks_op








From sydpad at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 20 01:40:03 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 01:40:03 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dvkj8p+ai8s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvl15j+54m2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149820

Neri:

> Now, how does Dumbledore describe the Life Debt magic? When one wizard
> saves another wizard's life, it creates a certain *bond* between them.
> Dumbledore doesn't give us any details regarding the nature of this
> bond, but if the Life Debt is magic "in its deepest, most
> impenetrable", then naturally this would be a bond between the souls. 
> If you owe a Life Debt to another wizard, this bond will force you to
> feel his suffering as if it was yours, especially if you share
> responsibility for that suffering. If this wizard dies, you would feel
> the pain of dying, perhaps so strongly that you would die yourself.
> What the Life Debt magic does is to bind you to that deep part of your
> soul that empathizes with the other wizard. The Life Debt magic
> doesn't force a magically conjured remorse on you, it prevents you
> from denying your *own* remorse. 
> 
> Remember what JKR said when she was asked if Ginny has a Life Debt to
> Harry:
> 
> **********************************************
>
http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-3.htm
> 
> No, not really. Wormtail is different. You know, part of me would just
> love to explain the whole thing to you, plot of book seven, you know,
> I honestly would.
> ********************************************
> 
> But of course, Ginny wouldn't hurt Harry, or if she hurts him she
> wouldn't fail to feel remorse about it. She has never detached herself
> from the part of her soul that must feel Harry's pain. The Life Debt
> magic is irrelevant to her.

 <snip>

> So young Severus, just like Draco, shuts down compassion ? how else
> would he become a Death Eater? He is happy to work for Voldemort and
> supply him with critical information, because he is able to
> efficiently suppress the part of his soul that knows somebody is going
> to suffer because of that information. 


Very pretty.  Although, still not explained:

-- If Snape in your theory kicked into stage 2 when he reported a
conversation that endangered the Potters without even realizing he was
doing it, why is is this having no effect on Peter, despite going all
the way to Albania specifically to resurrect a guy who has a high
kill-Harry priority?  

-- If Snape is tortured with Crucio-level agonizing pain at the mere
thought of harming Harry by your "Snape was in actual, not emotion
pain in the burning-dog shot" theory, why doesn't this affect Peter
when he ties Harry to a rock and cuts him with a knife?  Or, geez,
when he spent a whole year on his fetus-Voldemort project?

-- If Snape is merely driven by a basic need to keep Harry alive for
his own selfish ends, why did he murder Dumbledore, Harry's greatest
protector, and in a such a way that he would have to leave the scene,
thus leaving Harry entirely exposed when Voldemort is at full power? 
Seeing as Snape's fear of James getting hurt would be what, by you,
"forced Snape to be effectively on Dumbledore's side", what's
different now?  

-- JKR's answer was that no, Ginny doesn't really owe a life-debt to
Harry, not that she just doesn't have to worry about it.  Something in
the life-saving event itself seems to be the key, not subsequent
events.  James and Harry both hated the person they were saving, this
seems more to the point.

-- Replacing compassion for another person with jolts of electric
shock and threat of death, still feels like Torquemada's version of
Christianity more than Rowling's.  By your theory, Snape still isn't
feeling even remorse, he's just feeling pain and fear of dying
himself.  I'm sure the Spanish Inquisition felt they had converted the
heretics;  Dumbledore, not so much.

-- If Snape is just feeling Harry's suffering generally, why haven't
we seen more of this?  Why could he give him pounding headaches for
hours in Occlumency lessons?  Why did he feel sure Harry was a
pampered kid when he came to Hogwarts, when presumably he would have
been lying awake at night in wretched pain because of little Harry's
suffering under the Dursely's, for which Snape is indirectly responsible?

-- In the Shrieking Shack, Snape goes ape (thanks JKR!) about
vengeance;  he does bark briefly at Harry about saving his life and
how he should be grateful, but where is the bit where Snape is
thinking, Ha Ha!  Now I can go evil again?  IIRC, Snape was totally
focused on his satisfaction at getting Sirius, and seemed more annoyed
than anything else at Harry not being on his knees for having his life
saved.  And he goes berzerk when he realizes that Black has escaped,
when you'd think he'd be a bit more focused on, yay!  14 years of
ankle-monitor slavery over!  I'll get that Sirius guy at some other
time.  

-- And (drumroll please) Why is Dumbledore saying that he trusts Snape
completely when he doesn't?   

I know!  Mabye it's not like, mutating magical-prosthetic remorse,
requiring random, purposeless lying from Dumbledore and serious
inconsistency with Peter's situtation!  Maybe it's, like, actual remorse!

You know, it's so crazy it just might work.


-- Sydney, who will call Neri's theory the "ankle-monitor" theory, as
opposed to the Life-Debt theory, seeing as it's a bit unfair to hijack
a name for an impenetrable magic thingie we know nothing about and
apply it to an elaborate spell essentially made up from whole cloth.







From juli17 at aol.com  Mon Mar 20 01:42:37 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 20:42:37 EST
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV
Message-ID: <2c6.5a9d6e1.314f628d@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149821

 


> Eggplant:
> > Snape had a decision to make, he could  fight the Death Eaters and
> > possibly kill them OR he could murder  Dumbledore. Snape, the man
> > you ask us to admire decided the moral  thing to do is murder
> > Dumbledore. I don't think so.
> 
 
Julie:
I don't want to speak for all DDM!Snapers, but what I saw on the  Tower
was a rock and a hard place scenario for Snape, the classic no-win
situation, that of choosing a lesser evil. There was no possible  *good*
outcome. Someone--or someones--was going to die, and Snape was 
in unenviable position of deciding who would live and who would  die. It
was a situation I believe he and Dumbledore made every effort to  avoid,
but, alas, it proved impossible to avoid. So Snape could  either...
 
1. *Try* to save Dumbledore by killing at least 4 Death Eaters,  while
simultaneously protecting Dumbledore, reining in a potentially  volatile
Draco (who, while clearly very hesitant to kill an unarmed  Dumbledore
might not be so hesitant to fight an unexpectedly-turned-traitor  Snape),
*and* fighting off the effects of the UV which are presumably trying  to
make him drop dead. Can he succeed? There is no definitive answer,
but he's clearly fighting a *very* uphill battle, which, if he loses,  will 
cost 
more lives than simply his own. Alternatively, he can...
 
2. Kill Dumbledore, who is weak and perhaps even dying, which in the
process *ensures* the saving of three lives on the Tower--Harry (by
far the most important, as Snape knows, whether he likes it or not),
Draco (who is a student, thus someone Dumbledore--and perhaps
Snape--believes must be protected at all costs), and Snape himself,
who may well be more valuable than Dumbledore, at least a dying or
permanently-weakened-by-the-horcrux-curses Dumbledore. 
 
Hmm. What to do, what to do...?
 
Now, Snape might well be selfish enough to choose option 1--and I  don't
even mean selfish in a typical Snape manner, but selfish in the  manner
of the average person who'd rather perish and let the chips fall where 
they may than kill someone they respect and love. It's so much easier
to divest oneself of such a horrible responsibility, even  if one knows the 
end result will almost surely be much worse. (That previously  overheard
conversation in the forest may indicate this is indeed Snape's  preference.)
 
But Dumbledore wouldn't be selfish. He doesn't fear death; he sees it  as
the next great adventure. And he has lived a long and useful life, so  why
wouldn't he want his death to be equally useful? It didn't pain  Dumbledore
in any emotional sense to give up his life. What would have  pained him far
more is the suffering he has forced on Snape. But if it was the only way to 
ensure the survival of Harry, the students of Hogwarts, and of the WW  in 
general, then he'd do it, and comfort himself with the knowledge  that even
Snape will ultimately reap the benefit, by earning the redemption he  sorely
wants and needs, even if he has to suffer greatly for it in the  interim. 
 
I know some see this as cold calculation on Dumbledore's part, and in
a sense it is. But sometimes it is necessary to shut out emotion to  do
what is truly right--in this case, what will eventually save potentially 
hundreds or thousands of lives in the WW--because what *is* right  is
often not what *seems* right, as well as not what is easy. 
 
In this scenario Snape ultimately did not make the choice  which seemed
right emotionally, and which would result in the best outcome for  *him*,
but the choice that would result in the best outcome for *everyone*  involved 
-i.e., the most lives saved and the ultimate destruction of Voldemort.  In
other words, he made the right choice by Dumbledore's standards. I  don't
think you can be any more Dumbledore's Man than that ;-)
 
Julie
(skipping the question of whether Snape brought this all upon himself,  for
the moment)









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




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Mar 20 01:44:50 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 01:44:50 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV
In-Reply-To: <dvjvid+63cv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvl1ei+ieo1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149822

Pippin:
> > how do we know that Dumbledore is 
> > a better warrior than Snape? 

Eggplant: 
> Even if it were true that Snape was a more powerful warrior than
> Dumbledore I don't see the relevance. But it's not true. Voldemort,
> the most powerful dark wizard in a thousand years feared only one man
> and his name wasn't Snape. 

Pippin:
I don't see the relevance of Voldemort's fears. Was he afraid of Lily? Harry??
Phoenix tears??? 

You were the one who said that Dumbledore would never kill off his
mightiest warrior. Suppose that warrior is Snape, and he's going to die
unless Dumbledore dies first -- that *is* what the vow amounts to. 

The vow as Narcissa gives it has loopholes. It was far safer to take it
than to refuse, given that Narcissa would then have no way to save
her son except to appeal to Voldemort herself. If Voldemort worded
the vow, it would have been done more carefully -- he seems to have 
a better grasp of logic than most wizards, skewed though it is by his 
peculiar reality.

Pippin






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 20 01:59:54 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 01:59:54 -0000
Subject: Voldemort & the UV (LID!Snape rides again)
In-Reply-To: <dvk76j+ngmu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvl2aq+v887@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149823

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Is there anything in canon to suggest that Voldemort knows about
> > the UV?

> >>Jen: 
> I'm glad you asked, I think there is. Or rather I think there's 
> enough evidence to build a case for it because there's not an     
> actual sentence in the book stating that <g>.

Betsy Hp:
Thank goodness we're not limited to what's explicitly stated in the 
book. <bg>

> >>Jen:
> 1) "The Dark Lord always knows." This is said by a Voldemort      
> fanatic of course, but it represents why Voldemort is so fearsome. 
> What he 'always knows' is where a person is weak and he's been     
> capable of using weakness against people since he was very young, 
> i.e. Billy and his rabbit, the kids in the cave. He doesn't       
> understand love having never felt it; he understands weakness and 
> hatred better than anyone else in Potterverse. 

Betsy Hp:
But here's the interesting thing, Narcissa is motivated by love in 
Spinner's End.  She's is going to great lengths to protect a son she 
loves.  Narcissa doesn't go to Snape out of hate, she goes to him 
out of love.  Honestly, I think her actions fit neatly into 
Voldemort's blind spot. (But not Dumbledore's.)

> >>Jen:
> 2) Each book hinges on a Voldemort plan that requires the use of 
> someone whom Voldemort cruelly manipulates to his own ends by 
> playing on a weakness:
> <snip of examples>
> Draco is one such person in HBP, yet he is of no real 
> consequence to LV and everyone agrees he is incapable of          
> completing the task. There needs to be someone Voldemort is       
> *really* using in HBP if not Draco.

Betsy Hp:
HBP is the first book that has Dumbledore *and* Harry taking a 
proactive role.  Voldemort is doing his "reign of terror" thing and 
setting an assassination plot in motion in Hogwarts.  I'm not sure 
there's a need for Voldemort to be actively persuing another 
diabolical plan.  In the end, all Voldemort really needs to 
accomplish now is Harry's death.  Dumbledore's death was a step 
along the way, but unless Snape's cover has been blown, Voldemort 
has a backup in place if Draco fails. Honestly, I'm not sure there's 
a need to find a victim of Voldemort's manipulation other than 
Draco. 

> >>Jen:
> 3) Snape sarcastically asks Bellatrix if she thinks he has been 
> capable of hoodwinking the greatest wizard and most accomplished 
> Legilimens the world has ever seen. Well no, he didn't fool him. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Ah.  This is something I have a hard time buying.  Frankly, I don't 
see Voldemort playing this deep a game.  If someone double-crosses 
him, they die.  End of story.  We know Snape has managed to hoodwink 
Voldemort because he's still alive.

> >>quick_silver:
> > <snip>
> > I guess what I'm saying it that Voldemort's plan in HBP seems to 
> > have been to kill Dumbledore and allow for the endgame to begin. 

> >>Jen: 
> I think both are happening actually, phase one was killing        
> Dumbledore and phase two will be another attempt at the prophecy   
> and Harry. With 6 & 7 forming the last book together, Voldemort's 
> last plan must be very fearsome and all encompassing, better than 
> any before and more crucially for the story, one of his plans      
> needs to succeed. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I agree that Voldemort will make another try for Harry.  But I'm not 
sure Voldemort will be the one with the big plan.  I think that's 
going to be Harry.  Just as in the last couple of books (OotP and 
HBP) the man with the plan was Dumbledore.  In a sense, Voldemort is 
a threat just by being. His need to take over the WW and live 
forever is threat enough.

> >>Jen:
> <snip>
> Snape, as neither the hero nor the villain, will not be in 
> the position to outrank him [Voldemort].
> <snip>
> I think Snape chose to switch his allegiance to the good king      
> instead of the evil king, but *he's* not a king himself unless JKR 
> is going for a twist where Snape turns out to be more important    
> than Voldemort.  
> <snip>
> My focus is less Snape-centric and more Voldemort-centric, but    
> only because I think that's where JKR is headed. 

Betsy Hp:
Hmm, I agree that Voldemort is the main villain, and his destruction 
will signal the end of the game.  However, I *do* think Snape is a 
more important character than Voldemort.  In a sense, I'd almost 
label Snape as Harry's main antagonist.  There's certainly a more 
personal connection there.  We also have more of Snape's story to 
learn, while JKR has told us all about Voldemort.

I also get the sense that by understanding Snape, Harry will better 
understand himself.  So yeah, I'm thinking book 7 will be *very* 
Snape-heavy, with Voldemort as more of a supporting role.  Voldemort 
will be the device that moves the plot along and throws in fun 
little complications.  Tom's tale has been told.  I think his story 
is basically over, except for the screaming. <g>

Betsy Hp







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Mar 20 02:21:15 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 02:21:15 -0000
Subject: Snape's skills and Dumbledore's trust
Message-ID: <dvl3ir+4mqi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149824

What if, just what if, Dumbledore didn't need to teach Harry mad wizard skills
because he'd already taught them to Snape? Could that be why Dumbledore
trusted Snape completely? Because they'd been having training sessions in
Dumbledore's office for sixteen years, and Snape could have killed Dumbledore
about a zillion times?

Pippin







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 20 03:10:52 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 03:10:52 -0000
Subject: Have Snape ever killed anybody before? WAS: Re: seeds of betrayal
In-Reply-To: <dvl12s+u67g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvl6fs+9l4c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149825

Tonks wrote:
<HUGE SNIP>
If there is going to be a redemption of 
> some sort then to truly show the height of Love Snape must have 
> killed someone in cold blood when he first joined the DE.  Maybe 
it 
> was his mean, abusive father??
<SNIP>

Alla:

Stands up and gives Tonks round of applauds. Now THAT wish I 
understand, such Snape I can see in canon and even though we 
disagree on how Snape loyalties will turn out in the end, if he 
turns out DD!M of with the past as you describe, I WILL buy his 
redemption, since such Snape indeed had done the horrible deeds and 
needs to be redeemed from them.

> > Alla:
> > 
> > Yep, that's a million dollar question for me too. Why would Snape
> > fans ( well, I am a Snape fan too, but as a villainous, dark, 
dark
> > character, so I am not counting myself here) want Snape to not do
> > anything terrible? What kind of redemption that would be? 
Wouldn't
> > one want such character to travel to the depths of hell before he
> > gets redeemed? Only then that would be truly meaningful 
redemption
> > in my book.
> > 
> 
> Pippin:
> Arranging the death of someone to whom you owe your life, plus 
> his  wife who defended you from bullies,  and their infant son
> sounds pretty bad to me. Not to mention all the poisons Snape
> could have prepared or the curses he could have taught to others.

Alla:

Wow, Pippin. This is the post I am truly tempted to bookmark. :-)

Yes, "arranging the death of someone to whom you owe your life..." 
sounds pretty bad to me too. As long as this is not called a minor 
indiscretion of poor Snape who was not really understanding what is 
going to happen to the couple of the Prophecy and their child, but 
exactly what it is. - "arranging the death". So,let me ask again. 
THIS Snape had never killed anybody? 

So, just to be clear - when I am arguing my 99.99% conviction that 
Snape killed before he came to Dumbledore and maybe afterwards too, 
I am not saying that he could only kill with Avada Kedavra. 
Preparing poisons, which kill sounds like killing people to me.

I can live with your way of how Snape killed people, absolutely.

Alla






From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Mon Mar 20 04:35:14 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 04:35:14 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV
In-Reply-To: <dvk9md+8l15@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvlbe2+g3st@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149826

Alla: 
> But aren't you forgetting tiny thing, Jen ( I know you are not, so 
> of course I am kidding here, but at the same time not quite 
> kidding :))? Both James and Sirius ARE dead at this point, died 
> trying to defend the loved ones ( the code of behaviour if you
> give interviews at least a little bit of importance as I do JKR
> does expect her heroes to follow, IMO), so isn't it possible that 
> Dumbledore summons Snape precisely because he expects Snape at
> such critical time to change his nature AND behave like a hero?

Jen: I would wonder if the potion affected Dumbledore's brain if he 
thought that :). He believes in second chances and offers 
opportunities for change, but no, I don't remember him every expecting 
a personality change in the middle of crisis. It makes me laugh to 
think of Snape acting like a Sirius or James, swooping around the 
tower taking on all the DE's while attempting to safeguard a weakened 
Dumbledore and Invisible Harry; that's for the heroes to do, and Snape 
has never been one. Heroes choose the right side from the start for 
one thing. They don't slither out of action or become spies, and they 
always get the girl <g>. (In all fairness I know others laugh at the 
idea of Snape doing the right thing by killing anyone, let alone 
Dumbledore.)

So Snape is somebody else in the series and I think of him as the anti-
hero because I'm not sure *what* to call him. Snape gets clean-up 
duty. He's the workhorse, the one with the crap jobs. In that sense 
killing Dumbledore fits perfectly. It's not about some sweeping noble 
gesture or some evil moment, but more like a thankless task the golden 
sons couldn't and wouldn't do. Probably because they wouldn't make a 
huge mess of things in the first place or would get helped out of 
their dilemma as if by magic <g>. They are the ones who get to fight 
all the Death Eaters on the tower and win, or die in a blaze of glory 
with a moment of piercing sadness. Snape gets what's left. Maybe it's 
what he deserves, maybe not.

Jen R.  







From belviso at attglobal.net  Mon Mar 20 04:34:04 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 23:34:04 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Original wizards/When did Draco Imperius Rosemerta
References: <4EEB2261-B796-11DA-AE5E-000393B04DDE@alltel.net>
Message-ID: <014501c64bd7$859bf440$0798400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 149827

kchuplis:

I was also thinking of it in terms of Snape's opening speech in DADA.
I just don't see Draco having "what it takes" necessarily to even be a
Death Eater. Just expressing a bit of pity for a kid in a hard spot.
No, I don't like him much, but he was handed some pretty rock and a
hard place choices too, like Harry, and he hasn't really dealt well
with them. Just kind of interesting to think about.

Magpie:
Oh yeah, I agree-particularly on "not having what it takes."  I think your 
post just made me go off on a tangent in my mind.  It made me realize that I 
think one of the big things Rowling is pushing here is the fact that what 
these kids bring to the table is just that they're kids; they're new people 
who can't always be predicted.  So even being totally not a DE and not any 
kind of spectacular kid, Draco can still mess up plans by having this one 
combination of skills and experiences and ways of thinking.

> Magpie:
> There are things that Draco shows pride in in the scene--and
things that
> Dumbledore praises as well.

a_svirn:
These things being ... murder attempts, aren't they? It's not like
they are discussing childish pranks.

Magpie:
Or "ambitious homework assignments." Realizing the cabinet could be portal, 
fixing it, making the coins--nothing poisonous or cursed there.  (I also 
think you're exaggerating all this bragging about his accomplishments 
Draco's doing in the scene.)  I think Draco's drawing "courage and comfort" 
from Dumbledore's praise is significant and not something he would have 
gotten from false placating.  I don't think Dumbledore's just being ironic 
in praising them or trying to keep Draco from doing something.

a_svirn:
Well, they didn't achieve their objective, so I guess they can be
called feeble. Still with wine plot, at least, Draco came close and
was clearly proud of it.

Magpie:
Dumbledore explains what he means by feeble.  He says they are feeble 
because they are poorly planned and have little chance of succeeding--the 
necklace wouldn't get past security (as I believe Ron also points out) and 
Dumbledore says there's little chance he would ever drink the wine.  These 
are Dumbledore's descriptions, not my own thoughts on how likely it was that 
these plans would work; whether or not I agree with Dumbledore's assessment 
I think we are meant to take his analysis as a revelation of what was going 
on with Draco and see that Dumbledore is correct in the way he sees the 
situation. There's no alternative given in the text.  Draco himself does not 
defend these particular crimes or show pride over them.  I disagree he's 
clearly proud over these particular bright ideas (wine, necklace).

a_svirn:
Yet it *was* his intent. He slipped poisoned mead to Slughorn,
because he knew that Slughorn intended to give it to Dumbledore.
Unless he'd written Dumbledore down as a heavy drunkard he should
have realised that he'd probably share the mead (with Slughorn and
any number of others).

> Magpie:
That suggests his heart being very much in
> it, imo.

a_svirn:
It does, doesn't it?

Magpie:
To you, yes.  But not to Dumbledore. That's why Dumbledore says his heart 
wasn't in them. Had he said this to Murderous!Heart!Draco I think he'd have 
murdered him to prove him wrong instead of ineffectually but vehemently 
asserting that his heart rilly was in it.   I don't think this is like Snape 
where there's some question as to whether DD guessed right about Draco's 
character.  If Dumbledore was wrong about Draco's being a killer, he'd kill 
him.

a_svirn:
Dumbledore is trying simultaneously to placate and threaten Draco in
this scene.

Magpie:
I disagree. There's no reason to placate or threaten this kid and I don't 
see DD doing that.  I can imagine threatening and placating that other 
Draco, the soon-to-be enthusiastic murderer, the one bragging about his two 
previous near-murders, the kid who's presumably going to reject 
Dumbledore's offer and re-raise his wand to kill before the DEs come in. 
But I don't think that's what's written in the book.  Dumbledore knows this 
kid isn't going to kill anyone (no matter how many times Dumbledore reminds 
him he'd better hurry up with that) and is encouraging him to come over to 
the other side.

> Magpie:
It's not uncommon for people sabotage their
> own attempts at things without owning their sabotage.

a_svirn:
If you say so. However it's not the case with Draco. He did send the
poisoned wine and the cursed necklace, knowing full well what damage
they could cause. He did also repair the cabinet and was ecstatic
and triumphant about it to the point of whooping jubilantly.

Magpie:
We're talking about sending poison wine and a cursed necklace, not repairing 
the cabinet. Draco can do both of those things without murdering anyone--as 
he does.  He's thrilled at fixing the cabinet--and yet not killing 
Dumbledore.

He did send the necklace knowing that it could hurt others because that's 
only logical that it could.  He can't plead ignorance.  However, imo, 
everything in the text suggests that he was able to do that through denial 
more than ruthlessness.  I'm not absolving Draco of doing something 
potentially lethal or of being fully responsible for these things, but that 
doesn't contradict the "Draco, you are not a killer" conclusion of 
Dumbledore's.  That's where it all leads, so I don't see why it's hard to 
see that in the attempts.  It doesn't come out of nowhere.

a_svirn:
However, his
proclaiming Draco's innocence and saying that "his heart weren't in
it" is certainly pushing the bounds of the believable.

Magpie:
I think it's more believable than the idea that Dumbledore is desperate, or 
needing to placate or threaten a kid who is so not a threat to anyone but 
himself--I don't think Dumbledore considers himself "held at wandpoint." 
Dumbledore's attitude in this scene, imo, is indicative of what it's been 
all year, and probably why he froze Harry and not Draco.  He doesn't 
proclaim Draco innocent of these crimes, he names him an "innocent" still 
but acknowledges the role luck has played in keeping him this way.  One can 
disagree with Dumbledore's pov, but I just don't see any evidence that 
Dumbledore isn't speaking honestly.

I think this scene is *very* important for clues on how Dumbledore probably 
handled Snape years ago, and wound up possibly winning over both Slytherins. 
I can imagine young!Snape coming to Dumbledore defiant and confused after 
the Potters were targetted and Dumbledore then too being hands-off and 
talking Snape through the decision to change sides. Does anyone else make 
that connection in the Tower scene?  I can imagine this being a reason 
DDM!Snape might go along with Dumbledore's plans for Draco.  We know Snape's 
scene was a totally different situation and that it would presumably include 
the reason for DD to trust Snape completely, but I think Harry was getting a 
glimpse here with his own lowered wand thoughts later.  Dumbledore, imo, was 
trying to make sure both young men are making their own decision. 
Threatening and placting, imo, implies DD is at more of a disadvantage than 
I think he is in the scene.

-m






From richter at ridgenet.net  Mon Mar 20 04:28:29 2006
From: richter at ridgenet.net (richter_kuymal)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 04:28:29 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV
In-Reply-To: <dvk3lg+d5nr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvlb1d+d88p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149828

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
> Not even Snape could simultaneously 
protect the helpless (IMO dying)
> Dumbledore and the boy he was sworn to protect and fend off four 
Death
> Eaters, including one who intended to eat Dumbledore for "afters" 
even
> if he weren't bound by the UV.And at some point, probably the 
moment
> he attempted to heal or protect Dumbledore or the moment harm came 
to
> Draco, the vow would kick in and Snape would die--if the DEs didn't
> kill him first. Then they'd kill Dumbledore and Draco and Harry, 
whom
> DD had frozen to protect him, would rush out and meet the same 
fate as  Snape.> The moment Snape aimed his wand at the Death 
Eaters, he would die.
> 
PAR: 
Snape is the person who created levicorpus and he can't do 
it (non verbal) to 2 DEs, a kid and a werewolf who ISN'T at full 
moon and who may be a muggle.  In fact since it says:  Fenrir 
snarled "I'll do it" and "moving toward Dumbledore with his hands 
outstreached, his teeth bared" would indicate he DOESN'T have a 
wand.  So Snape has Malfoy, who doesn't want to kill, Fenrir, who 
has no wand and is probably a Muggle and two DEs who are apparently 
not "top quality" since this is the first they've been brought up.  
And this "greatest warrior" can't manage it?  He kills the two DEs. 
and freezes Fenrir and Draco.  
Nor does this bring the UV into play.  He IS complying with the 
second provision "will you to the best of your ability, protect him 
from harm"  -- "harm" from destroying his soul, harm from the other 
DEs, harm from Fenrir.  As for the 3rd provision, there's no time 
provision on it and there's that "if it should prove necessary" - 
which could be twisted to mean "no, it wasn't necessary, because DD 
is too ill to fight LV".  or "no, it wasn't necessary NOW", because 
I had to keep Draco from harm...." 

but if it did turn out that the 3rd provision would kill him, then 
Snape Levicorpus' the 3 DEs over the side of the tower and dies. 
Either the 3 DEs fall and die, or they try to get back to the tower 
by levitating themselves -- but that gives Harry a chance to act and 
for that matter, Draco, if he opts to take DD's side (which would 
have been a rather satisfying "good" action for a Slytherin and 
rather redeeming for Draco).  If DD dies anyway, he dies.  If, 
however, he still is hanging on, then Harry & Draco could have 
gotten him to Slughorn (also a potions master) or someone else.  At 
least in this scenario, Harry isn't off hating Snape for what appear 
to be perfectly good reasons.

PAR.











From darqali at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 19 22:41:24 2006
From: darqali at yahoo.com (darqali)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:41:24 -0000
Subject: Prophecies Re: Who calls Voldemort "Lord"
In-Reply-To: <dvipum+kktf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvkmmk+ftv5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149829

> > Nikkalmati:
> > I just wanted to note, the prophecy stated to Harry in POA did 
> > not come true exactly at given.  Trelwaney (sp?) recited that 
> > "innocent blood will be spilled" (from memory without canon at 
> > hand), but thanks to H and H and the timeturner no innocent 
> > blood was spilled.  Both Buckbeak and Sirius were rescued. 
> > So a prophecy can be thwarted. 
>   
> zgirnius:
> You are misremembering:
>
> 'IT WILL HAPPEN TONIGHT.'
> <snip>
> '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 THAT EVER 
> HE WAS. TONIGHT ... BEFORE MIDNIGHT ... THE SERVANT WILL SET 
> OUT TO REJOIN HIS MASTER ...'

Thank you.

That is how my text reads, too, save there are more "...." in the 
last line:

"Tonight .... BEFORE MIDNIGHT ... THE SERVANT ...WILL SET OUT ... TO 
REJOIN ... HIS MASTER ..."

is how the last line reads in my text, which is a Paperback printed 
in the U.S.

This Prophecy has more than one component:

It states a time {Tonight, before midnight} for one aspect of the two 
predictions made.

It states an action to be taken by "The Servant" of "The Dark Lord".  
I take "The Servant" to be Peter Pettigrew, aka "Wormtail"; it is 
stated "His Servant has been chained these twelve years" and that 
"the Servant will break free".  Pettigrew was hidden in rat form as 
"Scabbers", in the Weasley household [and at Hogwarts' when the boys 
were at school] for 12 years.

I take "the Dark Lord" to be Tom Riddle, aka "Lord Voldemort", called 
by his followers "The Dark Lord" and by most others of the WW, "You 
Know Who" or "He Who Must Not Be Named".

The action of "The Servant" {who is not otherwise named} is that he 
will {that night, before midnight} "break free" and "set out to 
rejoin his master".

And that is exactly what happened.

There is another prediction: "The Dark Lord WILL RISE AGAIN WITH HIS 
SERVANT'S AID, GREATER AND MORE TERRIBLE THAN EVER HE WAS."

That didn't happen that night, before midnight, of course.  It 
happened at the climax of GoF, when Peter Pettigrew {and 
Crouch/Moody} completed their scheme to bring LV back.  Note:  Many 
things could have gone wrong with this scheme, so that "it might not 
have happened that way", but nothing significant did go wrong {from 
LV's viewpoint and plan}; not, at least, until *after* LV had the 
chance to "rise again".  [One could argue that getting a two-fer 
{Harry plus Cedric} with the PortKey Cup was something that "went 
wrong" but it did not deter LV from using Harry as planned.]

Do we know if the "new LV" is actually "GREATER AND MORE TERRIBLE 
THAN EVER HE WAS?" as this second Prophecy states?  Guess that is 
so far a matter of conjecture; but nothing we have seen so far 
suggests that aspect of this Prophecy is *wrong*.

Otherwise, I see this second prophecy as having come true very much 
as pronounced.  Further, while it remains true that *it might not 
have fallen out that way, if this or that happened differently*, this 
prophecy was not *made true because someone who heard it believed it 
and acted upon it*, as DD told Harry was the case with Trelawney's 
*first* Prophecy concerning LV.  No one had heard this Prophecy save 
Harry, so "believing it and acting on it" had nothing to do with the 
actions taken which made it "become true".

Yes, Ministry plans re the execution of Buckbeak that evening were 
indeed thwarted; and Sirius was saved despite Snape's (and the 
Ministry's) plans and desires; but those events were not covered by 
Trelawney's Prophecy, which concerned only two people:  "The 
Servant" and "His Master".

BTW:  I saw at once, at my first reading of PoA, that Harry had made 
"a Prophecy" concerning Buckbeak during his exam, which did indeed 
come true!  Of course, he was making it up; but when he stated 
(gazing into the crystal ball) that he could see "A hippogriff", 
Trelawney prompted him:

"Indeed!"  whispered Professor Trelawney, scribbling keenly on the 
parchment perched upon her knees.  "My boy, you may well be seeing 
the outcome of poor Hagrid's trouble with the Ministry of Magic!  
Look closer .... Does the hippogriff appear to .... have its head?"

"Yes", said Harry firmly.

"Are you sure?"  Professor Trelawney urged him. "Are you quite sure, 
dear?  You don't see it writhing on the ground, perhaps, and a 
shadowy figure raising an axe behind it?"

"No!"  said Harry, starting to feel slightly sick.

"No blood?  No weeping Hagrid?"

"No!" said Harry again wanting more than ever to leave the room and 
the heat.  "It looks fine, it's  -  flying away ...."

Harry made this up, of course.   Trelawney was urging Harry to 
predict an unhappy outcome, which Harry stubbornly refused to do; but 
Harry was *right*.

Perhaps that is the source of the idea that Trelawney "predicted" 
Buckbeak's demise; but she didn't, actually ... she was urging Harry 
to do so.

... and Darqali wonders how Trelawney can seem so innocent and 
pitiful all the while being so fond of making horrible predictions 
about blood and death .....












From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Mon Mar 20 06:38:57 2006
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 06:38:57 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV
In-Reply-To: <2c6.5a9d6e1.314f628d@aol.com>
Message-ID: <dvlim1+lqn7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149830

juli17 at ... wrote:

> that of choosing a lesser evil.
> There was no possible  *good* outcome.
> Someone--or someones--was going to die

Murdering the most powerful and kindest wizard on the good guys side
is not less evil than killing 4 homicidal Death Eaters.

> fighting off the effects of the UV
> which are presumably trying  to make
> him drop dead. 

There is quite simply no way, absolutely no way, you can use that vow
to excuse Snape's actions that horrible night in the tower! Snape is
the one who decided to make a vow to become a traitor.

> Can he succeed? There is no definitive answer

That's true, one can never be certain of the results of ones actions.
Certainly attacking the Death Eaters would have been more dangerous
than murdering Dumbledore, but he had a decent chance of success.

By the way I notice nobody tackled my question, "did Dumbledore know
about the vow?". I don't blame you, if I was a Snape lover I wouldn't
want to tackle it either; one answer makes Snape look evil, the
opposite answer makes Dumbledore look like an imbecile.

> Draco who is a student, thus someone Dumbledore
> and perhaps Snape--believes must be protected 
> at all costs 

My father invented a phrase I quite like, "nasty nice", I can't think
of a better example of it than an effete Dumbledore who would risk his
life, and the life of millions of other people around the world, and
the very future of civilization itself to protect a piece of stinking
excrement like Draco Malfoy. That my friend is nasty nice.

> Dumbledore wouldn't be selfish. He doesn't
> fear death; he sees it  as the next great
> adventure. And he has lived a long and 
> useful life, so why wouldn't he want his
> death to be equally useful? 

Dumbledore doesn't enter into it, I was discussing Snap's virtue (or
lack thereof) not Dumbledore's. Snape had a choice, he could pick the
easy path and murder Dumbledore or he could pick the right path and
attack the Death eaters. He went down the easy path.

Eggplant            







From catlady at wicca.net  Mon Mar 20 07:34:54 2006
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 07:34:54 -0000
Subject: Crookshanks/Snape/Werewolves-Lupin/DEs&TMR/Chapter12/Fidelius/LotsMoreStuff
Message-ID: <dvlluu+5la6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149831

In PoA, Crookshanks showed signs of wanting to hunt Scabbers and we
thought it was because it was a cat and a rat, but it turned out it
was because Crookshanks detects untrustworthiness and Scabbers was
Pettigrew in disguise. In HBP, Crookshanks showed signs of wanting to
hunt Arnold the Pigmy Puff and I thought it was normal cat behavior,
but later I started to wonder whether I was being fooled the same way
twice. Just where did Fred and George get those Pigmy Puffs?

SNAPE
Betsy Hp wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149464 :

<< Why would *out for HIMSELF*!Snape care about the Malfoys or his
duty as head of house to such an extent he puts his *life* on the
line?  Doesn't that directly oppose someone being out for *himself*
rather than his friends or his duty? >>

When the three choices are
a) ESE = loyally serving Voldemort
b) DDM = loyally serving Dumbledore OR loyally serving Goodness
c) OFH = no loyalty to either Voldemort or Dumbledore

then (as Alla immediately replied) a character (not necessarily
Snape), whose deep loyalty was to his beloved person or to some ideal
other than Goodness or Voldemort's personal triumph has to be OFH by
process of elimination.

Beloved person: inamorato, spouse, child, parent, friend. Lily,
Narcissa, Draco, Lucius. Etc.

One other ideal: a person devoted to pureblood privilege or wizarding
control over Muggles, who joined Voldemort under the impression that
that was Voldemort's goal and then turned against Voldemort because
Voldemort is harmful to that goal. 

Another other ideal: a person dedicated to the protection of wild
hippogryffs who first joined the Ministry's Department for the
Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures to keep people out of the
hippogryff preserve, and then turned against the Ministry because of
Buckbeak's execution, and perhaps joined Voldemort in search of allies
in his plot to blow up the Ministry's files on where to find hippogryffs.

Eggplant wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149483 :

<< Off the top of my head I can't think of a historical example of a
good man murdering another very good man with hatred etched into the
harsh lines of his face. >>

Do you have evidence that Reginald Fitzurse, Hugh de Moreville,
William de Tracey, and Richard le Breton were none of them good men?
(I got their names from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Becket#Assassination ).

<< if [Draco] doesn't [die in the attempt] that's OK as long as
Dumbledore is dead. Voldemort does not hate Draco, or at least he
doesn't hate him more than any other member of the human species. >>

But Voldemort wants Draco dead in order to hurt Lucius's feelings,
because he is angry at Lucius for screwing up the MoM raid, for
wasting the Diary Horcrux, and for generally thinking that he's
smarter than LV (which is probably correct, as LV doesn't seem
particularly clever).

zgirnius wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149782 :

<< I would not now be surprised to learn that Dumbledore is the first
man Snape has ever, personally, killed. >>

Consider Dumbledore's statement and Draco's demonstraction that
'Killing is not nearly as easy as the innocent believe' (in which I
understand 'innocent' to mean being virgin of killing, not to mean
having an pure soul and untarnished heart). Then consider making a
plan which depends upon your guy, who has never killed before, killing
someone. Killing someone he loves and is supported by. Isn't that a
bit of a gamble about whether your guy will turn out to be as far from
being a killer as young Draco is?

Tonks wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149819 :

<< Snape is a young man.  Yet during the summers, he lives in his
parents home, alone.  >>

I'm usually wrong, but nonetheless I believe that the house in
Spinner's End is not Snape's parents' house. I think he bought it with
his salary from Hogwarts as a place to spend his summers, when (per
JKR) no one stays at Hogwarts except Filch (I imagine the House Elves
stay, and Hagrid in his hut, but those are quibbles).

WEREWOLVES - LUPIN
Jen D wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149660 :

<< The wolfsbane kind, they are like Lupin perhaps and are trying to
pass in "society." They know they have a problem and are doing their
best to control it. But how would you work the non-wolfsbane type into
your society? >>

I agree with whoever said that MoM's Department for the Regulation 
and Control of Magical Creatures's Being Division's Werewolf Support
Services Unit should supply Wolfsbane Potion free (or heavily
subsidized on an ability to pay basis) to people who need it.

Werewolves who get their jollies killing some people and deliberately
infecting some other people with their disease are anti-social
criminals and society should be protected from them, not try to
include them. I suppose that is the job of MoM's Department for the
Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures's Beast Division's
Werewolf Capture Unit. While in prison, they could be heavily chained
and caged during the Full Moon period.

I have a suggestion for Werewolves who don't *want* to kill and injure
people but do want to experience their un-medicated transformation.
The Ministry of Magic should supply them an island -- wizarding magic
should be able to protect it so that no Muggles ever go to it and no
non-humans ever leave it -- and the werewolves could live normal human
lives most of each month, but they would go to their island before
Full Moon. 

When they transformed, they would all be werewolves together, and they
could run around in the woods and hunt wild animals, but there would
be no humans for them to harm. When Full Moon was over and they were
back to human, they could leave their island and return to their human
lives. The ones who want to camp in the woods and eat wild animals
full-time could live on their island full-time.

On the whole thread 'Maligning Lupin', he is my favorite character and
I'm in love with him (I'll share) (especially with Sirius) and I hate
Pippin's ESE!Lupin theory, but I cannot disprove it with canon. I can
disprove it only by the fact, already pointed out by so many, that
Rowling WOULD NOT make EVERY werewolf character evil. If there was a
good werewolf character, my argument would be shot down. At one time,
Pippin said Luna Lovegood is the good werewolf character. I have seen
no evidence that Luna is a werewolf, but if she is, then it is
possibly that Rowling could do a big reveal "Lupin is ESE", even tho'
I'd be furious at her and say she framed him. Later, Pippin said Bill
is the good werewolf character, but Bill isn't a werewolf, he's just a
man with a badly scarred face.

Pippin wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149754 :

<< Werewolves attack people whom they believe are depriving them of
their rights and freedoms.  YMMV. >>

Werewolves in wolf form attack any human they can catch/reach. The
wolf form has an automatic biomagical stimulus-response reaction in
which the stimulus is perceiving the presence (I'm sure it's the
scent, but canon doesn't specify) of human, and the response is an
overpowering compulsion / desire to attack. All that stuff in PoA
about it wasn't safe for Remus's friends to keep him company during
his transformation in human form, but they could do it in animal form
because werewolves are only dangerous to humans -- that doesn't sound
like Remus wanted to attack them to punish society for abusing
werewolves. 

Christina wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149774 :

<< Pretty stupid, if Lupin is giving this information to Sirius in
secret (and while we're on it, why would he do that in the first
place?).  >> 

Pillow talk.

(Sorry, I actually agree with you that just about all the adults at
the table knew as much as Sirius about the subject that Harry was
being informed about, but I couldn't resist the one-liner. Well, it IS
past my bedtime.)
 
DEATH EATERS
Katssirius wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149486 :

<< I am not clear what Voldemort and his Death Eater's want.  Any
level of power or money Tom Riddle desired he could have gotten as Tom
Riddle. Lucius Malfoy obviously has both as well.  So what do these
guys want. Is it just unlimited torture?  These are smart people.  If
you kill all of the mudbloods then there are not enough wizards to
maintain a gene pool and no one to torture.  >>

I'm sorry that I had to snip the rest of your lovely comment for space
reasons. Here come my opinions. 

Lucius does understand that Voldemort's plan will destroy the
wizarding world (economy first) rather than rule it, and he does not
want to destroy the wizarding world. Lucius wants always more power
and he thinks he will get it by helping Voldemort conquer the world,
and then Voldemort will control the world and he, Lucius, will control
Voldemort by smarminess and treachery. I used to think that LV knew
that is Lucius's plan and he was carefully watching and waiting to
gain as much as he can from Lucius and then kill him, but that has
been damaged by Lucius in Book 6 safe in Azkaban rather than dead.

Most of the other Death Eaters want promotions at work, money,
opportunities to torture, high status, concubines, and other common
desires that they feel they can't get on their own -- few of them are
as rich as Lucius. Some (Regulus Black) were attracted by the ideology
of Pureblood Superiority; Regulus was rich and well-connected (and
handsome and intelligent -- that's not canon, but his brother and his
cousins are handsome and Slughorn had him in the Slug Club ('collect
the set')) and probably could have gotten whatever he personally
wanted, but he wanted stupid, poor Purebloods to have [almost] the
same privileges he did.

Bellatrix and Barty Jr are fanatics. They're in love with Voldemort.
In Bella's case, I do mean (unfulfilled) sexual love, inspired by her
literally sadistic pleasure in finding out about what he did to his
victims, with specifics. I don't see anything sexual in young Barty's
love of LV, more of a father-figure thing. In real life also, there
are people who become totally devoted to some evil 'cult' leader. 

<<  I do not understand what Voldemort wants that Tom Riddle could not
have had.  Dismissing him as psychotic as the entire explanation is
weak for a series with this many pages. >>

Tom Riddle Voldemort unfortunately IS pyschotic.

Lots of people change their names. Diary!Tom explained: "I, keep the
name of a foul, common Muggle, who abandoned me even before I was
born, just because he found out his wife was a witch? No, Harry - I
fashioned myself a new name," 

Diary!Tom continued that speech by stating one of his big goals: "a
name I knew wizards everywhere would one day fear to speak". He is
full of generalized hate/anger of everyone (not just Muggles) and he
wants to be feared by everyone. Destroying the entire wizarding world,
and the entire planet Earth if he can achieve it, is a pleasant
fantasy of acting on one's anger/hate, and will scare everyone who
knows that he is effectively acting on it. *Acting* on one's fantasies
of mass murder IS a psychotic way of dealing with one's anger and hate.

Unfortunately there is a contradiction between his unstated goal of
destroying the world and his both stated and acted goal of
immortality; I don't understand why he wants to be immortal. However,
using Horcruxes is a rational means to that goal, and it was making
all those Horcruxes that turned him into a red-eyed snake-man instead
of a handsome human. I was disappointed, having long thought that it
was drinking one of his immortality potions that transformed his
physical appearance. I also don't understand why Vapor!mort hangs out
in Albania -- I had a theory that his soul is magnetically pulled to
that particular rock in that particular forest whenever not anchored
by a body because that was the spot on which he drank the hypothetical
potion.

Now I must wave at Sydney's
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149710 paragraph
about << "Kill Harry" is only one item on Voldemort's to-do list. 
Last time I checked, 'terrorize people', 'kill all who oppose me',
'randomly torture muggles', and 'take over the world' were also on the
list. Oh, and 'conquer death' (note to Voldemort:  you might have more
success at achieving your goals if you narrow your focus.  Hey, I have
the same problem, I empathise). >>

Carol wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149748 :

<< (As an aside, surely there are more than four children of DEs in
Hogwarts and surely they're not all in Harry's class. that seems too
big a coincidence to me.) >>

Surely there are more than four children of DEs in Hogwarts and surely
they're not ALL Slytherins, but you know that I'm in love with a
no-evidence theory that there was a prophecy to Voldemort or Lucius
Malfoy a bit before Trelawney's prophecy to Dumbledore. The
hypothetical prophecy that a boy conceived this autumn (*I* LIKE 'at
Halloween', but that's a touch too early for Harry and more too late
for Draco) will have tremendous powers and/or will bring victory to
his father's side. Because of that prophecy, Voldemort ordered all his
followers (or Lucius ordered those DEs who reported to him) to go home
to their wives and make babies, y'know, one week from tonight. I can
say it in American: "He said, go home and knock up your wife." but I
haven't figured out how to say it in British: "Put your wife up the
spout"?

Lyra of Jordan summarized CHAPTER 12 in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149558 :

<< 1) In GoF, it says something to the effect of "four years in the
magical world had taught Harry it wasn't a good idea to stick his hand
into some unknown magical substance." But by 6th year, Harry is
willing to try incantations without a clue of what their effect will
be. Does this change of attitude tell us something about Harry? Is he
becoming reckless? >>

I think it is not that Harry is becoming reckless, but that that book
has a magical hold on him, slightly similar to The Diary.

<< 6) Is there any particular symbolism or meaning to the opal
necklace (or to opals or necklaces), or is it simply a convenient
McGuffin? >>

Listies have mentioned the old tradition that opals are bad luck
(except if they're your birthstone) which inspired books like Wilkie
Collins's THE MOONSTONE (which I haven't read). Incidentally, opals
ARE excessively breakable. I used to wear 13 rings spread over 10
fingers and the opals set in some of them would get chipped and broken
and lose their fire even faster than the malachite would get scratched
and lose its shine, which IS a mild form of bad luck. Eventually I
decided to limit opals and malachite to necklaces and use only sturdy
stones like turquoise, lapis lazuli, amethyst, Sri Lankan moonstone,
and tiger's-eye on my hands.

<< 8) In OOTP Sirius says the barman at the Hogs Head threw Mundungus
out of his bar 20 years ago and has banned him since. That seems to
suggest some bad blood between the two. Yet Harry sees the same two
talking on the street in Hogsmeade. What are we to think? >>

I thought that they were speaking together, tolerating each other, on
Order business, for the Order's sake, which is a bit more than Sirius
and Severus managed to do. 

FIDELIUS
Ana wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149577 :

<< As a matter of fact, how did Hagrid managed to find [Godric's
Hollow] to take baby Harry to Dumbledore? >>

When 12 Grimmauld Place was hidden under Fidelius, Harry was given the
Secret by a written note from the Secret Keeper. When GH was hidden
under Fidelius, and Sirius and Peter were pretending that Sirius was
the Secret Keeper, people could have been given the Secret by notes
that the real Secret Keeper had written, but disguising his
handwriting in hope it would look like Sirius's handwriting. James and
Lily and Harry were surely inside the Secret, Peter was the Secret
Keeper, Sirius is the first-most person to whom James would want the
Secret to be given (he would want Sirius to visit them), and
Dumbledore is probably the second-most (leader and planner of the
Order). James and Lily may have specified that they wanted a written
note of the Secret given to Hagrid so that their friend Hagrid could
visit them, or DD might have shown his copy of the note to Hagrid when
he ordered Hagrid to go there. 

Even if they didn't trust Lupin, they could have shown him the note so
he could visit, and still he wouldn't have been able to give away the
secret to anyone else (the bad guys).

Some listie had a theory in which Sirius really was the Secret Keeper
and one of the notes he'd written was left lying around and thus fell
into Voldemort's hands and he invented the whole story of switching
Secret Keepers to Peter to conceal his guilt for his friends' deaths.

LOTS MORE STUFF
Victoria wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149487 : 

<< Just recently been on JKR's website to hear for myself what the
radio announcer said. Sounds pretty interesting and that also the red
rejuices and green regerminates, therefore the 'Gryffindors' and the
'Slytherins' will have two different jobs to perform in the task to
bring whatever it may be back to life. >>

Six Gryffindors and three Slytherins. I, like most people, expect that
five of the Gryffindors are Harry, Ron, Hermione, Neville, and Ginny.
Luna (the remaining member of Book 5's second trio) is a Ravenclaw, so
who is the sixth Gryffindor? Dean, who has a backstory that was left
out of the books? Seamus, with whom the Sorting Hat hesitated almost a
whole minute? Lupin? A Weasley? Someone dead? Why no one drop of blue
potion? 

Who are the three Slytherins? I'd like them to be Draco, Pansy, and
Snape, but few people care my love of Pansy (whom I would absolutely
HATE in real life -- Ron is another person whom I love in the books
and would hate in real life). Maybe my second choice would be Draco,
Snape, and the Bloody Baron -- I've always wanted to know why he can
control Peeves (via fear) when no one else can.

Tonks wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149518 :

<< I would guess that, for whatever reason, James, Peter and Remus
were not invited to Sluggy's parties. >>

I would guess that Peter and Remus weren't invited because they
weren't stars and weren't related to important (or rich) people, but
both James and Sirius would have been invited because they both were
stars and both were related to important people. Sirius wouldn't go,
at least not after the first time, because cousin Bellatrix was there
and Slughorn spoke to Sirius of his dad and mum, all people Sirius
disliked. James may have quit the Slug Club in solidarity with Sirius
or he may have kept going -- at least until Lily deflated his head,
James like being fawned over.

Elfun Deb wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149542 :

<< Hermione should turn her talents to developing an antidote for
Marietta, who also has had punishment enough for her crime >>

Which could be connected to the theory offered recently that Marietta
is the Heir of Ravenclaw, McLaggen of Gryffindor, and Zacharias of
Hufflepuff, and our Heroes, needing the assistance of The Four Heirs
in their Quest, will have to make nice to people whom they have given
good reason for grudges.

Thanks for directing us to those 2003 posts; I very much enjoyed
re-reading them.

Ginger wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149704 :

<< If [Myrtle] was killed by LV (or Tom, as he was then) and fancies
Harry, what sort of council did she give Draco when he was spilling
his heart out to her? Does she know that Tom, who killed her, is now
LV, for whom Draco is supposed to kill? >>

I don't think she knows that Tom killed her, or even that the glowing
yellow eyes that killed her were a basilisk. So it doesn't matter that
I think she doesn't know that LV is Tom.

<< Does she still fancy Harry?  Or has Draco become her new intrest?
(snip) She wasted no time sounding the alarm when Harry cursed Draco.
Was that for attention? Or did she really care about saving Draco's
life? >>

When Harry intruded on her sixth floor bathroom, she didn't try to
flirt with him. She outright expressed disappointment that it was just
him. To me, she is no longer interested in Harry, but could easily
become interested in him again. To you, she's playing the same game as
Hermione played: try to make the boy jealous. 

Anyway, remember how disappointed she was that Harry didn't die in the
Chamber of Secrets so that he could share her toilet home? If she
fancies Draco, then she wants him to die.

Darqali wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149730 :

<< I myself wonder what "side" Trelawney serves.  We are led to
discount her by her odd manners; we may laugh, or pity her.  But see
her as an agent of evil?  No, we are led to disregard Sibyll.  Yet
again, I note, her last name is Cornish, usually a signal of an "evil"
character in English tales. >>

As an American reader, I've never noticed a cliche of evil characters
having Cornish names, altho' I take your word there is one.

Rowling doesn't re-use (and thus re-new) every cliche from literature,
only the ones that she wants to. I'm tempted to believe that she
wouldn't use the cliche of Cornings being evil when she is a real-life
anti-prejudice activist, but then she did use anti-French stereotypes
to portray silly Beauxbatons folks, and are there any good charaters
with French-derived surnames to balance Malfoy and Lestrange?

<< And her first name is no accident, either. >>

Of course Rowling had a reason (a little joke with the readers) for
choosing that name, as with the name of Remus Lupin. But unlike
Lupin's parents, who couldn't have known or hoped he would become a
werewolf when they named him, I can imagine that Cassandra Trelawney,
famous Seer, named her daughter Sibyl in hope of her daughter
following in her footsteps. And Sibyl Sr named her own daughter
Cassandra after her mother. And Cassandra Jr named *her* daughter
Sibyl after *her* mother.

Deb (aka djklaugh) wondered in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149735 : 

<< which rooms in the castle were created by Rowena Ravenclaw  and
Helga Hugglepuff - Chamber of Secrets= Slytherin, Headmaster's office=
Griffindor (IMO)... maybe library and kitchen respectively? >>

I never before wondered who created the Room of Requirement (it's just
there), but suddenly I suggest that Helga Hufflepuff created it. She
seems to have been a practical person and the RoR serves practical
purposes.

Kemper wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149737 :

<< 'theater' which seems light, frivolous, and gay >>

Thus you view something which started as a serious religious ritual 
to directly replace (by acting it out instead of doing it) an earlier
ritual that involved human sacrifice by being torn to bits,
cannibalism, and a sexual orgy. There's a reason Dionysus is the god
of theater.






From Nanagose at aol.com  Mon Mar 20 08:21:25 2006
From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 08:21:25 -0000
Subject: Maligning Lupin
In-Reply-To: <dvhkkf+f410@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvlom5+b18b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149832

> Pippin:
> Let me try an analogy. 
> 
> Suppose someone almost runs you over with his car. He admits
> he's a dangerous driver and says it must never happen again, 
> but he says nothing about the fact  that he'd been drinking
> or that  the accident allowed a murderer to escape.
> 
> Would you call that an adequate acknowledgment of his
> mistakes?

Christina:

Yes I would, as long as I knew that the driver had been drinking.  
Harry knows that Lupin didn't take his potion, and that that is the 
reason he endangered the children.  Taking responsibility for 
putting the children in danger is also indirectly taking 
responsibility for the method by which he put the children in danger.

And even if I didn't see it as a full apology, it wouldn't bother 
me.  I think Lupin has made his apology in many ways.  He certainly 
has never gotten an apology from Harry, who put five schoolmates and 
several key members of the Order in danger for ignoring direct 
instructions to learn Occlumency (from pretty much every adult in 
the book).


> Pippin:
> Lupin leaves Harry blaming himself for Peter's escape
> and blaming Snape for forcing Lupin out of a job that Lupin
> later acknowledges  he'd have had to leave anyway.

Christina:

Harry chooses who to blame.  Even after DD takes a portion of the 
blame for Sirius's death in OP, Harry still holds on to blaming 
Snape.  Harry blames himself for Cedric's death, even as others have 
told him not to.


> Pippin:
> I guess I didn't make myself clear. I meant that Lupin's 
> motivations for disabling his conscience don't matter in 
> determining the results. 
> 
> If you'll forgive another analogy, I've been known to disconnect 
> the smoke detector  when I broil a steak. Obviously it's not 
> because I want to be caught in a burning house. But if I don't 
> hook it up again when I'm finished, it could still happen. 
> 
> Lupin tells us he  still forgets his guilty feelings or finds 
> reasons to think they are unrealistic. In other words, he 
> disconnected his conscience because, like my smoke detector, it 
> was oversensitive.
> 
> Is it unreasonable to think he might have paid a price for that?

Christina:

I see a distinction between disconnecting one's conscience and 
pretending not to hear it.  That is, I don't think Lupin turned off 
his smoke detector - it's still there, blaring in the background.  
He's just going about his business despite it.  And as good as Lupin 
has gotten at ignoring his conscience, he still seems to have a good 
sense of right and wrong - he *can* hear it going off.  That seems 
to cause him grief ("...there was self-disgust in his voice...'I 
have been battling with myself...'") that I can't see him actively 
pursuing.  Contrast this with the twins, who sometimes don't even 
seem to understand when they are doing something wrong.

Lupin's conscience also leaks through at times.  He doesn't 
ignore his conscience in SWM enough to visibly enjoy the scene.  
Sirius also mentions that Lupin made them feel ashamed from time to 
time, suggesting that Lupin mentioned being uneasy about Sirius and 
James's bullying.


> Pippin:
> But Lupin does *not* see a twinge from his conscience as a reason 
> to immediately stop doing something.  That's a crack in his 
> defenses that someone as cunning as Voldemort could easily find a 
> way through. 

Christina:

Well, no, he doesn't.  But I see that as a relatively normal thing, 
which I why I see the reasons behind the actions as so important.  
For example, if someone has lied to keep their mother from worrying 
about them, or to keep the peace (ie, "do I look fat in this?"), I 
don't think that that necessarily means that they could join a 
terrorist organization and lie about their participation in it, or 
have an affair and keep it a secret from their spouse.  Lupin had 
reasons for ignoring his conscience, and ignoring those reasons is 
like saying that every person that tells lies is capable of telling 
*any* lie.  Lupin ignores his conscience only under certain 
situations, and not others.  If you want to predict whether he will 
ignore it in the future, it's necessary to look at the conditions 
under which he did it in the past.

I still also fail to see a clear motive - even if Lupin has the 
ability to put aside his conscience, he still needs quite a 
compelling reason to do so.


> Pippin:
> I'm afraid young Lupin's life post-Hogwarts wasn't as rosy as you 
> think. His school days were the happiest of his life. Then he 
> couldn't find paid work (did the word get out on the QT?)  Order
> members started dying, and his friends started thinking he might 
> be a spy.

Christina:

I certainly don't think it was rosy, but I also don't see Lupin as 
miserable.  He's certainly plenty poor when we see him in PoA, and 
he's surprisingly cheerful.  If anything, he seems to accept his lot 
in life with a fair amount of stride.  And Lupin's need to take off 
work for "sick days" may have been what made it difficult for him to 
keep a job (not his potential employers' discovery of his 
lycanthropy).


> Pippin:
> I don't know why James didn't say "Look, Padfoot old chum, I know 
> we're all on edge and  someone close to us is a traitor, but Moony 
> is no more a Death Eater than I am. I trust Remus Lupin 
> completely. And if you think otherwise, you've got a twig loose."
> 
>  Heaven knows, *I've* heard words to that effect often enough <g> 


Christina:

I don't see why James *would* have said those things, because I 
honestly don't blame him and Sirius for believing Lupin was the 
spy.  They acted completely logically.  James had three close 
friends, and somebody was handing information to Voldemort that only 
the people closest to James would have known.  James knows it isn't 
him.  He probably figures that Sirius is too emotional to hide 
something like that (and too filled with hatred for his family).  
That leaves Peter and Lupin...who would you suspect?  The two men 
probably went with a line of thinking much like yours..."he's lied 
to us before, we know he has it in him, being a werewolf is tough, 
etc..."  A few well-placed lies by the lovable Peter, and suddenly 
everyone is convinced.

Maybe you've heard words like that before, but I doubt they were in 
the context of protecting the lives of somebody's spouse and 
*child*.  Sirius and James aren't being paranoid, they are being 
practical.  James cannot afford to be nostalgic and emotional; he 
*knows* that there is somebody out to get him, and he must figure 
out who that person is.  His family depends on it.


>>> Pippin:
>>> But if Sirius died,  Dumbledore's precious trust could be
>>> preserved.

>> Christina: 
>> And you've lost me.  First of all, there's no need for Lupin to 
>> risk killing Sirius himself - the man is standing in front of a 
>> cursed veil, goading his insane murderer of a cousin.  Honestly, 
>> I don't think she needed any extra help.
 
> Pippin:
> Excuse me? What canon do we have that Bella had ever killed anyone?
> Crucio seems to be her specialty. Sirius was known to be a 
> formidable wizard and a clever warrior -- how on earth could Lupin 
> be sure that he would lose the duel? And then Sirius would 
> certainly ask Harry if the prophecy was safe, and Lupin would have 
> had some 'splainin' to do.

Christina:

Okay, his insane torturer of a cousin.  Whether she kills Sirius or 
Crucios him into incapacitation is immaterial.  The Longbottoms 
certainly aren't telling any tales.  She's evil and has no qualms 
about hurting others.  That was the point I was trying to make.

Sirius may have been a good wizard back in the day, but there wasn't 
really any reason for him to brush up on his skills while moping 
around GP - he wasn't supposed to leave the house.  And he obviously 
*wasn't* the wizard he used to be, if he got hit square in the chest 
in the DoM.

I'm still unclear on just how Sirius living would have hurt Lupin.  
If Sirius had inquired about the prophecy, Harry would have given 
him the same answer DD gave Harry when he asked about it himself -
 "It's fine, Sirius, DD was the one who heard it and he can remember 
it."  Of course, ESE!Lupin would never have had a problem if he 
just hadn't told Sirius about the prophecy in the first place, so 
I'm a bit confused as to why he would have done so.


>> Christina:
>> We can also assume that Lupin was going to allow Sirius to keep 
>> talking.  It is *Molly* who stops the flow of information. 

> Pippin:
> Since when has Sirius done what Molly wanted? It's *Lupin* who 
> shuts him up. "I think Molly's right, Sirius. We've said enough."

Christina:

It isn't who *made* Sirius shut up in the end, it's who wanted to 
stop him from speaking in the first place.  Lupin backs Molly up, 
but Sirius wouldn't have stopped talking if Molly hadn't said 
something in the first place.  Lupin didn't show any signs of 
wanting to stop him prior to that.


> Pippin:
> I doubt very much she knows any more, since Dumbledore lays
> such emphasis on the point that he and he alone could have 
> prevented Harry from going to the MoM.

Christina:

Dumbledore is the head of the Order, and he obviously has made it 
clear to his group that Harry is only to be told what he needs to 
know - hence the fight at the dinner table.  Therefore, since DD has 
control over what Harry knows, he and he alone could have prevented 
Harry from going to the MoM (by warning him that LV would try and 
lure him there).  And even then, DD doesn't emphasize the fact that 
he should have told Harry about the prophecy, he emphasizes the fact 
that he should have warned Harry about the LV's possible abuse of 
their mind connection.


> Pippin:
> You're telling me Remus is not emotional, but he expresses emotion
> all the time in the shack. He's tense, he turns pale, his voice
> shakes, his face hardens and his voice fills with self-disgust --
> but not over killing his old school friend Peter. 

Christina:

His face hardens and his voice is filled with self-disgust at the 
idea of keeping Sirius's Animagi form from Dumbledore.  If you are 
going to put importance on the fact that Lupin was unemotional while 
killing Peter, equal importance should be put on Lupin's statements 
of self-hatred for lying to Dumbledore.

When Sirius and Lupin decide to kill Peter, Lupin speaks "grimly," 
while Sirius grins about it.  Lupin's famous "good-bye" line to 
Peter was spoken "quietly," which IS an emotion.  It's quite 
different from Snape's gloating, just a few pages earlier.


> Pippin:
> The bottom line for you, I guess, is that you can't see Lupin 
> betraying the friends who did so much for him. What I see is that 
> Lupin did consider that he'd betrayed Dumbledore, who'd done so 
> much for him, for the sake of a good time with his friends. 
> If he could do that, betray a man who'd helped him so much just 
> for a lark, couldn't he betray his friends for the far nobler 
> cause of werewolf liberation? 

Christina:

In terms of Lupin's character, it isn't so much an objection to the 
possibility that he could betray his friends.  I just don't see the 
motivation.  I don't see Lupin's good time with his friends as 
a "lark."  I see it as a young boy finally discovering the joys of 
friendship and getting carried away with that.  

It isn't a matter of being for or against werewolf liberation.  Each 
side of the war has a different view of what "werewolf liberation" 
means.  For LV, it's giving the werewolves fresh meat and the 
ability to get revenge on wizardfolk.  For Dumbledore, it's 
providing the werewolves with education and jobs.  I think Lupin can 
tell the difference.  Also, I don't think Lupin would be stupid 
enough to fall for LV's claims of werewolf freedom when he's 
advocating discrimination aganist Muggleborns.  With the right 
motivation, I think anybody would go over to the Dark side; for 
Lupin, it would have to be something huge for him to turn his back 
upon the people that have made his life better, particularly 
considering that Lupin lacks a lot of the qualities that predispose 
one to being a DE - prejudiced pureblooded upbringing, a huge self-
preservation drive, love of power, a clique of Dark friends to lead 
him in, etc.  I can see somebody like Snape "falling in" to the Dark 
side just as a function of the natural path he was on.  I can see 
Peter Pettigrew deciding that LV was going to win and switching 
sides to save himself.  Lupin is much trickier.

The bottom line for me, theoretically, is that ESE!Lupin completely 
fails the litmus test I give to all theories - What questions does 
this theory answer?  ESE!Lupin gives the solutions to no mysteries 
and is exceedingly complex.  With just one book left, JKR must 
economize, and this theory just isn't elegant enough.  Add that to 
the fact that it's hard to explain away some of Lupin's actions (if 
it's so dangerous for Sirius to know about the prophecy, why did 
Lupin tell him in the first place?).  It's also thematically 
repetitive - we already have the bad guy who seemed to be so nice 
(Moody), the Marauder traitor, the big bad wolf.  Your brand of ESE!
Lupin also affords redemption for Peter (IIRC), which I find even 
more difficult to believe than the notion of ESE!Lupin itself.

Christina







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 19 21:24:49 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:24:49 -0000
Subject: Have Snape ever killed anybody before? WAS: Re: seeds of betrayal
In-Reply-To: <E1FL41A-0004hS-7o@smtpauth08.mail.atl.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <dvki71+c70q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149833

Carol earlier:
> 
> Yes. IMO, THAT Snape never killed before.
> 
> And as for the hatred required to power an AK, we don't really know
how the spell works since Harry, our POV character, has yet to cast
it, and self-hatred combined with revulsion at what he's expected, or
forced, to do (a la Harry in the cave) works better than mere
resentment of DD for failing to appreciate him (or whatever) to
explain the expression on Snape's face when he looks at DD but has yet
to raise his wand. It takes a second, pleading speech ("Severus,
please . . .") to make him "do the deed." <huge snip of arguments and
evidence here>
> 
> 
Sherry responded:
> 
> I just can't buy it.  Warm fuzzy innocent Sevvy, who never did a
mean bad thing at all in his life.  sorry, carol, I know well that you
don't think he's an innocent babe, but if contrary to what I hope and
believe, there is to be redemption for Snape, it's pretty diluted if
he's a poor misunderstood hero who never dirtied his hands. 
Dumbledore's murder doesn't count as dirtying his hands, if as so many
believe, he was doing it for some ridiculous notion of Dumbledore's
that it is somehow for the greater good to have him dead and Snape
alive.  The only way redemption for Snape can be emotionally
satisfying--which I doubt it can ever be--is if he really has done
terrible deeds that deserve redemption.  It diminishes all the DDM
Snape arguments, Dumbledore's unflinching trust and everything else,
if Snape never did any evil deed in his death eater days.  It makes
everything about him a kind of cheap dirty trick for me.  He's not a
cuddly bunny rabbit after all.  If he's truly had some kind of life
changing event that brought him back to DD and for which he
experienced genuine remorse, it only works for me, if he's done
something truly terrible.  I don't really buy the deaths of the
Potters as the single shattering event that turned him around. but
then, I don't buy Snape loving Lily.  The mere thought makes me
nauseated.  Sherry
>

Carol responds:
Just to be clear, we actually agree on several points here. I'm not
arguing "innocent Snape," and "warm, fuzzy Snape" exists only in
fanfic, if at all. I never said that Snape never did a "mean bad
thing" (he invented Sectum Sempra, for starters, not to mention that
he's sarcastic to his students and hates MWPP as passionately as
Sirius Black hates him.) And I don't buy Snape loving Lily any more
than you do. I think he was at Hogwarts when LV killed the Potters,
not at GH begging for her life. (As I keep arguing, "Stand aside,
girl" does not require Snape's involvement.) Nor do I buy the deaths
of the Potters as the single event that turned him around, since he
began spying for DD months, perhaps more than a year, before Godric's
Hollow. (I mentioned witnessing the murder of Regulus Black as one
possible trigger.) So we agree on a number of points. The problem is,
these are not the arguments that I made in my post, which you snipped
without answering. (Sorry, Sherry, but you seem to be arguing against
points I didn't make and wouldn't make. If you're assuming that
DDM!Snape requires these arguments, it's somebody else's version of
DDM!Snape, not mine.)

So let's look at what I actually did say (or imply). DE!Snape may have
brewed poisons that killed LV's enemies, perhaps invented some deadly
new spell, and, most likely, worked on potions that would help Voldie
to retain a strong and healthy body, without which his immortality was
useless. (Look what happened to Tithonus when Eos [Aurora] begged Zeus
to make him immortal but forgot to ask for eternal youth. A Voldie
reduced to shriveled helplessness will have a hard time ruling the
WW.) Voldie would have recognized and taken advantage of the young
Snape's unusual talents. (I speculate that Lucius Malfoy introduced
Severus to Voldie as his protege, hence "Lucius Malfoy's lapdog," but
that's neither here nor there.)

IOW, while I don't think young Snape directly killed or tortured
anybody (LV had other DEs who specialized in those jobs, not to
mention the "countless" people that Mulciber Imperio'd), I do think
Severus was doing important work for Voldie that no one else could do,
work that cannot be classified as "innocent" by any defiintion of that
term. If so, he di indeed have more to be remorseful for than merely
revealing the Prophecy to LV and being indirectly responsible for the
Potters' deaths, though that's clearly the most important sin in his
own mind and Dumbledore's. If he had murdered or tortured anyone,
wizard or Muggle, surely neither he nor DD would dismiss that crime as
being less important than the Potters' deaths. Yet it's the Potters,
especially James and Harry, with whom Snape is apparently obsessed,
and the Potters whose peril (thanks to his role as eavesdropper)
triggered Snape's remorse, at least according to Dumbledore.

And, again, there's clear evidence that Voldemort took advantage of
his minions' strengths and talents (even offering Macnair more
challenging work than slaughtering beasts for the MoM) and that young
Snape was a prodigy and a genius. Voldie would have been a fool to
send him out to torture Muggles when he could be figuring out a way to
use snake venom or dragon's blood to help to immunize Voldie's body
against aging and other forms of bodily corruption.

There is, at any rate, no solid evidence to indicate that Snape killed
anyone before the events on the tower, and there *is* solid evidence
that he has many useful skills, from creating a curtain of fire that
can only be crossed by someone who has drunk a particular potion to
healing a terrible Dark curse of his own invention. A Voldie who used
Snape as he used a thug like Crabbe or Goyle (Sr.) would be an utter fool.

And I do think that killing Dumbledore counts as "dirtying his hands"
even though he was trapped into it, and it's certainly one of the sins
for which he needs to be forgiven by Harry is Harry (who is, we agree,
the hero) is to save the WW by setting aside hatred and anger and
using Love to destroy LV. So I disagree about redemption not being
needed for Snape's worst (and, IMO, most deeply regretted) sin.

Carol, pleading innocent to the charge of believing in LOLLIPOPS or
"warm, fuzzy Snape," and noting that the points and evidence I
actually presented can be found upthread 







From hickengruendler at yahoo.de  Mon Mar 20 12:15:31 2006
From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 12:15:31 -0000
Subject: Have Snape ever killed anybody before? WAS: Re: seeds of betrayal
In-Reply-To: <dvki71+c70q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvm6d3+h7on@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149834

 
> Carol wrote:
>snip>
Nor do I buy the deaths
> of the Potters as the single event that turned him around, since he
> began spying for DD months, perhaps more than a year, before 
Godric's
> Hollow.  

Hickengruendler:

I know that this was not the main point of your post. I snipped the 
rest with which I pretty much agree (except that I do think, that 
Snape/Lily is a realistic possibility) and wanted to concentrate on 
this part, because I thought about it. The thing is, Harry's theory 
(or his interpretation of Dumbledore's words), which he presented in 
the Hospital Wing after Dumbledore's death is wrong. Definitely and 
without a doubt. 

Here's the quote again just as a reminder: "...Then Snape told 
Dumbledore he hadn't realised what he was doing, he was really sorry 
he'd done it, sorry that they were dead."

Well, the first two parts might very well be true, no matter on which 
side Snape is, but the last one certainly is not, as Carol already 
mentioned in the quote above. Snape cannot have shown regret for 
James' and Lily's death because at the time he went to Dumbledore 
James and Lily weren't dead. Not to mention, that he worked as a spy. 
And no matter on which side he is, he started spying when Voldemort 
was still around. He even told Bella and Narcissa that he went to 
Hogwarts on Voldemort's orders, which I think is the truth (except 
that Voldemort didn't realise for whom Snape was really spying and 
that it was merely an excellent exuse for Snape to be near Dumbledore 
and giving him informations without Tom realising it). Anyway, 
Bellatrix and Narcissa certainly would have known if Snape started in 
Hogwarts after after Voldemort became Vapormort and would confronted 
him on this lie if it were one. Therefore it's a fact that Snape went 
to Dumbledore *before* James and Lily died and therefore regret 
because of their deaths (no matter if genuine or fake regret) could 
hardly have been the reason Snape presented Dumbledore. He could have 
shown regret for putting their lives in danger, yes, but not for 
their deaths. 

Therefore Harry's interpretation is wrong and I wonder, why JKR wrote 
it that way. I mean, as it is, it can hardly be seen as a last word 
on the subject, because of a glaring factual error. (And I mean a 
really big one, much bigger than some unimportant Weasley or Black 
birth dates). Not to mention, that it would only have been necessary 
to change the last part of the sentence to avoid this error. While I 
wouldn't totally rule it out (Jo did screw up with the Priori 
Incantatem in GoF, but nonetheless genereally she has planned it out 
very well), I currently do think that she wrote this on purpose, so 
that we question Harry's statement, instead of merely taking it as a 
fact like the others in the Hospital Wing did. What I do know for 
sure is it that those were Harry's words and not Dumbledore's, who 
did not mention anything about Snape showing regret for James' and 
Lily's *death*. 

Which brings us back to the spy who told Dumbledore, that the 
Potter's lives were in danger (and finally to the real reason for my 
post, a theory *why* Dumbledore exactly trusted Snape). In the long 
wait before OotP it was a widely speculated theory, that this spy was 
Snape. I believed it then and I still do. And with Dumbledore's 
statement about Snape coming to him showing remorse I guess it is as 
good as canon. In fact, it's possible to have Snape being loyal to 
Voldemort or OFH and still him being the spy, who gave this 
information. What I want to know, however, is, why Dumbledore still 
needed this? He heard the full prophecy, he realised that either the 
Potters or the Longbottoms were in danger and he probably did 
eevrything trying to save both families (I hope). Therefore the 
information Snape gave him (or even if it wasn't Snape, there's 
definitely a spy who told this Dumbledore) must have been, that 
Voldemort chose Harry instead of Neville. Because everything else 
Dumbledore already knew, and more than this, both Snape and Voldemort 
knew, that Dumbledore knew. That means it hardly could have been a 
complot between them like: "Well, just go to Hogwarts, Snape, and 
tell Dumbledore some information about that Potter boy being in 
danger. So this way you will be able to win his trust". Dumbledore's 
answer probably would have been: "Well, I thought so, Severus. If you 
remember, I heard the prophecy". The only valuable information 
Dumbledore did not possess at this time was Voldemort's decision 
between Harry and Neville. And maybe this informationw as it, that 
made Snape gaining Dumbledore's trust. 

My theory is, that Voldemort chose Harry and Snape was horrified, 
because James saved his life/he was secretly in love with Lily/Lily 
was decent to him in school/add whichever reason you prefer, and 
tried everything to protect the Potters. Then Voldemort could somehow 
have feeded Dumbledore false information, to make him believe that it 
was baby Neville, who was in danger. This could have triggered 
Snape's decision to go to Dumbledore, telling him, which infant 
*really* needed protection. Snape's information turned out to be 
correct, making Dumbledore trust him completely. By the way, this 
interpretation is IMO even possible, if Snape is OFH, without making 
Dumbledore looking to much like an old fool.

Hickengruendler  






From belviso at attglobal.net  Mon Mar 20 16:05:00 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:05:00 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV/When did Draco Imperius
In-Reply-To: <dvlim1+lqn7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvmjrd+ajj7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149835

eggplant:
> By the way I notice nobody tackled my question, "did Dumbledore 
know
> about the vow?". I don't blame you, if I was a Snape lover I 
wouldn't
> want to tackle it either; one answer makes Snape look evil, the
> opposite answer makes Dumbledore look like an imbecile.

Magpie:
If it comes to a vote I think I've always been open about saying 
that yes, I think Dumbledore knew about the vow.  I just don't think 
I'll have an answer on what his exact thoughts were on it or what 
his plan was, exactly, until Book VII when I think we'll be told and 
understand.

I think whatever he was thinking was something he thought was the 
best way to save all those millions of people around the world AND 
Draco Malfoy.  In fact, I suspect the fact that Dumbledore would 
never consider Draco a piece of stinking excrement is part of what 
makes him stronger than Voldemort and his side stronger than the 
DEs.  But I seem to remember your bringing up another fantasy series 
that made no apology about having compassion, especially compassion 
for the "unworthy" as the key to victory and iirc you adamantly 
rejected it there, so it's not impossible you won't get the kind of 
resolution you despise.  Any of us could.

Also, I need to fix just a couple of sentences in my other post that 
have typos that change or obscure the meaning:

Magpie:
I don't think this is like Snape where there's some question as to 
whether DD guessed right about Draco's character.  If Dumbledore was 
wrong about Draco's being a killer, he'd kill him.

That should read: If Dumbledore was wrong about Draco's being a 
killer he'd be killed by him.

Magpie:
We're talking about sending poison wine and a cursed necklace, not 
repairing the cabinet. Draco can do both of those things without 
murdering anyone--as he does.  He's thrilled at fixing the cabinet--
and yet not killing Dumbledore.

The "both those things" is supposed to refer to fixing the cabinet 
and creating communicating coins.  It sounds here like I mean the 
wine and the necklace, which of course are much more deadly by 
definition.

-m



-m







From R.Vink2 at chello.nl  Mon Mar 20 16:27:24 2006
From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:27:24 -0000
Subject: Maligning Lupin
In-Reply-To: <dvhkkf+f410@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvml5c+bm7s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149836

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:
>
> Pippin:
> 
> There are many Muggleborns and halfbloods who should
> understand that human fallibility, exacerbated by poverty and
> discrimination, can precipitate crime and terrorism without 
> any help from Dark Magic or mind-altering diseases. Those
> people are going to have more influence once Voldemort is 
> defeated, or so I hope.

Renee:
What makes you hope so? Voldemort was believed to be gone for fourteen
years, yet we've heard nothing about any Muggleborn wizards or
halfbloods breaking a lance for werewolves or any other
oppressed/shunned/mistreated minorities during this time.
 
Pippin: 
> As for the Trio, they've got Bill. 

Renee:
Bill is not a full werewolf; he doesn't transform and probably won't
be considered a big threat to society. But even if he were to suffer
prejudice, he can't serve as an example of carrying on and remaining a
decent guy for years despite very unfavourable circumstances. He was
bitten too recently for that.   

 
> Renee:
>  We also read that werewolves are contstantly shunted between the
> Beast and Being department of the Ministry. To me, this says they're
> considered to be different.
> 
> Pippin:
> The educated opinion about werewolves is that they're human,
> FBAWTFT tells us so, and that's a ministry approved text. 
> 
> My thought is the tug of war between the Beast and Being divisions is
> mostly logistical. The Beasts folks would have all the staff and
> equipment they need to deal with transformed werewolves, so why
> duplicate it in Beings? The Beings folks would counter that 
> werewolves, being human, deserve a sensitivity to their needs 
> which the Beasts folks don't have. 
> 
> Bottom line, it's a rare bureaucrat that'd vote to make his
> department smaller.<g>

Renee:
True enough! 

All the same it would be a problem to have the Werewolf Capture Unit
resort under the Beings division, because this unit does deal with
beasts/dark creatures. Werewolves may be human most of the time, but
every once in a while they are murderous beasts, even according to
Scamander. (Or else they'd have nothing to seek in a book about
Fantastic *Beasts*.) That's enough to make them different in the eyes
of the WW.      

Also, Scamander's text may be Ministry approved, this didn't prevent
Umbridge from issuing laws that deprive werewolves of the basic human
right of employment. Umbridge works for the Ministry. Apparently no
one there stopped her, so it seems the `educated opinion' carries
little weight against the prevailing prejudice.   

Pippin
>  he'd betrayed Dumbledore, who'd done so much for him,
> for the sake of a good time with his friends. 
> 
> If he could do that, betray a man who'd helped him so much just for a 
> lark,   couldn't he betray his friends for the far nobler cause of 
> werewolf liberation? 
> 

Renee:
You're comparing apples and oranges here by calling them both round
fruits. Lupin did not betray Dumbledore into the hands of his enemies.
So why would he betray his friends to Voldemort? 

Renee
   






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Mar 20 16:54:30 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:54:30 -0000
Subject: Maligning Lupin
In-Reply-To: <dvlom5+b18b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvmmo6+i9be@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149837

Christina:
> Sirius may have been a good wizard back in the day, but there wasn't 
> really any reason for him to brush up on his skills while moping 
> around GP - he wasn't supposed to leave the house.  And he obviously 
> *wasn't* the wizard he used to be, if he got hit square in the chest 
> in the DoM.

Pippin:
Sirius was still in the fight when trained aurors Alistor and Tonks
were down. I'd say he was giving a good account of himself.
 Sirius wasn't expecting an ambush by Lupin and wouldn't have seen 
what he was doing in time to save himself. That's why he was able to 
duck the first jet of light and not the second. IMO, of course.

Christina:
> I'm still unclear on just how Sirius living would have hurt Lupin.  
> If Sirius had inquired about the prophecy, Harry would have given 
> him the same answer DD gave Harry when he asked about it himself -
>  "It's fine, Sirius, DD was the one who heard it and he can remember 
> it."  Of course, ESE!Lupin would never have had a problem if he 
> just hadn't told Sirius about the prophecy in the first place, so 
> I'm a bit confused as to why he would have done so.

Pippin:
As for why Lupin told him, their whole relationship was based on 
shared secrets. 

But  Sirius blurted out his knowledge of the prophecy 
in front of a roomfull of  people. The cat was out of the bag as far
as he was concerned, He wouldn't see any reason not to explain why
he thought the prophecy had to be kept safe at the risk of Harry's life. 
If that idea came from Lupin, Lupin might find it difficult to account
for. 

> Christina:
> 
> In terms of Lupin's character, it isn't so much an objection to the 
> possibility that he could betray his friends.  I just don't see the 
> motivation.  I don't see Lupin's good time with his friends as 
> a "lark."  I see it as a young boy finally discovering the joys of 
> friendship and getting carried away with that.  
> 
> It isn't a matter of being for or against werewolf liberation.  Each 
> side of the war has a different view of what "werewolf liberation" 
> means.  For LV, it's giving the werewolves fresh meat and the 
> ability to get revenge on wizardfolk.  For Dumbledore, it's 
> providing the werewolves with education and jobs.  I think Lupin can 
> tell the difference. 

Pippin:
I don't think the werewolves are divided into good people and
Voldemort supporters.

In any case, Dumbledore hasn't been able to do much to provide the
werewolves with education and jobs. You're saying you don't
understand why a well-educated young man who has been
treated well by individuals but finds there's no hope of ever being
more than a second class citizen  would turn 
to terrorism, and I'm saying that's absolutely the history of 
terrorist groups. 

Cheerful and resigned to his lot is the Uncle Tom stereotype.
It's hollow and demeaning and I'll be surprised if JKR doesn't
point that out in the end.

Christina:
 Also, I don't think Lupin would be stupid 
> enough to fall for LV's claims of werewolf freedom when he's 
> advocating discrimination aganist Muggleborns.  

Pippin:
::shrug:: To paraphrase Arthur, when you're dealing with a witch 
like Umbridge, sometimes you have to join forces with people 
you'd rather avoid.

 The US supported Stalinist Russia during WWII. It
wasn't because all Americans thought Stalinism was a good idea.
But there were people, intelligent well-educated brilliant people,
who did think  Stalinism was a good idea, and spied for the Soviet 
Union, because they thought anyone who opposed Fascism couldn't 
be all bad. They told themselves what they were hearing about 
anti-Semitism, gulags and purges was lies.

Lupin was naive enough not to believe what he'd heard about Fenrir. 
Maybe he was naive enough not to believe what he'd heard about 
Voldemort too. He'd find out the truth, I expect, just as he 
eventually realized that James was a bully. We know what he did
about that. 


Christina:
> The bottom line for me, theoretically, is that ESE!Lupin completely 
> fails the litmus test I give to all theories - What questions does 
> this theory answer? 

Pippin:
Why did Snape enter the tunnel? Why was Snape so convinced
that Lupin was part of a plot to murder him?

How did Peter Pettigrew elude Albus Dumbledore, who
knew someone close to the Potters was  a spy? 

Why didn't James want Dumbledore to be his secret keeper?

Why did Sirius think that Lupin was the spy, and why
did James go along with not telling Lupin about the secret 
keeper switch?

Who sent the Lestranges after the Longbottoms?

Who killed the unicorns? Who was the stranger Hagrid met in the
Hogs Head?

Why couldn't JKR tell us why the diary plot  would have
made present day Voldemort stronger?

Why is there an anvil-sized  hint that Lupin is an occlumens?

Why was Lupin so willing to kill Peter Pettigrew, when it
is against the philosophy of the Order to kill DE's who
have given themselves up? Why does he show more 
emotion at the thought of losing Dumbledore's trust
than at killing a helpless man who is begging for his life?

Why does the  moon appear and disappear 
 *before* Lupin transforms? Why did JKR give an evasive
answer when asked whether Lupin transformed inside the shack?
She's usually  willing to admit it when she just flubbed up.

What drove Peter Pettigrew to return to Voldemort and
forced him to stay when he wavered in his loyalty?

How are Order members once again being picked off one by one?

And thematically the biggest mystery of all-- how do we 
tell when remorse is genuine?

The authors of the Talmud say that the true test of
remorse is when you face the same temptation and
don't repeat your sin. That sounds like a good test to me. 
So far, Lupin has failed.


Pippin






From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 20 18:55:05 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 18:55:05 -0000
Subject: Crookshanks/Snape/Werewolves-Lupin/DEs&TMR/Chapter12/Fidelius/LotsMoreStuff
In-Reply-To: <dvlluu+5la6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvmtq9+klst@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149838

Catlady:
> << I would not now be surprised to learn that Dumbledore is the 
first
> man Snape has ever, personally, killed. >>
> 
> Consider Dumbledore's statement and Draco's demonstraction that
> 'Killing is not nearly as easy as the innocent believe' (in which I
> understand 'innocent' to mean being virgin of killing, not to mean
> having an pure soul and untarnished heart). Then consider making a
> plan which depends upon your guy, who has never killed before, 
killing
> someone. Killing someone he loves and is supported by. Isn't that a
> bit of a gamble about whether your guy will turn out to be as far 
from
> being a killer as young Draco is?

zgirnius:
Oh, I think he's a lot closer than Draco is. (And I don't insist 
Snape is 'innocent' in this sense. Just saying that, for the first 
time, it would be credible to me after the revelations of HBP. His 
extremely bloody-minded behavior in PoA has taken on a different cast 
to me, and it was always the reason I had previously assumed Snape 
would as soon kill someone he dislikes as look at them.)

I am not, incidentally, a believer that there was a plan for Snape to 
kill Dumbledore. So I can add your argument to my list of reasons. It 
works reasonably well even if Snape *has* killed, and now has deep 
and sincere remorse about it. Or, at least, Dumbledore, the maker of 
the hypothetical plan, *believes* this.







From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Mon Mar 20 18:56:21 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 18:56:21 -0000
Subject: Voldemort & the UV
In-Reply-To: <dvl2aq+v887@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvmtsl+d7lt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149839

Betsy Hp:
> But here's the interesting thing, Narcissa is motivated by love in 
> Spinner's End.  She's is going to great lengths to protect a son
> she loves.  Narcissa doesn't go to Snape out of hate, she goes to
> him out of love.  Honestly, I think her actions fit neatly into 
> Voldemort's blind spot. (But not Dumbledore's.)

Jen: She also asked someone else to vow to help Draco or die. Now 
that seems like dark magic Voldemort could understand, unlike the 
ancient magic of Lily. I don't think JKR is going for opposites here 
though, Narcissa is in a much different situation from Lily. Her 
deperation leads her to manipulate someone else though, something 
Voldemort is a master at. 

In fact, I've been wondering. The Unbreakable Vow sounds like 
something Voldemort might require of his DE's. It would explain 
that 'lifetime of service or death' comment by Sirius and perhaps if 
RAB is indeed Regulus, why he knew he die when writing that note. It 
doesn't really explain how a DDM!Snape wouldn't be dead though or 
how Dumbledore could trust him, unless Dumbledore were somehow able 
to intervene. You'd think Snape would have dropped dead the moment 
he started talking to Dumbledore though, if under a UV. Hmmm. Still, 
you would have more canon for Evil!Twins, Betsy, if it were true<g>.

Betsy Hp:
> Hmm, I agree that Voldemort is the main villain, and his
> destruction will signal the end of the game.  However, I *do* 
> think Snape is a more important character than Voldemort.  In a 
> sense, I'd almost label Snape as Harry's main antagonist.  There's 
> certainly a more personal connection there.  We also have more of 
> Snape's story to learn, while JKR has told us all about Voldemort.
> I also get the sense that by understanding Snape, Harry will 
> better understand himself.  So yeah, I'm thinking book 7 will be 
> *very* Snape-heavy, with Voldemort as more of a supporting role.
> Voldemort will be the device that moves the plot along and
> throws in fun little complications.  Tom's tale has been told.  I 
> think his story is basically over, except for the screaming. <g>


Jen: But...but...there's the scar connection, the horcruxes! You 
don't think that stuff is going somewhere? I think we have all the 
backstory on Voldemort, unless there's some place he hid a horcrux 
during the time he was off the radar. Not placing bets on that one, 
though.

There's backstory on Snape to come, yeah, I'm just having a hard 
time imagining the logistics to give him face time in the present. 
Unless JKR is going outside Harry's POV frequently. With Voldemort, 
he's out in the open now and will be even more so with DD gone. I 
suspect Harry will get news of him fairly readily. Not to mention 
the possibilty of Harry getting information about him personally, 
via the scar connection (say if H. realizes he has the power of 
Legilimency passed to him by LV and can get around Voldemort's 
Occlumency). That scar is a good narrative device, offering an 
unusual perspective and I don't think JKr is done with that one 
yet.  

Jen R., who may also be influenced at the moment by young people in 
her life, one who read HBP and declared, "I knew Snape was bad, but 
not *that* bad" and her own son who said after reading Spinner's 
End: "Mom, I think Snape just cares about himself." What's a mostly 
DDM!Snape mom to do?!?







From brahadambal at indiatimes.com  Mon Mar 20 10:18:27 2006
From: brahadambal at indiatimes.com (latha279)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 10:18:27 -0000
Subject: Godric's Hollow
Message-ID: <dvlvhj+ujmj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149840

Hello ppl,

I don't know if this has been asked and discussed before. Although,I 
have seen posts asking and discussing about what happened to or how 
PP came to have Voldy's wand and maybe robes - I have not found much 
being asked about his body itself!

The AV doesn't destroy the the body to the extent that it can't be 
seen, right? We are always left with a body behind. But in GH, till 
date, there has not been any mention of James', Lily's or Voldy's 
body! Why? what happened then? 

We do understand from the interviews that there was someone else 
there. The question is not who, but what did this other person do 
after Voldy's seventh soul-piece was separated from his body? His 
body would still have been there, just like the diary, albeit dead. 
So what happened to his original body? why couldn't he have possessed 
the body itself instead of wandering in the forests of Albania as 
something lesser than a ghost?

Hope we get off discussing Snapey for sometime. Am a DDM!Snaper, but 
still, too much of anything can cause some indigestion! :)

Brady.








From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Mon Mar 20 20:12:05 2006
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 12:12:05 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Portkey in GOF - Logistics - Perspective
In-Reply-To: <dvd2ei+dhap@eGroups.com>
References: <700201d40603151652o3c09101ay30e26d616366c86b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <dvd2ei+dhap@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <700201d40603201212x31777c67h11f6088f7d98368b@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149841

 > Earlier Kemper responded to bboyminn:
> > He doesn't even want to take over the British WW, what makes you
> > think he wants to take over the world?!  He had opportunity as a
> > young man to go into politics but didn't take it.  He could've
> > changed things from the inside to become Emperor someday ... but
> > he chose differently.  Your despots went this route, but the
> > Voldemort you see hasn't.
> >
>
> bboyminn responded back:
>
> He doesn't want to take over the British WW? Really? Then what is this
> all about? Why is he doing the things he's doing? Just a rabble-rouser
> or malcontent?
>
> Clearly, Voldemort wants to take over. Characters in the book have
> impied as much several times. JKR has said it herself. While his short
> term goal is to take over the British wizard world, power hungry
> deranged men like this are seldom satisfied, so I don't think it is
> such a great leap to think that his long range goal is world
> domination (ala-Pinky and the Brain). He may not achieve it, but I
> have no doubt that he intends to extend his influence as far and wide
> as he possibly can.
>

Kemper Now:
Yes, other wizards/witches have talked about him gaining control, but of
what?  Definitely not the government.  Which isn't to say that there wasn't
any influence, but far from a coup. I think it's more important to him to
bring about a Dark Order, as a creedo for one's life.  I believe Voldemort
wants to influence the world, like Christ, more than he wants to control the
world like Ceasar.

JKR says that if Voldemort looked in the Mirror of Esired, he would see
himself as all-powerful and eternal.  I suppose with a narrow view to what
'all-powerful' means you would be left with 'world domination'.  But if
you broaden your scope to take in other possible definitions, it would
include 'the omnicient, almighty, supreme being'.

So do you think he would rather rule the world and be less than magically
superior, or would he rather be the most omnicient, almighty, supreme
magical being?

 > > Steve continues:
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, Voldemort is secretive, but that doesn't eliminate the
> > > fact that he is an egomaniacal megalomaniac. ...
> > >
> > > If that isn't pure theater on the world stage, then I don't
> > >know what is.
> > >
> ...
>
> > > ...One quick look at the 'Evil Overlords Handbook' would show
> > > them the folly of their ways, but it would make for very dull
> > > stories.
> > >
> >
> > Kemper responded:
> > I'm saying that Voldemort, though narcisistic, isn't an attention
> > whore.  You're saying he is.
> > ...
> > ...  I'm argueing your belief that it is Voldemort a drama queen
> > more than an Evil Overlord.
>
> bboyminn then:
>
> Ahhh... now we are at the heart of it. ... I am attempting to find a
> balanced view of the nature of
> Voldemort's attention seeking.
>
> Yes, both Voldemort and Osama are somewhat recluses. ... But
> great and terrible deeds are done in their name and at their bidding,
> and Voldemort has created a name that is so feared it is never or
> rarely spoken. It's hard to accept that that level of self-inflicted
> notoriety is not 'attention seeking'.
>

Kemper now:
I'm sure you mean 'or' at their bidding.
But great and terrible things have been in Jesus' name as well.  People who
allow the darkness within them to take over are going to say whatever to
make their actions 'right' if immoral.  I have a hard time believe bin Laden
or Voldemort micromanage every acts: scare tactics and muggle baiting, so
long as their ideology is promoted.

 bboyminn continues:  One does not actively and aggressively work to make
> one's name known
> and fear as the most great, powerful, and terrible wizard in the
> world, if one is a true recluse.
>

Kemper now:
I don't think we have enough info to suggest that Voldemort made it a
mandate for all his followers to call him the Dark Lord over Lord
Voldemort.  To me, it sounds like years ago someone may have started calling
him Dark Lord as a sycophant act and then others took it up thereby making
the sobriquet ingrained into the DE culture.  Voldemort did nothing to
dissuade others because it works to his image, but is that a
passive/aggressive, attention-whore move or merely public relations?


> > Kemper concluded:
> >
> > I worked out Voldemort's reason to wait til the third task
> > instead of  earlier as follows:
> > he wanted to return to Hogwarts with his Death Eaters using the
> > portkey for a multiple-school ... massacre that would leave the
> > WW emotionally lost and dark.
> > That isn't theater, that's terror.
>
> bboyminn wraps up:
>
> As others have already established Terror is precisely grand theater
> on the 'world stage'.
>
> As far as your proposed 'captuure Harry' scenario, I responded to it
> as far as you took it. As far as you took it, it was flawed. Now that
> you've taken it a little farther, it is in the realm of possibility.
> That is unless you are playing on the world stage.
>
> For Harry to simply randomly disappear, or even to disappear from of
> Moody's office, creates too slow and too soft a response on the world
> stage (ie: in the media). For him to disappear at a major high profile
> event, in front of the Ministry, Dumbledore, and the world, that plays
> much better and induces much greater fear when it play so vividly on
> the world stage.
>

Kemper now:
Having Harry die a martyr in front of all would not be as scary as Harry
disappearing without a trace.  But as I said earlier, I'm not disputing
JKR's sense of story.  She's a master storyteller, and I'm not lame (winks
at Carol) enough to think otherwise.

Kemper, adding scope and perspective to the discussion and who appreciates
steve for bringing the funny into the discussion when he compared the Death
Eaters and Voldemort to the WB's Pinky and the Brain.


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




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 20 20:38:13 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:38:13 -0000
Subject: Werewolves and prejudice (Was: Maligning Lupin)
In-Reply-To: <dvml5c+bm7s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvn3rl+5jn1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149842

Renee wrote:
<snip>
> Also, Scamander's text may be Ministry approved, this didn't prevent
Umbridge from issuing laws that deprive werewolves of the basic human
right of employment. Umbridge works for the Ministry. Apparently no
one there stopped her, so it seems the `educated opinion' carries
little weight against the prevailing prejudice.
   
Carol responds:

Having tried to figure out Lupin and failed, I'll try the more general
topic of werewolves.

It seems to me that the prejudice against werewolves is based on a
very real, natural, and *justified* fear of werewolves in their
transformed state. I don't see it as analogous to fear of people with
a disability or an incurable but noncontagious disease since those
fears are irrational. It's more like the fear of lepers that caused
them to be isolated to leper colonies except that werewolves are only
dangerous one day out of 28. And while they are just human beings
(perhaps with psychological or economic problems as a result of their
condition) most of the time, they really dangerous beasts one day (or
night) a month. 

It is not enough, IMO, to educate the wizarding public about
werewolves. Dumbledore could teach Hagrid how to approach the giants
(another dangerous group against whom the natural prejudice is
perfectly understandable), not removing the danger but mimimizing it,
but not even the best educated wizard could reason with a transformed
werewolf because the transformed werewolf is no longer a being but a
beast.

It's equally important to educate the werewolves as well, to qualify
them for employment and prevent them from becoming a criminal
population, increasing and seemingly justifying the natural prejudice.
 Maybe Hogwarts could have a werewolf ward, where student werewolves
went to transform on full moon nights. But they would need to have
Wolfsbane Potion, which apparently has to be served hot out of the
cauldron, to do so safely and painlessly. (I'm guessing that if Snape
can brew Wolfsbane Potion, Slughorn can, or he can learn to do so
despite his innate laziness. He certainly knows that it exists and
admires its maker.) 

Until werewolves have the basic human right of education, the basic
human right of employment really isn't an option. And until the safety
of their fellow students and the Hogwarts staff can be insured, child
werewolves will continue to be rejected by all but the most tolerant
parents. (I really don't understand why parents don't homeschool their
werewolf children and provide them with a safe place to transform, but
apparently that's not the case.) And Werewolf's Potion must be made
available on prescription from St. Mungo's or the local Potions Shop,
which would operate more or less like a pharmacy in the U.S. or a
chemist's shop in Muggle Britain.

It seems to me that until all these measures are in place, the
prejudice against werewolves cannot be eradicated and their abject
condition will continue, with very few Lupins able to "pass" in wizard
society until their condition is revealed. It isn't just a matter of
changing the laws. It's a matter of recognizing a very real social
problem and finding a way to deal with it that's both humane to the
werewolves and safe for the general population.

Carol, suspecting that Lupin has run raging through more than one full
moon night and returned to human form fearing that this time he's
bitten someone; this time he's ruined a life by creating someone like
himself






From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 20 22:08:33 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 22:08:33 -0000
Subject: What happened to Snapes Mum and Dad?
Message-ID: <dvn951+3dnk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149843

I don't think we have ever discussed this before.  Snape is a young 
man, his parents should still be alive. Where are they?  I get the 
impression that they are dead and that he is living in what was once 
their house.  

What happened to them? Did LV kill them? Did Bella? Did Snape come 
home from Hogwarts to find his father abusing his mother and he 
couldn't take it any more. His father is a Muggle. Snape picked up the 
pure-blood ideology of Slytherin house. Is it possible that our dear 
beloved Snape has something in common with Tom Riddle?

Thoughts anyone??







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 20 22:48:49 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 22:48:49 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV/Have Snape ever killed anybody?
In-Reply-To: <dvkh74+u0ru@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvnbgh+e3o4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149844

Carol earlier:
*Wormtail*
> > would have told LV back in VW1 that Black was an Order member. If
he didn't tell LV then that Black was an Animagus (and the form he
took) then, he certainly would have done so when he explained his
return to Voldemort at the end of PoA.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Why would he have done so? <snip> But of course we don't
> know what Wormtail told Voldemort, so my only contention of your
> speculation is to word "certainly". Could you refer me to relevant
> canon?
> 
Carol responds:
Absolutely. Sirius arrives at this conclusion himeslf:

"Because the Ministry of Magic's still after me, and Voldemort will
know all about me being an Animagus by now, Wormtail will have told
him, so my big disguise is useless. There's not much I can do for the
Order of the Phoenix ... or so Dumbledore feels." (OoP chapter 5)

Now granted, Sirius doesn't know this to be a fact, but it's a
reasonable assumption. He knows Wormtail very well, for one thing. For
another, we know that Voldemort thoroughly questioned Snape after
Snape's return (on DD's orders) at the end of GoF. He even thoroughly
questioned Bertha Jorkins, to the point of breaking her mind, and she
wasn't even a DE. Voldemort wants every shred of information
available, and he would have interrogated Wormtail to find out the
circumstances under which he returned. And since Peter, AFWK, is not
an Occlumens, he would have had a very hard time shutting out the
image of Black as an Animagus when he told the tale. In addition,
Black is a known enemy, and Voldemort would want every scrap of
information about him. IMO, there's no reason to question Sirius's
statement, which is not contradicted by anything in canon; it's JKR's
way of telling us what happened.

But since it's the word "certainly" you're objecting to, how about
"almost certainly" or "probably"?

Carol:
>   *Kreacher* told the Malfoys that Sirius Black was the one person
that Harry cared enough about to save, and the plan was to make Harry
think that LV held Black captive to lure *Harry* to the MoM. The Order
members, including Black, weren't supposed to be there. Snape told
Black *not* to go to the MoM, but Black chose to disregard him and
ordered Kreacher to wait for DD instead. Black carelessly taunted
Bellatrix as they fought near the Veil and she sent him through it.
Where does Snape fit in? What could he have told LV that he [LV]
didn't already know?
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Where does Snape fit in? Let's say he went to Voldemort's or Malfoys
EARLIER than Kreacher did and first alerted Malfoys as to bond of love
existing between Sirius and Harry, or alerted Voldemort of such bond
earlier than Kreacher. Considering that Snape confirms that he played
a part of Sirius death, I consider that to be more than speculation,
but canon supported argument.

Carol:
The problem is, you're ignoring canon here. We *know* that Kreacher
went to the Malfoys and that he told DD about the Sirius/Harry
connection. Having Snape do so as well is not only uncanonical, it's
redundant.

Snape doesn't "confirm" that he had a part in Sirius Black's death, he
only states it to convince Bellatrix that he's done something other
than "slithering out of action." Quite possibly he *did* provide
information, but it must have been information that can't otherwise be
accounted for. There's no point in his revealing what Wormtail could
have revealed a year earlier or what Kreacher confesses to. And that
information need not have actually contributed to Black's death, which
would have been prevented if he'd followed Snape's advice and stayed
home; Snape just wants Bella to think that it did (while still
claiming most of the "credit" herself).

About the only piece of information that LV would not have known
without Snape's help is Black's return to England after his escape on
Buckbeak, which Snape would have discovered when Black transformed in
front of him right before Snape returned to LV at the end of GoF. This
bit of information would have been timely and new and would have
helped to support the story that Snape had already prepared ("if you
are ready . . . .if you are prepared") by providing seemingly
important information on a member of the newly reconstituted Order.
(Actually, the information was useless because Snape didn't know
Black's hiding place at the time, and when he did learn it, he could
not reveal it because of the Fidelius Charm.) And as I noted earlier,
Snape *canonically* informed Black that he [Black] had been seen and
recognized in dog form by Lucius Malfoy on Platform 9 3/4, so that
Black knew he couldn't safely leave 12 GP. It was his own decision to
do so, against Snape's (admittedly sarcastic) advice.

Carol earlier:
> > As for Emmeline Vance, perhaps as a double agent he provided some
> > small bit of information on her (probably with DD's permission)
> but he clearly didn't kill her or he would have said so.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Perhaps, or perhaps he did more than that, since played a part in
the death (paraphrasing) sounds like pretty significant participation
to me.

Carol responds:
Actually, he says that the *information* he passed to LV led to her
capture and murder (BBP Am. ed. 30). He doesn't claim to have
participated in either event or he would have said so. The Vance
claim, like the Black claim, may have been exaggerated, but even if it
isn't, he *has to* pass on potentially useful information to LV.
That's what a double agent does. 

> Alla:
> 
> Please refer me to the part of Karkarov's testimony where he says
> that those DE whom he sells out as spies or torture specialists
> never killed anybody? He mentions their tasks yes, where does he say
> that they never killed at all?
> 
> You are telling me that Dolohov for example who tortured Muggles
> never killed anybody? How likely it is? Not likely if you ask me.

Carol responds:
Likely or not, Karkaroff is trying to get himself off the hook by
providing information on other DEs. If he knew that Dolohov had killed
someone, it would have been to his advantage to say so. He actually
*saw* Dolohov torturing "countless Muggles and non-supporters of the
Dark Lord" (GoF 589). If, as Moody believes, Karkaroff "helped him do
it," Karkaroff would have witnessed any murders Dolohov committed as
well. It would be odd for Karkaroff to conceal the fact that Dolohov
had killed someone had he actually done so when he's trying to get out
of Azkaban by revealing what he knows about Dolohov and others. And
Karkaroff actually uses the word "specialized" in referring to
Mulciber (589). 
> 
> Carol:
> <SNIP>
>   I'm guessing that Voldemort, whatever doubts he had or has about
where Snape's loyalties lie, would not have risked the life (or
arrest) of a uniquely valuable servant by sending him out to maim and
kill when others were ready and eager
> to
> > do exactly that.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> And I am asking again. How do you know that Snape received such an
honor of being allowed not to kill anybody? 

Carol responds:
I didn't say that I know. I said "I'm guessing"--based on the evidence
that Voldemort recognizes particular talents and assigns particular
tasks accordingly. Not to do so would be like Dumbledore randomly
assigning teachers to different subjects without considering their
expertise. Voldemort (unless he's less self-interested than we think)
wouldn't send a man with Snape's talents out to torture Muggles any
more than DD would assign Trelawney to teach Potions. Or, to use an
LV-related example, you don't assign Goyle Sr. to make a potion that
requires exceptional knowledge and skill. You assign a potions expert.

Alla:
> Sure, he has many talents suitable for Voldemort's, but as far as we
know other DE also can have many talents and Snape is the only one who
never got his hands dirty?

Carol:
I never said that Snape was the only one who didn't get his hands
dirty, or rather, the only one who didn't go around casting
Unforgiveable Curses because his job didn't require it. Rookwood, for
one, was not out killing people. He was maintaining a respectable
cover as a Ministry official (and obtaining information from Ludo
Bagman as well). As for Snape, I'd say that making poisons for LV to
use on enemies or potions designed to help LV achieve physical as
opposed to spiritual immortality* (the tasks that LV seems likely to
have assigned to him, IMO) *is* "getting your hands dirty," or at any
rate, it's knowingly aiding and abetting a murderer. As someone
(Magpie?) said upthread, not everyone in a terrorist organization is a
hitman. There are researchers and spies, too. And you don't send one
to do the job of the other.

Once again, I'm *not* arguing for an "innocent" Snape (he obviously
served LV in some capacity), just arguing that we can't safely assume
that Snape had cast an AK before he killed DD. What evidence we do
have points in the other direction.

Carol, wondering why Yahoo delayed posting her response to Sherry
(written yesterday afternoon) till three in the morning

* I said "mortality" upthread but I meant "immortality, of course!






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 20 23:08:08 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 23:08:08 -0000
Subject: Voldemort & the UV
In-Reply-To: <dvmtsl+d7lt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvncko+car1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149845

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > Narcissa doesn't go to Snape out of hate, she goes to
> > him out of love.  Honestly, I think her actions fit neatly into 
> > Voldemort's blind spot. (But not Dumbledore's.)

> >>Jen: 
> She also asked someone else to vow to help Draco or die. Now 
> that seems like dark magic Voldemort could understand, unlike the 
> ancient magic of Lily. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Oh, Narcissa certainly takes her magic in a dark direction, I 
agree.  And it's magic Voldemort would be comfortable with.  
However, I think Narcissa's *motivation* is something Voldemort 
cannot understand.  And since he doesn't get what's causing Narcissa 
to do what she does I think it'd be hard for him to anticipate and 
therefore use Narcissa.

Which, yeah, that's just my guess against yours.  I think we've got 
fairly equal canon going into this thing.  I guess it comes down to 
me seeing Voldemort as the guy who sets things in motion but has 
little to do with the minutia.  I think the biggest bit of 
manipulation Voldemort does in HBP is set a child after Dumbledore, 
knowing how Dumbledore views children.

> >>Jen:
> In fact, I've been wondering. The Unbreakable Vow sounds like 
> something Voldemort might require of his DE's. It would explain 
> that 'lifetime of service or death' comment by Sirius and perhaps 
> if RAB is indeed Regulus, why he knew he die when writing that    
> note. It doesn't really explain how a DDM!Snape wouldn't be dead   
> though or how Dumbledore could trust him, unless Dumbledore were  
> somehow able to intervene. You'd think Snape would have dropped    
> dead the moment he started talking to Dumbledore though, if under 
> a UV. Hmmm. Still, you would have more canon for Evil!Twins,      
> Betsy, if it were true<g>.

Betsy Hp:
Yay, Evil!Twins!! <g>  I wonder if there's an equal burden put on 
the other person in the Vow?  That would stop Voldemort cold, I'd 
bet.  Or maybe you can only have so many Vows attached to you at a 
time?  I got the impression that joining the Death Eaters was like 
joining any sort of criminal gang, you're in till you're dead, and 
any betrayal marks you for death.  Snape was just super-cool enough 
to fool the great mind-reader.  Regulus wasn't as gifted.  (Or 
perhaps, he's was more like his brother and into big noble 
gestures?)  I really, really, hope we get more background on Regulus.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Hmm, I agree that Voldemort is the main villain, and his
> > destruction will signal the end of the game.  However, I *do* 
> > think Snape is a more important character than Voldemort.  In a 
> > sense, I'd almost label Snape as Harry's main antagonist.       
> > There's certainly a more personal connection there.  
> > <snip>

> >>Jen: But...but...there's the scar connection, the horcruxes! You 
> don't think that stuff is going somewhere?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Oh, sure.  But that's more of a way to move the plot along, isn't 
it?  Gives Harry something to *do* while he's figuring out who Snape 
really is.  He's got a pretty good handle on Voldemort already, 
though, so I'm thinking less story time will be spent on Voldemort.

> >>Jen: 
> There's backstory on Snape to come, yeah, I'm just having a hard 
> time imagining the logistics to give him face time in the present.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Pensieve is a good medium, as we've seen.  Also, I'm figuring 
there's some sort of connection between Snape and Lily, and Harry 
will learn about Snape as he finds out more about his mother.  I'd 
*love* it if Petunia had some old correspondence between the two of 
them, shoved in a box of Lily's old school-days things.

I doubt we'll see much of present-day Snape until the end of book 7, 
but I'm betting younger!Snape will appear throughout the book.

> >>Jen:
> With Voldemort, he's out in the open now and will be even more so 
> with DD gone. I suspect Harry will get news of him fairly readily. 
> Not to mention the possibilty of Harry getting information about   
> him personally, via the scar connection (say if H. realizes he has 
> the power of Legilimency passed to him by LV and can get around    
> Voldemort's Occlumency). That scar is a good narrative device,    
> offering an unusual perspective and I don't think JKr is done with 
> that one yet.

Betsy Hp:
Yeah, but what will Voldemort be doing?  Yammering on about 
regaining his hold on the WW, doing big speeches about how scary and 
evil he is, maybe crucioing a minion or two.  Kind of boring and 
repetative, don't you think?  And nothing new to Harry.  There may 
be some times when Voldemort drops a crucial clue to a horcrux or 
two, but as far as character insight, I think we've plumbed the 
depths of that particular well.  And it ain't that deep.  But 
lurking in the corner is that fascinationg character, Severus 
Snape.  Now *there's* a character in desperate need of some page 
time. <g>

I do wonder if we'll learn more about the Founders while Harry hunts 
the horcruxes.  Does their story have anything interesting left to 
be told?  

> >>Jen R., who may also be influenced at the moment by young people 
> in her life, one who read HBP and declared, "I knew Snape was bad, 
> but not *that* bad" and her own son who said after reading         
> Spinner's End: "Mom, I think Snape just cares about himself."      
> What's a mostly DDM!Snape mom to do?!?

Betsy Hp:
Heh.  Yeah, I helped out with our library's summer reading program 
last year.  Floated my DDM!Snape theory to one of the young members 
of the Harry Potter group.  Lead. Balloon.  Ah well, come book 7 
they'll be blown over by my genius. <g>  And it will make the reveal 
of the true Severus Snape all the more dramatic for them.

Betsy Hp







From DaveH47 at mindspring.com  Mon Mar 20 23:24:43 2006
From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 15:24:43 -0800
Subject: Hedwig
In-Reply-To: <dvlvhj+ujmj@eGroups.com>
References: <dvlvhj+ujmj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1421513828.20060320152443@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149846

It hadn't occurred to me before, but has anyone else noticed that
Hedwig is almost absent from HBP?  Once the school year begins, the only
time she's even mentioned is when she delivers Harry's new (soon to be
"decoy") copy of _Advanced Potion-Making_.  Is this significant?  Any
ideas on what (if any) significant role she might play in Book 7?

-- 
Dave




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Mar 20 23:34:54 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 23:34:54 -0000
Subject: Godric's Hollow
In-Reply-To: <dvlvhj+ujmj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvne6u+tjvk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149847

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "latha279" <brahadambal at ...> wrote:

Brady:
> I don't know if this has been asked and discussed before. Although,I 
> have seen posts asking and discussing about what happened to or how 
> PP came to have Voldy's wand and maybe robes - I have not found much 
> being asked about his body itself!
> 
> The AV doesn't destroy the the body to the extent that it can't be 
> seen, right? We are always left with a body behind. But in GH, till 
> date, there has not been any mention of James', Lily's or Voldy's 
> body! Why? what happened then? 
> 
> We do understand from the interviews that there was someone else 
> there. The question is not who, but what did this other person do 
> after Voldy's seventh soul-piece was separated from his body? His 
> body would still have been there, just like the diary, albeit dead. 
> So what happened to his original body? why couldn't he have possessed 
> the body itself instead of wandering in the forests of Albania as 
> something lesser than a ghost?
> 
> Hope we get off discussing Snapey for sometime. Am a DDM!Snaper, but 
> still, too much of anything can cause some indigestion! :)

Geoff:
I think Voldemort's own comments imply that his body was destroyed:

'Where there should have been a back to Quirrell's head, there was a face, the most 
terrible face Harry had ever seen. It was chalk white with glaring red eyes and slits for 
nostrils, like a snake.
"Harry Potter..." it whispered.
Harry tried to take a step backwards but his legs wouldn't move.
"See what I have become?" the face said. "Mere shadow and vapour... I have form only 
when I can share another's body..."'
(PS "The Man with two Faces" pp.212-13 UK edition)

'"I was ripped from my body, I was less than spirit, less than the meanest ghost...

Nevertheless, I was as powerless as the weakest creature alive and without the means to 
help myself... for I had no body...

...surely, one of my faithful Death Eaters would try to find me... one of them would come 
and perform the magic I could not, to restore me to a body..."'
(GOF "The Death Eaters" pp.566-67 UK edition)

My interpretation of the use of "a" body in Voldemort's?last comment  was that he no 
longer had one of his own; als,o the spell which Wormtail performed in the graveyard drew 
on elemental ingredients and not a surviving body.






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 21 01:31:11 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 01:31:11 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV/Have Snape ever killed anybody?
In-Reply-To: <dvnbgh+e3o4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvnl0v+tfsj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149849

> > Alla:
> > 
> > Please refer me to the part of Karkarov's testimony where he says
> > that those DE whom he sells out as spies or torture specialists
> > never killed anybody? He mentions their tasks yes, where does he 
say
> > that they never killed at all?
> > 
> > You are telling me that Dolohov for example who tortured Muggles
> > never killed anybody? How likely it is? Not likely if you ask me.
> 
> Carol responds:
> Likely or not, Karkaroff is trying to get himself off the hook by
> providing information on other DEs. If he knew that Dolohov had 
killed
> someone, it would have been to his advantage to say so. He actually
> *saw* Dolohov torturing "countless Muggles and non-supporters of 
the
> Dark Lord" (GoF 589). If, as Moody believes, Karkaroff "helped him 
do
> it," Karkaroff would have witnessed any murders Dolohov committed 
as
> well. It would be odd for Karkaroff to conceal the fact that 
Dolohov
> had killed someone had he actually done so when he's trying to get 
out
> of Azkaban by revealing what he knows about Dolohov and others. And
> Karkaroff actually uses the word "specialized" in referring to
> Mulciber (589). 

Alla:

Okay, I  want to address this one point ( well one and a half 
actually), because we are not going to convince each other and I am 
too tired to do a nice counterargument on all of them right now.

I brought up Dolohov because it seemed to me like the most obvious 
example of how Karkaroff did not need to spell out that DE 
who "specialised in Imperio, spying, etc" also killed people.

People often DIE after gruesome torture, that is not an assumption, 
that is a fact. Are you arguing that none of Dolohov's 
victims "countless muggles" died, just because Karkaroff did not say 
so?

The people who do not die after torture often are as good as dead, 
IMO. We all know what happened to Longbottoms after all.

I don't think that he needed to say it, I think it is obvious. That 
is of course IMO.

Alla,

acknowledging the canon about Wormtail telling Voldemort about 
Sirius animagus form, but most certainly thinking that nothing in 
canon contradicts that Snape could have told Voldemort and/or 
Malfoys other information about Sirius.






From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Tue Mar 21 01:33:19 2006
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:33:19 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] What happened to Snapes Mum and Dad?
In-Reply-To: <dvn951+3dnk@eGroups.com>
References: <dvn951+3dnk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <700201d40603201733s2febf807m48a645902bc9efb4@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149850

 Tonks  wrote:
>
> I don't think we have ever discussed this before.  Snape is a young
> man, his parents should still be alive. Where are they?  I get the
> impression that they are dead and that he is living in what was once
> their house.
>
> What happened to them? Did LV kill them? Did Bella?
>

Kemper now:
Bella seems surprised to learn the location of Snape's house.  So, if
Spinner's End was where Snape grew up, then I don't think Bella killed
them.  I also don't think she killed them because then she'd know that he
was a half-blood; a heritage she isn't fond of based on her reaction to
Harry telling her that Voldemort is a Half Blood and which, I think, we
would have heard some derogatory remarks against Snape if she knew
otherwise.


 Tonks continues:   Did Snape come
> home from Hogwarts to find his father abusing his mother and he
> couldn't take it any more. His father is a Muggle. Snape picked up the
> pure-blood ideology of Slytherin house. Is it possible that our dear
> beloved Snape has something in common with Tom Riddle?
>
> Thoughts anyone??
>

Kemper now:
On another thread Alla and Carol are discussing when/if Snape has AK'd
anyone prior to the tower.  If he has, I think it would be logical for Snape
to have used it on his father.  Violence starts at home.

Since Love is an on-going theme in the books, I think it possible for Snape,
who may have loved his mom so much, kill his dad.  The situation may have
been similar to Merope:

Eileen having lost her heart and her magic to an abusive man can do nothing
to defend herself from a particularly violent domestic abuse episode and so
died.  But Severus didn't find out until after graduation when he returned
home worried because his mom didn't show up.  He found her, dead for weeks,
and his dad in some drunken stupor.  Snape wept.  Crying for the loss of his
loving mom, he AK'd Tobias, who Snape no longer thought of as 'dad'.

So, Snape may have something in common with Tom who has something in common
with Harry who has something in common with Snape.  When will the triadic
cycle stop?!

Kemper,
who doesn't think Snape buys into the PureBlood ideology, but he hates the
Muggle part that created him.


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




From pizziehl at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 20 00:57:50 2006
From: pizziehl at yahoo.com (pizziehl)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 00:57:50 -0000
Subject: When did Draco Imperius Rosmerta?
In-Reply-To: <dvip2i+qdfe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvkume+e2lc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149851


> > bboyminn:
> > 
> > Hummm... This really is a baffling subject. Clearly someone is 
> helping
> > Draco both inside and outside Hogwarts. <SNIP>
>> > We know his mother is associated with Voldemort, and is a strong
> > cooperative supportive sympathizer even if she is not a full 
fledged
> > Death Eater; although, I suspect she probably is.
> > 
> > So, she Imperiused Rosmerta. She bought and delivered the 
necklace.
> > She induced Rosmerta to produce and deliver the poisoned mead. 
All  at Draco's request. 
<HUGE SNIP>

Pizziehl:
I am not sure his mother is that smart.  I guess it could be JKR 
trying to downplay the importance of her, but she seems way too weak 
(mentally) to have that sorts of smarts.  Maybe Snape was the 
outside guy.  No proof of it--- just seems sneaky.  What a great 
question though.

Pizziehl. 









From bartl at sprynet.com  Tue Mar 21 00:43:35 2006
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 19:43:35 -0500
Subject: The "Bad Writing Clue": Dumbledore and the Dursley's, revisited
Message-ID: <441F4C37.6060706@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149852

Bart:
	There is something in literature that does not have a name, but I have 
called the "bad writing clue". This is based on the principle: if you 
see bad writing from an otherwise good writer, it is a good assumption 
that it is on purpose, and is revealing a plot secret.

	Given that, I have reread and rethought Dumbledore's visit to the 
Dursley's. It has been correctly pointed out that Dumbledore's behavior 
is, whether excusable or not, very uncharacteristic, and goes against 
several themes of the books. Looking at this as a "bad writing clue", 
one can make a couple of assumptions, and work backwards:

	1) Dumbledore has the right to burst in on the Dursley's as he did.
	2) Dumbledore has the right to lecture the Dursley's as he did.

	Now, it is made clear in the scene that he has never met the Dursley's 
in person. Also, the form of their prejudice against the magical world, 
while comic, is, frankly, unrealistic. Jealousy, certainly, but the fear 
they have of even mentioning it goes beyond that.

	Working backwards, here is theory #1: Previously, at some point, the 
Dursley's were endangered, greatly, by the magical world. They were 
saved, probably by James and/or Lily. As they were connected, obliquely, 
with the magical world, their memories were not wiped (at least not 
entirely). Their obligation to Harry was based on the debt they owed 
(morally, if not magically), and Dumbledore, as Harry's guardian by 
default, is acting as their agent. The reason why he has not interfered 
more was because, based on their treatment of Dudley and the 
requirements Harry would have, the way he was brought up was preferable 
to the available alternatives.

	Bart




From belviso at attglobal.net  Tue Mar 21 02:02:16 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 21:02:16 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Voldemort & the UV
References: <dvncko+car1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <005f01c64c8b$7b0443c0$0d6c400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 149853

> Betsy Hp:
> Oh, Narcissa certainly takes her magic in a dark direction, I
> agree.  And it's magic Voldemort would be comfortable with.
> However, I think Narcissa's *motivation* is something Voldemort
> cannot understand.  And since he doesn't get what's causing Narcissa
> to do what she does I think it'd be hard for him to anticipate and
> therefore use Narcissa.

Magpie:
It's perhaps worth considering that even if Voldemort might consider that 
Narcissa would risk facing his wrath by seeking help help for Draco he might 
very well have a harder time believing that Snape would do it.  Particularly 
if it meant he'd take an Unbreakable Vow.  So often in discussions the Vow 
is only discussed as something that indicates Snape is willing to kill, but 
the real reason the Vow is surprising is that Snape is willing to die.  For 
a kid who in Voldemort's eyes is absolutely nothing.  Bella, remember, talks 
about how she'd gladly sacrifice all of her (nonexistant) sons to the Dark 
Lord.  Snape's not a parent, he's not even related to this kid or Narcissa. 
Voldemort may not understand Unbreakable Vows unless they're forced (a sort 
of die if you do and probably die if you don't).  So Voldemort might think 
that even Narcissa did go for help, no DE would do it--especially not to 
this extent.

-m 





From dontask2much at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 21 02:35:42 2006
From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 21:35:42 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] When did Draco Imperius Rosmerta? (was: Re: CHAPDISC: hbp12, Silver and Opals)
References: <dvkphf+pnp5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <006001c64c90$281abb80$6401a8c0@MITRE.ORG>

No: HPFGUIDX 149854

(snipped liberally for brevity)

> Betsy Hp:
> Since we've not heard mention of an object baring the Imperius Curse
> I think that idea is a stretch.  It seems like Draco mainly used
> Rosmerta to tell him when Dumbledore was out of Hogwarts, which
> would be easy to sum up in a word or two to fit on a coin.
>
> And if there *is* a helper, then they were responsible for the
> necklace incident.  And Draco himself would have been able to
> arrange for the poisoned mead.  So those orders would have occured
> face to face.
>
>> >>Carol:
>> 3) The unknown helper in Hogsmeade was not Bellatrix, PP, or
>> Kreacher, for the reasons stated above, nor was it a kid like
>> Blaise.
>> <snip>
>
> Betsy Hp:
> I still think Bellatrix is an option.  Because her attack on
> Rosmerta and the orders she delivered could well have occured in the
> cover of darkness.  Total freedom of movement doesn't seem to be all
> that necessary for Draco's helper, I think.

Rebecca:

As those who have known me to post in the past, I'm game for the murky world 
of hypothesis. Here goes...anything. :)  This is only speculation and my 
particular take on things;  as such, feel free to dissect at will.

While Blaise does appear in this scene, I think I'm more inclined to believe 
his presence a JKR "red herring." Why?  Because of this:

"....there were a couple of warlocks sitting close by who were staring at 
Harry with great interest...."

Let's note that their interest was conveniently mentioned *after* Harry says 
the following upon entering the Three Broomsticks:

"The moment he was inside, Harry burst out, "He was nicking Sirius's stuff!" 
"

And not to be forgotten:

"Can't the Order control Mundungus?" Harry demanded of the other two in a 
furious whisper. "Can't they at least stop him stealing everything that's 
not fixed down when he's at headquarters?"

Harry is being almost haphazardly indiscreet in his frustration by 
mentioning Sirius, The Order, Mundungus, and headquarters apparently within 
earshot of others (although the latter is in a "furious whisper" after his 
shouting has gotten, well, some attention.) And those 2 warlocks?  In 
another life on another list, I mentioned that JKR's use of "warlocks" 
always makes me uneasy, because I couldn't figure out who qualifies to be a 
warlock. A very fine poster responded and shared with me that her 
interpretation of the people described as such were "older" wizards.  So 
where does that leave me?  Perhaps original Death Eaters, methinks. 
Mulciber, who is an Imperius Curse specialist, and the elder Rosier.  They'd 
might be enough to qualify as older or old wizards, warlocks, having been at 
school with Tom Riddle.  I say this because most of the septology is written 
from Harry's POV - therefore, they'd be "older" and might fit the definition 
given me by my fellow poster. Or they could simply be in disguise, having 
taken an aging potion to make them look even more older. (That potion has to 
come into play elsewhere in the series other than GoF, doesn't it?)

Yes, Mulciber was at the DoM in OoP, and may have made it to Azkaban for 
that - and maybe not. I don't believe we've ever got an accurate accounting 
of who is and isn't there (with one notable exception being Lucius "Don't 
Mess Up My Hair" Malfoy), since we are told at the beginning of HBP the 
Dementors fled Azkaban to join forces with LV.

Again, guesswork.  Just as plausible as any and as unlikely as the next :)

Rebecca, who also thinks the big blond DE described in HBP is not the same 
guy as the brutal faced DE but that's a different post







From exodusts at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 21 03:16:18 2006
From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 03:16:18 -0000
Subject: Opals & The Moonstone
In-Reply-To: <dvlluu+5la6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvnr62+cmoh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149855

> Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) wrote:
>
> " 6) Is there any particular symbolism or meaning to the opal
> necklace (or to opals or necklaces), or is it simply a convenient
> McGuffin? "
> 
> Listies have mentioned the old tradition that opals are bad luck
> (except if they're your birthstone) which inspired books like Wilkie
> Collins's THE MOONSTONE (which I haven't read). Incidentally, opals
> ARE excessively breakable. I used to wear 13 rings spread over 10
> fingers and the opals set in some of them would get chipped and 
broken
> and lose their fire even faster than the malachite would get 
scratched
> and lose its shine, which IS a mild form of bad luck. Eventually I
> decided to limit opals and malachite to necklaces and use only 
sturdy
> stones like turquoise, lapis lazuli, amethyst, Sri Lankan moonstone,
> and tiger's-eye on my hands.


Exodusts:

This reminds me of an obscure theory I formed relating to the naming 
of Wilkie Twycross, the apparition instructor. It is quite an odd 
conjunction of first and surname.

During instruction, Wilkie has a mantra that he calls 
out: "Destination! Determination! Deliberation!" Now this struck me 
as either a homage to another book I had read, or an example of great 
minds thinking alike. That book is "The Stars My Destination" 
(or "Tiger! Tiger", the alternative title) by Alfred Bester.

TSMD is a classic piece of old-school sci-fi which takes a single 
idea or advance, and runs with it to speculate as to how it would 
affect the world. In TSMD that idea is teleportation-by-willpower 
(or "jaunting" as it is called). Early on, an instructress teaches 
remedial jaunting to the anti-hero and a class of others, partly by 
calling out the mnemonic: "Location! Elevation! Situation!"

So what, I hear you ask? Well, it could just be coincidence, based 
upon the fact that such mnemonics are commonly used when learning a 
practical skill for the first time. BUT there is the name.

Wilkie must, realistically, allude to the famous author, Wilkie 
Collins, whose famous works are "The Moonstone" and "The Woman in 
White". If you have read TSMD, you will instantly understand the 
relevance of a "woman in white" (just such a character plays a very 
important role). And Twycross is the name of a famous zoo in the 
U.K. - the sort of place you might find a "Tiger".

Could be total rubbish, or it could be a very subtle allusion. Anyone 
know if J.K. reads sci-fi?






From olivier.fouquet at polytechnique.org  Tue Mar 21 03:48:28 2006
From: olivier.fouquet at polytechnique.org (Olivier Fouquet)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 12:48:28 +0900
Subject: Dumbledore and the Dursley's+some Snape
Message-ID: <A2DDE26A-634D-4B37-A631-19E7BFC2FD6D@polytechnique.org>

No: HPFGUIDX 149856

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky <bartl at ...> wrote:
 >
 > Bart:
 > > 	Working backwards, here is theory #1: Previously, at some  
point, the
 > Dursley's were endangered, greatly, by the magical world.

Olivier
This looks very probable. Explains Petunia "peering intently out of  
the kitchen window" when Black's on the loose. Explains why JKR  
wouldn't tell us what Dursley saw when attacked by Dementors.

Bart
 >They were
 > saved, probably by James and/or Lily.

Olivier
Or by Snape. Remember Petunia's "awful boy" quote.  Recently I have  
come to think about the official mysteries remaining. Why Dumbledore  
trusted Snape? What was in the letters from DD to Petunia? What about  
the families of Hogwarts' teachers (a restricted information  
according to JKR)? What about DD's family? I say there is a strong  
family theme there. Add in this a wedding opening Book 7, Harry  
visiting his parents grave (two family related events) and I say we  
will hear a lot about families in book 7. Is it possible to speculate  
that there is a family link bounding DD and Snape, or maybe that LV  
killed Snape's family, or maybe that DD saved Snape's family? Do  
Bart's suggestion that there is some family event relating the  
Dursley's, the magical world and DD work in this? Yes perfectly.

Olivier




From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net  Tue Mar 21 04:14:56 2006
From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 04:14:56 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV
In-Reply-To: <dvlb1d+d88p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvnuk0+g028@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149857

PAR: 
> So Snape has Malfoy, who doesn't want to kill, Fenrir, who 
> has no wand and is probably a Muggle and two DEs who are 
> apparently not "top quality" since this is the first they've been 
> brought up. And this "greatest warrior" can't manage it?  He kills 
> the two DEs. and freezes Fenrir and Draco.  


SSSusan:
Not sure I'm following this bit about Fenrir.  What makes you think 
he's a Muggle?  Would Voldy bring *any* Muggle into alliance with 
him??

As for this "minor" task facing Snape of handling Draco, Fenrir & 
two ostensibly "lesser" DEs... um... let's just think about how long 
it takes to cast a spell.  Snape would have to freeze *two* people, 
which would mean casting *two* separate spells, and even if he 
managed to cast them non-verbally, it'd probably become obvious that 
he'd done something to Draco & Fenrir, which means the DEs might 
turn on him.  Even if they did not, he still then would have to turn 
on & kill *two* DEs.  How is he supposed to cast the first three 
spells without the other DE shouting out "Avada Kedavra" or even 
just "Expelliarmus" in the meantime?

Siriusly Snapey Susan








From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Tue Mar 21 06:04:47 2006
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 06:04:47 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV
In-Reply-To: <dvnuk0+g028@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvo51v+bbur@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149858

"cubfanbudwoman" <susiequsie23 at ...> wrote:

> How is he [Snape] supposed to cast the 
> first three spells without the other DE
> shouting out "Avada Kedavra" or even just
> "Expelliarmus" in the meantime?

As Dumbledore demonstrated in the big shoot out at the ministry at the
end of book 5, an extraordinarily powerful wizard can fight many
average Death Eaters at the same time and win rather easily, and
Dumbledore didn't have the element of surprise as Snape had. If Snape
hadn't vowed to become a traitor he would have had a reasonable chance
of success if he attacked the Death Eaters. And if he failed, well,
better to die than betray your friends. 

Eggplant   








From greatraven at hotmail.com  Tue Mar 21 06:54:53 2006
From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 06:54:53 -0000
Subject: Hedwig
In-Reply-To: <1421513828.20060320152443@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <dvo7vt+sl40@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149859

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Dave Hardenbrook <DaveH47 at ...> wrote:
>
> It hadn't occurred to me before, but has anyone else noticed that
> Hedwig is almost absent from HBP?  Once the school year begins, the only
> time she's even mentioned is when she delivers Harry's new (soon to be
> "decoy") copy of _Advanced Potion-Making_.  Is this significant?  Any
> ideas on what (if any) significant role she might play in Book 7?
> 
> -- 
> Dave
>

Sue here:

The trouble is, she really doesn't have much to do in the context. Sirius is dead and he was 
almost the only person who was writing to Harry. Who else might write - any ideas?






From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 21 07:01:09 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 07:01:09 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dvl15j+54m2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvo8bl+6snd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149860

> Sydney:
> -- If Snape in your theory kicked into stage 2 when he reported a
> conversation that endangered the Potters without even realizing he was
> doing it, why is is this having no effect on Peter, despite going all
> the way to Albania specifically to resurrect a guy who has a high
> kill-Harry priority?  
> 
> -- If Snape is tortured with Crucio-level agonizing pain at the mere
> thought of harming Harry by your "Snape was in actual, not emotion
> pain in the burning-dog shot" theory, why doesn't this affect Peter
> when he ties Harry to a rock and cuts him with a knife?  


Neri:
As for my hypothetical stage 2, I don't know when Snape was kicked
into it. If the Life Debt is indeed a bond that causes you to
empathize with the suffering of the victim, then it makes more sense
that the actual pain symptoms only started when James died, although
he would perhaps feel some remorse before that, maybe from James' fear
for his family. He'd be then in a state similar to that of Peter in
GoF. And Peter was certainly affected by the Debt in GoF. He was
risking a lot when trying to convince Voldemort to use another wizard
for the resurrection in GoF, Ch. 1. When he was tying Harry to the
gravestone his fingers were "trembling uncontrollably" and he wouldn't
meet Harry's eyes. But unlike Snape during VW1, Peter doesn't have the
option of going to the other side anymore, certainly not as a
double-agent the way Snape did. Peter has to rebel against Voldy
openly or continue following orders and hope that Harry would somehow
escape death. Of course, it's interesting that in HBP we see Snape and
Peter together in the same house, with apparently no plot reason. One
wonders what does this foreshadow for Book 7.

> Sydney:
> -- If Snape is merely driven by a basic need to keep Harry alive for
> his own selfish ends, why did he murder Dumbledore, Harry's greatest
> protector, and in a such a way that he would have to leave the scene,
> thus leaving Harry entirely exposed when Voldemort is at full power?

Neri:
You got me completely confused now. Here I am theorizing that Snape's
remorse is a very specific thing, only about saving Harry's life,
perhaps only once, and you say Snape killing Dumbledore is a problem
with that? How about your theory, saying Snape is generally remorseful
and absolutely on Dumbledore's side, and you think he killed
Dumbledore, no? It seems to me that this action of Snape poses a
considerably bigger problem in your theory than in mine.

> Sydney: 
> Seeing as Snape's fear of James getting hurt would be what, by you,
> "forced Snape to be effectively on Dumbledore's side", what's
> different now?  
> 

Neri:
As I have explained in recent posts, I think Snape didn't intend to
kill Dumbledore before he can save Harry's life and repay the Debt.
Draco's unforeseen action forced Snape to kill Dumbledore on the tower
or die. From his PoV this put him in a very bad situation, since he
was forced to commit himself to Voldemort's side while he still must
save Harry's life.   

> Sydney:
> -- JKR's answer was that no, Ginny doesn't really owe a life-debt to
> Harry, not that she just doesn't have to worry about it.  Something in
> the life-saving event itself seems to be the key, not subsequent
> events.  James and Harry both hated the person they were saving, this
> seems more to the point.
> 

Neri:
In that case wouldn't JKR answer simply "no, she doesn't have a Life
Debt to Harry"? While English isn't my first language, I was under the
impression that when people say "not really" they usually mean
something like "nominally yes, but in practice no". Which would fit
better with my explanation than with yours. Plus my explanation also
accounts for JKR inability to expand on this nuance without giving
away the plot of Book 7. If Peter's Life Debt is the only Debt around,
and it's a done thing, then I don't see why JKR couldn't clarify the
status of Ginny's "not really" Debt. 

> Sydney:
> -- Replacing compassion for another person with jolts of electric
> shock and threat of death, still feels like Torquemada's version of
> Christianity more than Rowling's.  By your theory, Snape still isn't
> feeling even remorse, he's just feeling pain and fear of dying
> himself.  

Neri:
By my theory he's feeling the pain of another person, pain that he has
responsibility for. And he feels it against his will, but he's unable
to shut it down. A magic that in RL we call... yep, remorse.

Christianity ? umm... no. I'd better not go there. I'd just point out
that Christian JKR made Lupin become a rabid monster once a month
since he was 5 yrs old kid. She made Sirius spend half his life in a
jail where everybody goes insane, and then killed him a short time
after he got out. Her main character she killed both his parents when
he was a baby, and put in his forehead a magical scar that connects
him directly with the mind of the sociopath evil overlord. And these
are the *good* guys. All things considered, I think LID!Snape got away
relatively cheap. 


> Sydney:
> -- If Snape is just feeling Harry's suffering generally, why haven't
> we seen more of this?

Neri:
If Snape loved Lily, why haven't we seen *any* signs of this?

> Sydney:
> Why could he give him pounding headaches for
> hours in Occlumency lessons?  Why did he feel sure Harry was a
> pampered kid when he came to Hogwarts, when presumably he would have
> been lying awake at night in wretched pain because of little Harry's
> suffering under the Dursely's, for which Snape is indirectly
responsible?
> 

Neri:
Apparently all this stuff isn't significant enough to break Snape's
defenses. As Del noted, a Life Debt just might be about, you know... life.


> Sydney:
> -- In the Shrieking Shack, Snape goes ape (thanks JKR!) about
> vengeance;  he does bark briefly at Harry about saving his life and
> how he should be grateful, but where is the bit where Snape is
> thinking, Ha Ha!  Now I can go evil again?  IIRC, Snape was totally
> focused on his satisfaction at getting Sirius, and seemed more annoyed
> than anything else at Harry not being on his knees for having his life
> saved.  And he goes berzerk when he realizes that Black has escaped,
> when you'd think he'd be a bit more focused on, yay!  14 years of
> ankle-monitor slavery over!  I'll get that Sirius guy at some other
> time.  
> 

Neri:
JKR used this cute expression "Snape goes ape" in a much more innocent
context ? when Harry has difficulties learning Occlumency. I doubt
very much she would have used such a phrase for Snape trying to get
two innocent people soul-sucked (I guess you have to be a DDM!Snaper
to appreciate the cuteness of that). Snape in fact goes seriously
CAPSLOCK *three* times in the night of the Shrieking Shack. The third
time, in the hospital wing, it is indeed because Sirius had escaped.
The previous two times are in the Shack, when Snape is sure of his
vengeance. He has Sirius and Lupin in his hands, he's going to turn
them in to the dementors, and it doesn't look like he even thinks that
three students would prevent him from doing that. So why does he go
CAPSLOCK? This is worth looking into. The first time it's because
Hermione dares suggest that Sirius might be innocent:

**************************************
Hermione, however, took an uncertain step toward Snape and said, in a
very breathless voice, "Professor Snape ? it wouldn't hurt to hear
what they've got to say, w-would it?" 

"Miss Granger, you are already facing suspension from this school,"
Snape spat. "You, Potter, and Weasley are out-of-bounds, in the
company of a convicted murderer and a werewolf. For once in your life,
hold your tongue."

"But if ? if there was a mistake ?"

"KEEP QUIET, YOU STUPID GIRL!" Snape shouted, looking suddenly quite
deranged. "DON'T TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!" A few sparks
shot out of the end of his wand, which was still pointed at Black's
face. Hermione fell silent.
**************************************

Why does Snape lose control here? He has Sirius and Lupin in his
power, everything is quite dandy for him, and it's not even Harry who
opposes him here, it's Hermione. Is Snape having a problem
subordinating a student? Usually he relishes such opportunities. 50
points out of Gryffindor, detention, double detention, suspension, I
will personally see that you are thrown out of school. Snape can do
that stuff in his sleep.  

But you see, if Sirius is actually innocent as Hermione suggests, then
Harry wasn't in danger from him. And if Harry wasn't in danger, it
means Snape didn't save his life. And *this* is unthinkable for Snape.
Even if he gets rid of both Sirius and Lupin for good, Snape had
failed in repaying the Life Debt. Merely raising this possibility
makes him lose control. 

Lest anyone doubt this is the real reason, a page later Snape goes
CAPSLOCK again, madder than ever, and this time he says it quite clearly:

******************************************
"Professor Lupin could have killed me about a hundred times this
year," Harry said. "I've been alone with him loads of times, having
defense lessons against the Dementors. If he was helping Black, why
didn't he just finish me off then?"

"Don't ask me to fathom the way a werewolf's mind works," hissed
Snape. "Get out of the way, Potter."

"YOU'RE PATHETIC!" Harry yelled. "JUST BECAUSE THEY MADE A FOOL OF YOU
AT SCHOOL YOU WON'T EVEN LISTEN ?"

"SILENCE! I WILL NOT BE SPOKEN TO LIKE THAT!" Snape shrieked, looking
madder than ever. "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'd have died like your father,
too arrogant to believe you might be mistaken in Black ? now get out
of the way, or I will make you. GET OUT OF THE WAY, POTTER!"  
***************************************

He has just saved Harry's neck. That's what important for Snape. Harry
would have died if not for him. Died like his father, who got himself
killed despite Snape's desperate efforts to prevent it, and left Snape
saddled with this Debt that he can't manage to repay. And BTW, since
we're already here, note how Lily doesn't even register on Snape's
radar screen, not even a mere hint that anybody but James had also
died that night at Godric's Hollow. It is always about James, for
Snape. Even 10 minutes after he AK'ed Dumbledore off the astronomy
tower, it is only about James. James and that unpaid Debt.

> Sydney:
> -- And (drumroll please) Why is Dumbledore saying that he trusts Snape
> completely when he doesn't?   
> 

Neri:
Resorting to sound effects now, Sydney <g>? Answer Jen's question, why
did Dumbledore say he told Harry "everything" when he obviously didn't? 

> Sydney:
> I know!  Mabye it's not like, mutating magical-prosthetic remorse,
> requiring random, purposeless lying from Dumbledore and serious
> inconsistency with Peter's situtation!  Maybe it's, like, actual
remorse!
> 

Neri:
But this is exactly what I'm saying. It *is* actual remorse, that the
Life Debt magic merely prevents Snape from shutting down.

And you know, when the prosthesis works better than "the real thing",
you might want to ask yourself if it *is* the real thing, and what you
think is the real thing is just a prosthesis. 

> -- Sydney, who will call Neri's theory the "ankle-monitor" theory, as
> opposed to the Life-Debt theory, seeing as it's a bit unfair to hijack
> a name for an impenetrable magic thingie we know nothing about and
> apply it to an elaborate spell essentially made up from whole cloth.
>

Neri:
Umm... now you got me confused about your terminology. What *is* the
thing you call "the Life Debt theory" and what exactly is the
difference between it and what you call the "ankle-monitor" theory? 


Neri







From richlauraelaina at sbcglobal.net  Tue Mar 21 05:49:32 2006
From: richlauraelaina at sbcglobal.net (richandlaura1)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 05:49:32 -0000
Subject: Godric's Hollow
In-Reply-To: <dvlvhj+ujmj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvo45c+a6cv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149861

> Brady wrote:
> I don't know if this has been asked and discussed before. 
> Although,I have seen posts asking and discussing about what 
> happened to or how PP came to have Voldy's wand and maybe robes - 
> I have not found much being asked about his body itself!
> 
> The AV doesn't destroy the the body to the extent that it can't be 
> seen, right? We are always left with a body behind. But in GH,  
> till date, there has not been any mention of James', Lily's or  
> Voldy's body! Why? what happened then? 
> 
> We do understand from the interviews that there was someone else 
> there. The question is not who, but what did this other person do 
> after Voldy's seventh soul-piece was separated from his body? His 
> body would still have been there, just like the diary, albeit 
> dead. So what happened to his original body? why couldn't he have 
> possessed the body itself instead of wandering in the forests of 
> Albania as something lesser than a ghost?

Laura now:
I am not very good with exact quotes from the books but I remember 
reading something about the home in Godric's Hollow being destroyed, 
which I thought was strange since the AK isn't supposed to cause 
external damage.  But then again, this wasn't an ordinary AK.  When 
I want to know specifics, I go to the Harry Potter Lexicon.  So here 
is a little quote that I clipped from that website.

"Godric's Hollow is a Muggle village where Lily and James Potter 
were hiding from Voldemort in October of 1981 [Y1]. We know very 
little about it. We do know that they lived in a cottage there which 
was destroyed when Voldemort attacked them (PS1), and that their 
graves are in the area (HBP30)."

The Lexicon is great about referencing all their information so you 
can go to the book and find it in context.  If you want to read more 
about Godric's Hollow on the Lexicon website, click on 'search' on 
the homepage; then select 'places' and type 'destroyed' in the 
search line.

My personal opinion is that all the bodies in Godric's Hollow were 
at least disfigured in the destruction of the home.  Voldemort 
surely wouldn't settle for a body which showed evidence of his 
mistake.  But I bet JK Rowling wrote this part of the story assuming 
there wasn't much left of any of their bodies.  Probably James' and 
Lily'sgraves that are mostly symbolic, not really holding much of 
their mortal bodies.

-Hope this is helpful and might spur discussion, as I too am tired 
or the seemingly endless dialogue on Snape.









From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Mar 21 14:28:16 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 14:28:16 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV
In-Reply-To: <dvo51v+bbur@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvp2i0+nedi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149862

Eggplant:
> As Dumbledore demonstrated in the big shoot out at the ministry at the
> end of book 5, an extraordinarily powerful wizard can fight many
> average Death Eaters at the same time and win rather easily, and
> Dumbledore didn't have the element of surprise as Snape had.

Pippin:
Dumbledore overcame his enemies without killing them. The more
powerful we make Snape, the less justification he has for killing in
battle. Would Dumbledore want Snape to tear his soul four
times in order to keep his cover intact? Would he think the wizarding
world would profit if it gained freedom from Voldemort and lost its 
soul? 

See, I'm willing to believe that Snape could be an evil person, but
to say superwizard!ESE/OFH Snape must be evil defies logic. 

He has the  mad wizard skills to overcome four DE's but couldn't 
possibly fake an Avada Kedavra. 

He must divine instantly that Dumbledore wants him
to defy everything the Order stands for and kill four relatively
defenseless people, but he  couldn't possibly know that Dumbledore 
wants him to get the DE's out of the school and protect his cover 
at all costs. 

He must be able to  act well enough to feign remorse for sixteen
years, but not well enough to fool Harry Potter for ten seconds. 

Not only that,  even if Dumbledore did want Snape to kill all four
DE's to keep his cover intact, it wouldn't work. In the WW, dead
men *do* tell tales. Unless you're completely sure that the individual
in question won't want to come back as a ghost, killing someone to 
silence them would be self-defeating.


Pippin






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Mar 21 15:12:27 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:12:27 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dvo8bl+6snd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvp54r+qj8a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149863

> Neri:
> Resorting to sound effects now, Sydney <g>? Answer Jen's question, why
> did Dumbledore say he told Harry "everything" when he obviously didn't? 

Pippin:
I'm not Sydney, but I'll take a stab at it.

When Dumbledore met with Harry at the end of OOP, he only
had what  he "considered" to be certain proof that Voldemort had
split his soul. Though Dumbledore was confident of his conclusions, 
other wizards might not have been convinced.  Since he believed what
the Diary had done, the conclusion was inescapable, but  the only 
evidence was what a couple of kids had seen. That wouldn't be
good enough for other wizards. 

However, Dumbledore told Harry that he trusted Snape when he was
telling him all he knew.That means to me that he trusted Snape based
on evidence good enough for any reasonable wizard. 

As for how the life debt works, I think Dumbledore told us. It creates
a bond. Snape could hate James, aim curses at him all through
seventh year ( *after* the prank), heartily wish that he was dead, even,
IMO, participate in his death as Peter planned to participate in Harry's.
But he couldn't be apathetic. He couldn't tell himself that killing James
was the same as killing any other nameless, faceless enemy of the 
Dark Lord. 

I think that was Snape's Damascus moment, when he
was forced to reconsider everything. Up to then, whatever he'd done,
I don't think he'd faced all his feelings about it. He'd
shut down his compassion, but  it didn't work with James.

Tthe difference between this and anklemonitor!Snape is that I
think Snape came to a more general conclusion: shutting down
his compassion  and allowing himself to feel no pity for innocent
lives had been wrong. 

I think the bond is created when a wizard saves another's life by
exposing himself to the same danger. There's no bond between Harry and
Ginny, then,  because Harry wasn't in danger of having his life force
sucked away. Ditto for Snape saving Harry from the broomstick
hex. But James did expose himself to the werewolf, and Harry did
face the wands that were about to kill Peter. I think JKR was evasive
because she doesn't want us to think about whether
Harry's life was in real danger from Sirius and Lupin. Not yet.

Pippin






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 21 15:13:45 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:13:45 -0000
Subject: Hedwig
In-Reply-To: <dvo7vt+sl40@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvp579+ugj0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149864

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sbursztynski" <greatraven at ...>
wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Dave Hardenbrook <DaveH47@> wrote:
> >
> > It hadn't occurred to me before, but has anyone else noticed that
> > Hedwig is almost absent from HBP?  Once the school year begins,
the only
> > time she's even mentioned is when she delivers Harry's new (soon to be
> > "decoy") copy of _Advanced Potion-Making_.  Is this significant?  Any
> > ideas on what (if any) significant role she might play in Book 7?
> > 
> > -- 
> > Dave
> >
> 
> Sue here:
> 
> The trouble is, she really doesn't have much to do in the context.
Sirius is dead and he was almost the only person who was writing to
Harry. Who else might write - any ideas?
>
Carol responds:
If HRH are out Horcrux hunting, they'll need to keep in touch with
someone at Hogwarts, probably Ginny. (They won't need an owl to keep
in touch with the Order, except maybe Mrs. Figg.) He might even use
her to communicate with Aunt Petunia--wouldn't that be a switch? Or
Fufus Scrimgeour if they reach some sort of agreement? But Hedwig is
so conspicuous, it might be dangerous to use her. Maybe Harry will
give her to Hagrid, but then they'd have to use Pigwidgeon--or even
Crookshanks, who was used by SB when he bought Harry's Firebolt. 

It just occurred to me that If the news leaks out that Harry isn't at
Hogwarts, assuming that it's still open, Voldemort may suspect that
something's up. What would he be doing out of school if not hunting
for Horcruxes?

Carol, trying to imagine Harry exchanging owl messages with Draco or
Snape and failing miserably






From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Tue Mar 21 15:40:04 2006
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 07:40:04 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Godric's Hollow
In-Reply-To: <dvlvhj+ujmj@eGroups.com>
References: <dvlvhj+ujmj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <700201d40603210740r527b7664v8bde1fc8f21b2af3@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149865

Brady wrote:
>
> I have not found much
> being asked about [Voldemort's] body itself!
>
> The AK doesn't destroy the the body to the extent that it can't be
> seen, right? We are always left with a body behind. But in GH, till
> date, there has not been any mention of James', Lily's or Voldy's
> body! Why? what happened then?
>

Kemper now:
I don't have a theory for the lack of mention of James' or Lily's body, but
I do for Voldy's.
The Love Protection that blocked the AK also strengthened its intensity
sevenfold when it rebounded off Harry back to Voldemort.

Obviously, there is little canon support but to say that at the end of PS/SS
(the Man with Two Faces?) Harry's touch to Quirrell, which would normally
have little to no pain, severely caused his body trauma.  And I think 7fold
(as opposed to 6- or 8fold) because seven is the most powerful/magical
number.

Kemper


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




From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 21 16:13:50 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:13:50 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dvp54r+qj8a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvp8nu+5dr4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149866

Pippin:
> I think the bond is created when a wizard saves another's life by
> exposing himself to the same danger. There's no bond between Harry and
> Ginny, then,  because Harry wasn't in danger of having his life force
> sucked away. Ditto for Snape saving Harry from the broomstick
> hex. But James did expose himself to the werewolf, and Harry did
> face the wands that were about to kill Peter. I think JKR was evasive
> because she doesn't want us to think about whether
> Harry's life was in real danger from Sirius and Lupin. Not yet.

zgirnius:
My first reaction was, cool! Great explanation of why Ginny has no 
lifedebt. Followed shortly by...but wait! Sirius and Lupin would not 
have killed Harry, so this way Peter would not have a life-debt. (Silly 
me. <bg> Of course you don't see it this way). 

On further consideration, the problem I have with this is that if you 
are right, both about Lupin and about the Life Debt, why would 
Dumbledore tell Harry he has a life debt? Presumably, Dumbledore knows 
how a life debt comes into existence. In order to believe Peter now 
owes one under your theory, Dumbledore would have to believe that Harry 
was exposing himelf to the same danger as Peter faced, which would mean 
Dumbledore believed either Lupin, or Sirius, or both, would kill Harry. 
I see no evidence for this view, and perhaps a little against. (Rather 
annoying of old Dumbledore to pooh-pooh Snape's suspicions about Lupin 
if he himself knows them to be true...)







From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca  Tue Mar 21 17:38:47 2006
From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:38:47 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dvp8nu+5dr4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvpdn7+jusd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149867

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zgirnius" <zgirnius at ...> 
wrote:
<snip>
> zgirnius:
> My first reaction was, cool! Great explanation of why Ginny has no 
> lifedebt. Followed shortly by...but wait! Sirius and Lupin would 
not 
> have killed Harry, so this way Peter would not have a life-debt. 
(Silly 
> me. <bg> Of course you don't see it this way). 
> 
> On further consideration, the problem I have with this is that if 
you 
> are right, both about Lupin and about the Life Debt, why would 
> Dumbledore tell Harry he has a life debt? Presumably, Dumbledore 
knows 
> how a life debt comes into existence. In order to believe Peter 
now 
> owes one under your theory, Dumbledore would have to believe that 
Harry 
> was exposing himelf to the same danger as Peter faced, which would 
mean 
> Dumbledore believed either Lupin, or Sirius, or both, would kill 
Harry. 
> I see no evidence for this view, and perhaps a little against. 
(Rather 
> annoying of old Dumbledore to pooh-pooh Snape's suspicions about 
Lupin 
> if he himself knows them to be true...)
>

Just randomly commenting on life-debts...I kind of got the 
impression from the books that life-debts only really occurred when 
the people involved (the saver and the saved) were enemies.

Quick_Silver






From sydpad at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 21 17:44:56 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:44:56 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dvo8bl+6snd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvpe2p+h22l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149868


> Neri:
> As for my hypothetical stage 2, I don't know when Snape was kicked
> into it. If the Life Debt is indeed a bond that causes you to
> empathize with the suffering of the victim, then it makes more sense
> that the actual pain symptoms only started when James died, although
> he would perhaps feel some remorse before that, maybe from James' fear
> for his family. 

Sydney:
You know, arguing against this theory is starting to feel like
wrestling with Proteus-- it seems to take whatever from is handiest
for countering an argument.  Your original LD theory was pretty
straightforward:

Neri a week ago, in 149736:
>If OTOH we assume that the Life Debt magic is really more similar the
>UV. Say, it kills you if you kill the one you owe to, or I you take a
>part in killing him. And (in order to account for Snape's strange
>behavior  in "The Flight of the Prince") lets say that the Debt is
>kind enough to give you a painful warning or a reminder if you are
>*about* to kill or hurt that person. So by informing Voldemort about
>the prophecy, Snape made himself a part of Voldemort's scheme to kill
>the Potters. He realized that he would die if Voldy kills James. >Snape
>has no way to convince Voldy to give this up, so he ran to Dumbledore
>and told him about it.

>Both Dumbledore and Snape would realize that this effectively places
>Snape in Dumbledore's side. 

Sydney:
Have you altered this scheme now?  Perhaps because you are seeing how
it makes very little sense?  I take it my devastating arguements have
had an effect.

Now, back to today's theory:

Neri:
>He'd be then in a state similar to that of Peter in
> GoF. And Peter was certainly affected by the Debt in GoF. He was
> risking a lot when trying to convince Voldemort to use another wizard
> for the resurrection in GoF, Ch. 1. When he was tying Harry to the
> gravestone his fingers were "trembling uncontrollably" and he wouldn't
> meet Harry's eyes. 

Sydney:
Well, he knew he was about to cut his own hand off.  He calmed right
down after he got his shiny silver one, didn't he?  I seem to remeber
a lot of beaming and "Oh thank you mastering!"  Surely if we were to
have a hint of the life debt=death thing, it would have been, oh,
right after that, when Vmort prepares to kill Harry?  And I don't
quite see how this is out of character for Peter.  He looks ill when
Bertha Jorkins is brought up as well.  And using Harry is stupid and
unnecessarily risky.  And he wasn't really 'risking a lot' by
complaining about it, Voldemort's obviously used to Peter squeamishly
complaining about things and then going right along with them.  Now,
if Peter was otherwise stone-cold killer man, and only started his
writhing with Harry, you might have a point;  but he doesn't.

Neri:
>But unlike Snape during VW1, Peter doesn't have the
> option of going to the other side anymore, certainly not as a
> double-agent the way Snape did. Peter has to rebel against Voldy
> openly or continue following orders and hope that Harry would somehow
> escape death. 

Sydney:
Or, of course, he could simply not have gone to Albania and
single-handedly resurrected Voldemort.  

Shall I type that again?  Or, he could not have gone to Albania and
single-handedly resurrected Voldemort.  Boy, I bet he slapped his
forehead with a resounding slap after he did that one!  

Funny how Snape's "not having a choice" and Peter's "not having a
choice" seem to be completely different things!  It's almost like they
BOTH had a choice, and made diametrically opposite choices!

Neri:
>Of course, it's interesting that in HBP we see Snape and
> Peter together in the same house, with apparently no plot reason. One
> wonders what does this foreshadow for Book 7.

Sydney:
Their hilarious sitcom of course!  Sorry, nothing to do with the
argument, I just think they really do have a hilarious sitcom.  And as
for why Peter was there-- you're right, it is interesting, although it
might just be that JKR didn't have any place to put Peter in OoP and
thought she needed to stick him in somewhere to remind us of his
existence.


> > Sydney:
> > -- If Snape is merely driven by a basic need to keep Harry alive for
> > his own selfish ends, why did he murder Dumbledore, Harry's greatest
> > protector, and in a such a way that he would have to leave the scene,
> > thus leaving Harry entirely exposed when Voldemort is at full power?
> 
> Neri:
> You got me completely confused now. Here I am theorizing that Snape's
> remorse is a very specific thing, only about saving Harry's life,
> perhaps only once, and you say Snape killing Dumbledore is a problem
> with that? 

You're confused because you think we're talking about MY theory, but
we're not.  We're demolishing ankle-monitor!Snape here, now focus. 
Your argument on why Dumbledore "trusts Snape completely" is the
following:

Neri, 149736:
>Snape can only stay alive if Dumbledore
>and the Order manage to win the war and guard James, so Snape would be
>a fool to harm anybody in the Order. And if the Order wins and
>Voldemort loses, Snape would need Dumbledore to save him from Azkaban.
>In such a situation Dumbledore has a very good reason to trust that
Snape is on his side.

And then, to explain the UV, you add that Snape must also owe a Life
Debt to Dumbledore, because Dumbledore magically transferred the Life
Debt to Harry, that would otherwise have killed Snape when James died,
and then THAT Life Debt was paid off when Snape saved Dumbledore, so
now Snape is free to kill him, which is why he took the UV.  Which,
may I say, just goes to show you why "Dumbledore trusts Snape
completely because of the Life Debt to Harry" makes no sense
whatsoever.  Because if someone's a stone-cold killer except for this
one little thing, they're going to do things like that.  Silly Dumbledore!

Now if you're going to BEG for a reprise of my UV theory, which I DID
lay out in painful detail in post #149418, "High Noon for OFH!Snape",
well, I just can't let you down.  Now this goes to, how did you put it?

>How about your theory, saying Snape is generally remorseful
> and absolutely on Dumbledore's side

My Snape is generally remorseful, and he's, if not suicidal, then at
least flirting with death rather a lot-- this goes to the DADA curse
hankering as well, which is still bugging me.  So, he's seeing a
weeping mother begging him to protect her son (Lily!), and he sees he
has a chance to do some good, and he can't see any way to protect
Draco from Voldemort's wrath without essentailly putting himself
between them-- but being Snape, it's with a Dark Magic inversion of of
the Love magic that saved Harry.  When the third clause comes up, he
either can't stop because there's a snake made of fire tied to his
wrist, or he doesn't stop because he's prepared to die, or most likely
both.  Bear in mind that Snape ready to risk dying for another person
remains necessary for any UV theory, unless you want to start
inventing spells to forestall that.  

After that it all follows straightforwardly and canonically: 
Dumbledore appoints Snape to the DADA job, because one way or another
the s**t is going to hit the fan this year;  Dumbledore does an
intense, unprecedented mentoring thing with Harry all year; 
Dumbledore has a heated arguement with Snape that "you promised to do
it and you'll do it"; Dumbledore heads out and drinks a barrel of
poison;  then when Snape appears on the tower, Dumbledore says,
"Severus... please..." before Snape kills him, because he knew Snape
really, really didn't want to do it, but Dumbledore wanted Snape to
save the mission and the boys, rather than Dumbledore.  The end!  


> > Sydney: 
> > Seeing as Snape's fear of James getting hurt would be what, by you,
> > "forced Snape to be effectively on Dumbledore's side", what's
> > different now?  
> > 
> 
> Neri:
> As I have explained in recent posts, I think Snape didn't intend to
> kill Dumbledore before he can save Harry's life and repay the Debt.
> Draco's unforeseen action forced Snape to kill Dumbledore on the tower
> or die. 

*puzzled* Snape didn't foresee that Draco couldn't kill Dumbledore? 
Is that why he took the UV, because he thought, "ha!  Dumbledore
hasn't got a chance against Draco Malfoy"?

Neri:
>If Peter's Life Debt is the only Debt around,
> and it's a done thing, then I don't see why JKR couldn't clarify the
> status of Ginny's "not really" Debt. 

I never said Peter's debt was the only debt around, and I've certainly
never said that the Life Debt Snape seemed to have owed James won't
play a part.  I have no idea what sort of part.  Although I still say
that Dumbledore saying Snape "feels" he owes Harry and "funny how
people's minds work" is totally inconsistnet with his LD being
anywhere near as solid as your theory requires.


> > Sydney:
> > -- Replacing compassion for another person with jolts of electric
> > shock and threat of death, still feels like Torquemada's version of
> > Christianity more than Rowling's.  By your theory, Snape still isn't
> > feeling even remorse, he's just feeling pain and fear of dying
> > himself.  
> 
> Neri:
> By my theory he's feeling the pain of another person, pain that he has
> responsibility for. And he feels it against his will, but he's unable
> to shut it down. A magic that in RL we call... yep, remorse.
> 
> Christianity ? umm... no. I'd better not go there. I'd just point out
> that Christian JKR made Lupin become a rabid monster once a month
> since he was 5 yrs old kid. She made Sirius spend half his life in a
> jail where everybody goes insane, and then killed him a short time
> after he got out. Her main character she killed both his parents when
> he was a baby, and put in his forehead a magical scar that connects
> him directly with the mind of the sociopath evil overlord. And these
> are the *good* guys. All things considered, I think LID!Snape got away
> relatively cheap. 

I'm not saying that JKR doens't LOVE to make people suffer, because
she certainly does!  I'm saying that she wouldn't see using magic to
FORCE people to feel things they otherwise wouldn't as a good thing.

And your theory has now changed to the point that Snape isn't just
prevented from harming Harry, he's connected in some deep way to any
suffering that Harry feels.   And I don't see that AT ALL.  If there's
one thing that's clear, it's that Snape doesn't give a damn what Harry
feels, in fact, he'd rather Harry feels like crap generally, but he's
willing to risk his life to protect him from physical harm, which is
the sort of harm Snape can understand.  This is actually a lot more
consistent with anklemonitor!Snape, than your new, soul-connected
Snape, so I'd advise you to go back to it.

And your prosthetic remorse-- sorry, still not remorse.  As
justCarol's excellent post had it, remorse is about feeling crappy
about yourself because you're a bad person and have hurt others. 
Which sounds like Snape all over to me.

 
> > Sydney:
> > -- If Snape is just feeling Harry's suffering generally, why haven't
> > we seen more of this?
> 
> Neri:
> If Snape loved Lily, why haven't we seen *any* signs of this?

Oh, you can see the signs if you look, Neri.  You really can <g>. 
Before HBP, I would have said, "It's just a hunch based on similar
books I've read-- Victorian books, mostly- and the fact that something
has to tie Lily back in to the heart of the story".  After HBP, I'll
say, what's up with Potions!Genius Lily, who seems to have been using
the same book as Harry?

 
> > Sydney:
> > Why could he give him pounding headaches for
> > hours in Occlumency lessons?  Why did he feel sure Harry was a
> > pampered kid when he came to Hogwarts, when presumably he would have
> > been lying awake at night in wretched pain because of little Harry's
> > suffering under the Dursely's, for which Snape is indirectly
> responsible?
> > 
> 
> Neri:
> Apparently all this stuff isn't significant enough to break Snape's
> defenses. As Del noted, a Life Debt just might be about, you know...
life.

Aaaand, we're back to ankle-monitor Snape.  I thought the LD didn't
allow Snape to HAVE defenses?  Oh, now, where did I read that?  I
dont' think I even have to go back to last week, I think it's in the
very post I've been replying to:  

Neri:
"it *is* actual remorse, that the
 Life Debt magic merely prevents Snape from shutting down"

Dude, go back to the anklemonitor.  It doens't make sense, but it at
least makes more sense than this "Snape feels Harry's pain" thing.

 
> Neri:

<massive snippage all going to, Snape goes ape in the Shrieking Shack
because of the suggestion that Sirius is innocent>


> But you see, if Sirius is actually innocent as Hermione suggests, then
> Harry wasn't in danger from him. And if Harry wasn't in danger, it
> means Snape didn't save his life. And *this* is unthinkable for Snape.

Sirius being innocent is unthinkable for Snape because he's been here
before-- he's been trying to convince people not to trust Sirius, and
people didn't listen to him, and people died.  That's why he says,
"DON'T TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND", and why he screams at
Harry for suggesting that Snape is prejudiced against Sirius "just
because he made a fool of you at school", which is probably JUST what
James said 14 years before, when Snape was trying to convince him not
to make Sirius secret-keeper.  I think he just can't BELIEVE he's
still having this conversation.  I mean, picture Harry at some point
in Book VII if someone was trying to convince him that he was wrong
about Snape!

Of course this can work for either a Snape motivated by the Life Debt
or by Lily, but I think the rage and the thrist for the worst revenge
he can think of are more consistent with the latter.  And I'm still
not seeing any sign of "yay!  I'm free!" Snape when he rags on Harry
about ingratitude.  Why the heck would he care about Harry's
gratitude?  I'm sorry, I reread that passage, and it just doesn't read
to me like Snape is saying, "I just saved your life, and this means my
whole life is now changed."  It reads like, well, what does he say?

"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'd have died like your father,
too arrogant to believe you might be mistaken in Black ? now get out
of the way, or I will make you. GET OUT OF THE WAY, POTTER!"

It reads like, "Well, isn't this just typical.  Now, can I kill Sirius
please?  Because, you know, the last time everyone was all "Oh, Sirius
wouldn't betray us!, I seem to recall that didn't really work out." 
(and I'll just add, for my sake, "And the woman I loved died"). 
That's all I'm seeing. 

And duh, Snape doesn't bring up Lily.  Snape never, ever, brings up
Lily.  Don't you think that's just a little odd, in 6 books, when
Snape throws every thing else he can think of at Harry?  I'm pretty
sure oxen and wainropes couldn't drag it out of him.


Neri:
> He has just saved Harry's neck. That's what important for Snape. 

No, again, it really seems to me that wringing all the pain he can out
of Sirius is what's important for Snape.  He just seems to give that
way, WAY more energy than the life-saving thing.  Anyhoo, wrapping up:


> Neri:
I>t *is* actual remorse, that the
> Life Debt magic merely prevents Snape from shutting down.

Sydney:
Now, if your theory is merely going to be, the Life Debt, when he
endangered James, somehow opened Snape up to remorse, and to a horror
of what he was doing, and thereafter what Snape has been feeling has
been indistinguishable from actual remorse, well, I can't really argue
with that, seeing as you can't slide a piece of paper between that
Snape and DDM!Snape.  Or Snape/Lily.

> > -- Sydney, who will call Neri's theory the "ankle-monitor" theory, as
> > opposed to the Life-Debt theory, seeing as it's a bit unfair to hijack
> > a name for an impenetrable magic thingie we know nothing about and
> > apply it to an elaborate spell essentially made up from whole cloth.
> >
> 
> Neri:
> Umm... now you got me confused about your terminology. What *is* the
> thing you call "the Life Debt theory" and what exactly is the
> difference between it and what you call the "ankle-monitor" theory? 

Sydney:
I don't have a "Life Debt" theory, I don't know enought about the
spell, and I can't think of a literary precedent that would hint at
it's story function--  aside from Frodo saving Gollum, which has the
DADA-curse-like effect of Gollum accidentally destroying the ring.  I
have no idea where JKR is going with the Life Debt, I'm just
reasonably sure that she, a) doesn't use magic to replace people's
feelings, ever, unless it's a bad thing, and b) is mostly concerned,
in the Snape storyline, with reconciling him with Harry, and the LD
thing seems to move Harry away from that by making Snape's good
actions artificial.

I'm just heading you off at the pass <g>, on claiming ANY operation of
the Life Debt as fulfilling your theory, which, while constantly
mutating, keeps the central characteristic of trying to avoid Snape
(who you seem to have realized is effectively DDM, anyways) having
good-guy motivations.

And if we're going to cattily bring up other people's theories <evil
g>, have you dropped your missing five hours thing from OoP?  Because
surely anklemonitor!Snape would never risk leaving Harry with a load
of DE's for that long willingly!  Incidentally, woulnd't that be close
enough to pay off the Life Debt:  Snape endangered James by reporting
a conversation, and then he saves Harry by reporting another
conversation.  Yay!  All done.

Sydney-- home sick!  whoo!







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 21 17:48:23 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:48:23 -0000
Subject: Godric's Hollow
In-Reply-To: <dvo45c+a6cv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvpe97+iut3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149869

Laura wrote:
<snip> 
> My personal opinion is that all the bodies in Godric's Hollow were
at least disfigured in the destruction of the home.  Voldemort surely
wouldn't settle for a body which showed evidence of his mistake.  But
I bet JK Rowling wrote this part of the story assuming there wasn't
much left of any of their bodies.  Probably James' and Lily's graves
that are mostly symbolic, not really holding much of their mortal bodies.
> 
> -Hope this is helpful and might spur discussion, as I too am tired 
or the seemingly endless dialogue on Snape.
>

Carol responds:
I'm *not* tired of the Snape discussion, but I do have a few ideas on
this one. Wizards seem to be less easily destructible than Muggles
(the fall that broke Neville's arm would have killed a Muggle; Hagrid
scoffs at the idea of James and Lily being killed in a car crash, ad
infinitum). It's possible that their bodies are also less destructible
than ours. Certainly fifteen-month-old Harry is unscathed by the
explosion of the house; his only injury is the lightning-shaped cut on
his forehead. Also, Sirius Black tells Harry in the Shrieking Shack
that he "saw their house, destroyed, and their bodies" (PoA ch. 19).
So I think we can safely conclude that the Potters' graves do hold
their bodies, which suffered little or no further harm from the
destruction of the house. What happened to Voldie is slightly more
mysterious, but since the Daily Prophet reported the story of the Boy
Who Lived, his body must have been present and recognizable, but it
must also have been torn apart by the deflected spell, unfit for
possession by its former, erm, occupant, who would not have let a
little thing like disfigurement reflecting his defeat prevent him from
occupying his own body so he could hold a wand.

Here's what I think happened. James and Lily were AK'd in the normal
fashion and died unmarked, with the usual open eyes and surprised
expressions. Harry was hit with an AK that at first left *him*
unmarked (it made no mark on entering) but which burst out of him as
the result of Lily's sacrificial magic, leaving the lightning- (or
rune-?) shaped cut. This intensified, renegade AK hit Voldemort, whose
Horcruxes prevented him from dying but could not prevent him from
being ripped from his body, "less than the meanest ghost." Since LV
retained the power of possession, even in this formless state--shaken,
weak, and helpless--he could have possessed his own body if it had not
been destroyed. Ergo, it must have exploded, but parts of it (the
face?) must still have been recognizable. Otherwise the Daily Prophet
could not have reported that he was responsible for the murders or
that he was destroyed after failing to kill Baby!Harry. The explosion
that ripped apart Voldie's body was so intense that it also blew up
the house, but James may have been outside the house and Lily and
Harry were upstairs, so only part of the house fell on them. As
previously indicated, Hagrid had just pulled Harry out of the rubble
when Black arrived, but the Potters' bodies were visible, and Black
had no trouble concluding that Pettigrew had revealed the secret to
LV. (Whether Voldie's body was also visible, Black doesn't say, but it
must have been because Hagrid later concludes, wrongly, that it was
Voldemort's apparent death, not the deaths of the Potters, that
disturbed "the murderin' traitor.")

I was going to discuss the tricky timeline for these events and the
next twenty-four hours, but I'm forced to conclude that JKR isn't
concerned with synchronizing events that occur off-page with those
that appear on-page (which would also apply to the so-called missing
five hours with Snape and the Battle of the MoM, Neri!). For one
thing, there's just no way to fit Hagrid's revealing the location of 4
Privet Drive to McGonagall into the timeline. I do think, though, as
an aside, that the AKs, including the failed one, must have registered
on the MoM's radar, and they would have come to investigate *before*
Hagrid left the scene, along with some reporters and photographers
from the Daily Prophet, and to Obliviate any interfering Muggles.
There must have been photos in the next morning's Prophet of the Boy
Who Lived, showing the soon-to-be-famous scar, the demolished house,
and the recognizable remnants of Voldemort. But that can't be how DD
found out about it because Hagrid is the first person on the scene.

What interests me is that Hagrid's account of these events in the
Three Broomsticks (PoA) doesn't quite match his earlier account in
SS/PS (which has Black lending him the motorcycle instead of not
needing it any more). The second account, IMO, arranges the events to
fit his interpretation of Black as a "murderin' traitor." Much the
same thing occurs with Harry when he relates the events on the tower
and the reason for DD's trust in Snape to the members of the Order,
which has repeatedly been shown to deviate from DD's actual words. As
Black says of the Muggles who testified against him (before their
memories were modified), "They didn't see what they thought they saw."
The mind modifies what the eyes perceive and what the perceiver
consciously remembers. (Thank goodness for the objective record of the
memory, which can be viewed in a Pensieve!)

Carol, who thinks that we can at least safely conclude that Lily's and
James's bodies were intact and Voldie's wasn't even if we never
untangle the Missing 24 Hours






From belviso at attglobal.net  Tue Mar 21 18:13:34 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:13:34 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dvpdn7+jusd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvpfoe+h84j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149870

> Quick_Silver
> Just randomly commenting on life-debts...I kind of got the 
> impression from the books that life-debts only really occurred 
when 
> the people involved (the saver and the saved) were enemies.

Magpie:
Yes.  The "unworthiness" is a big issue.  JKR's statements about 
Ginny are all about that, imo, not an elaborate way of saying that 
yes, Ginny owes Harry a Life Debt (just like Snape owes James) but 
it means nothing because she won't need any prodding to feel 
sympathy for him.  When she said "not really" she meant that yes, 
technically Ginny does owe Harry a life debt in that he saved her 
life so she owes him one.  In the casual, real world sense, she owes 
him.  But she doesn't have this magical debt because that only 
happens when your life is saved by someone who hates you and you've 
wronged.  Harry does not owe Madam Pomfrey a debt for fixing him up 
after Quidditch accidents.  Ron does not owe Harry for giving him 
the bezoar. Arthur is not in Harry's magical debt for reporting his 
vision of the snake.  Katie does not owe Snape for counteracting the 
curse.  Draco does not owe Snape for the UV or the Sectumsempra 
counter spell.  There's no magic at work in those relationships.  
It's pretty in-keeping with Christianity there.  (To reference a 
post above this one, there is nothing out of keeping with a 
Christian theme to have your good characters suffer, especially 
nobly or innocently.)  It's also in keeping with Dumbledore's words 
on the Tower: It is my mercy, not yours, that is important now.  A 
Life Debt situation in general overrides all selfish hateful 
feelings towards the person and makes your main reason for saving 
them that it is right to show mercy.

For this reason, Snape can save Harry's life as many times as he 
wants (and if just physically saving his life will free him from the 
debt he's done it in PS/SS when he counteracted the broom hex) and 
will never be free of the debt because Harry will never be to Snape 
what Snape was to James or Peter was to Harry, period.  There is one 
way that I can see Snape's debt being repaid, but it would require 
Harry to be saved by an enemy, who was close to Snape in the way 
Snape connects his life debt to Harry.  I don't know that that would 
be a way JKR would go, but it seems instinctively to be the only way 
that these things work.  Most importantly, because it takes things 
out of Snape's hands.  Someone else would have to free him, now that 
James is dead.

-m






From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net  Tue Mar 21 18:16:50 2006
From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:16:50 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV
In-Reply-To: <dvo51v+bbur@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvpfui+poft@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149871

SSSusan said previously:
> > How is he [Snape] supposed to cast the first three spells without 
> > the other DE shouting out "Avada Kedavra" or even just
> > "Expelliarmus" in the meantime?

Eggplant: 
> As Dumbledore demonstrated in the big shoot out at the ministry at the
> end of book 5, an extraordinarily powerful wizard can fight many
> average Death Eaters at the same time and win rather easily, and
> Dumbledore didn't have the element of surprise as Snape had. 

SSSusan:
To this part of your post, I'll simply point to Pippin's response here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149862

... and say, "Yeah. What SHE said." ;-)

Seriously, Pippin had an excellent point about DD not *killing* a whole 
mess of people.  And I guess I'm not sure where this SuperWizard!Snape 
stuff has come from.  I think Snapeykins is mightily talented, but I'm 
not sure I buy that he's some super-duper, world's-most-talented-
fighter-soldier or anything.  What Dumbledore could do not many others 
can.  'Twould be why Voldy feared only he, right?


Eggplant:
> If Snape hadn't vowed to become a traitor he would have had a 
> reasonable chance of success if he attacked the Death Eaters. And if 
> he failed, well, better to die than betray your friends. 

SSSusan:
Unless that friend is commanding you to take that very action.  That's 
the point many of us DDM!Snapers are trying to make: that we believe 
that DD asked or commanded Snape to kill him.  It's kind of hard to 
argue what's "better" when our read of the scene includes such an order 
from DD.  Many don't believe DD would ever do such a thing.  Many 
others don't believe DD would hesitate to sacrifice himself if he felt 
the situation would require it/things would be better in the end if he 
did.

We shall, of course, see in Book 7.

Siriusly Snapey Susan










From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Tue Mar 21 18:29:23 2006
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:29:23 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV.
In-Reply-To: <dvp2i0+nedi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvpgm3+84ff@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149872

"pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:

> Dumbledore overcame his enemies
> without killing them.

So if Snape ignored this rather ridiculous scruple in a time of war
then he'd have an even easier time of it than Dumbledore did.

> kill four relatively defenseless people

A previous Snape apologist said Snape would have no chance if he
fought those same 4 people, now you say Snape could kill them so
easily it would be an unfair turkey shoot so it would be more
sportsmanlike to murder Dumbledore instead. It does not compute.

> The more powerful we make Snape, 
> the less justification he has 
> for killing in battle.

So lets see, killing 4 incredibly evil Death Eaters would be immoral
even if it saved an innocent life, but murdering good kind Dumbledore
is perfectly moral. I don't think so.

The next book is going to be a book about war. If JKR makes one side
in the war so effete, so nasty nice, so squeamish at the thought of
killing the enemy even in self defense that they'd rather murder
someone on their own side then she is going to produce one stinker of
a book. If JKR does that I'll be rooting for Voldemort to win, the
nauseatingly sweet good guys would be just too wimpy to live.    

> Dumbledore wants him [
.] 

The devil with what Dumbledore wants. Snape and only Snape is the one
responsible for vowing to become a traitor and a murderer.

> [Snape] couldn't possibly fake an
> Avada Kedavra.

Yes, and for an unforgivable curse like Avada Kedavre to work you must
really feel the hatred; if I felt such hate I'd probably have hatred
etched into the harsh lines of my face.

Eggplant
 
 








From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Tue Mar 21 18:51:02 2006
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 10:51:02 -0800
Subject: The lack of Obliviators and the Press at GH was Godric's Hollow
Message-ID: <700201d40603211051h23729f7frcab11abfc9c8a50c@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149873

 Carol wrote:
> ...Snip Carol's well thought out theory on what happened to the bodies...
> I do think, though, as
> an aside, that the AKs, including the failed one, must have registered
> on the MoM's radar, and they would have come to investigate *before*
> Hagrid left the scene, along with some reporters and photographers
> from the Daily Prophet, and to Obliviate any interfering Muggles.
> There must have been photos in the next morning's Prophet of the Boy
> Who Lived, showing the soon-to-be-famous scar, the demolished house,
> and the recognizable remnants of Voldemort. But that can't be how DD
> found out about it because Hagrid is the first person on the scene.
>

Kemper now:
Even if the AKs registered with the MoM, the sight of the killings, Godric's
Hollow, is still a  secret kept within Peter.  I'm guessing only those who
knew the secret, could see the devastation of the rebounded and intensified
curse, ergo Obiviators would not be needed because neighborhood Muggles
would not have seen anything and the press would have nothing to report..

Unless of course the secret is "The Potters are staying at their house."  If
the house is destroyed, I would think the secret would be as well.  But if
the secret was "The Potters are staying at 731 Rowling Lane, in Godrics
Hollow", then the secret is still safe because the place (address) still
exists even though the house might not.

 -Kemper


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




From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca  Tue Mar 21 19:16:29 2006
From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:16:29 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dvpfoe+h84j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvpjed+t2aj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149874

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" <belviso at ...> 
wrote:
>
> > Quick_Silver
> > Just randomly commenting on life-debts...I kind of got the 
> > impression from the books that life-debts only really occurred 
> when 
> > the people involved (the saver and the saved) were enemies.
> 
> Magpie:
> Yes.  The "unworthiness" is a big issue.  JKR's statements about 
> Ginny are all about that, imo, not an elaborate way of saying that 
> yes, Ginny owes Harry a Life Debt (just like Snape owes James) but 
> it means nothing because she won't need any prodding to feel 
> sympathy for him.  When she said "not really" she meant that yes, 
> technically Ginny does owe Harry a life debt in that he saved her 
> life so she owes him one.  In the casual, real world sense, she 
owes 
> him.  But she doesn't have this magical debt because that only 
> happens when your life is saved by someone who hates you and 
you've 
> wronged.  Harry does not owe Madam Pomfrey a debt for fixing him 
up 
> after Quidditch accidents.  Ron does not owe Harry for giving him 
> the bezoar. Arthur is not in Harry's magical debt for reporting 
his 
> vision of the snake.  Katie does not owe Snape for counteracting 
the 
> curse.  Draco does not owe Snape for the UV or the Sectumsempra 
> counter spell.  There's no magic at work in those relationships.  
> It's pretty in-keeping with Christianity there.  (To reference a 
> post above this one, there is nothing out of keeping with a 
> Christian theme to have your good characters suffer, especially 
> nobly or innocently.)  It's also in keeping with Dumbledore's 
words 
> on the Tower: It is my mercy, not yours, that is important now.  A 
> Life Debt situation in general overrides all selfish hateful 
> feelings towards the person and makes your main reason for saving 
> them that it is right to show mercy.

Quick_Silver: I basically agree with that.

> 
> For this reason, Snape can save Harry's life as many times as he 
> wants (and if just physically saving his life will free him from 
the 
> debt he's done it in PS/SS when he counteracted the broom hex) and 
> will never be free of the debt because Harry will never be to 
Snape 
> what Snape was to James or Peter was to Harry, period.  There is 
one 
> way that I can see Snape's debt being repaid, but it would require 
> Harry to be saved by an enemy, who was close to Snape in the way 
> Snape connects his life debt to Harry.  I don't know that that 
would 
> be a way JKR would go, but it seems instinctively to be the only 
way 
> that these things work.  Most importantly, because it takes things 
> out of Snape's hands.  Someone else would have to free him, now 
that 
> James is dead.
> 
> -m
>

I'm going to disagree with that (sorry). To me the concept of the 
life debt is tied to the fact that both parties know what's going 
on. Peter knows the Harry is saving his life and Snape, apparently, 
knew that James was saving his life (or getting cold feet). So I 
kind of think that it works the same way for repayment too. That's 
why the example of Snape saving Harry during the Quidditch match has 
never worked for me...it's repayment by stealth. Harry learns of it 
from Quirrell and not Snape...indeed I don't think that Snape has 
ever mentioned it. So IMO the life debt is partly about taking a 
stand, just like James took a stand against Sirius and like Harry 
took a stand against Lupin and Sirius, and the person being saved 
has to know that that stand is being taken. I don't think the time 
has yet come for Peter or Snape to take a stand but I believe it is 
fast approaching.

On a side note I think that there's still hope for Peter...the 
actions in the graveyard were committed less then a year after 
receiving his life debt. Snape apparently didn't begin 
his "redemption" until at least a year into his (or is it 3 
years...something like that). There's still time in my opinion for 
Peter to do something. 

Quick_Silver







From belviso at attglobal.net  Tue Mar 21 22:00:52 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 22:00:52 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dvpjed+t2aj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvpt2k+6tls@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149875

Quick_Silver:
> I'm going to disagree with that (sorry). To me the concept of the 
> life debt is tied to the fact that both parties know what's going 
> on. Peter knows the Harry is saving his life and Snape, 
apparently, 
> knew that James was saving his life (or getting cold feet). So I 
> kind of think that it works the same way for repayment too. That's 
> why the example of Snape saving Harry during the Quidditch match 
has 
> never worked for me...it's repayment by stealth. 

Magpie:
I think the dramatic need is going to dictate that any Life Debt 
scene we'll see will be right there in front of us with everyone 
knowing what's going on.  So what you're saying is probably 
inevitable--nobody's going to be getting any notes after the fact 
that they're now in or out of a Life Debt.  It's hard for me to 
imagine that if Snape had fainted in the tunnel and been carried to 
the Infirmary and later told that James saved his life he would have 
been any less under a Life Debt to James, but I don't think it will 
ever come down to that in the story, so for all intents and purposes 
you're probably right.

-m










From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 21 22:02:13 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 22:02:13 -0000
Subject: Draco's debt to Snape (Was: LID!Snape rides again)
In-Reply-To: <dvpfoe+h84j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvpt55+sqj9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149876

<snipping the Life Debt discussion, which I think only partially
accounts for Snape's motives, and skipping to this interesting tidbit>

Magpie wrote:
> <snip> Draco does not owe Snape for the UV or the Sectumsempra
counter spell.  There's no magic at work in those relationships. <snip>

Carol responds:
But there *is* magic involved in Snape's saving Draco. He's made a UV
to protect the boy. I believe that he would have saved Draco anyway
for a number of reasons, ranging from his duty as DADA professor and
Draco's HOH to personal affection to the probability that he's the
only person in Hogwarts or even the whole WW who knows the
countercurse to Sectum Sempra, his own invented spell. However, if it
weren't for the UV, or at least Snape's promise to DD to keep an eye
on Draco, he probably wouldn't have been following the boy around in
the first place. So while I agree that Draco owes Snape no Life Debt
in the sense of a magical bond to an enemy who has saved him as an act
of mercy (Magpie's definition, which I see no reason to dispute), he
does owe his life to Snape: If Snape hadn't been there to save him,
Draco would be dead (and Harry in a cauldron of hot water).

Consequently, Draco owes Snape at the very least a debt of gratitude
not only for the countercurse but for the UV. Surely Draco knows what
a UV entails. Surely he knows that Snape did a lot more than merely
"promise my mother" to protect him; he risked his life by taking the
UV in the first place, a risk that Draco chooses to ignore both when
Snape informs him of it during the Christmas party and when he's
talking to DD on the tower--months after Snape has saved his life.

Setting aside the question(s) of whether Draco is worth saving and why
Snape agreed to take the UV in the first place, which are not relevant
here, it seems to me that Draco should acknowledge his debt even if he
thinks he no longer needs Snape's protection, especially after Snape
saved his life a second time on the tower.

We don't know whether the UV still holds. I personally think that
whether the vow is still in effect or not, Snape's sense of duty and
his promise to Narcissa would lead him to protect Draco from LV's
wrath by pointing out that he fulfilled his mission of allowing the
DEs into Hogwarts and making the death of DD possible. So, IMO, Snape
will use his position as LV's most trusted lieutenant, the man who
killed Dumbledore, to save Draco from punishment. But how Draco will
respond is an open question. The mission is now at an end and the UV
is probably void, and Draco is either seventeen or very close to it at
this point, a "man" in his own eyes and those of the WW. But surely he
understands now, after Snape has saved him from Sectum Sempra and the
DEs (and quite possibly from the wrath of LV) that whatever Snape's
motive in wanting to know what he was up to in HBP, it was not to
steal his "glory." Surely he understands that Snape could have died,
that his "promise" put his own life in jeopardy for Draco's sake.

Will Draco, arriving belatedly at these conclusions, be man enough to
express gratitude to Snape, or will he want to escape Snape's
influence and act on his own, fugitive from justice though he now is?
Does anyone think that Draco will end up turning the tables by saving
Snape's life, or at least risking his life for Snape's sake? How do
the rest of you think the events of HBP will change their
relationship, aside from ending the formal teacher/student (or
HOH/student) connection?

What Draco owes Snape may not be a true Life Debt, but it's at the
very least a debt of honor that deserves acknowledgment, and I'm
curious to see how, and whether, Draco will repay it. Also, it seems
to me that Draco's loyalties are up for grabs as of Book 7 and that
Snape alone is in a position to direct him. (I don't think that he'll
choose Bella, who would willingly use him as wand fodder, as a mentor,
and LV certainly won't take Draco under his wing. It's Snape or no
one, IMO.) Snape's influence on Draco seemed to be waning in HBP, but
I'm wondering whether that will change if and when Draco realizes what
Snape has done for him--and maybe even realize that Snape would not be
the second most wanted wizard in the WW if it weren't for him.

Opinions, anyone? And am I the only one who sees parallels between the
Draco/Snape relationship and Harry/Dumbledore?

Carol, avoiding the question of Snape's loyalties in this post because
it concerns the relationship between him and Draco and what, exactly,
Draco now owes to Snape if it's not a true Life Debt 








From OctobersChild48 at aol.com  Tue Mar 21 07:39:31 2006
From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 02:39:31 EST
Subject: DDMSnape (was Re: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape))
Message-ID: <35b.2dbfb9.315107b3@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149877



Carol:
> As for DDM!Snape killing DD, killing DD, you know the arguments 
> and I'm not going to repeat them except to say that there was no 
> saving DD from the DEs if Snape or the poison didn't kill him, 
> and both Draco and Harry would almost certaingly have died with 
> DD and Snape if Snape had allowed the UV to kill him. Only Snape 
> could get Harry safely off the tower and the DEs and Draco off 
> the Hogwarts grounds. (The arguments and evidence for this idea 
> have already been presented by many people in many threads. 
> Anyone who does a search can find them.)
 

Okay, I'm getting ready to throw in the towel and cry uncle. From 
the beginning of the series I have hated Snape and considered him 
a mean, nasty, evil person. After reading HBP I was thoroughly 
convinced of what this list calls ESESnape. As I have been reading 
all of the theories put forth on this list I have been finding 
myself leaning more and more towards DDMSnape and this statement 
makes more sense than anything or any theory I have read. It's not 
that I really want to believe it, it makes it so much harder to 
hate Snape, but it's the only thing that makes sense. 

Sandy










From richter at ridgenet.net  Tue Mar 21 14:02:23 2006
From: richter at ridgenet.net (richter_kuymal)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 14:02:23 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV
In-Reply-To: <dvnuk0+g028@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvp11f+kb9h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149878

SSSusan: Not sure I'm following this bit about Fenrir.  What makes 
you think he's a Muggle?  Would Voldy bring *any* Muggle into 
alliance with  him??

PAR: Because he is described as NOT having a wand -- he tries to 
attack DD with hands and teeth.  As for why LV would deal with him --
 he is the acknowledged leader of the werewolves.  Why would LV 
promote being pureblood when he himself isn't?  Becasue LV doesn't 
really care about muggles OR if wizards are pureblood, halfblood or 
muggle-born.  He hates them all.  He just spouts the mantra that 
gets him the allies he wants.

SSSusan: As for this "minor" task facing Snape of handling Draco, 
Fenrir &  two ostensibly "lesser" DEs... um... let's just think 
about how long  it takes to cast a spell. Snape would have to freeze 
*two* people, which would mean casting *two* separate spells, 

PAR:it takes the time to say (or think) a word.   DD manages to take 
on multiple opponents in the headmaster's office in OOP (where he 
takes out Fudge and Aurors but doesn't harm Harry, Marietta or 
McDonagall), and this is where they are watching DD.  Snape, 
the "great warrior" can't do it with the element of surprise?  The 
DEs would have to recognize they were being attacked by Snape (hard 
to do if he uses a nonverbal attack) TURN and confront him (they are 
covering DD) and he can't manage this?  The whole idea of Snape 
being good enough at battle that he needs to be kept alive to help 
Harry rather falls apart if he is only good enough to take out one 
opponent at a time.  
--- PAR









From darqali at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 21 17:08:02 2006
From: darqali at yahoo.com (darqali)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:08:02 -0000
Subject: Godric's Hollow
In-Reply-To: <dvlvhj+ujmj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvpbti+k847@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149879

Brady <brahadambal at ...> wrote:
> Although I have seen posts asking and discussing about what 
> happened to or how PP came to have Voldy's wand and maybe robes 
> - I have not found much being asked about his body itself!
> 
> The AV doesn't destroy the the body to the extent that it can't 
> be seen, right? We are always left with a body behind. But in GH, 
> till date, there has not been any mention of James', Lily's or 
> Voldy's body! Why? what happened then? 
> 
> We do understand from the interviews that there was someone else 
> there. The question is not who, but what did this other person do 
> after Voldy's seventh soul-piece was separated from his body? His 
> body would still have been there, just like the diary, albeit dead. 
> So what happened to his original body? why couldn't he have 
> possessed the body itself instead of wandering in the forests of 
> Albania as something lesser than a ghost?


Darqali:
One of the major unresolved mysteries of the story is that of the 
exact sequence, participants, witnesses, events and aftermath of 
that fateful Halloween at Godric's Hollow, the night Harry became an 
orphan.

*Of course* someone else other than LV, James, Lily and Harry were 
present.  *Someone* pocketed, kept and protected LV's wand, for one 
thing, so that it was available to LV again in GoF.  [Robes are no 
issue.  PP or another servant {Crouch Jr} could have obtained robes 
for the new LV; his old robes would hardly be of any consequence.]

The easy answer to that question {who recovered LV's wand} is, of 
course, Peter Pettigrew.  He was the Secret Keeper who knew of the 
Potter's hiding place and betrayed the secret to LV, and he was the 
one who had LV's wand in the graveyard scene in GoF.

Some have said it is obvious that Peter was at Godric's Hollow, so he 
recovered LV's wand, and it was in his pocket.  When he transformed 
into a rat, it remained there, "in his fur" {noting that when a 
wizarding person transforms as an animagus, their clothing and 
accessories also transform; McGonagall's glasses become markings on 
her anamagus' cat fur; Rita Skeeter's beetle form has markings on its 
antennae like her bejeweled glasses, and so on.  When transforming 
back into human form, they are wearing clothing and their glasses, so 
those items also transform when they change into their animal 
counterpart.}  So, LV's wand stuck in Peter Pettigrew's pocket would 
be a part of Scabbers the Rat's fur, present again in its regualr 
form when he became the human Peter P, in the pocket of his robes or 
other clothing.

[We never see Peter with *his own wand*, do we?  I think that detail 
is never mentioned; Peter used *LV's* wand, not his own, in the 
graveyard scene.  Yet it seems logical that he would save his *own* 
wand as well as LV's. Or, that Peter would have obtained a new wand 
by the time of the Graveyard Scene, if his own wand had been lost in 
the past .... Further, if it were Peter who saved LV's wand {and 
possibly his own} after the events at Godric's Hollow, and if their 
hiding place was his clothing pocket {rat fur}, then LV's wand {and 
possibly his own} were present in the Shrieking Shack at the climax 
of PoA too!  Which one would have *thought* might have been a factor 
in play, yet, was not .....]

Anyway, we *don't* have the *facts* but *logic* says, Peter Pettigrew 
was the party present at Godric's Hollow who saved LV's wand, because 
he was the traitor who betrayed the location, and also the person who 
is seen with the wand prior to LV's resurrection in his new body.  If 
there is another party, who rescued the wand and "held" it for LV, we 
have no clue as to their identity.

As to the bodies:  Well, the house was destroyed by the rebounded 
curse [though Harry was not harmed].  LV himself was not killed 
{because of the existance of his Horcruxes}, but his *body* was 
destroyed {killed}.  Why not "possess" that body?  Logically, it 
likely was  blown to bits, for one thing.  For another, it was not a 
*living* body, even if whole.  Can a soul-bit, which is capable of 
possession of a living body, possess a *dead* body {making it in our 
terms a "zombie"}  or in the HP universe, an Inferius?  Doubtful.

Of course there remain other unanswered questions about Godric's 
Hollow, too.  We know Sirius set out to check on things when he 
couldn't contact Peter Pettigrew - and that he met up with Hagrid, 
for Sirius lent Hagrid his flying motorbike to take Harry to the 
Dursleys'. So at some point, Sirius was on the scene, but not in time 
to save the Potters, and it was Hagrid who got Harry out of the 
rubble. DD sent Hagrid to collect Harry, but when and how did DD 
learn of the events at Godric's Hollow which made Harry an orphan in 
need of collecting?  Not from Sirius, because DD didn't know of the 
switch to PP as the Secret Keeper, and he believed Sirius was the 
traitor to the degree he didn't try to get Sirius out of Azkaban when 
he was sent there {without trial} for a crime he didn't commit.

We can presume these mysteries will be dealt with early on in Book 7, 
since Harry has announced he is going to Godric's Hollow as his first 
action in persuit of LV's destruction  at the close of HBP.  We know 
his parent's graves are there, so we also know that there was 
something to bury, unlike the aftermath of Sirius death.  Since Harry 
has had some contact with his dead parents before and had help from 
them {graveyard scene in GoF}, might they manage to make contact 
again at their grave site, and give Harry some form of aid 
{information} there too?

But as for LV "possessing" his own dead body, that is a non-issue.  
He says "possession" is one power remaining to him in 'less than 
ghost' form.  But the small animals he possessed {especially snakes} 
didn't live long.  Clearly, when they died he either was a bodiless 
spirit form again, or he took another living creature to possess.  If 
he could have used a *dead* body, why would it matter?  He couldn't.  
Not even his own dead body, were it whole and not a pile of hamburger.

Elf Note to Darquali:  could you contact the elves at 
HPforGrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com?  Thanks!









From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Mar 21 22:37:25 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 22:37:25 -0000
Subject: Maligning Lupin
In-Reply-To: <dvml5c+bm7s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvpv75+e668@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149880


> > Pippin:
> > 
> > There are many Muggleborns and halfbloods who should
> > understand that human fallibility, exacerbated by poverty and
> > discrimination, can precipitate crime and terrorism without 
> > any help from Dark Magic or mind-altering diseases. Those
> > people are going to have more influence once Voldemort is 
> > defeated, or so I hope.
> 
> Renee:
> What makes you hope so? Voldemort was believed to be gone for fourteen
> years, yet we've heard nothing about any Muggleborn wizards or
> halfbloods breaking a lance for werewolves or any other
> oppressed/shunned/mistreated minorities during this time.

Pippin:
Umbridge's laws were new.
She was not able to pass  anti-werewolf laws until
Dumbledore and those supporting him were driven from power
or in fear of losing their jobs if they disagreed with her.  If
Umbridge's coalition is the one just barely hanging on to power,
which I imagine will be the case if the good guys win,
it will have to compromise, just as Dumbledore's did.

In GoF Arthur tells Hermione that he thinks she's right
about the way Winky is being treated, but it just isn't the
time to bring it up. Is it far-fetched to think that Lupin 
heard the same sort of thing once too often?
  
> Pippin: 
> > As for the Trio, they've got Bill. 
> 
> Renee:
> Bill is not a full werewolf; he doesn't transform and probably won't
> be considered a big threat to society. But even if he were to suffer
> prejudice, he can't serve as an example of carrying on and remaining a
> decent guy for years despite very unfavourable circumstances. He was
> bitten too recently for that.   
> 
Pippin:
There you put your finger on it. Purebloods and Slytherins don't
have to prove that they're decent people before they're granted
equal rights. Why should werewolves have to? 

The very fact that Bill's injuries are unprecedented proves that
werewolves  don't normally attack  people when they're
not transformed.  If the WW also needs proof that werewolves aren't
capable of transmitting full-blown lycanthropy except when
they're transformed, Bill's case proves that too.


> Renee:
> You're comparing apples and oranges here by calling them both round
> fruits. Lupin did not betray Dumbledore into the hands of his enemies.
> So why would he betray his friends to Voldemort? 

Pippin:
Dumbledore admitted Lupin to Hogwarts when no one else
would take the risk.

Have you considered what would have happened to Dumbledore
if Lupin had bitten someone in Hogsmeade? Do you think he'd
have been able to keep his job?  What would have happened to
everyone who was depending on Dumbledore to keep Hogwarts
secure against Voldemort?

Pippin






From belviso at attglobal.net  Tue Mar 21 23:03:57 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 23:03:57 -0000
Subject: Draco's debt to Snape (Was: LID!Snape rides again)
In-Reply-To: <dvpt55+sqj9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvq0ot+hc7k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149883

> Carol responds:
> But there *is* magic involved in Snape's saving Draco. He's made a
UV
> to protect the boy.

Magpie:
I phrased that badly.  I just meant Draco does not now have a Life
Debt to Snape because he healed him in the bathroom (nor would Snape
probably want him to--imagine his face when he saw his own Dark
Magic at work there), not that there was no magical bond going on at
that time--the UV is a pretty big one, but it's a vow from Snape and
Narcissa. She owes him big time for saving her son, that's where the
debt is.  Let the adults owe each other.  Draco isn't magically
indebted for something between Snape and Narcissa, even if he owes
his life to it.  Nor is Harry indebted to Snape for his saving
Harry's life for similar reasons.

Carol:
> Does anyone think that Draco will end up turning the tables by
saving
> Snape's life, or at least risking his life for Snape's sake? How do
> the rest of you think the events of HBP will change their
> relationship, aside from ending the formal teacher/student (or
> HOH/student) connection?

Magpie:
Actually, I just wrote a big thing elsewhere about the potential for
Draco to save Harry's life and then use that Debt to pay Snape's
Debt to James (son paying his father figure's debt). It's not a
prediction, but it moves towards the future and creates a clean
slate in the important generation. (It would also involve a genuine
act of willing sacrifice and respect on Draco's part, all of which
would be great for a redeemed Snape story.)  Again, that's not a
prediction, it was just something I thought of as a possibility
given how I think LDs work and how to heal these old wounds and move
forward.

Carol:>
> What Draco owes Snape may not be a true Life Debt, but it's at the
> very least a debt of honor that deserves acknowledgment, and I'm
> curious to see how, and whether, Draco will repay it.

Magpie:
I do think Draco's rebellion against Snape is an HBP story, much as
Harry's rebellion against Dumbledore was part of OotP, so I don't
see a continuation of "You want my glory" stuff.  He doesn't argue
when Snape literally picks him up by the scruff of his neck and
orders him to run at the end.  There can still be a lot of tension
between them-neither of them know just where the other one stands
now, so can both be a danger to each other.

I don't think there's any "repaying" specifically to be done, or any
debt of honor--I mean nothing official beyond Draco's thoughts on
this man with whom he's got this important relationship, much of
which is hidden from us.  An emotional bond to Snape I would expect
to be a big part of Draco's character in future, but I don't think
the books move in the direction of kids owing debts to adults for
protecting them.  I feel like I'm not explaining this well, it's
just a generational thing. I do think Snape's having done this
should be a huge thing for Draco, just as Harry's parents dying for
him is.  Just not in the sense of being in Snape's debt now. That, I
think, is why Draco so adamantly rejects the UV.  In terms of his
own development, as bratty as it makes him sound in the short term,
it really is important that he not just say yes, his teacher has
certainly been nice to agree to do this for him and help him, so
he'll go to him for help.

Carol:
And am I the only one who sees parallels between the
> Draco/Snape relationship and Harry/Dumbledore?

Magpie:
Absolutely!  Which is why I think Draco's ultimately Snape's man
even at his most rebellious.  That, imo, is why Rowling took care to
show their relationship throughout the earlier books.  Snape's
patiently sitting out Draco's ridiculous "You want to steal my
glory!" stuff and understanding his need to do things on his own and
why ("I know your father's imprisonment has upset you...") is, I
think, probably a good part of Snape's development.  As immature as
Draco sounds, this is an important part of adolescence and his
growing up.  Teenagers in this series don't sit quietly and let
adults take care of things for them so they don't have to grow up.
I think Draco was correct in realizing that to do that would mean
never being a man. All the worse for Snape, but I think Snape
understood it.  By HBP Harry is able to freely declare himself DD's
man, and he can do that partially because he really doesn't feel
indebted to him.

Basically, this is a series about kids growing up, not one about 
adults getting the acknowledgement they deserve for all they put up 
with and do for kids.  So whatever troubles the kids cause for the 
adults, imo, is rarely going to be made up for.  Harry messed up 
Dumbledore's plans royally in OotP and got Sirius killed doing it, 
but he's not apologizing for it.  Similarly, I think Draco can 
certainly mature in his relationship towards Snape just as Harry 
did, getting through his antagonistic, rebellious stage, but I doubt 
he'll apologize for doing what he felt he had to do in HBP or feel 
he owes Snape anything for causing trouble any more than Harry 
apologized for it in OotP.  

-m









From bawilson at citynet.net  Tue Mar 21 22:12:15 2006
From: bawilson at citynet.net (bawilson at citynet.net)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:12:15 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Rights?
Message-ID: <16920186.1142979135379.JavaMail.SYSTEM@webmail>

No: HPFGUIDX 149884

Renee:
"Also, Scamander's text may be Ministry approved, this didn't prevent 
Umbridge from issuing laws that deprive werewolves of the basic human 
right of employment."

Carol:
"Until werewolves have the basic human right of education, the basic 
human right of employment really isn't an option."


BAW:
Where are you two from?  The reason I ask is that I have looked through
the US Constitution and Bill of Rights and don't find any reference to 
either education or employment as rights.

I see freedom of religion, of speech, of the press, of assembly; I see 
the right to trial by jury, to protection from unreasonable searches 
and seizures, to equal protection of the laws; I see the right to 
petition the government for redress of grievances; I DON'T see either 
education or employment as a 'right'.








From kking0731 at gmail.com  Wed Mar 22 02:30:16 2006
From: kking0731 at gmail.com (Kathy King)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 21:30:16 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] The lack of Obliviators and the Press at GH was Godric's Hollow
In-Reply-To: <700201d40603211051h23729f7frcab11abfc9c8a50c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <700201d40603211051h23729f7frcab11abfc9c8a50c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a1ee8d580603211830m2bd58bf4r33679687a0ef7e72@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149885

Kemper snipped:



I'm guessing only those who
knew the secret, could see the devastation of the rebounded and intensified
curse, ergo Obiviators would not be needed because neighborhood Muggles
would not have seen anything and the press would have nothing to report.



Snow:



Eeeeeeeew, you made the wheels turn for me Kemper when you included Muggles
into the equation. There are so many thoughts but where to begin? Oh Yeah,
do we know if Pettigrew is pureblood? I would think not since not only do
purebloods appear to be rare nowadays but also this was not a name that
appeared on the infamous House of Black. So who were Peter's mom and dad?
Where did they work? Was one of them a muggle? Did one of them have ties to
muggle news work?



If Dumbledore could give Moody the secret to Grimmald Place on a slip of
paper (that Moody made positive to destroy once read) then Peter Pettigrew
could have given mom or dad a piece of paper that could have fallen into the
hands (purposely or not) of muggle newsmen. Dumbledore, in GOF, told Harry
that he read muggle news unlike his colleagues.



If an article appeared in a muggle newspaper that had the secret (to the
Potter's whereabouts revealed), only persons who were reading it would be
aware(?) of the secret. How many wizards read muggle news anyway except for
Dumbledore?



Just because the secret was exposed does not point a finger to who exposed
it. This would keep Sirius under suspicion and Peter not really the person
who exposed them. The secret keeper cannot really be exposed when the secret
is written. If Moody had not destroyed the secret note to Harry from
Dumbledore and if it had been unintentionally given to the Daily Prophet,
everyone would know the secret to the Order's whereabouts.



Could be a perfect scenario as to why Dumbledore knew of the secret but
still suspected Sirius and why the muggle authorities showed up and could
see the house even if they didn't understand why they knew the house was
there.


Snow


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




From exodusts at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 22 02:37:18 2006
From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 02:37:18 -0000
Subject: Rights?
In-Reply-To: <16920186.1142979135379.JavaMail.SYSTEM@webmail>
Message-ID: <dvqd8u+6hrn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149886

> Renee:
> "Also, Scamander's text may be Ministry approved, this didn't 
prevent 
> Umbridge from issuing laws that deprive werewolves of the basic 
human 
> right of employment."

> Carol:
> "Until werewolves have the basic human right of education, the 
basic 
> human right of employment really isn't an option."

> BAW:
> Where are you two from?  The reason I ask is that I have looked 
through
> the US Constitution and Bill of Rights and don't find any reference 
to 
> either education or employment as rights.
> 
> I see freedom of religion, of speech, of the press, of assembly; I 
see 
> the right to trial by jury, to protection from unreasonable 
searches 
> and seizures, to equal protection of the laws; I see the right to 
> petition the government for redress of grievances; I DON'T see 
either 
> education or employment as a 'right'.


Exodusts:

If it really existed (and who is to say it doesn't?) The Ministry, 
based in the U.K., would be subject to the European Convention of 
Human Rights, via the Human Rights Act 1998.

Assume at initial hearings a court accepted werewolves as being 
covered by "human" rights:

Article 4 prohibits slavery, which *might* make it impossible for the 
ministry to force werewolves to do particular work, by restricting 
their options through employment bans in most sectors. Dodgy.

Article 14 prohibits discrimination, in a non-exhaustive list 
including race, sex etc, so *might* be extendable to suffering from 
lycanthropy, but there are problems e.g. this has to be 
discrimination regarding a right guaranteed in another article (and 
there is no "right to work" article) AND I think there is a standard 
balancing get-out e.g. for national security reasons - think women in 
combat units etc. This right has however been relatively recently 
strengthened by Substantive Protocol 12.

Article 10, freedom of expression, covers the right to impart or 
receive ideas, and would possibly cover education, but has the 
standard caveat of necessary exemptions, which might enable a law 
saying werewolf kids are too dangerous to teach in mainstream schools.

However, Article 2 of Substantive Protocol 1 provides for the right 
to an education, and the right for parents to have their children 
educated in accordance with their religion etc.

So, in (very) crude summary:

Right to education Yes
Right to employment No.






From exodusts at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 22 02:57:38 2006
From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 02:57:38 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dvpe2p+h22l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvqef2+piug@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149887

> Sydney:
>
> Their hilarious sitcom of course!  Sorry, nothing to do with the
> argument, I just think they really do have a hilarious sitcom.  And 
as
> for why Peter was there-- you're right, it is interesting, although 
it
> might just be that JKR didn't have any place to put Peter in OoP and
> thought she needed to stick him in somewhere to remind us of his
> existence.


Exodusts:

A new play by Neil Simon: "The Odd Couple (of Wizards)"

Starring Alan Rickman and Timothy Spall.

It could definitely work.

Set in an exclusive flat-conversion at the Nakatomi Cotton Mill in 
the 
North of England. 

Spall's character runs a failing broom-rickshaw business that cannot 
compete with the Knight Bus.

Rickman's is equally desperate, after being fired from his teaching 
job 
at Hogwarts, for inadvertently murdering the headmaster.

Together they hatch a plan to steal millions of pounds of negotiable 
bearer bonds from a time-locked safe on the 37th floor of the 
building.

Each week they bungle their attempt in a humourous manner, thwarted 
by 
an American in a dirty vest who is moonlighting from Hollywood.

"I tell you Pettigrew, this time next week we will be millionaires... 
and I will be able to afford that expensive shampoo for greasy hair 
AND sensitive skin!"






From dontask2much at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 22 04:21:43 2006
From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 23:21:43 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: DDM!Snape &  the UV
References: <dvpfui+poft@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00df01c64d68$2038aac0$6401a8c0@MITRE.ORG>

No: HPFGUIDX 149888

<snippety snip snip some great stuff>

> SSSusan:
> Unless that friend is commanding you to take that very action.  That's
> the point many of us DDM!Snapers are trying to make: that we believe
> that DD asked or commanded Snape to kill him.  It's kind of hard to
> argue what's "better" when our read of the scene includes such an order
> from DD.  Many don't believe DD would ever do such a thing.  Many
> others don't believe DD would hesitate to sacrifice himself if he felt
> the situation would require it/things would be better in the end if he
> did.
>
> We shall, of course, see in Book 7.
>
> Siriusly Snapey Susan

Rebecca:

Uh, my name is Rebecca and I am addicted to Severus Snape 
discussions....ooops, wrong list. ;)

Fellow HP citizens, you folks are not helping me get over my admitted 
addiction to Snape. I'm joining a support group - who's with me? Come on, 
raise your hands, you know who you are. ;)

I have an entirely different take on this, and I expect people will throw 
firewhiskey bottles at me for it. Please do not light them on fire this time 
before throwing - I prefer drinking them, thankyouverymuch. :)

Let's look at this a different, albeit probably not popular, way: what if 
Dumbledore didn't command anything and Snape recognized, either intuitively 
or by Legilimens, Dumbledore was almost DOA when he got there, or was at 
that time in for a painful, torturous death or other fate by the potion he 
drank or for the injury sustained to his hand earlier? I mean, DD himself 
says that the potion was "no health drink"  and that he "came back, after a 
fashion." It's a possibility he was doomed, based on his words, regardless 
of the other considerations about Snape and his motivations.

Perhaps Snape was or wasn't asked by DD, and I'm not sure that matters if 
you look at a "bigger" picture.  We know that JKR has seen a close family 
member, her mother, live and die thru a slow, debilitating disease which 
culminated in death  - what person wouldn't at some time think even 
fleetingly for that pain and suffering over a long period of time and 
escalating towards the end to go away for the person they loved? How 
helpless it is to watch this happen to a loved one and know there's nothing 
you can do? It's not out of the realm of possibility that something as 
painful and conflicted as this might make its way into her writing.

If you think about it that way, the debate is no longer about about what DD 
did or didn't do, or what Snape did.  The question and discussion could be 
if you knew someone was suffering, in pain, and was going to die a terrible 
death in the short term, would you end their suffering? Would you even for a 
moment think about it, whether you did it or not? Would it be the right, but 
not easy, thing to do? And heaven forbid that the person afflicted should 
ask you to do it? Maybe even demand it? Some may say yes, some may say no, 
some may not have any answer at all.  Some might call it mercy and humane, 
and others murder and reprehensible. But that's the point, isn't it?

None of this is out of the realm of possibility anymore than Snape just 
simply murdering DD and being a traitor. The problem, understandably, is 
that in JKR's desire to keep the mystery in her series until the end, we 
don't have enough detail to tell us what happened one way or the other.

I'm with Susan - waitin' for Book 7 ;)

Rebecca, already in Snape rehab and ready to catch those bottles with 
fireproof mitts just in case.... 





From R.Vink2 at chello.nl  Wed Mar 22 13:26:41 2006
From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 13:26:41 -0000
Subject: Rights?
In-Reply-To: <dvqd8u+6hrn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvrjah+juka@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149889

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "exodusts" <exodusts at ...> wrote:
>
> > Renee:
> > "Also, Scamander's text may be Ministry approved, this didn't 
> prevent 
> > Umbridge from issuing laws that deprive werewolves of the basic 
> human 
> > right of employment."
> 
> > Carol:
> > "Until werewolves have the basic human right of education, the 
> basic 
> > human right of employment really isn't an option."
> 
> > BAW:
> > Where are you two from?  The reason I ask is that I have looked 
> through
> > the US Constitution and Bill of Rights and don't find any reference 
> to 
> > either education or employment as rights.
> > 
> > I see freedom of religion, of speech, of the press, of assembly; I 
> see 
> > the right to trial by jury, to protection from unreasonable 
> searches 
> > and seizures, to equal protection of the laws; I see the right to 
> > petition the government for redress of grievances; I DON'T see 
> either 
> > education or employment as a 'right'.
> 
> 
> Exodusts:
> 
> If it really existed (and who is to say it doesn't?) The Ministry, 
> based in the U.K., would be subject to the European Convention of 
> Human Rights, via the Human Rights Act 1998.
> 
> Assume at initial hearings a court accepted werewolves as being 
> covered by "human" rights:
> 
> Article 4 prohibits slavery, which *might* make it impossible for the 
> ministry to force werewolves to do particular work, by restricting 
> their options through employment bans in most sectors. Dodgy.
> 
> Article 14 prohibits discrimination, in a non-exhaustive list 
> including race, sex etc, so *might* be extendable to suffering from 
> lycanthropy, but there are problems e.g. this has to be 
> discrimination regarding a right guaranteed in another article (and 
> there is no "right to work" article) AND I think there is a standard 
> balancing get-out e.g. for national security reasons - think women in 
> combat units etc. This right has however been relatively recently 
> strengthened by Substantive Protocol 12.
> 
> Article 10, freedom of expression, covers the right to impart or 
> receive ideas, and would possibly cover education, but has the 
> standard caveat of necessary exemptions, which might enable a law 
> saying werewolf kids are too dangerous to teach in mainstream schools.
> 
> However, Article 2 of Substantive Protocol 1 provides for the right 
> to an education, and the right for parents to have their children 
> educated in accordance with their religion etc.
> 
> So, in (very) crude summary:
> 
> Right to education Yes
> Right to employment No.
>

Renee:
See the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 23
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Right to employment: yes.









From R.Vink2 at chello.nl  Wed Mar 22 13:41:23 2006
From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 13:41:23 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV
In-Reply-To: <dvp11f+kb9h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvrk63+t761@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149890

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "richter_kuymal" <richter at ...>
wrote:
>
> SSSusan: Not sure I'm following this bit about Fenrir.  What makes 
> you think he's a Muggle?  Would Voldy bring *any* Muggle into 
> alliance with  him??
> 
> PAR: Because he is described as NOT having a wand -- he tries to 
> attack DD with hands and teeth.  As for why LV would deal with him --
>  he is the acknowledged leader of the werewolves.  Why would LV 
> promote being pureblood when he himself isn't?  Becasue LV doesn't 
> really care about muggles OR if wizards are pureblood, halfblood or 
> muggle-born.  He hates them all.  He just spouts the mantra that 
> gets him the allies he wants.
> 

Renee:
The reason Greyback doesn't have a wand doesn't necessarily mean he's
a Muggle. He's arguably older than Lupin, who was the first werewolf
to get a Hogwarts education. You buy your wand after you receive your
Hogwarts letter. That Greyback never received his letter would explain
why he doesn't have a wand.

And while it's true that Voldemort would probably use any allies he
can get, I don't see his fanatical pureblood supporters accept a
Muggle in their ranks without at least scratching their heads. It
seems most likely that Greyback is wizard-born. 

Renee












From rkdas at charter.net  Wed Mar 22 13:53:44 2006
From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 13:53:44 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV
In-Reply-To: <dvrk63+t761@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvrkt8+suql@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149891

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Renee" <R.Vink2 at ...> wrote:
> 
> Renee:
> The reason Greyback doesn't have a wand doesn't necessarily mean 
he's
> a Muggle. He's arguably older than Lupin, who was the first 
werewolf
> to get a Hogwarts education. You buy your wand after you receive 
your
> Hogwarts letter. That Greyback never received his letter would 
explain
> why he doesn't have a wand.
> 
> And while it's true that Voldemort would probably use any allies he
> can get, I don't see his fanatical pureblood supporters accept a
> Muggle in their ranks without at least scratching their heads. It
> seems most likely that Greyback is wizard-born. 
> 
> Renee

Isn't Greyback the werewolf that bit Lupin as a young child? Then 
Greyback would be more than aruguably older than Lupin since the 
bite was payback for something between Lupin's parents and Greyback.
Jen D. 
>







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Mar 22 15:46:49 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:46:49 -0000
Subject: Fenrir's ancestry was Re: DDM!Snape &  the UV
In-Reply-To: <dvrk63+t761@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvrrh9+je33@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149892

> Renee:
> And while it's true that Voldemort would probably use any allies he
> can get, I don't see his fanatical pureblood supporters accept a
> Muggle in their ranks without at least scratching their heads. It
> seems most likely that Greyback is wizard-born. 

Pippin:
I think Greyback is Muggleborn. Rowling says that Muggleborns
are allowed to be Death Eaters in unusual circumstances.
http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=80

It sounds like Fenrir could be the character she was thinking of.

Pippin







From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Wed Mar 22 15:55:32 2006
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:55:32 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] The lack of Obliviators and the Press at GH was Godric's
 Hollow
In-Reply-To: <a1ee8d580603211830m2bd58bf4r33679687a0ef7e72@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY101-F1411AA48C1AEA5A71FAB5B91D90@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 149893


Snow:
Could be a perfect scenario as to why Dumbledore knew of the secret but
still suspected Sirius and why the muggle authorities showed up and could
see the house even if they didn't understand why they knew the house was
there.

PJ:
When Dumbledore wrote the information on that piece of paper he didn't 
"speak" the location so the secret wasn't broken, just shared.  If PP TOLD 
(verbalized) the location of the Potters to Voldemort then there would no 
longer be a secret to keep.  At least that's how I understood JKR's answer 
on SK's.  Once spoken the secret is no longer a secret.

As for how Dumbledore knew the Potters were in trouble and where they 
were... When you worry about people you think about them a lot.  As long as 
Dumbledore could think about them and not visualize where they were located 
he knew they were ok, but the minute he *knew* where they were, he knew the 
secret was out - and also where to send Hagrid.


PJ





From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net  Wed Mar 22 17:22:43 2006
From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 17:22:43 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV
In-Reply-To: <dvnuk0+g028@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvs153+ulfs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149894

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" <>

As for this "minor" task facing Snape of handling Draco, Fenrir & 
> two ostensibly "lesser" DEs... um... let's just think about how long 
> it takes to cast a spell.  Snape would have to freeze *two* people, 
> which would mean casting *two* separate spells, and even if he 
> managed to cast them non-verbally, it'd probably become obvious that 
> he'd done something to Draco & Fenrir, which means the DEs might 
> turn on him.  Even if they did not, he still then would have to turn 
> on & kill *two* DEs.  How is he supposed to cast the first three 
> spells without the other DE shouting out "Avada Kedavra" or even 
> just "Expelliarmus" in the meantime?
> 
> Siriusly Snapey Susan
>

Well, why not just cast a non-verbal "Expelliarmus" against everyone 
and collect their wands?  Lupin does it in PoA - saying the spell out 
loud only one time and neatly collecting 3 wands. The implication in 
how this was done in PoA suggests that the caster does not have to 
point to each wand or wizard individually to disarm them.

Surely Snape could say it non-verbally and have it work, even if he 
had to repeat the command. He would have had an element of surprise as 
the DEs wouldn't expect him to disarm them.  I mean, this is Snape, 
right? The guy who can cast a nonverbal, non-AK while shouting a fake 
AK after having had a quick Legilimanistic(!) conversation with the 
dying Dumbledore ;-)

Marianne






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 22 17:53:24 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 17:53:24 -0000
Subject: Fenrir's ancestry (was: DDM!Snape &  the UV)
In-Reply-To: <dvrrh9+je33@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvs2uk+6okc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149895

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:
>
> > Renee:
> > And while it's true that Voldemort would probably use any allies he
> > can get, I don't see his fanatical pureblood supporters accept a
> > Muggle in their ranks without at least scratching their heads. It
> > seems most likely that Greyback is wizard-born. 
> 
> Pippin:
> I think Greyback is Muggleborn. Rowling says that Muggleborns
> are allowed to be Death Eaters in unusual circumstances.
> http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=80
> 
> It sounds like Fenrir could be the character she was thinking of.


Carol responds:
Muggle*born*, maybe, but surely not a Muggle as PAR originally
suggested. Greyback obviously lives in the WW and associates only with
wizards; he has a Dark Mark that enables him to get through the
barrier on the stairs (even in the unlikely event that Voldie made a
Muggle a DE, the Muggle's Dark Mark would not have magical
properties); and he can keep his werewolf properties (except for the
power to transform others) all month long, suggesting inborn magical
powers. A Muggle of any sort would not be a "family friend" of the
pureblood Malfoys. He would not even be able to see Hogwarts, which is
hidden by spells from Muggle eyes.

We really don't know whether he has a wand or not (he may have one but
use his teeth as the weapon of choice), but Renee provided a
reasonable explanation upthread for the possible absence of a wand: he
never received a Hogwarts letter because he's older than Lupin,
meaning that DD wasn't headmaster yet and werewolves were not admitted
to Hogwarts. However, we don't know how old Greyback was when he was
bitten. Also, since Lupin can hardly be the only child werewolf in the
thirty or so years of DD's tenure as headmaster, I have a rather
different theory about the reason child werewolves generally don't go
to Hogwarts: Werewolves rejected by their families at an early age
would never learn to read and consequently the Hogwarts letter that
all magical children receive would be nothing but a meaningless
scribble to them. But whether Fenrir never received a letter or
received one he couldn't read, he wouldn't have needed a wand because
he wasn't going to Hogwarts. (And yet DD seems to have known him at
some point: "Is that you, Fenrir?" Maybe he was bitten as a teenager
and dropped out of Hogwarts before DD became headmaster.) My point is
simply that not having a wand doesn't prove that he's not a wizard.
Convicted criminals whose wands are broken are still wizards; even
Vapor!mort was still a wizard when he was deprived of his body and
unable to hold a wand. Children who do wandless magic are wizards
whether or not they eventually acquire wands (and go to Hogwarts).

Whether or not Greyback has a wand, he is clearly a DE (his DE robes,
probably left over from VW1, are described as being tight across his
chest), chosen by LV to be part of the mission to kill Dumbledore. His
victims, so far as we know, are all wizards, and he was associated
with Voldie at least as far back as VW1, as Snape mentions to Bella in
"Spinner's End," along with Lucius Malfoy, Avery, Yaxley, and "the
Carrows" (the last three being, I'm pretty sure, the "brutal-faced
Death Eater" and the brother/sister pair, Amycus and Alecto).

It's possible that Greyback is an unusually dangerous Squib who has
learned how to fend for himself among wizards, but his ability to
control his own transformations and the fact that Voldie has given him
a working Dark Mark suggest that he is indeed a wizard. He is also,
unquestionably, a Death Eater himself and not just a werewolf
companion of the other three DEs. Although he generally chooses
victims who are weaker than he is (children and dying old men), other
wizards (Borgin, for example) are afraid of him, and with good reason.
He's purely evil and he has no scruples of any kind. Who needs a wand?
He'll let the other DEs do the killing and he'll eat Dumbledore for
"afters."

Whatever Fenrir Greyback may be, IMO, he's not a Muggle.

Carol, noting Greyback's total absence of remorse and wondering if
Wolfsbane Potion and an education could have prevented him from
becoming so deeply mired in evil






From zanelupin at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 22 18:25:10 2006
From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 18:25:10 -0000
Subject: The lack of Obliviators and the Press at GH was Godric's Hollow
In-Reply-To: <a1ee8d580603211830m2bd58bf4r33679687a0ef7e72@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <dvs4q6+ha2i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149896

Snow wrote:

<snip> 
> If an article appeared in a muggle newspaper that had the secret (to 
> the Potter's whereabouts revealed), only persons who were reading it 
> would be aware(?) of the secret. How many wizards read muggle news 
> anyway except for Dumbledore?
 
> Just because the secret was exposed does not point a finger to who 
> exposed it. This would keep Sirius under suspicion and Peter not 
> really the person who exposed them. The secret keeper cannot really 
> be exposed when the secret is written. If Moody had not destroyed 
> the secret note to Harry from Dumbledore and if it had been 
> unintentionally given to the Daily Prophet, everyone would know the 
> secret to the Order's whereabouts.


KathyK:

I don't think this would be the case.  Yes, whoever got their hands on
that Secret at the Daily Prophet would know what it was.  Yes, whoever
they gave the written note to would know.  Stretching it to everyone
knowing because the newspaper printed the secret doesn't work, IMO. 
If they were to write an article on the whereabouts of the Order, or
about the Potter's location in GH, it would not work because the
writer is not the SK and therefore would not be able to reveal the
secret.  

Would simply reproducing the note with the Secret into the paper
divulge it to the masses?  I don't believe so.  JKR indicated in the
FAQ poll that the Potter's location was only known by "those whom
Wormtail had told directly."  Photocopying (or whatever its magical
equivalent might be) or putting the note in the paper is no longer a
Secret-Keeper telling anyone directly.  People reading newspapers are
reading copies, not the original material.  Would those in on the
secret even be able to attempt putting it into a paper?  


PJ wrote:

> When Dumbledore wrote the information on that piece of paper he 
> didn't "speak" the location so the secret wasn't broken, just 
> shared.  If PP TOLD (verbalized) the location of the Potters to 
> Voldemort then there would no longer be a secret to keep.  At least 
> that's how I understood JKR's answer on SK's.  Once spoken the 
> secret is no longer a secret.

KathyK:

Ooh, I didn't read JKR's answer that way at all...

I know that our only instance of seeing a secret protected by the
Fidelius charm passed along is that note to Harry in OoP, which can
make it tricky.  But I haven't read any evidence suggesting
verbalizing a Secret destroys the charm.  What JKR said again is that
the only people who knew the Potters location were those Wormtail
"told."  Something can be told verbally or in writing.  

KathyK, waving to Alla 






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 22 18:55:38 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 18:55:38 -0000
Subject: The end of the Secret (Was: The lack of Obliviators and the Press at GH )
In-Reply-To: <BAY101-F1411AA48C1AEA5A71FAB5B91D90@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <dvs6ja+4p9d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149897

PJ wrote:
> When Dumbledore wrote the information on that piece of paper he
didn't "speak" the location so the secret wasn't broken, just shared.
 If PP TOLD (verbalized) the location of the Potters to Voldemort then
there would no longer be a secret to keep.  At least that's how I
understood JKR's answer on SK's.  Once spoken the secret is no longer
a secret.

Carol responds:
Actually, that's not quite what JKR says. Her words are, "the only
people who ever knew their precise location were those whom Wormtail
had told directly." So telling the secret, either in spoken or written
form, doesn't break the spell. It only enables people who aren't the
Secret Keeper to know the secret (but not reveal it). 

Also, the secret, as JKR makes clear, is "the precise location" of
their hiding place. Once the Potters have been discovered by the very
 wizard from whom they're hiding, the secret ceases to serve its
purpose, though it's possible that it's still a secret from those who
haven't been told (e.g., the Muggles in Godric's Hollow). However,
when two of the Potters are dead--obviously no longer in hiding--and
the third is sitting helplessly among the ruins of the hiding place,
which no longer exists, the spell is surely destroyed. I agree with PJ
that the secret ceases to exist on the night of Godric's Hollow, but
not because PP spoke it aloud. It's destroyed because "the Potters are
hiding at [specific address] in Godric's Hollow" is no longer a viable
secret or even a true statement. The hiding place and two of the
people who were hiding ("the subjects of the secret," in JKR's words)
no longer exist; the third subject is no longer hidden. There is no
secret to be kept.

PJ wrote: 
> As for how Dumbledore knew the Potters were in trouble and where
they  were... When you worry about people you think about them a lot.
 As long as Dumbledore could think about them and not visualize where
they were located he knew they were ok, but the minute he *knew* where
they were, he knew the secret was out - and also where to send Hagrid.

Carol responds:
I agree with you here: Dumbledore did *not* know where they were
because Peter had not told him. (Obviously Peter had not told him in
person or DD would have known that Black was not the SD, but I don't
think he received a note, either.) But, yes, the moment he knew the
Secret, he knew that the Potters were in trouble and probably dead.

To speculate a bit: I think that DD, who is somehow directly connected
to Godric Gryffindor, suggested the hiding place in the first place.
So, originally, at the time he suggested himself as Secret Keeper or
before, he knew where they were. Once PP was made the Secret Keeper, a
mere week before Godric's Hollow, he no longer knew their location,
which was magically concealed from him. He became fearful and
suspicious, distrusting the young man that James Potter had intended
to make the SK in his place, Sirius Black. When DD awoke around
midnight on October 31/November 1, he knew the location and knew that
the Potters had been betrayed (but not by whom). He may have feared
that all three were dead and Voldemort had successfully thwarted the
Prophecy. 

But (speculation again) if Severus Snape also woke up, feeling a
terrible pain in his left arm as LV was ripped from his body and
pushing up his sleeve to watch as the Dark Mark faded to almost
nothing, then rushed up seven flights of stairs to inform Dumbledore
of this strange news, DD and SS together would have figured out what
happened--the adult Potters were discovered and betrayed, perhaps
dead, but Voldemort was weakened and nearly destroyed, which could
only mean that the child "born as the seventh month dies" had somehow
defeated him and was still alive. 

Obviously I can't prove any of this, but it makes sense to me that
both the end of the Secret and the fading of the Dark Mark were
required for DD to correctly deduce what had happened. From there, I
think, he would have gone to those mysterious instruments in his
office to discover more information and "watch from afar," at the same
time sending Snape to Hagrid with the order to go to Godric's Hollow
at once, retrieve Harry, and allow no one else to claim custody of the
baby. (That would account, in part, for Hagrid's trust in Snape and
also explain how Hagrid got there so quickly, again assuming that he
can Apparate. And it would also account for DD's laconic "No problems,
were there?" when Hagrid mentioned "young Sirius Black"; Dumbledore
anticipated that Black would try to claim Harry and took measures to
thwart him without arousing Hagrid's suspicions that Black was the
traitor. He didn't want to risk having Hagrid fight Black.)

Carol, who still can't work out the time frame and isn't sure it can
be done







From dana_052002 at yahoo.com.ar  Wed Mar 22 14:47:13 2006
From: dana_052002 at yahoo.com.ar (dana_052002)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:47:13 -0000
Subject: Why Didn't Harry Ask About His Parents' Graves?  (was: Re: Godric's Hollow)
In-Reply-To: <dvo45c+a6cv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvro1h+40nk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149898

Laura wrote:

> My personal opinion is that all the bodies in Godric's Hollow were 
> at least disfigured in the destruction of the home.  Voldemort 
> surely wouldn't settle for a body which showed evidence of his 
> mistake.  But I bet JK Rowling wrote this part of the story 
> assuming there wasn't much left of any of their bodies.  Probably 
> James' and Lily's graves that are mostly symbolic, not really 
> holding much of their mortal bodies.


Dany now,
I'm sure somebody thought about this before me, but, here I go 
anyway...
I just don't get WHY Harry never asked about their parents graves, 
Why he never wanted to go there or at least to know where they are ( 
I mean specifically where they are, we all know they are in Godric's)
even when he didn't know he was a wizard and he was convinced their 
parents had died in a car accident... What would Petunia have said 
in this case? Why he never asked Sirius about this? He was his 
father best mate, he would have had a reasonable answer.
Let's think about it for a moment... you never knew how your parents 
really died, isn't it quite understandable that when you find out 
the truth you wanna go there, I don't know, just to cry a bit, to 
say that you are sorry, to say that you love them or thank them?

Well, I hope someone can help me a bit with this
You take care now,

Dany







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 22 19:43:57 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:43:57 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV
In-Reply-To: <dvs153+ulfs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvs9dt+10dqg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149899

SSS wrote:
> As for this "minor" task facing Snape of handling Draco, Fenrir & 
two ostensibly "lesser" DEs... um... let's just think about how long 
it takes to cast a spell.  Snape would have to freeze *two* people, 
which would mean casting *two* separate spells, and even if he 
managed to cast them non-verbally, it'd probably become obvious that 
he'd done something to Draco & Fenrir, which means the DEs might turn
on him.  Even if they did not, he still then would have to turn on &
kill *two* DEs.  How is he supposed to cast the first three spells
without the other DE shouting out "Avada Kedavra" or even just
"Expelliarmus" in the meantime?

Marianne responded: 
> Well, why not just cast a non-verbal "Expelliarmus" against everyone
and collect their wands?  Lupin does it in PoA - saying the spell out
loud only one time and neatly collecting 3 wands. The implication in 
how this was done in PoA suggests that the caster does not have to 
point to each wand or wizard individually to disarm them.
> 
> Surely Snape could say it non-verbally and have it work, even if he
had to repeat the command. He would have had an element of surprise as
the DEs wouldn't expect him to disarm them.  I mean, this is Snape,
right? The guy who can cast a nonverbal, non-AK while shouting a fake
AK after having had a quick Legilimanistic(!) conversation with the 
dying Dumbledore ;-)


Carol responds:
Yes, this is Snape, who is certainly multi-talented but is also bound
by the UV to both save Draco and "do the deed" or die. The moment has
come, and if he fails either provision, he will die. That's what an
Unbreakable Vow does. It cannot be broken.

Yes, Snape could theoretically disarm three DEs at once, but Fenrir
Greyback does not need a wand to eat the dying Dumbledore (or Draco)
for "afters," and Snape would have to stun all three (not two) of the
disarmed DEs as well as Greyback, then somehow cure Dumbledore of the
effects of the potion with no antidotes on hand and the new DE Draco
watching--all without being killed by the Unbreakable Vow.

You're asking the impossible. Snape is gifted and highly intelligent,
but he's not Superwizard, and he is subject to death at any moment.
Quite possibly the invisible ropes of fire are burning on his wrist,
reminding him that he must act now or die.

Dumbledore is going to die no matter what, either from the poison or
the DEs, if Snape doesn't "do the deed" himself. Snape's choices are
to break his vow and die with him, accomplishing nothing and gravely
endangering Harry, Draco, and everyone in the school, or to keep his
vow by killing Dumbledore himself, making sure to send his body over
the battlements so Greyback can't eat it. Killing DD himself enables
Snape to save Draco and get the DEs off the tower before Harry rushes
out to fight them, as he would surely have done if another DE had AK'd
DD and left his body lying on the tower floor. (Snape would deduce
Harry's presence from the second broom and his intimate acquaintance
with the Invisibility Cloak. The incident with Crouch!Moody in GoF
comes to mind.)

Snape has only seconds to act before the third provision of the UV
kicks in, as one of the DEs has inadvertently informed him. He can't
save Dumbledore, but he can keep his vow and in so doing save Harry
and Draco and get the DEs out of Hogwarts. Surely that is what
Dumbledore meant by "Severus, please . . . .": "Time is running out;
do what is right, not what is easy; keep your vow and save the boys."

No Legilimency is necessary (though I do think it happened); Snape had
to make a split-second decision, and the choice he made, IMO, was to
help DD sacrifice himself to save Harry. That he made the right choice
is indicated by DD's peacefully sleeping portrait in McGonagall's office.

Carol, noting that the plot requires Snape to be trapped into killing
his mentor, setting up a future confrontation with Harry, not to
heroically save the day and steal Harry's glory







From manawydan at ntlworld.com  Wed Mar 22 19:42:41 2006
From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:42:41 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Godric's Hollow
References: <1142994677.46180.60677.m13@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <002c01c64de8$c9e642a0$163a6751@f3b7j4>

No: HPFGUIDX 149900

Carol wrote:
>five hours with Snape and the Battle of the MoM, Neri!). For one
>thing, there's just no way to fit Hagrid's revealing the location of 4
>Privet Drive to McGonagall into the timeline. I do think, though, as

I don't think it would offend canon if

1. Hagrid took Harry to Hogwarts
2. Dumbledore had gone from Hogwarts by the time they arrived, but
3. McGonagall was still there

>an aside, that the AKs, including the failed one, must have registered
>on the MoM's radar, and they would have come to investigate *before*
>Hagrid left the scene, along with some reporters and photographers
>from the Daily Prophet, and to Obliviate any interfering Muggles.

I wonder though if the Ministry would have taken kindly to finding Hagrid on
the scene, given that he's not allowed to use magic. Also, would they have
let him take Harry away or would they have taken him into Ministry custody
to find him a suitable foster family, thereby bringing all of Dumbledore's
careful plans down in ruins?

I think Hagrid had gone by the time the Ministry and the reporters arrived
and even before the local Muggles turned out to see what had caused all the
bangs and flashes and a house no one had ever noticed before suddenly fallen
down in ruins.

hwyl

Ffred

O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon
Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion
Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri




From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Wed Mar 22 19:55:08 2006
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (PJ)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:55:08 -0000
Subject: The end of the Secret (Was: The lack of Obliviators and the Press at GH )
In-Reply-To: <dvs6ja+4p9d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvsa2s+dehq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149901

Carol:
> Actually, that's not quite what JKR says. Her words are, "the only
> people who ever knew their precise location were those whom 
Wormtail
> had told directly." 

PJ:
You're right.  I mixed Flitwick's explanation with JKR's.  

Carol:
> But (speculation again) if Severus Snape also woke up, feeling a
> terrible pain in his left arm as LV was ripped from his body and
> pushing up his sleeve to watch as the Dark Mark faded to almost
> nothing, then rushed up seven flights of stairs to inform 
Dumbledore
> of this strange news, DD and SS together would have figured out 
what
> happened--the adult Potters were discovered and betrayed, perhaps
> dead, but Voldemort was weakened and nearly destroyed, which could
> only mean that the child "born as the seventh month dies" had 
somehow
> defeated him and was still alive. 

PJ:
This really makes sense to me.  Since they're able to watch the Dark 
Mark get more pronounced in GoF as Voldemort becomes stronger, it 
only stands to reason that it would've started to fade out the night 
the Potters died and Voldemort was ripped from his body.
 

Carol:
> Obviously I can't prove any of this, but it makes sense to me that
> both the end of the Secret and the fading of the Dark Mark were
> required for DD to correctly deduce what had happened. 

PJ:

Works for me.  

PJ






From kchuplis at alltel.net  Wed Mar 22 20:06:58 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:06:58 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The end of the Secret (Was: The lack of Obliviators and the Press at GH )
References: <dvs6ja+4p9d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000c01c64dec$2cd97ff0$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local>

No: HPFGUIDX 149902



  PJ wrote: 
  > As for how Dumbledore knew the Potters were in trouble and where
  they  were... When you worry about people you think about them a lot.
  As long as Dumbledore could think about them and not visualize where
  they were located he knew they were ok, but the minute he *knew* where
  they were, he knew the secret was out - and also where to send Hagrid.

  Carol responds:
  I agree with you here: Dumbledore did *not* know where they were
  because Peter had not told him. (Obviously Peter had not told him in
  person or DD would have known that Black was not the SD, but I don't
  think he received a note, either.) But, yes, the moment he knew the
  Secret, he knew that the Potters were in trouble and probably dead.

  kchuplis:

  Soooo. Is there maybe something here that explains why it took Hagrid so long? What if there was something DD had Hagrid do in order to find the rubble and Harry? 

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




From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Wed Mar 22 20:37:30 2006
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 12:37:30 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The end of the Secret (Was: The lack of Obliviators and the Press at GH )
In-Reply-To: <dvs6ja+4p9d@eGroups.com>
References: <BAY101-F1411AA48C1AEA5A71FAB5B91D90@phx.gbl>
	 <dvs6ja+4p9d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <700201d40603221237q605b2f0dh48e848a848b65215@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149903

> PJ wrote:
> > When Dumbledore wrote the information on that piece of paper he
> didn't "speak" the location so the secret wasn't broken, just shared.
> If PP TOLD (verbalized) the location of the Potters to Voldemort then
> there would no longer be a secret to keep.  At least that's how I
> understood JKR's answer on SK's.  Once spoken the secret is no longer
> a secret.
>
> Carol responds:
> Actually, that's not quite what JKR says. Her words are, "the only
> people who ever knew their precise location were those whom Wormtail
> had told directly." So telling the secret, either in spoken or written
> form, doesn't break the spell. It only enables people who aren't the
> Secret Keeper to know the secret (but not reveal it).
>
> Also, the secret, as JKR makes clear, is "the precise location" of
> their hiding place. Once the Potters have been discovered by the very
> wizard from whom they're hiding, the secret ceases to serve its
> purpose, though it's possible that it's still a secret from those who
> haven't been told (e.g., the Muggles in Godric's Hollow). However,
> when two of the Potters are dead--obviously no longer in hiding--and
> the third is sitting helplessly among the ruins of the hiding place,
> which no longer exists, the spell is surely destroyed. I agree with PJ
> that the secret ceases to exist on the night of Godric's Hollow, but
> not because PP spoke it aloud. It's destroyed because "the Potters are
> hiding at [specific address] in Godric's Hollow" is no longer a viable
> secret or even a true statement. The hiding place and two of the
> people who were hiding ("the subjects of the secret," in JKR's words)
> no longer exist; the third subject is no longer hidden. There is no
> secret to be kept.

Kemper now:
I only think the spell is destroyed (or the secret out), if the location is
destroyed not the subjects.  I think by 'subject' JKR meant the name of the
location:

'The Headquaters for the Order of the Phoenix may be found at ....'

Here 'The.... Phoenix' is the name/subject.  Similarly, 'The Hiding Place
for the Potters' is the name/subject of the location, but not the location
itself.

When Emmaline Vance was murdered, the location of the Order of the Phoenix
was not revealed.

I'm guessing that whoever performed the SK spell (Sirius?Pettigrew?), the
location was defined, more or less, as the Potter/Dumbledore House in Godric
Hollow, which could be perceived as a 'precise location'.  Thus if the House
is destroyed, so is the secret.  So... if it is possible to apparate the
house around the Godric Hollow neighborhood, then the house is still a
secret location for The Hiding Place of the Potters.  Alternately, if it was
the specific address of the house (731 Rowling Lane), and the house was
apparating around the Godric neighborhood, the house would immediately be
seen until it returns to the location of 731 Rowling Lane.

And why would the spell be worded so poorly (similar to the first two vows
of the UV), because the caster is either a bit arrogant or a bit eager to
tell his master to care.  But that's a different thread.


> Carol goes on:
> To speculate a bit: (Kemper condences Carol's thoughts into a digest: DD
knew location, the SK was performed, DD couldn't recall the location, LV
destroyed the house,  DD suddenly remembers the location and knows
somethings wrong)

> But (speculation again) if Severus Snape also woke up, feeling a
> terrible pain in his left arm as LV was ripped from his body and
> pushing up his sleeve to watch as the Dark Mark faded to almost
> nothing, then rushed up seven flights of stairs to inform Dumbledore
> of this strange news, DD and SS together would have figured out what
> happened--the adult Potters were discovered and betrayed, perhaps
> dead, but Voldemort was weakened and nearly destroyed, which could
> only mean that the child "born as the seventh month dies" had somehow
> defeated him and was still alive.

Kemper now:
I'm not fond of your speculation about DD not for any canonical reasons,
it's possible but it doesn't feel right, but I support your Snape spec.

-Kemper


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




From R.Vink2 at chello.nl  Wed Mar 22 22:16:17 2006
From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:16:17 -0000
Subject: Maligning Lupin
In-Reply-To: <dvpv75+e668@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvsibh+fn6e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149904

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> > > Pippin:
> > > 
> > > There are many Muggleborns and halfbloods who should
> > > understand that human fallibility, exacerbated by poverty and
> > > discrimination, can precipitate crime and terrorism without 
> > > any help from Dark Magic or mind-altering diseases. Those
> > > people are going to have more influence once Voldemort is 
> > > defeated, or so I hope.
> > 
> > Renee:
> > What makes you hope so? Voldemort was believed to be gone for fourteen
> > years, yet we've heard nothing about any Muggleborn wizards or
> > halfbloods breaking a lance for werewolves or any other
> > oppressed/shunned/mistreated minorities during this time.
> 
> Pippin:
> Umbridge's laws were new.
> She was not able to pass  anti-werewolf laws until
> Dumbledore and those supporting him were driven from power
> or in fear of losing their jobs if they disagreed with her. 

Renee:
And how is that an argument against the passivity of the Wizarding
community regarding werewolf rights after the first Voldemort War? 

Also, in the conversation Sirius, Harry and Ron have about Umbridge in
OotP we hear that her anti-werewolf laws were drawn `two years ago'.
That would be 1993/1994, the year Lupin was teaching at Hogwarts, and
before he was outed as a werewolf. Whereas Dumbledore wasn't driven
from power until August 1995. 

Obviously the climate Umbridge was working in at the time was such
that passing those laws didn't cause a ripple, to put it mildly. And
you seem to overestimate Dumbledore's political powers if you think he
could have stopped the laws from being passed (if he could, I'd be
hugely disappointed in him). He couldn't even secure an official
Hogwarts education for Lupin, but had to hide the boy's secret from
the WW.  
 
> Pippin:
> Purebloods and Slytherins don't
> have to prove that they're decent people before they're granted
> equal rights. Why should werewolves have to? 

Renee:
Because Purebloods and Slytherins don't ever have to turn Dark if they
don't want to? 

Apparently public opinion in the WW considers the answer `because they
have no choice becoming murderous Dark Creatures every once in a
while, unlike Purebloods and Slytherins' a valid one. Because of this
fatalist response, werewolves still can't get a Hogwarts education
like other wizards and witches and can be robbed of their right to
work for a living by Ministry toads in pink vests. 

During the first Voldemort War, werewolves sided with LV, and
afterwards nobody seems to have said `well, from now on let's consider
them decent people and give them equal rights to prevent this from
happening again'. There's no reason to think it would be any different
after the second Voldemort War - unless the WW would be presented with
a strong reason to reconsider its prejudice. If a werewolf can choose
not to succumb to the temptation of turning evil despite being fated
to turn into a monster each month, they may realise they have a
choice, too, instead of just sticking to their prejudice.       

       
Pippin:
> The very fact that Bill's injuries are unprecedented proves that
> werewolves  don't normally attack  people when they're
> not transformed.  If the WW also needs proof that werewolves aren't
> capable of transmitting full-blown lycanthropy except when
> they're transformed, Bill's case proves that too.

Renee:
But for all we know, the WW will conclude that the werewolves are
becoming even more evil. I can just see the Prophet headline:
WEREWOLVES FROM BAD TO WORSE; public opinion isn't known for it's
nuances. And for some reason I doubt the new prospect of disfigurement
and incurring cursed wounds will sound reassuring: it's added to the
danger of getting turned or killed during full moon. Nor does it
change the fact that Greyback and those of his ilk are supporting the
enemy.  

  
> > Renee:
> > You're comparing apples and oranges here by calling them both round
> > fruits. Lupin did not betray Dumbledore into the hands of his enemies.
> > So why would he betray his friends to Voldemort? 
> 
> Pippin:
> Dumbledore admitted Lupin to Hogwarts when no one else
> would take the risk.
> 
> Have you considered what would have happened to Dumbledore
> if Lupin had bitten someone in Hogsmeade? Do you think he'd
> have been able to keep his job?  What would have happened to
> everyone who was depending on Dumbledore to keep Hogwarts
> secure against Voldemort?

Renee:
If I'm not mistaken, criminal neglect and treason are different offences. 
I doubt very much Lupin was aware of this possible chain of events at
the time; realisation only came later. Sixteen, seventeen year olds
are notorious for overestimating themselves, which is exactly what the
Marauders did. They simply ignored the possibility of disaster. This
is far removed from deliberately telling Voldemort where to find your
friends so he can kill them, in order to save your own skin. 

Renee











From veronikitravlou at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 22 19:46:41 2006
From: veronikitravlou at yahoo.com (veroniki travlou)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:46:41 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Why Didn't Harry Ask About His Parents' Graves?  (was: Re: Godric's Hollow)
In-Reply-To: <dvro1h+40nk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060322194641.63538.qmail@web36711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149905

Dany wrote:

> I just don't get WHY Harry never asked about their
> parents graves, Why he never wanted to go there or at least to know
> where they are (I mean specifically where they are, we all know they
> are in Godric's) even when he didn't know he was a wizard and he was
> convinced their parents had died in a car accident... What would
> Petunia have said in this case? Why he never asked Sirius about 
> this? He was his father best mate, he would have had a reasonable
> answer.


Hello everyone,

I've asked the same question myself, why Harry never
asked about his parents' graves.
I think that firstly Harry was pretty much convinced
about his parents car accident and that he was so
overwhelmed by learning he was a wizard and that he
could finally leave the Dursleys that he never got
round to investigating their death further.

Seeing in from an 11-year-old's point of view, their
death remains a fact that cannot be altered in any
way. He is proud his parents were wizards, he misses
them terribly and the events that follow don't let him
dwell on that.

>From a writer's point of view, the place of their
death is a crucial element in the story, along with
the people involved-I believe there were more people
involved- so it was wise she left it till the very
end.

Now Harry is more mature, has gone though a lot, and
needs to find out what really happened that night.
Furthermore, we have come across Harry's reactions to
any information concerning his parents death and I
don't think that he can work through that, they haunt
him more that theu could help him out of his misery.

I hope I've been of some help.

Cheers,

vera





From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 22 22:55:32 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:55:32 -0000
Subject: A Muggle-born Death Eater (was: Fenrir's ancestry was Re: DDM!Snape &  the UV)
In-Reply-To: <dvrrh9+je33@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvskl4+u4bg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149906

> Pippin:
> I think Greyback is Muggleborn. Rowling says that Muggleborns
> are allowed to be Death Eaters in unusual circumstances.
> http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=80
> 
> It sounds like Fenrir could be the character she was thinking of.
> 
> Pippin

zgirnius:
I vote for Peter Pettigrew as the Muggle-born Death Eater. His 
friendship with the Potters, in whom Voldemort had such a great 
interest, could qualify as an unusual circumstance. And it answers a 
couple of questions for me.

Why did Sirius and Lupin suspect each other of being the traitor?
Well, if Peter was Muggle-born, both might reasonably have figured that 
Peter was not going to be recruited by Voldemort for ideological 
reasons. (Whereas Sirius, as a pureblood and a Black would be eminently 
acceptable, and Lupin, while a half-blood, is also a werewolf...) Also 
another reason why Sirius and the Potters mught have considered the 
Secret-Keeper Switch an extra clever idea.

How did Peter kill all those Muggles?
Well, the Muggle authorities passed the whole thinkg off as a gas main 
explosion. Perhaps is really was. Peter as a Muggleborn would know 
about such things and may have set the explosion off magically to hide 
his escape.

It also rounds out the Marauders nicely. The three whose blood-status 
we know of fir sure are a half-blood and two pure-bloods. It might also 
help to explain why Peter was such a suck-up. This may have been his 
strategy to deal with the Wizarding World, once he realized that not 
all would welcome 'his kind'.







From pegdigrazia at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 22 20:47:38 2006
From: pegdigrazia at yahoo.com (Peg DiGrazia)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 12:47:38 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Why Didn't Harry Ask About His Parents' Graves?  (was: Re: Godric's Hollow)
In-Reply-To: <dvro1h+40nk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060322204738.43418.qmail@web42206.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149907

Dany wrote:
  <<I just don't get WHY Harry never asked about their parents graves, Why he never wanted to go there or at least to know where they are (I mean specifically where they are, we all know they are in Godric's) even when he didn't know he was a wizard and he was convinced their parents had died in a car accident... What would Petunia have said in this case? Why he never asked Sirius about this? He was his father best mate, he would have had a reasonable answer.>>
   
  Peg now:
  I think this is a good question, Dany.  I can see that the Dursleys might have had an attitude of "Don't ask us about your parents," but Harry's never shown much interest in *any* of the more concrete details about his parents, has he?  He's never asked what their jobs were, how old they were when they got married, what happened to his paternal grandparents...  It's always been simply, "You knew my father in school?  What was he like?"  Maybe children growing up without parents wonder more about nebulous things such as their personalities than about the cold, hard facts.  
   
  Regarding the graves in particular, I wouldn't be surprised if Petunia told Harry that his parents had been cremated or some such to avoid having to deal with the issue.
   
  Peg






From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 22 20:18:54 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:18:54 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV
In-Reply-To: <dvs9dt+10dqg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvsbfe+mgr5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149908

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...> 
wrote:

> 
> Dumbledore is going to die no matter what, either from the poison or
> the DEs, if Snape doesn't "do the deed" himself. > 

Now where on Earth is THIS coming from?  DD is going to die, anyway?  
Only in a world organized to free Snape from any responsibility.  The 
potion was "no health drink" I recall.  Nowhere are we told that DD is 
dying or is doomed or will not recover -- indeed, his insistance on 
summoning Snape might well mean that recovery is perfectly possible, 
given correct and timely treatment.

The DEs are, of course, a different proposition.  Could Snape have 
defeated them all, possibly with Harry's help?  Hmmm.  Don't know.


> Carol, noting that the plot requires Snape to be trapped into killing
> his mentor, setting up a future confrontation with Harry, not to
> heroically save the day and steal Harry's glory


Lupinlore, noting that the PLOT requires no such thing, but rather a 
solution that pleases Snape lovers would require such










From merrillsyndrome at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 22 21:16:07 2006
From: merrillsyndrome at yahoo.com (merrillsyndrome)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 21:16:07 -0000
Subject: Hedwig
In-Reply-To: <dvp579+ugj0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvseqn+7fsv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149909

>Carol:
>If the news leaks out that Harry isn't at Hogwarts, assuming that 
>it's still open, Voldemort may suspect that something's up. What 
>would he be doing out of school if not hunting for Horcruxes?


I don't think LV would be suspicious if Harry wasn't at Hogwarts for 
year 7.  DD is dead, there is no protection for Harry there anymore.  
It seems more likely that LV would expect Harry to go into hiding, 
especially after he comes of age and there is no protection at the 
Dursley's home either.  I doubt that LV would suspect that Harry knew 
anything about the Horcruxes.  LV seems just arrogant enough to 
believe he has covered his tracks so well no one would ever suspect a 
horcrux-especially since he has returned and now looks to be a more 
powerful wizard who has *survived* death without an aid, like the 
Sorcerer's Stone.

jmo

-em










From sugaranddixie1 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 22 22:12:01 2006
From: sugaranddixie1 at yahoo.com (sugaranddixie1)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:12:01 -0000
Subject: Why was Lily's sacrifice the important one?
Message-ID: <dvsi3h+s0si@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149910

ET-
In other words, why does her giving her life for Harry turn out to be 
be what protects him?  James also sacrificed his life to try to protect 
both Lily and Harry. So why the almost total emphasis on Lily? The only 
thing I can come up with is that it had something to do with 
the "purity" of Lily's character- her ability to see good in anyone...
Or was it because she was given the choice of stepping aside & didn't 
take it?  Did her making that choice make it the ultimate sacrifice?   
As far as I can tell, James wasn't offered that sort of chance....  Any 
thoughts?

sugaranddixie1






From h2so3f at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 23 00:24:48 2006
From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 00:24:48 -0000
Subject: The lack of Obliviators and the Press at GH was Godric's Hollow
In-Reply-To: <a1ee8d580603211830m2bd58bf4r33679687a0ef7e72@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <dvspsg+ssfu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149911

Snow wrote:  <SNIP>
"If Dumbledore could give Moody the secret to Grimmauld Place on a 
slip of paper (that Moody made positive to destroy once read) then 
Peter Pettigrew could have given mom or dad a piece of paper that 
could have fallen into the hands (purposely or not) of muggle 
newsmen. Dumbledore, in GOF, told Harry that he read muggle news 
unlike his colleagues.

If an article appeared in a muggle newspaper that had the secret (to 
the Potter's whereabouts revealed), only persons who were reading it 
would be aware(?) of the secret. How many wizards read muggle news 
anyway except for Dumbledore?" 


CH3ed:
Hi, assuming the scenario above I don't think anyone would know the 
secret from reading the article in the muggle newspaper, since the 
article would not be written by the Secret Keeper (in this case, 
PP), but by the muggle reporter. Remember, only the Secret Keeper 
can reveal the secret and no one else. Unless you read that piece of 
paper written by PP, you are not in on the secret. Duplication of 
that piece of paper by someone other than the SK doesn't expose the 
secret (just like Harry can't tell anyone where the HQ of the OotP 
is even though he's been told it himself because Harry isn't the SK 
for the OotP).


Snow wrote:
"Just because the secret was exposed does not point a finger to who 
exposed it. This would keep Sirius under suspicion and Peter not 
really the person who exposed them. The secret keeper cannot really 
be exposed when the secret is written. If Moody had not destroyed 
the secret note to Harry from Dumbledore and if it had been 
unintentionally given to the Daily Prophet, everyone would know the 
secret to the Order's whereabouts."


CH3ed:
IMO, if DD reads about the Potter's whereabouts in the Muggle paper, 
then he would at the very least know that PP had not been discreet. 
Nobody else who had not read from the original piece of paper that 
PP wrote would register the secret; however, so the Potters would 
still be safe unless the muggle reporter who has that piece of paper 
goes and show it around. 

CH3ed... hopelessly behind on the posts! :O)






From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Thu Mar 23 01:27:23 2006
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 17:27:23 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why was Lily's sacrifice the important one?
In-Reply-To: <dvsi3h+s0si@eGroups.com>
References: <dvsi3h+s0si@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <700201d40603221727g464e6e5vd4e83282aba51be2@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149912

sugaranddixie1 wrote:
>
> ET-
> In other words, why does her giving her life for Harry turn out to be
> be what protects him?  James also sacrificed his life to try to protect
> both Lily and Harry. So why the almost total emphasis on Lily? The only
> thing I can come up with is that it had something to do with
> the "purity" of Lily's character- her ability to see good in anyone...
> Or was it because she was given the choice of stepping aside & didn't
> take it?  Did her making that choice make it the ultimate sacrifice?
> As far as I can tell, James wasn't offered that sort of chance....  Any
> thoughts?
>


Kemper now:
This has been answered (satisfactorily or not is up to you) in the
Mugglenet/Leaky interview of JKR.    See below...


*ES (Emerson from Mugglenet): This is one of my burning questions since the
third book - why did Voldemort offer Lily so many chances to live? Would he
actually have let her live?*

JKR: Mmhm.

*ES: Why?*

JKR: [silence] Can't tell you. But he did offer, you're absolutely right.
Don't you want to ask me why James's death didn't protect Lily and Harry?
There's your answer, you've just answered your own question, because she
could have lived and chose to die. James was going to be killed anyway. Do
you see what I mean? I'm not saying James wasn't ready to; he died trying to
protect his family but he was going to be murdered anyway. He had no - he
wasn't given a choice, so he rushed into it in a kind of animal way, I think
there are distinctions in courage. James was immensely brave. But the
caliber of Lily's bravery was, I think in this instance, higher because she
could have saved herself. Now any mother, any normal mother would have done
what Lily did. So in that sense her courage too was of an animal quality but
she was given time to choose. James wasn't. It's like an intruder entering
your house, isn't it? You would instinctively rush them. But if in cold
blood you were told, "Get out of the way," you know, what would you do? I
mean, I don't think any mother would stand aside from their child. But does
that answer it? She did very consciously lay down her life. She had a clear
choice -

*ES: And James didn't.*

JKR: Did he clearly die to try and protect Harry specifically given a clear
choice? No. It's a subtle distinction and there's slightly more to it than
that but that's most of the answer.

*MA (Melissa from Leaky): Did she know anything about the possible effect of
standing in front of Harry?*

JKR: No - because as I've tried to make clear in the series, it never
happened before. No one ever survived before. And no one, therefore, knew
that could happen.

*MA: So no one - Voldemort or anyone using Avada Kedavra - ever gave someone
a choice and then they took that option [to die] -*

JKR: They may have been given a choice, but not in that particular way.
Full interview can be found at:
http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-1.htm


-Kemper


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




From olivier.fouquet at polytechnique.org  Thu Mar 23 01:37:07 2006
From: olivier.fouquet at polytechnique.org (Olivier Fouquet)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 10:37:07 +0900
Subject: =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Ah_the_mysteries=85?=
Message-ID: <8304E237-CCD6-4325-B9B1-4CBD28930A23@polytechnique.org>

No: HPFGUIDX 149913

 > Why did Snape enter the tunnel? Why was Snape so convinced
 > that Lupin was part of a plot to murder him?

Sirius and Lupin both give the same kind of answer: Snape wanted to  
know what Lupin and the others were up to. In my book, Snape is not  
convinced that Lupin was part of a plot to murder him. He thinks  
Sirius was though. All he says about Lupin is that he thought he was  
in on "the joke".

 > How did Peter Pettigrew elude Albus Dumbledore, who
 > knew someone close to the Potters was  a spy?

Well you have to answer this even with ESE!Lupin because Pettigrew  
was most definitely close to the Potters and a spy.

 > Why didn't James want Dumbledore to be his secret keeper?

Well you have to answer this even with...

 > Why did Sirius think that Lupin was the spy, and why
 > did James go along with not telling Lupin about the secret
 > keeper switch?

Someone was a spy. They thought it was Lupin, Lupin thought it was  
Sirius. The whole point of the switch was not telling anybody. They  
didn't tell Dumbledore either.

 > Who sent the Lestranges after the Longbottoms?

Arthur Weasley.

 > Who killed the unicorns? Who was the stranger Hagrid met in the
 > Hogs Head?

Arthur Weasley.

 > Why couldn't JKR tell us why the diary plot  would have
 > made present day Voldemort stronger?

Because it would have been too big a hint that Arthur Weasley, who  
knew exactly what the Diary was, had staged a fake fight with his old  
accomplice Lucius so that his own daughter would be subdued by the  
Riddle's memories.

 > Why is there an anvil-sized  hint that Lupin is an occlumens?

Why is there an anvil-sized hint that Arthur Weasley can do the  
Imperius curse? Beside, Lupin is a very able wizard. Why shouldn't he  
be able to do legilimency and occlumency? Snape can do both and Draco  
is an occlumens.

 > Why was Lupin so willing to kill Peter Pettigrew, when it
 > is against the philosophy of the Order to kill DE's who
 > have given themselves up? Why does he show more
 > emotion at the thought of losing Dumbledore's trust
 > than at killing a helpless man who is begging for his life?

Because this man has betrayed his friends and because it is an  
apparent important plot point that Pettigrew owe a life-debt to  
Harry. Note that you could ask the same question about Snape, who was  
willing to kill two innocent people the very same night, who contrary  
to Lupin, did not listen for a second to the opinion of the other  
person in the room and who never expressed any visible remorse about it.

 > Why does the  moon appear and disappear
 >  *before* Lupin transforms? Why did JKR give an evasive
 > answer when asked whether Lupin transformed inside the shack?
 > She's usually  willing to admit it when she just flubbed up.

Because the way she wrote it was by far the most enjoyable way that  
she could write that scene. The feeling that Harry's lost because  
he's trapped with Sirius, the feeling that everything is lost when  
Lupin turns out to be in league with Sirius, the feeling that  
everything is lost when Snape would not listen and finally, when  
everything seems finally right, fate strikes again and Lupin transforms.


 > What drove Peter Pettigrew to return to Voldemort and
 > forced him to stay when he wavered in his loyalty?

Hum, let me see. He has tried staying at Hogwarts and it didn't work  
too well, did it?

 > How are Order members once again being picked off one by one?

Sturgis was imperioed by Lucius (or maybe Arthur Weasley), Sirius  
died in a fight with Bellatrix and Emmeline Vance was killed because  
Snape gave LV useful information about the Order.

Of course, I could write such a list of "mysteries" about any  
character, and one twice as long about Snape. But let us have a look  
at the official mysteries of the series. Isn't it strange, if the  
above questions are important, that no one ever asks them? Isn't it  
strange that Harry, who was an eye witness, never seems to doubt that  
it was Bellatrix who killed Sirius? Isn't it strange that Hermione,  
who had guessed long ago that Lupin was a werewolf, never stops and  
asks "but how come didn't he transform before"? That neither Sirius  
nor Harry nor Dumbledore nor any member of the original Order seems  
to have any doubt about the secret-keeper switch? That DD has so  
little doubt about it that he mentions Lupin twice as someone he  
trusts to start over the Order?

Isn't it strange, on the other hand, that ESE!Lupin brings absolutely  
no new light on the last remaining mysteries: where the Horcruxes are  
and, tangentially, what is Snape's allegiance?

Olivier




From celizwh at intergate.com  Thu Mar 23 02:13:08 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 02:13:08 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dvfav5+p7pu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvt07k+97ns@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149914

Carol:

> So maybe what Snape feels is Remorse that has not yet 
> reached the stage of Penitence, which requires humility, 
> and consequently his efforts to atone for his sins 
> (reporting the Prophecy and joining the DEs in the first 
> place) have not been entirely successful because without 
> Penitence (humbly admitting that yes, he is at fault), 
> he can't truly Repent and resolve to change. Anguish (remorse) 
> is not enough. Joining Dumbledore's side and risking his 
> life is not enough. Following DD's orders, even at the 
> cost of still more personal anguish is not enough.

houyhnhnm:

Because following Dumbledore's orders is part of what is keeping Snape
from evolving from remorse to penitance.  At least, the role he has
taken on as part of his atonement is not one which is conducive to
such evolution.  Social isolation, dissimulation,
compartmentalisation, (not to mention Occlumency, which to me is the
darkest of arts--a horcruxmancy of the personality), these do not
foster spiritual growth.

I wonder what exactly took place between Snape and Dumbledore when
Snape "returned to our side".  Which one was more insistant on Snape's
becoming a spy? Did Dumbledore offer Snape an alternative?

Surely Dumbledore must have worried about what the role he had given 
Snape, or allowed him to assume, was doing to him.  Especially if
Snape's cultivation of the Malfoys and other ex-DEs during the
Vapor!Mort years was also on DD's orders.  He must have felt guilt
about Snape.  And guilt also for failing him as a teenager.  For
finding it so much easier to like James, Sirius, and Remus who were
Gryffindors as he was and therefore so much more like him.







From exodusts at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 23 04:06:45 2006
From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 04:06:45 -0000
Subject: Rights?
In-Reply-To: <dvrjah+juka@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvt6sl+hmtq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149915

> > > Renee:
> > > "Also, Scamander's text may be Ministry approved, this didn't 
> > prevent 
> > > Umbridge from issuing laws that deprive werewolves of the basic 
> > human 
> > > right of employment."

> > > Carol:
> > > "Until werewolves have the basic human right of education, the 
> > basic 
> > > human right of employment really isn't an option."

> > > BAW:
> > > Where are you two from?  The reason I ask is that I have looked 
> > through
> > > the US Constitution and Bill of Rights and don't find any 
reference 
> > to 
> > > either education or employment as rights. <SNIPPED>

> > Exodusts:
> > 
> > If it really existed (and who is to say it doesn't?) The 
Ministry, 
> > based in the U.K., would be subject to the European Convention of 
> > Human Rights, via the Human Rights Act 1998. <SNIPPED>
> > So, in (very) crude summary:
> > Right to education Yes
> > Right to employment No.

> Renee:
> See the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 23
> http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
> Right to employment: yes.


Exodusts:

In theory, but not in law. Unfortunately, unlike the ECHR in 
the UK, the Universal Declaration is not legally binding. It has no 
signatories and is not part of international law. It could do nothing 
prevent Umbridge from issuing laws that deprive werewolves of their 
basic human rights, whereas the ECHR might, for education at least. 
Poor Lupin.







From AllieS426 at aol.com  Thu Mar 23 04:16:03 2006
From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 04:16:03 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Ah_the_mysteries=85?=
In-Reply-To: <8304E237-CCD6-4325-B9B1-4CBD28930A23@polytechnique.org>
Message-ID: <dvt7e3+e8lc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149916

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Olivier Fouquet 
<olivier.fouquet at ...> wrote:
>
>  > Why couldn't JKR tell us why the diary plot  would have
>  > made present day Voldemort stronger?
> 
> Because it would have been too big a hint that Arthur Weasley, 
who  
> knew exactly what the Diary was, had staged a fake fight with his 
old  
> accomplice Lucius so that his own daughter would be subdued by 
the  
> Riddle's memories.
> 
> 
> Why is there an anvil-sized hint that Arthur Weasley can do the  
> Imperius curse? 

Allie:

I don't have a strong feeling about Arthur one way or the other, but 
I don't really think he's ESE!  (Incidentally is that a serious 
assertion, sometimes I can't tell on this list.)  I can't imagine 
anyone subjecting their child to possession by the evil spirit left 
in a book in PURPOSE.  What anvil-sized hint are you referring to 
for the imperius curse, though?  I'm very curious.







From exodusts at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 23 04:36:13 2006
From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 04:36:13 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Ah_the_mysteries=85?=
In-Reply-To: <dvt7e3+e8lc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvt8jt+3opt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149917

> > olivier fouquet:
> >
> > Because it would have been too big a hint that Arthur Weasley, 
> who  
> > knew exactly what the Diary was, had staged a fake fight with his 
> old  
> > accomplice Lucius so that his own daughter would be subdued by 
> the  
> > Riddle's memories.
> > 
> > Why is there an anvil-sized hint that Arthur Weasley can do the  
> > Imperius curse? 


> Allie:
> 
> I don't have a strong feeling about Arthur one way or the other, 
but 
> I don't really think he's ESE!  (Incidentally is that a serious 
> assertion, sometimes I can't tell on this list.)  I can't imagine 
> anyone subjecting their child to possession by the evil spirit left 
> in a book in PURPOSE.  What anvil-sized hint are you referring to 
> for the imperius curse, though?  I'm very curious.


Exodusts:

It does seem to me that if you wanted to you could make an ESE! 
argument for any character. Gimme a name, and I'll give you a thesis 
as to his or her dastardly plot.






From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Thu Mar 23 02:11:53 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 21:11:53 EST
Subject: TBAY: HMS DESIRE (about Snape) Long
Message-ID: <22b.8dfd87a.31535de9@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149918

>Exodusts:

>You left out the Love Potion. I'm pretty sure  that stuff was involved 
>in the Snape / Lily / Maruaders scenario somehow  (either Snape/James 
>trying to give it to Lily, or James trying to spike  Snape).


A wild and loopy suggestion <g>.  What if James  made Snape repay his life 
debt by preparing a love potion for Lily?  Being  smarter than Voldemort's 
mother, he never stopped giving it to her.   Even Harry wondered how his father 
ever got his mother to like him, after he had  seen the scene in the Pensive and 
a love potion crossed his mind. I bet Snape  would really feel good about 
James then!
Nikkalmati







From aceworker at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 23 00:57:44 2006
From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 16:57:44 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Rights?
In-Reply-To: <1143017755.711.89673.m19@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060323005745.84771.qmail@web30201.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149919

<<Exodusts:
If it really existed (and who is to say it doesn't?) The Ministry, 
based in the U.K., would be subject to the European Convention of 
Human Rights, via the Human Rights Act 1998.

<snip>

So, in (very) crude summary:

Right to education Yes
Right to employment No.>>


Ok, the list has gone over the deepend. Perhaps that is why 
there have only been 6 posts in the last 2 days..

..all the above would never apply in the Harry Potter Universe, 
because if you exam any timeline of the series, esp the Lexicon, 
doesn't it show the series ending in 1997-1998?

d.a jones.  










From bawilson at citynet.net  Thu Mar 23 03:50:46 2006
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:50:46 -0500
Subject: Rights?
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAF3fjS2TTeEGBco5GX7EF1AEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 149920

"Renee:
See the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 23
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Right to employment: yes."

BAW:
Which document has as much legal force as any other United Nations
document--nil.  Of course, any organization that would make Libya (of all
countries) the head of their Human Rights Commission has very little credibility
on the issue of human rights. (Yes, one can argue that a treaty is legally
binding, but treaties that purport to dictate how sovereign nations manage their
internal affairs [as opposed to those regulating relations among nations] are
dicey, as sovereign nations by nature resist other countries attempting to
interfere with their internal self-government; that is what 'sovereign' MEANS
after all.)

How does this relate to HP?  The MOM seems to be a sovereign entity; hence,
unless its constitution or other foundational document contains provisions
establishing a 'right' to education, employment, or anything else, then that
right does not, effectively, exist within that sovereignty.  Also, even if we
concede that education and employment are human 'rights' on a par with freedom
of speech and the like, are werewolves fully human?  Arguably, no.








From eastbaydavej at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 23 04:11:39 2006
From: eastbaydavej at yahoo.com (David)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 04:11:39 -0000
Subject: The unknown factor...... The apparent ease at which DD was killed.
Message-ID: <dvt75r+qb1n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149921

This may have been discussed at great length... but being new here 
and not wanting to wade through the huge amount of posts...

One thing that has always bothered me about DD's death was the 
apparent ease at which it happened. Granted the stuff he had to 
drink in the cave was not very healthy, but you would think that a 
man of his experience and stature, let alone knowledge, wouldn't be 
defenseless. Nor, would you think that he could have misplaced his 
trust in Snape THAT badly. Sure, he has said himself that he does 
make mistakes, and in his case, they tend to be rather large ones, 
but for some reason I just don't buy it.

That being said... let me toss out a theory and see what you all 
think of it. 

Firstly... DD is dead. No question about it. However, the 
circumstances around his death are up to debate. Draco kept his 
plans pretty quiet, but given the extreme measures his mother took 
to protect him and the number of death eaters that showed up on 
Hogwarts, you have to question if Snape didn't know ahead of time 
what was going to go down. At least some idea something was going to 
happen, if not the specifics. 

Second.... DD's injury when destroying the first horcrux. What if 
the injury was even more potent than we are lead to believe or what 
is made of it in the book. What if it was fatal from the start, but 
slowed by the work of Snape and others???

Here is my theory... Both Snape and DD knew what was going to happen 
and that in order to get Snape back into the 'fold', they put into 
motion of series of events that would culminate in the ultimate sign 
he was back to the death eaters... the murder of DD himself. 

Granted its a rather large sacrifice, but if he was going to die 
anyway, why not make it worth while. 

Thoughts?

David






From brahadambal at indiatimes.com  Thu Mar 23 04:10:19 2006
From: brahadambal at indiatimes.com (latha279)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 04:10:19 -0000
Subject: Godric's Hollow
In-Reply-To: <002c01c64de8$c9e642a0$163a6751@f3b7j4>
Message-ID: <dvt73b+a1jj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149922

 Ffred:
<HUGE SNIP>
> I think Hagrid had gone by the time the Ministry and the reporters 
arrived
> and even before the local Muggles turned out to see what had caused 
all the
> bangs and flashes and a house no one had ever noticed before 
suddenly fallen
> down in ruins.

:) First of all, I am glad my post generated all this discussion. 

Secondly, I wanted to think again about this latest suggestion that 
Hagrid got there before anybody else and was gone before anyone saw 
him -- this is a very serious issue then -- isn't it? Because if 
Hagrid got there before anybody else, wouldn't that mean that he knew 
that Voldy was going to GH that day, at that time? And wouldn't it 
mean that he (Hagrid) actually was the person who was also present on 
the scene? Otherwise, there is no way that he can get away before 
anybody else saw him, especially with his bulk! 

I had another thought that DD knew of Voldy's attack. Maybe through 
Snape or some other means. He sent Hagrid there beforehand to see 
what can be done to prevent it. But Hagrid reached the place AFTER 
Voldy had reached and therefore couldn't prevent any of the deaths. 
His immediate concern was to protect HP and he did it. He may have 
then sent an owl to Hogwarts to inform DD of what happened and that, 
as previously instructed by DD to take HP to the Dursleys if such a 
mishap happens, that he is taking HP there; but DD had also already 
left HW and the letter was taken by McGonagall. That's how she was 
informed. 

Don't know if that fits th canon, but would make sense for the 
assumption presented by Ffred.

JMO.
Brady.









From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 23 05:27:39 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 05:27:39 -0000
Subject: TBAY: HMS DESIRE (about Snape) Long
In-Reply-To: <22b.8dfd87a.31535de9@aol.com>
Message-ID: <dvtbkb+l9e5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149923

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, puduhepa98 at ... wrote:
>
> 
> A wild and loopy suggestion <g>.  What if James  made Snape repay his 
life debt by preparing a love potion for Lily?  Being  smarter than 
Voldemort's mother, he never stopped giving it to her.   Even Harry 
wondered how his father ever got his mother to like him, after he had  
seen the scene in the Pensive and a love potion crossed his mind. I bet 
Snape  would really feel good about James then!


Tonks:
Nah..  I think James was a jerk and Snape not a whole lot better, but 
they were not that evil. They were both gentlemen when it came to the 
ladies and love. And these are children't books after all. It is one 
thing to have a young woman make a love potion for a young man and 
quite another for a man to make one for a women. Whole different thing. 
Difference between G and X rating. Just call me old fashioned if you 
want.

Tonks_op






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 23 05:33:25 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 05:33:25 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV
In-Reply-To: <dvsbfe+mgr5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvtbv5+16t0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149924

> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> 
> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Dumbledore is going to die no matter what, either from the 
poison or
> > the DEs, if Snape doesn't "do the deed" himself. > 


Lupinlore: 
> Now where on Earth is THIS coming from?  DD is going to die, 
anyway?  
> Only in a world organized to free Snape from any responsibility.

Alla:

LOL! This is funny.

Lupinlore:
  The 
> potion was "no health drink" I recall.  Nowhere are we told that 
DD is 
> dying or is doomed or will not recover -- indeed, his insistance 
on 
> summoning Snape might well mean that recovery is perfectly 
possible, 
> given correct and timely treatment.

Alla:

Don't get me wrong, I am perfectly able to imagine the possibility 
that the drink was indeed poison, but the certainty of such 
interpetation is to me very questionable, since I fail to see any 
definite signs of such and especially definite signs of it being 
unrecoverable poison.

But as I said many times,  to me the most " in favor" clue of the 
drink NOT being a deadly poison is Dumbledore's willingness to 
implement plans to hide Draco and his family. He says that "he" will 
do it, not anybody else. Now one can twist it as in saying that DD 
would not tell Draco if he was dying, etc. I don't think so. I think 
DD expected to recover that night. Could I be wrong? Sure. But what 
I don't see at all no matter how hard I try is "Dumbledore was going 
to die no matter what" interpretation.

"Dumbledore was MAYBE going to die" - Yes, we don't know for sure 
one way or another, I will buy that, but not with any kind of 
certainty, IMO.

Is it so hard to imagine that Snape was summoned to help Dumbledore 
just as he did with the ring? I can certainly imagine that.


JMO,

Alla






From olivier.fouquet at polytechnique.org  Thu Mar 23 05:36:56 2006
From: olivier.fouquet at polytechnique.org (Olivier Fouquet)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 14:36:56 +0900
Subject: ah the mysteries
Message-ID: <8C5C05E6-482B-4D8E-9A85-57C3112FA954@polytechnique.org>

No: HPFGUIDX 149925

Allie:
 > I don't have a strong feeling about Arthur one way or the other, but
 > I don't really think he's ESE!  (Incidentally is that a serious
 > assertion, sometimes I can't tell on this list.)  I can't imagine
 > anyone subjecting their child to possession by the evil spirit left
 > in a book in PURPOSE.  What anvil-sized hint are you referring to
 > for the imperius curse, though?  I'm very curious.

Hi Allie,
I don't believe that Arthur is ESE, of course he isn't. I have been  
using him to show that one could build a powerful case for ESE!Anyone  
by selecting odd remarks or events, declaring them "mysteries" or  
"hints". Actually, I was surprised myself how easy it is. I took  
Arthur because ESE!Bill, ESE!McGonagall, ESE!Percy and ESE!Sirius  
already existed.

Now, on to the anvil-sized hint about the Imperius curse, it all goes  
back to GoF. Barty Crouch, posing as Moody, has this incredible  
conversation with Ron.

"my dad told me about one.. . . Is it called the Imperius
Curse, or something?"
"Ah, yes," said Moody appreciatively. "Your father would know that  
one [...]"

Now you have a hardcore DE that is speaking "appreciatively" of  
Arthur's knowledge of the Imperius. Once you have spotted this  
instance, you can of course find other hints in the other books,  
going back to book one, that Arthur does indeed know a lot about the  
Imperius. Then, once you're there, you notice that according to canon  
Sturgis was imperioed the very day when Arthur waited outside Harry's  
hearing room. How convenient that he could spend some times here to  
practise the curse that have gained him the appreciation of Barty  
Crouch Jr. And here you have started ESE!Arthur.

And once you've convinced that it is true, incredible things happen:  
you find that Arthur actually played a key part in LV's plan in GoF.  
By covering up the attack on Moody, he enabled the whole substitution  
business. You notice that if Fake!Moody speaks "appreciatively" of  
Arthur, Arthur has been careful to "speak highly of Moody" to ensure  
that Harry will trust him. You notice that in OoP, Arthur antagonizes  
Malfoy and Shacklebolt. We suppose that one is genuine and one fake,  
but what if it was the contrary? You discover that Arthur's anger is  
very convenient for Lucius to plant the Diary. You remember that it  
was oh so providential that in all those raids, Arthur has never been  
able to find anything at the Malfoys, not in CoS, not in HBP. You  
notice that Arthur is conspicuous only by his absence whenever the  
Order has serious security mission to carry. You ask yourself, how  
come didn't Nagini kill once and for good the mortally wound Arthur  
and then you understand: it was necessary to stage a fake attack just  
to be sure that Harry will be convinced his visions were not only  
real but also very useful. And then you re-read OoP and you realize  
that yes, this is exactly the reason why Harry finally believed  
(against all odds) that Sirius was indeed trapped in the ministry.  
And this was how he managed to convince Ron. You remember that Lucius  
advises his son that "it is not prudent to appear less than fond of  
Harry Potter", and you understand now that Arthur has been much more  
prudent than Malfoy at hiding his DE past.

You then realize that, by your reading, Arthur has played a key role  
in the plot of CoS, GoF and OoP. You discover that he isn't entirely  
clean in PoA, I mean why did he tell Harry that Sirius was after him  
if not for awakening his curiosity? And no, it never ever occurred to  
him that this rat was living a bit longer than usual. And of course  
when his son was to enter Hogwarts in the same year as Harry Potter,  
he insisted that Percy get a new pet so that, eh, you know, we could  
give Peter, I mean Scabber to Ron. So when Pippin asked "who killed  
the unicorn" you answer Arthur Weasley. She thinks it was Lupin, and  
she has exactly as much evidence as you do. You'll also notice that  
your answers makes more sense than hers in answering at least two  
other of her questions: why was JKR mysterious about the Diary and  
why are Order member picked one by one.

And there you have it. ESE!Arthur in full-fledged form.  
Alternatively, you can read the books again and (re-)discover that  
Arthur is a fond father a loving husband, a bit on the eccentric side  
maybe, and that Lupin is a sympathetic man who never managed to  
discipline his friends at school because they were the first persons  
he ever had a good times with.




From bartl at sprynet.com  Thu Mar 23 05:43:55 2006
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 00:43:55 -0500
Subject: Dumbledore MAY be alive....
Message-ID: <4422359B.3030404@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149926

Bart:
OK, I really hope that this is incorrect. I see no good reason, 
plotwise, to bring Dumbledore back to life. Yet...

The first thing that Harry brews in HBP is a Draught of Living Death. 
And it is kind of hard for an AK spell to kill a dead person...

	Bart




From sydpad at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 23 05:50:22 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 05:50:22 -0000
Subject: Healing Themes (WAS Re: LID!Snape rides again)
In-Reply-To: <dvt07k+97ns@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvtcuu+erps@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149927


> Carol:
> 
> > So maybe what Snape feels is Remorse that has not yet 
> > reached the stage of Penitence, which requires humility, 
> > and consequently his efforts to atone for his sins 
> > (reporting the Prophecy and joining the DEs in the first 
> > place) have not been entirely successful because without 
> > Penitence (humbly admitting that yes, he is at fault), 
> > he can't truly Repent and resolve to change. Anguish (remorse) 
> > is not enough. Joining Dumbledore's side and risking his 
> > life is not enough. Following DD's orders, even at the 
> > cost of still more personal anguish is not enough.
> 
> houyhnhnm:
> 
> Because following Dumbledore's orders is part of what is keeping Snape
> from evolving from remorse to penitance.  At least, the role he has
> taken on as part of his atonement is not one which is conducive to
> such evolution.  Social isolation, dissimulation,
> compartmentalisation, (not to mention Occlumency, which to me is the
> darkest of arts--a horcruxmancy of the personality), these do not
> foster spiritual growth.

Sydney:

Oh, man, this goes right to the heart of the themes of the series,
doesn't it?  So many of the adult characters are stuck in this
situation that they can't move on from.  Like Sirius couldn't leave
his mother's house.  Snape can't break away from these repressed dark
feelings of hatred-- represented by being a spy on the Dark forces. 
Lupin looks like the first one to actually start something new-- he
was in this space where he was holding himself apart from other
people, because he's afraid he'll hurt them.    And Hogwarts has this
unresolved issue going back, like, a thousand years, of an angry
breakup, fragmentation, something that was broken and hasn't been
fixed. And how did this unresolved stuff come out?  Overflowing
blocked pipes full of snakes, that's how. Rowling doesn't have a big
book with "Freud" on the spine for nothing!

A lot of how I see the series turning out is because it seems to me
that this isn't a "Lord of the Rings" style epic of warrior heroes; 
it feels a lot closer to "The Secret Garden" or "Little White Horse"
or even "Great Expectations"-- a darker, more elaborate version of the
child healer story.  I just finished "I Capture the Castle", another
book JKR's cited as a big influence, and it's the same sort of thing--
at the heart of the story is a blocked writer, who needs his children
to break through these badly healed scars, get the blood flowing, and
recover in an organic way.  JKR says she didn't set out to write a
children's story-- I think she set out to write a story that required
children, as symbols of renewal and the possibilty of starting again.
 I read an interview once with the great animation director Miyazake,
who was asked what the difference was between children's movies and
adult movies.  He said that in an adult movie, you have to make do and
struggle on with all your crippling mistakes;  but a children's movie
always has this feeling that everything can start fresh and clean again.

One thing nearly all of Rowling's favorite books have in common--
"Little White Horse" and "Pride and Prejudice" and "I Capture the
Castle", is that they're dramas of recognition, or re-cognition-- the
central event is the protagonist going back over events that she saw
one way, with one set of assumptions, and re-thinking everything
because of new knowledge about the past and about people's
motivations.  This has the same sort of thematic movement as a healing
story, because it's all about opening up festering wounds and letting
out all the toxins, as it were, to the air, so they can heal properly.

People seem to be speculating about big battles and the Horcrux-hunt
being an Indina-Jones-type-thing and everything sort of going along an
action-adventure, destroy the baddies thing.  I don't think it's going
there at all.   I think book VII will be packed full of backstory, of
misunderstandings cleared up, of things that were broken being put
together.  I don't think the Locket is going to be the first Horcrux
that's going to turn out to have been already taken care of in some
way.  What's needed isn't destruction, it's recognition, or un-burial.
 I mean, not there won't be a lot of derring-do and such, but with a
twist.  I wish there was another thing coming up where we could put
questions to JKR, because I'm longing to ask her if she has put in
Tarot stuff other than the Tower and the Hanged Man.  Because shortly
after the Tower appears in the deck, the Judgement card shows up-- a
card showing people joyfully rising from graves.  I'm certain at least
one character we thought was dead will be alive;  whether it's Regulus
or Emmeline Vance or even Dumbledore (though I doubt it will be him).  

I dunno... I don't really have enough coherence to put together an
actual post on this.  Random thoughts--

I LOVE Magpie's idea of Draco paying back Snape's life debt by saving
Harry.  It's so appropriate to the genre, that the children have to
step forward, because the adults are just plain stuck.  Snape is the
past;  Draco is the future.  

I think there's something important to the Sectumsempra healing spell
sounding like a song-- Phoenix song?  I wonder did Snape learn it from
Fawkes?  Dumbledore tells Harry in CoS that only true loyalty could
have called Fawkes to him-- is this how he's so certain of Snape's
loyalities?  I'm just sort of riffing on suicidal!Snape, because it
would be so like him to express this extraordinary remorse Dumbledore
spoke of by trying to destroy himself, rather than by healing. 
"Sectumsempra" means to "cut forever", it seems very appropriate
Christina symbolism that the Phoenix can heal even that which seems
cut forever.  "Sectumsempra"-- wow, that spell is just Snape in a
nutshell- the idea that things can just be cut off and that takes care
of them.  

Sorry to stay on Snape, but, I mean, he does seem to appear at the
heart of the thematic stuff!  There has to be some connection here to
that damn DADA job.  The job is cursed by Voldemort, the embodiment of
Dark magic, that is, hatred and fear.  Snape seems to be pursuing
this-- I dunno, Snape thematically is so tied in to the ideas of
repressing bad feelings and lashing out against them, rather than
embracing and healing them-- spying and Occlumency and non-Verbal
spells.  This whole thing bugs me, I can't quite figure out what
meaning it's meant to have. But the disagreement between Snape and
Dumbledore on that job seems to go right to the heart of the symbolic
stuff.

On Snape's crimes and redemption generally:  I think whatever Snape
did as a DE will likely remain offscreen, like what the centaurs did
to Umbridge, where people's imaginings can be as lurid as they like. 
Personally I have a hard time picturing Dumbledore twinkling at
someone who'd tortured helpless people to death, and offering him
vulture hats because he takes himself too seriously.  But then, some
people think Dumbledore's a lot more of a psycho than I think he is! 
Anyways, I'm pretty sure the question with Snape isn't one of
redemption, in the sense of what side he's on;  I think that's already
happened.  All the symbols Rowling puts around him seem a lot more
tied into the idea of recognition, of bringing out the hidden.  I
really see Harry's role here as one of being able to say, even if
Snape doesn't change a hair, "I trust Severus Snape completely",
because he'll have attained this Dumbledore-level integration with his
dark side.  Just my feeling.  


Anyways, random long disconnected post.. 

-- Sydney, feeling both expansive and incoherent at the same time, not
a great combination.







From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 23 05:55:33 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 05:55:33 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore MAY be alive....
In-Reply-To: <4422359B.3030404@sprynet.com>
Message-ID: <dvtd8l+kd4h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149928

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky <bartl at ...> wrote:
>
> Bart:
> OK, I really hope that this is incorrect. I see no good reason, 
> plotwise, to bring Dumbledore back to life. Yet...
> 
> The first thing that Harry brews in HBP is a Draught of Living Death. 
> And it is kind of hard for an AK spell to kill a dead person...
> 

Tonks:

DD is dead, really, really, truly, fully DEAD. I do think that there is 
a strong possibility that He will return in book 7, near the end. I say 
this because this is in keeping with the hidden story within a story 
that JKR is telling. But in order for this to happen, DD must really be 
dead now. There is no Draught of Living Death involved in DD's death on 
the tower. There may be a Draught of LD somewhere in book 7 for Harry, 
but that is another situation.

Tonks_op
DD's most loyal and faithful.(other than SS, of course.)







From R.Vink2 at chello.nl  Thu Mar 23 09:57:50 2006
From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 09:57:50 -0000
Subject: Rights?
In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAF3fjS2TTeEGBco5GX7EF1AEAAAAA@citynet.net>
Message-ID: <dvtreu+aqo0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149929

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Alan Wilson"
<bawilson at ...> wrote:
>
> "Renee:
> See the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 23
> http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
> 
> Right to employment: yes."
> 
> BAW:
> Which document has as much legal force as any other United Nations
> document--nil.  Of course, any organization that would make Libya
(of all
> countries) the head of their Human Rights Commission has very little
credibility
> on the issue of human rights. (Yes, one can argue that a treaty is
legally
> binding, but treaties that purport to dictate how sovereign nations
manage their
> internal affairs [as opposed to those regulating relations among
nations] are
> dicey, as sovereign nations by nature resist other countries
attempting to
> interfere with their internal self-government; that is what
'sovereign' MEANS
> after all.)
> 
> How does this relate to HP?  The MOM seems to be a sovereign entity;
hence,
> unless its constitution or other foundational document contains
provisions
> establishing a 'right' to education, employment, or anything else,
then that
> right does not, effectively, exist within that sovereignty.  Also,
even if we
> concede that education and employment are human 'rights' on a par
with freedom
> of speech and the like, are werewolves fully human?  Arguably, no.
>

Renee:
If I recall correctly, you were the one who first referred to a
particular manifestation of Real World legislation (in casu, US law)
to question various assumptions/assertions Carol and I made regarding
werewolf rights. And in a HP context, quoting US law makes even less
sense than quoting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as JKR
is British. 

You're right to look to the WW itself for more relevant information
Unfortunately, JKR has told us so little about the principles
underlying British wizarding legislation that a proper discussion is
hardly possible. 

Whether werewolves are fully human or not seems to be a matter of
debate. It's true that the WW doesn't consider them fully human. But
it could be argued that werewolves are humans with a dangerous
condition, the worst symptoms of which can be countered by a potion
(nowadays). From the fact that Lupin was intended as a metaphor for
people's reaction to illness and disability one might conclude that
JKR does not subscribe to the opinion of the WW.

Renee

 






From h2so3f at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 23 11:34:03 2006
From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 11:34:03 -0000
Subject: The unknown factor...... The apparent ease at which DD was killed.
In-Reply-To: <dvt75r+qb1n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvu13b+enln@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149930

David wrote:  <SNIP>
" One thing that has always bothered me about DD's death was the 
apparent ease at which it happened. Granted the stuff he had to 
drink in the cave was not very healthy, but you would think that a 
man of his experience and stature, let alone knowledge, wouldn't be 
defenseless. Nor, would you think that he could have misplaced his 
trust in Snape THAT badly. Sure, he has said himself that he does 
make mistakes, and in his case, they tend to be rather large ones, 
but for some reason I just don't buy it."


CH3ed:
The ease of DD's death was what really jarred me when I first read 
HBP too. I expected DD to die in this book but not in this fashion. 
I thougth it would be something spectacular. But then this maybe 
what JKR wanted to convey. Even the great men among us are human and 
are not bullet-proof. Afterall, JKR isn't a mollycoddler. To me, 
having DD dies from a simple AK by someone perceived by most to be 
ordinary and inside his own school, makes the death more real. Even 
the strongest and healthiest person can die from the flu or other 
unspectacular means. 


David wrote:  <SNIP>
"Here is my theory... Both Snape and DD knew what was going to 
happen and that in order to get Snape back into the 'fold', they put 
into motion of series of events that would culminate in the ultimate 
sign he was back to the death eaters... the murder of DD himself. 
Granted its a rather large sacrifice, but if he was going to die 
anyway, why not make it worth while. Thoughts?"


CH3ed:
I like it, David. And I believe most other DDM!Snapers do also, tho 
I won't go so far as to say that DD was planned in advanced by DD 
and Snape. I think they have discussed various possibilities and had 
an agreement that Harry's (the only person who can destroy LV for 
good) and Draco's (a student under DD and Snape's charge) lives (and 
souls) are top priorities. And they might have agreed (willingly or 
not on Snape's side) that should worst case scenarios (the tower 
scene applies) happen and it is DD's life or Harry's and Draco's, 
then Snape must sacrifice DD. The disagreement in the forest that 
Hagrid overheard might have been Snape feeling the same way Harry 
did when he hesitated about giving DD his word to obey DD even if it 
means to abandon DD to die and save himself. 

CH3ed  :O)






From bartl at sprynet.com  Thu Mar 23 14:17:54 2006
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 09:17:54 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore MAY be alive....
In-Reply-To: <dvtd8l+kd4h@eGroups.com>
References: <dvtd8l+kd4h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4422AE12.9040509@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149931

Tonks wrote:
> There is no Draught of Living Death involved in DD's death on 
> the tower. There may be a Draught of LD somewhere in book 7 for Harry, 
> but that is another situation.

Bart:
	He drank SOMETHING. The major reason I think that Dumbledore is dead is 
that JKR is too good a writer to have him be secretly alive.

	Bart
	




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Mar 23 14:42:53 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 14:42:53 -0000
Subject: ah the mysteries
In-Reply-To: <8C5C05E6-482B-4D8E-9A85-57C3112FA954@polytechnique.org>
Message-ID: <dvuc5d+9oj5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149932

Olivier:
> And there you have it. ESE!Arthur in full-fledged form.  
> Alternatively, you can read the books again and (re-)discover that  
> Arthur is a fond father a loving husband, a bit on the eccentric side  
> maybe, and that Lupin is a sympathetic man who never managed to  
> discipline his friends at school because they were the first persons  
> he ever had a good times with.
>

Pippin:
Not quite full-fledged...you've neglected to give Arthur a motive
for all this. I'm sure you've thought of one, though <g>

You can read the books and make plausible cases for
 Harry/Hermione or even Harry/Luna...but that doesn't make the hints for
Harry/Ginny go away. Or you can say, as people did,  that seventeen 
is much too young to be involved in a serious relationship and 
JKR would do terrible harm to the cause of preventing teen marriages 
if she showed one that worked. Gosh, it must be JKR's duty as a 
socially responsible author to have Arthur and Molly's marriage fail<g>--
or maybe she has different ideas on how to encourage social 
responsibility in teenagers.

Just like she might have a different idea than some people on 
how to combat prejudice.

IMO, it'd be a bit naive, or else highly insulting to werewolves, to say that 
a sympathetic kind clever man wouldn't revolt against being a second-class 
citizen because  he once had wonderful friends.  Tell you what, I'll give you 
three wonderful friends to spend your childhood with,
if you'll surrender your civil rights to people who hate you...any takers? 

It's also a bit naive, or else highly insulting to werewolves, to say that 
people hate them because  they haven't met any decent ones. I don't 
think JKR is going there.

Pippin







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Mar 23 15:20:12 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 15:20:12 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV
In-Reply-To: <dvtbv5+16t0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvuebc+t0q1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149933


> Alla:
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I am perfectly able to imagine the possibility 
> that the drink was indeed poison, but the certainty of such 
> interpetation is to me very questionable, since I fail to see any 
> definite signs of such and especially definite signs of it being 
> unrecoverable poison.

Pippin:
A poison is anything that can cause sickness or death if it gets
into the body. Dumbledore was definitely sick. There's no 
doubt he was poisoned, the only question is whether it was a
lethal dose. 

Alla:
> 
> But as I said many times,  to me the most " in favor" clue of the 
> drink NOT being a deadly poison is Dumbledore's willingness to 
> implement plans to hide Draco and his family. He says that "he" will 
> do it, not anybody else.

Pippiin:
Um, where do you get that from?

"we can hide you more completely than you can possibly imagine.
What is more, I can send members of the Order to your mother 
tonight to hide her likewise. ...Your father is safe at the moment 
in Azkaban....When the times comes, we can protect him too."

All that Dumbledore says he can do personally is send members
of the Order to hide Draco's mum -- and since he knows Harry
is there listening, and Harry has promised to do whatever 
Dumbledore asks, he has just arranged to send  them by means 
of Harry.

I don't say Dumbledore was going to die no matter what. But
I do say he was willing to die rather than blow Snape's cover.
Why else would he not have summoned Fawkes or had Harry
do it for him? 

Pippin







From annemehr at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 23 15:41:26 2006
From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 15:41:26 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Ah_the_mysteries=85?=
In-Reply-To: <dvt8jt+3opt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvufj6+nlpb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149934

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "exodusts" <exodusts at ...> wrote:
>
> > > olivier fouquet:
<snip> 
> > > Why is there an anvil-sized hint that Arthur Weasley can do the  
> > > Imperius curse? 
> 
> 
> > Allie:
<snip> What anvil-sized hint are you referring to 
> > for the imperius curse, though?  I'm very curious.
> 
> 
> Exodusts:
> 
> It does seem to me that if you wanted to you could make an ESE! 
> argument for any character. Gimme a name, and I'll give you a thesis 
> as to his or her dastardly plot.
>

Annemehr:
It's been done.  I did one once (tongue in cheek) for Hermione.  There
was a lot of canon -- easily as much as for plenty of the serious ESE
theories.

The anvil-sized hint that Arthur can do the Imperius is in GoF, in
Crouch!Moody's class where three students volunteered information on
the Unforgivables: Harry for AK, Nevillie for Cruciatus, and Ron for
Imperius.  This caused a lot of speculation on this list, back in the
day, that Arthur was the *victim* of Imperius in VWI.

Annemehr








From annemehr at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 23 16:13:54 2006
From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:13:54 -0000
Subject: Fenrir's ancestry (was: DDM!Snape &  the UV)
In-Reply-To: <dvs2uk+6okc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvuhg2+2d0b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149935

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...>
wrote:

> > Pippin:
> > I think Greyback is Muggleborn. Rowling says that Muggleborns
> > are allowed to be Death Eaters in unusual circumstances.
> > http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=80
> > 
> > It sounds like Fenrir could be the character she was thinking of.
> 
> 
> Carol responds:
> Muggle*born*, maybe, but surely not a Muggle as PAR originally
> suggested. Greyback obviously lives in the WW and associates only with
> wizards; he has a Dark Mark that enables him to get through the
> barrier on the stairs (even in the unlikely event that Voldie made a
> Muggle a DE, the Muggle's Dark Mark would not have magical
> properties); and he can keep his werewolf properties (except for the
> power to transform others) all month long, suggesting inborn magical
> powers. A Muggle of any sort would not be a "family friend" of the
> pureblood Malfoys. He would not even be able to see Hogwarts, which is
> hidden by spells from Muggle eyes.

Annemehr:
I don't agree with your assumptions here.  I would think that a Muggle
who was bitten becomes a Werewolf, i.e. something magical, and so may
very well choose to live in the magical world.  He's at least as
magical as, say, Filch. 

A Dark Mark, as far as we know, is a charm or spell cast *upon* a DE
for Voldemort's use, not something a DE wields himself for magical
purposes.  Why wouldn't a Muggle's Dark Mark have magical properties?
 Muggle Artifacts can be charmed ("Misused" is the MoM term) -- look
at Arthur's Ford Anglia.  Muggles can be Obliviated, Crucioed and what
have you.  Even the barrier to the tower, which was believed to allow
only those bearing a Dark Mark to cross, was most probably cast with a
wand with the Mark itself being merely a passive means of ID.  Again,
as I said above, I don't think a Muggle-turned-werewolf is exactly a
Muggle any longer, anyway.

Fenrir's taste for flesh all month long is not persuasive to me,
either -- it's a mere preference, not a sign of a wizard.  It's just a
creepy part of his evil personality, I believe.

Fenrir's been a Werewolf for a long time, and probably DE since VWI --
enough for Draco to call him a "family friend."  Draco did not mean
that he was *literally* a friend, anyway, as evidenced by his reaction
to him on the tower.

The strongest reason to believe Fenrir was not ever a Muggle is that
if he were, there was probably no point in him being on this mission
while the moon was not full.  However, as it was Draco's mission to
run, and Draco did not invite him, Fenrir may only have come for the
reasons he gave Dumbledore.

If I were betting, I certainly wouldn't wager much that Fenrir was
born a Muggle, but I don't think it's safe to rule it out, either.

Annemehr








From Sectumsempra522 at aol.com  Thu Mar 23 09:43:16 2006
From: Sectumsempra522 at aol.com (Sectumsempra522 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 04:43:16 EST
Subject: Dumbledore MAY be alive....
Message-ID: <336.7e9414.3153c7b4@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149936

 
Tonks:

DD is dead, really, really, truly, fully DEAD. I do think  that there is 
a strong possibility that He will return in book 7, near the  end.


Meka:

DD is already back before HBP ended. He was slumbering in a golden frame  
over the desk. Even though his physical body is gone, his portrait is  among the 
dearly departed headmasters and headmistresses of Hogwarts.  And we all know 
that wizards can come and go as they please in their portraits,  even in 
different locations. I think that's where he will be all throughout  book 7: Guiding Harry from his portrait. IMHO!
 
Meka
(Finally got that first post out of the way!!)









From dana_052002 at yahoo.com.ar  Thu Mar 23 14:32:58 2006
From: dana_052002 at yahoo.com.ar (dana_052002)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 14:32:58 -0000
Subject: Why Didn't Harry Ask About His Parents' Graves?  (was: Re: Godric's Hollow)
In-Reply-To: <20060322194641.63538.qmail@web36711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dvubiq+sple@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149937

Vera:

> I think that firstly Harry was pretty much convinced
> about his parents car accident and that he was so
> overwhelmed by learning he was a wizard and that he
> could finally leave the Dursleys that he never got
> round to investigating their death further.
> 
> Seeing in from an 11-year-old's point of view, their
> death remains a fact that cannot be altered in any
> way. He is proud his parents were wizards, he misses
> them terribly and the events that follow don't let him
> dwell on that.


Dany Now,

>From an 11 years old perspective it is understandable, why he never 
asked about his parents' graves, but, what about when he was getting 
older? Does he know that his parents are burried somewhere? Or due 
to the fact he saw them "coming back" at the end of GOF, he thinks 
(feel, actually) that they are somewhere out there trying to help in 
anyway they can? (even though he KNOWS they are not coming back 
because of what Dumbledore has said)Did he ever stop for a minute  
and think that his parents' bodies might not have been destructed 
along with the house?
I believe it is some kind of a limbo for Harry, Perhaps it just 
hurts so much to ask, maybe he doesn't want to know the truth, maybe 
he feels even more guilty than what we know and he feels he cannot 
face the truth. And it is for sure, that whenever you are right in 
front of the grave of somebody you love, reality overcomes you.
Or maybe as Vera has pointed out, he didnt feel quite ready to know 
and to face reality yet, and this point ends up being convinient for 
the author.
Thanks for sharing your aideas with me,

Take care now,
Dany









From entlzab5 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 23 14:40:44 2006
From: entlzab5 at yahoo.com (Arley Dotinei)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 06:40:44 -0800 (PST)
Subject: ah the mysteries
In-Reply-To: <8C5C05E6-482B-4D8E-9A85-57C3112FA954@polytechnique.org>
Message-ID: <20060323144044.91011.qmail@web36508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149938

Olivier wrote:

> And there you have it. ESE!Arthur in full-fledged form.


Hi, I'm new and beg forgiveness if asking this point has been already answered.
   
  I find one big hole in the theory of ESE!Arthur. He almost got killed when poisoned by Nagini. Didn't he? Why would possed-by-VOldemort-Nagini attack one of his faithfull followers? What did I miss in your ideas?
   
  Trying to understand,
   
  Arley

 





From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca  Thu Mar 23 17:08:36 2006
From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 12:08:36 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore MAY be alive....
In-Reply-To: <4422AE12.9040509@sprynet.com>
Message-ID: <20060323170836.96643.qmail@web53307.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149939


    
Bart:
He drank SOMETHING. The major reason I think that Dumbledore is dead is 
that JKR is too good a writer to have him be secretly alive.

Luckdragon:
  Wasn't the potion in the cave flourescent green? The draught of living death is Purple(Lilac). Still I don't believe he's dead either.

		
---------------------------------
7 bucks a month. This is Huge Yahoo! Music Unlimited  

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




From Nanagose at aol.com  Thu Mar 23 17:10:48 2006
From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 17:10:48 -0000
Subject: Maligning Lupin
In-Reply-To: <dvmmo6+i9be@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvukqo+rfnb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149940

>> Christina:
>> Of course, ESE!Lupin would never have had a problem if he just 
>> hadn't told Sirius about the prophecy in the first place, so I'm 
>> a bit confused as to why he would have done so.

> Pippin:
> As for why Lupin told him, their whole relationship was based on
> shared secrets.

Christina:

Their childhood relationship, perhaps, but their adult 
relationship?  No way.  Lupin absolutely holds all the cards - there 
is no reason for him to tell Sirius a secret to keep his 
friendship.  Lupin is the first person to believe Sirius's story, he 
stays with Sirius in 12GP, he tries to resolve conflicts between 
Sirius and other members of the Order.  Sirius probably still has 
some residual guilt over his questioning Lupin's loyalty.  There's 
also the power of nostalgia, and the shared pain between the two 
men.  There is no need for Lupin to make extra overtures of 
friendship.  Lupin telling Sirius a "secret" to keep their 
friendship going also doesn't make sense if you consider the fact 
that Sirius obviously did not *know* it was a secret if he blurted 
it out in a crowded room.  Defeats the purpose, really.


>> Christina:
>> It isn't a matter of being for or against werewolf liberation.  
>> Each side of the war has a different view of what "werewolf 
>> liberation" means.  For LV, it's giving the werewolves fresh meat 
>> and the ability to get revenge on wizardfolk.  For Dumbledore, 
>> it's providing the werewolves with education and jobs.  I think 
>> Lupin can tell the difference.

> Pippin:
> In any case, Dumbledore hasn't been able to do much to provide the
> werewolves with education and jobs. 

Christina:

And Voldemort has done more?


> Pippin:
> Cheerful and resigned to his lot is the Uncle Tom stereotype.
> It's hollow and demeaning and I'll be surprised if JKR doesn't
> point that out in the end.

Christina:

A stereotype that JKR has ample opportunity to explore with the 
house elves, which parallels American slavery much better than 
lycanthropy.  I also should have been clearer.  I think that Lupin 
cares about werewolf discrimination, and I think he wants it to 
end.  Which is why he is allied with Dumbledore in the first place - 
so that other people may take advantage of the benefits he had.  
What I meant was that Lupin doesn't have much passion.  He doesn't 
have anger.  He doesn't make Sirius-type emotional declarations.  

Fenrir Greyback and his followers are *angry* about their lot in 
life and want *revenge*.  They don't care about equality; they want 
to "create enough werewolves to overcome the wizards (HBP, Ch 16)."  
Lupin has a cooler head than that; that's why I think it's unlikely 
that he would fall prey to Voldemort's empty promises.  Fenrir uses 
anger as his rallying cry, hoping to stir up a swirl of emotion.  I 
just can't see that working on Lupin.

Your theory also requires that Voldemort be making nice with the  
werewolves in the first war.  Is there evidence that this was even 
the case?  I've dug around a bit and haven't found anything.


> Pippin:
> ::shrug:: To paraphrase Arthur, when you're dealing with a witch
> like Umbridge, sometimes you have to join forces with people you'd 
> rather avoid.


Christina:

I understand the concept of the lesser of two evils.  But I still 
fail to see how *Voldemort* ends up being the lesser of two evils.  
Dumbledore does not equal the Ministry; they have a history of 
friction.  The Ministry is often hiding in the corner, covering 
their ears (or throwing their hands up in resignation), while 
Dumbledore is taking active steps to thwart Voldemort.  There are 
not two choices here - there are three.

> Pippin:
> Lupin was naive enough not to believe what he'd heard about Fenrir.
> Maybe he was naive enough not to believe what he'd heard about
> Voldemort too.

Christina:

When was Lupin "naive enough not to believe what he'd heard about 
Fenrir"?  Lupin says that he felt pity for the werewolf who bit him 
as a child, but that was before he got information about Fenrir 
Greyback.  There's no reason to believe that Lupin disbelieved 
anything he had heard about Greyback.

>> Christina:
>> The bottom line for me, theoretically, is that ESE!Lupin 
>> completely fails the litmus test I give to all theories - What 
>> questions does this theory answer?

I'm snipping the questions you posed that have plausable answers 
given or very strongly hinted at in the canon.  I'm also snipping 
questions that have been discussed to death, ones that have common-
sense answers, and ones that may implicate *an* ESE plot but which 
have no specific relevance to Lupin.

> Pippin:
> Why didn't James want Dumbledore to be his secret keeper?

Christina:

Because he, along with three others, fooled Dumbledore for years as 
teenaged boys.

> Pippin:
> Why couldn't JKR tell us why the diary plot would have made 
> present day Voldemort stronger?

Christina:

Horcruxes?  And how does this relate to Lupin?

> Pippin:
> Why is there an anvil-sized  hint that Lupin is an occlumens?

Christina:

Occlumency/Legilimency tends to reflect personality.  Lupin is a bit 
closed, and so it only logically follows that he would be talented 
at Occlumency.  Maybe his "furry little problem" pushed him to learn 
it.  In any case, a talent for Occlumency does not equal guilt.


> Pippin:
> Why does the  moon appear and disappear *before* Lupin transforms? 
> Why did JKR give an evasive answer when asked whether Lupin 
> transformed inside the shack? She's usually  willing to admit it 
> when she just flubbed up.

Christina:

You seem to really like this bit as evidence for ESE!Lupin.  Why?  
Being evil doesn't give Lupin control over when he transforms.  No 
werewolf has that.


> Pippin:
> How are Order members once again being picked off one by one?

Christina:

Spies aren't needed for Order members to die.  


> Pippin:
> The authors of the Talmud say that the true test of remorse is 
> when you face the same temptation and don't repeat your sin. That 
> sounds like a good test to me. So far, Lupin has failed.

Christina:

In your opinion.  I think Lupin has shown ample remorse.  Lupin 
doesn't exist in a bubble; take out your measuring stick and look at 
the other characters.  And again, a lack of remorse does not an evil 
person make.  If we are using meaningful remorse as an indicator of 
evil, than our number of villainous characters has just about 
tripled.  As you said yourself, werewolves are not divided into good 
people and Voldemort supporters.  There are those in between, like 
Lupin, who has made poor decisions in the past but who remain 
dedicated to Dumbledore.


Christina






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 23 18:00:18 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 18:00:18 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV
In-Reply-To: <dvsbfe+mgr5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvunni+psoc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149941

Carol earlier:
> > Carol, noting that the plot requires Snape to be trapped into
killing his mentor, setting up a future confrontation with Harry, not
to heroically save the day and steal Harry's glory
> 
Lupinlore responded:
> Lupinlore, noting that the PLOT requires no such thing, but rather a
solution that pleases Snape lovers would require such
>
Carol again:
Sorry, Lupinlore. I worded that badly. It should have been "Carol,
*firmly believing* that the plot requires Snape to be trapped into
killing his mentor, setting up a future confrontation with Harry, not
to heroically save the day and steal Harry's glory." 

Although the evidence, IMO, points to that interpretation and suggests
that Snape is more than a mere plot device to kill off Dumbledore,
it's entirely possible that JKR will prove me wrong in Book 7. So the
statement (aside from the fact that Harry, not Snape, is the hero of
the series) is just my opinion, not a fact (as I knew when I wrote it
and should have acknowledged in the wording).

Or how about "Carol, noting that the plot requires Snape to kill his
mentor, setting up a future confrontation with Harry, not to
heroically save the day and steal Harry's glory"? 

The future confrontation with Harry is hinted at in HBP and in a JKR
interview but can be eliminated from the sentence if you find it
objectionable. As for the rest of the sentence, we don't know Snape's
motives for killing DD, but we have JKR's own statement that she
needed to kill him off so that Harry can go on without him, which
requires that something (the poison?) or someone (Snape? Draco? A DE?)
kill him. The UV subplot narrows that someone down to Snape, who has
to kill Dumbledore or die. JKR could not let Snape save the day
because the plot required Dumbledore's death, and besides, the UV
would have magically prevented Snape from saving the man he was bound
by Dark magic to kill. It is, after all, an *Unbreakable* Vow, as
those snakelike ropes of fire binding his wrist to Narcissa's so
dramatically symbolize. 

That leaves us with the plot requiring Snape to kill DD (regardless of
motive) rather than to play Harry's role as hero, a statement that I
think and hope we can agree on. 

Of course, that statement (if you accept it) also raises the question
of what would have happened if Snape had died from the breaking the
vow and some other Death Eater had killed Dumbledore or DD had died
from the poison (the plot requires DD to die in some way). I think
that Harry (and Draco) would have died as well, with Hogwarts open to
the ravages of the Death Eaters and the WW doomed because the Chosen
One was dead. 

I'm curious as to what you think would have happened if both Snape and
DD had died on the tower and Harry was released from his freezing
spell. Surely it would be in character for him to rush out to fight
the DEs who had just killed his beloved mentor. Could Harry have taken
on four DEs, one of them a werewolf who had just expressed a desire to
eat DD for "afters," even if his enemy Draco Malfoy decided to join
him in fighting the DEs rather than joining the fight against him or
watching but doing nothing? (Yes, Harry is the Chosen One, but as I
understand it, the powers he acquired at Godric's Hollow--Parseltongue
and perhaps the power of possession or some sort of
Legilimency--qualify him as Voldemort's nemesis but won't help him
against anyone else. They certainly didn't help him against Snape.)

Carol, acting on her own advice regarding concessions and apologizing
for presenting her opinion as if it were a fact







From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Thu Mar 23 18:21:42 2006
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 18:21:42 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV.
In-Reply-To: <dvs9dt+10dqg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvuovm+mg7b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149942

"justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:

> Snape is gifted and highly intelligent,
> but he's not Superwizard

Julie, another Snape lover thought Snape could kill all the Death
Eater in the tower so easily it wouldn't be sporting, you think Snape
wouldn't have stood a chance against them. I think the truth is in the
middle, it would have been dangerous but possible. As I said before,
murdering Dumbledore was easy, it was not dangerous at all, but it was
not right.  

> Snape, who is certainly multi-talented
> but is also bound by the UV to both save
> Draco and "do the deed" or die. The
> moment has come, and if he fails either
> provision, he will die.

I must be missing something because Snape lovers keep bringing the UV
up time after time, and in all honesty I just don't get it. Can
somebody please explain to me how Snape making a vow to become a
traitor and murderer months before in any way excuses his despicable
behavior that night in the tower?  

> Dumbledore is going to die no matter what

Even we readers don't know that for a fact, and we know more about it
than Snape did. We know Dumbledore drank that potion but Snape didn't,
he didn't even know the potion existed. 

> No Legilimency is necessary 

Good think too because Legilimency can only communicate feelings and
moods, not ideas or commands or thoughts. 

> Dumbledore meant by "Severus, please 
> Time is running out; do what is right,
> not what is easy; keep your vow and 
> save the boys."

If that's what Dumbledore said then the debate would be over, but
that's not what he said, all he said was "Severus Please"; the rest is
pure imagination. If Snape really was a good guy and that is what
Dumbledore wanted to say you'd think he'd let him live another 3
seconds so he could finish his sentence; that way Snape wouldn't would
have a lifetime mortal enemy in Harry Potter, the only one with a
chance of defeating Voldemort. Very odd behavior for a good guy, very
odd indeed. 

Eggplant     










From veronikitravlou at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 23 09:31:24 2006
From: veronikitravlou at yahoo.com (veroniki travlou)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 01:31:24 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Dumbledore MAY be alive....
In-Reply-To: <4422359B.3030404@sprynet.com>
Message-ID: <20060323093124.40414.qmail@web36704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149943

Bart:

> OK, I really hope that this is incorrect. I see no
> good reason, 
> plotwise, to bring Dumbledore back to life. Yet...
> 
> The first thing that Harry brews in HBP is a Draught
> of Living Death. 
> And it is kind of hard for an AK spell to kill a
> dead person...


Vera:

As much as I hate to admit it myself Dumbledore IS
really dead. Throughout HBP we saw clues of his
upcoming death..
I think that if we see him in 7, it will be in spirit
form or something like that, because as he has said
repeatedly nothing can bring back the dead.

There is another theory going on, I don't know if it
has already been mentioned here, that Dumbledore had
prearranged his death with Snape and the Dumbledore
was aware of Snape's unbreakeble vow. If that is the
case then Dumbledore sacrificed himself to help
Snape's exposal as a member of the order. I sounds
far-fetched to me. What do you think?

Vera





From veronikitravlou at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 23 09:51:57 2006
From: veronikitravlou at yahoo.com (veroniki travlou)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 01:51:57 -0800 (PST)
Subject: TBAY: HMS DESIRE (about Snape) Long
In-Reply-To: <22b.8dfd87a.31535de9@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20060323095157.8575.qmail@web36709.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149944

Nikkalmati wrote: 

> A wild and loopy suggestion <g>.  What if James 
> made Snape repay his life 
> debt by preparing a love potion for Lily?  Being 
> smarter than Voldemort's 
> mother, he never stopped giving it to her.   Even
> Harry wondered how his father 
> ever got his mother to like him, after he had  seen
> the scene in the Pensive and 
> a love potion crossed his mind. I bet Snape  would
> really feel good about 
> James then!

vera:

I think if aything like that took place, it will be
very disappointing..
I hate to think that James forced Lily to love him
like that.

I'm under the impression that an event, we know nothing
about, took place, which made the two of them get
together in the end. Something life threatening
perhaps which made James's courageous and charming side
come out. Snape could have been involved somehow. I
don't doubt that Snape could have had a crush on Lily.
By the sound of her many people could have fallen in
love with her(..Lupin..why not?). I'm sure Lily chose
James for a reason.

Anyway, if Dumbledore is just dead, James drugged Lily
to love him and Snape is just a death eater then
what's left to theorize on?

cheers,

vera





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Thu Mar 23 19:21:16 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:21:16 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV
In-Reply-To: <dvunni+psoc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvusfc+70vf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149945

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Carol earlier:
> > > Carol, noting that the plot requires Snape to be trapped into
> killing his mentor, setting up a future confrontation with Harry, 
not
> to heroically save the day and steal Harry's glory
> > 
> Lupinlore responded:
> > Lupinlore, noting that the PLOT requires no such thing, but 
rather a
> solution that pleases Snape lovers would require such



Potioncat:
If JKR was trying to please "this" Snape lover, she would have found 
some other way to knock off DD. Oh, let's say one of the DE's fires 
an AK just as Snape shows up, seconds too late, and Snape then grabs 
Draco and leads the baddies out of Hogwarts. 

Of course, we'd have to calculate how long it took him to get there 
and discuss whether he lingered a bit too long...<g>

Keep in mind, with the plot the way it is, Harry may still defeat 
Snape and LV. Snape is not yet guaranteed to be saved, redeemed or 
restored. Of course, saved, redeemed, restored would please many of 
us. 

So, yes, I'd agree the plot required the actions, and JKR set them up 
for that reason.

Snape got to come in and save the day earlier in the book. The 
results were that Draco who seemed so grown up in the beginning of 
the book, became a child again. Based on the many posts I've read, 
most seem to view Harry as the young man ready to out and be the hero 
while most see Draco as the boy Snape dragged off the tower. .











From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Thu Mar 23 19:27:21 2006
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 11:27:21 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore MAY be alive....
In-Reply-To: <336.7e9414.3153c7b4@aol.com>
References: <336.7e9414.3153c7b4@aol.com>
Message-ID: <700201d40603231127p5e19ba21wf201aca4895adefd@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149946

  Meka:
>
> DD is already back before HBP ended. He was slumbering in a golden frame
> over the desk. Even though his physical body is gone, his portrait is
> among the
> dearly departed headmasters and headmistresses of Hogwarts.  And we all
> know
> that wizards can come and go as they please in their portraits,  even in
> different locations. I think that's where he will be all throughout  book
> 7: Guiding Harry from his portrait. IMHO!
>
> Meka
> (Finally got that first post out of the way!!)
>


Kemper now:
Hi and Welcome, Meka!
I think a portrait is put up when a Headmaster leaves his/her post, not
necessarily when the Headmaster dies.

I'm sure communication will occur through the portrait, but I hope we'll see
DD back in some other capacity either alive (Gandalf/Asland) or in spirit
(Obi Wan) as JKR has said that portraits are a 'distillation' of the real
person and that the portrait can give advice or use 'catchphrases' but not
much more.  This idea of portraits, while cool, might as well be dolls with
pull strings and Magic 8 Balls.  They aren't the essence of the real person.

-Kemper


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




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 23 20:07:07 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 20:07:07 -0000
Subject: Why Didn't Harry Ask About His Parents' Graves?  (was: Re: Godric's Hollow)
In-Reply-To: <dvubiq+sple@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvuv5b+jik1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149947

Dany wrote:
> 
> From an 11 years old perspective it is understandable, why he never 
> asked about his parents' graves, but, what about when he was getting 
> older? Does he know that his parents are burried somewhere? Or due 
> to the fact he saw them "coming back" at the end of GOF, he thinks 
> (feel, actually) that they are somewhere out there trying to help in 
> anyway they can? (even though he KNOWS they are not coming back 
> because of what Dumbledore has said)Did he ever stop for a minute  
> and think that his parents' bodies might not have been destructed 
> along with the house?
> I believe it is some kind of a limbo for Harry, Perhaps it just 
> hurts so much to ask, maybe he doesn't want to know the truth, maybe 
> he feels even more guilty than what we know and he feels he cannot 
> face the truth. And it is for sure, that whenever you are right in 
> front of the grave of somebody you love, reality overcomes you.
> Or maybe as Vera has pointed out, he didnt feel quite ready to know 
> and to face reality yet, and this point ends up being convinient for 
> the author. <snip>

Carol responds:
I'm not sure that I can give you a satisfactory answer (or one that
anyone else will agree with!), but here's how I see it. First, as you
rightly point out, JKR has to consider her own convenience in giving
out information to Harry and, through him, to the reader, and that's
probably the primary reason why Harry hasn't already gone looking for
his parents' graves--JKR has saved that (hopefully poignant) moment,
which many of us hope will be tied in with revelations about what
actually happened at Godric's Hollow, for Book 7.

>From Harry's perspective, though, it also makes sense (IMO) for him to
wait until he's ready, emotionally and intellectually, to visit their
graves, not just because seeing their names carved on the tombstones
would somehow make their deaths more real, but because the site of
their graves, Godric's Hollow, is the site of their deaths as well. (I
think he knows or guesses that they're buried there.) It's the place
that changed him from an ordinary wizard child to The Boy Who Lived
(who has now been elevated to The Chosen One). He's had a taste of the
terrible memory of that place and time in the anguish he suffered when
the Dementors came near him. He knows that his parents died to save
him--not a truth that he's ready to face in the early books. (He may
even be suffering from survivor's guilt, compounded by the deaths of
Cedric Diggory and Sirius Black.)

I think it's important that he never knew his parents. It's not as if
they died when he was old enough to remember them, say five or six at
least. They're strangers to him, and, until the "Snape's Worst Memory"
scene in OoP, he's free to idealize them. (He can still idealize Lily
after that, but idealizing James the schoolyard bully is not so easy.)
In SS/PS, Harry starts out with nothing but the memory of a blinding
flash of green light and the lie that his parents died in a car crash.
Even when he learns that they were wizards, apparently unusually
talented and popular, they're still strangers to him. What he wants at
that point (IMO) is not his unknown parents so much as a loving family
(unlike the hated Dursleys), and when he stares at his parents in the
Mirror of Erised, that wish seems to be satisfied. He learns what his
parents looked like, and the reflected images seem to love him. But
Dumbledore persuades him that what he sees in the mirror is only an
illusion. 

By the beginning of CoS, Harry has the Weasleys to satisfy his need
for a loving family, and he has the photo album that Hagrid gave him
so he can see his parents' faces whenever he wants to. (Apparently
that isn't often--we don't see him looking at it again until PoA, and
then it's the "Betrayer" Sirius Black that he's interested in.)

PoA allows him to hear his parents' voices for the first time, but at
the price of reliving his most terrible memory. Comfortingly, he
learns that his Patronus, his protective spirit, is his father's
Animagus form, and that his father became an Animagus to keep his
werewolf friend company during his transformations. Lily is still the
loving mother whose sacrificial love protected him, an idealized being
that he seldom thinks about, but his father, co-creator of the
Marauder's Map and friend of Lupin and Black (now revealed as victim
rather than murderer) is becoming real to him. There are hints of
another side to his father's character in Snape's snide comments about
James's arrogance, but Harry chooses to think that Snape is wrong. 

He rejects any hints that his parents don't live up to his idealized
view of them, "blowing up" Aunt Marge when she insinuates (without
ever having met them) that something was wrong with them, and hating
Snape (who did know them), choosing to believe that his talented
Gryffindor father, who died courageously fighting Voldemort, was like
himself (modest and brave rather than arrogant and reckless, IMO). The
graveyard incident, in which his parents' shadow forms come out of
Voldemort's wand to help him escape, reinforces this idealized view of
both parents. The Pensieve memory in OoP, however, challenges his view
of his father, causing him (briefly) to see Snape's side of the story
and to realize that James, at least, was rather far from perfect.
After Sirius Black's death, which Harry chooses to blame on Snape for
reasons that I've discussed elsewhere, he reverts to his idealized
view of James, who must be good because the "evil" Snape hates him.
And Lily, though she becomes slightly more real to the reader as Harry
learns from Slughorn that she was "cheeky" and good at Potions,
remains where she has always been, the ideal mother who willingly
sacrifices herself to save her child. Harry doesn't ask questions
about her even when he encounters someone willing to talk about her;
he only uses Slughorn's fondness for her (and his guilty conscience
about his indirect role in her death) to obtain an unaltered memory
for Dumbledore. And when Harry learns about Snape's role as
Eavesdropper, his parents' deaths become one more reason to hate
Snape, but not a reason to learn more about them (at least not in the
few chapters of HBP that follow this unsettling revelation).

It's interesting that in GoF, when Rita Skeeter asks Harry how he
thinks his parents would have felt about his entering the TWT as an
underage champion, his response is "How would I know how they felt?"
(quoted from memory). His parents remain strangers to him. He's loyal
to their memory, especially to his father's, and he defends them when
their goodness or their courage is challenged (in Lily's case, only
with Aunt Marge--IIRC, he doesn't defend her against Aunt Petunia's
"my dratted sister being what she was"), but there's no indication
that he wants to know more about them as people. He's not ready,
apparently, for tales of James's dangerous escapades as the Animagus
companion of a werewolf (or for the record of his detentions that
Snape provides) though, ironically, he hopes that his (pureblood)
father could somehow be the Half-Blood Prince. (Lupin's reticence
about his past may be another reason that Harry hesitates to ask
questions.)

Post-HBP, with his other father figures dead and (perhaps) a clearer
understanding of what death is, Harry may be ready to visit the spot
where his father died heroically fighting against Voldemort and his
(still idealized) mother gave her life to save his, if only to inspire
him in his own fight against Voldemort. And having visited the spot
where they gave their lives, he may be ready to learn from Lupin, the
sole surviving "good" Marauder, what his parents were really like,
assuming that Lupin is also ready to reveal what he knows.

Carol, wondering if Neville constantly hears stories from his gran
about how brave and clever his parents (especially his father) were
and whether knowing what they were like really helps him to accept
their tragic fate






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 23 22:14:39 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 22:14:39 -0000
Subject: Healing Themes (WAS Re: LID!Snape rides again)
In-Reply-To: <dvtcuu+erps@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvv6kf+giu1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149948

> >>Sydney:
> <snip>
> A lot of how I see the series turning out is because it seems to me
> that this isn't a "Lord of the Rings" style epic of warrior        
> heroes; it feels a lot closer to "The Secret Garden" or "Little    
> White Horse" or even "Great Expectations"-- a darker, more        
> elaborate version of the child healer story.
> <snip>
> People seem to be speculating about big battles and the Horcrux-   
> hunt being an Indina-Jones-type-thing and everything sort of going 
> along an action-adventure, destroy the baddies thing.  I don't     
> think it's going there at all.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I totally agree.  And I think JKR gave us a significant signal 
towards that fact with Harry's lessons with Dumbledore.  There 
wasn't a single spell taught, not one magic boosting potion given.  
It was all back story.  Dumbledore seemed most pleased with Harry 
when Harry gained an insight into how Voldemort thought, and also 
when Harry expressed a bit of sympathy for him. (Actually, 
Dumbledore *always* seems most pleased with Harry when he expresses 
creative problem solving and a keen sense of observation, rather 
than any sort of special magical prowess.)  

That Ron and Hermione seemed so sure that Harry was going to be 
learning super-secret ninja wizard skills drove home, for me anyway, 
the fact that Dumbledore (and therefore JKR, most likely) do *not* 
think the final clash between Voldemort and Harry will have anything 
to do with physical or magical strength and prowess.

[Total aside here, but the mention of "The Secret Garden" made me 
realize something: Draco Malfoy is *so* Mary Lennox.  Which would 
make Snape Uncle Archibald, I guess?]  

> >>Sydney:
> I LOVE Magpie's idea of Draco paying back Snape's life debt by     
> saving Harry.  It's so appropriate to the genre, that the children 
> have to step forward, because the adults are just plain stuck.    
> Snape is the past;  Draco is the future. 

Betsy Hp:
There's definitely *something* in store for both Draco and Snape and 
their connection with each other.  I don't think it's a minor thing 
that Harry ends HBP with a strong sense of sympathy for Draco.  And 
I can't help but think that Draco will work as a sort of bridge 
between Harry and Snape.

I feel like Lupin will have a part to play in this as well.  As his 
generation's surviving Gryffindor he must have some role to play in 
the final healing of the ancient rift between Gryffindor and 
Slytherin. 

> >>Sydney:
> Sorry to stay on Snape, but, I mean, he does seem to appear at the
> heart of the thematic stuff!

Betsy Hp:
Which is why there are so very many discussions about him. <g>  I've 
recently wondered if Snape wasn't the second character JKR thought 
of.  You know, after tiny, little, orphaned Harry walked up to her 
on the train, did wounded, bitter, cut off Snape lurch out of the 
shadows?

> >>Sydney:
> There has to be some connection here to that damn DADA job.  The   
> job is cursed by Voldemort, the embodiment of Dark magic, that is, 
> hatred and fear.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
There have been some wonderful theorizing on the DADA curse: that it 
brings out your dark secrets, that it was designed to hurt 
Dumbledore as much as the teacher.  I wonder too, if the curse 
didn't work to isolate whomever it effected?  The point you raised 
about being cut off, Sydney (in the part I snipped), I mean, that's 
what happened to Slytherin way back when.  There was some sort of 
fight and Slytherin either chose, or was made, to cut off from his 
friends and the school he helped found.

And it's interesting how Harry is rather good at drawing people to 
him: Dobby, Firenze, the merfolk, Hagrid, the DA club members, etc.  
Heck, even Draco attempted to become friends with Harry in PS/SS.  
But it's in an entirely different way from Voldemort.  It's not 
empty charm or threats or bribes.  Also, it's nothing like that 
statue in the MoM. 

And... I'm not sure where I'm going with this.  I do think Harry 
will find  help in unexpected places, and that his true strength 
will be his ability to recognize and accept that help.

Betsy Hp







From DaveH47 at mindspring.com  Thu Mar 23 23:36:48 2006
From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 15:36:48 -0800
Subject: Timelines (was: Re: Rights?)
In-Reply-To: <20060323005745.84771.qmail@web30201.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20060323005745.84771.qmail@web30201.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <108907398.20060323153648@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149949


Wednesday, March 22, 2006, 4:57:44 PM, career advisor wrote:

ca> ..all the above would never apply in the Harry Potter Universe, 
ca> because if you exam any timeline of the series, esp the Lexicon, 
ca> doesn't it show the series ending in 1997-1998?

Timelines in which the evidence of one ghost deathday cake outweighs
moon phases, Playstation 2's, dates falling on the wrong day of week,
etc.

IMO, I don't think we can assign strict Muggle dates (e.g.
July 31, *1980*) to events in the HP Universe -- I doubt Jo
meant to make things that set in stone, or else she would have
ironed out the anachronisms and other temporal contradictions.

-- 
Dave, who thinks the best we can say is that Voldemort will be
vanquished in June of the Year 19 HPE.  (HPE = "Harry Potter Epoch")




From merrillsyndrome at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 23 20:33:01 2006
From: merrillsyndrome at yahoo.com (merrillsyndrome)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 20:33:01 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV.
In-Reply-To: <dvpgm3+84ff@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvv0lt+ff3v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149950

> Eggplant
> Yes, and for an unforgivable curse like Avada Kedavre to work you 
>must really feel the hatred 


It is true that to perform an AK you have to feel hatred but where 
does it say that you have to feel hatred toward the person that the 
curse is directed at?  I think you can perform the curse if you have 
enough hatred in your heart about anything.  Snape is full of hatred 
so he has no problem performing an AK (debatable about whether or not 
it is his first AK).

jmo

-em










From veronikitravlou at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 23 22:10:37 2006
From: veronikitravlou at yahoo.com (veroniki travlou)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 14:10:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Why Didn't Harry Ask About His Parents' Graves?  (was: Re: Godric's Hollow)
In-Reply-To: <dvuv5b+jik1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060323221037.87907.qmail@web36701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149951

--- justcarol67 <justcarol67 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Carol responds:
> First, as you rightly point out, JKR has to consider her own
> convenience in giving out information to Harry and, through him, 
> to the reader, and that's probably the primary reason why Harry 
> hasn't already gone looking for his parents' graves--JKR has 
> saved that (hopefully poignant) moment, which many of us hope 
> will be tied in with revelations about what actually happened at 
> Godric's Hollow, for Book 7.
> 
> From Harry's perspective, though, it also makes sense (IMO) for 
> him to wait until he's ready, emotionally and intellectually, to 
> visit their graves, not just because seeing their names carved on 
> the tombstones would somehow make their deaths more real, but
> because the site of their graves, Godric's Hollow, is the site of 
> their deaths as well. (I think he knows or guesses that they're 
> buried there.) It's the place that changed him from an ordinary 
> wizard child to The Boy Who Lived (who has now been elevated to 
> The Chosen One). He's had a taste of the terrible memory of that 
> place and time in the anguish he suffered when the Dementors came 
> near him. He knows that his parents died to save him--not a truth 
> that he's ready to face in the early books. (He may even be 
> suffering from survivor's guilt, compounded by the deaths of
> Cedric Diggory and Sirius Black.) <snip>

vera:

Harry gradually unveils his past over the years which as Carol 
brilliantly described was a slow process.
 
Dumbledore was aware of the fact that Harry's story would be too 
overwhelming for a child to bear and that was one of the reasons he 
sent him to the Dursleys, (as he mentions in PS), even though I'm 
not sure he would have done so had he known how they would treat 
him. I think that living with the Dursley's made Harry idealise the 
image of his parents for obvious reasons.

The discovery of his background was extremely abrupt and definitely 
overwhelming. Harry came face to face with a history that wasn't 
his own. He inherited a heavily symbolic scar, a horrific enemy, all 
the fame he never asked and most of all the burden of his parents' 
death. I believe that Carol actually pointed out the most important 
element on Harry's character, guilt. How can he visit the graves of 
the people who loved him most and who, in Harry's view, died because 
of him.
  
My personal opinion is that if his parents had died of, let's say, 
a broomstick accident, Harry would have never been involved in 
anything as heroic. His whole bravery and determination stems from 
the fact that he feels responsible for his parents' death and now he
needs to do something about it. His parents' death should not have 
been in vain. Therefore, I believe that the more he discovers about
his parents the more disappointed he is bound to be.  His character 
has been moulded out of neglect and humiliation into humility and 
empathy. His parents' bravery derived from the love they experienced 
when their child was born. Harry doesn't realise this and that is 
why he feels disappointed. 

Dumbledore of course knows, and he keeps the prophecy secret for as 
long as he can. The boy shouldn't have to deal with that as well. 
He hopes that experience along with choice will prepare him in the 
future so he buys him time. What I think makes this character 
special is the fact that Harry spends too little time in denial, and 
does his best from the very first year, where another could have 
been blinded by fear and pain and would have withdrawn. 

I don't remember if this is a trait that we have when we are 
children, perhaps it is, I'm not really sure, but most of the 
children I have discussed this with told me that they are not aware 
that Harry is brave just for not being in denial. Death, they told 
me, is not something you deny and visiting your parents' graves 
doesn't help. A particular fourteen-year-old student who lost her 
mother at a very early age told me that she had never had the urge 
to visit her mother's grave and that she does it because her family
insists. She never wondered why Harry never visited their graves 
because she feels the same way.  So, there you are. Please let me 
know what you think.





From AllieS426 at aol.com  Fri Mar 24 00:53:04 2006
From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 00:53:04 -0000
Subject: ah the mysteries
In-Reply-To: <8C5C05E6-482B-4D8E-9A85-57C3112FA954@polytechnique.org>
Message-ID: <dvvftg+h0r0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149952

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Olivier Fouquet 
<olivier.fouquet at ...> wrote:
>
> Hi Allie,
> I don't believe that Arthur is ESE, of course he isn't. I have 
been  
> using him to show that one could build a powerful case for ESE!
Anyone  
> by selecting odd remarks or events, declaring them "mysteries" or  
> "hints". 
> Now, on to the anvil-sized hint about the Imperius curse, it all 
goes  
> back to GoF. Barty Crouch, posing as Moody, has this incredible  
> conversation with Ron.
> 
> "my dad told me about one.. . . Is it called the Imperius
> Curse, or something?"
> "Ah, yes," said Moody appreciatively. "Your father would know 
that  
> one [...]"
> 
> Now you have a hardcore DE that is speaking "appreciatively" of  
> Arthur's knowledge of the Imperius. Once you have spotted this  
> instance, you can of course find other hints in the other books,  
> going back to book one, that Arthur does indeed know a lot about 
the  
> Imperius. Then, once you're there, you notice that according to 
canon  
> Sturgis was imperioed the very day when Arthur waited outside 
Harry's  
> hearing room. How convenient that he could spend some times here 
to  
> practise the curse that have gained him the appreciation of Barty  
> Crouch Jr. And here you have started ESE!Arthur.
> 

Allie:

Isn't it great how we never take anything at face value anymore?  I 
took Fake!Moody's statement to mean:  the Imperius Curse gave the 
Ministry a lot of trouble in VW1, Arthur worked for the Ministry, 
therefore Arthur would know that curse.  Especially since his work 
deals with Muggle-baiting, and I'd bet that a lot of the Death 
Eaters were claiming to be under Imperius after they were caught 
doing undesirable things to Muggles. 

Of course, this was before I looked more deeply into the villainous 
character of Arthur Weasley.  :)

Another statement I take at face value that has also been subjected 
to endless debate is Professor Trelawney's reading of her Tarot 
cards.  She sees a troubled young man who dislikes the questioner.  
I laughed at what I thought was JKR making a little joke - Harry is 
behind the statue, he dislikes Trelawney.  But speculation over the 
identity of this mysterious man ensued on the HPforGrownups list...







From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Fri Mar 24 01:15:04 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 01:15:04 -0000
Subject: Why Didn't Harry Ask About His Parents' Graves?  (was: Re: Godric's Hollow)
In-Reply-To: <20060323221037.87907.qmail@web36701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dvvh6o+rr9u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149953

vera:
*(snip)*
> I don't remember if this is a trait that we have when we are 
> children, perhaps it is, I'm not really sure, but most of the 
> children I have discussed this with told me that they are not aware 
> that Harry is brave just for not being in denial. Death, they told 
> me, is not something you deny and visiting your parents' graves 
> doesn't help. A particular fourteen-year-old student who lost her 
> mother at a very early age told me that she had never had the urge 
> to visit her mother's grave and that she does it because her family
> insists. She never wondered why Harry never visited their graves 
> because she feels the same way.  So, there you are. Please let me 
> know what you think.

Ceridwen:
My mother lost her parents at an early age.  She was two when her 
mother died, and her father put her in an orphanage and visited her 
and her sister until he died seven years later.  I have lived with 
phrases like, 'you don't know how lucky you are to have a mother' 
and 'I would never have argued with my mother, I would have been 
grateful just to have her'.  I tend to disagree with my mother, she 
feels the loss only because she had that loss to feel.

And she has felt it keenly all her life.  She remembers finding her 
mother dead.  She was two when it happened, and at 84, she still 
remembers it vividly.  She is still hungry for information about her 
parents.  She loves to see pictures of them.  She reminisces about 
the stories her grandmothers told her about her parents as children 
and young adults.  When I read Harry's reactions to hearing about his 
parents, it all sounds so familiar and right!

But as far as I know, my mother has never had a burning desire to 
visit her parents' graves.  They've been dead most of her life.  
That's nothing new, and is not comforting.  But hearing stories about 
them, especially when they appear out of nowhere, seeing pictures, 
mean so much to her.  Even finding out tidbits of genealogy excites 
her.  What she wants is what she never got as a child, a feel for 
what her parents were like, a way of knowing them as they were when 
they were alive.  She misses having parents.  She never missed having 
dead parents.

I can imagine what she would have done with the Mirror of Erised.  I 
can see her standing in front of it with her parents smiling at her, 
just like Harry.  This part of Harry's story rings very true to me.  
Just going on what I know of my mother, I think the answer to why 
Harry doesn't ask about his parents' graves is because they've always 
been dead, that isn't news to him; what he wants, and sadly can never 
have, is an idea of what life would have been like with them around.

Ceridwen.






From juli17 at aol.com  Fri Mar 24 01:13:49 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 20:13:49 EST
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV
Message-ID: <2ab.51230b.3154a1cd@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149954



juli17 at ... wrote:

> that of choosing a lesser evil.
>  There was no possible  *good* outcome.
> Someone--or someones--was  going to die
eggplant:

Murdering the most powerful and kindest wizard on the  good guys side
is not less evil than killing 4 homicidal Death  Eaters.
 
Julie:
However it's not a straightforward choice between Dumbledore and
4 Death Eaters, but whether in the course of trying to kill those  Death
Eaters Harry, Draco, and Dumbledore himself, will end up dead in the
aftermath also. As I noted, and you snipped out.

Julie earlier:
> fighting off the effects of the UV
> which  are presumably trying  to make
> him drop dead. 
 
Eggplant:
There is quite simply no way, absolutely no way, you can use  that vow
to excuse Snape's actions that horrible night in the tower! Snape  is
the one who decided to make a vow to become a traitor.
 
Julie:
You realize you have a tendency to quote the parts you want to refute
while ignoring the context? Is this because you don't want to address
the actual issue? In this case, I was arguing why Snape's success at
taking out the DEs while protecting DD, Harry and Draco would be 
questionable. I in no way used that as an excuse for Snape's actions
on the Tower, rather as a reason why he (and DD) might have made
the choice he (and DD) did. The vow, and whether that makes Snape
a traitor is another issue (though I don't think it does).


Julie:
> Can he succeed? There is no definitive answer
 
Eggplant:
That's true, one can never be certain of the results of ones  actions.
Certainly attacking the Death Eaters would have been more  dangerous
than murdering Dumbledore, but he had a decent chance of  success.
 
Julie:
Whether he had a decent chance is questionable, since we don't  know
how the Unbreakable Vow works, and whether it would give him the 
opportunity to follow through with an action that went against it.  But
even if he had a "decent" chance, it's not the same thing as  *certain*
success. And if DD wanted Snape to go for the *certainty* of Harry's
survival (which is the most important issue, for Harry and the WW),  then 
the only choice is for Snape to kill DD and remove the DEs from the  
Tower. 
 
eggplant:
By the way I notice nobody tackled my question, "did  Dumbledore know
about the vow?". I don't blame you, if I was a Snape lover I  wouldn't
want to tackle it either; one answer makes Snape look evil,  the
opposite answer makes Dumbledore look like an imbecile.
 
Julie:
I've answered it before, as have others. I believe Dumbledore did  know
about the vow. Dumbledore's goal, his *only* goal, is to preserve the
WW (and hopefully Harry in the process). Dumbledore knows for the
WW to survive, HARRY MUST LIVE. The end. Whatever it takes, and
his own life--one that appears to be fading anyway--is certainly a  very
small sacrifice. Nothing stupid about it. 
 

Julie earlier:
> Draco who is a student, thus someone  Dumbledore
> and perhaps Snape--believes must be protected 
> at all  costs 


eggplant:
My father invented a phrase I quite like, "nasty nice", I  can't think
of a better example of it than an effete Dumbledore who would  risk his
life, and the life of millions of other people around the world,  and
the very future of civilization itself to protect a piece of  stinking
excrement like Draco Malfoy. That my friend is nasty nice.
 
Julie:
I'm not sure how you equate Dumbledore dying with him risking
the lives of millions of other people around the world. After all,  it's
the DDM!Snape theory which rests mainly on a Dumbledore who 
is willing to die *FOR* those millions of other people around the 
world who would likely perish if Voldemort isn't defeated. Though I
do believe Dumbledore would give up his life for Draco, as Draco  is
a student, and worthy of a second chance from DD's POV. But
Dumbledore is dying for much, much more.
 
Julie earlier:

> Dumbledore wouldn't be selfish. He  doesn't
> fear death; he sees it  as the next great
>  adventure. And he has lived a long and 
> useful life, so why wouldn't he  want his
> death to be equally useful? 
 
eggplant:
Dumbledore doesn't enter into it, I was discussing Snap's  virtue (or
lack thereof) not Dumbledore's. Snape had a choice, he could pick  the
easy path and murder Dumbledore or he could pick the right path  and
attack the Death eaters. He went down the easy path.


Julie:
Dumbledore does enter into it. Remember in the wood, when  Dumbledore
reminded Snape of his promise? It may well be Snape's action on the  Tower
was his way of keeping that promise he made. Certainly Dumbledore was
asking *something* of Snape when he said "Severus...please..." though  we
certainly don't have to agree about what he was asking.
 
Regarding right versus easy--again, if the easy path *was* for Snape  to
die while taking out as many DEs as he could, BUT he stood by his 
promise to kill Dumbledore rather than chance any more deaths  (Harry,
Draco, other students, etc), then Snape made the right choice. Not  the
easy one. 
 
Really, it all depends on WHAT Snape's true choices were, and we  don't
know the whole story yet. You are of course welcome to your preferred 
theory, while I stick to mine :-)
 
Julie



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




From olivier.fouquet at polytechnique.org  Fri Mar 24 02:14:13 2006
From: olivier.fouquet at polytechnique.org (Olivier Fouquet)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 11:14:13 +0900
Subject: ah, the mysteries
Message-ID: <36BD3F6D-8A16-4CDB-8C54-4DC09460609E@polytechnique.org>

No: HPFGUIDX 149955

Pippin:
 >Not quite full-fledged...you've neglected to give Arthur a motive
 >for all this. I'm sure you've thought of one, though <g>

Of course I have. Arthur is a pureblood who made a nice pureblood  
marriage and who stills live in poverty. There are references in each  
and every book that this is making his family bitter. If the Ministry  
couldn't recognize his talents, maybe Voldemort would. This motive is  
utterly improbable, but it is very close to the one you attribute to  
Lupin. And there are many more references to the Weasley family being  
bitter about their poverty than to Lupin being bitter about being a  
werewolf. That said, a OSE!Lupin (only slightly evil) seems to me  
more credible. Like a Lupin who would join Voldemort after HBP  
because he thinks all his lost and he felt some sympathy for his  
"equals".


Arley
 >I find one big hole in the theory of ESE!Arthur. He almost got  
killed when
 >poisoned by Nagini. Didn't he?

No, no, no. It is not a hole, it is on the contrary the strongest  
hint that Arthur is in league with Voldemort. Let us go back to the  
text. Nagini is slithering on the floor of the DoM; Arthur wakes up;  
Nagini strikes thrice "deeply into the man's flesh" and with enough  
strength to break Arthur's ribs. Arthur yells then fall silent  
against the wall. Harry wakes up and raises the alarm. He is panicked  
because Arthur is bleeding like mad (many references to it in the  
text). Now several minutes lapse between Harry waking up and  
Dumbledore sending Everard and Dylis (Harry has to convinced Ron,  
they have to walked with McGonagall to DD's office, DD interviews  
Harry?). During these long minutes, Nagini could have given a few  
more bites, let us say to Arthur's neck and Arthur was finished. Dead.

What would have happened next? Well, it would have been devastating  
to Harry and the Weasleys but at least Harry would have had a  
powerful motive for learning Occlumency. I mean, who wants to kill  
his friends every night?

What happened in canon? Well, somehow Nagini left Arthur alive, only  
just barely. Conclusion? Harry never associated his visions with  
something bad, on the contrary he thought they were useful, and so  
did other members of the Order. To quote Harry arguing with Snape:"I  
saw that snake attack Mr Weasley and if I hadn't, Professor  
Dumbledore wouldn't have been able to save him, would he? Sir?"

And what happened when Harry finally saw Sirius in the DoM. Well,  
first he believed it. Second, he had a very hard time convincing Ron  
and Hermione, and for good reasons, seeing as this was totally  
improbable. Then, Harry reminds Ron that when he saw his father being  
attacked, that wasn't a dream and Ron concedes that "He's got a  
point". From that moment on, Ron helps Harry convince Hermione,  
providing rationales, arguing against her until she finally gives in.  
Read the scene again and you will see that Ron's help was crucial. We  
all know to what that lead to.

So let us recap. Two things were absolutely necessary for Voldemort's  
plan. That Harry did not learn Occlumency and that he was convinced  
that his visions were real and useful. Why didn't Harry learn  
Occlumency? Because, according to himself "I don't like [my visions]  
much but [they have] been useful. I saw that snake attack Mr Weasley  
and if I hadn't, Professor Dumbledore wouldn't have been able to save  
him." And again, on the crucial moment, JKR again repeats this  
rationale.

I conclude that the attack was staged, that Nagini was ordered to  
inflict very serious damage but to stop just before death. And all  
that possible thanks to whom?

Best regards,
Olivier

PS: I reiterate that I don't believe in this theory, in my opinion,  
Arthur had to stay alive (even if it was extremely improbable) not  
because everything was staged but because JKR needed the plot point  
that Harry liked his visions. Just as she needed the plot point that  
Harry save Pettigrew, so that she had to make Lupin and Sirius  
killers, and Hermione and Ron passive witnesses.

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




From eastbaydavej at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 24 01:39:27 2006
From: eastbaydavej at yahoo.com (David)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 01:39:27 -0000
Subject: The unknown factor...... The apparent ease at which DD was killed.
In-Reply-To: <dvu13b+enln@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvvikf+k3cd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149956

> David wrote:  <SNIP>
> "Here is my theory... Both Snape and DD knew what was going to 
> happen and that in order to get Snape back into the 'fold', they 
> put into motion of series of events that would culminate in the 
> ultimate sign he was back to the death eaters... the murder of DD 
> himself. Granted its a rather large sacrifice, but if he was going 
> to die anyway, why not make it worth while. Thoughts?"
>  
> CH3ed:
> I like it, <snip> tho I won't go so far as to say that DD was 
> planned in advanced by DD and Snape. I think they have discussed 
> various possibilities and had an agreement that Harry's <snip> 
> and Draco's <snip> lives (and souls) are top priorities. And 
> they might have agreed (willingly or not on Snape's side) that 
> should worst case scenarios (the tower scene applies) happen and 
> it is DD's life or Harry's and Draco's, then Snape must sacrifice 
> DD. The disagreement in the forest that Hagrid overheard might 
> have been Snape feeling the same way Harry did when he hesitated 
> about giving DD his word to obey DD even if it means to abandon 
> DD to die and save himself. 


David:
I think the other clue is the look, the contempt/hatred that Snape 
gave DD as he did it. Was it contempt for DD himself, the position 
he found himself in, an inward self-loathing for having to do it in 
the first place or being in a position where he had to? Or a 
combination of all those. While I dislike Snape as a person for his 
pettiness and contempt for those whom he feels are weaker than he, I 
think he geniunely respected DD and liked him, despite being 
overlooked for the DADA's job.... 








From juli17 at aol.com  Fri Mar 24 02:45:22 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 02:45:22 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV.
In-Reply-To: <dvuovm+mg7b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvvmg2+5oq2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149957


"justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:

> Snape is gifted and highly intelligent,
> but he's not Superwizard
 
Eggplant wrote:

Julie, another Snape lover thought Snape could kill all the Death
Eater in the tower so easily it wouldn't be sporting, you think Snape
wouldn't have stood a chance against them. I think the truth is in the
middle, it would have been dangerous but possible. As I said before,
murdering Dumbledore was easy, it was not dangerous at all, but it was
not right.  
 
Julie:
While I admit to being a Snape lover (in that I love the complexity of
the character, not that I fantasize about actually loving Snape!), I 
never
said anything remotely close to "Snape could kill all the Death Eaters
in the Tower so easily it wouldn't even be sporting"--not remotely! In
fact I HAVE speculated that it would be dangerous but possible--and
that is exactly WHY Dumbledore wouldn't go for it, as *possible* is 
just not good enough. I agree killing Dumbledore was less dangerous
physically (especially if Dumbledore--who COULD protect himself if
he chose to and wasn't practically or literally on his deathbed), bui 
it
wasn't easier for Snape in any emotional sense. Which made it right,
if it saved Harry, and by association the WW, as I speculate, but not
easy. 
 
Carol:

> Dumbledore meant by "Severus, please 
> Time is running out; do what is right,
> not what is easy; keep your vow and 
> save the boys."

Eggplant:
If that's what Dumbledore said then the debate would be over, but
that's not what he said, all he said was "Severus Please"; the rest is
pure imagination. If Snape really was a good guy and that is what
Dumbledore wanted to say you'd think he'd let him live another 3
seconds so he could finish his sentence; that way Snape wouldn't would
have a lifetime mortal enemy in Harry Potter, the only one with a
chance of defeating Voldemort. Very odd behavior for a good guy, very
odd indeed. 

Julie:
Er, do you actually read the books? ;-) Snape didn't stop Dumbledore.
He didn't say anything at all when Dumbledore first said "Severus...
please..." If Dumbledore wanted to add more he had ample opportunity
at that moment. But clearly Dumbledore expected Snape to understand
his plea (if they had an earlier conversation about contingency plans 
for
a situation such as this), or there was some legilimency going on 
(which
could have been simply been Dumbledore projecting his life inexorably
ebbing away, if you object that there could be anything approaching 
thought being projected). 
 
Also Dumbledore could hardly reveal Snape's true allegiance if it was 
to him, not with several Death Eaters right there, not if he wanted 
Snape
to remain a spy in Voldemort's camp. 
 
Julie
(off to think further about what Dumbledore's closemouthedness on the
Tower may reveal)






From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 24 02:54:29 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 02:54:29 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dvpe2p+h22l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvvn15+f061@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149959

> 
> Sydney:
> You know, arguing against this theory is starting to feel like
> wrestling with Proteus-- it seems to take whatever from is handiest
> for countering an argument.  Your original LD theory was pretty
> straightforward:
> 

Neri:
Since it doesn't look like you have read my original LID!Snape post
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/145024
and the Double Life Debt post
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/140493
I'll try to clarify it all again:

LID!Snape is the theory assuming that Snape had a Life Debt to James,
that this is why he's trying to save Harry, and that this is why he
hates both Harry and James. All this is actually almost canonical. The
only additional clause that we perhaps need here is that repaying the
Life Debt is Snape's main motivation and explains most of the mystery
of his behavior in the series. This clause is needed in order to
differentiate LID!Snape from DDM!Snape-with-a-side-dish-of-Life-Debt,
which I think is what Pippin's new theory (and your own theory
upthread) amount to.

Now, like all the big Snape theories, LID!Snape can have many
variations, mainly depending on the exact mechanism of the Life Debt
magic. One of these variations is the UV-like model, originally
suggested by Del
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139110
which posits that the debtee will die if he kills or plays a part in
killing the person he owes to. This variation fits very well with
another variation, my Double Life Debt
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/140493
according to which Dumbledore saved Snape's life during GH by
transferring Snape's Life Debt from James to Harry, and therefore
Snape ended up having a Life Debt to Dumbledore too. 

Another speculation I recently suggested is that Snape's very strange
screaming of pain during "The Flight of the Prince" is also an effect
of the Life Debt, which makes a lot of sense in the context of Harry
just saying to him "kill me like you killed him". I Also recently
pointed out that some or all of the above speculations can be made
very thematic (and also fit very well with JKR's words about
Occlumency) if we assume that the Life Debt magic works by preventing
the Debtee from blocking his own empathy with the person he owes the
Debt to.

All the above are just different speculations within the LID!Snape
theory, and I'm not particularly attached to any of them, because as
I've wrote many times, we can't really know now what the mechanism of
the Debt is. JKR was very careful not to give us enough information
(which is very suggestive in itself). And in fact it is not certain at
all that a mechanism even *exists*, in the sense that the Life Debt
magic may be similar to Lily's Ancient Magic, which is also not very
consistent. This is why I asked you if you can explain how Peter could
touch Harry in the graveyard without suffering the pain Quirrell
suffered. There is the distinct possibility that deep Potterverse
magic just isn't supposed to be very consistent. It's a thematic
rather than mechanistic thing. This is why I'm not especially worried
about what looks like some inconsistency between Snape's and Peter's
reaction to the Life Debt. JKR can explain this inconsistency in many
ways, or she might simply leave it inconsistent.

The important point is that *regardless of the exact mechanism* LID
still works very well. We have the canon evidence of Dumbledore words
in SS/PS, and the whole Snape plot throughout the books suddenly makes
a lot of literary sense ? a well-laid buildup all leading to the
climax in Book 7, when Snape would finally repay the Debt. And
generally LID!Snape works with less explanations and assumptions than
any other Snape theory. 

So, if it looks like I'm altering or changing my versions, it's just
because I'm playing with different speculations regarding the Life
Debt mechanism, but the main LID!Snape theory remains the same and
retains all it's nice properties regardless of these details. And if
you complain that it's difficult to argue with several variations at
once, I'm afraid you'll get no sympathy from me. When I'm arguing
against DDM!Snape I have to argue against at least five different
versions of what happened on the tower, eight different versions of
what happened in Spinner's End, and all their possible combinations,
frequently mutating in real time and complicated to an arbitrary
degree, with no unifying theme that I can discern except getting Snape
off the hook by all costs. 


> Neri:
> >But unlike Snape during VW1, Peter doesn't have the
> > option of going to the other side anymore, certainly not as a
> > double-agent the way Snape did. Peter has to rebel against Voldy
> > openly or continue following orders and hope that Harry would somehow
> > escape death. 
> 
> Sydney:
> Or, of course, he could simply not have gone to Albania and
> single-handedly resurrected Voldemort.  
> 
> Shall I type that again?  Or, he could not have gone to Albania and
> single-handedly resurrected Voldemort.  Boy, I bet he slapped his
> forehead with a resounding slap after he did that one!  
> 

Neri:
You can type it as many times as you like, but there's no evidence
that Peter ever knew what the prophecy said. Actually there isn't any
evidence that Peter even knew there *was* a prophecy at all.
Therefore, unlike Snape, Peter didn't know that this is all between
Voldy and Harry, and he couldn't know that Voldy's first and foremost
priority when coming back from Albania would be killing Harry Potter.
I'd bet he *did* slap his forehead. In fact, if you read his words in
GoF Ch. 1 again you can almost see the bruise <g>.  


> 
> Neri:
> >Of course, it's interesting that in HBP we see Snape and
> > Peter together in the same house, with apparently no plot reason. One
> > wonders what does this foreshadow for Book 7.
> 
> Sydney:
> Their hilarious sitcom of course!  Sorry, nothing to do with the
> argument, I just think they really do have a hilarious sitcom.  <snip>
 
Neri:
You know, I don't think I'll ever understand how the mind of you
LOLLIPOPS people works. Here we see Snape living in the same house
with the man responsible to the death of his beloved Lily, and you
think it's a good *sitcom*???

*I* thought it was a good sitcom, but then I had never bought LOLLIPOPS.


> Sydney: 
> You're confused because you think we're talking about MY theory, but
> we're not.  We're demolishing ankle-monitor!Snape here, now focus. 

Neri:
No, this is perhaps what you're doing. What I'm doing is showing that
LID works better than DDM. I have never claimed that LID!Snape is
perfect, has no inconsistencies whatsoever, and is absolutely
straightforward. What I did claim, and still do, is that it's more
consistent and straightforward than any *other* Snape theory.


> Sydney:
> Your argument on why Dumbledore "trusts Snape completely" is the
> following:
> 
> Neri, 149736:
> >Snape can only stay alive if Dumbledore
> >and the Order manage to win the war and guard James, so Snape would be
> >a fool to harm anybody in the Order. And if the Order wins and
> >Voldemort loses, Snape would need Dumbledore to save him from Azkaban.
> >In such a situation Dumbledore has a very good reason to trust that
> Snape is on his side.
> 
> And then, to explain the UV, you add that Snape must also owe a Life
> Debt to Dumbledore, because Dumbledore magically transferred the Life
> Debt to Harry, that would otherwise have killed Snape when James died,
> and then THAT Life Debt was paid off when Snape saved Dumbledore, so
> now Snape is free to kill him, which is why he took the UV.  Which,
> may I say, just goes to show you why "Dumbledore trusts Snape
> completely because of the Life Debt to Harry" makes no sense
> whatsoever.  Because if someone's a stone-cold killer except for this
> one little thing, they're going to do things like that.  Silly
Dumbledore!
> 

Neri:
Dumbledore knows that until Snape repays the Debt, he can be trusted
completely to save Harry's life. Moreover, Dumbledore hopes (and I
believe rightly so) that when Snape finally *pays* the Debt, he will
have no choice but to do it right in front of Voldemort, because it
will be in a situation of an actual duel between Voldemort and Harry,
and Harry would be dead if not for Snape. If and when this happens,
Voldemort would go seriously ape at Snape <g>, and Snape (if he stays
alive) will be forced to leave Voldemort's side for good.

It's precisely the thematic value of the Debt. Since the Debt
represents true remorse, Snape will not succeed in repaying it and
still remain on the side of Evil, no matter how hard he tries to do
just that. This is why he had failed time and again in repaying it
throughout the series. Dumbledore knew this must happen, and therefore
in the end he will prove right in trusting Snape completely. 


> Sydney:
> Now if you're going to BEG for a reprise of my UV theory, which I DID
> lay out in painful detail in post #149418, "High Noon for
OFH!Snape",<snip theory>

Neri:
Your theory requires some big assumptions there in order to get around
DDM!Snape taking the third clause of the UV. With the same number of
assumptions I could easily get rid of any inconsistency between
Snape's and Peter's Debts. LID can incorporate much simpler
explanations for the UV. For example, the single sentence explanation:
"Snape was in love with Narcissa since they were at Hogwarts
together". The reason LID can incorporate such simple solutions is
that it doesn't have any problem with Snape taking a Vow to kill
Dumbledore, while DDM must invent some complex story to explain it.
This is one reason why LID is so much more straightforward and simple.
 

> > Neri:
> > As I have explained in recent posts, I think Snape didn't intend to
> > kill Dumbledore before he can save Harry's life and repay the Debt.
> > Draco's unforeseen action forced Snape to kill Dumbledore on the tower
> > or die. 
> Sydney:
> *puzzled* Snape didn't foresee that Draco couldn't kill Dumbledore? 
> Is that why he took the UV, because he thought, "ha!  Dumbledore
> hasn't got a chance against Draco Malfoy"?
>

Neri:
Oops, sorry. I guess I'm too used by now to thinking like
double-agent-for-real!Snape, so what looks obvious to me perhaps isn't
obvious to a DDM!Snaper. I'll explain this in more detail. Snape most
probably thought Draco doesn't stand a chance killing Dumbledore. But
he also knew that it would be easy to convince Dumbledore not to
arrest Draco on the spot. So for many months Draco would be
*attempting* to fulfill the Dark Lord's orders with no success, and
yet without failing, and so Snape wouldn't be required to act on the
third clause of the UV. Note that no clause of the UV requires Snape
to actually *help* Draco in his mission ? only to look after him and
to step in should it seem Draco would fail. During all these many
months Snape would have a chance to repay the Debt. Once the Debt is
out of the way, Snape would finally be free to go back to Voldemort's
side, and wouldn't care about killing Dumbledore anymore. 

But Draco surprised both Snape and Dumbledore by managing to let the
DEs into the castle and actually catching Dumbledore helpless. *Then*
he failed to kill him. By this he forced Snape to act on the third
clause or die. Snape had no choice but aborting the double-agent game
for good and committing to Voldemort's side before he managed to repay
the Debt. What he is most afraid of will probably happen in Book 7 ?
there will be a duel between Voldemort and Harry, and Snape will have
to oppose Voldemort openly in order to save Harry's life.

 
> Sydney:
> I'm not saying that JKR doens't LOVE to make people suffer, because
> she certainly does!  I'm saying that she wouldn't see using magic to
> FORCE people to feel things they otherwise wouldn't as a good thing.
> 

Neri:
You mean, like using the prophecy to make Harry want to kill Voldemort? 


> Sydney:
> And your theory has now changed to the point that Snape isn't just
> prevented from harming Harry, he's connected in some deep way to any
> suffering that Harry feels.   And I don't see that AT ALL.  If there's
> one thing that's clear, it's that Snape doesn't give a damn what Harry
> feels, in fact, he'd rather Harry feels like crap generally, but he's
> willing to risk his life to protect him from physical harm, which is
> the sort of harm Snape can understand.  This is actually a lot more
> consistent with anklemonitor!Snape, than your new, soul-connected
> Snape, so I'd advise you to go back to it.
> 

Neri:
But this is precisely my point against DDM!Snape. Snape doesn't give a
damn what Harry feels, he'd rather Harry feels like crap generally, so
how can he be trying to save Harry's life out of true, conclusive
remorse? DDM!Snape is absurd. You're saying that yourself, but you can
only see it when you think it's my theory. When it's your theory it
suddenly makes sense to you.

If Snape feels any remorse, it's obvious that it is limited in an
extremely artificial and arbitrary way. It's only working for trying
to save Harry's life, but not for any care for Harry's feeling. So
what is the more likely explanation for that? That these restrictions
on his remorse are a result of an arbitrarily schizoid character, or
that they are a result of a magic with arbitrary clauses?  


> Sydney:
> And your prosthetic remorse-- sorry, still not remorse.  As
> justCarol's excellent post had it, remorse is about feeling crappy
> about yourself because you're a bad person and have hurt others. 
> Which sounds like Snape all over to me.
> 

Neri:
So he's like totally remorseful about being a bad person and hurting
others, and that's why he's so enjoying himself acting like a bad
person and hurting Harry all the time. Yes, that's logical <g>.


> > Neri:
> > Apparently all this stuff isn't significant enough to break Snape's
> > defenses. As Del noted, a Life Debt just might be about, you know...
> life.

> Sydney:
> Aaaand, we're back to ankle-monitor Snape.  I thought the LD didn't
> allow Snape to HAVE defenses?  Oh, now, where did I read that?  I
> dont' think I even have to go back to last week, I think it's in the
> very post I've been replying to:  
> 
> Neri:
> "it *is* actual remorse, that the
>  Life Debt magic merely prevents Snape from shutting down"
> 
> Dude, go back to the anklemonitor.  It doens't make sense, but it at
> least makes more sense than this "Snape feels Harry's pain" thing.
> 
> 

Neri:
I don't see your problem here. The Life Debt magic might be strong
enough to prevent Snape from shutting down very strong remorse, like
about letting the person he owes his life to die, or like killing him
himself, and yet it wouldn't be strong enough to prevent Snape from
shutting down remorse about much smaller things, like just hurting
Harry's feelings. And of course there wouldn't be remorse at all when
Harry gets hurt for reasons that have no connection with Snape. We are
repeatedly reminded that Snape is a superb occlumen, and very good at
closing his mind. He may be able to shut down just that amount of
remorse.  

It makes perfect sense as a magic with certain clauses. Like
Occlumency frequently requiring eye contact. With eye contact it
works, without eye contact it doesn't. Like the UV requiring Snape to
*look after* Draco, but not to *help* him. Like the Fidelius allowing
the SK to reveal the secret, but not anybody else who lives in that
same house. Potterverse magic is full to the brim with these
arbitrary, convoluted clauses. That's why it takes seven years at
school to learn. That's what makes this series so wonderfully
intricate and complex. And these clauses can be thematic and reflect
RL feelings, like loyalty, like commitment, like remorse.

What the Potterverse *doesn't* have are artificial, arbitrary,
schizoid *characters*. Except for DDM!Snape, that is. No other
character of JKR gets even close to be so convoluted, so conflicted.
It's almost like DDM!Snape wasn't created by JKR. Maybe he was simply
created by somebody else. Say, by 100,000 Snape fans?

 
> Sydney:
> Sirius being innocent is unthinkable for Snape because he's been here
> before-- he's been trying to convince people not to trust Sirius, and
> people didn't listen to him, and people died.  That's why he says,
> "DON'T TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND", and why he screams at
> Harry for suggesting that Snape is prejudiced against Sirius "just
> because he made a fool of you at school", which is probably JUST what
> James said 14 years before, when Snape was trying to convince him not
> to make Sirius secret-keeper.  I think he just can't BELIEVE he's
> still having this conversation.  I mean, picture Harry at some point
> in Book VII if someone was trying to convince him that he was wrong
> about Snape!
> 

Neri:
This is *one* theory. It's a theory that doesn't have any support in
canon except for your interpretation of this sentence. A sentence
explained just as well by LID!Snape, which does have strong support in
canon. Moreover, your theory doesn't have any future, because Sirius
is dead and Snape's issues with him are of little importance to Book
7. In contrast, the LID explanation of this sentence leads directly to
a big BANGy climax in Book 7.


> Sydney:
> And duh, Snape doesn't bring up Lily.  Snape never, ever, brings up
> Lily.  Don't you think that's just a little odd, in 6 books, when
> Snape throws every thing else he can think of at Harry?  I'm pretty
> sure oxen and wainropes couldn't drag it out of him.
> 

Neri:
This is a typical LOLLIPOPS tactics ? when there's no canon, argue
that the absence of canon strengthens the theory. I shudder to think
what you would have said had I dared using such an argument for LID!Snape.


> Sydney:
> And if we're going to cattily bring up other people's theories <evil
> g>, have you dropped your missing five hours thing from OoP?  <snip>

Neri:
No, I haven't dropped it. I have recently posted in detail the
explanations of LID!Snape for both the Occlumency lessons:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149094
and the Missing Five Hours:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149239

Unsurprisingly, LID resolves Snape's strange behavior in both these
occasions in a more straightforward and simple way than any other
Snape theory.


Neri







From celizwh at intergate.com  Fri Mar 24 03:03:40 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 03:03:40 -0000
Subject: Healing Themes (WAS Re: LID!Snape rides again)
In-Reply-To: <dvtcuu+erps@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvvnic+gbjk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149960

Sydney:

> A lot of how I see the series turning out is because 
> it seems to me that this isn't a "Lord of the Rings" 
> style epic of warrior heroes;  it feels a lot closer 
> to "The Secret Garden" or "Little White Horse" or even 
> "Great Expectations"-- a darker, more elaborate version 
> of the child healer story.

houyhnhnm:  

I've found myself thinking about _Great Expectations_ a lot since
being magicked into the Potterverse.  Not really noting similarities
with regard to character or plot, just thinking about the book more
frequently than I had in, say, the last twenty years.  I've also found
myself thinking about _Silas Marner_, the quintessential child healer
story.






From bartl at sprynet.com  Fri Mar 24 03:30:40 2006
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 22:30:40 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore MAY be alive....
In-Reply-To: <20060323170836.96643.qmail@web53307.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20060323170836.96643.qmail@web53307.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <442367E0.20608@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149961

> Bart:
> He drank SOMETHING. The major reason I think that Dumbledore is dead is 
> that JKR is too good a writer to have him be secretly alive.
> 
> Luckdragon:
>   Wasn't the potion in the cave flourescent green? The draught of living death is Purple(Lilac). Still I don't believe he's dead either.

Bart:
Once again, though, speaking from a point of view of looking at the 
epic, having Dumbledore somehow survive would come off like pandering to 
the audience.

	Bart




From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Fri Mar 24 03:49:20 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 22:49:20 EST
Subject: Dumbledore MAY be alive....
Message-ID: <15a.60a1c512.3154c640@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149962

Bart:
> He drank SOMETHING. The major reason I think that  Dumbledore is 
> dead is that JKR is too good a writer to have him be secretly 
> alive.
> 
> Luckdragon:
> Wasn't the potion in the cave flourescent green? The draught of 
> living death is Purple(Lilac). Still I don't believe he's dead 
> either.

> Bart:
> Once again, though, speaking from a point of view of looking at 
> the epic, having Dumbledore somehow survive would come off like 
> pandering to the audience.


Nikkalmati:
 
I understand and I agree that it seems to go against the theme of 
the books for DD to return to rescue Harry.  Harry is the hero and 
he has to grow in wisdom and grace to defeat the evil wizard with 
the help of his friends, primarily.  On the other hand, I cannot 
ignore two major clues JKR has planted.  At the funeral we witness 
DD's body burst into flames in exactly the same way as his phoenix. 
Harry even sees a phoenix rising from the smoke.  Is this supposed 
to mean nothing?  Is it a red herring?  What other explanation is 
there than that DD was reborn?  Of course if you think about Fawkes 
he returned as a baby bird, so DD may not be able to return to help 
Harry.  He may alive as an infant somewhere.
 
The second clue is the portrait.  Why doesn't it behave like the 
other portraits, especially after the funeral?  The fact that DD 
appears to be sleeping indicates IMO that he is not dead in the 
same way as the figures in the other portraits.  Of course, there 
could simply be a delay in having a portrait come alive, but we 
have not been given any such explanation in canon. 
 
We also need to consider the Christian theme of the books.  If 
there is a sacrificial figure, a Christ figure, if you will, it has 
to be DD.  No one else is good enough to fill that role and JKR has 
said DD is the epitome of goodness.   Following up on this idea, DD 
sacrificed himself for others but he will be resurrected.  I am not 
sure JKR will follow the NT so precisely, but it is a possibility.
 
Nikkalmati (not really meaning that business about the love potion) 










From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Mar 24 04:26:34 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 04:26:34 -0000
Subject: Maligning Lupin
In-Reply-To: <dvukqo+rfnb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvvsdq+10e0r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149963

> > Pippin:
> > As for why Lupin told him, their whole relationship was based on
> > shared secrets.
> 
> Christina:
> 
> Their childhood relationship, perhaps, but their adult 
> relationship?  No way. 

Pippin:
You're entitled to your opinion of course, but adult Sirius and Lupin
do seem to be sharing secrets. They give each other a look before
Sirius starts telling Harry about what Voldemort is after -- a look
that appears to tell us there's something just between the two of
them (and no, I don't think it's a ship. Sorry.)  And of course they're both
members of a secret organization and living in a secret hideout.

Christina:
 Lupin telling Sirius a "secret" to keep their 
> friendship going also doesn't make sense if you consider the fact 
> that Sirius obviously did not *know* it was a secret if he blurted 
> it out in a crowded room.  Defeats the purpose, really.

Pippin:
If Sirius was told that the purpose of the secrecy was to keep the DE's
from using  Harry to go after the prophecy,  he would think there
was no need for secrecy any more. 

> > Pippin:
> > In any case, Dumbledore hasn't been able to do much to provide the
> > werewolves with education and jobs. 
> 
> Christina:
> 
> And Voldemort has done more?
> 
Pippin:
Fenrir doesn't look sick or starving.


> > Pippin:
> > Cheerful and resigned to his lot is the Uncle Tom stereotype.
> > It's hollow and demeaning and I'll be surprised if JKR doesn't
> > point that out in the end.
> 
> Christina:
> 
> A stereotype that JKR has ample opportunity to explore with the 
> house elves, which parallels American slavery much better than 
> lycanthropy. 
<snip>
> What I meant was that Lupin doesn't have much passion.  He doesn't 
> have anger.  He doesn't make Sirius-type emotional declarations.  

Pippin:
Denying someone the full range of human emotion is what the
Uncle Tom stereotype is all about. It needn't apply just to American
slaves, but to any group whose "good" members are made to seem
too weak and passive to harbor anger against their oppressors.


Christina:
> Your theory also requires that Voldemort be making nice with the  
> werewolves in the first war.  Is there evidence that this was even 
> the case?  I've dug around a bit and haven't found anything.
> 

Pippin:
It's only suggestive, but Hermione does assume immediately that 
if Sirius and Lupin are working together, it's because Lupin the
werewolf is on Sirius's, ie Voldemort's side.


> 
> > Pippin:
> > ::shrug:: To paraphrase Arthur, when you're dealing with a witch
> > like Umbridge, sometimes you have to join forces with people you'd 
> > rather avoid.
> 
> 
> Christina:
> 
> I understand the concept of the lesser of two evils.  But I still 
> fail to see how *Voldemort* ends up being the lesser of two evils.  

Pippin:
I refer you to Lupin's speech in OOP where he explains why the
goblins are going to be tempted to join Voldemort. And yet the
goblins are materially better off than werewolves and far more
numerous and influential. 
> 
> Christina:
> 
> When was Lupin "naive enough not to believe what he'd heard about 
> Fenrir"?  Lupin says that he felt pity for the werewolf who bit him 
> as a child, but that was before he got information about Fenrir 
> Greyback.  There's no reason to believe that Lupin disbelieved 
> anything he had heard about Greyback.

Pippin:
He says he felt pity before he found out the identity of the werewolf
who bit him. He apparently assumed it wasn't Greyback, or
somone like him, which seems a bit naive to me. 
 
> > Pippin:
> > Why couldn't JKR tell us why the diary plot would have made 
> > present day Voldemort stronger?
> 
> Christina:
> 
> Horcruxes?  And how does this relate to Lupin?

Pippin:
Lucius Malfoy did not know the diary was a horcrux,
Voldemort did not authorize the diary plot,  yet
JKR's answer implies that someone did know what
the diary would do and planned to make Voldemort 
stronger. 

It doesn't have anything to do with Lupin
as yet, but like the question of who sent the Lestranges
after the Longbottoms, it implies that  someone
was very interested in bringing Voldemort back to power.
 
> > Pippin:
> > Why is there an anvil-sized  hint that Lupin is an occlumens?
> 
> Christina:
> 
> Occlumency/Legilimency tends to reflect personality.  Lupin is a bit 
> closed, and so it only logically follows that he would be talented 
> at Occlumency.  Maybe his "furry little problem" pushed him to learn 
> it.  In any case, a talent for Occlumency does not equal guilt.
> 
Pippin:
No, but any ESE! character would have to be an occlumens. One of the
reasons I don't think Peter could have been spying for a year is that he's 
obviously no good at it. 

> > Pippin:
> > Why does the  moon appear and disappear *before* Lupin transforms? 
> > Why did JKR give an evasive answer when asked whether Lupin 
> > transformed inside the shack? She's usually  willing to admit it 
> > when she just flubbed up.
> 
> Christina:
> 
> You seem to really like this bit as evidence for ESE!Lupin.  Why?  
> Being evil doesn't give Lupin control over when he transforms.  No 
> werewolf has that.
> 

Pippin:
Don't they?

Ostensibly, Lupin transformed by chance when exposed to the
rays of the moon which appeared suddenly from behind a cloud. Yet
common sense and the moon's previous appearance suggest that
his transformations occur at a predictable time during the moon
cycle. Fenrir's ability to position himself near potential victims
also argues that a werewolf can predict when he will transform.

You can certainly argue that even though Lupin should have known 
exactly when he would transform, he lost track of the time and was 
taken by surprise, inadvertently allowing Peter to escape.

But if he did know exactly when he would transform, then he could
also have positioned himself so that his transformation would
*allow* Peter to escape. 

> 
> > Pippin:
> > How are Order members once again being picked off one by one?
> 
> Christina:
> 
> Spies aren't needed for Order members to die.  

Pippin:
But Lupin says it will be different this time, and yet it isn't.
I wonder why.<g>

> Christina:
> 
> In your opinion.  I think Lupin has shown ample remorse.  Lupin 
> doesn't exist in a bubble; take out your measuring stick and look at 
> the other characters.  

Pippin:
Except for Hagrid's drinking, I can't think of another character
who explicitly said or showed guilt about something and then 
did it again. Please show me some canon. There are plenty of 
characters who do things they *ought* to feel guilty about, but
who else actually says they know they did wrong, but they 
overcame their guilty feelings and went right on doing it?

Pippin
noting that anyone who sticks to "official mysteries" --  things
Harry explicitly wonders about -- would never decode the Mirror
of Erised's  message






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Mar 24 04:53:46 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 04:53:46 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dvvn15+f061@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvvu0q+r2i4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149964

Neri:
> 
> If Snape feels any remorse, it's obvious that it is limited in an
> extremely artificial and arbitrary way. It's only working for trying
> to save Harry's life, but not for any care for Harry's feeling. So
> what is the more likely explanation for that? That these restrictions
> on his remorse are a result of an arbitrarily schizoid character, or
> that they are a result of a magic with arbitrary clauses?  

Pippin:.
Dumbledore, AKA the epitome of goodness, sends Harry to the 
Dursleys and locks Sirius up at  GP.   James, the progenitor of 
this famous life debt, makes Snape's life hell for years on end, 
rushes into danger to save his skin, then goes right back to 
hexing Snape whenever he gets the opportunity. Are you going 
to say that they're arbitrarily schizoid too? 

Why should it be so hard to understand that for JKR's characters,
and maybe even for JKR herself, lives are a much bigger deal than
feelings? There's nothing artificial or inconsistent about that, it's
just a different set of values.

Pippin







From belviso at attglobal.net  Fri Mar 24 04:59:53 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 23:59:53 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
References: <dvvn15+f061@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00a901c64eff$caa16680$9e7e400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 149965

Neri:
What the Potterverse *doesn't* have are artificial, arbitrary,
schizoid *characters*. Except for DDM!Snape, that is. No other
character of JKR gets even close to be so convoluted, so conflicted.
It's almost like DDM!Snape wasn't created by JKR. Maybe he was simply
created by somebody else. Say, by 100,000 Snape fans?

Magpie:
Leaving aside the fact that it's hard for me to see how a Snape who is mean 
and bitter but also tormented by guilt is "schizoid" or arbitrary, people in 
the books don't seem to think it's so mysterious.  In the first book Quirrel 
says, "Oh he does [hate you]," said Quirrell casually, "heavens yes.  He was 
at Hogwarts with your father, didn't you know?  But he never wanted you 
dead."  (He hates you, but doesn't want you dead.)

And then Dumbledore elaborates when Harry asks him about just this:

"Funny how people's minds work, isn't it?  Professor Snape couldn't bear 
being in your father's debt...I do believe he worked so hard to protect you 
this year because he felt that would make him and your father quits.  Then 
he could go back to hating your father's memory in peace...."

Seems to me Dumbledore is talking about Snape's personality there--did you 
find this absurd when he explained it?  Because to me it makes perfect 
sense.  It's Snape's personality all over.  He's bitter and petty, but also 
has set ideas about the way things are supposed to be, some of which are 
related to a code of honorable behavior. He hates Harry personally, and so 
tries ever harder to be in a superior position.  DDM!Snape, to me, is the 
one I trust most to include everything.

-m 





From dontask2much at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 24 05:41:42 2006
From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 00:41:42 -0500
Subject: The Potion in the Cave Possibly Revealed (Re: Dumbledore MAY be alive....)
References: <15a.60a1c512.3154c640@aol.com>
Message-ID: <00ff01c64f05$a1c37590$6401a8c0@MITRE.ORG>

No: HPFGUIDX 149966

> Bart:
>> He drank SOMETHING. The major reason I think that  Dumbledore is
>> dead is that JKR is too good a writer to have him be secretly
>> alive.
>>
<snipped other great conversation and posts>
>
> Nikkalmati:
>
<snip>

> The second clue is the portrait.  Why doesn't it behave like the
> other portraits, especially after the funeral?  The fact that DD
> appears to be sleeping indicates IMO that he is not dead in the
> same way as the figures in the other portraits.  Of course, there
> could simply be a delay in having a portrait come alive, but we
> have not been given any such explanation in canon.
>

Rebecca, now:

If there's a clue in this, putting these 2 snippets of yours and Bart's 
together rather makes one think Draught of  Living Death or Sleeping Potion, 
doesn't it? What's intriguing about this is we're told that the DoLD is 
pink, and pale pink, at its last stages and the Sleeping Potion is purple, 
so that would lead you to think neither of those is correct.  But consider 
these statements from HBP:

(Slughorn's first exercise in Potions, DoLD at the last stage) "Harry 
stirred counterclockwise, held his breath, and stirred once clockwise. The 
effect was immediate. The potion turned pale pink."

And let's not forget this in the same chapter: "Harry glanced around. As far 
as he could see, no one else's potion had turned as pale as his."

Then there's Harry and Dumbledore in the cave later in the book: "Sure 
enough, the greenish light seemed to be growing larger at last, and within 
minutes, the boat had come to a halt, bumping gently into something that 
Harry could not see at first."

"The basin was full of an emerald liquid emitting that phosphorescent glow"

"Was this why he had been invited along - so that he could force-feed 
Dumbledore a potion that might cause him unendurable pain?"

Now, let's recall that the "DoLD seems to be pale pink when completed" 
thingy I mentioned prior. I'm a certified scuba instructor with some 500 or 
so dives under my dive belt - I know what fish and coral look like 
underwater on cloudy day 30 ft underwater and red is a color you don't see 
naturally unless you have bright sunlight and very clear water or add 
filters or additional bright light -without much light, red fades and looks 
like a bright variant of the subdued light around it, for lack of a better 
description.   Pink is a color made by mixing red and white, and in pale 
pink, more white than red.  Remember, red is the one of the lowest 
frequencies of light discernable by the human eye and white by its nature 
reflects light. If there is a greenish light above the potion, one could 
submit it is actually absorbing what it can and then reflecting back what it 
cannot absorb based on the natural color of the potion in ambient or white 
light.  The phosphorescent glow could be the reflection of the white color 
portion of the potion - the pink creates an eyeball impression of a brighter 
green.

You can actually duplicate this and see the emerald color describing the 
potion in the cave by using 2 appropriately colored boxes in any paint 
program (even Powerpoint using colored text boxes, which I used first to 
try.) I used 1 box as pale pink as the base, full color, and the other box 
slightly bigger at about a 20% transparency to duplicate low light, since we 
know the cave was very dark as Harry couldn't even tell what the rowboat 
bumped into when it came to rest on the island where the potion and light 
were.  I will mention that whatever transparency you use, you'll see that 
the color remains a heightened green where the pale pink box resides with 
the green overlay.

Just so you know, the purple experiment of this (for the Sleeping Potion as 
its described) revealed a *darker* shade of green, since deep blue and red 
make up that color. The purple hasn't any white in the mix, so the 
phosphorescent glow or reflection of light wouldn't occur.

Tricky, tricky that JKR, hm?  IMO, DD drank some souped up Draught of Living 
Death.

Rebecca



.





From chonpschonps at hotmail.com  Fri Mar 24 06:17:02 2006
From: chonpschonps at hotmail.com (xuxunette)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 06:17:02 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore MAY be alive....
In-Reply-To: <15a.60a1c512.3154c640@aol.com>
Message-ID: <e002su+k2oh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149967

Greetings everyone, this is my first post :)

I wanted to reply to this thread because the theory of Dumbledore
being alive surprises me. 

Nikkalmati: snip
> DD's body burst into flames in exactly the same way as his phoenix. 
> Harry even sees a phoenix rising from the smoke.  Is this supposed 
> to mean nothing?  Is it a red herring?  What other explanation is 
> there than that DD was reborn?  Of course if you think about Fawkes 
> he returned as a baby bird, so DD may not be able to return to help 
> Harry.  He may alive as an infant somewhere.

Dumbledore's figure is one of experience and wisdom, and a role model
of goodness for Harry. Even if he was reborn as an infant, what good
could he could be to the story?


> The second clue is the portrait.  Why doesn't it behave like the 
> other portraits, especially after the funeral? The fact that DD 
> appears to be sleeping indicates IMO that he is not dead in the 
> same way as the figures in the other portraits. 

It's more convincingly a way to indicate that DD is truly dead, that
his active role in the story has ended. By making the portrait
passive, JKR shows efficiently that there is truly no help to be
expected from Dumbledore anymore, even from his magical representation.


Bart:
> The major reason I think that  Dumbledore is
> dead is that JKR is too good a writer to have him be secretly
> alive.

I agree with that. But more importantly, I think DD is truly dead 
because if it was not the case, it would be like dream come true for
Harry; making the story a fairy tale, in which wrongness and injustice
can't happen for real. And I don't think that it's the aim of the HP
books.

As I understand it, the HP books are about a kid growing up in the
most cruel of world. It is for this kid to become someone when life
just doesn't stop hurtling shit his way. We were shown what Voldemort
did to respond to life's injustices. The books really are about what
Harry is going to do whilst he has been wronged as badly. And that's
why DD must be dead.

Dumbledore's death makes you want to be angry and to cry. It is
terribly wrong and sad, and it's the reason it has to be. Ultimately,
DD's death, like Sirius', serve one essential purpose: to hurt Harry.


xuxu :) 

















From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 24 08:31:18 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:31:18 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dvvu0q+r2i4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e00aom+8n68@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149968

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> 
wrote:
  

> 
> Why should it be so hard to understand that for JKR's characters,
> and maybe even for JKR herself, lives are a much bigger deal than
> feelings? There's nothing artificial or inconsistent about that, 
it's
> just a different set of values.
> 

I don't know, I certainly find Dumbledore, the "epitome of goodness" 
to be artificial and inconsistent.  I suppose it's hard to understand 
the values that's supposed to represent because they are bizarre, 
extreme, and frankly, imo, often reprehensible.

Now, I think the problem is that often things in the HP series aren't 
supposed to represent values at all.  They are supposed to represent 
plot points.  However, they come across sometimes as representing 
values -- and thus why I think JKR is honestly taken aback by fan 
reactions to certain things.  Once again, as I've said before, JKR is 
often a victim of the problem of three:  What she thinks she's 
writing, what we read, and what's actually there are three different 
things, and often don't have that much resemblance to one another.


Lupinlore









From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 24 08:41:49 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:41:49 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV
In-Reply-To: <dvusfc+70vf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e00bcd+7ssk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149969

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> 
wrote:

> 

> 
> Keep in mind, with the plot the way it is, Harry may still defeat 
> Snape and LV. Snape is not yet guaranteed to be saved, redeemed or 
> restored. Of course, saved, redeemed, restored would please many of 
> us. 
> 

You are right, although I don't see Snape as someone who needs to be 
defeated.  That would be postulating an ESE!Snape, which I have 
always agreed is not in the cards (Grey!Snape being my favored 
option, with a nod to OFH!Snape).

Saved, redeemed, and restored?  Hmmm.  Well, restored would be 
tricky, imo, although not impossible.  The main argument against it 
would be, I suppose, that Snape's whole character is so totally 
oriented toward the past that there would simply be no place for him 
in the post-Voldemort universe.

Saved and redeemed?  Also tricky, as it would involve, imo, redeeming 
a child abuser without tacitly expressing approval of his actions and 
behavior.  Not an easy thing to do.

<Shrug>  We will see, I suppose.


Lupinlore








From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Mar 24 14:35:31 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 14:35:31 -0000
Subject: ah, the mysteries
In-Reply-To: <36BD3F6D-8A16-4CDB-8C54-4DC09460609E@polytechnique.org>
Message-ID: <e0103j+i3as@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149970

> Olivier:
> 
> PS: I reiterate that I don't believe in this theory, in my opinion,  
> Arthur had to stay alive (even if it was extremely improbable) not  
> because everything was staged but because JKR needed the plot point  
> that Harry liked his visions. Just as she needed the plot point that  
> Harry save Pettigrew, so that she had to make Lupin and Sirius  
> killers, and Hermione and Ron passive witnesses.
> 

Pippin:
But JKR seems highly satisfied with the  message of her books.
She calls them very moral and doesn't seem to think there'll be any
doubt in the end about what her moral position is. She could
easily have arranged things so that Lupin did not look like a 
cold blooded killer -- she has shown him in the grip of emotion
many times.

No doubt Lupin is as kind to Harry as he can afford to be, and
Snape is as hateful, but is the moral conflict in the
books  between kind people and hateful ones?  I think not --
it's between those who see power and hate as worth
killing for  and those who do not. 

Nagini sparing Arthur is  well in character for Voldemort. 
Once Voldemort became aware that Harry was 
along for the ride he would immediately see that killing Arthur 
was  less to his advantage than allowing Harry to think that his 
visions had saved him. Killing has always meant less to Voldemort 
than power -- that's established in PS/SS when he orders Lily to
stand aside, and confirmed in CoS when he casually declares that
killing Mudbloods and Muggles doesn't matter any more.

Pippin






From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Fri Mar 24 14:55:37 2006
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:55:37 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: But DID James listen? (was LID!Snape rides again )
In-Reply-To: <dvvn15+f061@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY101-F102824AB9D73E9D81040E791DF0@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 149971

  Sydney:
 > Sirius being innocent is unthinkable for Snape because he's been here
 > before-- he's been trying to convince people not to trust Sirius, and
 > people didn't listen to him, and people died.  That's why he says,
 > "DON'T TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND", and why he screams at
 > Harry for suggesting that Snape is prejudiced against Sirius "just
 > because he made a fool of you at school", which is probably JUST what
 > James said 14 years before, when Snape was trying to convince him not
 > to make Sirius secret-keeper.  I think he just can't BELIEVE he's
 > still having this conversation.  I mean, picture Harry at some point
 > in Book VII if someone was trying to convince him that he was wrong
 > about Snape!
 >

PJ:

I've snipped 99% of an interesting exchange just to zero in on this one 
paragraph.  Forgive me, both of you (Neri, Sydney) but here is where my 
question is.  :-)

Each time this SK thing is brought up I hear people say "and Snape is upset 
and frustrated because James wouldn't listen" BUT, this doesn't ring true 
for the simple reason that the secret keeper *was* changed from Sirius to 
Peter!

What if James didn't ignore Snape's warning at all?  What if the *real* 
reason behind the SK change was Snape?  After all, Snape had inside info 
from Voldemort's side and Dumbledore "trusted Snape completely"...  It would 
only make sense to listen, wouldn't it?

I keep reading that Sirius was all set to become the secret keeper.  
Everyone is told this so it seems pretty certain to happen.  So, why 
suddenly was Peter chosen instead?  I mean, if James had truly ignored 
Snape's warning then then he'd have *insisted* Sirius remain the SK, right?  
  But in fact, James *did* change the SK to Peter which is what ultimately 
got him and Lily killed!

I know... We're also told by Sirius that the reason behind the change was to 
throw Voldemort off the scent but perhaps that's the story given to him by 
James in order not to hurt his feelings in case Snape was wrong?  He was 
James' best friend so there would be no way James would ever turn around and 
say "You know Sirius, I've decided on Snape's say so that you aren't to be 
trusted with the lives of my wife and child so I'm making Peter secret 
keeper instead".

With James and Sirius both dead we may never know what the true story is, 
but it seems to me that Snape's warning did NOT go unheeded and that his 
warning, rather than saving the Potters, was actually what caused their 
death!

I wonder at what point this starts to dawn on Snape...

PJ





From sydpad at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 24 16:46:13 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 16:46:13 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dvvn15+f061@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e017ol+4m6o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149972

Neri:
> And in fact it is not certain at
> all that a mechanism even *exists*, in the sense that the Life Debt
> magic may be similar to Lily's Ancient Magic, which is also not very
> consistent. This is why I asked you if you can explain how Peter could
> touch Harry in the graveyard without suffering the pain Quirrell
> suffered. 

Sydney:
Sorry, I missed that question the first time around-- wansn't the pain
Quirrel suffered due to the fact that he was possessed by Voldemort at
the time?  It's only Voldemort who can't touch Harry, that's why he
used Harry's blood for the potion, wasn't it?  I don't think it's ever
been suggested that Lily's protection works against anyone else-- the
magic happened between Lily, Harry, and Voldemort.  Crouch Jr. could
touch Harry in GoF, couldn't he-- I mean, he's certainly touching him
when he's pulling him away from the crowd at the end of the book.  

Neri:
> The important point is that *regardless of the exact mechanism* LID
> still works very well. We have the canon evidence of Dumbledore words
> in SS/PS, 

Sydney:
Would that be the bit where he talks about how funny it is how
people's minds work?  Which would be canon evidence that however the
life debt works, it's not a compulsion or a deadly-curse-like-thing? 
Just checking.

Neri:
and the whole Snape plot throughout the books suddenly makes
> a lot of literary sense ? a well-laid buildup all leading to the
> climax in Book 7, when Snape would finally repay the Debt. And
> generally LID!Snape works with less explanations and assumptions than
> any other Snape theory. 


*raises eyebrows*  By the sheer volume of typing, all hedged about
with the explanation that it's not necessary that it be consistent
anyways, I would dispute this.  

Anyways, it would work in a literary way if there wasn't a mainspring
emotional tension of Harry hating Snape that's been intesifying
throught the series, and peaking as it should at the turn of the 3rd
act; if there wasn't a thematic undercurrent about the necessity of
unity in the Houses; if there weren't so many additional Snape
mysteries such as why he wants the DADA job and why he took the UV; if
JKR wasn't writing a series in the tradition of recognition dramas
(such as Jane Austen wrote); if the theme of the books wasn't the
power of Love; and if, basically, the whole series was your
cut-and-dried, the good-are-good-and-the-bad-are-bad piece of
Hollywood crap such as I regretfully slog through daily;  essentially,
yeah, it would make literary sense in the sense that it wouldn't make
literary sense at all.  It simply doesn't fit the genre.  This is a
drama of emotions reconciliation;  and the battle against Voldemort is
a spiritual battle, not a physical one.  

Neri:
>When I'm arguing
> against DDM!Snape I have to argue against at least five different
> versions of what happened on the tower, eight different versions of
> what happened in Spinner's End, and all their possible combinations,
> frequently mutating in real time and complicated to an arbitrary
> degree, with no unifying theme that I can discern except getting
Snape off the hook by all costs. 

Sydney:
<g>  That's because there's so many different people that hold the
DDM!Snape theory, and we're all wonderfully individual.  All
anti!Snapers are the same though, the blackguards-- all desperate to
avoid Snape having proper motivations or being anything other than a
black-hearted villain!   
 
> > Neri:
> > >But unlike Snape during VW1, Peter doesn't have the
> > > option of going to the other side anymore, certainly not as a
> > > double-agent the way Snape did. Peter has to rebel against Voldy
> > > openly or continue following orders and hope that Harry would
somehow
> > > escape death. 
> > 
> > Sydney:
> > Or, of course, he could simply not have gone to Albania and
> > single-handedly resurrected Voldemort.  
> > 
> > Shall I type that again?  Or, he could not have gone to Albania and
> > single-handedly resurrected Voldemort.  Boy, I bet he slapped his
> > forehead with a resounding slap after he did that one!  
> > 
> 
> Neri:
> You can type it as many times as you like, but there's no evidence
> that Peter ever knew what the prophecy said. Actually there isn't any
> evidence that Peter even knew there *was* a prophecy at all.
> Therefore, unlike Snape, Peter didn't know that this is all between
> Voldy and Harry, and he couldn't know that Voldy's first and foremost
> priority when coming back from Albania would be killing Harry Potter.
> I'd bet he *did* slap his forehead. In fact, if you read his words in
> GoF Ch. 1 again you can almost see the bruise <g>.  

Sydney:
So, it wouldn't have occured to Peter, who was an order member and
secret keeper, who knew that Harry was famous for having defeated
Voldemort as a baby-- it wouldn't have occurred to him that Voldemort
might, at some point, want to kill Harry.  So, he could blithely go
off and cheerfully resurrect Voldemort with a qualm.  Because, you
know, Voldemort's a forgive-and-forget, live-and-let-live sort of
guy-- why would have a priority to kill the guy who killed him the
first time?  That's crazy talk! 

Doesn't everyone know, even in PS, that Voldemort wants to kill Harry?
 Nobody needs the Prophecy to know this.  The Prophecy just says that
Harry has the power to kill Voldemort with the Power he knows not.

Anyways,  now idiot!Peter, rather than abandon the helpless fetus
Voldemort when it became clear that his plans would inevitably result
in Peter's death in the immediate future, Peter stuck by him, fed him
regularly, extracted a promise of a shiny silver hand post-potion
making (despite the pointlessness of such a promise, as Peter would
have his magic hand for mere minutes before he died of the Killer Life
Debt), and did everything he could to help Voldemort in this suicidal
plan, except for the amazingly out of character actions of whining and
cringing a bit.  Yeeeeeesss... 



> > Sydney:
> > Their hilarious sitcom of course!  Sorry, nothing to do with the
> > argument, I just think they really do have a hilarious sitcom.  <snip>
>  
> Neri:
> You know, I don't think I'll ever understand how the mind of you
> LOLLIPOPS people works. Here we see Snape living in the same house
> with the man responsible to the death of his beloved Lily, and you
> think it's a good *sitcom*??

*tries to understand the mindset of someone who would take a book so
seriously that they are deprived of a sense of humour.*  
*Fails*

> 
> > Sydney:
> > Your argument on why Dumbledore "trusts Snape completely" is the
> > following:
> > 
> > Neri, 149736:
> > >Snape can only stay alive if Dumbledore
> > >and the Order manage to win the war and guard James, so Snape
would be
> > >a fool to harm anybody in the Order. And if the Order wins and
> > >Voldemort loses, Snape would need Dumbledore to save him from
Azkaban.
> > >In such a situation Dumbledore has a very good reason to trust that
> > Snape is on his side.
> > 
> > And then, to explain the UV, you add that Snape must also owe a Life
> > Debt to Dumbledore, because Dumbledore magically transferred the Life
> > Debt to Harry, that would otherwise have killed Snape when James died,
> > and then THAT Life Debt was paid off when Snape saved Dumbledore, so
> > now Snape is free to kill him, which is why he took the UV.  Which,
> > may I say, just goes to show you why "Dumbledore trusts Snape
> > completely because of the Life Debt to Harry" makes no sense
> > whatsoever.  Because if someone's a stone-cold killer except for this
> > one little thing, they're going to do things like that.  Silly
> Dumbledore!
> > 
> 
> Neri:
> Dumbledore knows that until Snape repays the Debt, he can be trusted
> completely to save Harry's life. Moreover, Dumbledore hopes (and I
> believe rightly so) that when Snape finally *pays* the Debt, he will
> have no choice but to do it right in front of Voldemort, because it
> will be in a situation of an actual duel between Voldemort and Harry,
> and Harry would be dead if not for Snape. 

Sydney:
So, Dumbledore trusts Snape completely, but only in the circumstance
of a direct duel between Harry and Voldemort.  This is obviously what
he meant when he kept telling the Order that he trusted Snape
completely and wouldn't hear a word against him-- that he didn't trust
him at all, least of all completely.  Of course, Peter can't be
trusted completely even in the case of a direct duel between Harry and
Voldemort, but it's not like this magic or people's characters have to
be consistent or anything.

Neri:
> It's precisely the thematic value of the Debt. Since the Debt
> represents true remorse, Snape will not succeed in repaying it and
> still remain on the side of Evil, no matter how hard he tries to do
> just that. 

Sydney:
I can't wait for the bit in Book 7 where it turns out that Ginny
slipped Harry a love potion, because it would be such a great thematic
representation of true love, don't you think?    


> > Sydney:
> > Now if you're going to BEG for a reprise of my UV theory, which I DID
> > lay out in painful detail in post #149418, "High Noon for
> OFH!Snape",<snip theory>
> 
> Neri:
> Your theory requires some big assumptions there in order to get around
> DDM!Snape taking the third clause of the UV. With the same number of
> assumptions I could easily get rid of any inconsistency between
> Snape's and Peter's Debts. LID can incorporate much simpler
> explanations for the UV. For example, the single sentence explanation:
> "Snape was in love with Narcissa since they were at Hogwarts
> together". The reason LID can incorporate such simple solutions is
> that it doesn't have any problem with Snape taking a Vow to kill
> Dumbledore, while DDM must invent some complex story to explain it.
> This is one reason why LID is so much more straightforward and simple.

Sydney:
Right, because "Snape was in love with Narcissa, and ready to die for
this love, and JKR just put that in without any relationship to the
plot whatsoever" IS simple!  So much simpler than "Snape didn't expect
the third part of the Vow".  Wow, that's just... when you put it that
way, I can see how that would be way to complicated.  And it's not
hinted at in the text even, the unexpectedness- like a jerking hand,
or Narcissa not mentioning that she was going to put it in.  And the
idea that Snape was prepared to die when he voluntarily took a Vow
that had a good chance of killing him... no, you're right.  Way too
complicated.  I guess I'll go with, "out of nowhere, in Book 6, we
find out that Snape has a powerful emotional tie to an entirely
peripheral character, actually, we don't really find out, we have to
assume it, but anyways, this emotional tie of love, for which he is
prepared to die, rather than pulling him to the good side as would
make thematic sense, actually just consolidates his ties to the dark
side, which he doesn't need anyways, seeing as he's Evil."


> > > Neri:
> > > As I have explained in recent posts, I think Snape didn't intend to
> > > kill Dumbledore before he can save Harry's life and repay the Debt.
> > > Draco's unforeseen action forced Snape to kill Dumbledore on the
tower
> > > or die. 
> > Sydney:
> > *puzzled* Snape didn't foresee that Draco couldn't kill Dumbledore? 
> > Is that why he took the UV, because he thought, "ha!  Dumbledore
> > hasn't got a chance against Draco Malfoy"?
> >
> 
> Neri:
> Oops, sorry. I guess I'm too used by now to thinking like
> double-agent-for-real!Snape, so what looks obvious to me perhaps isn't
> obvious to a DDM!Snaper. I'll explain this in more detail. Snape most
> probably thought Draco doesn't stand a chance killing Dumbledore.
<snip> During all these many
> months Snape would have a chance to repay the Debt. Once the Debt is
> out of the way, Snape would finally be free to go back to Voldemort's
> side, and wouldn't care about killing Dumbledore anymore. 

Sydney
Um, so Snape, suddenly assuming for no reason that this was the year
out of the last sixteen when a handy opportunity for saving Harry
would finally turn up, simply abandons your previous policy of being
completley on Dumbledore's side and shoring up the Order so Harry
wouldn't die.  And in the meantime, takes a Vow that he'll die if
either he can't protect Draco and kill Dumbleodore.   For no
particular reason.  No, wait, because he's in love with Narcissa. 
Couldn't he have simply saved himself all this trouble to begin with,
by staying on Voldemort's side from the start, and standing by for the
much, much more likely opportunity of merely saving James during a
DE/Order firefight?  The more you explain this theory, the less sense
it makes.  Now Snape would ALWAYS be operating under the assumption
that he's going to save Harry any minute now, so it's not going to
affect any of his other actions regarding the war-- and actually, he
can do this while being on either side.  So, he's NOT on Dumbledore's
side at all, even 'effectively'.  So, as all evil!Snape theories
ultimately requre, Dumbledore's an idiot.


>  
> > Sydney:
> > I'm not saying that JKR doens't LOVE to make people suffer, because
> > she certainly does!  I'm saying that she wouldn't see using magic to
> > FORCE people to feel things they otherwise wouldn't as a good thing.
> > 
> 
> Neri:
> You mean, like using the prophecy to make Harry want to kill Voldemort? 

Sydney:
Correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't Dumbledore say that, in fact, that
the Prophecy DOESN'T force Harry to kill Voldemort at all?  He says
that Voldemort's following the Prophecy has resulted in a set of
circumstances where Harry will want to kill Voldemort.  Gee, sort of
like that DADA situational magic, come to think of it.  So, maybe the
life debt resulted in Snape wanting to save James, because
circumstances resulted in Lily inextricably being endagnered with him?
 So much more thematic, don't you think?  Because much as Snape hates
James,the Life Debt is a connection between them, representative of
the connection between all human beings-- a connection ultimately of
love?   I'm not really theorizing here, but the Prophecy example is
exactly what I'm talking about-- JKR simply doesn't use magic to force
people to do things.  She prefers self-fullfilling prophecies, like
the one in MacBeth, as she said.

Anyways, do you really think the book is going that way?  That, as
Harry says, he's now bound to be a murderer?  You don't think there's
going to be, like, a twist or something? 


> Neri:
> But this is precisely my point against DDM!Snape. Snape doesn't give a
> damn what Harry feels, he'd rather Harry feels like crap generally, so
> how can he be trying to save Harry's life out of true, conclusive
> remorse? DDM!Snape is absurd. You're saying that yourself, but you can
> only see it when you think it's my theory. When it's your theory it
> suddenly makes sense to you.
> 
> If Snape feels any remorse, it's obvious that it is limited in an
> extremely artificial and arbitrary way. It's only working for trying
> to save Harry's life, but not for any care for Harry's feeling. So
> what is the more likely explanation for that? That these restrictions
> on his remorse are a result of an arbitrarily schizoid character, or
> that they are a result of a magic with arbitrary clauses? 

Sydney:
See, and this is where we hit the unsolvable disagreement.  You are
asking me to explain how a double-agent ridden with guilt and shame
could possibly be an unpleasant person who lashes out at the source of
his feelings.  I feel like you're asking me to justify this ridiculous
assertion that blue and yellow, when mixed, make green.  Yeah, it's a
bit unexpected.  But, I dunno, years of living in this world have led
me to the conclusion that blue and yellow indeed make green, and that
guilt and shame tend to make people behave worse, not better.  

  
Yikes!  Off to work,

-- Sydney, happy to know that Neri at least is now aware that it
really does take that long for Snape to figure out what happened and
send help, at the end of OoP.






From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Fri Mar 24 16:59:36 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 16:59:36 -0000
Subject: But DID James listen? (was LID!Snape rides again )
In-Reply-To: <BAY101-F102824AB9D73E9D81040E791DF0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <e018ho+9suc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149973

PJ:
> Each time this SK thing is brought up I hear people say "and Snape 
is upset 
> and frustrated because James wouldn't listen" BUT, this doesn't 
ring true 
> for the simple reason that the secret keeper *was* changed from 
Sirius to 
> Peter!

Ceridwen:
I've thought the same thing.  I brought it up to a friend (I don't 
think it was on-list, though) and she disagreed with me.  She thought 
that James and Sirius came to the idea independently, perhaps even in 
spite of, what Snape had to say.  It's certain that Snape got the 
impression that James was ignoring his warning.  He thought Sirius 
was the SK at least through PoA.

PJ:
> What if James didn't ignore Snape's warning at all?  What if the 
*real* 
> reason behind the SK change was Snape?  After all, Snape had inside 
info 
> from Voldemort's side and Dumbledore "trusted Snape completely"...  
It would 
> only make sense to listen, wouldn't it?

Ceridwen:
You'd think so.  As I said, I agree that the change did take place, 
and probably after Snape's warning.  I'm not as much of a maven of 
the books as some others.  I don't know if Snape represented himself 
as coming from Dumbledore, or if he just snarkily cast aspersions on 
Sirius's character.  I can see it happening both ways, but have no 
canon at hand to choose one over the other.

But, how about this for a scenario:  James rejects Snape's warning 
initially, but he and Sirius decide that, since Snape, probably known 
as LV's man at that time, knew that they would use Sirius as SK, they 
decided on the strength of that possibly being common DE knowledge, 
to change the SK?  If Snape thinks Sirius will be, then so does LV.  
James would want to protect his friend from possible torture and 
murder, and here's Snape effectively saying that Sirius is the first 
suspect for SK in LV's eyes.  So, initial rejection, then 
reconsidering and having Snape's warning as at least one reason to 
change SKs.

PJ:
> I know... We're also told by Sirius that the reason behind the 
change was to 
> throw Voldemort off the scent but perhaps that's the story given to 
him by 
> James in order not to hurt his feelings in case Snape was wrong? 

Ceridwen:
Throwing LV off the scent could have been the overriding reason.  I 
thought Sirius was involved in the decision, so he would know what 
was discussed.  If James had another motive he didn't mention, then 
Sirius wouldn't know it.  James could have used Snape's warning as 
just another reason to support changing SKs.  People often have more 
than one reason to do things.

PJ:
> I wonder at what point this starts to dawn on Snape...

Ceridwen:
Interesting, if it does.  That would have to be after he learned that 
PP was SK instead of Sirius, so at the end of PoA or after.  I wonder 
if he is ever supposed to wonder about that.  Since it appears that 
Sirius's version is supposed to be the factual one (my opinion), I'm 
not even sure if we're supposed to wonder!

Ceridwen.






From sydpad at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 24 18:02:49 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 18:02:49 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dvvn15+f061@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e01c89+66na@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149974

> Sydney:
> Sirius being innocent is unthinkable for Snape because he's been here
> before-- he's been trying to convince people not to trust Sirius, and
> people didn't listen to him, and people died.  That's why he says,
> "DON'T TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND", and why he screams at
> Harry for suggesting that Snape is prejudiced against Sirius "just
> because he made a fool of you at school", which is probably JUST what
> James said 14 years before, when Snape was trying to convince him not
> to make Sirius secret-keeper.  I think he just can't BELIEVE he's
> still having this conversation.  I mean, picture Harry at some point
> in Book VII if someone was trying to convince him that he was wrong
> about Snape!
>

Neri:
>This is *one* theory. It's a theory that doesn't have any support in
>canon except for your interpretation of this sentence. A sentence
>explained just as well by LID!Snape, which does have strong support in
>canon. Moreover, your theory doesn't have any future, because Sirius
>is dead and Snape's issues with him are of little importance to Book
>7. In contrast, the LID explanation of this sentence leads directly
>to a big BANGy climax in Book 7.

Part II-- 

Sorry, just wanted to get this in-- I don't see how Snape being angry
because people don't believe him about Sirius is even a theory.  It's
canon.  He argues with Dumbledore about it a few pages later.  He
tells Harry that James was too arrogant to believe he was mistaken
about Sirius.  This doesn't even conflict with your LID!Theory.  I'm
just saying you don't NEED the Killer Life Debt to explain why Snape
is angry that people think Sirius is innocent, there's a perfectly
good reason right there in the text.

And as to how this plays in to the future:  well, I'm so very, very
fond of the parallels between Snape hating Sirius, and Harry hating
Snape, that I'm dying to see the Shrieking Shack replayed-- with Snape
as the actually-innocent Sirius, and Harry as the outraged revenger.
Oh, the irony... and Dumbledore was too foolish and trusting to
believe he could be mistaken in Snape!  And Harry is so desperate to
collect reasons to hate and distrust Snape more, and so eager for him
to be the villain!  And there's no possible way that Snape could
actually be innocent!  And Harry's already been practicing his CAPSLOCK! 

-- Sydney







From finwitch at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 24 18:38:46 2006
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 18:38:46 -0000
Subject: Maligning Lupin/werewolves
In-Reply-To: <dvvsdq+10e0r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e01ebm+re00@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149975


> > > Pippin:
> > > Why does the  moon appear and disappear *before* Lupin 
transforms? 
> > > Why did JKR give an evasive answer when asked whether Lupin 
> > > transformed inside the shack? She's usually  willing to admit 
it 
> > > when she just flubbed up.

--
> 
> Ostensibly, Lupin transformed by chance when exposed to the
> rays of the moon which appeared suddenly from behind a cloud. Yet
> common sense and the moon's previous appearance suggest that
> his transformations occur at a predictable time during the moon
> cycle. Fenrir's ability to position himself near potential victims
> also argues that a werewolf can predict when he will transform.
> 
> You can certainly argue that even though Lupin should have known 
> exactly when he would transform, he lost track of the time and was 
> taken by surprise, inadvertently allowing Peter to escape.
> 
> But if he did know exactly when he would transform, then he could
> also have positioned himself so that his transformation would
> *allow* Peter to escape. 

Finwitch:

I think that, in part, that had to do with the Potion. A werewolf, I 
believe, is usually able to *feel* when Moon is close to full. And, 
in part, the infamous DADA-teacher curse. Still, Lupin was IMO quite 
irresponsible there. (Not in missing the potion - that was Snape's 
responsibility - nor in going to the shack where he had transformed 
as a kid, but in volunteering to guard Peter with chains. What on 
earth got THAT into his mind?).

Also, as Fenrir so clearly shows us, it *is* possible for a werewolf 
to transform at will without the moon - likely something that needs 
to be learned, though. At full moon they MUST transform, though.

As for the particular incident Harry wanted to talk to Sirius (and 
Lupin) about... that clearly took place *after* Marauders had learned 
animagi. Their presence helped Lupin because, in a deep sense, they 
became his *pack*. A true wolf is most dangerous to humans/dogs if 
it's a lonely wolf. A wolf within a pack, OTOH, would be likely to 
avoid humans and hunt deer&such... 

As for other matters -- Pack is a hierarchy. Supposedly the werewolf-
pack will assert their hierarchy within the pack every full moon, and 
the set hierarchy will stay the same until it changes. In that little 
pack, I think that James and Sirius outranked Moony. (Which is why he 
stayed out of that little thing with Snape&Lily.) That also explains 
why Lupin never told Dumbledore about Sirius being animagus. Because 
Padfoot was still pack, despite of everything he believed of him.

I also think Lupin asserted authority over Sirius that night - I 
mean, in OOP: Molly vs. Sirius: Lupin interferes.
'Sirius, sit down.' Sirius sits - quite meekly - without a word. 
(soon after adnominshing Snape not to give orders, even so much as 
telling Harry to sit down, in his house?)

And then, when Sirius is about to go to Snape about quitting 
Occlumency...
Again, Lupin just tells him 'if someone will, it will be me.' and 
Sirius doesn't even argue. Never with Lupin, when he argues with 
everyone else, including Dumbledore.

Got me thinking -- could it be that during those times Sirius 
enclosed himself -- was it full moon? We never saw Lupin either 
during that time, did we? Did Sirius perhaps become a werewolf that 
night in the sack, not that any but Lupin knew?

Finwitch







From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Fri Mar 24 18:41:19 2006
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 18:41:19 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV.
In-Reply-To: <dvv0lt+ff3v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e01egf+l1hs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149976

"merrillsyndrome" <merrillsyndrome at ...> wrote:

> It is true that to perform an AK you have 
> to feel hatred but where does it say that
> you have to feel hatred toward the person
> that the  urse is directed at? 

To answer your question, it says so on page 810 Order of the Phoenix:

"You need to mean it Potter! You need to want to cause pain- to enjoy
it-righteous anger won't hurt me for long"

Eggplant







From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Fri Mar 24 18:55:41 2006
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 18:55:41 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV.
In-Reply-To: <dvvmg2+5oq2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e01fbd+3f8d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149977

"juli17ptf" <juli17 at ...> wrote:

> I never  said anything remotely close
> to "Snape could kill all the Death Eaters 
> in the Tower so easily it wouldn't even
> be sporting"--not remotely!

My apologies, you are absolutely correct! I got my Snape lovers mixed
up. It was Pippin not you who said Dumbledore wouldn't want Snape " to
defy everything the Order stands for and kill four relatively
defenseless people" By "defenseless people" read murderous Death Eaters.

Eggplant  
 








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 24 19:19:20 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 19:19:20 -0000
Subject: The Potion in the Cave Possibly Revealed (Re: Dumbledore MAY be alive....)
In-Reply-To: <00ff01c64f05$a1c37590$6401a8c0@MITRE.ORG>
Message-ID: <e01gno+knq5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149978

Rebecca wrote:
> 
<snip>
> "The basin was full of an emerald liq?uid emitting that
phosphorescent glow"
> 
> "Was this why he had been invited along - so that he could
force-feed Dumbledore a potion that might cause him unendurable pain?"
> 
<snip scuba diving details>
If there is a greenish light above the potion, one could submit it is
actually absorbing what it can and then reflecting back what it cannot
absorb based on the natural color of the potion in ambient or white
light.  The phosphorescent glow could be the reflection of the white
color portion of the potion - the pink creates an eyeball impression
of a brighter green.
<snip>
> 
> Tricky, tricky that JKR, hm?  IMO, DD drank some souped up Draught
of Living Death.

Carol responds:
I can't claim to be an expert on color and lighting, but AFAIK,
there's no indication that JKR is, either. It's simpler to consider
green as the actual color of the potion and to note the frequent
association of the color green in the HP series with death and poison.
(I'm not talking here about eye color or House colors, just spells and
potions and evil creatures.)

Granted, green is not always associated with evil; Ron's "Eat Slugs"
curse is relatively harmless and the green flames that result from
tossing Floo Powder into a fireplace are safe and useful. But these
spells appear to be exceptions to the general rule, in which green is
usually "poisonous," "venomous," or "acid" and often connected with
death. Avada Kedavra, the killing curse, gives off a "blinding flash
of green light," and the Dark Mark as it appears in the sky appears to
be composed of glittering emeralds. The Basilisk in CoS is described
as "a poisonous green" and the Chamber itself is filled with a
"greenish gloom." That the potion protecting the (fake) Horcrux should
glow a "phosphorescent" green is hardly surprising. It announces
itself as deadly, as if daring Voldemort's enemies to attempt to seize
the Horcrux. And it isn't merely the light that glows green. The
potion itself is green: "The basin was full of an emerald liq?uid
emitting that phosphorescent glow" and "Harry saw his face reflected,
upside down, in the smooth surface of the green potion."

As you stated, the Draught of Living Death is not green, nor does it
AFWK cause "unendurable pain" in the drinker. It's a very powerful
sleeping potion that makes the drinker appear to be dead. (Think Snow
White.) I do think we'll see the DLD in Book 7, but in relation to
faked deaths (the Malfoy or Emmeline Vance, possibly, not Dumbledore,
who is, I think, really dead). 

One remote possibility is the Shrinking Solution, which is a bright
acid green when correctly made and can be poisonous when brewed
improperly, but that seems like a long shot since no shrinking is
involved and if it's acid green, it *won't* be poisonous.

I think it's more likely, as I've suggested elsewhere, that the potion
is some sort of poisoned memory. The stone basin in which the potion
is placed is described as being "rather like the Pensieve," and the
green light emanating from the basin is "misty," like the mist that
rises from a Pensieve. After drinking several gobletsful of the
potion, Dumbledore seems to be "dreaming a horrible dream," reliving
terrible memories that may or may not be his own. (IMO, they're not
his, but that's another topic.) But the potion itself seems to be
causing him pain, physical agony as well as mental anguish:
"Dumbledore drank like a child dying of thirst, but when he had
finished, he yelled again as though his insides were on fire. 'No
more, please, no more ....'" Clearly the potion causes a terrible
burning sensation, an agonized thirst that causes the drinker to crave
water, which he can only acquire by touching the lake water and waking
the Inferi, but it also weakens the drinker, rendering him helpless.
Dumbledore is "drawing great, rattling breaths that sounded
agonizing," and as Harry's Aguamenti spell repeatedly fails, "his
breathing [is] failing." When Harry splashes him with water, he gains
enough strength to grab the locket and cast a fire spell, but he
remains weak, leaning against the cavern wall after they reach the
shore. Harry notes his "extreme pallor and his air of exhaustion." As
Dumbledore says later, "That was no health drink."

Sorry about the level of detail, but I'm trying to show that this
potion, which glows a phosphorescent green like the Dark Mark hanging
in the sky above Hogwarts, is not the Draught of Living Death but a
poisoned memory that causes both mental and physical agony and greatly
weakens the drinker. Though it does not kill the drinker immediately,
there can be no doubt of its deleterious effects, shown later as
Dumbledore slides helplessly down the tower wall. Nothing except
poison could account for such pain and weakness, but only a memory
could account for the mental anguish that accompanies the physical
agony. IMO, the resemblance of the basin to a Pensieve is not
accidental, nor is the color, so reminiscent of the Dark Mark, Avada
Kedavra, and the "venomous green" Basilisk, a coincidence.

Whatever this potion may be, it is not the Draught of Living Death,
which would simply have sent Dumbledore into a deep and deathlike
sleep. It is, as Dumbledore himself says, "something more worrisome
than blood and bodies," something sinister and deadly and cruel.

Carol, who finds Dumbledore's words to Harry at the end of the
chapter, "I am not worried, Harry. I am with you," the saddest line in
the book










From AllieS426 at aol.com  Fri Mar 24 20:09:53 2006
From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 20:09:53 -0000
Subject: Maligning Lupin
In-Reply-To: <dvvsdq+10e0r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e01jmh+ak5r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149980

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> 
wrote:

>
> Pippin:
> No, but any ESE! character would have to be an occlumens. One of 
the
> reasons I don't think Peter could have been spying for a year is
that he's
> obviously no good at it.
>

Allie:

They'd only need to be an occlumens IF someone else was a talented
legilimens and was trying to read them.  That does beg the question 
of why didn't Dumbledore Legilimens Sirius, Lupin, and Pettigrew to
determine who was the spy.  Regardless, Peter *is* a moderately
talented wizard, spy or no.  He performs quite a bit of nonverbal 
magic in the graveyard.








From juli17 at aol.com  Fri Mar 24 20:34:43 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 15:34:43 -0500
Subject: Snape's moral code
In-Reply-To: <1143189546.967.60412.m19@yahoogroups.com>
References: <1143189546.967.60412.m19@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <8C81D99844C2658-1DD4-3724@FWM-D18.sysops.aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149981

IMO, perhaps the most crucial difference between DDM!Snape and the various other versions of Snape is that DDM!Snape has a moral code. It may be this moral code was present in some manner all along. We're not aware of Snape ever killing or seriously hurting anyone while he was a student (in the manner that Draco tried to kill Dumbledore for instance). If Snape joined the DEs because of his need to belong somewhere, or as retaliation against Dumbledore for siding with the Marauders, then it may be the prophecy debacle was enough to reawaken Snape's moral code about right and wrong, and send him back to Dumbledore. Or it may be that Snape deliberately chose to emulate Dumbledore, the only man he truly admires, and formed this moral code after being disillusioned by Voldemort. (Though I think the former makes more sense.)
 
In any case, this Snape has a moral code, and what defines a moral code where you draw the line, whether it's at never stealing or only stealing if you're starving, never lying or lying if it will produce some good, never killing or killing only in self defence, etc. Snape may not draw the line at verbally harassing or even abusing his students, figuring they deserve it/will have to learn to take it in the real (WW) world. He simply doesn't see it as morally objectionable, even if others do. But he does see doing physical harm to his students as morally objectionable (thus he's not Umbridge), and he does see murder as morally objectionable (thus his reflected pain on killing Dumbledore and being call a coward for it by Harry, even if it was a sanctioned killing and not the cold-blooded murder it appeared to be). 
 
So while Neri's LID!Snape has no real moral code, and is motivated only by the Life Debt, DDM!Snape is not only motivated by his loyalty to Dumbledore, but by his *own* moral code. And there's no discrepancy in Snape being nasty to Harry at every opportunity yet saving Harry's life repeatedly, because it's the latter is the right/moral thing to do by his code. 
 
IMO, 
 
Julie 


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




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 24 20:35:26 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 20:35:26 -0000
Subject: But DID James listen? (was LID!Snape rides again )
In-Reply-To: <e018ho+9suc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e01l6e+2h80@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149982

Ceridwen wrote:
> <snip> It's certain that Snape got the impression that James was
ignoring his warning.  He thought Sirius was the SK at least through PoA.

Carol responds:
I agree with you to this point.

Ceridwen:
> <snip> I don't know if Snape represented himself as coming from
Dumbledore, or if he just snarkily cast aspersions on Sirius's
character.  I can see it happening both ways, but have no canon at
hand to choose one over the other.

Carol:
I don't think there is any canon for what he said or how he presented
himself, only his assertion that James "arrogantly" rejected his
warning. Both would be in character, and his coming from Dumbledore
would explain how he knew there was a Secret Keeper in the first
place. (Voldemort wouldn't know that, and why would Snape make his
connection to Voldemort known? That would hurt his cause, not help it.)
> 
Ceridwen:
> But, how about this for a scenario:  James rejects Snape's warning
initially, but he and Sirius decide that, since Snape, probably known
as LV's man at that time, knew that they would use Sirius as SK, they
 decided on the strength of that possibly being common DE knowledge, 
to change the SK?  

Carol: 

But the SK change was *Sirius's* suggestion, as he states in PoA, not
James's, and I doubt that Sirius Black would do anything that Severus
Snape suggested, not to mention going along with Snape's suggestion
that he, Black, was the traitor. I think Snape approached James and
possibly Lily with no one else present, which would explain why Black,
Lupin, and Pettigrew seem to know nothing about it.

Also, even in GoF, Black has no idea that Snape was a Death Eater, and
surely James would have told him that deliciously Dark tidbit if he
knew it. And if James knew that Snape was a DE, why would he take his
advice?

Straightforward reading (IMO): Snape approaches James alone or with
Lily and tells him that he knows from Dumbledore that one of the
Potters' friends is a traitor who has been leaking secrets to
Voldemort. Mentioning DD's Secret Keeper suggestion would enhance his
credibility: He could not know that unless DD himself had told him.
But James, who has already rejected Dumbledore as Secret Keeper in
favor of Sirius, "arrogantly" rejects Snape's advice. 

Both Dumbledore and Snape continue to think that James will go through
with his plan to make Black the SK; they have no reason to think
otherwise. But Black, thinking that he's being tricky and clever,
suggests Pettigrew instead as the least obvious choice, and the
Potters go along with him, not because of Snape's suggestion but
because he's James's best friend who has his best interests at heart.

Anyway, the only canon we have is that James rejected DD's offer to be
SK and chose Black instead; that Snape says he warned James against
Black and was "arrogantly" rejected; that Black, not James, suggested
the switch to Pettigrew; that Black as late as GoF did not know that
Snape had been a DE (or that he was spying on the DEs for Dumbledore
at the time of the SK switch); and that Snape as of the Shrieking
Shack scene in PoA believed that Pettigrew was dead and that Black
betrayed the Potters. All of this information is based on the word of
the characters involved (Snape, Black, and DD) but there's no reason
(other than an assumption of ESE!Snape) to think that they're lying.

Whether Snape's advice backfired or not, I can't see "the assumption
that the SK was DE common knowledge" being the reason offered for the
SK change. Voldie wouldn't even have known about it unless the traitor
had told him, and as secretive as he is, he certainly wouldn't have
announced something that hadn't happened yet to his DEs. More
important, Snape would not have gone to the Potters and said, "I'm a
DE, but I'm really working for Dumbledore, so I'm warning you that
Voldemort knows about your Secret Keeper plan." What he warned James
Potter against was a traitor who was leaking information on the
Potters to LV, a traitor he believed to be Sirius Black, but he would
certainly have used Dumbledore, not Voldemort, as the source of his
information.

Another point, too--Snape at this point was already teaching Potions
at Hogwarts, so his source of info would have to be DD, not LV. But
Black didn't know that Snape was at Hogwarts until the Shrieking Shack
scene, again suggesting that he wasn't present when Snape informed JP
that one of his friends was a traitor and that he believed the traitor
to be Sirius Black. IMO, this bit of information from his childhood
enemy would have had the opposite effect--it would have confirmed him
in his wish to make SB the Secret Keeper (and confirmed Snape in his
belief that that was the case). It was Black, not Snape, who talked
the Potters into changing SKs.

Carol, still not sure whether Snape knew about the SK plan or only
that a traitor was leaking info on the Potters to LV






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 24 20:37:42 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 20:37:42 -0000
Subject: Why Didn't Harry Ask About His Parents' Graves?  (was: Re: Godric's Hollow)
In-Reply-To: <dvubiq+sple@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e01lam+l7hr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149983

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dana_052002" <dana_052002 at ...>
wrote:
>
> Vera:
> 
> > I think that firstly Harry was pretty much convinced
> > about his parents car accident and that he was so
> > overwhelmed by learning he was a wizard and that he
> > could finally leave the Dursleys that he never got
> > round to investigating their death further.
> > 
> > Seeing in from an 11-year-old's point of view, their
> > death remains a fact that cannot be altered in any
> > way. He is proud his parents were wizards, he misses
> > them terribly and the events that follow don't let him
> > dwell on that.
> 
> 
> Dany Now,
> 
> From an 11 years old perspective it is understandable, why he never 
> asked about his parents' graves, but, what about when he was getting 
> older? Does he know that his parents are burried somewhere? 
> ...edited...
> 
> Take care now,
> Dany
>

bboyminn:

Well, Dany, now that Harry is getting older, he does have an interest
in seeing his parent's graves. But prior to that, I really don't see
any inconsistency. Harry grew up in a very oppressive and repressed
household were the subject of his parents and anything related to
their 'world' was forbidden, and subject to punishment. It doesn't
take a kid long to learn how to survive in that environment.

Plus, as a kid, Harry is powerless. What's he going to do, hop in
Vermon's car and drive to Godric's Hollow? 

I'm sure over the years before Hogwarts, Harry may have picked up
small bits and pieces, but certainly the information was very scant.
So, what can he do but endure as best he can. When he finally gets his
invitation to Hogwarts, I think he is a bit busy to be thinking about
his parents graves. Yet he does accumulate more information about
their lives and their death.

Now Harry is nearing the status of adult in the wizard world. He has
his own money, he has his own house, he is free to control his own
decisions and movements. Plus he has experienced the additional tragic
deaths of Sirius and Dumbledore. I think this is the perfect time for
Harry to think about his parents and about visiting their graves. 

Prior to this time, his life was too much under the control of other
people. Although, I think if he had had the inclination, he could have
probably forced the issue.

Further, certainly Harry misses his 'parents', anyone would. But to
him 'James' and 'Lily' are simply names that are applied to his
parents. He has no real accessable memories of them. They are just
names he knows, and the people associated with those names are long
gone. It's hard to miss 'Lily' and 'James' when he never knew them.
Yet, at the same time, he can still miss the 'parents' he never knew.
He probably didn't even know what they looked like until Hagrid showed
him pictures. No actually, he saw them a couple times in the Mirror of
Erised, but those seem like fleeting glances; nothing he could hold on
to and view anytime he wanted.

I guess my point is that Harry's concept of his parent early in his
life is so abstact that he doesn't consider them in the light of the
real world. Now that he is older, and more importantly, more
independent, and now that his real life is marked by tragic deaths, it
seems reasonable that now is the time that he thinks of his parents
graves. 

Further, it also seem like now is the time when Harry is most likely
to die himself, and like most people who feel that impending weight,
his thoughts turn to doing a few last important things before that
death comes. Paying his last respect to his parents, and seeing the
place where his dark and tragic life started, seem to be occurring
right on schedule to me.

Just a thought.

Steve/bboyminn






From AllieS426 at aol.com  Fri Mar 24 20:41:05 2006
From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 20:41:05 -0000
Subject: But DID James listen? (was LID!Snape rides again )
In-Reply-To: <BAY101-F102824AB9D73E9D81040E791DF0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <e01lh1+mbbq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149984

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "P J" <midnightowl6 at ...> wrote:
>
>   Sydney:
>  > Sirius being innocent is unthinkable for Snape because he's 
been here
>  > before-- he's been trying to convince people not to trust 
Sirius, and
>  > people didn't listen to him, and people died.  That's why he 
says,
>  > "DON'T TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND", and why he 
screams at
>  > Harry for suggesting that Snape is prejudiced against 
Sirius "just
>  > because he made a fool of you at school", which is probably 
JUST what
>  > James said 14 years before, when Snape was trying to convince 
him not
>  > to make Sirius secret-keeper.  I think he just can't BELIEVE 
he's
>  > still having this conversation.  I mean, picture Harry at some 
point
>  > in Book VII if someone was trying to convince him that he was 
wrong
>  > about Snape!
>  >
> 
> PJ:
> With James and Sirius both dead we may never know what the true 
story is, 
> but it seems to me that Snape's warning did NOT go unheeded and 
that his 
> warning, rather than saving the Potters, was actually what caused 
their 
> death!
> 
> I wonder at what point this starts to dawn on Snape...
> 
> PJ
>

Allie now:

I do not think that Snape explicitly warned James Potter against 
using Sirius as Secret Keeper.  The quote that Sydney and PJ and 
others have used is this one from PoA, US softcover p 361:  "You 
would have been well served if he'd kill you!  You'd have died like 
your father, too arrogant to believe you might be mistaken in 
Black..."

All that means is that James wouldn't believe that Sirius could 
betray him.  It doesn't mean that anyone told James that Sirius was 
a traitor, and it doesn't imply WHO told him, if someone did.  It 
could just as easily have been Dumbledore, with Snape finding out 
about it later.











From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 24 21:14:17 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 21:14:17 -0000
Subject: Using Unforgivables (was:Re: DDM!Snape &  the UV.)
In-Reply-To: <e01egf+l1hs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e01nf9+eg2i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149985

> >>"merrillsyndrome" <merrillsyndrome@> wrote:
> > It is true that to perform an AK you have 
> > to feel hatred but where does it say that
> > you have to feel hatred toward the person
> > that the  urse is directed at? 

> >>Eggplant: 
> To answer your question, it says so on page 810 Order of the Phoenix:
> "You need to mean it Potter! You need to want to cause pain- to enjoy
> it-righteous anger won't hurt me for long"

Betsy Hp:
There's still a lack of personal there, though.  To successfully cast 
the Crucio curse one must get some kind of enjoyment out of causing 
pain.  Not that you have to enjoy causing pain to a specific person, 
just in general.  

And isn't it interesting that Aurors are able to cast Unforgivables?  
This would mean that Tonks has been trained to find and use that part 
of herself that enjoys causing pain.  Kingsley and Mad-eye, too.  
Unlike Star Wars or other stories of that ilk, the kind of magic 
someone has knowledge of and is able to use doesn't really go all that 
far in telling us what sort of person they are.  JKR lets it be a bit 
more complicated and messy and real.

Betsy Hp







From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 24 21:32:39 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 21:32:39 -0000
Subject: But DID James listen? (was LID!Snape rides again )
In-Reply-To: <e01l6e+2h80@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e01ohn+32e9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149986

> >>Carol:
> <snip>
> I think Snape approached James and possibly Lily with no one else 
> present, which would explain why Black, Lupin, and Pettigrew seem 
> to know nothing about it.
> <snip>
> Straightforward reading (IMO): Snape approaches James alone or with
> Lily and tells him that he knows from Dumbledore that one of the
> Potters' friends is a traitor who has been leaking secrets to
> Voldemort.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
This is pure speculation, but I strongly suspect that Lily was *not* 
present when Snape spoke with James.  For one, Lily was not as close 
to Sirius as James was growing up.  For another, I think Lily *was* 
close to Snape (Snape was to Lily what Sirius was to James, 
maybe?).  So Lily would have been more inclined to listen to Snape 
and, even if she *did* trust Sirius, play it safe and make 
Dumbledore their secret keeper.

For some reason I have it in my head that James deliberately kept 
Lily out of it (as he kept her out of his continuing enmity with 
Snape).  I can totally see Snape asking to talk to Lily and James 
refusing to allow it, in an attempt to protect Lily from her 
horrible former-friend, and perhaps because it angered Snape.

One of the things I like about this is that it helps to heighten 
Snape's guilt.  If he hadn't burned his bridge with Lily, if he'd 
maintained their friendship, than perhaps he'd have been able to 
reach her and given her the news that one of the Marauders was a 
traitor.

Anyway, total speculation, as I said, but I wanted to throw it out 
there. <g>

Betsy Hp, who likes piling the pain on Snape despite the mad love






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 24 22:45:56 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 22:45:56 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <dvvn15+f061@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e01sr4+gn6o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149987

> >>Neri:
> <snip> 
> Another speculation I recently suggested is that Snape's very     
> strange screaming of pain during "The Flight of the Prince" is     
> also an effect of the Life Debt...
> <snip>
> It's precisely the thematic value of the Debt. Since the Debt
> represents true remorse, Snape will not succeed in repaying it and
> still remain on the side of Evil, no matter how hard he tries to do
> just that. This is why he had failed time and again in repaying it
> throughout the series. Dumbledore knew this must happen, and      
> therefore in the end he will prove right in trusting Snape        
> completely.
> <snip>
> You mean, like using the prophecy to make Harry want to kill      
> Voldemort? 
> <snip>
> If Snape feels any remorse, it's obvious that it is limited in an
> extremely artificial and arbitrary way. It's only working for     
> trying to save Harry's life, but not for any care for Harry's     
> feeling. So what is the more likely explanation for that? That    
> these restrictions on his remorse are a result of an arbitrarily   
> schizoid character, or that they are a result of a magic with     
> arbitrary clauses?  
> <snip>
> That's what makes this series so wonderfully intricate and        
> complex. And these clauses can be thematic and reflect RL         
> feelings, like loyalty, like commitment, like remorse. 
> What the Potterverse *doesn't* have are artificial, arbitrary,
> schizoid *characters*. Except for DDM!Snape, that is. No other
> character of JKR gets even close to be so convoluted, so          
> conflicted. It's almost like DDM!Snape wasn't created by JKR.     
> Maybe he was simply created by somebody else. Say, by 100,000     
> Snape fans?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I did some massive cutting and snipping to try and draw together all 
the statements that, to my mind, point out a huge weakness in your 
theory, Neri.  And that is the use of magic to subvert or replace 
actual human feelings.  Snape cannot feel *actual* remorse, it must 
be of a magical variety.  Harry cannot have his own sense of 
responsibility and justice, magic must have put it there.  There's 
no such thing as real loyalty, just magically Unbreakable Vows.  
Frankly, I think you're arguing for the antithesis of what JKR is 
writing.

Because in her universe, magic ain't all that.  Sure, it'll get you 
from point A to point B, but you'll be dizzy and sore at the end of 
it.  And yes, moving staircases are great, except they might move 
when you least expect it.  It's the human connections, the human 
feelings and emotions that have true power.  It wasn't Lily's super 
ninja magic skills that brought down Voldemort; it was a mother's 
love for her son.  (With a nice redeux from Narcissa in HBP.)

Harry isn't going after Voldemort because magic is making him; he's 
taking down the creature that would destroy everything Harry cares 
about.  Dumbledore doesn't trust someone because he makes them take 
an Unbreakable Vow; he gets to know them really, really well, and 
then takes it from there.  That's the whole point of the lessons 
Dumbledore gave to Harry.  It was all about knowledge rather than 
magical power.

You seem to be trying to turn Snape into some sort of automaton, 
incapable of messy human desires and foibles and moments of extreme 
nobility and extreme pettiness all stuffed into one incredibly human 
character.  And yet, to deny Snape his humanity is to deny all the 
Potterverse characters' their humanity.

So Lupin is incapable of both caring for Harry and letting his own 
self-hatred put Harry in danger.  Sirius is incapable of saying one 
thing and then doing the exact opposite.  Hermione is incapable of 
both extreme sympathy and extreme ruthlessness.  Ron is incapable of 
being both jealous and loyal.  Draco is incapable of loving his 
mother and chafing under her protectivness.

And of course, Harry isn't a real boy, he's a puppet being 
skillfully manipulated by Voldemort and Dumbledore who are, I 
suppose, being manipulated by their chosen forms of magic.

I just don't read the Potterverse this way.  I think JKR has taken 
great care to have all of her characters (those not in walk-in 
roles, anyway) express some level of complexity and nuance.  So 
remorse will be represented with, well, remorse.  Loyalty will be 
represented with loyalty.  Love will be represented with love.  
Magic will just get the proper players onto the stage.  Their 
humanity is what will motivate them.

Simplicity is a good thing, especially where theories are 
concerned.  But a simplicity that wipes out all traces of humanity 
from the book... it just doesn't fit with any of the characters as 
I've read them.

Betsy Hp






From h2so3f at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 24 23:40:01 2006
From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 23:40:01 -0000
Subject: The Potion in the Cave Possibly Revealed (Re: Dumbledore MAY be alive....)
In-Reply-To: <e01gno+knq5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0200h+r0cq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149988

Carol wrote:  <SNIP a ton of excellent post>
"I think it's more likely, that the potion is some sort of poisoned 
memory. The stone basin in which the potion is placed is described 
as being "rather like the Pensieve," and the green light emanating 
from the basin is "misty," like the mist that rises from a Pensieve. 
After drinking several gobletfuls of the potion, Dumbledore seems to 
be "dreaming a horrible dream," reliving terrible memories that may 
or may not be his own. (IMO, they're not his, but that's another 
topic.) But the potion itself seems to be causing him pain, physical 
agony as well as mental anguish: <<SNIP quote>>
Clearly the potion causes a terrible burning sensation, an agonized 
thirst that causes the drinker to crave water, which he can only 
acquire by touching the lake water and waking the Inferi, but it 
also weakens the drinker, rendering him helpless. Dumbledore 
is "drawing great, rattling breaths that sounded agonizing," and as 
Harry's Aguamenti spell repeatedly fails, "his breathing [is] 
failing." When Harry splashes him with water, he gains enough 
strength to grab the locket and cast a fire spell, but he remains 
weak, leaning against the cavern wall after they reach the shore. 
Harry notes his "extreme pallor and his air of exhaustion." As 
Dumbledore says later, "That was no health drink."



Warning:
**Lord of the Ring Spoiler**


CH3ed:
I agree with Carol's theory here. And the passage above reminds me 
of Frodo and Sam and the Mirror of Galadriel in LotR. All the way 
down to Galadriel's warning, "Do not touch the water!" Perhaps 
beside containing poison that kills you slowly and painfully, and 
horrific memories.. it also projects the drinker's deepest fear for 
what may happen in the future? No canon, of course. Just my own 
fantasy. 


"Carol, who finds Dumbledore's words to Harry at the end of the 
chapter, "I am not worried, Harry. I am with you," the saddest line 
in the book"


CH3ed:
It is! To me that was when I was sure on my first read that DD 
wouldn't make it thru the night. He was a goner. I think the torch 
was officially passed when DD realized after recovering in the cave 
that Harry would do what it takes to defeat LV (Harry kept his 
promise to DD even when the order was to force feed DD the horrible 
potion that could have killed him). I'm glad DD had seen that before 
he died because I think after that realization DD could die in peace 
that Harry is capable of doing the job and save the WW. 

CH3ed :O)






From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 24 23:57:04 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 23:57:04 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV.
In-Reply-To: <e01egf+l1hs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0210g+bmqn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149989

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" <eggplant107 at ...> 
wrote:
>
> "merrillsyndrome" <merrillsyndrome@> wrote:
> 
> > It is true that to perform an AK you have 
> > to feel hatred but where does it say that
> > you have to feel hatred toward the person
> > that the  urse is directed at? 
> 
> To answer your question, it says so on page 810 Order of the Phoenix:
> 
> "You need to mean it Potter! You need to want to cause pain- to enjoy
> it-righteous anger won't hurt me for long"
> 

zgirnius:
But we also have canon that you can kill the wrong target with the AK. 
A Death Eater died in the raid on Hogwarts when his colleague aimed a 
Killing Curse at Lupin and Lupin avoided it. The Death Eater standing 
behind him was killed. Presumably the caster of the curse either had 
some general hateful thoughts powering the magic, or was focusing on 
Lupin. Yes someone else was killed. 








From mauranen at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 25 00:12:54 2006
From: mauranen at yahoo.com (jekatiska)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 00:12:54 -0000
Subject: Godric's Hollow - Possessing bodies
In-Reply-To: <dvo45c+a6cv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e021u6+p0de@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149990

>
> > Brady wrote:

> > The AV doesn't destroy the the body to the extent that it can't 
be 
> > seen, right? We are always left with a body behind. But in GH,  
> > till date, there has not been any mention of James', Lily's or  
> > Voldy's body! Why? what happened then? 

> Laura now:
> ... the home in Godric's Hollow being destroyed, 
> which I thought was strange since the AK isn't supposed to cause 
> external damage.  But then again, this wasn't an ordinary AK.  

Jekatiska:

I think what killed Voldemort wasn't a 'rebounded killing curse' as 
such, but something more powerful, the ancient magic that protected 
Harry must have created some sort of 'force field' or call it what 
you may (maybe a bit like the spell Dumbledore used on Voldemort at 
the end of OotP, that caused LV to comment on DD not being intent on 
killing him), that then destroyed not only Voldemort ("ripped from 
his body") but also the house.


> >  So what happened to his original body? why couldn't he have 
> > possessed the body itself instead of wandering in the forests of 
> > Albania as something lesser than a ghost?
> 

As far as I understand, you can only possess the living, so 
Voldemort couldn't possibly have possessed his own dead body. Inferi 
come to mind, but they are not possessed, merely bewitched, like any 
other inanimate objects. Like when making a pineapple tapdance you 
do not possess it but merely bewitch it. 

If we see death as the parting of body and soul and the end of 
bodily functions (as opposed to having your soul sucked out) the 
idea of possessing your own dead body would seem kind of absurd. 
Which raises the question: if someone's had their soul sucked out, 
can they be possessed by another soul?

Jekatiska






From celizwh at intergate.com  Sat Mar 25 00:26:15 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 00:26:15 -0000
Subject: The Potion in the Cave Possibly Revealed (Re: Dumbledore MAY be alive....)
In-Reply-To: <e01gno+knq5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e022n7+nr6f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149991

Rebecca wrote:

> > Tricky, tricky that JKR, hm?  IMO, DD drank some souped up Draught
> of Living Death.
 
Carol responds:

> As you stated, the Draught of Living Death is not green, nor does it
> AFWK cause "unendurable pain" in the drinker. It's a very powerful
> sleeping potion that makes the drinker appear to be dead. 

houyhnhnm:

Nevertheless, Golpalott's [love it] Third Law states "that-the
antidote-for-a-blended-potion-will-be-equal-to-more-than-the-
sum-of-the-antidotes-for-each-of-the-separate-components".

So there are blended potions. What color would a blended potion be? 
Logically, blue and yellow potions blended together would be green,
but this is the Potterverse, so I suspect the science of optics is not
going to help us. (I can't think of any potions that are blue and
clearly Dumbledore isn't drinkin an Elixir to Induce Euphoria, but
there are most certainly others that we don't know of)  

How does a blended potion act?  Can the individual components of a
blended potion potentiate one another or act as antagonists? Is it
possible to create a timed release effect so that one component of the
blended potion acts before another kicks in.  Other than Harry's
garish pink unknown and Hermione's ten fractions we are not shown any
blended potions in action so it's hard to say.

Still I agree that it is unlikely Dumbledore consumed a Draught of
Living Death in the cave.  If he is indeed in a state of Living Death
(and I'm very open to the idea) my guess is that the potion was
administered after his fall from the tower, possibly by Slughorn. (It
would explain why Slughorn "looked the most shaken, pale and sweating".)  







From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Sat Mar 25 00:37:31 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 00:37:31 -0000
Subject: But DID James listen? (was LID!Snape rides again )
In-Reply-To: <e01l6e+2h80@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e023cb+6ltd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149992

Ceridwen wrote:
> > <snip> It's certain that Snape got the impression that James was
> ignoring his warning.  He thought Sirius was the SK at least 
through PoA.
> 
Carol responds:
> I agree with you to this point.

Ceridwen:
This is a good start.  I'm already doing better here than I do with 
my kids!

Carol:
> I don't think there is any canon for what he said or how he 
presented
> himself, only his assertion that James "arrogantly" rejected his
> warning. Both would be in character, and his coming from Dumbledore
> would explain how he knew there was a Secret Keeper in the first
> place. (Voldemort wouldn't know that, and why would Snape make his
> connection to Voldemort known? That would hurt his cause, not help 
it.)

Ceridwen:
The cumulative idea I've gotten from reading the books is that 
Voldemort was out to get the Kid With The Power.  Because of that, 
the family of the suspected KWTP went into hiding.  (not official 
canon follows) Both sides knew what was going on, and both sides had 
an idea that the other side knew what it was doing.  Voldemort would 
suspect at least that the Potters would go into hiding, which as far 
as I know, would require a Secret Keeper for a formal spell.

James already knows that Snape is a Dark Arts expert.  That was one 
reason he didn't get along with him, according to Sirius.  I'm sure 
there were other reasons which escalated as they went through more 
and more years of school together, but with that one piece of 
knowledge, there's no reason why James wouldn't at least suspect that 
Snape was sympathetic with LV's cause if not actually signed on as a 
DE.  And in a small population like the recent graduates of Hogwarts, 
the gossip mill probably had Snape pegged as a DE from seconds after 
he received the Mark.  Rumor, sure.  But believable with what James 
knows of him.

Also, would it be likely that Dumbledore would go around talking to 
people about the SK indiscriminately?  James might have wondered at 
Dumbledore telling Snape, of all people.  So Snape representing 
himself as just about anything would raise James's red-flag detector 
where the safety of his family was involved.

I admit this is mostly speculation, but I don't think it's 
unreasonable from reading the books.

Carol: 
*(snipping much better idea than mine)*
> Straightforward reading (IMO): Snape approaches James alone or with
> Lily and tells him that he knows from Dumbledore that one of the
> Potters' friends is a traitor who has been leaking secrets to
> Voldemort. Mentioning DD's Secret Keeper suggestion would enhance 
his
> credibility: He could not know that unless DD himself had told him.
> But James, who has already rejected Dumbledore as Secret Keeper in
> favor of Sirius, "arrogantly" rejects Snape's advice. 

Ceridwen:
You got me thinking here: could James have rejected Snape's most 
probably snarky advice here because he thinks Dumbledore put him up 
to it?  *IF* James is not aware that Snape is a DE (I think he might 
at least suspect based on what he already knows of Snape from school) 
he might think this is another case of Dumbledore interfering.  Not 
wedded to this, not even holding hands.  But your scenario as 
described brought it to mind as an extension of James 
being 'arrogant' - Snape could see him as being grossly arrogant by 
rejecting Dumbledore's wisdom?  While on James's side, he might 
wonder why Dumbledore told Snape anything at all.

Carol:
> Anyway, the only canon we have is that James rejected DD's offer to 
be
> SK and chose Black instead; that Snape says he warned James against
> Black and was "arrogantly" rejected; that Black, not James, 
suggested
> the switch to Pettigrew; that Black as late as GoF did not know that
> Snape had been a DE (or that he was spying on the DEs for Dumbledore
> at the time of the SK switch); and that Snape as of the Shrieking
> Shack scene in PoA believed that Pettigrew was dead and that Black
> betrayed the Potters. All of this information is based on the word 
of
> the characters involved (Snape, Black, and DD) but there's no reason
> (other than an assumption of ESE!Snape) to think that they're lying.

Ceridwen:
I don't think any of them are lying.  I think they're all 
representing events as they know they happened.  I don't think we 
know everything, though we certainly know more about this after 
putting it together than we know about the Prank.  Things I wonder 
about: Why did James and Lily reject Dumbledore as SK?  Why did James 
think Snape came to him with advice?  And in this discussion 
specifically, did James mention to Sirius that Snape came to him at 
all about it, with or without mentioning specifics?  Was Lily an 
active participant in the decision, or did she leave it up to James?  
And as PJ brought up, whether or not it was valid from any other POV, 
does Snape wonder now if James actually did take his advice?

Carol:
> Whether Snape's advice backfired or not, I can't see "the assumption
> that the SK was DE common knowledge" being the reason offered for 
the
> SK change. Voldie wouldn't even have known about it unless the 
traitor
> had told him, and as secretive as he is, he certainly wouldn't have
> announced something that hadn't happened yet to his DEs. 

Ceridwen:
I think it would have been a reasonable assumption, if James and Lily 
knew that LV knew about the prophecy, that LV might expect a magical 
hiding charm to be placed.  In RL, we can reasonably assume that 
people will protect themselves in accordance with the danger they 
believe themselves to be in.  There are bars on windows and security 
screens on doors in neighborhoods with frequent break-ins, for 
instance.  And electronic protection devices for break-ins and fires 
are doing well enough to advertise on TV.  There's no reason to think 
that witches and wizards won't protect themselves with the 
appropriate magical spells when they deem themselves in danger.  
Living in that world, LV would expect some sort of magical 
protection, and what better one than this, where only one person in 
the world is capable of betraying the secret?

Carol:
> More
> important, Snape would not have gone to the Potters and said, "I'm a
> DE, but I'm really working for Dumbledore, so I'm warning you that
> Voldemort knows about your Secret Keeper plan." What he warned James
> Potter against was a traitor who was leaking information on the
> Potters to LV, a traitor he believed to be Sirius Black, but he 
would
> certainly have used Dumbledore, not Voldemort, as the source of his
> information.

Ceridwen:
My first mental image here is Snape staring sincerely into the camera 
and saying, "I'm not really a Death Eater, but I play one on TV..."

Again, why would Dumbledore be discussing Order business with Snape?  
As far as we know, in VWI, Snape is not a member of the Order.  And 
while it's possible that they could divine that there is a spy 
because of things that happen which shouldn't have happened, there's 
just as much to suggest that they know there's a spy for their side 
in LV's camp and this person has told Dumbledore that LV is getting 
info from an unknown Order traitor.  Suspicion plus verification from 
their own spy = almost certain knowledge.

Carol:
> Another point, too--Snape at this point was already teaching Potions
> at Hogwarts, so his source of info would have to be DD, not LV. But
> Black didn't know that Snape was at Hogwarts until the Shrieking 
Shack
> scene, again suggesting that he wasn't present when Snape informed 
JP
> that one of his friends was a traitor and that he believed the 
traitor
> to be Sirius Black. IMO, this bit of information from his childhood
> enemy would have had the opposite effect--it would have confirmed 
him
> in his wish to make SB the Secret Keeper (and confirmed Snape in his
> belief that that was the case). It was Black, not Snape, who talked
> the Potters into changing SKs.

Ceridwen:
So, Snape comes to James with the (ridiculous, to James) idea that 
Sirius was betraying the Potters.  Then Sirius comes to James with 
the idea that everyone would believe that he was the Potter's SK so 
they should switch SKs.  Why wouldn't James think to himself that 
Snape already proved Sirius's point?  And, if no one knew that the 
Potters were going to have a SK, why would Sirius make that point at 
all?

> Carol, still not sure whether Snape knew about the SK plan or only
> that a traitor was leaking info on the Potters to LV

Ceridwen:
That would, to me, make the only difference.  But in light of Sirius 
making the point to James, and perhaps Lily, that everyone would 
expect Sirius to be the SK, I have tended to think that the plot to 
hide the Potters wasn't such a huge secret, or at least that it 
wasn't outside of the realm of their enemies' speculation.

Ceridwen.






From kennclark at btinternet.com  Fri Mar 24 11:15:59 2006
From: kennclark at btinternet.com (Kenneth Clark)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 11:15:59 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore MAY be alive....
In-Reply-To: <e002su+k2oh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e00kdf+5iqr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149993



> Nikkalmati: snip
> > DD's body burst into flames in exactly the same way as his 
phoenix. 
> > Harry even sees a phoenix rising from the smoke.  Is this 
supposed 
> > to mean nothing?  Is it a red herring?  What other explanation is 
> > there than that DD was reborn?  Of course if you think about 
Fawkes 
> > he returned as a baby bird, so DD may not be able to return to 
help 
> > Harry.  He may alive as an infant somewhere.


The clues that Dumbledore has been reborn are too strong to be wished 
away.  He is inextricably linked with the Phoenix throughout the 
canon.  But what will his rebirth mean?  Dumbledore returned as he 
was? An infant Dumbledore? Do we know enough about what goes on with 
the Phoenix during its rebirth?  Does it achieve maturity immediately 
after or does it have to mature like any other bird?  Just as 
Voldemort had to retreat to regain his strength before reappearimng 
so too perhaps Dumbledore has to keep out of the way until his 
strength and powers return.  I wonder where he is?

Kenneth Clark








From rkelley at blazingisp.net  Fri Mar 24 14:38:14 2006
From: rkelley at blazingisp.net (Rick & LeAnn Kelley)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:38:14 -0600
Subject: Dumbledore MAY be alive...
Message-ID: <mailman.138.1576215542.17272.hpforgrownups@archive.hpfgu.org>

No: HPFGUIDX 149994

I have two theories which make me believe it's possible that Dumbledore may
still be alive.  

 

Was JKR giving us clues all the way back in book one when Snape told his
first class, "I can even put a stopper in death,"?  Why did she introduce
that concept so early in the series unless it was going to prove crucial to
the ending?  Another clue was when DD told McGonagall, "I would trust Hagrid
with my life."  Was that just a simple show of confidence in Hagrid, or was
JKR cryptically leaving us a clue (pun intended) that DD would indeed at
some point have to put his life into Hagrid's hands?  Hagrid is the one who
was in charge of DD's body at burial.

 

Another thought I had is that it is possible that DD himself placed part of
his soul into a horcrux. When he defeated Grindelwald did his soul split
into two, and did he then place one part into his own horcrux?  (Probably
Fawkes.)   It is emphasized several times that DD believes in giving people
second chances, and one of his statements (I've forgotten which book) always
made me think that he had been given a second chance himself.  Perhaps he
also had considered following the dark path at one time, and split his own
soul before returning to the side of good.  If so, then Fawkes/DD may be out
and about trying to gather up support for Harry in the final showdown.  That
may also be the key to DD's complete faith in Severus. Perhaps DD was a
follower at one time of Grindelwald - DD had to learn the Dark Arts
someplace in order to know how to fight against them so well.  DD's
statement that "Snape is no more a Death Eater than I am," made me wonder if
DD had once been involved in something similar, and had completely turned
away from it as he knew Snape had. 

 

There are obvious holes in these theories.  In the case of the former, how
did DD survive the great fall off the roof and how did he get the potion?
If Hagrid was a knowing accomplice, how did he keep the secret.  He's never
been able to keep one before.  In either theory, there's still the question
of why would JKR bring DD back?  

 

I don't know.  I'm only saying there are plausible ways JKR could do it if
it necessary to her story.  It would really emphasize her moral that it is
our choices which are important, not who we are, if it turned out that DD
was once evil himself, and then became so completely good.  That would kind
of mean there's hope for us all, wouldn't it?


rkelley





From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 24 15:23:54 2006
From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 15:23:54 -0000
Subject: Trelawney Tarrot reading again WAS: Re: ah the mysteries
In-Reply-To: <dvvftg+h0r0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e012ua+6qnq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149995

Allie wrote:

> Another statement I take at face value that has also been subjected 
> to endless debate is Professor Trelawney's reading of her Tarot 
> cards.  She sees a troubled young man who dislikes the questioner.  
> I laughed at what I thought was JKR making a little joke - Harry is 
> behind the statue, he dislikes Trelawney.  But speculation over the 
> identity of this mysterious man ensued on the HPforGrownups list...

Steven1965aaa:

I had the same impression the 1st time I read it, but on re-reading I 
took that as meaning Malfoy and I took her Tarot readings as 
foreshadowing of the Lightening Struck Tower scene.









From alcuin74 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 24 17:33:44 2006
From: alcuin74 at yahoo.com (alcuin74)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 17:33:44 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV.
In-Reply-To: <dvv0lt+ff3v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e01aho+lf0m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149996

> > Eggplant:
> > Yes, and for an unforgivable curse like Avada Kedavre to work you 
> >must really feel the hatred 
> 
Merrillsyndrome: 
> It is true that to perform an AK you have to feel hatred but where 
> does it say that you have to feel hatred toward the person that the 
> curse is directed at?  I think you can perform the curse if you 
have 
> enough hatred in your heart about anything.  Snape is full of 
hatred 
> so he has no problem performing an AK (debatable about whether or 
not 
> it is his first AK).
>


Hi everyone,
This is my first post ... in regard to the above exchange, I'm not 
sure that hatred is the key factor in the Avada Kedavra curse.  The 
closest thing to a magical theory underlying the Unforgivable Curses 
was given by Bellatrix Lestrange in OotP, after Harry had tried to 
use the Cruciatus curse upon her:

... Never used an Unforgivable Curse before, have you, boy? ... You 
need to _mean_ them, Potter!  You need to really want to cause pain - 
to enjoy it ...

So it seems that the two factors necessary for an Unforgivable Curse 
to be successful are (1) to _really_ intend that the curse have its 
effect and (2) to take some kind of pleasure in its having that 
effect.  So for Avada Kedavra to work, the caster must really want to 
kill the intended victim and take pleasure in the victim's death.  If 
this is correct, then hatred or no hatred, Snape comes off looking 
badly here.  He would somehow have had to enjoy or take pleasure in 
Dumbledore's death.

Alcuin









From monalila662 at earthlink.net  Sat Mar 25 01:47:40 2006
From: monalila662 at earthlink.net (dillgravy)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 01:47:40 -0000
Subject: Going back to discuss GOF.
Message-ID: <e027fs+fd0a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149997

Ok, So I'm re-reading SS, re-listening to COS on my iPOD, re-listening to GOF in my Car 
and re-listening to TOOP in my husband's car. (I have to say ONCE AGAIN THAT JIM DALE 
IS THE GREATEST MAN ALIVE). I wanted to go back and discuss something that always 
troubled me in GOF. 

Barty Crouch Jr. - needless to say, a very troubled lad. My question is- is he really that 
smart? because I don't think so. He plays an awfully good Mad Eye- I mean, going to all 
that trouble to win over Harry throughout year 4, he really goes out of his way.  I realize he 
wanted Harry to get to the Portkey so that his master (Voldewart) could get his blood, but 
c'mon, if you really read it (as if you didn't know it was Crouch Jr.) you really get to like the 
guy. I honestly don't think Crouch Jr. was capable of getting people to like him. I think he 
was a loner with no sense of humor, no self-esteem. Therefore, he did not have the tools 
to be that convincing.  

AND ANOTHER THING... The Polyjuice Potion would not give them the knowledge/wisdom 
of the person they were impersonating... right?

AND ONE MORE THING... How is it that the greatest wizard alive (at the time) did not have 
any inkling whatsoever that this was a fraud? (referring to DD). 

AND, OK, MY LAST AND FINAL ALL CAPS QUESTION... going forward to HBP: If the time-
turner  was used to save Buckbeak and Siruis- why could it not be used to save the only 
wizard that Voldesnort ever feared? wouldn't it be absolutely critical to go back and save 
DD- if only for his knowledge of VM, in order to defeat him? I say  "Give Harry the Time 
Turner McGonagle- let him take his Felix Felicis with him and GO GET DUMBLEDORE!!!"


Ok. I'm done. I know some of you will chew me up because one or all of the points I've 
made have been discussed over and over again- but I just had to release.

Lisa







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 25 01:51:29 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 01:51:29 -0000
Subject: But DID James listen? (was LID!Snape rides again )
In-Reply-To: <e023cb+6ltd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e027n1+32fp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 149998

> Ceridwen:
<SNIP>
> James already knows that Snape is a Dark Arts expert.  That was 
one 
> reason he didn't get along with him, according to Sirius.  I'm 
sure 
> there were other reasons which escalated as they went through more 
> and more years of school together, but with that one piece of 
> knowledge, there's no reason why James wouldn't at least suspect 
that 
> Snape was sympathetic with LV's cause if not actually signed on as 
a 
> DE.  And in a small population like the recent graduates of 
Hogwarts, 
> the gossip mill probably had Snape pegged as a DE from seconds 
after 
> he received the Mark.  Rumor, sure.  But believable with what 
James 
> knows of him.
<SNIP>

Alla:

I have not decided yet whether I agree with your argument in 
general, but I completely agree with this part- one hundred percent.

But of course, since I believe in Snape darker nature, I will go 
further and speculate that Snape indeed signed up to join Voldie and 
company when he was still in school and that is where many conflicts 
betweem him and James indeed grew. Speculation? Sure, pure 
speculation and of course we don't know when Voldemort recruited 
Snape, BUT I find it VERY interesting that Draco started his service 
when he is still in school.

It is true that we don't know whether Draco has the mark or not, but 
I think it is possible that he does have a mark and if it is so, I 
think it will be even more likely that Snape joined while still in 
Hogwarts.

 
>> Ceridwen:
> I don't think any of them are lying.  I think they're all 
> representing events as they know they happened.  I don't think we 
> know everything, though we certainly know more about this after 
> putting it together than we know about the Prank.  Things I wonder 
> about: Why did James and Lily reject Dumbledore as SK?  Why did 
James 
> think Snape came to him with advice?  And in this discussion 
> specifically, did James mention to Sirius that Snape came to him 
at 
> all about it, with or without mentioning specifics?  Was Lily an 
> active participant in the decision, or did she leave it up to 
James?  
> And as PJ brought up, whether or not it was valid from any other 
POV, 
> does Snape wonder now if James actually did take his advice?

Alla:

Those are all fascinating questions, but I must agree with Allie  
and I did wrote about it in the past - I don't think we know for 
sure that Snape DID warn James. For all we know  - Snape became 
aware that somebody else warned James about the possible spy? Maybe 
Lily told Snape that they got a warning and that is how Snape knows?

Maybe Dumbledore's OTHER spy?  But in any event, even though it is 
possible that Snape indeed warned James, one thing I am rather 
confident about - I don't see James keeping Lily out of anything, 
out of talking to Snape as Betsy said or that Lily was not an active 
participant in the decision, as you suggest. Sorry, not buying that 
at all. To me Lily's characterv screams of someone who has a takes 
charge attitude. IMO of course.

I don't think James could have kept Lily out of anything, 
personally. Speculating of course.

JMO,

Alla









From dontask2much at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 25 02:06:34 2006
From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 21:06:34 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Potion in the Cave Possibly Revealed (Re: Dumbledore MAY be alive....)
References: <e01gno+knq5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <003d01c64fb0$be889ba0$6401a8c0@MITRE.ORG>

No: HPFGUIDX 149999

>Carol responds:

>I can't claim to be an expert on color and lighting, but AFAIK,
>there's no indication that JKR is, either. It's simpler to consider
>green as the actual color of the potion and to note the frequent
>association of the color green in the HP series with death and poison.
>(I'm not talking here about eye color or House colors, just spells and
>potions and evil creatures.)

Rebecca:

Actually, you don't have to be an expert on color and lighting to see or 
think of this - black lights and their effects are very common at 
Halloween..... :)  To be honest with you, one of my co-workers was talking 
this week about his kid being in this sort of "goth" stage wanting black 
lights in his room. It's how I came to think of it!

<snip>

>Carol:

>As you stated, the Draught of Living Death is not green, nor does it
>AFWK cause "unendurable pain" in the drinker. It's a very powerful
>sleeping potion that makes the drinker appear to be dead. (Think Snow
>White.) I do think we'll see the DLD in Book 7, but in relation to
>faked deaths (the Malfoy or Emmeline Vance, possibly, not Dumbledore,
>who is, I think, really dead).

Rebecca:

I do think DD is dead and will stay that way thanks to Snape's tower 
intervention, but that portrait snoozing irks my suspicions toward a DLD. Or 
something similiar, anyway.

I also think there was quite a bit of time spent on potions in this book, 
and the first potion brewed using the HBP potions book in Slughorn's class 
is, lo and behold,  DLD.  And also one of the first potions to be mentioned 
in the series, come to think of it. Doesn't it sound very, well, eerie to 
have a potion with the word "death" in it?  Why wouldn't it just be called a 
Sleeping Potion/Solution? We appear to already have one of those, so DLD has 
to be a major difference to your run-of-the-mill Sleeping Potion. We don't 
know what happens if that potion is tinkered with slightly, or when one 
comes out of such a sleep, either.

We know the steps, ingredients, and color transformations of DLD and from 
what I've read , we don't know that level of detail about many of the 
potions mentioned in the series so far.  I agree with you there is a 
significance behind it, but I still (sorry, I'm hardheaded) am drawn to this 
possibly being what DD drank.


>Carol:

>I think it's more likely, as I've suggested elsewhere, that the potion
>is some sort of poisoned memory. The stone basin in which the potion
>is placed is described as being "rather like the Pensieve," and the
>green light emanating from the basin is "misty," like the mist that
>rises from a Pensieve. After drinking several gobletsful of the
>potion, Dumbledore seems to be "dreaming a horrible dream," reliving
>terrible memories that may or may not be his own.

<snip other details, keeping them in mind but including this:)

>Sorry about the level of detail, but I'm trying to show that this
>potion, which glows a phosphorescent green like the Dark Mark hanging
>in the sky above Hogwarts, is not the Draught of Living Death but a
>poisoned memory that causes both mental and physical agony and greatly
>weakens the drinker.

>IMO, the resemblance of the basin to a Pensieve is not
>accidental, nor is the color, so reminiscent of the Dark Mark, Avada
>Kedavra, and the "venomous green" Basilisk, a coincidence.


Rebecca:

Let's explore this a little more fully, shall we? Particularly this:

"Immediately a thick coppery green chain appeared out of thin air, extending 
from the depths of the water into Dumbledore's clenched hand. Dumbledore 
tapped the chain, which began to slide through his fist like a snake, 
coiling itself on the ground with a clinking sound that echoed noisily off 
the rocky walls, pulling something from the depths of the black water. 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, toward the place on 
the bank where Harry and Dumbledore stood."

Glowing green, hmmmm.  Now that glow could be magical to the objects for 
whatever reason, and the chain and boat don't appear to be a memory. While I 
can almost accept the idea of a poisoned memory, I could combine a poisonous 
DLD potion and a memory together and come up with some intriguing ideas, 
first of which is that perhaps the potion DD drank isn't the same as the one 
Regulus Black had to drink. More on that in a minute, but before I forget, 
you quoted the word "misty" in reference to the potion basin in the cave and 
I didn't quite get that.  Since the boat glowed and the chain glowed and the 
potion glowed, seems they all glowed not because of memory but because of a 
magical spell. Did you mean that in reference of misty to the Pensieve 
instead? A phosphorescent glow is different from a mist to me. I am confused 
because I was able to find that word describing the cave's potion basin, 
unless you've a British version of the HBP book which has it and my US one 
doesn't.  Kindly steer me straight :)

>Carol:

>Whatever this potion may be, it is not the Draught of Living Death,
>which would simply have sent Dumbledore into a deep and deathlike
>sleep. It is, as Dumbledore himself says, "something more worrisome
>than blood and bodies," something sinister and deadly and cruel.

Rebecca:

I'm still not as convinced as you are that the potion isn't DLD, so alas, we 
shall agree to disagree. :)  DD thought he was drinking a potion that LV 
created - we have a clue, if you will, that if indeed Regulus Black is the 
mysterious R.A.B., he's someone who was in the cave before DD and we don't 
know what really happened to Regulus, do we? Lupin says he only managed to 
live a few days after "deserting" the DE's, and Sirius says in OoP that he 
was murdered on LV's orders, and then backtracks and says "on Voldemort's 
orders, most likely"  because Sirius thought he wasn't important enough for 
LV to kill personally.  So the question begets itself: how *did* he die, 
exactly? Was it the same potion DD drank?  Or did perhaps Regulus survive 
the cave and die trying to destroy the Horcrux? We've seen what trying to 
destroy one does to you from DD's arm and the Slytherin/Gaunt ring.

Since we think we *may* have seen the locket at GP in the clean up there 
during OoP, I could postulate that Regulus might have made it back home, at 
least. If so,  Regulus was a wizard smart and powerful enough to figure out 
all of this:

- the Horcrux secret,
- the location (cave)
- the boat (about which DD professes Voldemort would have been reasonably 
confident that none but a very great wizard would have been able to find it)
- have enough magical power to get across the lake in the boat (again, DD 
states "Voldemort will not have cared about the weight, but about the amount 
of magical power that crossed his lake")
- drank the potion  (DD again "He would want to keep them alive long enough 
to find out how they managed to penetrate so far through his defenses and, 
most importantly of all, why they were so intent upon emptying the basin.)
- got the locket and replaced it, apparently (from OoP: "......a heavy 
locket that none of them could open" - and this is only IF the one 
referenced in OoP is really Slytherin's locket)

So,  I'm curious.  If the above were true, would that same wizard be capable 
of modifying LV's defenses ever so slightly in case the Dark Smarmy Lord 
himself came back?  If it were me, I'd send the Dark Lord a message by 
allowing him to drink a potion which would give him a taste of what death 
was like considering that I alone thought I knew his Horcrux secret, if the 
potion works as I speculate it may. :)

Rebecca, who really digs this whole discussion







From agdisney at msn.com  Sat Mar 25 02:09:12 2006
From: agdisney at msn.com (Andrea Grevera)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 21:09:12 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Going back to discuss GOF.
References: <e027fs+fd0a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY108-DAV149197B898B6C2F06E3924CFDC0@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 150000


  Lisa:
  AND, OK, MY LAST AND FINAL ALL CAPS QUESTION... going forward to HBP: If the time-
  turner  was used to save Buckbeak and Siruis- why could it not be used to save the only 
  wizard that Voldesnort ever feared? wouldn't it be absolutely critical to go back and save 
  DD- if only for his knowledge of VM, in order to defeat him? I say  "Give Harry the Time 
  Turner McGonagle- let him take his Felix Felicis with him and GO GET DUMBLEDORE!!!"


  Andie:
  When Harry & Hermonie used the time-turner in POA, Siruis was still alive.  They assumed
  that Buckbeak had been killed because they heard the axe fall but when they went back in time
  they realized that it was themselves that threw the rock that broke the pitcher and/or hit Harry
  in the head to warn them that others were approaching Hagrid's hut.  So Buckbeak never died.

  Supposedly DD has died.  I don't think they can go back and change history after an actual death.
  But JKR said something to the effect of 'when your really dead, you cannot come back to life' (from
  memory which isn't always as good as I would like it to be).  My question to that is, is DD
  "really" dead.






  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<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/HBF_Text__MUST_READ>

  Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying!
   
  Yahoo! Groups Links



   




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




From chonpschonps at hotmail.com  Fri Mar 24 16:31:32 2006
From: chonpschonps at hotmail.com (xuxunette)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 16:31:32 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <e00aom+8n68@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e016t4+pu6a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150001

I didn't really follow the thread but I had to agree with something in
this post.

Lupinlore: snip
>I think JKR is honestly taken aback by fan 
> reactions to certain things.  Once again, as I've said before, JKR 
> is often a victim of the problem of three:  What she thinks she's 
> writing, what we read, and what's actually there are three different 
> things, and often don't have that much resemblance to one another.

That's so true. And  I think the reason why most of the (very
enjoyable) theories thought up in this group seem often too far
fetched to me is that what we read is often not even what we really
read, but what we wanted to read. 

xuxu









From littlehorn489 at hotmail.com  Fri Mar 24 23:52:30 2006
From: littlehorn489 at hotmail.com (bigestbarda)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 23:52:30 -0000
Subject: Sirius and the opposite sex (was Re: Lily and Marauders)
In-Reply-To: <duvo02+j720@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e020nu+ncak@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150002

> Marianne:
> > <SNIP> There never seems to be any indication that Sirius is at 
> > all interested in Lily in a romantic sense. <snip>
> 
> Angirussell:
> I agree that Sirius was not in love with Lily. But he was obviously
> very good-looking and aware of it.  So, why have we not even heard 
> of a romantic link in school or after with Sirius and some witch?
 
bigestbarda:
I find Sirius' apparent unwillingness (or inability) to get a
girlfriend interesting. If his exchanges with Molly and his mother are
typical, Sirius has serious issues interacting with women. I wouldn't
be surprised if he was quite sexually immature as well, considering
his (what we must assume to be typical teenage Sirius behaviour, or
else JKR wouldn't have pointed it out) ignorance of female interest
during the OWL exam- for a 15 year old boy, that's somewhat atypical.
I don't imagine Mr and Mrs Black were either very physically
affectionate nor very informative about certain things, which would
also be a factor.









From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 25 03:05:07 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 03:05:07 -0000
Subject: Going back to discuss GOF.
In-Reply-To: <e027fs+fd0a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e02c13+kukb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150003

Lisa:
<SNIP>
> Barty Crouch Jr. - needless to say, a very troubled lad. My 
question is- is he really that 
> smart? because I don't think so. He plays an awfully good Mad Eye- 
I mean, going to all 
> that trouble to win over Harry throughout year 4, he really goes 
out of his way.  I realize he 
> wanted Harry to get to the Portkey so that his master (Voldewart) 
could get his blood, but 
> c'mon, if you really read it (as if you didn't know it was Crouch 
Jr.) you really get to like the 
> guy. I honestly don't think Crouch Jr. was capable of getting 
people to like him. I think he 
> was a loner with no sense of humor, no self-esteem. Therefore, he 
did not have the tools 
> to be that convincing.  

Alla:

LOL, Lisa. No chewing here, just thanking you. Same topics come and 
go all the time. Just look at all the talk about "you know who" ( 
NOT Voldemort :)), so even though I love to talk about "you know 
who", I sure appreciate different topics.

But I have to ask you to ellaborate more on your points about Barty. 
What do you mean he did not have the tools to be that convincing? Do 
you mean that somebody else was impersonating the impersonator? I am 
sorry, but I am really not sure about your point here.

I mean, yes, to me it looked that he indeed WAS that convincing.

Lisa:
> AND ONE MORE THING... How is it that the greatest wizard alive (at 
the time) did not have 
> any inkling whatsoever that this was a fraud? (referring to DD). 

Alla:

Hehe. You mean Dumbledore CAN make really BIG mistakes, HUGE 
mistakes as to his trust in people? Yep, I agree with you, 
Dumbledore made  MANY mistakes throughout the books. Not recognising 
this impostor is sure one of them IMO. Putting his trust in the 
wrong person could be another one. It seems that I cannot stop from 
talking about "you know who" even in this topic. :-)

 
Lisa:
> AND, OK, MY LAST AND FINAL ALL CAPS QUESTION... going forward to 
HBP: If the time-
> turner  was used to save Buckbeak and Siruis- why could it not be 
used to save the only 
> wizard that Voldesnort ever feared? wouldn't it be absolutely 
critical to go back and save 
> DD- if only for his knowledge of VM, in order to defeat him? I 
say  "Give Harry the Time 
> Turner McGonagle- let him take his Felix Felicis with him and GO 
GET DUMBLEDORE!!!"

Alla:

Oh, time travel theorists will explain it better than I can, but my 
short answer is because it never happened on the single timeline in 
the first place.

But I am ready to bet that Timeturner ( the one which was not broken 
in MoM) as we will find out :) will be used again. I love Valky's 
prediction that it will be used to travel to battle in MoM.

 
Lisa:
> Ok. I'm done. I know some of you will chew me up because one or 
all of the points I've 
> made have been discussed over and over again- but I just had to 
release.

Alla:

Thank you for starting this thread. :)






From eastbaydavej at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 25 01:14:08 2006
From: eastbaydavej at yahoo.com (David)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 01:14:08 -0000
Subject: What's next???
Message-ID: <e025h0+7dsv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150004

Okay so here we are... Hogwarts is on the verge of shutting down, or 
at least scaling back. DD is dead (more than likely) and VM has no 
one but Harry and his friends in his way. We have the Ministry being 
lead by a shoot first, the ends justify the means invidual... 
generally all heck is breaking loose now. People are VERY 
scared......

Harry has said he isn't coming back... what is he goin to do? After 
going back to the Dursleys one more time, he will head to the 
Weasleys for the wedding and then off to Godric Hollow to where it 
all started.

He has a plan.. that much is obvious. He is going to hunt VM down 
and try to kill him before he can kill Harry or anyone close to him 
again. 

What is the plan?? He knows the secret of the horcrux now.... but is 
he up to the task? He knows more about VM's early days than many.. 
is that enough?? What can a boy/man his age actually do? While Harry 
may be brave and has come a considerable way with his skills, he 
still isn't anywhere near the level of wizard needed to take on VM. 

Here is what I think is going to happen.... Harry and gang are going 
to setup shop in the OFTF house. Ms Granger is going to take over 
the obvious role of researcher and braintrust. Harry and Ron and the 
others are going to start combing the globe for whatever clues they 
can find. Question is... how much can she actually fit in a single 
book?? I imagine those are well hidden items, it took DD a number of 
years to find the ones he did. There is no way, unless the book 
happens over the course of several years that they can get them all 
then take on VM. Something is going to happen, either VM gets wind 
of the search and heads out to retrieve them, or his DE's do. That 
is what this next book is going to cover I think... all leading up 
to the final battle..... Perhaps one of the friends is taken in 
order to make replacement horcrux.... 

EastbayDavej











From mosaic at wi.rr.com  Sat Mar 25 02:31:57 2006
From: mosaic at wi.rr.com (mosaic at wi.rr.com)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 20:31:57 -0600
Subject: Discussing GOF
In-Reply-To: <dvukqo+rfnb@eGroups.com>
References: <dvmmo6+i9be@eGroups.com> <dvukqo+rfnb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <c4e48be62185.2185c4e48be6@rdc-kc.rr.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150005

Andrea Grevera wrote:
> I say  "Give Harry the Time Turner McGonagle- let him take his Felix
> Felicis with him and GO GET DUMBLEDORE!!!"


This is my very first post, so please be gentle.  I've enjoyed all the
analysis of what to me are just romping good reading.

Didn't Harry say in the HBP that they destroyed all the time-turners in
their jaunt through the Ministry in TOoP?  There would be no
Time-turners left to save DD then.

Mosaicwench

 





From AllieS426 at aol.com  Sat Mar 25 03:37:30 2006
From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 03:37:30 -0000
Subject: Going back to discuss GOF.
In-Reply-To: <e027fs+fd0a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e02dtq+6mjk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150006

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dillgravy" <monalila662 at ...> 
wrote:
>
... right?
> 
> AND ONE MORE THING... How is it that the greatest wizard alive (at 
the time) did not have 
> any inkling whatsoever that this was a fraud? (referring to DD). 
> 

Allie:

AND ONE MORE THING!  Why did Dumbledore ask McGonagall to fetch Winky 
from the kitchens before Crouch!Moody had turned back into himself?  
As soon as he knew that Moody was an imposter, he ALSO knew that the 
imposter was Barty Crouch Junior?  Otherwise how did he know to get 
Winky??







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 25 03:46:31 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 03:46:31 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again and LOLLIPOPS
In-Reply-To: <dvvn15+f061@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e02een+psah@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150007

> > Sydney:
> > And duh, Snape doesn't bring up Lily.  Snape never, ever, brings 
up
> > Lily.  Don't you think that's just a little odd, in 6 books, when
> > Snape throws every thing else he can think of at Harry?  I'm 
pretty
> > sure oxen and wainropes couldn't drag it out of him.
> > 
> 
> Neri:
> This is a typical LOLLIPOPS tactics ? when there's no canon, argue
> that the absence of canon strengthens the theory. I shudder to 
think
> what you would have said had I dared using such an argument for 
LID!Snape.
> 

Alla:

Right, Neri, I basically snipped your whole post, because you know 
by now that I REALLY dig your theory and think that you will be 
proven right in many aspects of it, BUT as I wrote in the recent 
past, I reluctantly came to accept the LOLLIPOPS. Trust me, I will 
be very happy if I am wrong, but I think that Snape loved Lily ( one 
sidedly, of course IMO).

So, my question is whether LID!Snape works with LOLLIPOPS at all? 
Please say that it does? :-) I know that you are not buying it, but 
I don't see why LOLLIPOPS will contradict your theory in a big way 
or would they?

As to Snape never bringing up Lily, well, through gritted teeth I am 
forced to agree with Sydney - it IS significant, IMO. It is not just 
absence of canon, it is vicious unwarranted NON-STOP attacks on one 
of Harry's parents and NOTHING about another parent, AT ALL.

And you did use the similar argument, no? JKR does not tell us much 
about how Life debt works and I DO think that it is very 
significant, just as the fact that Snape never badmouths Lily.

Alla,

who once told someone off list that she at least hopes that when 
Snape would confess to Harry his love for Lily, he will hopefully 
not talk about her "long mane of red hair", would make me very ill 
indeed. :-0
 








From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sat Mar 25 03:46:29 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 03:46:29 -0000
Subject: But DID James listen? (was LID!Snape rides again )
In-Reply-To: <e027n1+32fp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e02eel+t6or@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150008

 
> Alla:
> But of course, since I believe in Snape darker nature, I will go 
> further and speculate that Snape indeed signed up to join Voldie 
and 
> company when he was still in school and that is where many 
conflicts 
> betweem him and James indeed grew. Speculation? Sure, pure 
> speculation and of course we don't know when Voldemort recruited 
> Snape, BUT I find it VERY interesting that Draco started his 
service 
> when he is still in school.
> 
> It is true that we don't know whether Draco has the mark or not, 
but 
> I think it is possible that he does have a mark and if it is so, I 
> think it will be even more likely that Snape joined while still in 
> Hogwarts.

Potioncat:
I snipped Ceridwen's post, because I'm supposed to, but this reply is 
to both Ceridwen and Alla.

Black says he never heard anyone suggest Snape was a DE...and this is 
after Black has been in Azkaban hearing things about other DEs. Snape 
doesn't seem to have been openly involved with the Order before LV's 
fall, and Black knows nothing about him being at Hogwarts. So while 
the current members of the Order know that Snape is a former DE who 
is spying for DD, the Order members during the first war did not know 
that Snape was a DE or that he was spying.

My point? I don't think there was a reason for James to think Snape 
was a DE. James was in the Order and if he suspected Snape, surely he 
would have said or done something. Now, that doesn't mean Snape 
didn't join during his time at Hogwarts, but he seems to have kept a 
very low profile about it, whenever  he joined.

But, I really think Draco is the exception. He isn't a member because 
LV is starting an apprentice program for gifted teens, Draco is a 
member because the Malfoy family is being punished. 









From celizwh at intergate.com  Sat Mar 25 03:56:00 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 03:56:00 -0000
Subject: But DID James listen? (was LID!Snape rides again )
In-Reply-To: <e023cb+6ltd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e02f0g+ifmf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150009

Many posters:

[Discussing what Snape may have said to James when the Potters were
preparing to be fideliused, whether or not James would have regarded
it as a trick, what Lily would have thought, whether or not Lily was
informed of the attempted warning, etc.]

houyhnhnm:

"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'd have died like your father too arrogant to
believe you might be mistaken in Black--"

This is an interesting statement.  Taken one sentence at a time, it says:
1.  I am taking credit for saving your life.
2.  I assert that you owe me gratitude.
3.  You don't deserve being saved.
4.  You're just like your father. (Snape's unending refrain.)
5.  Your father died too arrogant to believe he was mistaken in Black.

This is very typical, in my opinion, of the way Snape's mind works,
linking injustice to injustice as he works himself up into a rage
against the way the world has treated him.  I have tended to see it as
symptomatic of Snape's disease, not as a literal claim to have warned
James shortly before the Potters went into hiding.  I mean, he might
have done so.  I'm not arguing that it didn't happen that way.

But I also think it can be taken merely as an example of the way
Snape's brain short-circuits every time Harry and the memory of
Harry's father are brought too close together. Something causes a leap
from "you don't deserve being saved" and "You're just like your
father".  That something may or may not contain objective logic.

Obviously many people think the link is that Snape attempted to save
James life and James was too arrogant to listen. He could have.  Or it
could be that, way back when they were students at Hogwarts, Snape
tried to convince anyone who would listen that Sirius was a bad egg
and no one (especially Dumbledore.  There is a hidden apostrophe to
Dumbledore in this speech, it seems to me) would listen.  Or even--I
think Snape is enough of a solipsist, at least when he's caught up in
the DD-Marauder-Harry knot--that he *knew* Sirius was no good when
everyone else was too blind to see it. And now he's been proven right.






From kjones at telus.net  Sat Mar 25 05:04:32 2006
From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 21:04:32 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Discussing GOF
In-Reply-To: <c4e48be62185.2185c4e48be6@rdc-kc.rr.com>
References: <dvmmo6+i9be@eGroups.com> <dvukqo+rfnb@eGroups.com> <c4e48be62185.2185c4e48be6@rdc-kc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <4424CF60.9040605@telus.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 150010

mosaic at wi.rr.com wrote:
> Andrea Grevera wrote:
>  > I say  "Give Harry the Time Turner McGonagle- let him take his Felix
>  > Felicis with him and GO GET DUMBLEDORE!!!"
> 
> 
> This is my very first post, so please be gentle.  I've enjoyed all the
> analysis of what to me are just romping good reading.
> 
> Didn't Harry say in the HBP that they destroyed all the time-turners in
> their jaunt through the Ministry in TOoP?  There would be no
> Time-turners left to save DD then.
> 
> Mosaicwench
> 
KJ writes:

    What makes this idea even more intriguing is that JKR refused to 
answer a question about whether or not Harry would be doing any more 
time travel. It did not seem likely that he would be going back to 
Godric's Hollow in time as it would take him to book 9 to turn the time 
turner at the rate of a turn per hour. What would happen if he changed 
the events of the tower?

KJ




From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 25 05:33:57 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 05:33:57 -0000
Subject: But DID James listen? (was LID!Snape rides again )
In-Reply-To: <e02f0g+ifmf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e02ko5+poaf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150011

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" <celizwh at ...> 
wrote:
>
> "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'd have died like your father too 
arrogant to believe you might be mistaken in Black--"
> 
> This is an interesting statement.  Taken one sentence at a time, 
it says:
> 1.  I am taking credit for saving your life.
> 2.  I assert that you owe me gratitude.
> 3.  You don't deserve being saved.
> 4.  You're just like your father. (Snape's unending refrain.)
> 5.  Your father died too arrogant to believe he was mistaken in 
Black.
> 
> This is very typical, in my opinion, of the way Snape's mind works,
> linking injustice to injustice as he works himself up into a rage
> against the way the world has treated him.  
(Snip)
>I think Snape is enough of a solipsist, at least when he's caught 
>up in the DD-Marauder-Harry knot--that he *knew* Sirius was no good 
> when everyone else was too blind to see it. And now he's been 
proven right.
>

Tonks:
You know reading your post made me start to wonder if there was some 
reason for Snape to distrust Sirius other than the murders that he 
was framed for.  I can't remember why Sirius was near the Potter's 
house that night.  Was there a reason?  Do you think that maybe 
Snape could have some valid reason to distrust Sirius other than the 
so called "prank" when they were in school?  Was there some reason 
why DD who always seems to know things about people, thought the 
worst of Sirius all those years that Sirius was in prison?  That is 
not really like DD. You would have thought that DD would have known 
that Sirius didn't do those murders. I know that others here have 
brought that point up in the past.

Overall I doubt that Sirius would have done anything against James 
or Lily, but this does plant just a bit of questioning in my mind.  
Maybe this shows how "my" mind works. ;-)

Why was Sirius there that night? And if PP was the secret-keeper, 
what was the point of that if Sirius knew where they were anyway?  
He must have known if he was near their house.  Couldn't LV have 
tortured Sirius anyway to get that information? What was the point 
of PP being the secret-keeper in that case? It is late and I am 
probably just not thinking clearly
 but I am beginning to wonder a 
bit.

Tonks_op







From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 25 05:37:31 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 05:37:31 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <00a901c64eff$caa16680$9e7e400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <e02kur+oo8t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150012

> 
> Betsy Hp:
> I did some massive cutting and snipping to try and draw together all 
> the statements that, to my mind, point out a huge weakness in your 
> theory, Neri.  And that is the use of magic to subvert or replace 
> actual human feelings.  Snape cannot feel *actual* remorse, it must 
> be of a magical variety.  Harry cannot have his own sense of 
> responsibility and justice, magic must have put it there.  There's 
> no such thing as real loyalty, just magically Unbreakable Vows.  
> Frankly, I think you're arguing for the antithesis of what JKR is 
> writing.
> <snip>

Neri:
I think you are missing my point. JKR doesn't use magic to replace
feelings, but she definitely uses magic to represent moral values.
Lily's Ancient Magic represents Love as a feeling, but also the
sacrifice of a mother for her son as a moral value. Petunia's pact
represents responsibility to kin. The UV represents commitment. The
Fidelius represents loyalty.

Moral values are feelings themselves, but they are more than that. The
magical power that JKR gives them symbolizes the RL power that these
moral values have to affect and constrain both ourselves and others.
Why can the UV kill you if you break it? Because it symbolizes extreme
commitment. The RL "magic" of moral values is that they can constrain
us even, in a sense, against our will.

Remorse is a feeling, but it's also a moral value. People can feel
remorse against their will. Their "better self", or what Dr. Freud
termed their "super ego" practically forces it on them. If they insist
on denying it they might cause themselves real harm. The Life Debt, I
suspect, is the Potterverse magical representation of remorse. It
forces itself on Snape the same way that RL remorse can "force" itself
on us. The fact that throughout the series Snape repeatedly fails in
repaying his Debt strongly suggests that he still denies his remorse. 

Snape seems to treat the Debt as a mechanistic magic ? if he just
manages to repay it he'll be free and can choose Voldemort's side
again. This mistake is similar to the mistake that Voldemort himself
probably did when using Harry's blood. He treated Lily's protection as
a mechanistic thing and put it into his own blood to protect himself.
But Dumbledore's gleam of triumph hints that this was a mistake.
Dumbledore understood that, since Lily's blood protection actually
stands for Love, in the end it must in some way (that we don't know
yet) enforce its power on Voldemort. In a similar way Dumbledore
understood that, since the Life Debt stands for Remorse, Snape will
never succeed in repaying it without denouncing Evil. 


> Pippin:.
> Dumbledore, AKA the epitome of goodness, sends Harry to the 
> Dursleys and locks Sirius up at  GP.   James, the progenitor of 
> this famous life debt, makes Snape's life hell for years on end, 
> rushes into danger to save his skin, then goes right back to 
> hexing Snape whenever he gets the opportunity. Are you going 
> to say that they're arbitrarily schizoid too? 
> 

Neri:
I'm certainly not saying that JKR doesn't have some complex characters
with sometimes conflicting feelings and actions, but none of them gets
even close to the paradoxes of DDM!Snape. 

Moreover, none of your above examples was introduced as a solution to
a major mystery. An author is certainly allowed to introduce some
conflicts in her characters now and then, but when she springs on us
an arbitrarily conflicted character as the solution for a major
mystery, this is when I say "deus ex machina!" and put the book down
in disgust. Of, course, I don't expect *you* to agree with that <g>,
but until now JKR has never stooped to such means. 

> Pippin:
> Why should it be so hard to understand that for JKR's characters,
> and maybe even for JKR herself, lives are a much bigger deal than
> feelings? There's nothing artificial or inconsistent about that, it's
> just a different set of values.

Neri:
But if so, how do you explain Snape stopping the Occlumency lessons
because of, as Dumbledore himself admits, his feelings about James?
How do you explain Snape refusing even to hear Sirius' story before he
turns both him and Lupin in to the dementors for a fate worse than
death? The view of Snape as a person who does not care about feelings,
only about saving lives, simply doesn't work with the canon. 

It's James who is the consistent example of valuing lives over
feelings. Even when he bullies Snape he uses harmless jinxes in
response to Snape's potentially lethal curse. He saves Snape's life
despite (or maybe because) the feelings between them. And Dumbledore,
who knew James well, ensures Harry that James would have spared
Peter's life too.

> Magpie:
> Leaving aside the fact that it's hard for me to see how a Snape who
is mean 
> and bitter but also tormented by guilt is "schizoid" or arbitrary,
people in 
> the books don't seem to think it's so mysterious.  In the first book
Quirrel 
> says, "Oh he does [hate you]," said Quirrell casually, "heavens yes.
 He was 
> at Hogwarts with your father, didn't you know?  But he never wanted you 
> dead."  (He hates you, but doesn't want you dead.)
Neri:
Oh, I don't see "hates you, but doesn't want you dead" as schizoid.
Quite normal, actually. I'm sure most of us (certainly myself) have
several people that they hate but don't want dead. But Quirrell
doesn't even begin to describe here the paradox that is DDM!Snape. He
doesn't mention that Snape owes his life to James, that he revealed
the prophecy to Voldemort, that he's supposed to feel so much remorse
over this that even 15 years after the case Dumbledore had trusted him
completely, that he stopped the Occlumency lessons and AK'ed
Dumbledore after saving his life and taking a UV to kill him,
supposedly because of some extremely stupid mistake although he's also
supposed to be that hotshot secret agent.


> Magpie: 
> And then Dumbledore elaborates when Harry asks him about just this:
> 
> "Funny how people's minds work, isn't it?  Professor Snape couldn't
bear 
> being in your father's debt...I do believe he worked so hard to
protect you 
> this year because he felt that would make him and your father quits.
 Then 
> he could go back to hating your father's memory in peace...."
> 

Neri:
Well, even Dumbledore admits it's funny, and it gives Harry headache,
and this is after just *one* book. After six books of accumulating
paradoxes, DDM!Snape gives me headaches too.

The simple fact is that no other character of JKR is nearly so
contradicting and conflicted as DDM!Snape. He'd be grossly atypical of
her character writing.


Neri







From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Sat Mar 25 05:45:53 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 05:45:53 -0000
Subject: Discussing GOF
In-Reply-To: <4424CF60.9040605@telus.net>
Message-ID: <e02leh+3bs4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150013

mosaicwench:
> Didn't Harry say in the HBP that they destroyed all the time-
> turners in their jaunt through the Ministry in TOoP?  There would 
> be no Time-turners left to save DD then.

Jen: Ron's birthday watch? I think Dumbledore's watch is an 
unrestricted time-turner and he's been traveling back to gather 
information about Voldemort and other important things. Ron's watch 
looks very similar to Dumbledore's. I like the idea DD traveled back 
to GH and that's how he knew what happened so quickly, but seeing as 
I can't fathom the time-space contiuum, maybe it wouldn't work out 
for him to be there. And it does seem like he'd have more concrete 
information to give Harry if he observed GH.

KJ writes:
> What makes this idea even more intriguing is that JKR refused to 
> answer a question about whether or not Harry would be doing any
> more time travel. It did not seem likely that he would be going
> back to Godric's Hollow in time as it would take him to book 9 to
> turn the time turner at the rate of a turn per hour. What would
> happen if he changed the events of the tower?

Jen: I've thought about both these events because I really believe 
time-travel will make a reappearance. Re: the tower, it would be 
hard for the Trio to hide up there and not be seen. Harry alone up 
there under the Invisibility Cloak...er...it's hard to imagine him 
not attempting to intervene. We know he *didn't* because a second 
Harry wasn't seen, so if he was on the tower he held himself in 
check.  Wait! Dumbledore could become invisible as well as knowing 
about time-travel. Is that a function of his watch, too? If so, 
maybe the Trio could use Ron's watch for both.

Maybe they didn't change events on the tower but just observed them? 

GH might work too, if the watch works more efficiently than the MOM 
turners. The big trick again would be not intervening and not being 
seen. 

Alla mentioned Valky making a good canon argument for the Trio 
traveling back to the DOM battle and that post can be found here: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142059

Jen R. mostly interested in another time-turner sequence because she 
can't figure out a way for the Trio to get a memory of GH for the 
Pensieve. Unless there's a replay of the Slughorn scene and 
Pettigrew, Snape or the someone else at Godric's Hollow reluctantly 
gives a memory.







From kjones at telus.net  Sat Mar 25 05:57:03 2006
From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 21:57:03 -0800
Subject: Logical Thinking versus Intuitive Thinking
Message-ID: <4424DBAF.6060402@telus.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 150014

KJ writes:

    As a result of a related thread on another list, I am curious to 
know what the opinions are about how JKR presents logical rational 
thought on the part of some of her characters and the intuitive, 
instinctive thought of others.  Snape is used in the books to 
demonstrate logical progressive thinking, taking information in, 
relating it to other information, and spitting out an answer.

    Hermione, on the other hand, researches, quotes chapter and verse, 
learns what she is taught, but does little imaginative thinking, other 
than the charmed coins. Again, however, that was learned from a book.

    I think it was in PoA where James and Sirius were regarded as the 
brightest wizards of their age, quite inventive and imaginative. They 
learned on their own to become animagi, and developed the Map.

    Harry and Ron are quite different from each other in that Ron can 
see things developing ahead. Harry is the typical gung-ho Gryffindor, 
none of whom have survived long. Harry looks no further ahead than his 
immediate goal.

    Luna works on a completely illogical, other world basis, and Crabbe 
and Goyle have not shared a thought between them.

    Is there a message in this? Will any of it relate to the final 
resolution? Does she prefer one form of thought or reasoning from 
another, or does she find a place for all? How does Dumbledore fit into 
the scheme of things?  Is he a consummate Gryffindor or chessmaster?
More importantly, does anybody care:-)

KJ








From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 25 06:12:57 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 06:12:57 -0000
Subject: Logical Thinking versus Intuitive Thinking
In-Reply-To: <4424DBAF.6060402@telus.net>
Message-ID: <e02n19+kbsq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150015

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Jones <kjones at ...> 
wrote:
>
> KJ writes:
> 
>     As a result of a related thread on another list, I am curious 
to 
> know what the opinions are about how JKR presents logical rational 
> thought on the part of some of her characters and the intuitive, 
> instinctive thought of others.  Snape is used in the books to 
> demonstrate logical progressive thinking, taking information in, 
> relating it to other information, and spitting out an answer.
> 
Snip because I must> 
>     Is there a message in this? Will any of it relate to the final 
> resolution? Does she prefer one form of thought or reasoning from 
> another, or does she find a place for all? How does Dumbledore fit 
into the scheme of things?  Is he a consummate Gryffindor or 
chessmaster?
> More importantly, does anybody care:-)
> 

Tonks:
I care.  I think that JKR is influenced by Jung in many ways.  One 
of these is the personality types of the characters.  Since I am 
very intuitive and that is my main way of dealing with the world, I 
strongly identify with and want to be even more like DD. I love Luna 
who is intutitive, and Lupin who is a feeling type.  I think that 
Snape and Hermione are thinking types. I like Snape and Hermione, 
but if I knew them is real life I would see them as cold and 
distant.  

So do I think that JKR prefers one style over another?  If she does 
I would think that it would be the intuitive one of DD.  She has 
painted Snape in a rather bad light, after all.

Tonks_op  







From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 25 06:30:47 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 06:30:47 -0000
Subject: But DID James listen? (was LID!Snape rides again )
In-Reply-To: <e02ko5+poaf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e02o2n+lrr7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150016

Tonks:
> Why was Sirius there that night? And if PP was the secret-keeper, 
> what was the point of that if Sirius knew where they were anyway?  
> He must have known if he was near their house.  Couldn't LV have 
> tortured Sirius anyway to get that information? What was the point 
> of PP being the secret-keeper in that case? It is late and I am 
> probably just not thinking clearly
 but I am beginning to wonder a 
> bit.
zgirnius:
The point of the Fidelius Charm is that only the Secret Keeper can tell 
the secret. If Peter was the SK, Sirius would be completely unable to 
tell the secret, or divulge it in any way. If Sirius were tortured, 
this would not change the magic, Sirius would (somehow) be magically 
unable to tell teh secret. And it someone fed him Veritaserum, ditto. 
And if Voldemort himself used Legilimency on him, ditto.

The charm makes it possible to share the secret with others without 
increasing the chances that it will get out, compared to if the secret 
was known only to that one person.






From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sat Mar 25 08:01:19 2006
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 25 Mar 2006 08:01:19 -0000
Subject: Chapter Discussion Reminder, 3/27/2006, 12:00 am 
Message-ID: <1143273679.12.69317.m25@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150017


 Reminder from the Calendar of HPforGrownups
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal

Chapter Discussion Reminder
Monday March 27, 2006
All Day
(This event does not repeat.)

Notes:
Just a reminder: scheduled for next week is the chapter discussion for Chapter 13, "The Secret Riddle", summary to be written by Jen Reese. Make sure to reread the chapter!

To view the discussion schedule and to see which chapters still need a discussion leader, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database
and click on the "HPfGU HBP Chapter Discussions" table. If you'd like to take one of the available chapters, please let the elves know: HPforGrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com 



Set up birthday reminders!
 http://us.rd.yahoo.com/cal_us/rem/?http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal?v=9&evt_type=13

Copyright 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All Rights Reserved.
 http://www.yahoo.com

Privacy Policy:
 http://privacy.yahoo.com/

Terms of Service:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20060325/3ff2eaca/attachment.html>

From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Sat Mar 25 08:42:14 2006
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (PJ)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 08:42:14 -0000
Subject: But DID James listen? (was LID!Snape rides again )
In-Reply-To: <e01l6e+2h80@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e02vp6+9mu6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150018

Carol:
>
> Straightforward reading (IMO): Snape approaches James alone or with
> Lily and tells him that he knows from Dumbledore that one of the
> Potters' friends is a traitor who has been leaking secrets to
> Voldemort. Mentioning DD's Secret Keeper suggestion would enhance 
his
> credibility: He could not know that unless DD himself had told him.
> But James, who has already rejected Dumbledore as Secret Keeper in
> favor of Sirius, "arrogantly" rejects Snape's advice. 

PJ:
Anyone who doesn't validate Snape is considered "arrogant", 
especially if their last name happens to be Potter, but yes, I do 
think that may have happened simply because both Lupin and Sirius 
thought the other was the traitor in PoA.  So, either James heard it 
from Snape and mentioned the warning to his friends or the 
spy/traitor was common knowledge in the order at that time.  

As for whether James suspected Snape was a DE, I think he had a 
pretty good idea considering the direction he was going while in 
school and his choice of friends.

Carol:
>But Black, thinking that he's being tricky and clever,
> suggests Pettigrew instead as the least obvious choice, and the
> Potters go along with him, not because of Snape's suggestion but
> because he's James's best friend who has his best interests at 
>heart.

Ok, and this is where it gets a bit skewed for me.  Your best friend 
is going into hiding with his family because someone is seriously 
out to kill them.  You know there's been a spy/traitor in the order 
for about a year (per the shrieking shack) but are not sure 
who it is.  The million dollar question is, do you honestly take a 
chance on someone who may or may not be loyal, possibly giving the 
spy/traitor the ability to kill your friend OR do you say "Well, I 
know *I'm* loyal so I'd best not trust James and Lily's safety to 
anyone else" ?   

WHY would Sirius have suggested someone else as SK? It wasn't to 
save himself since he knew he'd be the first one hunted and tortured 
for the SK information but he also knew the Potter's secret was safe 
with him... As he said, he'd have died before revealing their 
whereabouts. 

I know it's canon that it was Sirius's idea but it makes absolutely 
no sense for the character we've been given to have suggested 
someone else for the job!  It doesn't add up.

Carol:
> 
> All of this information is based on the word of
> the characters involved (Snape, Black, and DD) but there's no 
reason
> (other than an assumption of ESE!Snape) to think that they're 
lying.

PJ:

I know, but see my arguement above.  You have to admit the whole 
thing plays out a bit like an episode of the Twilight Zone. :-)

 
Carol: 
> Whether Snape's advice backfired or not, I can't see "the 
assumption
> that the SK was DE common knowledge" being the reason offered for 
the
> SK change. 

PJ:
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. If you all know 
there's a spy among you and there's a war on, it would be logical to 
assume this person is working for Voldemort.  Why else would he/she 
be there spying?  If Sirius and James chose Peter as SK then they 
obviously had no idea he was the spy...

PJ













From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Sat Mar 25 13:15:29 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 13:15:29 -0000
Subject: But DID James listen? (was LID!Snape rides again )
In-Reply-To: <e027n1+32fp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e03fph+6j2a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150019

Alla:
> 
> But of course, since I believe in Snape darker nature, I will go 
> further and speculate that Snape indeed signed up to join Voldie 
and 
> company when he was still in school and that is where many 
conflicts 
> betweem him and James indeed grew. 

Ceridwen:
I think part of Snape's fascination for people who both like and 
dislike him, is his darkness.  So I can completely agree with you on 
believing in his darker nature.  I'm not sure that he joined LV 
during school, but we know from Sirius that he hung out with a crowd 
who almost all later became DEs.  Maybe they had a DE Jr club, like 
Harry's DA?  Just kidding, but they may have had the darker aspects 
of magic in common.  I don't know where his crowd was during the 
Pensieve scene - in class?  Already graduated?  Certainly not in 5th 
year!

Alla:
> It is true that we don't know whether Draco has the mark or not, 
but 
> I think it is possible that he does have a mark and if it is so, I 
> think it will be even more likely that Snape joined while still in 
> Hogwarts.

Ceridwen:
I thought that Draco was doing a sort of hazing - get through this 
and you'll be a Proud Member Of Our Team.  I was surprised (and felt 
very vindicated ;) ) when I read the same thing on Red Hen.  I can't 
give a theory of what Draco showed Burke if it wasn't the Dark Mark, 
but I don't see LV inducting a schoolboy.  Also, his plan was for 
Draco to die, not join the team, as a punishment for Lucius.  Why 
bother inducting him if a simple hazing will accomplish the purpose?  
I also got the impression that Draco's mission from LV was unusual, 
despite Harry's certainty that LV would stoop so low as to induct 
schoolboys.

I do, though, think that LV had his eye on certain schoolchildren as 
they were growing up, so he could send someone to approach them about 
joining once they were out of Hogwarts and away from Dumbledore's 
eye.  And it's possible that the gang Snape hung out with was marked, 
maybe by older graduated students who were then full-fledged DEs.  
Both sides have to recruit, and Hogwarts students are ripe for the 
picking.

Alla:
> 
> Those are all fascinating questions, but I must agree with Allie  
> and I did wrote about it in the past - I don't think we know for 
> sure that Snape DID warn James. For all we know  - Snape became 
> aware that somebody else warned James about the possible spy? Maybe 
> Lily told Snape that they got a warning and that is how Snape knows?

Ceridwen:
I got the impression that Snape told James how bad Sirius was, based 
on his vehemence when he talks about it.  He seems to take it 
personally.  This is just speculation as well.  It's enlightening to 
find that others see it differently.  It adds another dimension to 
the story.  Maybe he didn't warn him about the SK thing itself, then, 
but at some point he did tell him how wrong he was to put his faith 
in Sirius.  That will depend on whose reading is correct, and whether 
JKR decides to go there or not.

Alla:
> But in any event, even though it is 
> possible that Snape indeed warned James, one thing I am rather 
> confident about - I don't see James keeping Lily out of anything, 
> out of talking to Snape as Betsy said or that Lily was not an 
active 
> participant in the decision, as you suggest. Sorry, not buying that 
> at all. To me Lily's characterv screams of someone who has a takes 
> charge attitude. IMO of course.

Ceridwen:
Going sideways from this discussion, I would agree about what we know 
of Lily's personality.  She was cheeky, and she was not afraid to 
stand up to popular people.  She is clearly a strong character.  I 
can see possibilities that Snape talked to James alone - Lily could 
have been away, or napping after a bad night with Harry, or Snape and 
James ran into each other elsewhere.

While I can't see Lily allowing James to keep her out of things, I 
can see James trying to, in order to protect her.  The same way Harry 
broke up with Ginny to protect her at the end of HBP.  Not that it 
will do any good with Ginny, the primary people who knew they were 
dating had already left Hogwarts by the time they broke up. Isn't 
that the point, to make LV think she's not a lure to draw Harry to 
his death?  Also, I don't think Ginny will allow it.  I think JKR is 
drawing parallels between Ginny and Lily on some levels.  But she is 
also drawing parallels between Harry and James where both are heroic, 
sometimes to a fault.  Protecting their women seems to be a part of 
that particular similarity, in my opinion.

Alla:
> I don't think James could have kept Lily out of anything, 
> personally. Speculating of course.

Ceridwen:
Absolutely not!  Lily wouldn't allow it for one thing.  And since it 
had to do with her safety as well, and with her child's, I think she 
could convince him through argument that he was wrong.  It would be 
grossly unfair for him to shove her aside for this.  Their continued 
lives are that important that she has to be a part of it.  But, 
that's my speculation.  And I'm trying to base what I think of that 
period of James' and Lily's lives with what I see in 'present-day' 
canon, Harry and Ginny.  Harry was convinced that Ginny would 
understand why he felt he had to break up with her.  Does she?  Or 
will she fight, like I tend to think Lily did, to remain an equal 
partner in the danger?

All of this goes to the discussions about the role of women in the 
Potterverse that are at various places on the internet.  Is JKR 
writing a more traditional story, where the 'princess' sits back 
while her knight in shining armor protects her?  Or will she give us 
strong women who don their own armor and fight alongside their men?

Ceridwen, who may have been reading way too much for her own mental 
comfort.






From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net  Sat Mar 25 13:36:48 2006
From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 13:36:48 -0000
Subject: Logical Thinking versus Intuitive Thinking
In-Reply-To: <4424DBAF.6060402@telus.net>
Message-ID: <e03h1g+s8e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150020

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Jones <kjones at ...> 
wrote:
>
 
>     As a result of a related thread on another list, I am curious 
to 
> know what the opinions are about how JKR presents logical rational 
> thought on the part of some of her characters and the intuitive, 
> instinctive thought of others.  Snape is used in the books to 
> demonstrate logical progressive thinking, taking information in, 
> relating it to other information, and spitting out an answer.
> 
>     Hermione, on the other hand, researches, quotes chapter and 
verse, 
> learns what she is taught, but does little imaginative thinking, 
other 
> than the charmed coins. Again, however, that was learned from a 
book.
> 
>     I think it was in PoA where James and Sirius were regarded as 
the 
> brightest wizards of their age, quite inventive and imaginative. 
They 
> learned on their own to become animagi, and developed the Map.
> 
>     Harry and Ron are quite different from each other in that Ron 
can 
> see things developing ahead. Harry is the typical gung-ho 
Gryffindor, 
> none of whom have survived long. Harry looks no further ahead than 
his 
> immediate goal.
> 
>     Luna works on a completely illogical, other world basis, and 
Crabbe 
> and Goyle have not shared a thought between them.
> 
>     Is there a message in this? Will any of it relate to the final 
> resolution? Does she prefer one form of thought or reasoning from 
> another, or does she find a place for all? How does Dumbledore fit 
into 
> the scheme of things?  Is he a consummate Gryffindor or 
chessmaster?
> More importantly, does anybody care:-)


Marianne:

I don't know if there is an overall message that JKR is trying to 
portray, although I'll go out on a limb and say that the walking 
blockheads that are Crabbe and Goyle are not held up as examples 
that anyone should emulate!

I'd be willing to bet that JKR's not trying to say that intuitive 
thinkers are better than rational thinkers or the reverse. I think 
that, if she intends a message at all, it is that a person is best 
off if they can balance the rational and the intuitive within 
themselves.

It seems to me that she sometimes puts characters into one camp or 
the other and then reveals the occasional weakness of these 
characters when they stick to either the logical or the emotional.  
For instance, Snape, although a smart man and one who deals 
logically with problems, cannot use logic or smarts or any other 
intellectual method of dealing with all of his old hurts and grudges 
that center on anything related to the word "Potter." Rather, he 
can't always harness his emotions where these hot-button issues are 
concerned.

And Hermione, who is as smart as anyone, has trouble looking beyond 
book knowledge to understanding the emotional, intuitive sides of 
people. She is pretty dismissive of Luna for most of OoP in no small 
part because Luna's thought processes are so foreign to her own. 
Yet, Luna is the one who most gives Harry a lifeline after Sirius's 
death because she can relate emotionally to losing a loved one. But, 
Luna herself, however, is a bit too other-worldly to take seriously 
all the time, too.

As far as Dumbledore is concerned, I think he has both qualities, 
but occasionally loses track of them.  He does not always understand 
the emotional underpinnings of the people around him.  Or, perhaps 
another way of looking at it is that he assumes that they, like him, 
can put their own emotions aside for the greater good.  I'm thinking 
here about DD's assessment of the Occlumency lessons where he admits 
that he gave too little consideration to Snape's inability to 
overcome his feelings regarding James Potter. 

What all this means is anyone's guess.  Maybe the end result will be 
that Harry will find a way to use the strengths, intuitive or 
rational, of his allies to defeat Voldemort, rather than he himself 
having to be the one to blend the two together.  

Interesting question, KJ.

Marianne









From monalila662 at earthlink.net  Sat Mar 25 14:17:48 2006
From: monalila662 at earthlink.net (dillgravy)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 14:17:48 -0000
Subject: Going back to discuss GOF.
In-Reply-To: <e02c13+kukb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e03jec+4kta@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150021

Alla:
<SNIP>

> LOL, Lisa. No chewing here, just thanking you. Same topics come and 
> go all the time. Just look at all the talk about "you know who" ( 
> NOT Voldemort :)), so even though I love to talk about "you know 
> who", I sure appreciate different topics.
> 
> But I have to ask you to ellaborate more on your points about Barty. 
> What do you mean he did not have the tools to be that convincing? Do 
> you mean that somebody else was impersonating the impersonator? I am 
> sorry, but I am really not sure about your point here.
> 
> I mean, yes, to me it looked that he indeed WAS that convincing.

Lisa:
(I never seem to format my responses correctly so my apologies to the house elves)

Alla- all I meant there was that I think Barty Crouch Jr. is an idiot. I have a hard time 
believing that he knew so much about Mad Eye that he could carry on conversations with 
Dumbledore, Mr. Weasly, the other Teachers, etc. with such confidence. BCjr would have to 
have studied Mad Eye for a long long time to pick up on not only his speech, quirks, and 
accent, but his mannerisms and cliches. (Constant Vigilence!!). Think about it- if I were 
going to take some polyjuice potion to become Mad Eye, I would have to know the history 
between him and other people- like what if DD brought up a time we were kickin' back at 
the Hog's Head when a goblin came and knocked over a bar stool---

Do you see what I mean? Cuz I sure am having a hard time explaining myself!!! HA!!! 

-Lisa

> Lisa:
> <SNIP>
> > Barty Crouch Jr. - needless to say, a very troubled lad. My 
> question is- is he really that 
> > smart? because I don't think so. He plays an awfully good Mad Eye- 
> I mean, going to all 
> > that trouble to win over Harry throughout year 4, he really goes 
> out of his way.  I realize he 
> > wanted Harry to get to the Portkey so that his master (Voldewart) 
> could get his blood, but 
> > c'mon, if you really read it (as if you didn't know it was Crouch 
> Jr.) you really get to like the 
> > guy. I honestly don't think Crouch Jr. was capable of getting 
> people to like him. I think he 
> > was a loner with no sense of humor, no self-esteem. Therefore, he 
> did not have the tools 
> > to be that convincing.  
> 
> Alla:
> 
> LOL, Lisa. No chewing here, just thanking you. Same topics come and 
> go all the time. Just look at all the talk about "you know who" ( 
> NOT Voldemort :)), so even though I love to talk about "you know 
> who", I sure appreciate different topics.
> 
> But I have to ask you to ellaborate more on your points about Barty. 
> What do you mean he did not have the tools to be that convincing? Do 
> you mean that somebody else was impersonating the impersonator? I am 
> sorry, but I am really not sure about your point here.
> 
> I mean, yes, to me it looked that he indeed WAS that convincing.
> 
> Lisa:
> > AND ONE MORE THING... How is it that the greatest wizard alive (at 
> the time) did not have 
> > any inkling whatsoever that this was a fraud? (referring to DD). 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Hehe. You mean Dumbledore CAN make really BIG mistakes, HUGE 
> mistakes as to his trust in people? Yep, I agree with you, 
> Dumbledore made  MANY mistakes throughout the books. Not recognising 
> this impostor is sure one of them IMO. Putting his trust in the 
> wrong person could be another one. It seems that I cannot stop from 
> talking about "you know who" even in this topic. :-)
> 
>  
> Lisa:
> > AND, OK, MY LAST AND FINAL ALL CAPS QUESTION... going forward to 
> HBP: If the time-
> > turner  was used to save Buckbeak and Siruis- why could it not be 
> used to save the only 
> > wizard that Voldesnort ever feared? wouldn't it be absolutely 
> critical to go back and save 
> > DD- if only for his knowledge of VM, in order to defeat him? I 
> say  "Give Harry the Time 
> > Turner McGonagle- let him take his Felix Felicis with him and GO 
> GET DUMBLEDORE!!!"
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Oh, time travel theorists will explain it better than I can, but my 
> short answer is because it never happened on the single timeline in 
> the first place.
> 
> But I am ready to bet that Timeturner ( the one which was not broken 
> in MoM) as we will find out :) will be used again. I love Valky's 
> prediction that it will be used to travel to battle in MoM.
> 
>  
> Lisa:
> > Ok. I'm done. I know some of you will chew me up because one or 
> all of the points I've 
> > made have been discussed over and over again- but I just had to 
> release.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Thank you for starting this thread. :)
>







From glykonix at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 25 09:53:43 2006
From: glykonix at yahoo.com (Adriana)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 09:53:43 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore MAY be alive.... and his name may be Godric Gryffindor
In-Reply-To: <e00kdf+5iqr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e033v7+tcjd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150022

Who really is Albus dumbledore.

Albus Dumbledore is the Headmaster of Hogwarts school of witchcraft 
and magic, considered by most as the most powerful wizard of modern 
time blah blah blah and all that jazz. But is he really that "modern"?
This whole theory of mine came while I was trying to figure out why 
Harry had been placed into Gryffindor.
Yes we all know it's because he chose so, or so Headmaster Dumbledore 
tells us.
But again the hat is supposed to place them in the house that most 
suits them. And after book 6 I am quite sure that he would have "done 
well in Slytherin". 
So why did Harry go to Gryffindor? Because he choose so.
Why did Harry choose Gryffindor? Because that's what Albus Dumbledore 
wanted.
How could Dumbledore have made Harry go to Gryffindor when he had not 
even spoken to the kid you'll say. By sending Hagrid that's how. He 
could have sent a number of people far more prepared to dealing with 
hysterical muggles.
Minerva McGonagall would be a very good choice. She's a lot more 
presentable in the muggle world, she does care about the boys well 
being otherwise she wouldn't have sat there in the damp English 
weather on the doorsteps of the Dursley family just to see that the 
boy was safe with them. 
And well if she was too busy, even Snape would have feared quite well 
I believe, especially now that we have found out he is half muggle and 
has lived half his life in a muggle environment. (He lives in a muggle 
neighborhood, the hose is a little adapted by magic but it is still 
muggelish.)
So he would have known how to behave around muggles.
And there are a plethora of witches and wizards that could have served 
to "fetch" potter.
But he chose a half giant, half oaf, wizard who isn't even aloud to do 
magic and who looks considerably ill placed in the muggle world. 
Why did he choose him? Because if there was anybody in the world who 
could get Harry to want to be in Gryffindor, then that was Hagrid. 
(Hagrid clearly badmouthed slitherin, making them sound far worse then 
they are.)
And let's not dwell in this as it is not my intention to prove that 
Dumbledore is a manipulative old coot or that Hagrid is a biased half 
breed. (They are both very lovable characters and I greatly enjoy both 
of them.) 
But let us get back to my main idea, Harry is a Gryffindor and 
extremely loyal to Dumbledore. So loyal that in fact he managed to 
call Fawkes at his side in times of need by just thinking of 
Dumbledore. And here is how the whole idea bloomed into my brain, 
Harry by thinking of Dumbledore called Fawkes at his side along with 
the hat and Godric Gryffindors sword. By thinking of Dumbledore Harry 
managed to summon two objects that had once belonged to Gryffindor, 
and now belong to Dumbledore. And here is where I go one step further 
and say that all three: Fawkes, the sorting hat and the sword once 
belonged to Gryffindor
 and still do
 As Dumbledore is in fact 
Gryffindor. 
Dumbledore does seem to have some kind of a friendship with the damned 
hat and we know from the hats song (forth book) that it was once owned 
by Gryffindor. And why does Dumbledore have the sword of Gryffindor? 
Yes you'll say it's not actually Dumbledores but that it was just 
lying around in his office squeezed in the hat. (And I wonder what 
other surprises the hat may bring).
Yes I know that by now you deem me worthy of a place in St Mungo, but 
hear me out. It all starts with the first book when Dumbledore hid the 
philosophers stone in Erised's mirror. Now even though at the time he 
seemed omniscient there was no way he could have predicted exactly how 
things would occurred.(if he wasn't so manipulative as to orchestrate 
it all) And I don't know who else but Harry in the state in which he 
was, could have taken the stone back from the mirror. It's hard to 
believe that there is somebody, who not for one moment would think of 
using the stone for himself, a stone that grants immortality and 
immeasurable wealth
 With the possible exception of somebody who IS 
immortal already. And this brings me back to good old Dumbledore. He 
is immortal thus he could get the stone out if he wanted since he did 
not need it for himself. 

Not yet convinced
 not even by half you tell me.  

I do find the friendship between Nicholas Flamel and Dumbledore a bit 
odd. There is a 500 hundred year gap between then, but then again 
there is no one as old as Flamel so it should not be so surprising.

Passing on to how could Dumbledore be immortal when we have just seen 
him die. Yes it's true we saw him being hit by the killing curse, but 
then again we also saw in book five, how Fawkes swallowed the killing 
Curse aimed at Dumbledore and in a way he did die but then as he is a 
Phoenix was born again from his ashes. And that people is what I 
believe Dumbledore did. He was hit by the killing curse he died and 
then at his burial he was on fire, a fire in which Harry was able to 
see a white Phoenix. And that is what I think Dumbledore is
 a human 
Phoenix. 

And this also explains why Dumbledore was looking so bad in his last 
year. I belive he was way past his burning day, but he was still 
holding on to "this life". I suppose that after each burning he would 
assume a different identity but he needed this one to sort things out. 
In order to prepare Harry and try and make some order in the mess that 
the ministry keeps making of things. His death after all does seem to 
have brought together all sorts of magical people even for a short 
time. (and this also doesn't make Snape a bloody traitor, as I refuse 
to see him, I even think Dumbledore had told Snape something of this. 
and that's what the whole pleading business is: Please Severus "trust 
me I'll be OK.")  

Now on paper it doesn't seem to make that much sense to me either. But 
here are some other details that seemed to corroborate my theory.   

Dumbledore does resemble Godric Gryffindor as he is depicted in the 
collectors' cards from the three games. Both he and Gryffindor had 
auburn hair, blue eyes a crooked nose. Dumbledore does seem to posses 
a lot of power hidden under his friendly, slightly senile, old mans 
appearance. We see it manifest on several occasions: hear his 
thundering, booming voice; see him fight with a grace and power that 
defies his age. And from what Harry says at times Dumbledore seems to 
glow (just like the ghosts) and just like Fawkes in battle. And he is 
a lot wiser then many witches or wizards close to his age, I mean he 
is more cunning then Slughorne who is a Slytherin.  


Now I do realize I have made up a theory worthy of Dan Brown here. But 
I hold strong to it as it does seem to explain a lot, and makes a loot 
of sense, to me at least. 
And to the few friends with which I have discussed it.
One of them says that it makes perfect sense and that she buys it, but 
that she is sure that J.K. Rowling never thought of it.  
If you have anything to say on this pro or contra (especially contra, 
I want to see if there are things I have not thought about) please 
write to me (soon).

Glykonix 









From glykonix at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 25 09:57:13 2006
From: glykonix at yahoo.com (Adriana)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 09:57:13 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore MAY be alive....
In-Reply-To: <e00kdf+5iqr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0345p+3bq1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150023

> > Nikkalmati: snip
> > > DD's body burst into flames in exactly the same way as his 
> phoenix. 
> > > Harry even sees a phoenix rising from the smoke.  Is this 
> supposed 
> > > to mean nothing?  Is it a red herring?  What other explanation 
is 
> > > there than that DD was reborn?  Of course if you think about 
> Fawkes 
> > > he returned as a baby bird, so DD may not be able to return to 
> help 
> > > Harry.  He may alive as an infant somewhere.


And this also explains why Dumbledore was looking so bad in his last 
year. I belive he was way past his burning day, but he was still 
holding on to "this life". I suppose that after each burning he would 
assume a different identity but he needed this one to sort things out. 
In order to prepare Harry and try and make some order in the mess that 
the ministry keeps making of things. His death after all does seem to 
have brought together all sorts of magical people even for a short 
time. (and this also doesn't make Snape a bloody traitor, as I refuse 
to see him, I even think Dumbledore had told Snape something of this. 
and that's what the whole pleading business is: Please Severus "trust 
me I'll be OK.")  

Adriana.









From h2so3f at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 25 16:15:51 2006
From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 16:15:51 -0000
Subject: But DID James listen? (was LID!Snape rides again )
In-Reply-To: <e02vp6+9mu6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e03qbn+tf5j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150024

PJ wrote:   <SNIP-a-ton>
"WHY would Sirius have suggested someone else as SK? It wasn't to 
save himself since he knew he'd be the first one hunted and tortured 
for the SK information but he also knew the Potter's secret was safe 
with him... As he said, he'd have died before revealing their 
whereabouts. I know it's canon that it was Sirius's idea but it 
makes absolutely no sense for the character we've been given to have 
suggested someone else for the job! It doesn't add up."


CH3ed:
It would make sense if Sirius really isn't as arrogant as Snape 
thinks he is. So that Sirius was quite certain that he could endure 
any torture from LV without spilling out the secret, but at the same 
time he had seen enough to not bet his best friend's family on his 
ability to endure LV's torture. 

Had the bluff worked, LV would have thought Sirius was the SK, and 
came after him, leaving Wormtail home free. Sirius could be tortured 
continuously for any Length of time until he dies without the danger 
of the secret being compromised, because Sirius thought LV wouldn't 
think Wormtail is the SK. The reason it didn't work was because 
Wormtail was the traitor and that nobody on the good guys' side had 
expected that. 

What I'm wondering is what was the minor fall out between Lupin and 
Sirius before the SK has been decided on that made them suspicious 
of each other. And could that have been set up by Wormtail precisely 
to give himself a better chance at getting the SK job. 

CH3ed :O)






From dontask2much at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 25 16:19:24 2006
From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:19:24 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Logical Thinking versus Intuitive Thinking
References: <e03h1g+s8e@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <01ef01c65027$e1d90280$6401a8c0@MITRE.ORG>

No: HPFGUIDX 150025

 Kathryn Jones <kjones at ...> wrote:

>>     As a result of a related thread on another list, I am curious
> to
>> know what the opinions are about how JKR presents logical rational
>> thought on the part of some of her characters and the intuitive,
>> instinctive thought of others.  Snape is used in the books to
>> demonstrate logical progressive thinking, taking information in,
>> relating it to other information, and spitting out an answer.
>>
<snipped Crabbe, Goyle, Hermoine, James, Sirius etc examples>

>>     Is there a message in this? Will any of it relate to the final
>> resolution? Does she prefer one form of thought or reasoning from
>> another, or does she find a place for all? How does Dumbledore fit
> into
>> the scheme of things?  Is he a consummate Gryffindor or
> chessmaster?
>> More importantly, does anybody care:-)

> Marianne:
>
<snipped>

>I'd be willing to bet that JKR's not trying to say that intuitive
> thinkers are better than rational thinkers or the reverse. I think
> that, if she intends a message at all, it is that a person is best
> off if they can balance the rational and the intuitive within
> themselves.
>
> It seems to me that she sometimes puts characters into one camp or
> the other and then reveals the occasional weakness of these
> characters when they stick to either the logical or the emotional.

<snip>
>
> What all this means is anyone's guess.  Maybe the end result will be
> that Harry will find a way to use the strengths, intuitive or
> rational, of his allies to defeat Voldemort, rather than he himself
> having to be the one to blend the two together.
.
Rebecca:

I think what you have posed are terrific questions too, KJ. I particularly 
am interested in the fundamental philosophy surrounding the HP series, and 
enjoy discussing that far more than any theory, including the Snape 
addiction I'm sure I share with others on the list. :)  However, I don't 
necessarily think when JKR is developing her plans and characters that she 
predicates their development on logical vs intuitive thinking, but their 
role in the plot she's trying to develop.  What I mean by this is in fiction 
of this genre, you inevitably have the hero and his helpers and the 
antagonist and his supporters, and those characters and their developments 
are influenced by the values and virtues held by the hero and antagonist 
respectively. The characters develop predicated on those and the plot 
elements.

IMO, JKR's writing of these books and characters are influenced by 
philosophy moreso than religion, unless one applies those religious beliefs 
to life after death.  Both rational and intuitive thinking are part of 
philosophies enspoused by John Locke, Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, Rene 
Descarte and many others. Ultimately without dissecting each character too 
much (getting "too far into the weeds", as some of my other Potterhead 
friends say), JKR's Dumbledore sets the philosophy for the books with 
several key phrases, all which I believe are related to the death vs the 
quest for immortality theme which leads to:

-The philosophy of living a full and happy life and accepting that death, to 
the well-organized mind, is but the next great adventure  ( DD, the Potters, 
and Sirius' deaths vs the Hogwarts ghosts and LV)
- Accepting and understanding love cause us to act and make choices which 
exemplify love especially when made in the best interests of others and not 
in ourselves (Lily's sacrifice, Harry's saving of Fleur's sister in GoF, 
etc)
- Having full and meaningful relationships, like friendships, with others 
allows us to develop in the most important ways and help instill values in 
us which make life worthwhile and meaningful  (which is why there's still 
hope for Draco - Crabbe and Goyle are lost without him now, as they appear 
to genuinely *like* Draco for who he is)
- Evil is a path we choose as a matter of free will and our choices matter 
more than than who we were born to be (DD's statement to Fudge  regarding 
the "superiority" of purebloods and wizards in GoF, along with the CoS 
mention to Harry that our choices define who we are)
- Prophecy does not eliminate free will or choice (DD's conversation with 
Harry about the consequences of our action being so diverse that the future 
is a very difficult thing to predict, unless someone chooses to act on a 
prophecy)

I could go on and on with these examples and you'd recognize each one of 
them.

I noted KJ's evaluation of Hermoine, for example and to show what I mean by 
the aforementioned paragraphs wish to add that Hermoine is *ambitious*. 
Ambition is a virtue when in moderate amounts - and inevitably leads to new 
and exciting innovations whether the thinking be intuitive or rational. 
Innovation can then be defined as the output of imagination fueled by 
ambition.  Compare Hermoine's moderated ambition with LV, whom Ollivander 
states in PS/SS did "great, but terrible things", and those things were 
fueled by his over-arching ambition to be the greatest wizard in the world, 
at all costs. Hermoine, with her ambition to be the best at her schoolwork, 
still supports her friends and remains loyal to them, making choices in 
their best interests and reacting and thinking with bravery and courage. In 
this regard, are Hermoine's choices and thinking rational or intuitive? 
It's an interesting conundrum, isn't it? Couple that with Marianne's point 
about Hermoine's dismissal of Luna's more intuitive thinking - while it's 
true she did so for most of OoP, Hermoine also learns to accept Luna and 
respect her for what she is *as a result of Luna's choices and actions*. Is 
that acceptance rational or intuitive on Hermoine's part?

Rebecca, who loves philosophy and hopes she hasn't annoyed you all with 
discussing it 





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Mar 25 16:24:11 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 16:24:11 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <e02kur+oo8t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e03qrb+d9ah@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150026

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Neri" <nkafkafi at ...> wrote:
> 
> > Pippin:.
> > Dumbledore, AKA the epitome of goodness, sends Harry to the 
> > Dursleys and locks Sirius up at  GP.   James, the progenitor of 
> > this famous life debt, makes Snape's life hell for years on end, 
> > rushes into danger to save his skin, then goes right back to 
> > hexing Snape whenever he gets the opportunity. Are you going 
> > to say that they're arbitrarily schizoid too? 
> > 
> 
> Neri:
> I'm certainly not saying that JKR doesn't have some complex characters
> with sometimes conflicting feelings and actions, but none of them gets
> even close to the paradoxes of DDM!Snape. 

Pippin:
But LID!Snape isn't conflicted at all! All he wants to do is get rid of his
ankle monitor. Now, if he was conflicted about that, if he wanted his
freedom but was afraid of what he might do with it, that would be
interesting. But I don't see that as a problem that interaction with
Harry would resolve, and it's Harry's book.

Neri:
> Moreover, none of your above examples was introduced as a solution to
> a major mystery. An author is certainly allowed to introduce some
> conflicts in her characters now and then, but when she springs on us
> an arbitrarily conflicted character as the solution for a major
> mystery, this is when I say "deus ex machina!" and put the book down
> in disgust. Of, course, I don't expect *you* to agree with that <g>,
> but until now JKR has never stooped to such means. 

Pippin:
I don't understand this...surely we are meant to wonder why Harry was
abandoned for ten years by a man who is supposedly doing everything
possible to protect him, and surely we are meant to wonder why
it occured to James, with his  hobby of  causing lifelong emotional wounds
to Snape, that Snape's life would be worth the risk of exposing himself
to a werewolf. IMO, we are supposed to wonder what philosophy of life
is behind those choices and whether it could explain Snape's 
behavior too.


> 
> > Pippin:
> > Why should it be so hard to understand that for JKR's characters,
> > and maybe even for JKR herself, lives are a much bigger deal than
> > feelings? There's nothing artificial or inconsistent about that, it's
> > just a different set of values.
> 
> Neri:
> But if so, how do you explain Snape stopping the Occlumency lessons
> because of, as Dumbledore himself admits, his feelings about James?
> How do you explain Snape refusing even to hear Sirius' story before he
> turns both him and Lupin in to the dementors for a fate worse than
> death? The view of Snape as a person who does not care about feelings,
> only about saving lives, simply doesn't work with the canon. 

 
Pippin: 

I should have said that lives are a bigger deal than hostile feelings.
I don't deny that Snape is hostile. But hostility doesn't seem to be
the point.

If we draw the  bright line in the story between people who are 
generally hostile and people who aren't, then Dumbledore's 
choice of alllies seems to disregard it, leading to the assumption
that he sees only the good in people.

But if we distinguish between people who regard
hostility as a reason to kill and people who don't, then we 
find, mirabile dictu, that Dumbledore's allies all fall to 
one side of it, even DDM!Snape and the Dursleys-- except for the 
moment when Sirius (and Lupin if you believe that Lupin is DDM)
lost control in the Shrieking Shack and wanted to kill Peter.

Snape did *not* turn Sirius over to the dementors before
giving him a chance to tell his story. He said he would, but
he didn't, just as Lupin and Sirius said they would kill Peter
but didn't. They reconsidered after Harry stood in the way,
and apparently so did Snape.

 Even though Snape is a bubbling cauldron of hostility, 
his choice shows his hostility was not worth killing for. 
I think in the end that will show him to be  a better person than, say, 
a hypothetical character who is nice to almost everyone
but would calmly kill an enemy because enemies deserve to die. :)

Neri:
> It's James who is the consistent example of valuing lives over
> feelings. Even when he bullies Snape he uses harmless jinxes in
> response to Snape's potentially lethal curse. He saves Snape's life
> despite (or maybe because) the feelings between them. And Dumbledore,
> who knew James well, ensures Harry that James would have spared
> Peter's life too.

Pippin:

If you think sexual harrassment is harmless...well, that's a debate for
another list, but them's fightin' words in  California.
Both of them were playing with fire if you ask me. 

But my theory is perfectly consistent with Dumbledore's praise of
Harry. Despite having every reason to hate Pettigrew himself, 
Harry did not want  his father's friends to be killers just for the
sake of hatred. James didn't want that either.

Snape clings to the past, which is why he equally can't get over 
his sense of indebtedness to James, can't get over his remorse 
for the manner of his death, and can't get over his hatred of
him either. Instead he's transferred all those feelings to Harry. 
Voila, conflict. 

 I doubt that magic is involved. If  James's action cast a spell of
indebtedness on Snape, would it not dissolve with the death of
the caster?

But why shouldn't Snape hate James and yet feel remorse about 
what he did as a result of that hatred? And yet still feel that it was
James's fault?  Like, to paraphrase Golda Meir, he could forgive
James for trying to kill him, but he could never forgive James
for making him  kill in return.


Pippin






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 25 16:50:55 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 16:50:55 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <e03qrb+d9ah@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e03sdf+jcqo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150027

> Neri:
> > It's James who is the consistent example of valuing lives over
> > feelings. Even when he bullies Snape he uses harmless jinxes in
> > response to Snape's potentially lethal curse. He saves Snape's 
life
> > despite (or maybe because) the feelings between them. And 
Dumbledore,
> > who knew James well, ensures Harry that James would have spared
> > Peter's life too.
> 
> Pippin:
> 
> If you think sexual harrassment is harmless...well, that's a 
debate for
> another list, but them's fightin' words in  California.
> Both of them were playing with fire if you ask me. 

Alla:

Well, that's your interpretation, Pippin. I am doubting very much 
that JKR's intention was to show James sexually harrassing Snape. 
Remember what Lupin says that at one point half of the Hogwarts used 
Levicorpus. Are you going to tell me that it is a metaphor for half 
of the school sexually harassing each other? I doubt it very much.

James bullying was not harmless  of course, but sexual harassment?

It is your right to interpret it this way of course, but I cannot 
see it no matter how hard I try.

JMO,

Alla







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Mar 25 17:00:25 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 17:00:25 -0000
Subject: But DID James listen? (was LID!Snape rides again )
In-Reply-To: <e02vp6+9mu6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e03sv9+462p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150028

PJ:
> 
> WHY would Sirius have suggested someone else as SK? It wasn't to 
> save himself since he knew he'd be the first one hunted and tortured 
> for the SK information but he also knew the Potter's secret was safe 
> with him... As he said, he'd have died before revealing their 
> whereabouts. 
> 
> I know it's canon that it was Sirius's idea but it makes absolutely 
> no sense for the character we've been given to have suggested 
> someone else for the job!  It doesn't add up.
> 

Pippin:
The switch wouldn't have protected the secret from Voldemort for
long. If Sirius was captured and subjected to legilimency or
veritaserum, it would be discovered that he  wasn't the secret keeper 
and he could be forced to tell Voldemort who the secret keeper was.

But it might have worked as an attempt to expose the spy. If
Sirius gave the "secret" in written form to the person he suspected,
and  Voldemort attacked on that information, the spy would
be revealed.

Pippin






From belviso at attglobal.net  Sat Mar 25 17:16:11 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:16:11 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
References: <e02kur+oo8t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <005401c6502f$d0a977d0$aaba400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 150029

Neri:
Oh, I don't see "hates you, but doesn't want you dead" as schizoid.
Quite normal, actually. I'm sure most of us (certainly myself) have
several people that they hate but don't want dead. But Quirrell
doesn't even begin to describe here the paradox that is DDM!Snape. He
doesn't mention that Snape owes his life to James, that he revealed
the prophecy to Voldemort, that he's supposed to feel so much remorse
over this that even 15 years after the case Dumbledore had trusted him
completely, that he stopped the Occlumency lessons and AK'ed
Dumbledore after saving his life and taking a UV to kill him,
supposedly because of some extremely stupid mistake although he's also
supposed to be that hotshot secret agent.

Magpie:
I'm still not seeing the suppose schizoid-ness of DDM!Snape.  In fact,
haven't you admitted above that the way he acts is perfectly natural for
someone feeling remorse, symbolized by the Life Debt?  If the Life Debt is
symbolizing remorse, than this is Snape dealing with remorse, acting this
way.  He hates James even more because of his Life Debt, but also feels that
much more need to square himself with him.  So why must this remorse be
separate from his personality, something we know he would be repressing if
not magically unable to repress it?  Why can't it just be something he'd
repress if he could but he can't?

Neri:
Well, even Dumbledore admits it's funny, and it gives Harry headache,
and this is after just *one* book. After six books of accumulating
paradoxes, DDM!Snape gives me headaches too.

Magpie:
Are you suggesting that Dumbledore saying "funny" is supposed to be
Dumbledore hinting it's false?  Because to me, "funny" sounds just like what
it usually means, a comment on how the human mind works.  People often don't
feel grateful and loving towards people who have done them a great service.
We often hate them because we can never pay them back--and Snape can't ever
pay James back because he will never be in the same position as James was to
him.  This was a speech written in the first book, which, I suspect, might
have been the last if the series hadn't taken off (no reason to commit to 7
books of a series nobody's buying).  I think had there been only one book
Rowling would have been okay with that explanation of Snape, because it's
essentially the real one.  DD doesn't even say "funny how SNAPE'S mind
works," he says "funny how PEOPLES' minds work," indicating this is a
comment about human nature, not just Snape.  He expects people to recognize
this behavior as human, which I did.

Neri:
The simple fact is that no other character of JKR is nearly so
contradicting and conflicted as DDM!Snape. He'd be grossly atypical of
her character writing.

Magpie:
And I continue not to see what's so contradicting and conflicted about him
beyond the usual human capacity.  It seems like we don't even really
disagree about what's going on.  We all are saying that Snape chafes under
the remorse he feels and hates being aware that James Potter did something
good for him.  We all even seem to admit that the "Life Debt" is way of
referring to this feeling, symbolizing it.  Only you are separating these
feelings from Snape's real personality and the rest of us aren't.  We just
don't think there is the Snape who longs to join Voldemort but is stopped by
this foreign entity curse on him that makes him unable to perform certain
actions.  We think, as far as I can tell, that there is no Snape who longs
to join Voldemort, and that these feelings that keep him from doing so are
his own.

It still also seems to come down to your considering it a given that Snape's
treatment towards Harry on a day-to-day basis, his refusal to continue the
Occlumency lessons, etc. can not co-exist with being DDM, and feeling
remorse over his past misdeeds.  But to others of us, the two aren't
inconsistent, and go well together--and have even been acknowledged as going
together in the text by DD.  It's like Harry worrying his father did
something with a love potion to make his mother marry him because surely
Lily hated him based on her behavior in the Peniseve. JKR, otoh, expects us
to recognize that Lily likes James even in the Pensieve.  I also think that
Sirius and his mother loved each other--and they treat each other horribly.


So for me, DDM!Snape has been totally consistent throughout the series.  The
Life Debt, in your explanations, has been inconsistent by contrast,
sometimes making Snape feel pain due to James or Harry feeling pain,
sometimes only being a problem if one of them dies.  Even in your own
explanation here it should be indistinguishable from real remorse (since
that's what it's supposed to be artificially creating) so I don't see why
Snape's behavior should be a problem with genuine remorse.  Because he's
fighting it and wishes he didn't have it?  People do that with real remorse.

I think it's LiD!Snape who is grossly atypical character writing.  Most of
JKR's characters seem built around a central conflict, something that makes
them dynamic.  LiD!Snape, is a flat villain whose conflict is an illusion.

-m





From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Sat Mar 25 17:53:46 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 17:53:46 -0000
Subject: But DID James listen? (was LID!Snape rides again )
In-Reply-To: <e03fph+6j2a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0403a+c58l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150030

Ceridwen:
> While I can't see Lily allowing James to keep her out of things, I 
> can see James trying to, in order to protect her.  The same way 
> Harry  broke up with Ginny to protect her at the end of HBP.  Not 
> that it will do any good with Ginny, the primary people who knew 
> they were dating had already left Hogwarts by the time they broke
> up. Isn't that the point, to make LV think she's not a lure to 
> draw Harry to his death?  Also, I don't think Ginny will allow
> it.  

> Alla:
> > I don't think James could have kept Lily out of anything, 
> > personally. Speculating of course.
 
> Ceridwen:
> Absolutely not!  Lily wouldn't allow it for one thing.  And since
> it had to do with her safety as well, and with her child's, I 
> think she could convince him through argument that he was wrong. 
> It would be grossly unfair for him to shove her aside for this.
> Their continued lives are that important that she has to be a part
> of it.  But, that's my speculation.  And I'm trying to base what I
> think of that period of James' and Lily's lives with what I see 
> in 'present-day' canon, Harry and Ginny.  

Jen: I think you nailed a couple of things, like Lily being involved 
in protection plans because, well, she's a mom and that's what most 
moms in Potterverse tend to do. JKR talked about her 'litany of bad 
fathers' being the fertile ground where evil grows; I think a 
corollary might be strong mothers intervening to provide protection. 
The one main mother figure so far who didn't intervene on behalf of 
her child, Merope, contributed however tragically to irreversible 
damage in her son. The intervention doesn't always look noble 
either, Narcissa chose a very dark way to protect Draco by asking 
someone else to be sacrificed in his place; still, her intervention 
may have saved Draco's soul. 

I wonder if James and Lily battled over him trying to protect her? 
James acting all noble and her being cheeky and saying "no go 
Potter, don't play the hero with *me*!" Like Ceridwen said, it comes 
down to how JKR sees the female characters. I think Ginny, like Lily 
before her, won't take Harry's noble gesture as the final word on 
the matter. She won't want to sit at home being protected, 
especially if Hermione and Ron get to assist Harry. 

One of my dearest hopes for book 7 is Harry will finally get to hear 
*good* stories about Lily's and James' lives as a couple and as new 
parents, and how dearly they loved Harry. This part seems achingly 
absent to me. Seeing a memory would be the ultimate, but a couple of 
stories would be enough for me, personally. 

Jen R., with high hopes for the Lily backstory when it's finally 
revealed, and somewhat smaller hopes Petunia might share a few 
memories and begin the process of thawing her icy feelings toward 
Lily & Harry.






From tropicwhale at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 25 04:39:58 2006
From: tropicwhale at yahoo.com (Kristin Hessenauer)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 20:39:58 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Elements (was Re: JKR website - Quintaped)
In-Reply-To: <1142545809.7238.40543.m25@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060325043958.63163.qmail@web33203.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150031

bercygirl2: 
> I had a thought about the Quintaped....JKR has said that the four 
> houses (Gryffindor, Slytherin, Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw) correspond 
> to the four elements (fire, water, earth and air). However, there 
> are actually 5 elements: fire, water, earth, air and metal. Could 
> there have once been a fifth house? Or possible there will be a 
> fifth house in the future?


Kristin:
The fifth element is not metal, if you include metal in the elements 
you are involving Chinese philosophy of six elements, of fire, wood, 
earth, metal, water, air. They go in a circle interacting with each 
other. 

However, there is a fifth element (Bruce Willis/Gary Oldman film 
excluded) in Greek philosophy called ether (as in the word ethereal 
used as a description of angel, gods and the like), the exact 
definition thereof lost to ancient times, the general gist was the 
space between the area occupied by the other four elements, linking 
them. The idea was revived shortly with the discovery of the atom. 

The point being, there is/was a fifth element that links the four 
represented in HP by the four houses, maybe after the war the idea 
of the Four Houses, Slytherin, Ravenclaw, Hufflepuff, and Gryffindor 
with become null and void creating in affect a new fifth house, a 
House of Ether, "that which connects the four elements"...maybe in 
response to what the war does to all and not just one group. It is 
an unlikely idea, but still an idea.






From lizzy1933 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 25 05:30:05 2006
From: lizzy1933 at yahoo.com (lizzy1933)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 05:30:05 -0000
Subject: Maligning Lupin/werewolves
In-Reply-To: <e01ebm+re00@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e02kgt+7m6v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150032

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

> Finwitch:
> I think that, in part, that had to do with the Potion. A werewolf, 
> I believe, is usually able to *feel* when Moon is close to full. 
> And, in part, the infamous DADA-teacher curse. Still, Lupin was 
> IMO quite irresponsible there. (Not in missing the potion - that 
> was Snape's responsibility - <SNIP>

How?

>Snape was slightly breathless, but his face was full of suppressed 
>triumph. "You're wondering, perhaps, how I knew you were here?" he 
>said, his eyes glittering. "I've just been to your office, Lupin. 
>You forgot to take your potion tonight, so I took a gobletful 
>along. And very lucky I did... lucky for me, I mean. Lying on your 
>desk was a certain map. One glance at it told me all I needed to 
>know. I saw you running along this passageway and out of sight."
(POA pg. 358 US trade ppbk)

It looks to me like Snape fulfulled his obligation, even personally 
delivered the potion. 

Lizzie 





From heos at virgilio.it  Sat Mar 25 18:39:13 2006
From: heos at virgilio.it (chrusotoxos)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 18:39:13 -0000
Subject: What's next???
In-Reply-To: <e025h0+7dsv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e042oh+33ta@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150033


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "David" <eastbaydavej at ...> wrote:
> snip
> What is the plan?? He knows the secret of the horcrux now.... but is 
> he up to the task? He knows more about VM's early days than many.. 
> is that enough?? What can a boy/man his age actually do? While Harry 
> may be brave and has come a considerable way with his skills, he 
> still isn't anywhere near the level of wizard needed to take on VM. 
 Question is... how much can she actually fit in a single 
> book?? I imagine those are well hidden items, it took DD a number of 
> years to find the ones he did. > 
> EastbayDavej
>

Hi, these are my 2 cents on this matter, I hope you find them worthy:

1) about the duel, I don't think it will be magic and only magic, DD always said that 
Harry's greatest power is love, and that will come into the equation somehow

2) about the horcruxes and the lenght of book 7, well, I thought about it, and my 
conclusion is that a book where the guys go around the world looking for them 
wouldn't fit, so the final horcruxes MUST be in familiar places - let's do the math:

H1 - the diary - destroyed
H2 - the ring - destroyed
H3 - the locket - surely in Sirius' house, we've seen it (I was stunned when I read 
about it in this forum, how do people remember those things??)
H4 - the snake - last one the be destroyed, to be found at LV's side
H5 - the cup - tricky one, but has to be somewhere near...don't ff say that the 
Weasleys are related to Hufflepuff? and the twins, they buy strange things...
H6 - mysterious object - ?

I think that either H5 or H6 are in Godric's Hollow. 

The key to book 7 is taht LV is stupid: he wouldn't place an Horcrux under Mrs 
Wilson house in Birmingham (whoever he is), even though in this way it would be 
impossible to find. He would choose, instead, meaningful places. And these we can 
find.






From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Sat Mar 25 18:40:25 2006
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 18:40:25 -0000
Subject: Using Unforgivables (was:Re: DDM!Snape &  the UV.)
In-Reply-To: <e01nf9+eg2i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e042qp+lhc8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150034

horridporrid03" <horridporrid03 at ...> wrote: 

> isn't it interesting that Aurors are able to cast Unforgivables? 

No not really, when Barty Crouch was head of the Aurors they were
nearly as bad as the Death Eaters.

zgirnius" <zgirnius at ...> wrote: 

> we also have canon that you can kill the
> wrong target with the AK. A Death Eater
> died in the raid on Hogwarts when his
> colleague aimed a Killing Curse at Lupin
> and Lupin avoided it. 

Ok I admit that is not a bad point, but there is little evidence that
Snape hit the wrong target and at the very least it proves what I've
long suspected, Snape is sadistic. And I believe if you see someone
being murdered and the murder has hatred etched into the harsh lines
of his face then you can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the
hatred was directed at the victim. 

Eggplant








From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Mar 25 18:44:58 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 18:44:58 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <e03sdf+jcqo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0433a+gr7n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150035

Alla: 
> Well, that's your interpretation, Pippin. I am doubting very much 
> that JKR's intention was to show James sexually harrassing Snape. 
> Remember what Lupin says that at one point half of the Hogwarts used 
> Levicorpus. Are you going to tell me that it is a metaphor for half 
> of the school sexually harassing each other? I doubt it very much.


Pippin:

Lupin does not say that half the school was threatening to take
anyone's pants off. He does say he thought James and Sirius
went too far. Apparently he wasn't talking about levicorpus,
since as you say half the school was using it and Lupin doesn't
take it too seriously when Harry asks him about it later.

We know from Harry's reaction to Myrtle's visit to the prefects' 
bath, not to mention Parvati's shudder at Moody's ability to see 
under clothes,  that there is a nudity taboo. Seeing people 
undressed in public is not normal at Hogwarts.

 We see James trying to bribe Lily to go out with him (also
sexual harrassment) and Harry wonders once or twice 
if James forced her to marry him. If JKR wanted to show
James's behavior as innocent fun, that's a strange way to go
about it.

Pippin






From celizwh at intergate.com  Sat Mar 25 19:29:12 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 19:29:12 -0000
Subject: But DID James listen? (was LID!Snape rides again )
In-Reply-To: <e02ko5+poaf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e045m8+isl0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150036


Tonks:

> You know reading your post made me start to wonder if there was some 
> reason for Snape to distrust Sirius other than the murders that he 
> was framed for.  I can't remember why Sirius was near the Potter's 
> house that night.  Was there a reason?  Do you think that maybe 
> Snape could have some valid reason to distrust Sirius other than the 
> so called "prank" when they were in school?  Was there some reason 
> why DD who always seems to know things about people, thought the 
> worst of Sirius all those years that Sirius was in prison?  

houyhnhnm:

Sirius was the (metaphorically speaking) fair haired son, the
fortunate one, born to wealth, good looks, and charm.  The
hypocritical school boy who beguiled the adults around him, yet broke
all the rules, betrayed Dumbledore's trust and endangered his fellow
students and the townsfolk of Hogsmeade by running wild with a werewolf.  

He is the audience for whose approbation Snape is tormented by James.
 Worst of all he is the one who almost got Snape killed.

Snape has plenty of valid reasons to hate and distrust Sirius.  Sirius
is not a character who exactly excites my admiration either.  It is
not surprising that Snape is blind to the possibility that Sirius
might have a genuine affection for and loyalty to his friends,
whatever his other character flaws.

But ....  :-)

I have a sneaking suspicion, not canon based--just call it a
hunch--that Sirius will turn out to have been more culpable for the
Potters' death than what we have been led to believe so far.  Maybe
not through outright betrayal.  Maybe just as the result of his
impulsive, self-centered, and heedless nature.  







From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 25 21:05:57 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 21:05:57 -0000
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
In-Reply-To: <e02kur+oo8t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e04bbl+fc95@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150037

> >>Neri:
> I think you are missing my point. JKR doesn't use magic to replace
> feelings, but she definitely uses magic to represent moral values.

Betsy Hp:
Nope, that's exactly what I think your point is.  And I strongly 
disagree with it. <g>

> >>Neri:
> Lily's Ancient Magic represents Love as a feeling, but also the
> sacrifice of a mother for her son as a moral value. Petunia's pact
> represents responsibility to kin. The UV represents commitment. The
> Fidelius represents loyalty.

Betsy Hp:
Except that it doesn't.  The Fidelius is a pale shadow of loyalty, 
and *not* something to be depended upon.  The secret is only as 
strong as it's keeper, so the moral value of loyalty *is* 
represented by the very human characters populating the 
Potterverse.  Peter Pettigrew was not loyal and the Fidelius was not 
strong enough to force it upon him.

Actually, magical loyalty *never* sticks in the Potterverse.  Look 
at Dobby and Kreature.  They should be the most loyal creatures in 
the Potterverse and yet they both betray their masters.  However, 
Dobby's non-magical loyalty to Harry is quite strong.  Strong enough 
to overthrow the magical kind.

Which is why the idea of Dumbledore depending upon a magically 
forced version remorse just doesn't cut it for me.  As, again, Peter 
Pettigrew illustrates.

Magic is nothing to the human heart.  JKR makes this point again and 
again throughout the series.

> >>Neri:
> <snip>
> Why can the UV kill you if you break it? Because it symbolizes     
> extreme commitment.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Hmm, actually I see the Unbreakable Vow as a symbol of *lack* of 
commitment.  It's holding a gun to the head of someone you don't 
trust to do as you'd like, or as they say they'll do.  Which is why 
I don't see it as a form of magic Dumbledore would ever use.

I see the Unbreakable Vow as a deus ex machina.  It's what puts the 
players into their positions for the Tower scene.  That's how JKR 
uses her magic, IMO.  Not as a stand in for her characters' humanity 
or their moral values.
 
> >>Neri:
> I'm certainly not saying that JKR doesn't have some complex        
> characters with sometimes conflicting feelings and actions, but    
> none of them gets even close to the paradoxes of DDM!Snape. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Please explain to me then, why Lupin is willing for Harry to die?  I 
mean, the straightforward, non-paradoxial reason why he chooses his 
secrets over his best-friend's son.

Since all of JKR's characters are so easy to understand, and all. <g>

I'd also love to hear your explanation of Hermione's continuing 
cruelty to Marietta.  The non-paradoxal one, remember.

> >>Neri:
> Oh, I don't see "hates you, but doesn't want you dead" as schizoid.
> Quite normal, actually. I'm sure most of us (certainly myself) have
> several people that they hate but don't want dead. But Quirrell
> doesn't even begin to describe here the paradox that is DDM!Snape. 
> He doesn't mention that Snape owes his life to James...

Betsy Hp:
How is this a paradox?

> >>Neri:
> ...that he revealed the prophecy to Voldemort

Betsy Hp:
Again, I'm missing a paradox here.

> >>Neri:
> ...that he's supposed to feel so much remorse over this that even 
> 15 years after the case Dumbledore had trusted him completely, 

Betsy Hp:
A dangerous assumption, Neri.  Dumbledore never actually explains to 
Harry (and therefore us) why he trusts Snape so completely.  Though, 
again, I'm not sure why Snape isn't allowed to feel remorse here.  
I'm not getting the paradox.

> >>Neri:
> ...that he stopped the Occlumency lessons

Betsy Hp:
Actually, a Snape with a strong sense of feeling prefectly explains 
the halted Occlumency lessons.  What doesn't make sense is 
unfeeling, automaton Snape letting a mere emotion get in the way of 
his paying back that inconvienient Debt.  Your Snape is paradoxial 
here.  DDM!Snape is quite human.  (See Lupin and his ability to let 
Harry die as an example of this sort of weakness.)

> >>Neri:
> ...and AK'ed Dumbledore after saving his life

Betsy Hp:
Now *this* is a paradox.  But one that LID!Snape fails to explain.  
DDM!Snape explains it beautifully -- the Master & Commander, kill 
one man to save the ship, thing.

> >>Neri:
> ...and taking a UV to kill him

Betsy Hp:
A Snape ready to die for what he believes in, and one who agrees 
with Dumbledore's philosophy, would be quite willing to take an 
Unbreakable Vow that put him into a position to protect a student 
Voldemort is after.  It's the *other* sort of Snapes that I have a 
hard time understanding the reasoning behind taking the Vow.

> >>Neri:
> ...supposedly because of some extremely stupid mistake although    
> he's also supposed to be that hotshot secret agent.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Well, Snape *is* hot <eg>, but yeah, I disagree with the whole Super!
Snape thing where he's the best! Spy! Ever! And totally kick ass in 
everything he does and absolutely incapable of doing anything 
wrong.  I've never actually seen anyone arguing *for* that 
particular flavor Snape, but since so many people spend so much time 
arguing *against* that particular Snape I guess there must be some 
supporters out there.  Somewhere.

But again, JKR loves to trip up her characters using their own 
foibles and their humanity against them.  I mean, look at 
Dumbledore's many mistakes in his wish to keep Harry's burden from 
him for just a few more years.

People do make mistakes in the Potterverse.  But they're *human* 
mistakes.  So any theory that takes the humanity out of a character 
and replaces it with magic is heading in the wrong direction, I 
think.

Betsy Hp







From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 25 21:39:54 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 21:39:54 -0000
Subject: But DID James listen? (was LID!Snape rides again )
In-Reply-To: <e0403a+c58l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e04dba+maf3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150038

> >>Alla:
> > > I don't think James could have kept Lily out of anything, 
> > > personally. Speculating of course.

> >>Ceridwen:
> > Absolutely not!  Lily wouldn't allow it for one thing. 

> >>Jen: 
> I think you nailed a couple of things, like Lily being involved 
> in protection plans because, well, she's a mom and that's what    
> most moms in Potterverse tend to do.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I agree that Lily was fully involved in the effort to protect 
Harry.  However, what she doesn't know about, she cannot protest.  
And we do have canon that James *did* keep Lily out of his private 
war with Snape.  Lupin tells us that James did not stop hexing Snape 
and that he kept that fact from Lily.

So I can totally see Snape trying to talk to Lily, pass on his 
information to someone *he* trusts, and being stopped by James.  
Lily need never have known.  In fact, if Snape was expressing 
distrust of Sirius, I expect James would have done his best to make 
sure Lily never heard of it.

I also expect that when Snape and Lily broke off their friendship it 
may have been painful for Lily and so James may have been trying to 
protect Lily as well.  

Betsy Hp







From OctobersChild48 at aol.com  Sat Mar 25 20:59:57 2006
From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:59:57 EST
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV.
Message-ID: <275.879ff88.3157094d@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150039

Alcuin:

> Hi everyone,
> This is my first post ... in regard to the above exchange, I'm not 
> sure that hatred is the key factor in the Avada Kedavra curse.
> 

Sandy:

I agree with this and use as an example Peter performing the AK on Cedric. 
There was no reason for Peter to have any feelings at all for Cedric, much less 
hate.

  
   Alciun:

> ... Never used an Unforgivable Curse before, have you, boy? ... You 
> need to _mean_ them, Potter!  You need to really want to cause pain - 
> to enjoy it ...
> 
> So it seems that the two factors necessary for an Unforgivable Curse 
> to be successful are (1) to _really_ intend that the curse have its 
> effect and (2) to take some kind of pleasure in its having that 
> effect.  So for Avada Kedavra to work, the caster must really want to 
> kill the intended victim and take pleasure in the victim's death.  If 
> this is correct, then hatred or no hatred, Snape comes off looking 
> badly here.  He would somehow have had to enjoy or take pleasure in 
> Dumbledore's death.
> 

Sandy:

While I would agree with number 1 I can't agree at all with number 2. I again 
use Peter and Cedric to make the point. He   (Peter) most surely intended 
that the curse should work because he was ordered to use it by V, and if it 
didn't he was going to be in deep shit, but I don't hold to the idea that he took 
pleasure in Cedric's death simply because there was no reason for him to want 
Cedric dead personally. Therefore, the same can hold true for Snape. Yes, he 
had to intend for the curse to work, but that does not mean that he enjoyed or 
took pleasure in administering the curse.

Sandy







From mosaic at wi.rr.com  Sat Mar 25 20:47:02 2006
From: mosaic at wi.rr.com (mosaic at wi.rr.com)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 14:47:02 -0600
Subject: What's next???
In-Reply-To: <e042oh+33ta@eGroups.com>
References: <e025h0+7dsv@eGroups.com> <e042oh+33ta@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <c5be82f167b4.67b4c5be82f1@rdc-kc.rr.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150040

chrusotoxos wrote:
> H1 - the diary - destroyed
> H2 - the ring - destroyed
> H3 - the locket - surely in Sirius' house, we've seen it (I was 
> stunned when I read 
> about it in this forum, how do people remember those things??)
> H4 - the snake - last one the be destroyed, to be found at LV's side
> H5 - the cup - tricky one, but has to be somewhere near...don't ff 
> say that the Weasleys are related to Hufflepuff? and the twins, they
buy strange 
> things... H6 - mysterious object - ?

Thanks for the synopsis of the Horcruxes.  I don't know if this has been
brought up here or not, so please bear with me.  Could Harry be the last
Horcrux?  Could his scar be the representation of that Horcrux?  We know
that Horcruxes can be contained in living beings (Nagini) so why not people?

Is this too "out there" for words?  I just began re-reading SS and
McGonagall seems aghast at baby Harry's scar and Dumbledore says "he'll
have that scar forever" and "scars can come in handy . . ."

Mosaicwench 





From OctobersChild48 at aol.com  Sat Mar 25 21:28:10 2006
From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 16:28:10 EST
Subject: Analysing the books  WAS: Re: Discussing GOF
Message-ID: <372.15f07e.31570fea@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150041

 mosaicwench: 


> This is my very first post, so please be gentle.  I've enjoyed all the
> analysis of what to me are just romping good reading.
> 
> 

Sandy:

My feelings are the same. I have been totally astounded by the analyses and 
theories. Like you, I read the books and enjoyed/loved them as a romping good 
read. It never occured to me to try to analyze them or form theories about them 
and the characters, or to try to find hidden meanings in them. But once you 
join a club like this the analyzing and theorizing becomes infectious and you 
find yourself doing likewise. I now will have to make the time to read the 
books again and do some from and with a different perspective. And the thing I 
will be most concentrating on looking for is ESE!Lupin. That is the only theory 
that has completely blown me away. Lupin is one of my favorite characters and I 
have never seen anything even remotely evil about him.

Sandy







From dontask2much at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 26 01:38:01 2006
From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 20:38:01 -0500
Subject: Horcuxes and GH (was RE: What's next???)
References: <e025h0+7dsv@eGroups.com> <e042oh+33ta@eGroups.com> <c5be82f167b4.67b4c5be82f1@rdc-kc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <038501c65075$eb97d5f0$6401a8c0@MITRE.ORG>

No: HPFGUIDX 150042

> chrusotoxos wrote:
>> H1 - the diary - destroyed
>> H2 - the ring - destroyed
>> H3 - the locket - surely in Sirius' house, we've seen it (I was
>> stunned when I read
>> about it in this forum, how do people remember those things??)
>> H4 - the snake - last one the be destroyed, to be found at LV's side
>> H5 - the cup - tricky one, but has to be somewhere near...don't ff
>> say that the Weasleys are related to Hufflepuff? and the twins, they
> buy strange
>> things... H6 - mysterious object - ?
>

 >Mosaicwench:
> Thanks for the synopsis of the Horcruxes.  I don't know if this has been
> brought up here or not, so please bear with me.  Could Harry be the last
> Horcrux?  Could his scar be the representation of that Horcrux?  We know
> that Horcruxes can be contained in living beings (Nagini) so why not 
> people?
>
<snip>

Rebecca:

I have a slightly different view of the "Harry is a Horcrux" speculation.

We know that the rumor of what happened at GH is that Lily and James were 
killed by Voldemort, but Voldemort couldn't "kill" Harry.  Remember what 
rumors are - a piece of "unverified" information of uncertain origin usually 
spread by word of mouth.  DD himself says in PS/SS that "we may never know" 
what truly happened, but everyone seems to believe that Harry survived an 
AK.  Remember, no one knows about LV's Horcux mania when LV went to GH - and 
we only have DD who suspected and confirmed it later in the series, and 
Regulus *perhaps* knew about LV's secret before the Potters' demise (I have 
to check the timeline for that.)

What if appearances were deceiving, as they seem to be in the Potter world? 
Put your seats in the upright position and buckle those seatbelts, folks - 
we're about to encounter theory turbulance.

LV collects trophies.  What if he didn't AK Harry at all in GH, and instead 
tried to collect and keep his soul? LV thinks he knows the prophecy at that 
time, and we already know later in HBP when DD states (in the cave) that LV 
would not want to immediately kill the person who reached this island and 
would want to research how an adversary would have been able to manage such 
a thing.  I don't think it's too far fetched to consider that Harry's soul 
might be one he would like to keep or possess.  LV thinks he's immortal - 
and in fact has done everything he can to deny his own humanity and escape 
death.  One would speculate that his next thought might be that he's a god 
and a collecting and keeping the soul of an adversary would be a hell of a 
trophy, wouldn't it?

Rebecca, who also posted this on another list and pondered that perhaps too 
many sci fi flicks are mangling her brain 





From veronikitravlou at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 26 00:41:15 2006
From: veronikitravlou at yahoo.com (veroniki travlou)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 16:41:15 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: DDM!Snape &  the UV.
In-Reply-To: <275.879ff88.3157094d@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20060326004115.95525.qmail@web36711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150043


OctobersChild48 at aol.com wrote:    Alcuin:

> Hi everyone,
> This is my first post ... in regard to the above exchange, I'm not 
> sure that hatred is the key factor in the Avada Kedavra curse.
> 

Sandy:

I agree with this and use as an example Peter performing the AK on Cedric. 
There was no reason for Peter to have any feelings at all for Cedric, much less 
hate.

  
   Alciun:

> ... Never used an Unforgivable Curse before, have you, boy? ... You 
> need to _mean_ them, Potter!  You need to really want to cause pain - 
> to enjoy it ...
> 
> So it seems that the two factors necessary for an Unforgivable Curse 
> to be successful are (1) to _really_ intend that the curse have its 
> effect and (2) to take some kind of pleasure in its having that 
> effect.  So for Avada Kedavra to work, the caster must really want to 
> kill the intended victim and take pleasure in the victim's death.  If 
> this is correct, then hatred or no hatred, Snape comes off looking 
> badly here.  He would somehow have had to enjoy or take pleasure in 
> Dumbledore's death.
> 

Sandy:

While I would agree with number 1 I can't agree at all with number 2. I again 
use Peter and Cedric to make the point. He   (Peter) most surely intended 
that the curse should work because he was ordered to use it by V, and if it 
didn't he was going to be in deep shit, but I don't hold to the idea that he took 
pleasure in Cedric's death simply because there was no reason for him to want 
Cedric dead personally. Therefore, the same can hold true for Snape. Yes, he 
had to intend for the curse to work, but that does not mean that he enjoyed or 
took pleasure in administering the curse.

Sandy


vera:

    I think that with the Unforgivable Curses what's really important is the background history of the person who conjures it. The first kill is the hardest. Your conscience is still with you but the more you kill, the more your soul and your feelings rot; all that is good within you dies with it. So it is a matter of becoming a pro at it, do it, and don't think about it. 

  Snape was a Death Eater, so he has had all the previous experience. Peter knew what had to be done, he had killed all those Muggles in the past and he had the nerve to do it, so he killed Cedric easily. Even Crouch Jr.(as Moody) performed the curse in the class easily being a DE himself. Now as for the real Moody, I know he filled Azkaban with DEs, but I don't remember any reference for him killing someone himself. If you remember, do let me know.
  
vera


Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/HBF_Text__MUST_READ

Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying!





  SPONSORED LINKS 
        Culture club   Adult education   Organizational culture 
    
---------------------------------
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 

    
    Visit your group "HPforGrownups" on the web.
    
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 HPforGrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
    
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 

    
---------------------------------
  



		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2?/min or less.

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






From veronikitravlou at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 25 22:58:41 2006
From: veronikitravlou at yahoo.com (veroniki travlou)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 14:58:41 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Going back to discuss GOF.
In-Reply-To: <e027fs+fd0a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060325225841.7247.qmail@web36701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150044

Lisa <monalila662 at earthlink.net> wrote:    
>> <snip> I wanted to go back and discuss something that always 
troubled me in GOF. (Re Barty Crouch Jr. as Mad-Eye Moody.)  

AND ONE MORE THING... How is it that the greatest wizard alive (at 
the time) did not have any inkling whatsoever that this was a fraud? 
(referring to DD). 

AND, OK, MY LAST AND FINAL ALL CAPS QUESTION... going forward to HBP: 
If the time-turner was used to save Buckbeak and Siruis- why could it 
not be used to save the only wizard that Voldesnort ever feared? 
wouldn't it be absolutely critical to go back and save DD- if only 
for his knowledge of VM, in order to defeat him? I say  "Give Harry 
the Time Turner McGonagall- let him take his Felix Felicis with him 
and GO GET DUMBLEDORE!!!" <<


vera:
    
I've asked these questions many times myself, and I've come to the conclusion that the answers you get depends on the person who is giving them.

JK Rowling's picture has been contradictory as far as the greatest wizard of all times is concerned.  He seems to know what is happening to different people when he's absent either because he is indeed very intelligent and he can see through people or because he is very powerful as a wizard.   He seems to be so confident of his brain power that he doesn't see the obvious, one can say, or he has everything under control and knows what he's doing, as some can object. 
   
He appears to have known exactly what was going to happen in that cave and he went for it. Perhaps his time had already come and he knew it. If that was the case, WHY did he sacrifice himself for a locket that wasn't there??? What was the point?
   
Why did Rowling underline thoughout 6 that Dumbledore's greatest flaw is his tendency to trust unworthy people if she plans to reveal in 7 that in fact everything was planned and Dumbledore wasn't fooled after all???
   
One last thing, if Dumbledore was indeed taken in, what is that telling us as far as the character is concerned? That no one is perfect? Even the greatest wizards can be narrow-minded and cannot accept simple facts when people lower than them tell them to their face as Harry kept warning him of Snape?  Does this add to the plot? How???
  
Vera, who is losing her temper so I'd better leave it at that. Goodnight.
   
   





From veronikitravlou at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 26 00:23:53 2006
From: veronikitravlou at yahoo.com (veroniki travlou)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 16:23:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: What's next???
In-Reply-To: <e025h0+7dsv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060326002353.36858.qmail@web36702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150045


EastbayDavej <eastbaydavej at yahoo.com> wrote:    
>> <snip> Here is what I think is going to happen.... Harry and gang 
are going to setup shop in the OFTF house. Ms Granger is going to 
take over the obvious role of researcher and braintrust. Harry and 
Ron and the others are going to start combing the globe for whatever 
clues they can find. Question is... how much can she actually fit in 
a single book?? I imagine those are well hidden items, it took DD a 
number of years to find the ones he did. There is no way, unless the 
book happens over the course of several years that they can get them 
all then take on VM. Something is going to happen, either VM gets 
wind of the search and heads out to retrieve them, or his DE's do. 
That is what this next book is going to cover I think... all leading 
up to the final battle..... Perhaps one of the friends is taken in 
order to make replacement horcrux.... <<




Vera:
    Well Dave, judging from what she has already said, she planned this ages ago. So I bet she has already given us all the clues we need to figure out what will happen.
   
  First one of the Weasleys is going to die. This will create the need to speed things up, so I don't think there's going to be much research involved. 
   
  The Muggle world will witness terrible deeds and the world will turn upside down. Muggles and Wizards will be faced with the question 'friends or enemies?' Fear will spread, suspicion will thrive, horror will immobilize everyone and I mean eveyone on both sides. Voldemort will take advantage of the situation he was so longing for the best he can.
   
  (My Snape's theory is STILL under construction, I'll let you know as soon as I feel I have seen some light at the end of the tunnel, I'm still reading all related theories.)
   
  In order to get to Voldemort's last Horcruxes, Harry will confront Voldemort but won't kill him himself. Somehow Voldemort is going to die (for good). I don't think that Rowling wants to put blood in Harry's hands, not even Voldemort's.

  Of course the story will be filled with all the clues and information we need to fill all our gaps, and more twists will be added.

  Rowling said that the whole story will be concluded in this last book, so we can't expect major plot surprises that will need to be explained with a further background story. She will work with what she has already built.

  The problem is that the readers have looked into the story so much and so deeply that she needs to be extra careful of reactions, kids are involved after all and plot slip-ups that will make the story fall apart. I really don't believe that she will slip up in any way.
   
  Reading some of her interviews gave me the idea that she wants all evil to be defeated without the use of further evil. So Harry NEEDS to be above all that by making wise decisions that will reflect his future. In 100 years time Harry I see him as the next Dumbledore, all built with experience, wisdom and bravery.
   
  Tell me what you think..
   
  (PS. I really really love the Muggles- Wizards confrontation)
   
   
  






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 26 02:51:18 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 02:51:18 -0000
Subject: But DID James listen? (was LID!Snape rides again )
In-Reply-To: <e03fph+6j2a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e04vj6+s25t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150046

> Alla:
> > 
> > But of course, since I believe in Snape darker nature, I will go 
> > further and speculate that Snape indeed signed up to join Voldie 
> and 
> > company when he was still in school and that is where many 
> conflicts 
> > betweem him and James indeed grew. 
> 
> Ceridwen:
> I think part of Snape's fascination for people who both like and 
> dislike him, is his darkness.  So I can completely agree with you 
on 
> believing in his darker nature.  I'm not sure that he joined LV 
> during school, but we know from Sirius that he hung out with a 
crowd 
> who almost all later became DEs.  Maybe they had a DE Jr club, 
like 
> Harry's DA?  Just kidding, but they may have had the darker 
aspects 
> of magic in common.  I don't know where his crowd was during the 
> Pensieve scene - in class?  Already graduated?  Certainly not in 
5th 
> year!

Alla:

Hehe. You know, it is always nice to know that we have something to 
agree upon about Snape, even if we diverge in the end results of his 
actions so to speak.

You probably know that I am fond of speculation that since 
Slytherin's gang all graduated by that time ( they are older than 
Snape, I think it is pretty much canon now when Lucius and Bella's 
ages are specified, no?), Snape was left all alone to deal with 
Marauders.

Do I think that Slytherin gang and Marauders, NOT Snape and 
Marauders initially had a violent history? Yep, I absolutely do. 
Speculation? Sure it is, but I think it is significant that Sirius 
did not see Bella since he was sixteen ( sure he does not have fond 
memories of majority of his family, but he specifically says that 
about Bella) It tells me that he and Bella were not on friendly 
terms while in school. IMO of course. And of course we have 
that "Malfoy's lapdog". I am dying to know whether this refers to 
Snape school years and what did Sirius mean.

But of course take it for what it worth, since I am obviously 
biased. :) ( Not that I am the only one of course :-)).


 
> Ceridwen:
> I thought that Draco was doing a sort of hazing - get through this 
> and you'll be a Proud Member Of Our Team. <SNIP>n't 
> give a theory of what Draco showed Burke if it wasn't the Dark 
Mark, 
> but I don't see LV inducting a schoolboy.  Also, his plan was for 
> Draco to die, not join the team, as a punishment for Lucius.  Why 
> bother inducting him if a simple hazing will accomplish the 
purpose?  

Alla:

Oh, I don't know, I don't know. We are just speculating here, but 
you don't see Voldemort indicting schoolboy why? I mean, I am not 
saying I am right and maybe Draco was not indicted, but what would 
stop Voldemort from indicting schoolboys in general? He would think 
they are too young to understand and appreciate him fully? :-) 


Ceridwen:
> I do, though, think that LV had his eye on certain schoolchildren 
as 
> they were growing up, so he could send someone to approach them 
about 
> joining once they were out of Hogwarts and away from Dumbledore's 
> eye.  And it's possible that the gang Snape hung out with was 
marked, 
> maybe by older graduated students who were then full-fledged DEs.  
> Both sides have to recruit, and Hogwarts students are ripe for the 
> picking.

Alla:

YES, exactly "ripe for picking" is a good way to phrase it. Don't 
you think that Voldemort would have done as much as he can to have 
his eyes and ears in Hogwarts as early as possible? I'd say Lucius 
and Bella count as pretty good candidates to me to be indicted say 
at sixteen and then pass the torch to Snape. :-)

But again, of course we have no indication one way or another, I 
just thought that Draco MAYBE having a mark would be a good clue as 
to when Marauders generation could have started being a target for 
recruiting, that's all.

 
JMO,

Alla






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 26 02:57:43 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 02:57:43 -0000
Subject: Does James' bullying arises to the level of sexual harassment/
In-Reply-To: <e0433a+gr7n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e04vv7+56pn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150047

> Alla: 
> > Well, that's your interpretation, Pippin. I am doubting very 
much 
> > that JKR's intention was to show James sexually harrassing 
Snape. 
> > Remember what Lupin says that at one point half of the Hogwarts 
used 
> > Levicorpus. Are you going to tell me that it is a metaphor for 
half 
> > of the school sexually harassing each other? I doubt it very 
much.
> 
> 
> Pippin:
> 
> Lupin does not say that half the school was threatening to take
> anyone's pants off. He does say he thought James and Sirius
> went too far. Apparently he wasn't talking about levicorpus,
> since as you say half the school was using it and Lupin doesn't
> take it too seriously when Harry asks him about it later.

Alla:

Wait, I am confused now. You were talking about Levicorpus though, 
no? You see James using Levicorpus as sexually harassing Snape or 
did I misunderstand you completely? When half of the school used 
Levicorpus then  yes, I think it is highly probable that many people 
had their pants taking off. Do you see this as sexual harassment or 
do you see something different in pensieve scene as metaphor for 
sexual harassment?


Pippin:
>  We see James trying to bribe Lily to go out with him (also
> sexual harrassment) and Harry wonders once or twice 
> if James forced her to marry him. If JKR wanted to show
> James's behavior as innocent fun, that's a strange way to go
> about it.

Alla:

 Innocent fun? Of course not - bullying is not an innocent fun no 
matter how you look at it ( and nowhere in my post I called it an 
innocent fun), but calling something that half ot the Hogwarts was 
doing as sexual harassment is taking it on the whole new level, IMO, 
which I am not prepared to do.

Oh, and no, I would not call what James asked of Lily to be a sexual 
harassment either. IMO of course.

Alla







From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 26 03:40:13 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 03:40:13 -0000
Subject: Does James' bullying arises to the level of sexual harassment/
In-Reply-To: <e04vv7+56pn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e052et+spr8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150048

> >>Pippin:
> > Lupin does not say that half the school was threatening to take
> > anyone's pants off. He does say he thought James and Sirius
> > went too far. Apparently he wasn't talking about levicorpus,
> > since as you say half the school was using it and Lupin doesn't
> > take it too seriously when Harry asks him about it later.

> >>Alla:
> Wait, I am confused now. You were talking about Levicorpus though, 
> no? You see James using Levicorpus as sexually harassing Snape or 
> did I misunderstand you completely? When half of the school used 
> Levicorpus then  yes, I think it is highly probable that many      
> people had their pants taking off.

Betsy Hp:
I'm jumping in here, but I think Pippin was talking about James 
exposing Snape's underwear for everyone to see, and then threatening 
to take them off and therefore expose Snape's genitals for everyone 
to see.

I don't doubt students were jerking each other upside down all over 
Hogwarts.  It's the length of time Snape was held upside down, and 
the threat of nudity that raised this attack to a rather disturbing 
level.  (Well, that and James choking Snape so badly before the real 
fun began.)

> >>Alla:
> Do you see this as sexual harassment or do you see something      
> different in pensieve scene as metaphor for sexual harassment?

Betsy Hp:
Yeah, I'm going to say exposing Snape's genitals against his will, 
and for an unspecified length of time is sexual harassment.  There's 
a reason Harry thought his father capable of rape after witnessing 
this scene.  (Though, I think Harry leapt to the very worst of 
conclusions.)

Betsy Hp






From belviso at attglobal.net  Sun Mar 26 04:49:30 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 23:49:30 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Does James' bullying arises to the level of sexual harassment/
References: <e04vv7+56pn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <013d01c65090$aba81570$aaba400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 150049

> Alla:
>
> Wait, I am confused now. You were talking about Levicorpus though,
> no? You see James using Levicorpus as sexually harassing Snape or
> did I misunderstand you completely? When half of the school used
> Levicorpus then  yes, I think it is highly probable that many people
> had their pants taking off. Do you see this as sexual harassment or
> do you see something different in pensieve scene as metaphor for
> sexual harassment?

Magpie:
I'm going to weigh in on this...I think JKR made it intentionally skating 
the line so that Harry would feel disturbed and not be able to just laugh 
the whole thing off.  Levicorpus on its own can just be funny and I think it 
usually was, but I think the scene intentionally goes beyond that.

Personally, I don't think sexual harassment is necessarily the concept she 
wants to come to mind (though she can't help but hit it for many).  Years 
ago I remember doing a book for a tie-in series and my writing partner and I 
needed the most humiliating thing for a boy.  So we asked a friend and he 
immediately said "pants him."  He didn't even have to think--this was the 
worst thing to do for a teenaged boy.  And when we had it happen (his pants 
were accidentally yanked down in front of everyone) the series creators had 
us change it because that kind of humiliation was too much.  We changed it 
to having the boy accidentally tackled (this was during a football game) by 
a first grade girl.

I mention the story because it always stuck in my mind as marking a line not 
to be crossed.  I mean, having him be tackled was better--that was more what 
we were going for, something that would be utterly humiliating but in a 
completely funny way that would be funny when he thought about it later. 
Pantsing him is truly humiliating in the wrong way.

I think JKR is going over that line intentionally. Whether or not one 
considers it sexual harassment, it is intentionally sexual humiliation. 
Threatening to expose Snape and showing his underwear to the the whole 
school, including girls, is finding a sexual way to humiliate him at the 
time of life he's the most sensitive about that.  Not because James is a 
rapist or a sex offender by nature, but because that's the kind of 
humiliation she needed in the scene, a violation.  And I think it's good to 
think of it in terms of how Snape hates James and why he hates owing him.

It's actually interesting, when you think about it, the way JKR created such 
a horrible bully in Snape and then had the big moments of history center 
around such significant bullying against him.  We don't know everything 
there is to know about the Prank, but both these incidents are bullying that 
are centered around violation, attacking his sense of self.

-m 





From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Sun Mar 26 04:59:14 2006
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 04:59:14 -0000
Subject: FILK: Luck, Be My Liquid Tonight
Message-ID: <e05732+tri5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150050

Luck, Be My Liquid Tonight (HBP, Chap. 14)

To the tune of Luck, Be a Lady Tonight from Frank Loesser's Guys and 
Dolls

MIDI at:

http://www.hamienet.com/midi1890.html

THE SCENE: The Quidditch Field.  HARRY employs mind games to boost 
RON'S confidence before their first big game.

RON:
They call it liquid luck
And Harry has a ruse
Of sneaking in a drop or two into my glass
Of pumpkin juice

We've got a game today
I'm feeling quite a rush 
And now because ol' Malfoy is missing, the Slyth'rins we will crush

So let us raise our banners
As we prepare to play,
And so the best that I can do is say

Luck, be my liquid tonight, 
Luck, be my liquid tonight,
Luck, you will change me to a quick kid that we'll win with 
Luck, be my liquid tonight

Luck, let the Gryffindors see
Slytherin fold easily, 
With your good fortune I can set the field scorchin'
Luck, be a liquid for me

HERMIONE:
A liquid Harry got from Slughorn, 
It isn't fair, it's such a cheat
This liquid isn't meant for Quidditch and brooms
Or anything where you compete

HARRY (aside)
Oh, let's keep our Keeper in flight, 
Let him lead us in the fight
Though, mi amigo,
You drank merely a placebo
.
 
HARRY/RON
Luck be your/my liquid,
Luck be your/my liquid,
Luck be your/my liquid tonight

THE GQT: 
Luck be his liquid tonight, 
Luck be his liquid tonight,
Playing `gainst Harper who's a thick kid to begin with
Luck be his liquid tonight,

RON (& GQT)
Luck, let the stadium ring (Luck, let the stadium ring)
With the song, "Weasley, our King" (With the song, "Weasley, our 
King")
In this great weather see (Luck be his liquid!)
Me floating like a feather (Be his liquid)
Luck be a liquid for me (Be a liquid for he!)

HARRY (& GQT)
But though I may have ticked off Granger 
Once we win, her anger's cured
Our Granger will become friends with Ron once again (Block 'em, 
block 'em, block 'em, Keeper!)
She'll fly at him like a love bird. (Block 'em, block 'em, block 'em!)

HARRY/RON (& GQT)
So let me/him lay hands on the Snitch, (So let him lay hands on the 
Snitch)
Ginny, go crash into Smith (Ginny, go crash into Smith)
Stick with it, Ronny/Harry (Block 'em, Keeper!)
You're the player we will win with (Block 'em, Keeper!)
Luck be your/my liquid... (Luck be your liquid...)
Luck be your/my liquid... (Luck be your liquid...)
Luck be your/my liquid, (What's up, Ron?)

ALL
And grab the Snitch
Grabbin' it, grabbin' it!
Tonight! Grabbin ' it, grabbin ' it right! 
Ah! Ah!

    -	CMC

HARRY POTTER FILKS
http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm







From bartl at sprynet.com  Sun Mar 26 05:13:57 2006
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 00:13:57 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Trelawney Tarrot reading again WAS: Re: ah the
 mysteries
In-Reply-To: <e012ua+6qnq@eGroups.com>
References: <e012ua+6qnq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <44262315.2020202@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150051

steven1965aaa wrote:
> I had the same impression the 1st time I read it, but on re-reading I 
> took that as meaning Malfoy and I took her Tarot readings as 
> foreshadowing of the Lightening Struck Tower scene.

Bart:
	Those weren't Tarot cards; they were regular playing cards.

	Bart




From sherriola at earthlink.net  Sun Mar 26 06:19:12 2006
From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 22:19:12 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: But DID James listen? (was LID!Snape rides again )
In-Reply-To: <e04dba+maf3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <E1FNOap-0005dd-Fy@elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 150052

Betsy Hp:
I agree that Lily was fully involved in the effort to protect Harry.
However, what she doesn't know about, she cannot protest.  
And we do have canon that James *did* keep Lily out of his private war with
Snape.  Lupin tells us that James did not stop hexing Snape and that he kept
that fact from Lily.

So I can totally see Snape trying to talk to Lily, pass on his information
to someone *he* trusts, and being stopped by James.  
Lily need never have known.  In fact, if Snape was expressing distrust of
Sirius, I expect James would have done his best to make sure Lily never
heard of it.




Sherry now:
But James and Lily were several years older when this would have happened.
I doubt James is still hexing Snapey.  Also, nobody but Snape ever says a
bad thing about James.  It's always about what a great man he was.  I know
it's 100 percent possible for someone who was a rotten brat in teenage years
to grow up to be a good honorable man.  I'm not convinced that James would
have kept poor sainted Lily out of the loop.  oh, how I hope to hear
something negative about perfect Lily in the last book!

Sherry




From greatraven at hotmail.com  Sun Mar 26 06:40:48 2006
From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 06:40:48 -0000
Subject: But DID James listen? (was LID!Snape rides again )
In-Reply-To: <E1FNOap-0005dd-Fy@elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <e05d1g+v6tb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150053

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" <sherriola at ...> 
wrote:
>
> I'm not convinced that James would
> have kept poor sainted Lily out of the loop.  oh, how I hope to hear
> something negative about perfect Lily in the last book!
> 
> Sherry
>

Sue:

Well, I don't know about negative, but the only time we see her in her 
teens she is telling off James for bullying and we know she grew up 
into a decent woman - and her former potions teacher, if you recall, 
remembers her fondly as likeably cheeky and feels she would have made 
a good Slytherin. :-)Definitely no saint! She just did what a mother 
does to protect her child. Heroic, but not saintly.







From sherriola at earthlink.net  Sun Mar 26 06:51:59 2006
From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 22:51:59 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: But DID James listen? (was LID!Snape rides again )
In-Reply-To: <e05d1g+v6tb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <E1FNP6Y-0007Oq-Cj@elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 150054

Sue:

Well, I don't know about negative, but the only time we see her in her teens
she is telling off James for bullying and we know she grew up into a decent
woman - and her former potions teacher, if you recall, remembers her fondly
as likeably cheeky and feels she would have made a good Slytherin.
:-)Definitely no saint! She just did what a mother does to protect her
child. Heroic, but not saintly.



Sherry now:

Oh, absolutely, I agree with you.  But JKR seems to have done her best to
demolish every single father figure in the story, while keeping the mothers
pure and perfect.  Except for Tom's mother of course.  Having grown up with
my father who did his best to give me a great life, and not missing my
mother at all, who didn't want me because of my disabilities, I get
irritated at the clich? of bad father and holy mother.  I do agree that Lily
did what any *parent* would have done.  And I'm sure she was a great girl
and would have been fun to know, through the books.  But she becomes this
symbol of pure perfection somehow, and I'd just like to see her have a few
flaws, to make her more human and believable.

sherry







From kking0731 at gmail.com  Sun Mar 26 07:20:33 2006
From: kking0731 at gmail.com (Kathy King)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 02:20:33 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Going back to discuss GOF.
In-Reply-To: <e027fs+fd0a@eGroups.com>
References: <e027fs+fd0a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a1ee8d580603252320x7662701bu5a03b35ae2c8f4a1@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150055

Lisa snipped:



Barty Crouch Jr. - needless to say, a very troubled lad. My question is- is
he really that
smart? because I don't think so. He plays an awfully good Mad Eye- I mean,
going to all
that trouble to win over Harry throughout year 4, he really goes out of his
way.  I realize he
wanted Harry to get to the Portkey so that his master (Voldewart) could get
his blood, but
c'mon, if you really read it (as if you didn't know it was Crouch Jr.) you
really get to like the
guy. I honestly don't think Crouch Jr. was capable of getting people to like
him. I think he
was a loner with no sense of humor, no self-esteem. Therefore, he did not
have the tools
to be that convincing.



Snow:



This was something I was going to bring up myself but in relation to the
fact that the memory can be modified like Morfin's to remember something
that he never in fact did? but admitted to. No one was willing to dig deeper
to find the real truth about Morfin because Morfin already looked guilty.
Hebzibah's elf was also incriminated in an equal fashion.



To get back to Jr., he had been under the Imperious curse for quite some
time by his father and found to be alive by Bertha. This bit of information
in no way incriminates Barty Jr. as being in league with the Dark Lord. (Sr.
surely checked the boy after years in his care and never found a dark mark
symbol imbedded in his left arm or else he surely would have been thrown to
Fenrir) We are then informed that Sr. had been puppeted by the Imperious and
Barty Jr. has now filled the shoes of Mad Eye by means of pollyjuice but
enhanced with unusual powers for a boy who had spent his life after school
either under Imperious or in Azkaban.



Barty Jr. was busted in the end and questioned under Veriserium pronouncing
himself Voldemort's most faithful servant. (Wasn't Dumbledore pissed off
when he couldn't further question this figure; makes you think there was
more there than met the eye, makes you think of Morfin) There are two very
big questions here:



(1)   Dumbledore said that Morfin even under Veriserium would have admitted
to the killing of the Riddles because his mind had been altered to believe
that and

(2)   Who is Voldemort's most faithful servant when both Jr. and Bella
believe they are the one?



[If text is required I will look them up, no time at present]



Dumbledore also states repeatedly that Voldemort has no real friends; No one
person that Voldemort would hold to any great status such as friend let
alone most faithful yet Voldemort in the graveyard scene proclaims that his
most loyal servant is at Hogwarts. This statement leads everyone to believe
that it was Jr. but is it really true simply because Jr was made to believe
it then we will believe it?or is there someone else at Hogwarts that's
really Voldemort's most faithful? Before everyone goes out on the same old
Snape limb?we already know that Snape was the one who left him forever and
should have been killed. Karkaroff was the one who was too cowardly to
return. Who else was at Hogwarts during the GOF that could fit the scenario
of the most faithful servant, someone who possibly was the spy for the Order
as well? The Weasley's were not part of the original Order so they're out
because the spy who was most loyal would have been in both wars. Lupin was
not anywhere to be seen or heard of in GOF, so he's most likely out as the
spy. I'll tell you that I'm kinda a liking McGonnagel for his most faithful
servant. She's there from the very beginning, literally, and she is in every
book; She was part of the first Order and also the second; she went to
school at the same time as Riddle yet divulges nothing about him; and one of
my greatest suspicions is that Harry doesn't divulge any information to her
in the end of the last book even though she is now the currant headmaster.
Along with this is the way in which Dumbledore treated McGonnagel's
questioning when he had dropped Harry on the doorstep of the Dursley's. I
realize that Dumbledore is a bit tight lipped and evasive in his answers to
questions posed to him but he had an attitude about McGonnagel's curiosity
to Harry's most recent mishap, I mean wouldn't you? Why was 'she' there, She
is not related to Lily or James, She didn't know of the prophecy, so why in
the world did She care above other Order members who were privy to the same
information that she was? You didn't see other Order members gathering at
the Dursley's house that day.



I know I am not the first to think that dear Minerva has an evil side to
her; even Harry's first thought of her was that she was someone you didn't
piss with. Ms. McGonnagel has more of a lack of back story than even Lupin
and yet she attended school with the soon to be Dark Lord; she was there
when Myrtle bit the dust; she was part of the first Order (the one who had
an inside spy for the bad guy); and she was dressed in Muggle clothes when
she returned from her spying expeditions during the second Order. What the
heck was She doing for the Order dressed in Muggle clothing? And Dumbledore
never told her (an original Order member), the second in command of
Hogwarts, why he trusted Snape, a bit curious I would think.



It really all comes back to my main suspicion though that Harry doesn't
divulge any information to the now headmaster of the school but Dumbledore
told Harry not to trust anyone other than Ron and Hermione, why? Was it
because Dumbledore still didn't know for sure who the spy was the last time
or this time for that matter? Harry can't even trust the Weasley's beyond
Ron; No One is safe with the information that Harry has about Riddle and his
soul pieces but Ron and Hermione, why?



I really didn't intend on writing an ESE McGonnagel post when I replied but
it appears this was the result. Barty Jr just does not meet the whole
faithful servant stature what-so-ever from the get go other than his twelve
OWLS making him about as smart as Percy and we all know where that got
Percy. Once more we don't hear Sirius talk about the imprisoned Azkaban
inmates shouting about Jr nay Or yeah. In fact not one death eater to my
knowledge has incriminated Jr as being a death eater. Of course the great
Rowlingness has made certain that not all deatheaters knew each other but Jr
was said to have tortured the Lestranges with Bella and Co. so They would
have known the real truth. Unfortunate They were locked up in Azkaban during
the most faithful servant speech at the graveyard.



No I believe poor Jr was on the up and up when he was on trial and had his
memory altered, like Morfin and the elf, to believe a not nice fairytale
story in the end.



Snow


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




From srbecca at hotmail.com  Sun Mar 26 07:01:29 2006
From: srbecca at hotmail.com (Rebecca Dreiling)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 07:01:29 +0000
Subject: Trelawney Tarrot reading again
In-Reply-To: <44262315.2020202@sprynet.com>
Message-ID: <BAY104-F283E86FC8F21AF42DA8339A8DD0@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 150056

steven1965aaa wrote:
> > I had the same impression the 1st time I read it, but on re-reading 
> > I took that as meaning Malfoy and I took her Tarot readings as
> > foreshadowing of the Lightening Struck Tower scene.

Bart:
> Those weren't Tarot cards; they were regular playing cards.


Rebecca says:

As a tarot dabbler I can tell you that many people use playing cards to read 
"tarot".  The decks are really not that different...depending on what you 
read (what deck).

After reading Tarot for awhile, I've had friends who ditch the other decks 
in favor of playing cards.

I'm sure Trelawney is old hat at the Tarot thing.  She would use the playing 
card deck for the same means.








From R.Vink2 at chello.nl  Sun Mar 26 11:25:15 2006
From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 11:25:15 -0000
Subject: But DID James listen? (was LID!Snape rides again )
In-Reply-To: <E1FNP6Y-0007Oq-Cj@elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <e05tmr+5lqs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150057

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" <sherriola at ...>
wrote:
>
> Sue:
> 
> Well, I don't know about negative, but the only time we see her in
her teens
> she is telling off James for bullying and we know she grew up into a
decent
> woman - and her former potions teacher, if you recall, remembers her
fondly
> as likeably cheeky and feels she would have made a good Slytherin.
> :-)Definitely no saint! She just did what a mother does to protect her
> child. Heroic, but not saintly.
> 
> 
> 
> Sherry now:
> 
> Oh, absolutely, I agree with you.  But JKR seems to have done her
best to
> demolish every single father figure in the story, while keeping the
mothers
> pure and perfect.  Except for Tom's mother of course.  Having grown
up with
> my father who did his best to give me a great life, and not missing my
> mother at all, who didn't want me because of my disabilities, I get
> irritated at the clich? of bad father and holy mother.  I do agree
that Lily
> did what any *parent* would have done.  And I'm sure she was a great
girl
> and would have been fun to know, through the books.  But she becomes
this
> symbol of pure perfection somehow, and I'd just like to see her have
a few
> flaws, to make her more human and believable.
> 
> sherry
>


Renee:
In the language of symbols, the lily stands for purity and perfection,
and in some Catholic prayers, the Virgin Mary is called a "pure lily".
If Harry is a type of Christ (as has been argued on this list
occasionally), it stands to reason that his mother symbolises Mary. In
which case Lily is meant to be as perfect as she comes across in the
Harry Potter series. Given JKR's predilection for symbolical names,
that of Harry's mother is probably no coincidence.

Renee











From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Sun Mar 26 12:00:01 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 12:00:01 -0000
Subject: But DID James listen? (was LID!Snape rides again )
In-Reply-To: <e04vj6+s25t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e05vo1+svv9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150058

Alla:
> 
> You probably know that I am fond of speculation that since 
> Slytherin's gang all graduated by that time ( they are older than 
> Snape, I think it is pretty much canon now when Lucius and Bella's 
> ages are specified, no?), Snape was left all alone to deal with 
> Marauders.

Ceridwen:
Since we're down to just one more book coming out, it will probably 
end up as you say, that they were all much older than Snape, and he 
was the last of the gang by this time at Hogwarts.  But I still see 
the possibility that there were others from the gang still in 
Hogwarts, maybe in seventh year, who would not have been with the 
O.W.L. students.  My only clue to this was the use of the 
word 'gang', which to me is larger than three people, and would 
include people from different years.

Alla:
> Do I think that Slytherin gang and Marauders, NOT Snape and 
> Marauders initially had a violent history? Yep, I absolutely do. 
> Speculation? Sure it is, but I think it is significant that Sirius 
> did not see Bella since he was sixteen ( sure he does not have fond 
> memories of majority of his family, but he specifically says that 
> about Bella) It tells me that he and Bella were not on friendly 
> terms while in school. IMO of course. And of course we have 
> that "Malfoy's lapdog". I am dying to know whether this refers to 
> Snape school years and what did Sirius mean.

Ceridwen:
I'd like to know about the 'Malfoy's lapdog' comment, too.  As for 
Bellatrix, she isn't a nice person and I can't blame Sirius for not 
wanting to see her, in school or out.  Since she was more than a year 
older than Sirius, the last time he saw her could have been at her 
wedding, or the wedding of one of her sisters (Andromeda?).  Didn't 
Sirius have a crisis of family when he was sixteen and run to the 
Potters?  And, yes, I do think the Marauders and the Slyth Gang 
probably did have a violent, or at least an adversarial, relationship 
in school.  And Sirius being a Marauder while Bella was a SlythGanger 
might have had a lot to do with it.  Personal feelings like that 
spill into the groups the two people belong to, and friends support 
friends.

Alla:
> But of course take it for what it worth, since I am obviously 
> biased. :) ( Not that I am the only one of course :-)).

Ceridwen:
Not the only one at all.  ;)  But doesn't that make it fun?

Alla:
> 
> Oh, I don't know, I don't know. We are just speculating here, but 
> you don't see Voldemort indicting schoolboy why? I mean, I am not 
> saying I am right and maybe Draco was not indicted, but what would 
> stop Voldemort from indicting schoolboys in general? He would think 
> they are too young to understand and appreciate him fully? :-)

Ceridwen:
I think LV would want more mature people.  So, 'mature' is a relative 
term.  Most of his people seem to be arrested at some point in their 
developments.  But 'mature' in their knowledge of magic, they've 
passed their N.E.W.T.s, they have no one to answer to other than 
themselves and him, and they're out of the CAPSLOCK age.  CAPSLOCK 
can be dangerous for secrecy.  Also, the Mark could be inadvertently 
seen, in showers, at Quidditch games, or just on hot days when the 
student accidentally pulls up that sleeve.

Though, to go against this, LV's staunchest supporters that we've met 
have been stuck in CAPSLOCK - Bella and Crouch jr.  Still, Crouch jr. 
seems to have been able to hide his CAPSLOCK behavior while he was 
impersonating Moody.

And, I think that appreciating him fully, or unquestioningly, would 
be more of a young person thing.  Once dedicated to a cause, the 
young are more ardent, which may be why I see Bella and Crouch jr. as 
being mentally still in that age group.  So I think that LV gets them 
young enough, as they're leaving Hogwarts, but no younger, to try and 
get the best of the youthful ardor without the hairy hormonal phase 
around fifteen-sixteen.


> Alla:
> 
> YES, exactly "ripe for picking" is a good way to phrase it. Don't 
> you think that Voldemort would have done as much as he can to have 
> his eyes and ears in Hogwarts as early as possible? I'd say Lucius 
> and Bella count as pretty good candidates to me to be indicted say 
> at sixteen and then pass the torch to Snape. :-)

Ceridwen:
If he has his people perform some form of hazing before they are 
fully marked, then keeping watch at Hogwarts during their last year 
and reporting to him would be a good first duty to prove intent.  
They will have sullied their reputation by passing information if 
they get cold feet, but at that age, they will more likely be ardent 
soldiers for the cause.  Yes, I do see LV having eyes and ears at 
Hogwarts.  Most definitely.  Scoping out the up-and-coming Dark Arts 
students, the ones who would support him, recruiting to the ideals of 
the group, and so on.  Networking.  If we found out anything about 
Tom Riddle, faintly mirrored by Slughorn, in HBP, it was his smooth 
operation of other people.

I don't think he would mark these young followers, though, and fully 
induct them, for the reasons I gave above.  Also, they're still too 
close to Dumbledore, who will, as we have seen, offer amnesty.  Hold 
out the carrot, lure them in, *get them away from Dumbledore's 
influence*, then mark them and reel them in.

Alla:
> But again, of course we have no indication one way or another, I 
> just thought that Draco MAYBE having a mark would be a good clue as 
> to when Marauders generation could have started being a target for 
> recruiting, that's all.

Ceridwen:
I would agree, if Draco was a usual candidate.  I think, though, if 
he was the ordinary candidate instead of a punishment for his father, 
LV would have conscripted him to do watching duties in his seventh 
year, then marked him at the end of it, a 'graduation present' from 
his new master.  But, I could be wrong, and LV had the students at 
least working for him if not fully marked, by sixteen.  Sixteen is a 
significant age in most western societies (fifteen in 
others).  'Sweet sixteen' in the US, and I think the age of sexual 
consent in Britain is sixteen.  So, you may be right, and the only 
difference between Draco's mission and any other budding DE's would 
be the punishment aspect of it.

Speculation is fun.

Ceridwen.







From MadameSSnape at aol.com  Sun Mar 26 13:14:15 2006
From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 08:14:15 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Trelawney Tarrot reading again
Message-ID: <2c0.789e9ae.3157eda7@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150059

 
In a message dated 3/26/2006 3:58:57 AM Eastern Standard Time,  
srbecca at hotmail.com writes:

As a  tarot dabbler I can tell you that many people use playing cards to read 
 
"tarot".  The decks are really not that different...depending on what  you 
read (what deck).


----------------
Sherrie here - bit more than a dabbler:
 
The Lesser Arcana aren't that different from playing cards - one was the  
ancestor of the other, with the Page and Knight being combined to create the  
Jack.  The appearance of The Tower in the reading, though, implies that the  deck 
Trelawney was using included the Major Arcana, which means she was using a  
true Tarot deck of 78 - and an older one at that, since very few decks refer to 
 it as "The Lightning-Struck Tower" anymore.  The system for reading playing  
cards is quite a bit different than that for reading Tarot, and the meanings 
of  many of the corresponding cards differ.  (The Ace of Spades versus the Ace 
 of Swords leaps to mind!)  Perhaps JKR isn't that familiar with the  
terminology of the Tarot - or perhaps she thought her audience wouldn't  be?
 
Trelawney's reading of The Tower card points up her pessimism  once again - 
this card is seldom read as darkly as she reads it.  Usually,  it's read as a 
drastic, sudden and unexpected change, in which something old is  swept away so 
that something new can begin.  Although the tower is being  destroyed, an 
almost universal inclusion in the illustrations of this card  is a shower of 
Hebrew yods falling from the sky - indicating salvation.
 
Plucking a manual at random from my shelf (happens to be the one for  the 
Tarot of the Old Path), the meaning for The Tower  states:
 
         "A traumatic change  that will lead to new awareness.  The collapse 
of old  beliefs.   A change of opinion.  Outgrowing the present  environment.  
Ending a relationship.  A possible divorce.  Ending  a friendship.  
Adversity.  Catastrophe.  Unhappiness.   Chaos.  Deception.  Downfall.  Loss of 
security.  Financial  loss.  Ruin.  Destruction.  Transition.  Favourable new  
opportunities.  Freedom/liberation only gained at some cost."  
 
It links the card to the element Fire, and the planet Mars.  ("Mars is  very 
bright tonight."?)
 
Sherrie
(Tarot reader since 1970)
 
 
 
 


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




From annemehr at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 26 14:48:38 2006
From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 14:48:38 -0000
Subject: Discussing GOF
In-Reply-To: <e02leh+3bs4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e069k6+mnqu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150060

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" <stevejjen at ...> wrote:

> Alla mentioned Valky making a good canon argument for the Trio 
> traveling back to the DOM battle and that post can be found here: 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142059

Thanks for posting that link -- that was a great thread (including
Ginger's post concluding with her brain going into "Evil Overload!").

As for time-turners:
1) It seems unlikely that *all* of them were in the DoM that night.  

2)It seems likely that they turn in varying intervals -- Hermione
would naturally have been given an hourly one for repeating time slots
in her schedule, but you'd think they'd also make daily ones, weekly
ones, etc.  I'd imagine there'd be more restrictions on the more
powerful ones, though, because there'd be more inherent risk the
further back you travelled.

3)Does it seem likely that Ron would be given a time-turning watch as
a teenager?  Perhaps... if it has other uses and they just haven't
told him the TT one yet.

4)On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if Hagrid knows where
DD's watch is (and it's not "up in flames").

I hope Valky is right about them going back to the DoM -- I was
wondering how they would get back in there, but this is certainly one
time Harry *knows* he can get in, because the DEs have been so kind as
to clear the way for him.

Anne








From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sun Mar 26 15:18:57 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 15:18:57 -0000
Subject: Does James' bullying arises to the level of sexual harassment/
In-Reply-To: <e04vv7+56pn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e06bd1+3jp9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150061

Alla:
> Wait, I am confused now. You were talking about Levicorpus though, 
> no? You see James using Levicorpus as sexually harassing Snape or 
> did I misunderstand you completely? When half of the school used 
> Levicorpus then  yes, I think it is highly probable that many people 
> had their pants taking off. Do you see this as sexual harassment or 
> do you see something different in pensieve scene as metaphor for 
> sexual harassment?

Pippin:
I think a line was being crossed with the pantsing
Fred and George hex people all the time but they obviously haven't 
been pantsing people for fun or Harry wouldn't have been shocked.  
It's not established that pantsing was a customary rite of passage 
or that the victim could expect things not to go any further. 

It's a common  technique from fairy tales, conveying a
threat to innocence by couching it in terms that innocence will not
understand, and JKR's language is allusive rather than explicit. But
the clincher for me is that the scene breaks off where it does: 
that implies *JKR* can't take it any further without being 
inappropriate.

There's an escalation of sexual hostilities: James making the
insulting suggestion that  Lily would trade  her attentions for Snape's 
safety, Lily humiliating James by saying she'd rather date the 
giant squid,  James taking out his humiliation on Snape, 
and finally Harry wondering if James had forced Lily into marriage.

Of course James behaved in a very Snape-like way,
provoking an overreaction like "filthy Mudblood" , then using righteous
anger as an excuse to punish. But just as in the Snape Harry 
interactions, it seems to be less about  correction than venting. 

And also, of course, about getting attention. I am certainly
willing to perceive James's behavior as more about 
attention-getting than about a need to use sex to humiliate 
people. AFAIK, that doesn't affect whether it's sexual 
harrassment or not -- that has to do with the victim's
perception. You are going to have to work very hard to convince 
me that Snape felt sexually safe with James threatening to take 
his pants off.

But that raises a question about Snape's bullying  --how much 
is sadism, and how much is a need for  attention? And is the 
need for attention the result of an outsize ego, as it was in 
James's case, or does it come from neglect?

You know, I've never had much hope that Snape could be
cured of his bullying, but now I wonder -- if it's really tied
to neglect, especially of the  attempted murder which
everyone expects him to treat as a joke -- then maybe
there's more hope for him than I thought. 

That, I think, was Dumbledore's huge mistake. He didn't
want to think any of those nice Gryffindor boys was capable
of deliberately intentionally taking another life. We often take 
childhood hurts inflicted by other children too lightly because we
don't want to think kids are capable of such things. Well,
Slytherins maybe -- but not *our* kids. 

Pippin







From kchuplis at alltel.net  Sun Mar 26 15:48:30 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 09:48:30 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: But DID James listen? (was LID!Snape rides again )
In-Reply-To: <E1FNP6Y-0007Oq-Cj@elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
References: <E1FNP6Y-0007Oq-Cj@elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <DBFFC416-ACB0-4B0F-9245-161E7E436E90@alltel.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 150062


On Mar 26, 2006, at 12:51 AM, Sherry Gomes wrote:

> Sue:
>
> Well, I don't know about negative, but the only time we see her in  
> her teens
> she is telling off James for bullying and we know she grew up into  
> a decent
> woman - and her former potions teacher, if you recall, remembers  
> her fondly
> as likeably cheeky and feels she would have made a good Slytherin.
> :-)Definitely no saint! She just did what a mother does to protect her
> child. Heroic, but not saintly.
>
>
>
> Sherry now:
>
> Oh, absolutely, I agree with you.  But JKR seems to have done her  
> best to
> demolish every single father figure in the story, while keeping the  
> mothers
> pure and perfect.  Except for Tom's mother of course.  Having grown  
> up with
> my father who did his best to give me a great life, and not missing my
> mother at all, who didn't want me because of my disabilities, I get
> irritated at the clich? of bad father and holy mother.  I do agree  
> that Lily
> did what any *parent* would have done.  And I'm sure she was a  
> great girl
> and would have been fun to know, through the books.  But she  
> becomes this
> symbol of pure perfection somehow, and I'd just like to see her  
> have a few
> flaws, to make her more human and believable.
>
> sherry

kchuplis:

Do remember that Lily then sneered and called Snape Snivellus after  
he called her a mudblood. A "saint" would have over looked that. She  
was just being a decent person, not necessarily a Saint. And even  
good fathers can have clay feet (which I think is more to the point  
here. It is dangerous to 'hero worship' anyone - which Harry was well  
on the way to doing.) 


From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sun Mar 26 16:10:38 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 16:10:38 -0000
Subject: Going back to discuss GOF.
In-Reply-To: <e027fs+fd0a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e06edu+6ehu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150063

Lisa:
> Barty Crouch Jr. - needless to say, a very troubled lad. 
My question is- is he really that  smart? because I don't 
think so. He plays an awfully good Mad Eye- I mean, 
going to all  that trouble to win over Harry throughout 
year 4, he really goes out of his way.  
<snip>
I honestly don't think Crouch Jr. was capable of getting 
people to like him. I think he was a loner with no sense of 
humor, no self-esteem. Therefore, he did not have the tools 
 to be that convincing.  

Pippin:
Sociopaths like Crouch Jr can be surprisingly convincing,
just as young Riddle was, because, and this is the 
paradox, they don't have any real feelings to get in the
way. If Barty were  capable of any genuine kindness
he'd constantly be aware that he was only acting a part,
but since he isn't, there's no inner critic to sap his
confidence.

Lisa:
> 
> AND ANOTHER THING... The Polyjuice Potion would not give 
them the knowledge/wisdom  of the person they were 
impersonating... right?

Pippin:
Legilimency would give Crouch Jr. access to all of Moody's memories.

Lisa: 
> AND ONE MORE THING... How is it that the greatest wizard 
alive (at the time) did not have  any inkling whatsoever that 
this was a fraud? (referring to DD). 

Pippin:
 It's not clear whether you can actually put someone else's
memories in your mind, but if false memories can be
implanted, why not other people's real ones?

Plus, Moody's paranoia would give him the perfect excuse to
block any attempts by Dumbledore to probe his mind.

Lisa:
> AND, OK, MY LAST AND FINAL ALL CAPS QUESTION... going 
forward to HBP: If the time- turner  was used to save Buckbeak 
and Siruis- why could it not be used to save the only 
> wizard that Voldesnort ever feared?

Pippin:
Because it would make things too easy :) Besides, Dumbledore's
words have to prove out -- that the dead who love us never
truly leave us. 

Pippin






From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Sun Mar 26 16:21:14 2006
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 16:21:14 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV.
In-Reply-To: <20060326004115.95525.qmail@web36711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <e06f1q+l789@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150064

veroniki travlou <veronikitravlou at ...> wrote:

> Peter most surely intended that the curse
> should work because he was ordered to use
> it by V, and if it didn't he was going to
> be in deep shit, but I don't hold to the
> idea that he took pleasure in Cedric's 
> death simply because there was no reason
> for him to want Cedric dead personally.

Some people enjoy torturing small animals, the animals had done
nothing to them so they have no reason to hate them, but they just
enjoy inflicting pain and death on something less powerful than they
are. Other people enjoy doing the same thing to Human Beings. I
believe Snape would understand what I'm trying to say perfectly. Maybe
Snape hated Dumbledore personally, maybe he was so full of hate he
hated everybody, maybe he just liked to kill people; whatever the
truth I wouldn't turn my back of the bastard for one second.

> Now as for the real Moody, I know he 
> filled Azkaban with DEs, but I don't
> remember any reference for him
> killing someone himself.

The books say the real Moody always brought Death Eaters in alive
..
IF POSABLE. The clear implication is that sometimes it is not
possible. Right after we are told that Evan Rosier is dead Moody
points to his disfigured nose and says "Took a bit of me with him,
though". You have three guesses as to who killed Rosier.  

Eggplant
 







From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Sun Mar 26 16:28:26 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 16:28:26 -0000
Subject: Perfect Lily (Re: But DID James listen?)
In-Reply-To: <E1FNP6Y-0007Oq-Cj@elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <e06ffa+j5cv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150065

Sherry now:
> Oh, absolutely, I agree with you.  But JKR seems to have done her
> best to demolish every single father figure in the story, while
> keeping the mothers pure and perfect.  Except for Tom's mother of 
> course.  Having grown up with my father who did his best to give me
> a great life, and not missing my mother at all, who didn't want me 
> because of my disabilities, I get irritated at the clich? of bad
> father and holy mother.  I do agree that Lily did what any *parent*
> would have done.  And I'm sure she was a great girl and would have
> been fun to know, through the books.  But she becomes this symbol of
> pure perfection somehow, and I'd just like to see her have a few
> flaws, to make her more human and believable.

Jen: I feel like Sherry on this one, Lily may have been cheeky, 
imperfect and 'would have done well in Slytherin' (ambitious? 
cunning?), but we haven't seen it yet. 

I wouldn't want to find out something like we saw in the Pensieve 
scene with James & Snape, just something.....well, to know she 
*struggled* sometimes.  Because so little has been revealed about her, 
it sounds like everybody liked her, she always made the right and 
morally superior choice and so on. I'd just like to know she could be 
more like Harry sometimes, wavering between impulses or knowing she 
isn't making a good choice but doing it anyway. You know, *human*!!

Hey, wait, you know what? I just thought maybe that perfection thing 
was her particular struggle and that's why she was attracted to James. 
She saw someone more daring than she was, less 'perfect', less careful 
about the rules and not always doing the right thing. Things she might 
have wanted to cultivate in herself, but couldn't? 

Another option, maybe there's a reason Snape called her Mudblood 
besides just being nasty (and embarassed, imo). Maybe, just maybe, 
perfect Lily had snubbed him. Not just given him the polite brush-off, 
but actually laughed at the idea she could ever be with him. Then when 
she tried to do the right thing in a public forum (maybe even a few 
years later?), it's too little, too late in Snape's opinion. I would 
personally rather find out Lily grew into her compassion over time, 
like James grew into his strengths.

Also, since James and Sirius 'eyed her wand warily' in the Pensive, it 
might be fun to find out those toerags were on the end of a few Bat 
Bogey Hexes, wouldn't it?!?

Jen R., thinking it unlikely any of JKR's characters are going to get 
out of the story unscathed and perfect, though Lily appears to be the 
last hold-out at the moment.






From chonpschonps at hotmail.com  Sun Mar 26 09:44:00 2006
From: chonpschonps at hotmail.com (xuxunette)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 09:44:00 -0000
Subject: Going back to discuss GOF
In-Reply-To: <20060325225841.7247.qmail@web36701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <e05np0+c9g7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150066

Vera wrote:   
>"Why did Rowling underline thoughout 6 that Dumbledore's greatest
flaw is his tendency to trust unworthy people if she plans to reveal
in 7 that in fact everything was planned and Dumbledore wasn't fooled
after all???"


That's actually something I really like about Dumbledore and I don't
think it's a contradiction. 

As I understand it, when JKR says that DD's flaw is his tendency to
trust unworthy people, 'flaw' has to be really understood as a synonym
of 'weakness'. Meaning that this tendency of DD's is actually not a
defect, but more of an Achilles'heel (and a vulnerability DD is
perfectly aware of too).

It's a subtle difference but an important one, which also explains why
Dumbledore is said to be 'the epitome of goodness': isn't according
one's trust to someone the most generous and kindest act of all? Even,
and especially if, he/she is, all evidence considered, most likely
going to be proved unworthy of said trust?   

So, it's not a contradition because, in fact, DD is indeed well aware
of how untrustwothy some people are, but he choose nevertheless and
deliberately to believe that there is good in them.

In other words, this 'flaw' of Dumbledore is also what is greatest
about him and makes him such deeply good person.


xuxu, lemon drops lover.













From dontask2much at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 26 18:11:33 2006
From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 13:11:33 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Perfect Lily (Re: But DID James listen?)
References: <e06ffa+j5cv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <050b01c65100$b71849f0$6401a8c0@MITRE.ORG>

No: HPFGUIDX 150067

>>Sherry now:

<snip>

>>  Having grown up with my father who did his best to give me
>> a great life, and not missing my mother at all, who didn't want me
>> because of my disabilities, I get irritated at the clich of bad
>> father and holy mother.  I do agree that Lily did what any *parent*
>> would have done.  And I'm sure she was a great girl and would have
>> been fun to know, through the books.  But she becomes this symbol of
>> pure perfection somehow, and I'd just like to see her have a few
>> flaws, to make her more human and believable.

>Jen:
>I feel like Sherry on this one, Lily may have been cheeky,
>imperfect and 'would have done well in Slytherin' (ambitious?
>cunning?), but we haven't seen it yet.

>I wouldn't want to find out something like we saw in the Pensieve
>scene with James & Snape, just something.....well, to know she
>*struggled* sometimes.  Because so little has been revealed about her,
>it sounds like everybody liked her, she always made the right and
>morally superior choice and so on. I'd just like to know she could be
>more like Harry sometimes, wavering between impulses or knowing she
>isn't making a good choice but doing it anyway. You know, *human*!!

<snip>

>Jen R., thinking it unlikely any of JKR's characters are going to get
>out of the story unscathed and perfect, though Lily appears to be the
>last hold-out at the moment.

Rebecca, smiling:

You appear to want Lily to be a person you can believe in *now*, since JKR 
has been so overtly mysterious about her. :)  That's completely 
understandable!  I agree with you both that JKR gives a glimpse into Lily's 
character via the Pensieve scene in OoP and therein shows a "struggle" 
others might have to "do the right thing" in defending Snape from James and 
Sirius. (Note that Lupin who is sitting right there, doesn't lift a finger 
or say a word - tsk, tsk, doesn't say much about his moral fiber there, now 
does it?)  But like Harry, Lily does this intuitively because she knows it's 
the right thing to do - others would have had to think to make the decision, 
and in Harry and Lily's case, they don't have to - they take immediate 
action. Her next line after being called a Mudblood by Snape is where the 
struggle occurs to define her response.

Forgetting for a moment Lily's Harry's mother and comparing what little we 
see of her in her youth and what we've been told about her via Lupin, 
Slughorn and others, Lily as a character seems to combine the positive 
characteristics we value in Harry, Hermoine and Ron. Like Harry, she's 
brave, courageous, able to see past appearances (now that Harry's matured 
some, he is too), like Hermoine, she was a very gifted and apparently wicked 
clever witch, and evidently like Ron, afflicted with a sly wit and humor. 
There are genuinely likable and good people in the world, and sometimes 
those people are very hard for the rest of society to accept without 
suspicion. As they say, she would be quite a catch.

We're dealing with an author who has had father troubles, so naturally one 
would suspect that her perception of fatherhood could be impacted even in 
her writing. What's even more interesting is that even the in the genre of 
what literature HP's been compared to, there's a trend in either absent 
fathers or bad fatherhood. In CS Lewis's novels for the Pevensie children, 
we never hear of a father; in Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy 
Lord Asriel is originally thought by Lyra to be her uncle initially, not her 
father.  Tolkien's LotR also appears to deal with absent fathers for major 
characters such as Frodo and Aragorn. So in this view, it would appear she 
is not alone.

I mention again that ambition and cunning, such as Slytherin are noted for, 
are not necessarily *bad* characteristics to have as long as they are 
moderated with choices to live a full and happy life.The beauty of Lily's 
character is she appears to have done just that.

Rebecca










From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 26 18:37:01 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 18:37:01 -0000
Subject: Perfect Lily (Re: But DID James listen?)
In-Reply-To: <e06ffa+j5cv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e06n0d+un3r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150068

> Sherry now:
> > Oh, absolutely, I agree with you.  But JKR seems to have done her
> > best to demolish every single father figure in the story, while
> > keeping the mothers pure and perfect.  Except for Tom's mother 
of 
> > course.  Having grown up with my father who did his best to give 
me
> > a great life, and not missing my mother at all, who didn't want 
me 
> > because of my disabilities, I get irritated at the clich? of bad
> > father and holy mother.  I do agree that Lily did what any 
*parent*
> > would have done.  And I'm sure she was a great girl and would 
have
> > been fun to know, through the books.  But she becomes this 
symbol of
> > pure perfection somehow, and I'd just like to see her have a few
> > flaws, to make her more human and believable.

Alla:

Yes,absolutely. I want to see SOME flaw in Lily's character. 
Anything, please, JKR? No, I don't need her to have particularly 
horrible flaw since as Rebecca said downthread there are indeed 
genuinely good people in RL, but I am yet to meet perfect people in 
RL and so far Lily seems to be such to me.

But  the thing that I find the most bothersome in as you said 
Sherry " bad father/holly mother" cliche is JKR differentiating 
between James's sacrifice and Lily's sacrifice in her July 2005 
interview.

I mean, really, father's sacrifice for his child and wife somehow 
counts less than mother's sacrifice? Why is that? Now, maybe I 
misunderstood that part of JKR's interview, but I have not bothered 
to reread that part since it left a very unpleasant  feeling in me.


 
> Jen R., thinking it unlikely any of JKR's characters are going to 
get 
> out of the story unscathed and perfect, though Lily appears to be 
the 
> last hold-out at the moment.
>

Alla:

She does appear to be such, doesn't she, Jen? I so hope the picture 
will change in book 7. I also agree with your whole post and would 
love for that to be true.

JMO,
Alla






From jjs21theo at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 26 18:13:02 2006
From: jjs21theo at yahoo.com (jjs21theo)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 18:13:02 -0000
Subject: Harry in the Graveyard in GOF
Message-ID: <e06lje+bbip@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150069

Hi everyone!  This is my first time posting here.  I wonder if anyone 
has posted this question:  When Harry was in the Graveyard he was 
outside of school.  Why wasn't the ministry aware that he was 
performing magic and why didn't they respond as they had in the past?  
Just curious.  I'd love to hear your thoughts and theories...

jjs21theo.








From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Sun Mar 26 19:39:29 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 19:39:29 -0000
Subject: Perfect Lily (Re: But DID James listen?)
In-Reply-To: <050b01c65100$b71849f0$6401a8c0@MITRE.ORG>
Message-ID: <e06qlh+lnvt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150070

Rebecca: 
> I agree with you both that JKR gives a glimpse into Lily's 
> character via the Pensieve scene in OoP and therein shows
> a "struggle" others might have to "do the right thing" in
> defending Snape from James and Sirius. (Note that Lupin who is
> sitting right there, doesn't lift a finger or say a word - tsk, 
> tsk, doesn't say much about his moral fiber there, now does it?)
> But like Harry, Lily does this intuitively because she knows it's
> the right thing to do - others would have had to think to make the
> decision, and in Harry and Lily's case, they don't have to - they
> take immediate action. 

Jen: Running with this a moment, I'm wondering about the things 
Harry struggles with rather than acting intuitively on. That might 
well be a clue to Lily's personality, unless his weak spots are all 
similar to James' struggles. And I'm not saying these 
characteristics can't be good in certain situations, just trying to 
list things we've actually heard might be a problem for Harry:

1) Following rules--James
2) Not acting impulsively or recklessly--James
3) Playing the hero--?? Maybe Lily could be like Hermione at times, 
saving people/creatures who don't ask to be saved or going about it 
in the wrong way. Snape could qualify in the Pensive scene, maybe 
even Petunia if Lily tried to change her into someone she wasn't.
4) Not taking schoolwork seriously enough--James sounds more likely, 
although both parents were good in school.

I can't think of others at the moment, someone else may be able to 
add to that list. Lily can be completely separate from Harry of 
course, just using Harry as a guideline since JKR has made a big 
deal of Harry being like both parents, and I hope all his negative 
qualitites aren't from James!

Rebecca:
> There are genuinely likable and good people in the world, and
> sometimes those people are very hard for the rest of society to
> accept without suspicion. As they say, she would be quite a catch.

Jen: Likeable and good vs. nearly flawless are different 
characterizations and not exactly what I'm trying to get at. All the 
major characters on the Good side have contributed in some way to 
the current situation through a mistake or misstep: Dumbledore, 
Peter, Snape (before switch and possibly after), Sirius/James, 
Lupin, even the Trio. Lily stands alone as having done the 
singularly right thing by her sacrifice.

Rebecca:
> We're dealing with an author who has had father troubles, so
> naturally one would suspect that her perception of fatherhood 
> could be impacted even in her writing. 

Jen: I'm not sure her motivation, she did say in the TIME article 
that she didn't realize most of her father figures were 'bad' until 
looking over the first five books in publication. So it was 
subconcious most likely.

Rebecca: 
> I mention again that ambition and cunning, such as Slytherin are
> noted for, are not necessarily *bad* characteristics to have as
> long as they are moderated with choices to live a full and happy
> life.The beauty of Lily's character is she appears to have done
> just that.

Jen: Just for the record, I wasn't saying Slytherin is bad or 
Slytherin charcteristics are negative. My list of 'cheeky, imperfect 
and doing well in Slytherin' are all things I'd *like* to see in 
Lily in Book 7. Aspects of true human behavior rather than her 
almost saint-like presence. If the twitch of her lips and her 
response to Snape calling her Mudlblood are all we're going to get, 
her role will primarily be the Sacrificial Mother.

I'm a proponent for Harry understanding why he would have made a 
good Slytherin in book 7. He proved himself able to be cunning in 
HBP and Dumbledore was behind him all the way, promoting Harry to 
use his ingenuity and cunning to retrieve the Slughorn memory. I'm 
all for the uniting of the Houses, or at least the beginning of that 
process, when the series ends.

Jen R.






From annemehr at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 26 19:52:57 2006
From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 19:52:57 -0000
Subject: Harry in the Graveyard in GOF
In-Reply-To: <e06lje+bbip@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e06rep+kvnf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150071

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jjs21theo" <jjs21theo at ...> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone!  This is my first time posting here.  I wonder if anyone 
> has posted this question:  When Harry was in the Graveyard he was 
> outside of school.  Why wasn't the ministry aware that he was 
> performing magic and why didn't they respond as they had in the past?  
> Just curious.  I'd love to hear your thoughts and theories...
> 
> jjs21theo.
>

Hi back. :)

I explain things like this to myself this way: the Ministry has a rule
that students are not allowed to perform magic outside of school, but
they don't actually have a way to monitor what every student does.

In the case of students with at least one magical parent, I guess that
it is left up to the parent(s) to enforce the rule -- which is
probably what allowed Fred and George to do so much at home to start
up Weasley's Wizard Wheezes.  It's probably only the Muggleborns like
Hermione whose homes or neighborhoods are monitored at all.  Harry is
most likely a special case and receives extra attention.

So, to get back to your question -- I don't think the MoM knew that
Harry Potter was involved in doing any magic in the graveyard at all.
 Nor did they catch Hermione doing Mobiliarbus in the Three
Broomsticks in PoA.

Annemehr








From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Mar 26 19:58:51 2006
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 26 Mar 2006 19:58:51 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 3/26/2006, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1143403131.15.63474.m31@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150072


 Reminder from the Calendar of HPforGrownups
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal

Weekly Chat
Sunday March 26, 2006
1:00 pm - 1:00 pm
(This event repeats every week.)

Notes:
Don't forget, chat happens today, 11 am Pacific, 2 pm Eastern, 7 pm UK time. Chat times do not change for Daylight Saving/Summer Time. Chat generally goes on for about 5 hours, but can last as long as people want it to last.

To get into Chat, just go to the group online:  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups and click on "Chat" in the lefthand menu.  If you have problems with this, go to http://www.yahoo.com and in the bottom box on the left side of the page click on "Chat".  Once you're logged into any room, type /join *g.HPforGrownups ; this should take you right in.  If you have an


Set up birthday reminders!
 http://us.rd.yahoo.com/cal_us/rem/?http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal?v=9&evt_type=13

Copyright 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All Rights Reserved.
 http://www.yahoo.com

Privacy Policy:
 http://privacy.yahoo.com/

Terms of Service:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20060326/c7c0abc2/attachment.html>

From R.Vink2 at chello.nl  Sun Mar 26 20:07:36 2006
From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 20:07:36 -0000
Subject: Perfect Lily (Re: But DID James listen?)
In-Reply-To: <e06n0d+un3r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e06sa8+ajcm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150073

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214"
<dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
 
> Alla:
> 
 
> But  the thing that I find the most bothersome in as you said 
> Sherry " bad father/holly mother" cliche is JKR differentiating 
> between James's sacrifice and Lily's sacrifice in her July 2005 
> interview.
> 
> I mean, really, father's sacrifice for his child and wife somehow 
> counts less than mother's sacrifice? Why is that? Now, maybe I 
> misunderstood that part of JKR's interview, but I have not bothered 
> to reread that part since it left a very unpleasant  feeling in me.
> 
> 
Renee:
IIRC, the difference was that Lily was given the choice to live. James
would have died anyway, but not Lily, if she'd been prepared to stand
aside and let Voldemort kill Harry. Unlike James's death, hers was not
inevitable, and that's why it saved Harry.










From annemehr at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 26 20:17:17 2006
From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 20:17:17 -0000
Subject: Perfect Lily /Father Figures
In-Reply-To: <e06qlh+lnvt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e06ssd+9s1v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150074

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" <stevejjen at ...> wrote:
> Jen: Running with this a moment, I'm wondering about the things 
> Harry struggles with rather than acting intuitively on. That might 
> well be a clue to Lily's personality, unless his weak spots are all 
> similar to James' struggles.
<snip>

Annemehr:
I feel a strong temptation to look to Ginny for clues to the
personality of Lily. :P

We still have the "really huge" thing about Lily to find out in book
7, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find that it would be
something that will cause many long, back-and-forth threads here about
the morality, or lack of it, involved.

Jen:
> 1) Following rules--James
> 2) Not acting impulsively or recklessly--James
> 3) Playing the hero--?? Maybe Lily could be like Hermione at times, 
> saving people/creatures who don't ask to be saved or going about it 
> in the wrong way. Snape could qualify in the Pensive scene, maybe 
> even Petunia if Lily tried to change her into someone she wasn't.
> 4) Not taking schoolwork seriously enough--James sounds more likely, 
> although both parents were good in school.

Annemehr:
5) A tendency to judge people quickly and then refuse to rethink?
 
> Rebecca:
> > We're dealing with an author who has had father troubles, so
> > naturally one would suspect that her perception of fatherhood 
> > could be impacted even in her writing. 
> 
> Jen: I'm not sure her motivation, she did say in the TIME article 
> that she didn't realize most of her father figures were 'bad' until 
> looking over the first five books in publication. So it was 
> subconcious most likely.

Annemehr:
She does have some very bad fathers, yes - but I don't think it's all
*that* skewed. Molly and Arthur are very well matched; Amos Diggory
was just fine; Luna seems quite happy with hers, as was Hagrid with
his. Lupin's was included in the phrase "my parents tried everything;"
we have no reason to think ill of Frank Longbottom; and James Potter,
whatever "Ancient Magic" thought of it, gave his life trying to defend
his son.  Dumbledore is a beloved father *figure,* and on the other
hand, it is Sirius Black's *mother* we hear the worst of, and Seamus's
mother who turns against Dumbledore.

Annemehr








From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 26 20:22:39 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 20:22:39 -0000
Subject: Lily' sacrifice v James' sacrifice WAS: Perfect Lily
In-Reply-To: <e06sa8+ajcm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e06t6f+am3h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150075

> > Alla:
> > 
>  
> > But  the thing that I find the most bothersome in as you said 
> > Sherry " bad father/holly mother" cliche is JKR differentiating 
> > between James's sacrifice and Lily's sacrifice in her July 2005 
> > interview.
> > 
> > I mean, really, father's sacrifice for his child and wife 
somehow 
> > counts less than mother's sacrifice? Why is that? Now, maybe I 
> > misunderstood that part of JKR's interview, but I have not 
bothered 
> > to reread that part since it left a very unpleasant  feeling in 
me.
> > 
> > 
> Renee:
> IIRC, the difference was that Lily was given the choice to live. 
James
> would have died anyway, but not Lily, if she'd been prepared to 
stand
> aside and let Voldemort kill Harry. Unlike James's death, hers was 
not
> inevitable, and that's why it saved Harry.
>

Alla:

Welll, yes, I know this reason and cannot wait to find out why Lily 
was valuable to Voldemort. I am sure it will be interesting. :)

But this is not quite what I was getting at and as I said maybe JKR 
was not getting at it either and I simply misunderstood.

I got the impression that Lily sacrifice vs James sacrifice is 
different for JKR not just because of different outcome the ancient 
magic invoked, but that James' sacrifice was some how less 
significant, less conscious, less worthy of respect from the readers 
since James was going to die anyway.

Am I making any sense? IMO at least in theory James could have 
chosen to RUN from Voldemort instead of standing up and fight. I 
mean,sure  we don't know what occurred in GH in great details, but I 
don't think that it is that unlikely that James could have at least 
dissapparated, you know?

He chose to stand up and fight as a hero and if he knew that he is 
going to lose against Voldemort, he in my book chose heroic death in 
order to give his wife and son at least small chance to escape.

Lily also chose to stand up and fight and to die even if she could 
not live.

They both CHOSE to do it, IMO.

I just felt that JKR was diminishing James' actions, putting them 
down in that interview.

Makes sense or not?

Alla







From kchuplis at alltel.net  Sun Mar 26 20:20:05 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 14:20:05 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry in the Graveyard in GOF
In-Reply-To: <e06rep+kvnf@eGroups.com>
References: <e06rep+kvnf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BC404F58-741C-45CD-988E-2D73192BA1A3@alltel.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 150076


On Mar 26, 2006, at 1:52 PM, annemehr wrote:

> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jjs21theo" <jjs21theo at ...>  
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone!  This is my first time posting here.  I wonder if  
> anyone
> > has posted this question:  When Harry was in the Graveyard he was
> > outside of school.  Why wasn't the ministry aware that he was
> > performing magic and why didn't they respond as they had in the  
> past?
> > Just curious.  I'd love to hear your thoughts and theories...
> >
> > jjs21theo.
> >
>
> Hi back. :)
>
> I explain things like this to myself this way: the Ministry has a rule
> that students are not allowed to perform magic outside of school, but
> they don't actually have a way to monitor what every student does.
>
> In the case of students with at least one magical parent, I guess that
> it is left up to the parent(s) to enforce the rule -- which is
> probably what allowed Fred and George to do so much at home to start
> up Weasley's Wizard Wheezes.  It's probably only the Muggleborns like
> Hermione whose homes or neighborhoods are monitored at all.  Harry is
> most likely a special case and receives extra attention.
>
> So, to get back to your question -- I don't think the MoM knew that
> Harry Potter was involved in doing any magic in the graveyard at all.
> Nor did they catch Hermione doing Mobiliarbus in the Three
> Broomsticks in PoA.
>
> Annemehr
>

kchuplis:

I would also expect that the use in Little Whinging sets off alarms  
1) BECAUSE harry lives there and 2) close concentration of muggles.  
The graveyard appears to be rather between two towns and with out any  
muggles alarmingly in the immediate vacinity.



From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 26 20:32:17 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 20:32:17 -0000
Subject: Does James' bullying arises to the level of sexual harassment/
In-Reply-To: <e052et+spr8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e06toh+s2p6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150077

> > >>Alla:
> > Do you see this as sexual harassment or do you see 
something      
> > different in pensieve scene as metaphor for sexual harassment?
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Yeah, I'm going to say exposing Snape's genitals against his will, 
> and for an unspecified length of time is sexual harassment.  
There's 
> a reason Harry thought his father capable of rape after witnessing 
> this scene.  (Though, I think Harry leapt to the very worst of 
> conclusions.)
> 
> Betsy Hp

a_svirn:
Besides which she *did* end the scene at the cliff-hanger. Sexual 
harassment (other than humiliating exposure of genitalia) is not 
totally without the realm of possibility here. The latter may well 
follow the former. No is this the end of the Snape-Marauders feud. 
They could easily take up where they left off at some more 
convenient time. And Rowling certainly gave this abrupt ending 
intentionally. Even if most us, readers, were probably less 
impressionable than Harry, it is something we cannot completely 
ignore. I'd day it is the most shocking scene in the entire series 
so far.(Or, at least, the most revolting). 






From annemehr at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 26 20:35:36 2006
From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 20:35:36 -0000
Subject: Lily' sacrifice v James' sacrifice WAS: Perfect Lily
In-Reply-To: <e06t6f+am3h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e06tuo+oc78@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150078

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214"
<dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> > > Alla:
> > > 
> >  
> > > But  the thing that I find the most bothersome in as you said 
> > > Sherry " bad father/holly mother" cliche is JKR differentiating 
> > > between James's sacrifice and Lily's sacrifice in her July 2005 
> > > interview.
<snip> 
> He chose to stand up and fight as a hero and if he knew that he is 
> going to lose against Voldemort, he in my book chose heroic death in 
> order to give his wife and son at least small chance to escape.

Annemehr:
I wonder if it makes sense to include Voldemort's point of view. 
Meaning, James died at Voldemort's AK because James did not run away
*and* Voldemort intended to kill him.  Lily, on the other hand, died
at Voldemort's AK because Lily did not run away, yes, but Voldemort
originally did *not* intend to kill her. I think that's what JKR meant
by saying *Voldemort* gave her a choice (which is an added ingredient
beyond James's and Lily's own choices).

In other words, James and Lily were equally brave and selfless;
however, Lily was in a different circumstance which made the effect of
her sacrifice different.

Annemehr







From celizwh at intergate.com  Sun Mar 26 20:36:04 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 20:36:04 -0000
Subject: Hagrid, the Marauders, and Snape
Message-ID: <e06tvk+4vnf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150079

The discussion of whether or not James' threat to take off Snape's
underwear is sexual harassment got me wondering what happened after
the scene was broken off and why we were not allowed to see it.  If
Snape really did have his underpants removed, I agree that such a
scene would be far too indecent and shocking for a series of books
marketed to children.  

But it could be that the scene was broken off for other reasons, one
of which is the disturbing effect on Harry, causing him to doubt his
father's character and question whether his mother really loved his
father (because he must imagine the worst).  But it is also possible
that something happened after Harry left the Pensieve that would give
too much information away, both to Harry and to the readers had we
been allowed to see it.

Was Snape rescued by Hagrid?

There has ben much discussion about Hagrid's trust of Snape.  The
reason put forth in PS/SS is that Hagrid is too loyal to Hogwarts ever
to speak ill of a Hogwarts teacher (unless it's a sadistic bully like
Umbridge or a phoney like Lockhart.  Hagrid is pretty plain spoken
about both.)

There is only one scene between Hagid and Snape.

*********************
Ron dived at Malfoy just as Snape came up the stairs.
"WEASLEY!"
Ron let go of the front of Malfoy's robes.
"He was provoked, Professor Snape," said Hagrid, sticking his huge
hairy face out from behind the tree. "Malfoy was insultin' his family."
"Be that as it may, fighting is against Hogwarts rules, Hagrid," said
Snape silkily.
(SS12)
*********************
>From Snape this is almost conciliatory language.  He speaks "silkily".
 He calls Hagrid by name.  Most importantly, he does not question
Hagrid's account of what happened.  He merely asserts his
responsibilty to enforce the school rules (and we know how important
obeying the rules is to Snape).  On Hagrid's part, we see no hesitance
to stand up to Snape.

It has been suggested that Hagrid knows something about why DD trusts
Snape, that he was a bonder for a UV Snape took to protect Harry, that
Snape was involved in the rescue of baby Harry from Godric's Hollow. 
It is all speculation, since there is so little canon to go on.  So
now I would like to add mine.

Hagrid was the groundskeeper.  He must have seen a lot more of what
went on outside of classes than the other Hogwarts staff.  He is
extolled by Firenze "for the care he shows all living creatures".  He
loves "interestin' creatures" including a pet dragon and a giant
spider.  Is it likely that he would be put off by a sullen unpopular
teenager, even one who had a fascination for the dark arts?

I think it is possible that Hagrid befriended Snape as a teenager. 
Possibly he even rescued him on occasion from the bullying of other
students.  The fact that the only scene in the books between them, as
adults, deals with a conflict between students outside of class makes
this possibility seem even more likely to me.

So is it possible that Hagrid (the half-human who could teach
pure-bloods a thing or two about what it means to be human) rescued
Snape from James?

If so, it doesn't seem to have hurt his opinion of James  whom he
praises over and over again to Harry in the highest terms.

As groundskeeper, Hagrid must have known Lupin's secret and the
efforts that were made so that he could attend school.  Surely he was
involved in digging the tunnel and planting the whomping willow. How
much did he know of the activities of the Marauders? It's hard to
believe that he would have kept the information from Dumbledore if he
had known that three illegal animagi and a werewolf were running loose
in Hogsmeade once a month.  His position must have allowed him to know
all about the Prank, though.

Did James' exposure of the Prank earn Hagrid's good opinion?  We have
heard very little of what actually happened, most of it from Snape. 
Was James' behavior more noble and disinterested than Snape has been
willing to credit?  Did it gain Lily's regard for James, as well as
Hagrid's?  Was it the beginning of the breakup of the Marauders?  And
yet James and Lily still choose Sirius to be the godfather of their
son--*and* their secret keeper.  






From dontask2much at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 26 20:55:12 2006
From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 15:55:12 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Perfect Lily (Re: But DID James listen?)
References: <e06qlh+lnvt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <060601c65117$93a687e0$6401a8c0@MITRE.ORG>

No: HPFGUIDX 150080

<snipped prior discussion - all good but relative for what I'm about to 
reply>

>> Jen: Likeable and good vs. nearly flawless are different
> characterizations and not exactly what I'm trying to get at. All the
> major characters on the Good side have contributed in some way to
> the current situation through a mistake or misstep: Dumbledore,
> Peter, Snape (before switch and possibly after), Sirius/James,
> Lupin, even the Trio. Lily stands alone as having done the
> singularly right thing by her sacrifice.
>

Rebecca:

Lily does stand alone as "doing the right thing" by her sacrifice, but if 
you note, it's not the only thing she's done. The example in the Pensieve 
clearly shows Lily acting to protect others, even if the bullying is aimed 
at Snape by other students who apparently were respected by the rest of the 
school. Let's look at the bigger picture:  James never did anything to hurt 
Snape physically in his bullying (re: the Pensieve scene) - but Snape's 
retaliation for that was to inflict harm, given the cut on James' face. Lily 
popped up to say no to James bullying Snape, even after that.  In this, Lily 
displays courage and moral fiber just as Neville did in PS/SS by standing up 
to his friends.

In Rowling's world, given a choice to give one's life unselfishly and to 
choose to do it for another in support of the greater good of all depicts 
love.  Much focus is placed on Harry having protection from his mother's 
sacrifice and he does, however Lily's sacrifice was inevitably for the good 
of all, because as DD says, our actions have such far reaching consequences 
that predicting the future is very difficult.

I've not much doubt that James and Lily knew the prophecy word for word - 
and Lily figured out what she had to do after LV came for tea at GH that 
Halloween night and after killing James. But did they *believe* it? Let's 
remember that if she knew the prophecy, she knew her son *could be* marked 
an equal by LV. How to force that given the situation she was in, I wonder? 
The moment of her choice may be significant because I am not sure Lily nor 
James believed the prophecy - they'd already thwarted LV 3 times, so it's 
logical for them to come to the conclusion that with each successive 
thwarting, their odds of survival diminished.

I think Lily, at that moment in front of LV alone, made what philosophers 
call the moral "leap of faith." That, I think, is the reason why JKR singles 
out Lily's death moreso than James. It has to be, because she consciously 
made a decision to die (the moral choice for self sacrifice for the good of 
her son and, perhaps, for all) and hope with her death Harry would be 
spared, and possibly the rest of wizardkind benefit from her sacrifice.

rebecca 





From R.Vink2 at chello.nl  Sun Mar 26 21:46:17 2006
From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 21:46:17 -0000
Subject: Lily' sacrifice v James' sacrifice WAS: Perfect Lily
In-Reply-To: <e06tuo+oc78@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e07239+jat6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150082

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" <annemehr at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214"
> <dumbledore11214@> wrote:
> >
> > > > Alla:
> > > > 
> > >  
> > > > But  the thing that I find the most bothersome in as you said 
> > > > Sherry " bad father/holly mother" cliche is JKR differentiating 
> > > > between James's sacrifice and Lily's sacrifice in her July 2005 
> > > > interview.
> <snip> 
> > He chose to stand up and fight as a hero and if he knew that he is 
> > going to lose against Voldemort, he in my book chose heroic death in 
> > order to give his wife and son at least small chance to escape.

Renee:
Yes, I see what you mean now, but Voldemort's offer makes the
difference, as Annemehr also points out below.

 
> Annemehr:
> I wonder if it makes sense to include Voldemort's point of view. 
> Meaning, James died at Voldemort's AK because James did not run away
> *and* Voldemort intended to kill him.  Lily, on the other hand, died
> at Voldemort's AK because Lily did not run away, yes, but Voldemort
> originally did *not* intend to kill her. I think that's what JKR meant
> by saying *Voldemort* gave her a choice (which is an added ingredient
> beyond James's and Lily's own choices).
> 
> In other words, James and Lily were equally brave and selfless;
> however, Lily was in a different circumstance which made the effect of
> her sacrifice different.
> 

Renee:
James was not in a position to strike a "bargain" with Voldemort, as
Vodemort didn't make him any offers. Lily was. She was offered her
life, but instead of accepting it she suggested an exchange: her life
for Harry's. By killing her, Voldemort accepted the exchange. But then
he tried to kill Harry,  too, despite the bargain. That was cheating,
and therefore the Killing Curse rebounded. I'm aware this sounds a bit
mechanistic, and not everyone here likes this sort of mechanics, but
it would explain the difference between James's sacrifice and Lily's. 

In a way, this is comparable to what we find in Lewis's Narnia series,
though it doesn't work precisely the same way. Aslan offered the White
Witch his life in exchange for that of the traitor Edmund, calling on
the Deep Magic from the beginning of Time. But Aslan was innocent, and
therefore his sacrifice, as he explained later, triggered a Deeper
Magic that undid his death. I suspect the Ancient Magic of Lily's
sacrifice works in a related way.   

Renee
       








From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 26 21:50:44 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 21:50:44 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV.
In-Reply-To: <e01egf+l1hs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e072bk+2sa9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150083

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" 
<eggplant107 at ...> wrote:
>
> "merrillsyndrome" <merrillsyndrome@> wrote:
> 
> > It is true that to perform an AK you have 
> > to feel hatred but where does it say that
> > you have to feel hatred toward the person
> > that the curse is directed at? 
> 
Eggplant wrote:
> To answer your question, it says so on page 810 Order of the 
Phoenix:
> "You need to mean it Potter! You need to want to cause pain- to 
enjoy it-righteous anger won't hurt me for long"
> 

Tonks:
I think that you are both right. The thing necessary for a spell to 
work is #1 - Intention. You have to "want" the spell to do what the 
spell is made to do. And you have to want it enough to put all of 
your energy into it. Intention is the primary mindset for 
spellcasting. The other important thing is faith in your ability to 
do it. The third is being able to harness the power necessary to do 
it.

Snape may not have wanted to do it in the way that LV would have, 
but he was able to because he is a very experience wizard. As an 
experienced wizard who can put his emotions aside, or bring up the 
ones he needs when he needs to, he was able to bring himself to do 
what he knew he had to do. So in that way he had the intention to do 
an AK. You could say he wanted to fullfill DD's orders. His 
intention was to AK DD and he knew that he could and he knew how to 
draw upon the energy that he need to do it. 

I am sure that an AK, as DD says is not as easy to do as not only 
the inocent might think, but not as easy as anyone might think. It 
is a very powerful curse. And I think to kill an animal is one thing 
and to kill a human being is another. I think that it takes more 
psychic energy to kill a human being.  I suspect that if Draco had 
tried an AK on DD it would not have worked, because Draco does not 
have the power and experience to pull it off. An AK is not like a 
Muggle firearm. Spells depend on the psychic energy and skill of the 
Wizard. Unlike a Muggle gun, I don't think you can "accidently" kill 
someone.

Tonks_op






From belviso at attglobal.net  Sun Mar 26 22:27:19 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 22:27:19 -0000
Subject: Lily' sacrifice v James' sacrifice WAS: Perfect Lily
In-Reply-To: <e06t6f+am3h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e074g7+3gig@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150084

> Alla:
> I got the impression that Lily sacrifice vs James sacrifice is
> different for JKR not just because of different outcome the ancient
> magic invoked, but that James' sacrifice was some how less
> significant, less conscious, less worthy of respect from the readers
> since James was going to die anyway.
>
> Am I making any sense?

Magpie:
Yes--I think JKR has flat out said that you are correct and that this 
is what makes Lily's act more important in her eyes.  I don't think 
this is a case of mother vs. father so much as her having a lot of 
strong feelings about people throwing themselves in front of others, 
all the different ways you could do it. Saving yourself seems to be 
considered a really bad thing at all times, so I just think that in 
her mind there's a big difference between these two that other people 
might not care about so much.  So to her the fact that Lily was given 
the choice to stand aside--even though James would have made the same 
choice, as would most any parent--is a big deal that fundemantally 
makes the whole situation more heroic.  Where as, for instance, for 
me I can see the difference in the two situations but wouldn't be 
that struck by the difference.

houyhnhnm102:
He loves "interestin' creatures" including a pet dragon and a giant
spider.  Is it likely that he would be put off by a sullen unpopular
teenager, even one who had a fascination for the dark arts?

Magpie:
Actually, I do think it's likely he would be put off by a sullen 
unpopular teenager with a fascination for the dark arts.  Hagrid 
likes vicious animals but not vicious people, and is I think he's the 
first to inform Harry about the connection between wizards who go bad 
and Slytherin.  He's not really associated with reaching out to kids 
that would put other people off.

It's certainly possible he could have stumbled into this scene, but I 
don't much see a place for him here.  It seems like the kind of scene 
set up to be about the kids interacting with each other.  Ironically, 
when I think back on these kinds of scenes where a teacher intervenes 
it's often a teacher with nefarious motives: Moody in the Ferret 
Scene and Snape in the hallway duel.

It's not that I can't imagine a scenario where Hagrid could have 
befriended Snape--fanfic could do it quite easily, and even have him 
gently scolding James about his behavior the way he scolds Harry and 
Ron about Hermione in PoA.  But I don't yet see any reason to think 
it was like that in canon, where all we've got is Hagrid disliking 
the kinds of kids James disliked and praising James.  We still don't 
know exactly what Snape's social status was--there's hints he came by 
his unpopularity through aggression towards others.  It seems like 
Hagrid's more motivated by loyalty than an ability to look at both 
sides of things.  He's been known to show his own prejudices--in GoF 
he oddly talks about wanting Harry to win so he'll beat Pureblooded 
Cedric.  So until I know differently I have to assume he defends 
Snape because Dumbledore says Snape is okay.

-m







From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Sun Mar 26 23:26:25 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 23:26:25 -0000
Subject: Perfect Lily (Re: But DID James listen?)
In-Reply-To: <060601c65117$93a687e0$6401a8c0@MITRE.ORG>
Message-ID: <e077v1+1rim@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150085

> Rebecca:
> Lily does stand alone as "doing the right thing" by her sacrifice,
> but if you note, it's not the only thing she's done. The example
> in the Pensieve clearly shows Lily acting to protect others <snip> 
> In this, Lily displays courage and moral fiber just as Neville did
> in PS/SS by standing up to his friends. <snip> In Rowling's world,
> given a choice to give one's life unselfishly and to choose to do
> it for another in support of the greater good of all depicts 
> love.  

Jen: I *know* what Lily stands for and that she represents love, 
moral fiber and compassion. And Harry can show all these traits as 
well. That's one of the most crucial parts of the story.

All I'm trying to get at is a personal wish to see Lily the way 
Slughorn saw her. That's all, nothing cosmic, universal or related 
to the major themes. Just a bit more in the characterization 
department is what I'm asking for, a few moments when she's not 
playing the heroine. A moment she made a mistake, when a personal 
weakness or even an emotional moment interfered with her better 
judgement. Maybe it's coming, maybe not. It's just a desire and 
canon speculation and isn't meant to detract from everything she's 
done and what her sacrifice meant to Harry. I'm really not trying to 
argue your points, Rebecca, just interested in a different angle on 
Lily.


Annemehr(waves to anne, glad to see her posting):
> I feel a strong temptation to look to Ginny for clues to the
> personality of Lily. :P We still have the "really huge" thing
> about Lily to find out in book7, and I wouldn't be the least bit
> surprised to find that it would be something that will cause many
> long, back-and-forth threads here about the morality, or lack of
> it, involved.

Jen: Interesting! That's along the lines I've been wondering about 
today. I've always assumed the 'really huge' thing will be something 
that upholds the Saint Lily image, but if her character follows the 
other major adult characters, it *will* be ambiguous in nature and 
open for debate. That would definitely be more than bat-bogey hexes 
in the hallways or other more minor alterations to her character. 
Many believe it will have to do with Snape's backhistory and I could 
see that; I could also see it relating to her profession since 
that's shrouded in mystery.

You also added this to the list of Harry characteristics found 
upthread:

> 5) A tendency to judge people quickly and then refuse to rethink?

Yes, good one. That would be a surprising characteristic to be 
Lily's since a big theory post-HBP is that Lily saw the good in 
Snape (in particular) and how her compassionate view will help Harry 
do so as well. That or some other speculation could be turned upside 
down, couldn't it?

Jen, open for a surprise on this one.








From juli17 at aol.com  Sun Mar 26 23:33:06 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 18:33:06 EST
Subject: Lily' sacrifice v James' sacrifice WAS: Perfect Lily
Message-ID: <35a.a6a1d5.31587eb2@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150086

 

> Renee:
> IIRC, the difference was that Lily was given the  choice to live. 
James
> would have died anyway, but not Lily, if she'd  been prepared to 
stand
> aside and let Voldemort kill Harry. Unlike  James's death, hers was 
not
> inevitable, and that's why it saved  Harry.
>

Alla:

Welll, yes, I know this reason and cannot  wait to find out why Lily 
was valuable to Voldemort. I am sure it will be  interesting. :)

But this is not quite what I was getting at and as I said  maybe JKR 
was not getting at it either and I simply misunderstood.

I  got the impression that Lily sacrifice vs James sacrifice is 
different for  JKR not just because of different outcome the ancient 
magic invoked, but  that James' sacrifice was some how less 
significant, less conscious, less  worthy of respect from the readers 
since James was going to die  anyway.

Am I making any sense? IMO at least in theory James could have  
chosen to RUN from Voldemort instead of standing up and fight. I  
mean,sure  we don't know what occurred in GH in great details, but I  
don't think that it is that unlikely that James could have at least  
dissapparated, you know?

He chose to stand up and fight as a hero and  if he knew that he is 
going to lose against Voldemort, he in my book chose  heroic death in 
order to give his wife and son at least small chance to  escape.

Lily also chose to stand up and fight and to die even if she  could 
not live.

They both CHOSE to do it, IMO.

I just felt  that JKR was diminishing James' actions, putting them 
down in that  interview.

Makes sense or not?



Julie:
It makes sense to me, Alla. Like you, I understand that Voldemort's
intent was to kill James, whereas he was willing to spare Lily if she
didn't get in his way. The biggest question is why Voldemort was
willing to spare Lily, or, conversely, why he was *determined* to  kill
James. I also wonder if James and Lily were aware of this fact, thus
James rushed Voldemort as his only chance (albeit a small one) was  to
kill Voldemort before Voldemort killed him. Or did James simply rush
Voldemort because he was the male, thus determined to shield his
family? (Which is a bit sexist, since why didn't Lily rush Voldemort,
and give James the chance to escape with Harry, but we all still have
that tendency to act within those society-prescribed gender roles.)
 
Anyway, it does seem a bit arbitrary that Lily drew the "choice"  straw
and was given the opportunity to be more noble by virtue of making 
the right choice, while James wasn't given a choice but did the  only
thing available to him--short of trying to run, a truly ignoble  choice.
Though that's basically the same choice Voldemort gave Lily, just 
that her escape was a virtual guarantee.
 
Hmm, I'm still not seeing a lot of difference, beyond semantics. So
maybe the magic is the only thing that makes the difference, and they
were both equally courageous and noble. Seems so to me, anyway!


Julie 



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




From mauranen at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 26 23:41:03 2006
From: mauranen at yahoo.com (jekatiska)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 23:41:03 -0000
Subject: Perfect Lily /Father Figures/Mothers
In-Reply-To: <e06ssd+9s1v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e078qf+8g71@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150087

<snip>
> Annemehr:
> She does have some very bad fathers, yes - but I don't think it's all
> *that* skewed. Molly and Arthur are very well matched; Amos Diggory
> was just fine; Luna seems quite happy with hers, as was Hagrid with
> his. Lupin's was included in the phrase "my parents tried 
everything;"
> we have no reason to think ill of Frank Longbottom; and James Potter,
> whatever "Ancient Magic" thought of it, gave his life trying to 
defend
> his son.  Dumbledore is a beloved father *figure,* and on the other
> hand, it is Sirius Black's *mother* we hear the worst of, and 
Seamus's
> mother who turns against Dumbledore.

Jekatiska:

I agree, though I wouldn't necessarily classify Amos Diggory as a good 
father. Putting down your child's friends in front of them isn't my 
idea of good parenting (referring to the scene on Stoatshead Hill 
before getting the Portkey to the Quidditch World Cup on GoF).

I would also add a bad mother in the list: Aunt Petunia. She has, 
after all, managed to produce Dudley, although it's obviously not 
solely her fault. I remember reading an interview in which JKR said 
something about Dudley not having a happy childhood either, though 
clearly in a very different way from Harry. I suppose what she means 
is that overindulgence can be just as damaging to a child as neglect. 
Dudley's eating is hardly the behaviour of a healthy, happy boy, but a 
symptom of something else. He kind of puts me in mind of enormously 
fat dogs whose owners won't stop feeding them (there was a rottweiler 
on tv not long ago that was the size of a pony, the cruelty of it 
nearly made me puke). In that interview, I seem to remember, JKR said 
we will find out what the Dementors made Dudley see. That'll be 
interesting.

Jekatiska






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 26 23:44:30 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 23:44:30 -0000
Subject: Hurting Snape (was:Perfect Lily (Re: But DID James listen?)
In-Reply-To: <060601c65117$93a687e0$6401a8c0@MITRE.ORG>
Message-ID: <e0790u+p800@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150088

> >>Rebecca:
> <snip>
> Let's look at the bigger picture:  James never did anything to     
> hurt Snape physically in his bullying (re: the Pensieve scene) -   
> but Snape's retaliation for that was to inflict harm, given the    
> cut on James' face.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I realize this is off the point, but James *does* physically harm 
Snape in this scene.  He chokes him.

"Pink soap bubbles streamed from Snape's mouth at once; the froth 
was covering his lips, making him gag, choking him --" [GoF hardback 
Scholastic ed. p.646]

Having spent a good portion of my childhood horsing around with my 
sisters in lakes and pools and oceans I can attest that choking does 
hurt.  And can be a bit scary if you're not sure where your next 
breath is coming from.

Lily intervenes as this point and she and James argue while Snape 
works his way free of Sirius' spell.  That's when Snape cuts James, 
and finds himself dangling in the air.

Betsy Hp






From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Sun Mar 26 20:51:27 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 15:51:27 EST
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
Message-ID: <335.d3c367.315858cf@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150089

Alla: 
> Well, that's your interpretation, Pippin. I am doubting very much
> that JKR's intention was to show James sexually harrassing Snape.
> Remember what Lupin says that at one point half of the Hogwarts used
> Levicorpus. Are you going to tell me that it is a metaphor for half
> of the school sexually harassing each other? I doubt it very much.

Pippin:
>Lupin does not say that half the school was threatening to take
>anyone's pants off. He does say he thought James and Sirius
>went too far. Apparently he wasn't talking about levicorpus,
>since as you say half the school was using it and Lupin doesn't
>take it too seriously when Harry asks him about it later.
>
>We see James trying to bribe Lily to go out with him (also
>sexual harrassment) and Harry wonders once or twice
>if James forced her to marry him. If JKR wanted to show
>James's behavior as innocent fun, that's a strange way to go
>about it.



Nikkalmati:

I have a really hard time liking James and I hope we see some 
redeeming qualities presented in Book 7 (beyond his Quidditch 
skills).  I found the Pensieve scene horrifying.  James was an out 
and out bully; canon tells us he did it repeatedly and without 
reason.  (Lily says what did he ever do to you?).  Clearly at the 
time SS was minding his own business.  Sirius does not give JP a 
good recommendation either when Harry asks him and Lupin.  SS was 
just a natural/easy target being such a git.  James got better as 
he got older, Sirius says, but he still kept tormenting SS.  No 
reason given.  

Also, if SS was defending himself at the end with his cutting 
curse, he was being careful about it, because he made a small cut 
on James' face, while we know that curse can produce dramatic 
injuries.  The detention SS gives Harry emphasizes that the 
Marauders were frequently in trouble; again when Harry gets in 
trouble there is usually a good reason from his POV, but James 
seems to like risk for its own sake.  Sirius says as much to Harry 
when he says James would have liked the danger of meeting up with 
Sirius in his dog form in Hogwarts (and after making this hurtful 
remark to Harry, he refuses to contact Harry for months!).  The 
remark was usfair because Harry, of course, was worried about 
Sirius' safety, not his own.  

JP also made some pretty bad decisions before his death which led 
to the debacle at GH.  Why wouldn't he accept DD as SK?  Arrogance?  
I can take care of it myself? Why did he agree to have PP as SK?  
He underestimated PP and never saw the danger.  I sure hope we hear 
some good of JP before the last page, if only for Harry's sake.

Nikkalmati





From joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 26 21:58:13 2006
From: joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com (Joe Goodwin)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 13:58:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span.
Message-ID: <20060326215813.12924.qmail@web61316.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150090

Snape's worst memory has to be the single most hysteria-inducing piece of Harry Potter. It gives rise to a lot of clap trap including:
   
  1. Snape would be a teddybear if only the mean old James Potter hadn't tortured him in school.
   
  2. James and the other Marauders were really nasty people and Dumbledore let them get away with everything.
   
  3. Now we have James and Sirius sexually harrassing Snape.
   
  Can we just put these things to bed now? James Potter was a great guy. How do we know? We know because a great many highly intelligent and very nice people thought the world of him. Lily Potter was no ones fool and if she loved him enough to marry him and have his child then that should speak volumes. Nothing speaks of a man as much as his associates. 
   
  Let's not forget that Snape hated James because he was cocky. Lots of teenagers can be branded with that label. James hated Snape because he was, to quote Remus Lupin "Up to his neck in the Dark Arts." Now this wasn't teenage Remus Lupin who said this it was adult Remus Lupin who is one of the few people JKR sets up and paragons of wisdom and forgiveness. It was interesting to note that Snape was like that when he arrived at Hogwarts.
   
  One teenager is cocky and one is using illegal Dark Magic. Hmm James doesn't sound too bad now, does he?
   
  We also have the whole James and Sirius always attacked Snape two to one idea. Honestly we have no reason to think that aside from one five minute memory. Yes James and Sirius had friends to help them and it is easy to see Snape not having friends. Yet we know that many of Snape's classmates ended up as Death Eaters. They obviously thought enough and knew enough about him to bring him to Voldemort's attention. 
   
  The truth is probably that the Gryffindors and the Slytherins constantly jinxed and hexed each other on many occations sheerly out of house rivalry. A war that was for the most part between their houses was on the horizon as well. It was probably this that forged the Snape-Potter feud as much as anything.
   
  Yeah James and Sirius were a bit much and could have been nicer. But James Potter stood his ground and faced off against Voldemort, even though he had to know he had no chance, in an attempt to save his wife and child. James Potter stood by his friend Remus Lupin when most of the wizarding world would not have. James Potter became an Auror and worked to help people
   
  Snape willingly joined a group of racists bent on torture, murder and the ethnic cleansing of the Muggleborn and the best thing we can say is that he was sorry when someone who he knew was murdered by them.
   
  There really isn't much else to say.
   
  Joe






From little_scottie6 at hotmail.com  Sun Mar 26 23:32:06 2006
From: little_scottie6 at hotmail.com (Victoria Scott)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 09:32:06 +1000
Subject: MoM detecting underage magic - Harry in the Graveyard in GOF
In-Reply-To: <e06rep+kvnf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY109-F99B984CB836EBAD4BA3E9D9DD0@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 150091

"jjs21theo" <jjs21theo at ...> wrote:
> > I wonder if anyone has posted this question:  When Harry was 
> > in the Graveyard he was outside of school.  Why wasn't the 
> > ministry aware that he was performing magic and why didn't 
> > they respond as they had in the past? 

Snip

Annemehr:
> I explain things like this to myself this way: the Ministry has 
> a rule that students are not allowed to perform magic outside of 
> school, but they don't actually have a way to monitor what every 
> student does.

> So, to get back to your question -- I don't think the MoM knew 
> that Harry Potter was involved in doing any magic in the graveyard 
> at all. Nor did they catch Hermione doing Mobiliarbus in the Three
> Broomsticks in PoA.


G.C. Adds:
It is also explained in one of the later books that the ministry of 
Magic has tabs on where magic is being performed. They also have 
tabs on how old each wizard/witch is. So therefore Harry got in 
trouble because he is the only wizard in his area/house so if magic 
is performed they know it would be illegal because they know he is 
underage. In the cases that Annemehr brought up, the Weasleys' family 
home would be under the names of their parents who are fully grown, 
therefore the Ministry wouldn't know who performed the magic, and 
also at the Tree Broomsticks it is under Madam Rosmeta's name so 
since she is of age, they can't detect who performed the magic.

So I think you are right in suspecting somehow that the ministry 
should have realised about Harry at the graveyard, but since there 
was such a number of age wizards there it may not have been 
detected??

I hope that helps
G.C






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 27 01:17:11 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 01:17:11 -0000
Subject: The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span.
In-Reply-To: <20060326215813.12924.qmail@web61316.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <e07een+3o5r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150092

Joe Goodwin:

> Snape's worst memory has to be the single most hysteria-inducing 
piece of Harry Potter. It gives rise to a lot of clap trap including:
>    
>   1. Snape would be a teddybear if only the mean old James Potter 
hadn't tortured him in school.

Alla:

Can I just say Bravo to your whole post?


Joe Goodwin:   
>   2. James and the other Marauders were really nasty people and 
Dumbledore let them get away with everything.

Alla:

THAT is one of the most puzzling things - e.g. Dumbledore letting 
Marauders get away with anything, because I REALLY don't remember 
anything in canon which can testify to that - Dumbledore letting 
Marauders getting away with anything. I mean, he did not expel 
Sirius after the prank? Hmmmm, could it be, MAYBE that what Sirius 
did just was not serious enough to deserve expulsion, but I am 
betting anything that Sirius WAS punished after the Prank, just not 
with the punishment that would satisfy Severus Snape. Well,I doubt 
that anything other than seeing Sirius dementor kissed would satisfy 
Snape, IMO of course.


Joe Goodwin:
>   The truth is probably that the Gryffindors and the Slytherins 
constantly jinxed and hexed each other on many occations sheerly out 
of house rivalry. A war that was for the most part between their 
houses was on the horizon as well. It was probably this that forged 
the Snape-Potter feud as much as anything.

Alla:

Absolutely - it was Voldemort first rising. War was NOT just on the 
horizon, war was already there and I am thinking that regardless of 
whether Voldemort was recruting in Hogwarts or not, families were 
mixed into it  IMO and Hogwarts students were not on the Island, 
they were participating in all this.


Joe Goodwin:    
>   Yeah James and Sirius were a bit much and could have been nicer. 
But James Potter stood his ground and faced off against Voldemort, 
even though he had to know he had no chance, in an attempt to save 
his wife and child. James Potter stood by his friend Remus Lupin 
when most of the wizarding world would not have. James Potter became 
an Auror and worked to help people
>    
>   Snape willingly joined a group of racists bent on torture, 
murder and the ethnic cleansing of the Muggleborn and the best thing 
we can say is that he was sorry when someone who he knew was 
murdered by them.


Alla:

Very true, but I even have no problem saying that they should have 
been a lot nicer, you know. :-)

What I am having problems with is portraying Severus Snape as a 
fluffy bunny against big bad Marauders.

As I said in another post today - my speculation is that Slytherin 
Gang and Marauders had LOTs nasty run ins, but when Slytherin gang ( 
or most of Slytherin gang) left school, Snape was left alone to deal 
with Marauders.

It really does not make Marauders bullying look better, but it puts 
Snape in the context of participating in Slytherin gang activities.


Alla,

just speculating of course.






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 27 02:14:01 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 02:14:01 -0000
Subject: The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span.
In-Reply-To: <e07een+3o5r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e07hp9+9jsd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150093

> >>Joe Goodwin:
> > Snape's worst memory has to be the single most hysteria-inducing 
> > piece of Harry Potter. It gives rise to a lot of clap trap      
> > including:    
> > 1. Snape would be a teddybear if only the mean old James Potter 
> > hadn't tortured him in school.

> >>Alla:
> <snip>
> What I am having problems with is portraying Severus Snape as a 
> fluffy bunny against big bad Marauders.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I totally agree.  There's nothing in canon to suggest Snape was ever 
a fluffy bunny.  JKR has done a very good job, IMO, in showing that 
Snape was actually a human being.  I don't think she ever described 
him as fluffy either.  So yes, Joe and Alla, very good point.  Snape 
is not, and probably never was, a fluffy bunny. Or a teddybear.  
(I'm assuming this is an animagus theory?)

> >>Joe Goodwin:   
> > 2. James and the other Marauders were really nasty people and 
> > Dumbledore let them get away with everything.

> >>Alla:
> THAT is one of the most puzzling things - e.g. Dumbledore letting 
> Marauders get away with anything, because I REALLY don't remember 
> anything in canon which can testify to that - Dumbledore letting 
> Marauders getting away with anything.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Well, this scene certainly goes a long way towards painting the 
Marauders as rather nasty people.  I think Dumbledore gets blamed as 
the stand in parent, just as whenever children do something 
horrifying the public asks, "Where were their parents?"

> >>Joe Goodwin:
> 3. Now we have James and Sirius sexually harrassing Snape.

Betsy Hp:
Sexual harassment or sexual humiliation, James was the one who chose 
to expose Snape as he did.  Honestly, I think this is just calling 
it as it is.  It doesn't strike me as hysterical.

> >>Joe Goodwin:
> <snip> 
> James hated Snape because he was, to quote Remus Lupin "Up to his 
> neck in the Dark Arts." Now this wasn't teenage Remus Lupin who   
> said this it was adult Remus Lupin who is one of the few people
> JKR sets up and paragons of wisdom and forgiveness.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Does she?  Then maybe you can explain why Lupin was so willing to 
stand aside and let Harry die?  Nothing particularly wise in Lupin's 
behavior there.  Or throughout PoA, actually.  So no, I'm not going 
to take Lupin's word on it when he starts talking about the boy his 
friends bullied throughout his time in school.

There's a reason JKR chose this particular scene as *THE ONLY* scene 
we've seen of the Marauders in school.  I don't think she wrote it 
for us to ignore.  Though, this being JKR, it's probably wise to not 
jump to too many conclusions. <g>

Betsy Hp







From amazingasteroid at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 27 00:54:54 2006
From: amazingasteroid at yahoo.com (astrud schuck)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 16:54:54 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Harry in the Graveyard in GOF
In-Reply-To: <e06lje+bbip@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060327005454.43568.qmail@web30502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150094

--- jjs21theo <jjs21theo at yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
> When Harry was in the Graveyard he was 
> outside of school.  Why wasn't the ministry aware
> that he was performing magic and why didn't they 
> respond as they had in the past?  
<snip>

Hello!

Magic is allowed outside school by underaged wizards
in cases of emergency. And, yes, of course, Harry is a
special case.

ash





From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com  Mon Mar 27 02:37:18 2006
From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (Jazmyn Concolor)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 18:37:18 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry in the Graveyard in GOF
In-Reply-To: <20060327005454.43568.qmail@web30502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20060327005454.43568.qmail@web30502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <44274FDE.30409@pacificpuma.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150095



>--- jjs21theo <jjs21theo at yahoo.com> wrote:
><snip>
>  
>
>>When Harry was in the Graveyard he was 
>>outside of school.  Why wasn't the ministry aware
>>that he was performing magic and why didn't they 
>>respond as they had in the past?  
>>    
>>

The ministry are not all seeing, all powerful gods.. They have their 
limits.   I don't think the misitry has the power to detect magic use 
EVERYWHERE or who even is using the magic.  They likely were only 
monitoring the homes of magical children or areas with magical residents 
that also have a high muggle population.   The graveyard was in a small 
village and mostly deserted, so would not have been worthy of the 
ministry's notice.   Also could be that Voldemort already removed any 
posible 'magic detectors' or whatever a long time ago.  I do not see any 
evidence that the ministry has the power to detect magic use anywhere, 
only magic performed in or near the child's residence..  In fact, they 
can't even tell who is doing the magic as evidenced by Harry being 
blamed for something Dobby did.  If the misistry was able to detect 
magic use anywhere and who was doing it, they would have captured 
Voldemort ages ago.

Jazmyn




From eastbaydavej at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 27 00:14:24 2006
From: eastbaydavej at yahoo.com (David)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 00:14:24 -0000
Subject: Harry in the Graveyard in GOF
In-Reply-To: <e06lje+bbip@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e07ap0+kopt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150097

jjs21theo wrote:
> When Harry was in the Graveyard he was outside of school.  Why
> wasn't the ministry aware that he was performing magic and why
> didn't they respond as they had in the past?


"David" <eastbaydavej at yahoo.com> writes:

DD answers this in the same book I think..  The ministry knows when 
magic is used, but not who used it. In the case of Harry himself being 
blamed for what Dobby did, they knew magic was used at the house and 
assumed it was Harry. DD goes on to say that for the most part, the 
ministry depends upon the parents of young wizards and witches to 
enforce the law. 

The real question is...... since they can detect magic being used etc.. 
why can people get away with performing the 3 unforgivable curses so 
readily. You'd figure those would set off any alarms like mad and send 
the whole ministry within seconds.





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 27 03:13:36 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 03:13:36 -0000
Subject: The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span.
In-Reply-To: <e07jcp+aiub@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e07l90+k902@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150098

> Betsy Hp:
> I totally agree.  There's nothing in canon to suggest Snape was
ever
> a fluffy bunny.  JKR has done a very good job, IMO, in showing
that
> Snape was actually a human being.  I don't think she ever
described
> him as fluffy either.  So yes, Joe and Alla, very good point.
Snape
> is not, and probably never was, a fluffy bunny. Or a teddybear.
> (I'm assuming this is an animagus theory?)

Alla:

I will rephrase it in order to help you not to confuse my
speculation with animagus theories. I am speculating that Severus
Snape was not completely innocent "human being" in his interactions
with Marauders.


> > >>Alla previously:
> > THAT is one of the most puzzling things - e.g. Dumbledore
letting
> > Marauders get away with anything, because I REALLY don't
remember
> > anything in canon which can testify to that - Dumbledore letting
> > Marauders getting away with anything.
> > <snip>
>
> Betsy Hp:
> Well, this scene certainly goes a long way towards painting the
> Marauders as rather nasty people.  I think Dumbledore gets blamed
as
> the stand in parent, just as whenever children do something
> horrifying the public asks, "Where were their parents?"

Alla:

My point was that there is no canon which portrays Dumbledore as
letting Marauders getting away with anything, not whether Marauders
were nasty people or not ( although I suspect that we have
difference of opinion on this point too)

And  Hogwarts students do a great deal of things which teachers are
not aware of, does it mean that they should be blamed for letting
students getting away with something?

But in any event, I can refer you to quite a few posts where
Dumbledore is blamed not for not being on the spot,when kids do
nasty things, as you seem to imply ( apologies if I misunderstood
you) for not punishing Marauders enough, for "failing the Snape
somehow" and I am trying to find the canon for that and failing,
because as I said I really am missing the canon which says that
Sirius was not PUNISHED after the Prank.
Besides Dumbledore supposedly not punishing Sirius enough after the 
Prank, is there ANY other canon supported reason to argue that he 
let Marauders get away with things? And as I said, I suspect we will 
learn that the punishment Sirius got after the prank was 
proportionate to the offense he did. Just speculating here of course.


> Betsy Hp:
> Does she?  Then maybe you can explain why Lupin was so willing to
> stand aside and let Harry die?  Nothing particularly wise in
Lupin's
> behavior there.

Alla:

I  know. Maybe Lupin was NOT willing to let Harry die, maybe he was
thinking that Sirius will not hurt him. Hm, yes, I think  I will
stick by this speculation for now.


Betsy Hp:
> There's a reason JKR chose this particular scene as *THE ONLY*
scene
> we've seen of the Marauders in school.  I don't think she wrote it
> for us to ignore.

Alla:

Ignore? No, of course not, but maybe twist it around a bit again?
Yeah, I think it is  possible.


Betsy Hp:
  Though, this being JKR, it's probably wise to not
> jump to too many conclusions. <g>

Alla:

Yes, this is the only sentence in your post I agree with
completely. :)


Alla,

thinks that "my memory is as good as ever" can mean a great deal of 
things.








From juli17 at aol.com  Mon Mar 27 03:49:34 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 03:49:34 -0000
Subject: DDM!Snape &  the UV.
In-Reply-To: <e072bk+2sa9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e07nce+dan@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150099

Tonks wrote:
> 
> Snape may not have wanted to do it in the way that LV would have, 
> but he was able to because he is a very experience wizard. As an 
> experienced wizard who can put his emotions aside, or bring up the 
> ones he needs when he needs to, he was able to bring himself to do 
> what he knew he had to do. So in that way he had the intention to 
do 
> an AK. You could say he wanted to fullfill DD's orders. His 
> intention was to AK DD and he knew that he could and he knew how to 
> draw upon the energy that he need to do it. 


Julie:
I think you are exactly right, Tonks! Snape was able to pull that 
feeling of hatred and revulsion out of himself so he could perform 
the AK, and that look on his face proves nothing more than that he 
could and did do so. *What* he was thinking about to bring up those 
emotions and put that look on his face--his feelings about the 
situation he's facing, about his own guilt and how he put himself in 
this position, about DD's insistence on him keeping this horrible 
promise, about his worst memory of being taunted by the 
Marauders/rejected by Lily, about witnessing his father's abusiveness 
to his mother--well, it could be any of those (and they're just 
examples, so no need to jump all over how much or little evidence 
exists that any/all are true). All that is necessary to perform an AK 
is to draw enough negative energy, then be able to channel that 
energy into the spell. 

What's a little scary about the AKs when it comes to Harry is that he 
probably had enough of the former (negative energy in the form of 
hatred for Snape, and previously, Bellatrix) to perform an AK, but 
not enough of the latter (the skill to channel it properly into the 
AK). We can only hope by the time Harry gains the control to channel 
that kind of negative energy, that he has also gained more control 
over his feelings and impulses and he won't want to perform AKs. 
Because someone won't always be there to stop him from ripping his 
soul, snarkily so or not ;-)

Julie








From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Mon Mar 27 03:11:27 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 22:11:27 EST
Subject: LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
Message-ID: <230.9493d60.3158b1df@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150100

> <snip>

>Neri:
>The Life Debt I suspect, is the Potterverse magical representation 
>of remorse. It forces itself on Snape the same way that RL remorse 
>can "force" itself on us. The fact that throughout the series Snape 
>repeatedly fails in repaying his Debt strongly suggests that he 
>still denies his remorse.
>
>Snape seems to treat the Debt as a mechanistic magic ? if he just
>manages to repay it he'll be free and can choose Voldemort's side
>again. <snip>


Nikkalmati:
I wrote a longer post to this but lost it. Maybe it is for the best 
<g>.  It comes down to I respect the symmetry of the LID Snape 
theory, but it seems to be just an attempt to explain away any action 
which would support DDMSnape, not really a theory in itself.  As long 
as PP is not bound to help and save Harry in the same way as 
LIDSnape, I can't buy it.  The theory has to be consistent.  Note 
that P cuts Harry, ties up Harry and assists in bring to life a 
man who is going to kill Harry - right now.  This behavior is by a 
man who owes Harry a direct personal life debt, not a second-hand 
transferred life debt from James.

>Neri:
>But if so, how do you explain Snape stopping the Occlumency lessons
>because of, as Dumbledore himself admits, his feelings about James?
>How do you explain Snape refusing even to hear Sirius' story before he
>turns both him and Lupin in to the dementors for a fate worse than
>death? The view of Snape as a person who does not care about feelings,
>only about saving lives, simply doesn't work with the canon.

Nikkalmati:

I don't see how anyone can blame SS for stopping the Occlumency
lessons.  We know Harry did not want to learn Occlumency; he wanted 
the dreams to continue so he could learn what was behind the door 
in the MOM.  He didn't practice; he lied to HG when he told her he 
was practicing on his own because he had been given permission by 
SS.  He ignored Sirius and Lupin when they told him he must tell DD 
he was not taking lessons any more.

Harry's behavior with the Pensieve was outrageous.  How would you 
react if you left a teenager in your office and came back to find 
him going through your desk reading your letters?  Oh wait! It is 
worse.  Harry knew the memories had been placed in the Pensieve just 
so he would not see them.  (Even if SS intentionally left Harry 
there, he should not and cannot be excused for looking in the 
Pensieve and by the way confirming SS's bad opinion of Harry).  SS 
had every reason to throw Harry out as untrustworthy.  If SS is to 
be blamed for anything here, it would be for not telling DD, and I 
am not sure he didn't tell him.

>Neri:
>It's James who is the consistent example of valuing lives over
>feelings. Even when he bullies Snape he uses harmless jinxes in
>response to Snape's potentially lethal curse. He saves Snape's life
>despite (or maybe because) the feelings between them. And Dumbledore,
>who knew James well, ensures Harry that James would have spared
>Peter's life too.

Nikkalmati:
I am not sure this jinx is so harmless since this is SS's worse 
memory and Sirius tells Harry this sort of thing went on continuously 
while they were in school.  As for the cut, if this was the cutting 
curse we see used on Draco, we know it can cut a boy open.  I would 
say, SS was very restrained.  We know why Harry spared PP; it was so 
his father's friends would not become murderers.  SS attributes a 
similar motive to James; it was so he and his friends would not be 
expelled for murder.

Nikkalmati (Who doesn't think SS is a fluffy bunny or even nice, but 
thinks he should be judged fairly and in a way consistent with canon)








From catlady at wicca.net  Mon Mar 27 04:40:20 2006
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 04:40:20 -0000
Subject: Draco/ why HP wants to kill LV/ Fake Secret Keeper/ Personality of GinnyLily
Message-ID: <e07qbk+7sgb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150101

Carol wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149876 :

<< Snape's sense of duty and his promise to Narcissa would lead him to 
protect Draco from LV's wrath by pointing out that he fulfilled his
mission of allowing the DEs into Hogwarts and making the death of DD
possible. So, IMO, Snape will use his position as LV's most trusted
lieutenant, the man who killed Dumbledore, to save Draco from
punishment. >>

I think it would be wiser for Snape to hide Draco than to trust in his 
ability to cajole LV. If he thinks LV doesn't know about the UV, he
could pretend to LV that he had killed Draco himself.

Neri wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149959 :

<< You mean, like using the prophecy to make Harry want to kill
Voldemort? >>

It is not the prophecy that makes Harry want to kill Voldemort. Even
if Harry had never heard of the prophecy, he would want to eliminate
Voldemort because of his saving-people thing. 

Remember when Harry found out about Neville's parents: " It was
Voldemort, Harry thought, staring up at the canopy of his bed in the
darkness, it all came back to Voldemort ... he was the one who had
torn these families apart, who had ruined all these lives ..." So
Harry wants to prevent more people from being hurt by Voldemort, and
the only way to do that is to eliminate Voldemort. All the prophecy
gave him was permission not to wait until finishing Auror school. 

Ceridwen wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149973 :

<< James would want to protect his friend from possible torture and
murder, and here's Snape effectively saying that Sirius is the first
suspect for SK in LV's eyes. >>

But Sirius's 'clever' plan almost *guaranteed* torture and murder for
him! As it was widely known that he was going to be the Secret Keeper,
they would let the world keep on thinking that, and Sirius would even
go into hiding to keep up the deception, so that the bad guys would
hunt for Sirius instead of the real SK, and if they caught him, they
would torture him to reveal the Secret, which he couldn't do no matter
how much he was tortured, because he wasn't really the Secret Keeper.
I think it is a flaw in that plan that Sirius could possibly have
revealed (e.g. to a Legilimens) that Peter was the Secret Keeper, and
then the bad guys could have hunted Peter, but someone said that Peter
would run away to a new hiding place as soon as Sirius vanished. Maybe
that is the real reason Sirius was 'checking on' Peter regularly: not
to check that Peter hadn't been captured, but to let Peter know that
Sirius hadn't been captured. ('Regularly' is not canon.)

Pippin wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/150028 :

<< The switch wouldn't have protected the secret from Voldemort for
long. (snip) But it might have worked as an attempt to expose the spy.
If Sirius gave the "secret" in written form to the person he
suspected, and  Voldemort attacked on that information, the spy would
be revealed. >>

Stupid Catlady doesn't understand what plan are you suggesting. Sirius
should have given the real secret in Peter's writing to someone?
Sirius should have given the real secret in his own writing to someone
who wouldn't be able to read it because Sirius wasn't the real secret
keeper? Sirius should have given a fake secret in his own writing to
someone who would be able to read it because it was a fake secret?

I guess that last one kind of makes sense, give a different fake
address to each member of the Order and wait to see which fake address
is attacked. Unless there are two spies and LV notices that each one
brought him a different address which can't both be right...

Annemehr wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/150074 :

<< I feel a strong temptation to look to Ginny for clues to the
personality of Lily. :P >>

Well, in HBP we saw Ginny going down the corridor (of the train) and
hexing anyone she felt like (and getting invited to the Slug Club for
it), and that is one thing Lily accused James of in the Pensieve
memory. And we saw Ginny flying her broom straight at Zacharias (if
she'd broken her broom, would her parents have bought her a new one?),
and we haven't heard anyone accuse James of flying his broom into people.






From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Mon Mar 27 04:50:03 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 04:50:03 -0000
Subject: Lily' sacrifice v James' sacrifice
In-Reply-To: <35a.a6a1d5.31587eb2@aol.com>
Message-ID: <e07qtr+3hkl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150102

> Julie:
> It makes sense to me, Alla. Like you, I understand that Voldemort's
> intent was to kill James, whereas he was willing to spare Lily if
> she didn't get in his way. The biggest question is why Voldemort was
> willing to spare Lily, or, conversely, why he was *determined* to 
> kill James. I also wonder if James and Lily were aware of this fact,
> thus James rushed Voldemort as his only chance (albeit a small one) 
> was  to kill Voldemort before Voldemort killed him. Or did James
> simply rush Voldemort because he was the male, thus determined to
> shield his family? (Which is a bit sexist, since why didn't Lily
> rush Voldemort, and give James the chance to escape with Harry, but 
> we all still have that tendency to act within those society-
> prescribed gender roles.)

Jen: 
Here's the part of Lily's sacrifice that's hard for me to understand 
and makes me wonder if it's what JKR meant about Lily being more 
brave: I would imagine as a parent, with someone threatening your 
child, your natural instinct would be to pick your baby up and shield 
him. Maybe hold him tight to you and turn away from the attacker, 
while begging and pleading for your baby to be spared. The alternative 
sounds horrible to me, knowing you might die and leave your infant 
completely vulnerable in the hands of a heinous person who could kill 
or worse.

Going against her maternal instinct to pick Harry up and hold him 
tight would be so difficult in my opinion, and I have to ask why Lily 
did that. James acted on his instinct to protect his family even if 
facing certain death, but in a way Lily didn't. She could have chosen 
to pick Harry up and force Voldemort to kill both of them at the same 
time, but she chose to die first and leave Harry alive *shudder*. 
Rebecca gave a really good reason why Lily might do that--because she 
hoped it might spare Harry and the WW, if Harry really was the one who 
had a chance to defeat Voldemort in the long run.

I'd add to Rebecca's premise and wonder if Lily knew more information 
than just hoping for the best, if she actually understood that such a 
sacrifice would protect Harry more completely than she could ever do 
alive, as well as possibly help Harry defeat LV? If so, it's back to 
the DOM for my speculation, Lily working in the Veil room and/or 
locked room. Maybe she didn't plan how the events would commence, but 
when LV offered her a chance to be spared she knew what the moment 
required no matter how painful it was. And oh how painful that would 
be, to leave your child behind not knowing with 100% certainty what 
would happen to him. (Somewhere in the recesses of my mind I'm 
thinking JKR nixed the suggestion Lily knew, so someone please remind 
me with the interview if I'm going down the road of unproductive 
speculation.)

Jen, who is suddenly feeling very sympathetic toward Lily and will try 
not to hope for her to have a bunch of weaknesses anymore ;). And also 
sorry she missed Rebecca's point earlier.






From OctobersChild48 at aol.com  Mon Mar 27 04:38:39 2006
From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 23:38:39 EST
Subject: Perfect Lily (Re: But DID James listen?)
Message-ID: <2b5.76babe8.3158c64f@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150103

Alla dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com writes:
> But the thing that I find the most bothersome in as you said 
> Sherry "bad father/holy mother" cliche is JKR differentiating 
> between James's sacrifice and Lily's sacrifice in her July 2005 
> interview.
> 
> I mean, really, father's sacrifice for his child and wife somehow 
> counts less than mother's sacrifice? Why is that? Now, maybe I 
> misunderstood that part of JKR's interview, but I have not bothered 
> to reread that part since it left a very unpleasant feeling in me.
 

Since I am running hopelessly behind, as per usual, someone may have already 
answered this, but I'm going to anyway. Lily's sacrifice was greater because 
she was given the option to stand aside and live. Voldemort gave her the choice 
to stand aside. James was not given that choice. Yes, James sacrificed his 
life to protect his family, but as Jo states, he was going to die anyway, he was 
not given a choice. Lily was, therefore her sacrifice was greater. She chose 
to die to protect her child when she could have lived. And Jo is quite adamant 
about the fact that if Lily had accepted Voldemort's offer to stand aside he 
would have let her live. I am hoping to find out why that is in book 7.

Sandy










From juli17 at aol.com  Mon Mar 27 05:44:25 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 05:44:25 -0000
Subject: Perfect Lily (Re: But DID James listen?)
In-Reply-To: <2b5.76babe8.3158c64f@aol.com>
Message-ID: <e07u3p+shpl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150104

Sandy wrote:
>  
> 
> Since I am running hopelessly behind, as per usual, someone may 
have already 
> answered this, but I'm going to anyway. Lily's sacrifice was 
greater because 
> she was given the option to stand aside and live. Voldemort gave 
her the choice 
> to stand aside. James was not given that choice. Yes, James 
sacrificed his 
> life to protect his family, but as Jo states, he was going to die 
anyway, he was 
> not given a choice. Lily was, therefore her sacrifice was greater. 
She chose 
> to die to protect her child when she could have lived. And Jo is 
quite adamant 
> about the fact that if Lily had accepted Voldemort's offer to stand 
aside he 
> would have let her live. I am hoping to find out why that is in 
book 7.


Julie:
But did James *know* he was going to die? If he didn't then he also 
chose to die rather than to run (and maybe live). It is a little 
different than Voldemort actually saying "If you step aside, I'll let 
you live" but only in the sense that he didn't have as much time to 
think about it as Lily, and to prepare. If Lily did know something 
about the ancient magic that might save Harry, this time might haved 
aided her in protecting her child. Whereas James couldn't protect 
Harry any further than dying to give him a bit more time. 

I do see a distinction between their situations in the eventual 
effect on Harry--magical protection versus no magical protection. But 
I don't see a distinction in their individual willingness to die 
rather than give Voldemort unimpeded access to their infant son. To 
me James was just as courageous and noble as Lily, and I'm also 
certain if their situations had been reversed, James would have 
refused an offer to stand aside and live. Really, neither sacrifice 
was greater (what can be greater than your life) even though they 
each death brought about different effects. 

Julie 
(Who wonders if James and Lily might have worked this worst-case 
scenario out beforehand--"You're good with ancient magic, Lily. If 
Voldemort comes I'll hold him off as long as I can while you prepare 
to protect Harry.")







From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com  Mon Mar 27 07:02:51 2006
From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (IreneMikhlin)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 08:02:51 +0100
Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Huge overreactions from a five minute time
 span.
In-Reply-To: <20060326215813.12924.qmail@web61316.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20060326215813.12924.qmail@web61316.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <44278E1B.50906@btopenworld.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150105

Joe Goodwin wrote:
> Snape's worst memory has to be the single most hysteria-inducing
> piece of Harry Potter. It gives rise to a lot of clap trap including:
> 

I was not aware that we have one, approved way on reacting to the books 
and everything else is a blasphemy. So it would be nice *not* to be told 
what are we supposed to feel.

> 
> 1. Snape would be a teddybear if only the mean old James Potter
> hadn't tortured him in school.

No one has ever said that.

> 
> 2. James and the other Marauders were really nasty people and
> Dumbledore let them get away with everything.

Don't know about really nasty, but James and Sirius were pretty nasty, 
yes. Sirius still was as a grown-up. I'll give James a benefit of doubt 
as to how he turned out after school.
This opinion is not based on the 5 minutes scene. I got the bully vibe 
off them even before OoTP. If yahoo search was not such a heap of 
rubbish, I could prove it too. :-)

> 
> 3. Now we have James and Sirius sexually harrassing Snape.
> 
> Can we just put these things to bed now? 

If these things don't want to go to bed of their own free will, to put 
them to bed would be a coercion. ;-)

I wonder why Harry, after watching this scene, didn't just calmly walk 
away from it, saying "My father was a great guy".
Even leaving Snape out of it, James's offer to Lily to trade her favours 
  for getting what she wanted was horrendous enough. Enough for Harry to 
speculate whether James was capable of sexual coercion (or dare I say, 
rape?). Hysterical, silly little boy, right? I don't think so.

Irene



From annemehr at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 27 11:53:32 2006
From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 11:53:32 -0000
Subject: Lily' sacrifice v James' sacrifice
In-Reply-To: <e07qtr+3hkl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e08jns+fv33@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150106

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" <stevejjen at ...> wrote:
Jen:
> I'd add to Rebecca's premise and wonder if Lily knew more information 
> than just hoping for the best, if she actually understood that such a 
> sacrifice would protect Harry more completely than she could ever do 
> alive, as well as possibly help Harry defeat LV? <snip>(Somewhere in
the recesses of my mind I'm 
> thinking JKR nixed the suggestion Lily knew, so someone please remind 
> me with the interview if I'm going down the road of unproductive 
> speculation.)

Annemehr:
She talked about it in the Leaky/Mugglenet interview (which is
actually the one that has Alla upset):

http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-1.htm

From the end of Part I:

MA: Did [Lily] know anything about the possible effect of standing in
front of Harry?

JKR: No - because as I've tried to make clear in the series, it never
happened before. No one ever survived before. And no one, therefore,
knew that could happen.









From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Mar 27 12:50:50 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 12:50:50 -0000
Subject: Harry in the Graveyard in GOF
In-Reply-To: <e06lje+bbip@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e08n3a+5v64@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150107

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jjs21theo" <jjs21theo at ...> wrote:
jjs21theo:
> Hi everyone!  This is my first time posting here.  I wonder if anyone 
> has posted this question:  When Harry was in the Graveyard he was 
> outside of school.  Why wasn't the ministry aware that he was 
> performing magic and why didn't they respond as they had in the past?  
> Just curious.  I'd love to hear your thoughts and theories...

Geoff:
Hi and welcome.

I think you could suggest any topic here by now and you will find that it has been looked 
at previously. :-)

There are at least two areas where this topic has been considered.

Back, on 13/08/04, I wrote in message 109949:

<quote>
Subject:  Re: Harry's Use of Cruciatus curse and why no one noticed

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kempermentor"<kempermentor at y...> wrote:
Cory:
> Another thing that bothered me almost as much, however, was how come his use of            
> Cruciatus went so unnoticed by everyone? The Ministry seems to know what Harry is
> doing 24/7; he was threatened with expulsion from Hogwarts for dumping his aunt's
>pudding in the floor, casting a Patronus to defend himself, and borrowing a flying
> car...but he casts an Unforgivable Curse inside the Ministry building and no one cares?
            
> Any thoughts?
            
> Kemper:
> Those incidents occur during summer holidays. Maybe the Deparment that's in charge
> of monitoring magic of the underage takes a well deserved rest during the school year,
> focusing mostly on the antics of those witches and wizards aged 11 and younger.

Geoff:
Back in March, a similar discussion occurred and, in message 94642, I wrote:

"The thought which occurs to me is that if the Ministry was  monitoring what was going on 
in their building (when they should have been riding over the hill to the rescue?) was 
whether they could distinguish who was throwing each spell. The air was thick with jinxes 
and spells and the young people themselves had used a lot of them: they all used a 
Reducto spell at the same moment, Hermione used Stupefy, Colloportus, Accio and 
Silencio, Neville used Expelliarmus and Stupefy while Harry used Stupefy, Petrificus Totalis, 
Colloportus, Diffindo, Protego, Wingardium Leviosa, Crucio and I may have missed some... 
Several of these were used more than once, so there was a lot of underage wizardry 
performed within a very short time scale not to mention that performed by the adults."
</quote>

This was a reply in a thread "Harry's use of the Cruciatus curse" which began at post  
109880 and became "Harry's use of the Cruciatus curse and why no one noticed?" at post 
109942.

The earlier post I quoted came from a thread "Underage magic enforcement" which began 
on 29/03/04 at message 94458 if you like to follow the threads through.







From clark.kentjr at gmail.com  Mon Mar 27 06:37:43 2006
From: clark.kentjr at gmail.com (John)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 06:37:43 -0000
Subject: Why wasnt Harry sent to either a lightsided wizarding family or a muggle family?
Message-ID: <e0817n+7o13@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150108

Dumbledore's reasoning for sending him to the Dursleys was that he
wanted Harry to live a normal life and not be blinded by the fame, but
can that really be the case?  The only people who knew about Harry's
scar were Dumbledore, Minerva, Hagrid, and possibly Sirius (on a side
note, shouldn't Harry have been with Sirius, seeing as he WAS the
boy's Godfather... and who was the Godmother?).  So who was the idiot
that apparently gave a sketch of Harry to the entire wizarding world
so they could easily identify him?

Why not simply put him with a light or neutral sided family (Weasleys,
Boneses, Abbotts, Longbottoms, Diggories, Patils, Lovegoods, Changs,
etc. etc. etc.) and have him go to school with knowledge of the world he was going to be inhabiting, instead of a frightened boy with little
social skills and a hero complex?  

Tell the world on Oct 31, 1981 that Harry defeated Voldemort, but that
he died in the process.  Keep his first name as Harry, and only tell
him his real name once he's old enough (10 or 11) to know to keep that
information to himself, but change his last name to whatever family he
was living in and explain that he was orphaned during the war, I'm
sure Harry's parents weren't the only ones killed by Voldemort's
forces.  Raise him as a normal child, without the abuse he was going
through at the Dursleys.

I know what will be said, "What about the blood wards?"  Blood wards
didn't stop the Basilisk, blood wards didn't stop the Peter Pettigrew,
blood wards didn't stop the dementors, or Dobby who could've easily
been sent by the Malfoys to kill him, or anybody else for that matter. (Why would he need Order guards if the blood wards were so powerful? If Voldemort attacked I don't think Fletcher would be able to stop him.)  The only person it seems to hurt is Voldemort, but then again how do we know that?  The explanation in PS and OoTP for why Voldemort couldn't touch/inhabit him was that he was so full of love and Voldemort couldn't handle it...surely Harry would have more love in his heart if he was with a loving family as opposed to a family where he was hated simply for being born.

John









From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Mar 27 14:16:50 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:16:50 -0000
Subject: Re Fake Secret Keeper/
In-Reply-To: <e07qbk+7sgb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e08s4i+jkip@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150109


> Pippin wrote in
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/150028 :
> 
> << The switch wouldn't have protected the secret from Voldemort for
> long. (snip) But it might have worked as an attempt to expose the spy.
> If Sirius gave the "secret" in written form to the person he
> suspected, and  Voldemort attacked on that information, the spy would
> be revealed. >>

Catlady:
Sirius should have given a fake secret in his own writing to
> someone who would be able to read it because it was a fake secret?
> 
> I guess that last one kind of makes sense, give a different fake
> address to each member of the Order and wait to see which fake address
> is attacked. Unless there are two spies and LV notices that each one
> brought him a different address which can't both be right...

Pippin:
Sirius does not suspect every member of the Order. He thinks that
Lupin is the spy. But it seems that he couldn't prove it, or he would
have either confronted Lupin or taken the evidence to Dumbledore.

If Sirius gives a fake secret to Lupin in his own  handwriting, and 
Voldemort shows up to attack that place, then Sirius will have proof.  

Pippin






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Mar 27 14:24:38 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:24:38 -0000
Subject: Lily' sacrifice v James' sacrifice WAS: Perfect Lily
In-Reply-To: <35a.a6a1d5.31587eb2@aol.com>
Message-ID: <e08sj6+ok35@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150110


> Alla:
> 
> Welll, yes, I know this reason and cannot  wait to find out why Lily 
> was valuable to Voldemort. I am sure it will be  interesting. :)
> 
> But this is not quite what I was getting at and as I said  maybe JKR 
> was not getting at it either and I simply misunderstood.
> 
> I  got the impression that Lily sacrifice vs James sacrifice is 
> different for  JKR not just because of different outcome the ancient 
> magic invoked, but  that James' sacrifice was some how less 
> significant, less conscious, less  worthy of respect from the readers 
> since James was going to die  anyway.
> 
>
Pippin:
James may have had little hope of defeating Voldemort in battle;
nevertheless if he'd won, he'd have saved his own life too. I think 
that may lessen his sacrifice in JKR's eyes, make it less pure. 
Lily did not even have a hope of saving herself.

Pippin






From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Mon Mar 27 14:30:17 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:30:17 -0000
Subject: The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span.
In-Reply-To: <20060326215813.12924.qmail@web61316.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <e08stp+hb5k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150111

Joe:
> Snape's worst memory has to be the single most hysteria-inducing 
piece of Harry Potter. 

Ceridwen:
I disagree.  I think the most hysteria-inducing piece of Harry Potter 
was the joint GoF/OotP which gave rise in fanfic to Doomed!Outed!
Snape and Puking!CAPSLOCK!Harry.

> It gives rise to a lot of clap trap including:

Ceridwen:
I like the word 'claptrap'.  I don't necessarily agree with your use 
of it here.

Joe:
>   1. Snape would be a teddybear if only the mean old James Potter 
hadn't tortured him in school.

Ceridwen:
Aside from fan fiction, I haven't heard or read anyone suggesting 
that Snape would have been all Goodness and Light if only, if only.  
I have seen people speculate that perhaps Snape would not have been 
so quick to join the Death Eaters, but that is speculation, and a far 
cry from 'teddybear'.

Joe:
>   2. James and the other Marauders were really nasty people and 
Dumbledore let them get away with everything.

Ceridwen:
This is more fanfic fodder.  There are indications that Snape may not 
have been pleased with Dumbledore's handling of the Prank.  Since it 
could have gotten him killed or turned into a werewolf, I think he 
has reason to be upset.  Whether his reason is valid or not is a 
matter that hasn't been addressed in canon to my knowledge.  If I'm 
wrong, someone will provide relevant canon.

We have been given one scene so far of the Marauders.  This is a 
scene where they do not come out looking too good.  They do come 
across as arrogant teenaged brats.  Some of their actions in this one 
and only scene can be read much darker than that.

Joe:
>   3. Now we have James and Sirius sexually harrassing Snape.

Ceridwen:
Some people do see it that way.  They exposed his underwear to the 
ridicule of other students.  It appears that they were ready to 
remove the underwear and expose his genitals.  Back in the 1970s, 
this would have qualified as bullying, not sexual harassment.  Today, 
that defnintion has been stretched to include things that were not 
formerly associated with sexual harassment.

Joe:
>   Can we just put these things to bed now?

Ceridwen:
No.  This list would dry up and blow away if everyone was expected to 
accept one and only one interpretation of canon.

Joe:
> James Potter was a great guy. How do we know? We know because a 
great many highly intelligent and very nice people thought the world 
of him. Lily Potter was no ones fool and if she loved him enough to 
marry him and have his child then that should speak volumes. Nothing 
speaks of a man as much as his associates. 

Ceridwen:
James Potter died a great guy.  When he was a teenager, Lily Evans 
called him a 'toerag', said he was no better than Snape, and that she 
would prefer a date with the Giant Squid to a date with James.

As a teenager, James Potter decided to harass and bully another 
student because his best friend Sirius was bored.  When he was called 
on his behavior, he gave the reason that Snape deserved it for just 
existing.  He was an arrogant only child of older parents, spoiled, 
rich, and talented at Quidditch.  At the time we see him with his 
friends and enemies in the Pensieve scene, he believes himself smart 
enough and well-studied enough not to be worrying about his O.W.L.s.  
He does not come across as a 'great guy' in the Pensieve scene.  He 
comes across as your typical arrogant, self-satisfied jock of a teen 
with brains he probably doesn't use to their fullest extent.

Joe: 
>   Let's not forget that Snape hated James because he was cocky. 
Lots of teenagers can be branded with that label. James hated Snape 
because he was, to quote Remus Lupin "Up to his neck in the Dark 
Arts." Now this wasn't teenage Remus Lupin who said this it was adult 
Remus Lupin who is one of the few people JKR sets up and paragons of 
wisdom and forgiveness. It was interesting to note that Snape was 
like that when he arrived at Hogwarts.

Ceridwen:
Snape and James didn't hit it off from day dot, judging by what 
Dumbledore told Harry.  He likened the relationship to Harry's with 
Draco.  And, lest we forget, by Remus's words, then, this is an 
eleven year old child setting himself up as judge and jury and 
executioner to all of his schoolmates based on one thing.  Because 
Remus said that James and Snape never did get along because of 
Snape's interest in the Dark Arts.  Which would mean at the most 
restrictive, that they met at eleven when they started Hogwarts, and 
James immediately didn't like Snape for what he knew of him, without 
getting to know him first. Great guy.

And Remus Lupin is not set up as some paragon.  He is shown as a 
fifth-year prefect ignoring an altercation going on in front of him, 
involving two of his friends and one other student.  He does not 
intervene on either side's behalf.  As an adult, he withholds 
information about Sirius's Animagus status even though he does 
suspect or wholeheartedly believe that Sirius was the one who 
betrayed the Potters to Voldemort.  And he withholds this information 
in the face of Sirius's infiltration of Hogwarts, slashing the Fat 
Lady's painting, standing over Ron holding a knife (at this point, no 
one knows about the secret identity of Scabbers), and the fact that 
Sirius had escaped from Azkaban and was rumored to be out to kill 
Harry Potter.

He was ready to kill Peter Pettigrew without trial.  This is 
vigilantism, and is abhorrent to most societies today.  He only 
refrained from killing PP because Harry stepped in the way.

These are not the behaviors of a paragon.  They are the actions, or 
more accurately 'inactions', of a very human character.  I like 
Remus.  But he is no 'paragon of wisdom and forgiveness'.

Joe:
>   One teenager is cocky and one is using illegal Dark Magic. Hmm 
James doesn't sound too bad now, does he?

Ceridwen:
This isn't a teenaged game of 'if you could only choose one, which 
would it be?'  I can hate or love both characters despite their 
differences and the way they are set up to be antagonists to each 
other.  So, despite Snape's interest in the Dark Arts, I can still 
dislike James's behavior.

And, Dark Magic isn't illegal.  There is no place in canon that says 
so.  There are three Unforgivable Curses which will earn you an 
immediate trip to Azkaban.  But that's all.

Joe:
>   We also have the whole James and Sirius always attacked Snape two 
to one idea. Honestly we have no reason to think that aside from one 
five minute memory. Yes James and Sirius had friends to help them and 
it is easy to see Snape not having friends. Yet we know that many of 
Snape's classmates ended up as Death Eaters. They obviously thought 
enough and knew enough about him to bring him to Voldemort's 
attention.

Ceridwen:
We have no reason not to think that based on the ages of the 
supposed 'gang of Slytherins', which put at least Lucuis Malfoy and 
Bellatrix Black out of Hogwarts by the time of the Pensieve memory, 
along with Sirius (or was it Remus?) attesting that James at least 
continued to hex Snape after this, only being careful not to let Lily 
Evans know.

Your sudden switch to friends or lack thereof is a straw man that has 
nothing to do with your paragraph's original idea.  In fact, Snape's 
lack of social skills coupled with the Pensieve memory would argue 
for, not against, James and Sirius ganging up on Snape two to one, 
since James and Sirius had each other for friends, while Snape had no 
one, yet we do know that their rivalry continued all through school.

And what Snape's classmates may or may not have done in calling LV's 
attentions to him (or did Snape just join on his own?  Canon?) has 
nothing to do with what James and Sirius did.

Joe:
>   The truth is probably that the Gryffindors and the Slytherins 
constantly jinxed and hexed each other on many occations sheerly out 
of house rivalry. A war that was for the most part between their 
houses was on the horizon as well. It was probably this that forged 
the Snape-Potter feud as much as anything.

Ceridwen:
If this was your only point, I would agree with you completely.  We 
have all experienced school rivalries, team rivalries, religious 
rivalries, and so on.

Joe:
>   Yeah James and Sirius were a bit much and could have been nicer. 
But James Potter stood his ground and faced off against Voldemort... 
stood by his friend... became an Auror and worked to help people
>    
>   Snape willingly joined a group of racists bent on torture, murder 
and the ethnic cleansing of the Muggleborn and the best thing we can 
say is that he was sorry when someone who he knew was murdered by 
them.

Ceridwen:
Canon for Auror!James?  I was under the impression that he was rich, 
the only son of an older couple in fact, and did not have to work.  
Also, people liked James, much as they like Harry, but where does it 
say that he 'worked to help people'?  Nice people don't always work 
to help others.  Sometimes, they're just likeable.

Snape regretted telling the prophecy at least two months before the 
Potters' deaths, if not sooner.  In his statement at the Pensieve 
hearing in GoF, Dumbledore says that Snape 'returned' to the good 
side and spied on Voldemort 'at great personal risk'.  There is no 
way he could have done that until the end of GoF if he 'returned' 
only after the Potters had died and LV was 'torn from his body' and 
given to an existence 'worse than the meanest ghost', because there 
was essentially no Voldemort to spy on until he was resurrected in 
the graveyard at the end of Harry's fourth year.

Joe:
>   There really isn't much else to say.

Ceridwen:
The fact that you have gotten responses to this post makes me have to 
disagree with you again.  ;)

Ceridwen.







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Mar 27 14:35:35 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:35:35 -0000
Subject: Lupin thought Sirius wouldn't hurt Harry? was huge overreaction
In-Reply-To: <e07l90+k902@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e08t7n+h7nc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150112

 Betsy Hp:
> > Does she?  Then maybe you can explain why Lupin was so willing to
 stand aside and let Harry die?  Nothing particularly wise in
Lupin's behavior there.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> I  know. Maybe Lupin was NOT willing to let Harry die, maybe he was
> thinking that Sirius will not hurt him. Hm, yes, I think  I will
> stick by this speculation for now.
> 
> 

Pippin:
Then shame on Lupin for making Harry feel so guilty about a
perfectly harmless little jaunt to Hogsmeade, going on about
how he can't make Harry take Sirius Black seriously and how Harry's 
parents gave their lives to keep him alive and
he's wasting their sacrifice. Here I was, thinking that's one of
Lupin's finest moments, and you've gone and trashed it.

Hee!

Pippin







From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 27 14:38:04 2006
From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:38:04 -0000
Subject: Why wasnt Harry sent to either a lightsided wizarding family or a muggle fam
In-Reply-To: <e0817n+7o13@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e08tcd+dggr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150113

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "John" <clark.kentjr at ...> wrote:

> Why not simply put him with a light or neutral sided family
> (Weasleys, Boneses, Abbotts, Longbottoms, Diggories, Patils,
> Lovegoods, Changs, etc. etc. etc.) and have him go to school with
> knowledge of the world he was going to be inhabiting, instead of a
> frightened boy with little social skills and a hero complex? 

Amiable Dorsai:
Aside from the fact that Dumbledore isn't King of the Wizards, and
can't just decide to kidnap Harry and place him anywhere he wants?
(Petunia, after all, is Harry closest living relative,  On paper, at
least, she's the logical one to give Harry shelter.)

The Longbottoms, good choice!  They're Aurors.  No Death Eaters are
going to mess with them!

Of course, I'm sure it would have been nicer for Harry at the
Weasleys' home, after all, one of his parents' old friends, Wormtail,
was soon to be living with the Weasleys too. Surely Peter would never
sell out the son of the Potters.

Hey, I've got it, why not send him to live with the Crouches?  Old
Barty Crouch is a ruthless foe of the Death Eaters, he'll have no
trouble protecting Harry!

As for Sirius, well, the Potters were Dumbledore's comrades-in-arms. 
Dark lords, blood wards, and Prophecies aside, it's possible that
Dumbledore might have felt he owed it to them to keep their son out
of the hands of their betrayer, a man who had, so far as anyone knew,
conspired to kill him.

John:
> Tell the world on Oct 31, 1981 that Harry defeated Voldemort, but
> that he died in the process.

Amiable Dorsai:
Bit of a problem there--the Ministry apparently never recovered
Voldy's wand--at least, he had it later on in Little Hangleton.  So
someone must have taken it. Voldemort himself being a little shy on
hands at that point, it must have been some else.  Likely that person
would have noticed a squalling baby.  Likely that person was a Death
Eater.

Who were we keeping Harry's survival a secret from?

Amiable Dorsai






From annemehr at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 27 15:12:29 2006
From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 15:12:29 -0000
Subject: The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span.
In-Reply-To: <e08stp+hb5k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e08vct+7fbt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150114

> Joe:
> >   Yeah James and Sirius were a bit much and could have been nicer. 
> But James Potter stood his ground and faced off against Voldemort... 
> stood by his friend... became an Auror and worked to help people
<snip>
> 
> Ceridwen:
> Canon for Auror!James?  I was under the impression that he was rich, 
> the only son of an older couple in fact, and did not have to work.  
> Also, people liked James, much as they like Harry, but where does it 
> say that he 'worked to help people'?  Nice people don't always work 
> to help others.  Sometimes, they're just likeable.

Annemehr:
*jumping in with a bit of canon*

>From  America Online chat transcript, 19 October 2000:
"James inherited plenty of money, so he didn't need a well-paid
profession."  I believe that's the only canon we have of what James
(or even Lily) may have done.  He may not have *had* to work, but that
tells us nothing about whether he had a job or how much it paid (nor
do we know how much Aurors get paid, come to that).

As far as James working to help people -- well, being in the Order
certainly qualifies, though that is not a paid job.

Not that I'm taking sides here -- my feelings are definitely *not*
polarised where either Snape or James are concerned (though I used to
be known for taking Harry's side against Snape every time).

Annemehr
DDM!Snape, EventuallyTurnedOutOkay!James, and fan of Harry all the way...







From mail_to_jutika at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 27 13:20:08 2006
From: mail_to_jutika at yahoo.com (Jutika Gehani)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 05:20:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why wasnt Harry sent to either a lightsided wizarding family or a muggle family?
In-Reply-To: <e0817n+7o13@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060327132008.40926.qmail@web38706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150115

John <clark.kentjr at gmail.com> wrote:
>  Why not simply put him with a light or neutral sided family 
> (Weasleys, Boneses, Abbotts, Longbottoms, Diggories, Patils, 
> Lovegoods, Changs, etc. etc. etc.) and have him go to school with 
> knowledge of the world he was going to be inhabiting, instead of a 
> frightened boy with little social skills and a hero complex?  
>
> Tell the world on Oct 31, 1981 that Harry defeated Voldemort, but 
> that he died in the process.  <snip>
> 
> I know what will be said, "What about the blood wards?"  Blood wards
> didn't stop the Basilisk, blood wards didn't stop the Peter 
> Pettigrew, blood wards didn't stop the dementors, or Dobby who 
> could've easily been sent by the Malfoys to kill him, or anybody 
> else for that matter. 


IMO, the "blood wards" you are talking about, protects Harry only from Voldemort.

I mean hypothetically, Harry could still fall off his broom from a great height and die. The blood ward cannot protect him under such circumstances. 

As far as living with the Dursleys' is concerned, that was the only way Dumbledore could assure that Lily's sacrifice would act as his protection. If Petunia would have refused to take Harry in, the charm wouldn't have been sealed, leaving Harry unprotected.
 
Just IMO....
   
Jutika.








From joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 27 13:39:29 2006
From: joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com (Joe Goodwin)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 05:39:29 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span.
In-Reply-To: <44278E1B.50906@btopenworld.com>
Message-ID: <20060327133929.24890.qmail@web61318.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150116

People should be able to feel and say whatever they like. That said, the many attempts to make James Potter out to be some sort of horrible person, which often use this one scene as 'evidence,' are laughable. Strangely I have gotten a few 'Off list' emails agreeing with me and warning me that the 'Save Snape brigade is going to have a fit."
   
Were Sirius and James both guilty of a lot of pranks? Absolutely. Did they get punished? Well we see Harry having to go through all the dentenion forms, including many of James and Sirius. The truth is that they were mostly normal boys who often tease, prank and pick on each other. They were not nasty and if Sirius is nasty to Snape after they left, well frankly I think it is totally understandable. Snape is nasty to everyone.
   
If I remember right Harry, who has zero experience in these matters, speculated that his Dad might have tricked his Mom into going out with him. No, not a hysterical little boy but certainly a teenager who tends to over react.
   
I think we can safely safe that Lily Potter didn't feel she was being coerced or do you think she was so stupid as to marry someone who tried to do that to her?

Joe







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 27 16:32:37 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 16:32:37 -0000
Subject: The Potion in the Cave Possibly Revealed (Re: Dumbledore MAY be alive....)
In-Reply-To: <003d01c64fb0$be889ba0$6401a8c0@MITRE.ORG>
Message-ID: <e09435+oiqs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150117

Rebecca wrote:
> Glowing green, hmmmm.  Now that glow could be magical to the objects
for whatever reason, and the chain and boat don't appear to be a
memory. While I can almost accept the idea of a poisoned memory, I
could combine a poisonous DLD potion and a memory together and come up
with some intriguing ideas, first of which is that perhaps the potion
DD drank isn't the same as the one Regulus Black had to drink. More on
that in a minute, but before I forget, you quoted the word "misty" in
reference to the potion basin in the cave and I didn't quite get that.
 Since the boat glowed and the chain glowed and the potion glowed,
seems they all glowed not because of memory but because of a magical
spell. Did you mean that in reference of misty to the Pensieve 
instead? A phosphorescent glow is different from a mist to me. I am
confused because I was able to find that word describing the cave's
potion basin, unless you've a British version of the HBP book which
has it and my US one doesn't.  Kindly steer me straight :)

Carol responds:

I have the American edition, but I think they're identical for this
chapter. Here's the reference:

"A misty greenish light shone far away in what looked like the mid?dle
of the lake; it was reflected in the completely still water below"
(HBP Am. ed. 560), repeated after DD says that he thinks the Horcrux
is in the middle: "And Dumbledore pointed toward the misty green light
in the center of the lake" (562).

I agree that the phosphorescent glow of the *copper* chain (copper is
associated with green) and the boat is related to the same death magic
as the potion, but *mist* coming from a Pensievelike basin (see the
quote to this effect in my post) *and* DD's nightmarelike state
suggests to me that he's reliving someone else's memories (maybe Tom
Sr.'s, but I don't want to get into that here.) But yes, the double
reference to the light as "misty" in combination with the description
of the basin as resembling a Pensieve is what gave me the idea that
the potion in the basin combines a poison with a memory of someone 
being tortured and begging to be killedm hence my term, "poisoned memory."

Also the DLD, as I understand it, induces a deathlike sleep, a sleep
so deep that it can be mistaken for death. (Think Snow White, as I  
said before.)It wouldn't (IMO) burn the drinker's insides, torturing
them with thirst and maybe a feeling that their entrails are on fire.
(I'm reminded of the wolf that swallows the Silmaril in "The
Silmarillion.")
> 

> Rebecca:
<snip> 
If so,  Regulus was a wizard smart and powerful enough to figure out 
> all of this:
> 
> - the Horcrux secret,
> - the location (cave)
> - the boat (about which DD professes Voldemort would have been
reasonably confident that none but a very great wizard would have been
able to find it)
> - have enough magical power to get across the lake in the boat
(again, DD states "Voldemort will not have cared about the weight, but
about the amount of magical power that crossed his lake")
> - drank the potion  (DD again "He would want to keep them alive long
enough to find out how they managed to penetrate so far through his
de?fenses and, most importantly of all, why they were so intent upon
emptying the basin.) - got the locket and replaced it, apparently
(from OoP: "......a heavy locket that none of them could open" - and
this is only IF the one referenced in OoP is really Slytherin's locket)

Carol responds:

I don't think that Regulus figured it all out. As I've argued in
another post several months back, I think he overheard Bellatrix, who
had "borrowed" Kreacher to help her place the potion in the cave and
perhaps followed them, then ordered Kreacher to help  him get into the
cave himself. He made Kreacher drink the potion, permanently addling
his brains.

At any rate, Regulus was a kid, nineteen at the very oldest when he
died, and we have no indication that he was exceptionally brilliant
except Slughorn's casual reference to wanting to "collect the set." I
don't see how he could have created such an evil potion himself, not
to mention that if he was a good guy, he wouldn't use Voldemort's own
brand of Dark magic. 

Carol, fighting her space bar this morning andhopingshewon't havetobuy
awhole new keyboard               







From littleleah at handbag.com  Mon Mar 27 16:41:09 2006
From: littleleah at handbag.com (littleleahstill)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 16:41:09 -0000
Subject: The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span.
In-Reply-To: <20060327133929.24890.qmail@web61318.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <e094j5+73q3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150118

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Joe Goodwin 
<joegoodwin1067 at ...> wrote:
>
(snip)
>    
> If I remember right Harry, who has zero experience in these 
matters, speculated that his Dad might have tricked his Mom into 
going out with him. No, not a hysterical little boy but certainly a 
teenager who tends to over react.
>    
> I think we can safely safe that Lily Potter didn't feel she was 
being coerced or do you think she was so stupid as to marry someone 
who tried to do that to her?
> 
> Joe
>

Sorry, not remembered rightly. Harry wondered if James had forced 
Lily to marry him. Rather different, for example, from James turning 
up when Lily thought she was meeting a girlfriend and chatting her 
up.  

To me 'forced marriage' = rape, or if you want to differentiate 
between the two, use of love potion to give false consent.  Of 
course I agree that Lily wasn't coerced into marrying James and 
didn't feel that she was being coereced, but that's irrelevant.  
What Harry felt (briefly) at the time, after seeing James' treatment 
of Snape, was that James was capable of so forcing her. 

Leah (who has never seen Snape as a teddy bear, but hopes that there 
will be hope for him)






From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 27 17:02:20 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 17:02:20 -0000
Subject: Isaac Newton - Shades of HP?
Message-ID: <e095qs+g6sd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150119

While doing research into the concept of Alchemy, I stumbled upon a 
most interesting book:  "Isaac Newton - the Last Sorcerer" by 
Michael White.

Now maybe I am just an obsessed HP fan that sees HP everywhere, but 
I wonder if JKR has read about Newton and picked up some ideas from 
his old papers.  (This book was written in 1997 so it would not have 
been from this author.)

I say this because Isaac has some resemblance to Snape and a bit to 
LV.  His father died just before his birth and he was abandoned by 
his mother. (the opposite of LV.)  As a young man he took his name 
in Latin and rearranged the letter to spell:  Jeova Sanctus Unus, 
which means One Holy God.  He published his alchemist papers under 
that name. He did many secret experiments in alchemy.

He held what was called the Lucasian Professorship of Mathematics at 
Cambridge, and lectured only because he had to.  He hated teaching 
and hated the students.  Reminds me of Snape. (and Lucas can slide 
into Lucius)

What is really interesting in this book is this:
"On a freezing-cold late-December night in 1666, a black-haired, 
scruffily dressed stranger appeared at the house of the philosopher 

."  The story goes on to say that this stranger had a fragment of 
the philosopher's stone.  Now doesn't that black-haired, scruffily 
dressed stranger sound like Snape? (note the year
 666.)

The book explains that Alchemy developed in Alexandria, Egypt.(again 
Egypt)  It explains Aristotle's concept of 4 elements of earth, 
water, sky, and fire, which are important in Alchemy.  We know that 
JKR has said that the 4 Hogwarts houses represent the 4 elements.  
Why?

One of Newton's alchemy experiments did succeed in producing 
something called the "reguli" or what the alchemist called "the 
Regulus of Mars".  Shades of HP here, but what does it all mean???
Newton copies into his note this writing from another 
alchemist:  "Some have thought that this Star is the true substance 
of the Philosopher's Stone. But this is a mistaken notion, and those 
who entertain it stray far afield from the straight and royal road, 
and torment themselves with breaking rocks on which the eagles, and 
the wild goats have fixed their abode. This star is not so precious 
as to contain the Great Stone; but yet there is hidden in it a 
wonderful medicine."  A footnote says that Newton used this 
substance to make mirrors.   
So if I let my mind wander 
  I see 
Luna the Ravenclaw (eagle) and Aberforth (experiments with goats) 
and Harry's broken mirror.  

OK, even I think that I have gone a bit loopy here.  HP "is" in 
everything.  Maybe I should just get a life.

Tonks_op












From celizwh at intergate.com  Mon Mar 27 18:18:15 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 18:18:15 -0000
Subject: Isaac Newton - Shades of HP?
In-Reply-To: <e095qs+g6sd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e09a97+rfui@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150120

Tonks:

> HP "is" in 
> everything. 

houyhnhnm:  

Or maybe it is that everything is in HP.  :-)

Elixir is Latinized from the [transliterated] Arabic "al iksir", coined 
by the 8th century Arab philosopher Jabir ibn Hayyan, who, AFAIK, was 
not seeking either vast riches or immortality but simply a theory of 
matter.  As Newton may also have been.    







From kchuplis at alltel.net  Mon Mar 27 18:34:22 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 12:34:22 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Isaac Newton - Shades of HP?
In-Reply-To: <e095qs+g6sd@eGroups.com>
References: <e095qs+g6sd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <55D56BF7-D542-46D7-9A5E-59B297131F9C@alltel.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 150121


On Mar 27, 2006, at 11:02 AM, Tonks wrote:

> While doing research into the concept of Alchemy, I stumbled upon a
> most interesting book:  "Isaac Newton - the Last Sorcerer" by
> Michael White.
>
> Now maybe I am just an obsessed HP fan that sees HP everywhere, but
> I wonder if JKR has read about Newton and picked up some ideas from
> his old papers.  (This book was written in 1997 so it would not have
> been from this author.)

kchuplis:

I actually think that is quite fascinating and if she didn't there  
are a lot of little sprouts there that could sure get a mind to  
thinking. Thanks for shoaring. Who wrote this book? What is the name?



From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Mon Mar 27 18:40:55 2006
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 10:40:55 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span.
In-Reply-To: <20060327133929.24890.qmail@web61318.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <44278E1B.50906@btopenworld.com>
	 <20060327133929.24890.qmail@web61318.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <700201d40603271040h510fdaffi481e834cc4937c9e@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150122

On 3/27/06, Joe Goodwin <joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> People should be able to feel and say whatever they like. That said, the many attempts to make James Potter out to be some sort of horrible person, which often use this one scene as 'evidence,' are laughable. Strangely I have gotten a few 'Off list' emails agreeing with me and warning me that the 'Save Snape brigade is going to have a fit."

Kemper now:
>From Snape's Worst Memory:

"As [Snape] emerged from the shadow of the bushes and set off across
the grass, Sirius and James stood up.  Lupin and Wormtail remained
sitting: Lupin was still staring down at his book, thought his eyes
were not moving and a faint frown line had appeared between his
eyebrows."

Why did Lupin continue staring down at his book?  To me, it suggest
that he wants to appear to be reading so as to avoid witnessing what
he knows will transpire: Snape getting picked on.  If Lupin did not
realize Snape was going to get picked on, he would have got up and
went along with his friends... or, at least, he would lift his head
out of the book to see what his friends were up to.  But Lupin doesn't
because he knows this scene, he's seen it 'x' amount of times for 'y'
amount of time.

So, Joe, your right the chapter shows one brief scene in James' and
Snape's relationship, but you're laughably wrong to suggest this was a
one time event.


>Joe continues:
> Were Sirius and James both guilty of a lot of pranks? Absolutely. Did they get punished? Well we see Harry having to go through all the dentenion forms, including many of James and Sirius. The truth is that they were mostly normal boys who often tease, prank and pick on each other. They were not nasty and if Sirius is nasty to Snape after they left, well frankly I think it is totally understandable. Snape is nasty to everyone.

Kemper now:
The truth is that James and Sirius were the cool crowd, and Snape was
gigantic nerd.  Jocks against the D&D kid.  No where in the scene do
we see status as equal.  So while I don't see the scene as sexual
harassment/assault, I do see it as the start of emasculation (which
was richly, though unknowingly, finished off by Lily as female coming
in for the rescue.)  I could be totally wrong, but as a once and
future nerdy boy (I realise it may be difficult to fathom a man who
reads/discusses the intricacies of HP may be a bit nerdy, but there
you have it) but nerdy kids don't pick on the cool kids, they prefer
to avoid unwanted attention.

Again, you're right, Snape is a nasty guy.  But Sirius is an arrogant
pr!(|<.  (IMnerdyO)

Kemper, who's wondering where all the detention/punishment forms are
for Snape in Filch's filing cabinet.  Also, 'Hi' to those writing
offlist to Joe; I look forward to your onlist response.



From merrillsyndrome at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 27 17:59:00 2006
From: merrillsyndrome at yahoo.com (merrillsyndrome)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 17:59:00 -0000
Subject: Why Didn't Harry Ask About His Parents' Graves?  (was: Re: Godric's Hollow)
In-Reply-To: <dvvh6o+rr9u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e09954+o627@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150123

> Ceridwen

>>>SNIPPED-HOPEFULLY NOT OFFENSIVELY<<<<

> But as far as I know, my mother has never had a burning desire to 
> visit her parents' graves.  They've been dead most of her life.  
> That's nothing new, and is not comforting. What she wants is what 
>she never got as a child, a feel for what her parents were like, a 
>way of knowing them as they were when they were alive.  She misses 
>having parents.  She never missed having dead parents.

em:

I haven't lost a parent yet but I have lost several friends (most 
tragically: suicide, terrible car accidents, etc) and I don't think I 
have gone to a single one of their graves.  I only went to one 
funeral and only as support for another friend.  It is easier to 
remember them as they were when they were living.  Going to their 
graves would just be a bleak reminder that they are dead.  I think 
too much emphasis is placed on a grave, its just a house for bones.  
It is much more meaningful to look at pictures or visit places you 
went together...oh to have a pensieve to "re-live" the good times and 
the times you have almost forgotten.

Back to what Ceridwen was saying: I think it is perfectly normal for 
Harry to not have a desire to visit his parent's graves.  It's 
exactly as Ceridwen so poignantly put it:  "She misses having 
parents.  She never missed having dead parents".  This has to be 
exactly what Harry is feeling. He missed out on having parents, he 
has dead parents. Going to their grave only reaffirms he has dead 
parents.  No one needs that final reminder, even if they don't 
remember their parents.  Its not a celebration of their life to go 
there nor are you "visiting" them. No one is there, just the reminder 
that there is an emptiness in your heart because you miss someone 
terribly. 

(Those of you who find going to loved ones graves comforting, please 
forgive me, one should always do what comforts them no matter what 
anyone else thinks)
 
jmho
-em
(who is always about a week behind in the threads and yet still feels 
a desire to post)









From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Mar 27 19:24:28 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 19:24:28 -0000
Subject: James Potter and the Dark Arts (wasRe: The Huge overreactions
In-Reply-To: <20060326215813.12924.qmail@web61316.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <e09e5c+dkvq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150124

Joe Goodwin wrote:
> Snape's worst memory has to be the single most hysteria-inducing 
piece of Harry Potter. It gives rise to a lot of clap trap including:


Potioncat:
I think I've read all the answering posts to this one. To be honest I 
hesitate to join in, because this is one of the many continuously 
running Snape threads. It never goes away for very long, and I've 
been in this before.

OK, I hesitated, here goes:

Hysteria? Yeah, I think I went hysterical the first time I read this 
chapter. James did such a thing? *James?* Wonderful, heroic, brave 
James Potter? (I'm not being sarcastic here. This was my reaction.) 
To be honest, had all the characters been anonymous, I would think 
very poorly of the group who humiliated the lone student. The fact 
that it was James Potter made it worse. I was very, very disappointed 
in James. And of course I felt pretty bad for Severus.


Joe Goodwin;    
>   Let's not forget that Snape hated James because he was cocky. 
Lots of teenagers can be branded with that label. James hated Snape 
because he was, to quote Remus Lupin "Up to his neck in the Dark 
Arts." Now this wasn't teenage Remus Lupin who said this it was adult 
Remus Lupin who is one of the few people JKR sets up and paragons of 
wisdom and forgiveness. It was interesting to note that Snape was 
like that when he arrived at Hogwarts.

Potioncat:
Can you provide the location for that quote? Here's the one I found 
from OoP, chapter 29, but it is adult Sirius (not Remus) speaking:
"...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."

You see, what bothers me, is the use of "little oddball." Spare a 
kind thought for the poor little oddball, whether the name be Snape 
or Longbottom or Lovegood.

And Sirius seems to be acknowledging that James looks pretty bad here.

Let's go back to chapter 28, after Severus calls Lily a Mudblood, she 
says to James,"...waking down corridors and hexing anyone who annoys 
you just because you can..."

So we have Lily, paragon of virtue, saying that James hexes people 
just because he can. Teenaged James was not a nice kid. Let me 
quickly say, I doubt teenaged Severus was either.

A couple of other thoughts. Apparantly that upside down jinx was used 
a lot.(From Lupin, in HBP) I'm sure some of the victims laughed along 
with the joksters and it was probably a give and take at tines.  Some 
kids would never take that joke very well and of course, no one would 
laugh at being completely exposed. 

This is the point where the discussion turns to "When is a hex a hex 
and when is it Dark Art?" I don't know. But I wonder if James's 
association with Dorea Black Potter has anything to do with his hate 
for the Darks Arts?












From kchuplis at alltel.net  Mon Mar 27 20:17:01 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:17:01 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why Didn't Harry Ask About His Parents' Graves?  (was: Re: Godric's Hollow)
In-Reply-To: <e09954+o627@eGroups.com>
References: <e09954+o627@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <E31D564A-8A57-4941-826C-3D2656CA7D60@alltel.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 150125


On Mar 27, 2006, at 11:59 AM, merrillsyndrome wrote:
>
>
> em:
>
> I haven't lost a parent yet but I have lost several friends (most
> tragically: suicide, terrible car accidents, etc) and I don't think I
> have gone to a single one of their graves.  I only went to one
> funeral and only as support for another friend.  It is easier to
> remember them as they were when they were living.  Going to their
> graves would just be a bleak reminder that they are dead.  I think
> too much emphasis is placed on a grave, its just a house for bones.
> It is much more meaningful to look at pictures or visit places you
> went together...oh to have a pensieve to "re-live" the good times and
> the times you have almost forgotten.
>
> Back to what Ceridwen was saying: I think it is perfectly normal for
> Harry to not have a desire to visit his parent's graves.  It's
> exactly as Ceridwen so poignantly put it:  "She misses having
> parents.  She never missed having dead parents".  This has to be
> exactly what Harry is feeling. He missed out on having parents, he
> has dead parents. Going to their grave only reaffirms he has dead
> parents.  No one needs that final reminder, even if they don't
> remember their parents.  Its not a celebration of their life to go
> there nor are you "visiting" them. No one is there, just the reminder
> that there is an emptiness in your heart because you miss someone
> terribly.
>
> (Those of you who find going to loved ones graves comforting, please
> forgive me, one should always do what comforts them no matter what
> anyone else thinks)
>
> jmho
> -em

kchuplis:

I have to agree with this post. I've been back to my father's grave  
once since the funeral and well, I didn't really want to and it  
didn't really do anything for me. That's not my Dad. My dad is in my  
memories and going to the grave is just not something I have a desire  
to do. It does NOT mean I've forgotten him, or don't love him or that  
he isn't important. Oddly enough, It meant and means a great deal to  
me to have my poor cat Grant's ashes home. Although, had I had a  
place to bury him, I might feel more the same as I do about my Dad.  
The point for me there was Grant came home from the vet finally and  
the "waiting" feeling I had vanished. I can certainly not imagine  
visiting the graves of people I only know through other people, even  
if they were my parents. I certainly wouldn't expect it in a young  
person, and then Harry has so much of them around him in other ways,  
it's got to practically be as though they aren't dead to him.  
Everyone adult he knows knew them and seem to talk about them quite a  
lot (even if we don't have details - and  yes, I'm sure that is  
deliberate for book 7), he's got moving pictures. Someone who  
probably would give Harry details is MadEye and he handled the photo  
thing so clumsily, *I* wouldn't have asked deeper questions if I'd  
been Harry either. That was, indeed, a most deeply disturbing little  
stunt Mad-Eye pulled (though I'm certain there was no ESE or anything  
else involved. It's just how he is. He is almost innured to horror by  
now.) The only time Harry might really have time to think about it is  
when he is out of school and he'd have a snowballs chance in hell of  
getting the Dursley's to take him to see their graves (or tombs or  
whatever is the more ususual form of interment for witches and  
wizards. ) and now as he's gotten older, he's got some pretty big  
crap to worry about instead. It's different at the end of 6. Harry is  
suddenly becoming proactive instead of reactive, so, yeah, he does  
finally think of going back to GH. I can't wait.
>
>
>



From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 27 21:27:47 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 21:27:47 -0000
Subject: Why wasnt Harry sent to either a lightsided wizarding family or a muggle fam
In-Reply-To: <e0817n+7o13@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e09lcj+jdn7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150126

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "John" <clark.kentjr at ...> wrote:
>
> Dumbledore's reasoning for sending him to the Dursleys was that
> he wanted Harry to live a normal life and not be blinded by the 
> fame, but can that really be the case? ... So who was the idiot
> that apparently gave a sketch of Harry to the entire wizarding 
> world so they could easily identify him?
> 

bboyminn:

Again, I am reminded of a group of blind men examining an elephant.
They are all completely different in their descriptions, yet they are
all correct within the context of their limited preception.

Wanting Harry to have a normal life was only one small part of
Dumbledore's intent. True, he did want Harry to grow up away from the
fame that would surely follow him in the wizard world. Even if placed
with a wizard family, it would have been difficult to truly hide who
Harry was from people. Magic is powerful, but people don't pop out
babies overnight. It would have been too much of a coincidence for
Harry to disappear one day, and for some non-pregnant family to have a
new baby the next. 

Yes, you can take precautions and build a cover story, but that is
just what they did with Harry living in the muggle world, yet, in his
early life, wizards like Dedalus Diggle were able to find him.

Next, regardless of the presence of his Godfather, Petunia is Harry's
nearest living relative and that gives her some legal priority in
determining Harry's disposition. Likely, if challenged in a /fair/
court; Petunia would have gotten custody.

> John Concludes:
>
> I know what will be said, "What about the blood wards?"  Blood
> wards didn't stop the Basilisk, blood wards didn't stop the 
> Peter Pettigrew, new blood wards didn't stop the dementors, or
> Dobby who could've easily been sent by the Malfoys to kill him, or
anybody else for that matter. ...
> 
> John
>

bboyminn:

Well, let us look at the 'Blood Wards' as you call them. First,
Dumbldedore clearly says that the protection of 'blood' was the
strongest protection that he could give Harry. Now listen carefully;
as long as Harry is in the /place/ where his mother's blood dwells,
there he can not be harmed. 

He can not be attacked or harmed by anyone intent on doing him harm.
Whether that person or persons are Voldemort, his death eaters, random
fanatics, or the Ministry itself. No one can truly harm him while he
is at the Dursley. 

Now some may argue that the Dursleys harmed Harry in abusing him. True
they may have caused him pain and discomfort, but they did no real
harm, at least no physically harm. They did not harm him in the ways
that Harry's enemies were intent on harming him. 

Keep in mind that when delivered to the Dursleys, Harry was a toddler.
Small and helpless, and at that time, most vulnerable to attack. It's
not likely that the Dursley, cruel as they were, would leave Harry
sitting on the front curb or leave him at the shopping mall. Most
likely and reasonable, Harry would have spent the first few years of
his life rarely leaving the Dursley's house, the one place where he
was most thoroughly protected. 

At age five (or so), Harry would have gone to school, and while his
protection would have been lesser there, he was still in a crowded and
reasonable safe place. Further after several years, the immediate
threat to his life would have lessened as former Death Eaters and
Voldemort suporters went back to their quite safe
appearing-respectable lives. With the exception of a few fanatics,
there was no need for people to continue to actively support a Dark
Lord who, for all intent and purpose, no longer existed. Especially,
when that support was likely to land them a long stretch in the very
unpleasant Dementor guarded prison.

You mention the Basiliks and assorted other people who acted against
Harry in the books, implying that Harry didn't seem very well
protected by the 'Blood Wards'. Yet you will notice that Harry escaped
from every enemy he faced. Who's to say the 'blood wards' were not
responsible? 

I'm not saying they were responsible, only that we can't say that they
were not. The Protection of Blood is actually in two parts. Lily's
blood, or at least her sacrifice, left Harry with protection that
Dumbledore says still linger in Harry protecting him even AFTER
Voldemort used Harry's blood to regain his own body. 

The second level of Blood Protection, is the additional protection
that Dumbledore put on Harry, to protect him while he is at the
Dursley; the /place/ where his mother's blood dwells. So, the place,
that house, is a safe haven for Harry. Until the blood charm expires,
Harry can always retreat to that house, and there he can not be harm.
Voldemort himself says that he can't touch Harry while Harry is at the
Dursley's; more protect by Dumbledore than Harry can possibly realize.

Now, we don't know the nature of that "Place where his mother's blood
dwells' protection. We don't know how it would manifest itself if it
were ever called on. Would it act like the Fidelus Charm, hiding the
house? Would it act like Protego Shield Charm and rebound or repell
any attack? Would it act like the Patronus Charm and sent out Avatars
to defend Harry and the house? We don't know. All we know is that
while Harry is at the location, he is absolutely safe.

Since we don't know how the Blood Protection Charm works, we, also,
can not determine with certainy, it's boundaries. It is limited to the
house, or is it limited to any and all land that the Dursley's own? Is
it concentrated on that one place, and gradually diminishing as you
move away, or does it end at the boundary of the property? What if
Harry is with the Durselys, which would imply under their protection,
but none of them are on Dursley owned property, say they are at the
shopping mall, is Harry still fully protect, limited protection, or no
 protection? We can speculate, but with out further information, which
I believe we will have in the next book, we can't really say.

None the less, it seems that Harry's protection at Privet Drive is
absolute. 

Further still, we have evidence that the Ministry is closely
monitoring the Dursley's in case any illegal magical activity should
occur there. That close monitoring would serve as an early warning to
the Ministry should there be an attack on Harry.

That combine level of absolute and secondary protection could not be
offerred to Harry under any other circumstances. Dumbledore clearly
says that the 'Protection of Blood' is the strongest protection that
Dumbledore could devise. 

For what it's worth.

Steve/boyminn






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 27 21:35:51 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 21:35:51 -0000
Subject: But DID James listen? (was LID!Snape rides again )
In-Reply-To: <e02vp6+9mu6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e09lrn+t05u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150127

Carol earlier: 
> > Whether Snape's advice backfired or not, I can't see "the 
assumption that the SK was DE common knowledge" being the reason
offered for the SK change. 
> 
> PJ:
> I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. If you all know
there's a spy among you and there's a war on, it would be logical to 
assume this person is working for Voldemort.  Why else would he/she be
there spying?  If Sirius and James chose Peter as SK then they
obviously had no idea he was the spy...
>
>
Carol again:

Naturally, as you say, Black would not have made the suggestion nor JP
accepted it if either suspected that Pettigrew was the spy, but that's
not what I'm saying. As I interpret the quoted phrase from your
earlierpost, you're saying that the DEs would have known about the
Fidelius Charm, or at least suspected its existence, but I don't think
that's the case. 

The DEs didn't know about the Prophecy, so in their view, the Potters
would have no more reason to hide than any other Order members, who
were being "picked off one at a time." Obviously, those who were
murdered on LV's orders had not been protected by Fidelius Charms. Why
not, if Fidelius Charms were a standard method of protection? And if
Fidelius Charms were routinefor people going into hiding, why did it
take DD so long to suggest one and why didn't the Potters think of it
themselves? They could have hidden themselves and their child as soon
as they realized that there was a spy in the Order instead of waiting
till DD suggested it. (Of course, they might have died a year earlier
if that were the case, but my point is simply that Fidelius Charms
don't appear to be commonly performed.)

Because the Charm was only in effect for a week and because the
DEsdidn'tknowabout the Prophecy, I doubt very much thatthe existence
of  a Secret Keeper was common knowledge among the Death Eaters, and,
that being the case, "DE common knowledge" couldn't be the reason for
the switch. 

We don't even know that the DEs knew there was a spy in the Order who
was reporting to LV. (Bella, who at that time seems to have been in
LV's confidence, may have known, but I think she was the exception.)
The whole point of being a spy is to keep your identity secret from as
many people as possible, and we know that theDEs didn't all know one
another'sidentities. And even if the DEs knew there was a spy
(butnotnecessarily his identity), there's no necessary connection
between the spy/traitor and the Secret Keeper. 

The spy had been giving info for about a year before the Potters
finally went into hiding; DD seems to have come up with the SK
suggestion only a short time before the Potters' deaths. If Pettigrew
was the only SK and Black being SK wasonly a suggestion that was never
acted upon, the Fidelius Charm was only in effect for a week. I don't
see how the existence of a Secret Keeper/Fidelius Charm could have
become common knowledge, or even a rumor, among the DEs or anyone else
in that short a time. I don't think that anyone other than the
Potters, Black, Pettigrew, DD, and possibly Snape and/or Lupin knew
about the Secret Keeper plan. IMO, it sexistence became common
knowledge only after DD's testimony that Black had been the Potters'
Secret Keeper was reported in the Daily Prophet. The Potters would
have had Pettigrew tell as few people as possible, probably only
Black, who may have been present to witness the charm (or acted as
"bonder" like Bella with the UV). Even the *existence* of the secret
would have been known only to Dumbledore and possibly Lupin (see
below) and Snape--until Pettigrew reported notonly the Charm but the
Secret itself to Voldemort.

My point is simply that knowing there was a spy and knowing there was
a Secret Keeper are two very different things, and I don't think that
"DE common knowledge" of the Fidelius Charm was the reason that Black
suggested the switch or that the Potters accepted it. (I'm not even
sure that the charm was in effect before Pettigrew became SK. Do we
have any canon showing that Black was ever the actual SK instead of
merely James Potter's candidate for the job? Were the Potters ever
actually protected by having a trustworthy SK?)

As for Black's motives in suggesting the switch, maybe he thought that
he could trick Lupin, the supposed spy, into telling Voldemort that
Black was the SK and send the DEs on a wild goose chase to bringBlack
in alive. There was no need for the charm to be commonly known or
suspected, only reported by the spy to the Dark Lord. And meanwhile,
the Potters would  be hidden, with no one suspecting little Peter of
holding such a big secret. Or so Black mistakenly thought.

Carol, ready to hit her spacebar with a Reductor curse but realizing
that a defective keyboard is better than none






From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 27 21:44:56 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 21:44:56 -0000
Subject: The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span.
In-Reply-To: <700201d40603271040h510fdaffi481e834cc4937c9e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e09mco+42cc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150128

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kemper <iam.kemper at ...> wrote:
> >Joe continues:
> > Were Sirius and James both guilty of a lot of pranks? 
Absolutely. Did they get punished? Well we see Harry having to go 
through all the dentenion forms, including many of James and Sirius. 
The truth is that they were mostly normal boys who often tease, 
prank and pick on each other. They were not nasty and if Sirius is 
nasty to Snape after they left, well frankly I think it is totally 
understandable. Snape is nasty to everyone.
> 
> Kemper now:
> The truth is that James and Sirius were the cool crowd, and Snape 
was gigantic nerd.  Jocks against the D&D kid.  No where in the 
scene do we see status as equal.  

Tonks:

I strongly disagree with Joe.  Now maybe it is because I am a 
female, but I don't see teasing, pranks and picking on others 
as "normal" behavior!!  It is wrong, wrong, wrong!!!  It is like a 
so called practical joke. They call that type of joke practical, 
because the perpetrator can get away with what is basically a 
vicious attach on another by disguising it as a "joke".  But it is 
NOT a joke, it is a way to hurt another person without that person 
having any recourse because the perpetrator says "oh, it was just a 
joke" 

So I agree with Kemper. Snape was a victim of the 2 bullies. I think 
James was a total a--.  Like Harry, I wonder what Lily ever saw in 
him.  I would guess that while I might have liked her, I would not 
have liked James even as an adult. Poor little arrogant rich boy 
that he was, he probably just learned to hide it from her.  

Tonks_op









From saberbunny at yahoo.ca  Mon Mar 27 23:10:38 2006
From: saberbunny at yahoo.ca (catherine higgins)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 18:10:38 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span.
In-Reply-To: <e09mco+42cc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060327231038.27562.qmail@web37004.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150129


    
> Kemper now:
> The truth is that James and Sirius were the cool crowd, and Snape 
was gigantic nerd.  Jocks against the D&D kid.  No where in the 
scene do we see status as equal.  

Tonks:

James was a total a--.  Like Harry, I wonder what Lily ever saw in 
him.  I would guess that while I might have liked her, I would not 
have liked James even as an adult. Poor little arrogant rich boy 
that he was, he probably just learned to hide it from her.  

Catherine now:
   
  There's another perspective missing here. This is "Snape's worst memory". Not "James' worst" or "Sirius' worst". This is the worst thing that, according the JKR, ever happened to Snape. It's an awful thing to have had happened to him, and Harry rightfully wonders about what a terrible person his father was. But this was one scene that we saw. We also hear from Sirius when Harry questions him about it, that Snape knew more curses when he arived at HW than most of the 7th years, and he hung out with a crowd of kids who mostly became DE. In that particular scene, he was at a definate disadvantage, but I don't think that it was always such. 
  I have a feeling that the parallels from the marauder's time is more James-Draco, and Snape-Harry. I have a feeling that there will be redemption for Draco as there was for James. Lily saw the best in people, even James. 
   
  Catherine
  (who still has 144 messages to read, after working 5 night shifts in a row, is far, far behind in the list...)

		
---------------------------------
Enrich your life at Yahoo! Canada Finance

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




From littleleah at handbag.com  Mon Mar 27 23:23:25 2006
From: littleleah at handbag.com (littleleahstill)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 23:23:25 -0000
Subject: The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span.
In-Reply-To: <20060327133929.24890.qmail@web61318.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <e09s5d+n43j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150130

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Joe Goodwin 
<joegoodwin1067 at ...> wrote:
>
> People should be able to feel and say whatever they like. That 
said, the many attempts to make James Potter out to be some sort of 
horrible person, which often use this one scene as 'evidence,' are 
laughable. Strangely I have gotten a few 'Off list' emails agreeing 
with me and warning me that the 'Save Snape brigade is going to have 
a fit."

I think there is another reason why this scene is important and why 
it is important that James appears in it as a horrible person, and 
that reason has nothing to do with the ex-Potions Master in whatever 
manifestion of AcronymSnape! one prefers.

James is Harry's dead father, and since Harry joined the WW, he's 
been told that James was a hero. It's natural that Harry should have 
an iconic view of his charming, talented, brave dad. Suddenly Harry 
has to confront a scene which turns his world view upside down. His 
hated bully of a teacher (yes, Snape is a bully) becomes the victim 
and war-hero dad behaves like a jerk because behaving like a jerk 
amuses Harry's beloved godfather. Meanwhile his trusted formr 
teacher is too much of a wimp to stop them.  Harry deals with this 
scene; he tries to find out as much as possible; that is to say he 
confronts what he sees in the pensieve and he comes to terms with 
what he learns.  He understands that his father had flaws, but he 
also knows what his father did against evil.  His father was not a 
horrible person all the time, nor an icon, but a flawed and 
contradictory human being, ultimately a brave human being who laid 
down his life for those he loved.

Contrast Harry with Tom Riddle. When he finds out his father was not 
a wonderful wizard but a muggle who abandoned his pregnant wife, TR 
murders him.  No attempt to find out what really happened, to see 
what better side TRsenior might have.  Similarly when he finds out 
his great Slytherin family is not living in pureblood splendour and 
riches, but is one inbred half-wit sadistic uncle living in a hovel, 
TR frames him for murder and leaves.  Having had all his illusions 
shattered, he creates another one,the greatest illusion in the 
WW.    He becomes Voldemort, the Dark Lord.

VM deals in illusion.  Harry doesn't.  But he has to get past the 
illusion, and seeing a couple of lads having a few harmless teenage 
japes wouldn't have done that for him.

Leah        






From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Mon Mar 27 23:33:23 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 23:33:23 -0000
Subject: CHAP DISC: HBP 13, The Secret Riddle
Message-ID: <e09so3+c0do@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150131

CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter
13, The Secret Riddle

The chapter opens with Katie on her way to St. Mungo's and Harry 
confidently expressing his belief that Draco was behind the attack. 
Hermione and Ron ignore his theories about Draco the Death Eater, 
and when Harry tries to speak with Dumbledore during their next 
lesson, he too declines to discuss the matter.
 
Dumbledore and Harry do talk about other important concerns before 
beginning the next lesson. Harry latches onto the fact that Snape 
was the one who stopped the spread of the curse in Katie rather than 
Madam Pomfrey and questions Dumbledore about it, causing the 
portrait of Phineas Nigellus to deem Harry 'impertinent'.  
Dumbledore stifles the interruption by Phineas and simply gives 
Harry the information that Snape knows more about the dark arts than 
Madam Pomfrey. 

Harry also questions Dumbledore about his whereabouts when the 
attack took place, and although Dumbledore doesn't answer him, he 
surprises Harry by saying he will tell him later. Dumbledore ends 
their talk by stating he's aware that Mundungus is stealing objects 
from the Grimmauld Place and promises it won't happen again. Harry 
doesn't respond to this particular statement but Phineas does, angry 
that the Black heirlooms are being pilfered.
 
Dumbledore then proceeds to pour a new memory into the Pensieve, 
continuing with the tale of Merope Gaunt at the point when Tom 
Riddle, Sr. returned to Little Hangleton and Merope remained in 
London, pregnant with 'the baby who would one day become Lord 
Voldemort'. The memory is from Caractacus Burke, who appears as a 
revolving figure telling the story of how a young & very pregnant 
witch arrived at Borgin and Burkes, desperate for gold, and wishing 
to sell a locket she claimed belonged to Salazar Slytherin himself. 
Burke, skeptical after many similar stories over the years, was 
surprised to discover the locket was indeed authentic. Burke related 
with pleasure the bargain he made, acquiring the necklace from the 
girl for 10 galleons.
 
Harry is indignant about the 'bargain' and stunned that Merope chose 
to sell family treasures rather than use magic to get everything she 
needed. Dumbledore explains his theory that Merope was either 
unwilling or unable to perform magic after the departure of Riddle, 
Sr., even if it would have saved her life. Harry expresses disbelief 
that a mom would not want to stay alive for her son and compares 
Merope unfavorably with Lily. Dumbledore reminds Harry of Merope's 
many years of suffering and comments that she did not have the 
courage Lily did.
 
Dumbledore pours another memory into the Pensieve, this time his own 
memory from some 60 years previous. Harry and Dumbledore enter the 
Pensieve and follow a younger Dumbledore, with auburn hair and 
wearing a plum velvet suit, through the busy streets of London to a 
rather grim building where Dumbledore has an appointment with a Mrs. 
Cole. Harry discovers they are entering the orphanage where young 
Riddle was born, and the appointment is for Dumbledore to make 
arrangements for Tom Riddle's future education at Hogwarts. 

Mrs. Cole, taken aback by Dumbledore's appearance, requires some 
convincing in the form of magic and gin to agree that Riddle may 
attend Hogwarts. Once the matter is settled though, she becomes more 
talkative, relating the story of Tom's birth at the orphanage one 
bitter cold New Year's Eve, when a young girl gave birth to a baby 
boy and died within the hour. The only information she gave the 
staff about herself or the baby was a request to name him Tom 
Marvolo Riddle after the baby's father and grandfather. Alas, 
neither man nor anyone else ever came looking for the baby, so Tom 
was raised in the orphanage.
 
Mrs. Cole says that Tom was a very unusual baby and 'odd' child. 
After assurances from Dumbledore that Tom would be accepted at 
Hogwarts no matter what, she relates several incidents of odd 
behavior, including finding a dead rabbit hanging by a rope from the 
ceiling one day after Tom and the rabbit's owner argued, and another 
incident during a day trip to the seashore when two children went 
exploring with Tom in a cave and were 'never quite right' after the 
experience.  Although neither incident could be definitively linked 
to Tom, Mrs. Cole sums up Riddle's time in the orphanage by 
stating "I don't think many people will be sorry to see the back of 
him." 
 
Mrs. Cole offers to take Dumbledore to meet Riddle, who is found 
reading in bed in a rather bare room with scant furnishings. Harry 
immediately notices Merope got her wish: Tom is a miniature of his 
father and looks like none of the Gaunt family. At first wary and 
suspicious of Dumbledore, certain he's a doctor planning to take him 
away to an asylum, Tom is transformed to learn he is a wizard. His 
face and tone become feverish, and Harry notes an almost beast-like 
look upon his face as he quickly realizes his 'special' abilities 
are actually magical abilities. The smile leaves Dumbledore's face 
when Riddle relates his skill at hurting people with magic when they 
annoy him. Almost as quickly as Riddle was transformed by the news, 
he turns wary again and orders Dumbledore to show him magic right 
then and there. 

After ascertaining Tom would indeed be coming to Hogwarts and a 
reminder to refer to him as 'Professor' or 'Sir', Dumbledore 
casually flicks his wand and sets the wardrobe on fire, an act that 
surprises both Riddle and Harry almost equally. When the fire goes 
out and the wardrobe returns to its normal state, Riddle 'greedily' 
asks for a wand. Before Dumbledore launches into the mechanics of 
buying school supplies and finding Hogwarts, he tells Tom there is 
something trying to get out of his wardrobe and Harry hears a faint 
rattle. Rather reluctantly, Tom removes a plain cardboard box from 
the wardrobe and dumps the contents on the bed, revealing several 
everyday objects including toys and a thimble. 
 
Dumbledore lets Tom know that not only will he return all the items 
in that box to their rightful owners, but goes on to relate the 
expectations for him while at Hogwarts, including not stealing from 
others and learning to use magic in a proper way instead of as a 
means to hurt and control others. Tom's face is blank during the 
talk, impossible to read. As Dumbledore is about to leave, a 
question bursts out of Tom that he can't seem to suppress: he asks 
Dumbledore if his father was magical since he knows his mum could 
not have been because she died. And then, in what Harry believes was 
an attempt to impress Dumbledore, Riddle casually mentions his 
ability to talk to snakes. Dumbledore pauses, searching Tom's face 
and telling him only that the ability is 'unusual but not unheard 
of'. The two shake hands and part.
 
Dumbledore and Harry return from the long trip down memory lane to 
review what they had witnessed. Dumbledore sums up Riddle's 
abilities, advanced for such a young wizard and including the 
ability to speak Parseltongue. Dumbledore relates that learning Tom 
was a Parselmouth concerned him less than Riddle's instincts for 
cruelty, secrecy and domination. To Harry's question whether he knew 
then who Tom Riddle would become, Dumbledore says only that he 
planned to keep watch over him at Hogwarts, that he did not know 
then Riddle would grow into the 'most dangerous Dark wizard of all 
time'. 

Before the end of the lesson, Dumbledore points out several 
important features to Harry of the memory: 1) Tom's contempt for 
having a common name and for anything that made him 'ordinary'; 2) 
Riddle's preference to operate alone and friendless, a 
characteristic he cultivated for the rest of his life; and 3) Riddle 
already had a habit of collecting 'trophies' from those he bullied 
to symbolize the unpleasant magic he was capable of.  
 
 
Questions:
 
1. What reaction did you have to Hermione, Ron and Dumbledore 
refusing to talk to Harry about his theory that Draco was behind the 
incident with Katie?
 
2. Where do you think Dumbledore was over the weekend of Katie's 
attack and why did Draco plan the attack when Dumbledore was away?

3. How do you think Dumbledore plans to stop Mundungus from 
pilfering the Black family heirlooms?
 
4. Phineas continues to play a role in HBP which is more active than 
the other portraits in Dumbledore's office. Presumably he overhears 
all the vital information Dumbledore shares with Harry during the 
course of their lessons and he is also able to visit the Black 
house. Do you see JKR giving Phineas a more important role in Book 7?
 
5. Dumbledore offers Harry his interpretation of why Merope did not 
use magic to get the things she needed to survive. Do you think 
Merope chose not to perform magic after Riddle, Sr. left her, or 
that she was incapable of doing so?
 
6. Just out of curiosity, we never learned what happened to 
Caractacus Burke. Any speculation?
 
7. JKR made a statement prior to HBP that we would know more about 
the 'circumstances of Riddle's birth'. Was there anything about his 
birth or life in the orphanage that surprised you or was it pretty 
much the story you were expecting?
 
8. Why do you think Dumbledore drew attention to the fact that Harry 
was 'possibly [ ] feeling sorry for Lord Voldemort?' 

9. After learning Merope died rather than live for her son, Harry 
expressed anger that she made a poor choice compared to Lily, 
who 'didn't have a choice'. Dumbledore corrected him gently, saying 
Lily *did* have a choice. Why do you think Harry didn't believe Lily 
had a choice when he heard the memory in POA of Voldemort telling 
her to 'step aside'?

10. Dumbledore seems to have an ongoing battle with young boys not 
using the proper etiquette of referring to teachers as 'Professor' 
or 'Sir'.  What did you think about the way Riddle talks to 
Dumbledore compared to how Harry talks to Snape, erm, Professor 
Snape?
 
11. Harry is surprised to see Dumbledore set the wardrobe on fire. 
Why did Dumbledore choose to show a boy whose 'magic had run away 
with him' such a spectacular and destructive-looking demonstration? 

12. As Harry leaves the office he notices the ring is gone and 
wonders whether the mouth organ Riddle had stowed in the cardboard 
box might be of importance. Dumbledore beams at him and says, "very 
astute Harry, but the mouth organ was only ever a mouth organ." Was 
there any reason Dumbledore answered Harry's question so 
cryptically? And why was he pleased to hear Harry say that? On a 
side note, do you think that was a JKR message to fans? :)


NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see
"HPfGU HBP Chapter Discussions" at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database


Jen R., thanking Petra for her editing help and the other chapter 
discussion leaders for posts she could review before before writing 
her own!










From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Mon Mar 27 19:42:19 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:42:19 -0500
Subject: The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span.
In-Reply-To: <20060327133929.24890.qmail@web61318.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <8C81FEDB1A09216-1E70-245A@FWM-R11.sysops.aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150132

> Joe: 
> People should be able to feel and say whatever they like. That 
> said, the many attempts to make James Potter out to be some sort 
> of horrible person, which often use this one scene as 'evidence,' 
> are laughable.
 
Nikkalmati:
 
I am a little puzzled.  What have your been reading? I have been 
following this list since last November and I don't think this topic 
has been overdone.  In fact, compared to some topics which have been 
beaten to death <g>, it has hardly been mentioned at all.  I also 
don't recall seeing a post before yours which called James "horrible" 
or anything like it.  I do have some issues with Harry's Dad, and as 
I said, I hope we see more good of him in the next book. Harry, after 
all, was pretty upset himself by the scene.

Nikkalmati
 
 





From srbecca at hotmail.com  Mon Mar 27 21:28:22 2006
From: srbecca at hotmail.com (Rebecca Dreiling)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 21:28:22 +0000
Subject: Trelawney Tarrot reading again
In-Reply-To: <2c0.789e9ae.3157eda7@aol.com>
Message-ID: <BAY104-F22EA6B95E62459CEA9ACAEA8D20@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 150133

> Sherrie wrote - bit more than a dabbler:
> Trelawney's reading of The Tower card points up her pessimism 
> once again - this card is seldom read as darkly as she reads it.  
> Usually, it's read as a drastic, sudden and unexpected change, in 
> which something old is swept away so that something new can begin.  
> Although the tower is being destroyed, an almost universal 
> inclusion in the illustrations of this card is a shower of Hebrew 
> yods falling from the sky - indicating salvation.


Rebecca writes:

I agree with her (Trelawney's) interpretation being on the dark 
side.  If I were to get the Tower in a read, I try not to let the 
person freak out.  Some people know that it is a "bad" card.  This 
is easy to draw from the often vivid representation on the card.  
However, it can be a sign of great sudden change to come and just 
because it's sudden doesn't mean it can't be a good thing in the 
end.

I know there is a difference between the Major Arcana and a regular 
playing deck.  However, I find that some end up not needing certain 
cards in the deck to interpret what it is they have to communicate 
to the receiver of the message.

I bow, of course, to the fellow Tarot reader..especially one who has 
been reading longer than I have been alive (a bit scary really... 
perhaps you should read mine!).

Rebecca









From saberbunny at yahoo.ca  Mon Mar 27 23:45:54 2006
From: saberbunny at yahoo.ca (catherine higgins)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 18:45:54 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: Draco/ why HP wants to kill LV/ Fake Secret Keeper/ Personality of GinnyLily
In-Reply-To: <e07qbk+7sgb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060327234554.14601.qmail@web37001.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150134



"Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" <catlady at wicca.net> wrote:    
Well, in HBP we saw Ginny going down the corridor (of the train) and
hexing anyone she felt like (and getting invited to the Slug Club for
it), and that is one thing Lily accused James of in the Pensieve
memory. And we saw Ginny flying her broom straight at Zacharias (if
she'd broken her broom, would her parents have bought her a new one?),
and we haven't heard anyone accuse James of flying his broom into people.


Catherine now:
   
  Actually, Ginny wasn't walking down the corridor jinxing everyone who got in her way, she jinxed 1 person (wasn't it Zacharias again? Sorry I can't fing HBP at the moment) because he wouldn't stop annoying her about what happened at the MoM? And it was also him she crashed into, you'd have thought he would have learned not to get on her bad side by now. Ginny isn't perfect, but at least she's not wishy-washy. She can defend herself (she does have 6 older brothers!).
   
   I think we can pretty much say by now that getting jinxed by a friend is a pretty common thing in the WW. One of the twins told Harry not to be on the receiving end of her bat-boogey hex, to me it sounded as though they had been on the receving end of one. I don't think that this is mean, aggressive or bad-natured on Ginny's part, but rather being a teenager with magical abilities...
   
  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 patriciah711 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 27 23:33:08 2006
From: patriciah711 at yahoo.com (Patricia Hurley)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 15:33:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Harry as Horcrux (was Re: What's next???)
In-Reply-To: <c5be82f167b4.67b4c5be82f1@rdc-kc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20060327233308.24070.qmail@web52810.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150135

> Mosaicwench:
> I don't know if this has been brought up here or not, so please 
> bear with me.  Could Harry be the last Horcrux?  Could his scar be 
> the representation of that Horcrux?  We know that Horcruxes can be 
> contained in living beings (Nagini) so why not people?

Patricia:
  I think that the problem with Harry being the Horcrux is that 
Voldemort was not planning on Harry living. It would be very unwise 
to store part of one's soul in a rotting, decaying corpse. I think 
that if JKR went that way she would have to seriously reroute the
plot to make it seem like either Voldemort was planning to kill 
Harry, just maim him, or that there is some way to keep dead bodies 
from decaying. I just think that it would be foolish to trust my 
soul to a corpse. But I definitely see where you got the idea, it 
would be a very dramatic ending, and I have always believed that 
Harry must sacrifice himself in the end, going with the theme of 
sacrifice in the books.






From kchuplis at alltel.net  Tue Mar 28 00:08:55 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 18:08:55 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span.
In-Reply-To: <20060327231038.27562.qmail@web37004.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20060327231038.27562.qmail@web37004.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4E6E8002-9C9A-4AD8-9644-C62E15470E9A@alltel.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 150136


On Mar 27, 2006, at 5:10 PM, catherine higgins wrote:

> Catherine now:
>
>   There's another perspective missing here. This is "Snape's worst  
> memory". Not "James' worst" or "Sirius' worst". This is the worst  
> thing that, according the JKR, ever happened to Snape. It's an  
> awful thing to have had happened to him, and Harry rightfully  
> wonders about what a terrible person his father was. But this was  
> one scene that we saw. We also hear from Sirius when Harry  
> questions him about it, that Snape knew more curses when he arived  
> at HW than most of the 7th years, and he hung out with a crowd of  
> kids who mostly became DE. In that particular scene, he was at a  
> definate disadvantage, but I don't think that it was always such.
>   I have a feeling that the parallels from the marauder's time is  
> more James-Draco, and Snape-Harry. I have a feeling that there will  
> be redemption for Draco as there was for James. Lily saw the best  
> in people, even James.
>

kchuplis:

I keep coming back to this too. How much of this is because it is how  
SNAPE saw it. In the other pensieve memories we have seen, the  
subjects have not had necessarily any kind of bias or at least not  
anything like what we know of Snape. We have no idea how much bias  
colors a pensieve memory.  And seeing anything in isolation can be  
deceiving. I really can't see everyone calling James a great guy (and  
everyone HAS except Snape) if he was really as big of a git all the  
time as the pensieve scene showed. If one were to describe many of  
Harry's adventures, he would or could sound like an arrogant show off  
and yet we know that is never in his intentions. Perspective  
perspective perspective.



From hickengruendler at yahoo.de  Tue Mar 28 00:10:00 2006
From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 00:10:00 -0000
Subject: CHAP DISC: HBP 13, The Secret Riddle
In-Reply-To: <e09so3+c0do@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e09uso+6t91@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150137

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" <stevejjen at ...> 
wrote:

<a summary which I snipped> 

Hickengruendler:

Great summary, Jen.

Jen:
 
> Questions:
>  
> 1. What reaction did you have to Hermione, Ron and Dumbledore 
> refusing to talk to Harry about his theory that Draco was behind 
the 
> incident with Katie?

Hickengruendler:

I found it odd. Particularly Ron's reaction seems a bit OOC for me. 
He always was willing to believe the worst of Malfoy (and Snape, for 
that matter), and yet here he doesn't believe Harry's theory. 
Hermione's and Dumble's reactions were in character for them and I 
didn't have a problem with them. Dumbledore probably knew anyway that 
Draco was behind it.

Jen:
   
> 2. Where do you think Dumbledore was over the weekend of Katie's 
> attack and why did Draco plan the attack when Dumbledore was away?

Hickengruendler:

I guess Dumbledore searched for more Horcruxes. And I guess that it 
was probably a coincidence that Draco chose that weekend. It was the 
Hogsmeade weekend, where there was the biggest chance to get anything 
smuggld into Hogwarts.
  
Jen:

> 6. Just out of curiosity, we never learned what happened to 
> Caractacus Burke. Any speculation?

Hickengruendler:

Yes. I think Voldemort killed him and made another Horcrux after the 
murder. After all, he just learned from Hepzibah Smith that Burke 
hoodwinked Merope and probably had a small responsibility in her 
death. He must have "loved" this revelation. It would be totally odd 
if Voldemort had not used the first opportunity to get rid of Burke. 
In fact, one has to wonder otherwise why JKR put this scene with 
Burke in. Couldn't Mrs Smith have bought the amulet from Merope 
directly? Also, a Horcrux at Borgin and Burkes would offer great 
possibilities. If Borgin maybe accidentilly found it and sold it, it 
could be anywhere and give the Trio a reason to visit more distant 
places. But while writing this I just realised that Burke had to be 
alive at least some time later to give Dumbledore his evidence. But 
nonetheless, he could still have been killed by Voldemort later. 

Jen:
  
> 7. JKR made a statement prior to HBP that we would know more about 
> the 'circumstances of Riddle's birth'. Was there anything about his 
> birth or life in the orphanage that surprised you or was it pretty 
> much the story you were expecting?

Hickengruendler:

The biggest surprise for me were his parents. I imagined Tom's mother 
very differently (rather how the Black family turned out to be) and 
Tom Sr. came off better than I expected. I guess I was a bit 
surprised that Voldemort already was that mean as a little git, but 
I'm rather positively surprised, to be fair. I was a bit afraid that 
JKR might go the way in him having a decent beginning and then 
falling, and I'm glad she didn't, because it would take away from him 
being the embodiment of evil, which he was from the very beginning.  
 
Jen:
 
> 8. Why do you think Dumbledore drew attention to the fact that 
Harry 
> was 'possibly [ ] feeling sorry for Lord Voldemort?'

Hickengruendler:

Because Dumbledore suspects that it will be Harry's heart that will 
lead him to victory, and compassion for Voldemort is another sihn of 
this heart.
   
Jen:

> 12. As Harry leaves the office he notices the ring is gone and 
> wonders whether the mouth organ Riddle had stowed in the cardboard 
> box might be of importance. Dumbledore beams at him and says, "very 
> astute Harry, but the mouth organ was only ever a mouth organ." Was 
> there any reason Dumbledore answered Harry's question so 
> cryptically? And why was he pleased to hear Harry say that? On a 
> side note, do you think that was a JKR message to fans? :)

Hickengruendler:

I'm not sure if it was a side note to the fan's. Might be. ;-) But 
IMO Dumbledore was glad, because he knew that several things shown in 
the Pensieve scenes might very well be more than simple objects 
(namely Horcruxes) and he was glad that Harry already paid attention 
to the objects generally. 







From clark.kentjr at gmail.com  Mon Mar 27 20:06:10 2006
From: clark.kentjr at gmail.com (Clark Kent)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 15:06:10 -0500
Subject: Why wasn't Harry sent to either a lightsided wizarding family or a muggle family?
In-Reply-To: <20060327132008.40926.qmail@web38706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <e0817n+7o13@eGroups.com>
	 <20060327132008.40926.qmail@web38706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6ac0e4d60603271206v2e8b852ch228d5b6744c7dfb@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150138

Jutika:
> IMO, the "blood wards" you are talking about, protects Harry only 
> from Voldemort.
> 
> I mean hypothetically, Harry could still fall off his broom from 
> a great height and die. The blood ward cannot protect him under 
> such circumstances.
>
> As far as living with the Dursleys' is concerned, that was the 
> only way Dumbledore could assure that Lily's sacrifice would act 
> as his protection. If Petunia would have refused to take Harry in, 
> the charm wouldn't have been sealed, leaving Harry unprotected.


John:
But what protection did the blood wards really give?  If it can't 
protect him from the darkest of creatures (Dementors) why would it 
be able to protect him from Voldemort?

Harry would've defeated Quirrel/LV in PS and in OoTP whether he 
lived with the Dursleys or not.  The blood wards should've stopped 
Voldemort from possessing him in the first place if they worked 
against him, which either points to the wards now being completely 
useless (Or in other words, why is he still with the Dursleys after 
GoF?) or them NEVER having worked against him, which seems to be the 
case after the DoM incident.  Harry's love for others was what drove 
off Voldemort from possessing him and IMO is what prevented Quirrel 
from touching him, not the blood wards.










From juli17 at aol.com  Tue Mar 28 00:16:55 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 19:16:55 EST
Subject: The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span
Message-ID: <26f.887b793.3159da77@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150139

 
Joe wrote:

People should be able to feel and say whatever they  like. That said, the 
many attempts to make James Potter out to be some sort of  horrible person, which 
often use this one scene as 'evidence,' are laughable.  Strangely I have 
gotten a few 'Off list' emails agreeing with me and warning me  that the 'Save 
Snape brigade is going to have a fit."


Were Sirius and James both guilty of a lot of pranks? Absolutely. Did  they 
get punished? Well we see Harry having to go through all the dentenion  forms, 
including many of James and Sirius. The truth is that they were mostly  normal 
boys who often tease, prank and pick on each other. They were not nasty  and 
if Sirius is nasty to Snape after they left, well frankly I think it is  
totally understandable. Snape is nasty to everyone.
 
Julie:
The thing is, it's not an either/or situation. One person doesn't have to  be 
good while the other is bad. Fact is, it's very probable Snape was a  nasty 
little git during his school years at Hogwarts, doing his fair  share of hexing 
those who annoyed him. But we also now know factually that  James was an 
arrogant prick at least some of the time during his years  at Hogwarts. Lily knew 
it too, and said as much. Lots of teenage boys do  act like this, and what 
separates them once they're adults is that some of them  recognize their behavior 
is adolescent and wrong, and decide to grow up,  while others don't. So James 
at some point looked at himself in a mirror  and said "Geez, sometimes I'm 
really an arrogant prick. I think it's time I grow  out of that." (And good 
thing too, as Lily wouldn't have had him otherwise.)  Snape, OTOH, never got 
around to that kind of  self-examination, and to this day he's still nursing his 
wounds and  spreading his venom instead of letting go and growing up. 
 

Joe:  
If I remember right Harry, who has zero experience  in these matters, 
speculated that his Dad might have tricked his Mom into going  out with him. No, not 
a hysterical little boy but certainly a teenager who tends  to over react.

I think we can safely safe that Lily Potter  didn't feel she was being 
coerced or do you think she was so stupid as to marry  someone who tried to do that 
to her?


Julie:
Of course we can safely say that Lily wasn't coerced. So can Harry after  his 
initial reaction. But initial reactions are often fraught with strong  
emotion. Harry recognized that his father wasn't a paragon after all but a mere  
human being with warts and all, which was really the point JKR was trying to  
make (IMO). James isn't GOOD and Snape isn't BAD (especially if he turns out to  
be DDM), just as very few people in the real world are GOOD or BAD but a mix 
of  both positive and negative traits and tendencies. But James, especially as 
he  got older, made good choices, while Snape made some pretty disastrous, and 
 that's what really separates the two now.
 
Julie 

 


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




From alcuin74 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 27 23:51:27 2006
From: alcuin74 at yahoo.com (alcuin74)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 23:51:27 -0000
Subject: Most Faithful Servant (was Going back to discuss GOF)
In-Reply-To: <a1ee8d580603252320x7662701bu5a03b35ae2c8f4a1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e09tpv+aqar@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150140

> Snow:
> <snip>
> (2) Who is Voldemort's most faithful servant when both Jr. and 
> Bella believe they are the one?
> 
> I'll tell you that I'm kinda a liking McGonagall for his most 
> faithful servant. <snip>


Alcuin:

McGonagall can't be Voldemort's most faithful servant, for one simple 
reason: McGonagall is a woman, whereas Voldemort refers to his most 
faithful servant as 'he'.  We read on pp. 651-652 of GoF (American 
ed. paperback):

... and one, who remains my most faithful servant, and who has 
already reentered my service ... He is at Hogwarts, that faithful 
servant, and it was through his efforts that our young friend arrived 
here tonight ...

So unless Voldemort forgot what gender his most faithful servant is, 
it can't be McGonagall.  For what it's worth, I think it can be none 
other than Barty Crouch Jr.  It was, after all, through his efforts 
that Harry arrived at the graveyard, as he himself explained (cf. 
GoF, p. 676).









From alcuin74 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 28 00:02:56 2006
From: alcuin74 at yahoo.com (alcuin74)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 00:02:56 -0000
Subject: Harry as Horcrux (was Re: What's next???)
In-Reply-To: <20060327233308.24070.qmail@web52810.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <e09ufg+igjm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150141

> > Mosaicwench:
> > Could Harry be the last Horcrux?  Could his scar be the 
> > representation of that Horcrux?  We know that Horcruxes can 
> > be contained in living beings (Nagini) so why not people?
> 
> Patricia:
>   I think that the problem with Harry being the Horcrux is that 
> Voldemort was not planning on Harry living. It would be very unwise 
> to store part of one's soul in a rotting, decaying corpse. <snip>


Alcuin:

Another problem with that theory can be gleaned from OotP.  At the 
end of the Ministry of Magic debacle, Voldemort possesses Harry and 
tempts Dumbledore to kill Harry in order to kill him.  If Harry were 
one of his horcruxes, he would in effect be inviting Dumbledore to 
destroy part of his (Voldemort's) soul.

However, the possibility remains open that Voldemort _unwittingly_ 
made Harry a horcrux.  Perhaps he intended to murder Harry as part of 
a horcrux-making spell while planning to use some other object for 
the actual horcrux, but when his killing curse backfired, Harry 
somehow became the horcrux, bearing a part of Voldemort's soul.  This 
would explain why Harry is a parselmouth, as Dumbledore hints at at 
the end of CoS. 








From snowwy54 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 28 00:31:43 2006
From: snowwy54 at yahoo.com (Susan Snow)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 16:31:43 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry as Horcrux (was Re: What's next???)
In-Reply-To: <20060327233308.24070.qmail@web52810.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20060328003143.3239.qmail@web32112.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150142

I have been thinking for a while about the horcrux
ring and the lightening shape that was on it after it
was destroyed.  It was just like Harry's scar.  So
when Voldie goes to Godrics Hollow did he intend to
kill Harry or was he planning on making him one of the
seven Horcruxes?  Maybe instead of killing his nemisis
he intended to make him a horcrux hoping that baby
Harry couldn't fight his soul bit.  What Voldie didn't
count on was Harry being so filled with love from
Lily's sacrifice that the Horcrux exploded and took
out Voldie too.  Just a way of looking at it.

snowwy

--- Patricia Hurley <patriciah711 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Mosaicwench:
> > I don't know if this has been brought up here or
> not, so please 
> > bear with me.  Could Harry be the last Horcrux? 
> Could his scar be 
> > the representation of that Horcrux? 
> Patricia:
>   I think that the problem with Harry being the
> Horcrux is that 
> Voldemort was not planning on Harry living. It would
> be very unwise 
> to store part of one's soul in a rotting, decaying
> corpse. I think 
> that if JKR went that way she would have to
> seriously reroute the
> plot to make it seem like either Voldemort was
> planning to kill 
> Harry, just maim him, or that there is some way to
> keep dead bodies 
> from decaying. I just think that it would be foolish
> to trust my 
> soul to a corpse. But I definitely see where you got
> the idea, it 
> would be a very dramatic ending, and I have always
> believed that 
> Harry must sacrifice himself in the end, going with
> the theme of 
> sacrifice in the books.
> 
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From kchuplis at alltel.net  Tue Mar 28 00:30:22 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 18:30:22 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAP DISC: HBP 13, The Secret Riddle
In-Reply-To: <e09so3+c0do@eGroups.com>
References: <e09so3+c0do@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <0805AB14-69BB-4173-993E-23FA1F14D709@alltel.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 150143


kchuplis:
>
>
>
> Questions:
>
> 1. What reaction did you have to Hermione, Ron and Dumbledore
> refusing to talk to Harry about his theory that Draco was behind the
> incident with Katie?

I have always felt it is beyond odd that NO one will consider Draco's  
role in these events especially in light of what Harry overheard in  
the train. I'm not sure why people think there is some kind of age  
line drawn with skullduggery. Molly is constantly saying the kids are  
"too young" despite what they have faced and despite what Harry has  
already been through. Dumbledore thinks Harry is "too young" to know  
he is a marked man, despite the fact that it is pretty obvious that  
LV raises his head in various ways even with out being in bodily  
form. One would THINK that forewarned is forearmed. And yet, I cannot  
fault JKR because I see it all too frequently in people I know and  
their own children. So and so would NEVER do that. They are just a  
kid. Or as much as people perpetually worry about some harms to their  
children they don't necessarily prepare them for future harms, such  
as coping in society or taking responsibility. I often wonder if this  
is not a main "message" of JKR whether or not she intends it. I know  
it makes me crazy whenever I see it in real life.

>
> 2. Where do you think Dumbledore was over the weekend of Katie's
> attack and why did Draco plan the attack when Dumbledore was away?
>

I assume that Dumbledore's outings are mainly concerned with finding  
the cave.

> 3. How do you think Dumbledore plans to stop Mundungus from
> pilfering the Black family heirlooms?

I would suppose a word from Dumbledore is plenty for Mundungus. Kind  
of like Peeves and the Bloody Baron.
>
> 4. Phineas continues to play a role in HBP which is more active than
> the other portraits in Dumbledore's office. Presumably he overhears
> all the vital information Dumbledore shares with Harry during the
> course of their lessons and he is also able to visit the Black
> house. Do you see JKR giving Phineas a more important role in Book 7?
>

I have wondered about that too. But he may just be a convenient  
"message bearer" or kind of "greek chorus" figure for these books.

> 5. Dumbledore offers Harry his interpretation of why Merope did not
> use magic to get the things she needed to survive. Do you think
> Merope chose not to perform magic after Riddle, Sr. left her, or
> that she was incapable of doing so?
>

I really believe we have heard and seen enough evidence to support  
that when witches or wizards are *in despair* (not just depressed,  
but actually despairing) particularly over blighted love, they lose  
strength. It's highly possible this will have some bearing on the end  
of LV. Vanquishment may come from some kind of great despair (and for  
him, it may not be some blighted love affair - well, of course not) -  
but just knowing, for instance, that all of his careful horcruxes are  
gone his big plan with 6 failsafes, could possibly cause him such  
distress he goes caput. After all, we've pretty much established that  
he cannot tell that the first few have been destroyed. Look at it  
this way he didn't even put all his eggs in one basket and yet, he is  
now more vulnerable that he was in the forest in Albania because his  
extra soul pieces are disappearing. Imagine him doing something  
destructive to himself believing his final piece is in Nagini and  
having Nagini snatched in front of him. I could see him self combusting.
>
> 7. JKR made a statement prior to HBP that we would know more about
> the 'circumstances of Riddle's birth'. Was there anything about his
> birth or life in the orphanage that surprised you or was it pretty
> much the story you were expecting?

I guess the first scene in the orphanage surprised me by how  
calculating and bloodless he was even at that age. All through that  
scene I kept thinking of "The Bad Seed".

>
> 8. Why do you think Dumbledore drew attention to the fact that Harry
> was 'possibly [ ] feeling sorry for Lord Voldemort?'

Because I think that the ability to feel pity is very important for  
Harry in any situation. It speaks of compassion and can you imaging  
Harry expressing pity to LV. It would drive him MAD. LV would HATE  
that. If LV is ever in a situation of vulnerability and true pity is  
bestowed on him by a "nothing" like Harry (you KNOW LV would never  
and will never admit anyone is one up on him. Not even Dumbledore -  
which is why LV has never had the nerve to directly test DD, not  
really, even in MOM he is not really trying to kill DD IMO.) LV might  
be driven to do something very rash and unthought out. Which could  
again, lead to his own destruction without Harry touching him.

>
> 9. After learning Merope died rather than live for her son, Harry
> expressed anger that she made a poor choice compared to Lily,
> who 'didn't have a choice'. Dumbledore corrected him gently, saying
> Lily *did* have a choice. Why do you think Harry didn't believe Lily
> had a choice when he heard the memory in POA of Voldemort telling
> her to 'step aside'?

Because he's been told LV is all powerful since he was 11. I think he  
really believes that. Only DD seems to contradict that and, well, we  
know that Harry doesn't always give DD credence when he maybe should.  
Besides if everyone else feels that way - and he does have an awful  
lot of evidence it's at least close to the truth, why should he  
believe anything but that perhaps LV was too eager to kill Harry  
first and that he wouldn't get Lily later?

>
>
> 11. Harry is surprised to see Dumbledore set the wardrobe on fire.
> Why did Dumbledore choose to show a boy whose 'magic had run away
> with him' such a spectacular and destructive-looking demonstration?

I think it was a "first impression". As much as LV could do he  
couldn't do that and it was spectacular and memorable. It may well  
have been the seed planted that gave DD his lifetime pyschological  
one up on LV and part of why LV did not challenge DD openly. DD  
downplays it, but I think he had Riddle's number pretty quickly and  
as early as the orphanage.
>
>



From joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 27 17:54:41 2006
From: joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com (Joe Goodwin)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 09:54:41 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span.
In-Reply-To: <e08stp+hb5k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060327175441.23794.qmail@web61318.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150144

>>Leah <littleleah at handbag.com> wrote:
>> Sorry, not remembered rightly. Harry wondered if James had forced
>>Lily to marry him. <snip>

>>Of course I agree that Lily wasn't coerced into marrying James and
>>didn't feel that she was being coereced, but that's irrelevant.
>>What Harry felt (briefly) at the time, after seeing James' treatment
>>of Snape, was that James was capable of so forcing her. <<


Joe: 
Isn't the point though that all evidence points to Harry's feelings
being wrong? James and Lily did get married and we have no reason
other than Harry's thought (based on one scene) that there was any
thing wrong at all.

I agree Harry could have thought his Mom might have been forced but
then again he thought he was saving Sirius at the Ministry. He
overreacts to certain things, understandable so.

Isn't it what Harry felt irrelevant and the truth more so?


>Ceridwen  wrote:     

>I disagree.  I think the most hysteria-inducing piece of Harry >Potter was the joint GoF/OotP which gave rise in fanfic to Doomed!>Outed!Snape and Puking!CAPSLOCK!Harry.

<snip>

>Aside from fan fiction, I haven't heard or read anyone suggesting 
>that Snape would have been all Goodness and Light if only, if only.  

<snip>
   
Joe: 
Can't say I liked CAPSLOCK!Harry much either. I really can't see how having teenaged rivalry with James and Sirius could have caused him to be a Death Eater in any way. Thats a bit like saying "I wasn't hugged enough so I chop people up,"


>Ceridwen:
>This is more fanfic fodder.  There are indications that Snape may >not have been pleased with Dumbledore's handling of the Prank.  >Since it could have gotten him killed or turned into a werewolf, I >think he has reason to be upset.  Whether his reason is valid or not >is a matter that hasn't been addressed in canon to my knowledge.  If >I'm wrong, someone will provide relevant canon.

<snip>
   
Joe: 

Not certain if I care if Snape was plesed with the punishment or not. Honestly if he had kept his nose out of other peoples business it wouldn't have been the matter. I will need reminding, I think, but didn't Sirius just tell him how to get past the Whomping Willow? Wouldn't Snape have had to been trying to see what they were doing before hand then?


>Ceridwen:
>James Potter died a great guy.  When he was a teenager, Lily Evans 
>called him a 'toerag', said he was no better than Snape, and that >she would prefer a date with the Giant Squid to a date with James.

>As a teenager, James Potter decided to harass and bully another 
>student because his best friend Sirius was bored.  When he was >called on his behavior, he gave the reason that Snape deserved it >for just existing.  

<snip>  

>He comes across as your typical arrogant, self-satisfied jock of a >teen with brains he probably doesn't use to their fullest extent.

Joe: 

"Typical arrogant, self-satisfied jock" - right there is part of the issue I have with the James detractors. It smacks of high school stereotypes. Yeah, you can get that from a five minutes scene. It, of course, is the same James Potter that learned how to be an Animagus to help his werewolf friend. Showing both that he was at least loyal to some and that he probably did use his brain to the fullest extent.
   
Not to mention we have no idea why James was willing to hex Snape. Did they have an altercation earlier, who Knows? I suspect at this point both of them feel perfect justified in hexing the other.
   
 rue Lilly called him a toerag. Of course I doubt that she knew the dangers he went through to aid his friend either. I think she might have thought differently had she known.


>Ceridwen:

<snip>

>As an adult, he withholds information about Sirius's Animagus status >even though he does suspect or wholeheartedly believe that Sirius >was the one who betrayed the Potters to Voldemort.  
<snip>  
 
Joe: 

Do we know that he didn't tell anyone about Sirius being an Animagus? Since they were both in the first Order I suspect that at the very least Dumbledore knew. I would also imagine Dumbledore had known since Sirius told Snape about the Williow.

>Ceridwen:

<snip>
>And, Dark Magic isn't illegal.  There is no place in canon that says 
>so.  There are three Unforgivable Curses which will earn you an 
>immediate trip to Azkaban.  But that's all.
   
Joe: 

Odd that if Dark Magic isn't illegal that then Ministry can raid a house looking for Dark objects, isn't it?


>Ceridwen:

<snip>

Your sudden switch to friends or lack thereof is a straw man that has 
nothing to do with your paragraph's original idea.  In fact, Snape's 
lack of social skills coupled with the Pensieve memory would argue 
for, not against, James and Sirius ganging up on Snape two to one, 
since James and Sirius had each other for friends, while Snape had no 
one, yet we do know that their rivalry continued all through school.

<snip>

Joe: 

The fact that Snape had poor social skills does not mean that there were not other Slytherins in the same boat who would aid him. The very house structure implies that this would be the case.
   
As for James continuing to hex Snape I suggest that Snape more than likely did the same thing. At this point there is not way they would stop until they left school.


Ceridwen:

Canon for Auror!James?  I was under the impression that he was rich, 
the only son of an older couple in fact, and did not have to work.  
Also, people liked James, much as they like Harry, but where does it 
say that he 'worked to help people'?  Nice people don't always work 
to help others.  Sometimes, they're just likeable.

Snape regretted telling the prophecy at least two months before the 
Potters' deaths, if not sooner.  In his statement at the Pensieve 
hearing in GoF, Dumbledore says that Snape 'returned' to the good 
side and spied on Voldemort 'at great personal risk'.  

<snip>

Joe: 

I stand corrected as to Auror James. I still maintain James's actions as an adult show at the very least that he learned valuable lessions while young and could not have merely been the person we see in Snape's memory. 
   
Yeah, some people are just likable. Of course there are reasons why people are likable. Generally you aren't likable if you are just arrogant, rude, insensitive and selfish.
   
Yes, Snape regretted telling Voldemort, so what? Snape is a highly intelligent man no matter what. He could easily see the implications of the prophecy and yet told it to Voldemort knowing what sort of monster he was dealing with.
   
Voldemort's following actions were very easy to predict. So much so that the Potters had to go into hiding.
   
The very popular idea that he regretted it being Lily Potter's child is even more damning as it at least implies that he would not have regretted it if the child killed had been Neville or in fact some unknown child.
   
Joe



Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/HBF_Text__MUST_READ

Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying!




    
---------------------------------
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 

    
    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. 

    
---------------------------------
  



		
---------------------------------
New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.

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






From joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 27 19:36:54 2006
From: joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com (Joe Goodwin)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 11:36:54 -0800 (PST)
Subject: The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span.
In-Reply-To: <700201d40603271040h510fdaffi481e834cc4937c9e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20060327193654.69271.qmail@web61315.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150145

>>Leah wrote:

>> Sorry, not remembered rightly. Harry wondered if James had forced
>>Lily to marry him. 

<snip>

>>Of course I agree that Lily wasn't coerced into marrying James and
>>didn't feel that she was being coereced, but that's irrelevant.
>>What Harry felt (briefly) at the time, after seeing James' treatment
>>of Snape, was that James was capable of so forcing her. <<

Joe:

Isn't the point, though, that all evidence points to Harry's feelings
being wrong? James and Lily did get married and we have no reason
other than Harry's thought (based on one scene) that there was any
thing wrong at all.

I agree Harry could have thought his Mom might have been forced but
then again he thought he was saving Sirius at the Ministry. He
overreacts to certain things, understandable so.

Isn't it what Harry felt irrelevant and the truth more so?

>>Kemper:

<snip>

>>So, Joe, you're right the chapter shows one brief scene 
>>in James' and Snape's relationship, but you're laughably wrong to 
>>suggest this was a one time event. <<
   
Joe: 

I hope no one thinks I believe that James and Sirius only had one 
encounter with Snape during school. That said we don't have legions 
of canon chacters talking about what horrible people they were in 
school either. They were very teenage boys like so many that pass 
through schools every year. The only thing that makes them stand out 
is that they were both good looking, talented and charismatic. Much 
of the dislike I see for these characters I think is caused by those 
traits alone.
  
>>Kemper:
>> The truth is that James and Sirius were the cool crowd, and Snape 
>>was gigantic nerd.  Jocks against the D&D kid.  No where in the >>scene do we see status as equal. <snip> << 
   
Joe: 

If we have to use high school stereotypes then at least let's be a 
bit more accurate. Snape is bit like the all black wearing, be 
different be like us Cure crowd. Not to mention all 'groups' tend to 
make fun of and pick on those that aren't like them in school. Are 
you trying to imply that Snape had no means to defend himself and 
never was the aggressor? I think most would find that highly unlikely.
   
Yeah, Sirius was an arrogant teen, big deal. Most teens are, even 
the skulking around all in black ones. You don't think Snape thought 
he was better than others? The word "Mudblood" rings a bell....
   
I'm guessing that Snape's detention forms are in the same place 
Draco's are.

>Pippin:
>James may have had little hope of defeating Voldemort in battle;
>nevertheless if he'd won, he'd have saved his own life too. I think
>that may lessen his sacrifice in JKR's eyes, make it less pure.
>Lily did not even have a hope of saving herself.

>Pippin

Joe:

I don't know about that. I think the nature of wizarding spells might led to many duels where neither of the combatants went unharmed. I suspect that James would have died even if he had somehow beaten Voldemort.

Honestly, I don't see how going out fighting is less worthy of respect than going out begging.

I think the minute they decided not to  apparate away they entered into therealm of laudable sacrifice.  My own opinion is that we will find out that the value of Lilly's sacrifice will be that it was because she was his mother not that hers was some how more than James's. Sort of a variation on the whole 'A mother's love' thing.

Joe







From mosaic at wi.rr.com  Tue Mar 28 01:08:48 2006
From: mosaic at wi.rr.com (mosaic at wi.rr.com)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 19:08:48 -0600
Subject: Harry as Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <e09ufg+igjm@eGroups.com>
References: <20060327233308.24070.qmail@web52810.mail.yahoo.com>
 <e09ufg+igjm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <c595a5e65681.5681c595a5e6@rdc-kc.rr.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150146

> Alcuin:
> However, the possibility remains open that Voldemort _unwittingly_ 
> made Harry a horcrux.  Perhaps he intended to murder Harry as part 
> of a horcrux-making spell while planning to use some other object for 
> the actual horcrux, but when his killing curse backfired, Harry 
> somehow became the horcrux, bearing a part of Voldemort's soul.  
> This would explain why Harry is a parselmouth, as Dumbledore hints at at 
> the end of CoS. 

Mosaicwench:

The more I've gone back and read and re-read, I don't think LV
unwittingly made Harry a Horcrux, I think it was deliberate.  Perhaps
that green light he remembers as a child was from another type of spell
rather than the AK - one that made him a human horcrux. No one else ever
survived the AK, but we don't know anyone else who hase been made into a
human Horcrux, either.

When the sorting hat sorted Harry it said "Are you sure? (Not Slytherin)
You could be great you konw, it's ALL HERE IN YOUR HEAD (emphasis mine),
and Slytherin will help you on the way to greatness . . ."  I don't
believe there is anything in Harry's background or past that would point
the hat to a Slytherin placement - unless he had a little piece of Voldy
in him . . . It would explain the parselmouth, and the dream Harry had
the very first night at Hogwarts when Quirrel's turban was telling him
to switch to Slytherin at once because it is his destiny.  

I'm probably wrong, but I like my theory and during re-reading I seem to
find all sorts of evidence to support it.

mosaicwench






From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Tue Mar 28 01:22:11 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 01:22:11 -0000
Subject: The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span.
In-Reply-To: <4E6E8002-9C9A-4AD8-9644-C62E15470E9A@alltel.net>
Message-ID: <e0a343+p817@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150147

kchuplis:
> 
> I keep coming back to this too. How much of this is because it is 
how  
> SNAPE saw it. In the other pensieve memories we have seen, the  
> subjects have not had necessarily any kind of bias or at least not  
> anything like what we know of Snape. We have no idea how much bias  
> colors a pensieve memory.  

Ceridwen:
According to Rowling, a Pensieve memory is an objective recording of 
an event.  From the Leaky Cauldron/Mugglenet interview:

***MA: One of our Leaky "Ask Jo" poll winners is theotherhermit, 
she's 50 and lives in a small town in the eastern US. I think this 
was addressed in the sixth book, but, "Do the memories stored in a 
Pensieve reflect reality or the views of the person they belong to?"

JKR: It's reality. It's important that I have got that across, 
because Slughorn gave Dumbledore this pathetic cut-and-paste memory. 
He didn't want to give the real thing, and he very obviously patched 
it up and cobbled it together. So, what you remember is accurate in 
the Pensieve.***
http://www.mugglenet.com/jkrinterview3.shtml

kchuplis:
> And seeing anything in isolation can be  
> deceiving. I really can't see everyone calling James a great guy 
(and  
> everyone HAS except Snape) if he was really as big of a git all 
the  
> time as the pensieve scene showed. 

Ceridwen:
How would people you haven't seen since high school see you now?  
Will they think you have chanaged?  Would you think they have changed?

James probably changed as he matured.  Everyone changes as they gain 
more experiences and as they grow.  People who knew James as an adult 
speak highly of him.  Snape apparently didn't hang out with James&Co 
after they left Hogwarts, so his memories of James will be of the 
younger, more foolish, James in school.  This is the way MWPP were at 
fifteen to sixteen years old.  This is the way James was.  This was 
James the 'toerag', who was less desirable a date than the Giant 
Squid.  This was not the James spoken of with admiration.  This was 
not the James who died to save his family.  This was the 'before', 
while people who knew him at the end speak of the 'after'.

Ceridwen.







From AllieS426 at aol.com  Tue Mar 28 01:21:59 2006
From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 01:21:59 -0000
Subject: But DID James listen? (was LID!Snape rides again )
In-Reply-To: <e03qbn+tf5j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0a33n+gg74@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150148

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "h2so3f" <h2so3f at ...> wrote:
>
> What I'm wondering is what was the minor fall out between Lupin and 
> Sirius before the SK has been decided on that made them suspicious 
> of each other. And could that have been set up by Wormtail precisely 
> to give himself a better chance at getting the SK job. 
> 
> CH3ed :O)
>

Allie:

Ah, very clever.  It could have been at LV's suggestion, but doesn't 
have to be.  It would have been very easy for Peter and doesn't even 
have to be complex - "Sirius, you know, I shouldn't say anything 
but...  I overheard Remus talking and he's telling people that YOU'RE 
the spy!"  And say the reverse to Lupin.  Sounds very junior high 
school gossipy but Sirius is not the most mature person around, as we 
know.







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 28 01:24:31 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 01:24:31 -0000
Subject: The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span.
In-Reply-To: <4E6E8002-9C9A-4AD8-9644-C62E15470E9A@alltel.net>
Message-ID: <e0a38f+htvc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150149

> kchuplis:
> 
> I keep coming back to this too. How much of this is because it is 
how  
> SNAPE saw it. In the other pensieve memories we have seen, the  
> subjects have not had necessarily any kind of bias or at least 
not  
> anything like what we know of Snape. We have no idea how much 
bias  
> colors a pensieve memory.  And seeing anything in isolation can 
be  
> deceiving. I really can't see everyone calling James a great guy 
(and  
> everyone HAS except Snape) if he was really as big of a git all 
the  
> time as the pensieve scene showed. If one were to describe many 
of  
> Harry's adventures, he would or could sound like an arrogant show 
off  
> and yet we know that is never in his intentions. Perspective  
> perspective perspective.
>


Alla:

I often bring the following thing, Karen when discussing the 
Pensieve scene, etc. Wonderful Vmonte ( who unfortunately does not 
post here anymore, it seems) brought it up for the first time.

Let's imagine dear Draco putting in the Pensieve his memory of the 
train incident from GoF, moreover let's imagine that somebody, 
anybody gets to view this memory NOT from the beginning, but from 
the moment when Trio and others hex him.

Hmmmm, I wonder whether the person who will watch this memory would 
consider Draco to be the victim here?

I know I would have, BUT just think how much difference it makes if 
we were to see this memory from the beginning, when Draco shows up 
uninvited and starts mocking Cedric death and threatening Ron and 
Hermione's lives.

So, yes, perspective indeed, I agree with you.


 > Nikkalmati:
>  
> I am a little puzzled.  What have your been reading? I have been 
> following this list since last November and I don't think this 
topic 
> has been overdone.  In fact, compared to some topics which have 
been 
> beaten to death <g>, it has hardly been mentioned at all. 

Alla:

Oh, please believe me, when I say it - we used to do many rounds on 
this topic in not so distant past :) NOT that I am complaining at 
all.

Nikkalmati:
 I also 
> don't recall seeing a post before yours which called 
James "horrible" 
> or anything like it.  I do have some issues with Harry's Dad, and 
as 
> I said, I hope we see more good of him in the next book. Harry, 
after 
> all, was pretty upset himself by the scene.


Alla:

Would you like some links on this? Just tell me off list and I will 
send them to you. :) 

Personally I had seen enough good of James before Pensieve scene and 
think that Harry just needs to come to terms with his dad being a 
flawed human being, but overall rather decent human being IMO of 
course, after all as far as I am aware James did not KILL anybody.

I was VERY pleased that James ceased being a saint after OOP. I love 
his character so much more now, since to me the GOOD he had done is 
much more than the BAD.






From nrenka at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 28 01:24:26 2006
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 01:24:26 -0000
Subject: The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span.
In-Reply-To: <700201d40603271040h510fdaffi481e834cc4937c9e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e0a38a+tvsm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150150

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kemper <iam.kemper at ...> wrote:

> Kemper now:
> The truth is that James and Sirius were the cool crowd, and Snape 
> was gigantic nerd.  Jocks against the D&D kid.  No where in the 
> scene do we see status as equal.

As I've brought up before, I'm wary of projecting the whole "jocks 
and nerds" paradigm wholescale onto Hogwarts' social structure.  You 
do that and you start getting people making statements like "The 
Marauders are the kids responsible for Columbine", which strikes me 
as...slightly hyperbolic.

For one thing, the poor D&D geeks don't usually have any means of 
recourse: they *can't* fight back.  Certainly not Snape's situation 
in all aspects, because he's the one who does the most physical 
damage with a toned-down use of the very nasty cutting curse he seems 
to have invented.  When all the kids are running around with wands 
and everyone can do magic, the scales are potentially much more 
equal.  (And there's always more equality present amongst classmates 
than between students and teachers.)  A situation that strikes me as 
*genuinely* unequal is Neville in the earlier books versus his 
tormentors.

I also don't know that we've seen the kinds of privilege usually 
associated with 'jocks', or even the general type, for sure.  James 
and crew are cited as being very smart, so we don't have the 'dumb 
jock' stereotype.  And while Quidditch is popular, I'm not sure it's 
a guaranteed or proven thing that it thus brings the kind of high 
social status associated with American jockdom.

> Kemper, who's wondering where all the detention/punishment forms are
> for Snape in Filch's filing cabinet. 

I wonder where they are; they certainly may be there, or they may 
not, as we can't prove either way at the moment.  But surely all of 
us have known some types in our lives (since we've pulled in 'I was a 
geeky youngster' into the argument already) who managed to 
continually get away with evading their eminently merited official 
punishment.  Tended to be the sneaky passive-aggressive types...

-Nora was, herself, eminently well-behaved, and even avoided the 
temptation of misuse of the chem lab







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 28 01:36:28 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 01:36:28 -0000
Subject: Young James v Older James WAS: Re: The Huge overreactions .
In-Reply-To: <e0a343+p817@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0a3us+bsrv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150151

> Ceridwen:
<SNIP>
> How would people you haven't seen since high school see you now?  
> Will they think you have chanaged?  Would you think they have 
changed?
> 
> James probably changed as he matured.  Everyone changes as they 
gain 
> more experiences and as they grow.  People who knew James as an 
adult 
> speak highly of him.  Snape apparently didn't hang out with 
James&Co 
> after they left Hogwarts, so his memories of James will be of the 
> younger, more foolish, James in school.  This is the way MWPP were 
at 
> fifteen to sixteen years old.  This is the way James was.  This 
was 
> James the 'toerag', who was less desirable a date than the Giant 
> Squid.  This was not the James spoken of with admiration.  This 
was 
> not the James who died to save his family.  This was the 'before', 
> while people who knew him at the end speak of the 'after'.
> 

Alla:

Sorry, I have to disagree - not in a sense of sixteen year old James 
being perfect, but in a sense that people say good things only about 
after school James, more mature James. I think already at that age 
James had enough good in him, and enough bad of course, but no, I am 
not buying the "after" only good things :)

Dumbledore speaks  here of teenage James too, no?

"I knew your father very well, both at Hogwarts and later, Harry," 
he said gently. "He would  have saved Pettigrew too, I am sure 
not." - PoA, p.427.

Wouldn't you agree that DD does not just say here that James would 
have saved his friend Pettigrew? I think he says  metaphorically 
that James would have showed mercy to the enemies and James " both 
in Hogwarts and later".

Nag, I think that even young James had plenty good qualities and 
hopefully Harry will get a chance to hear about them and not just 
about his dad's heroic death.

JMO,

Alla






From joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 28 00:47:39 2006
From: joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com (Joe Goodwin)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 16:47:39 -0800 (PST)
Subject: The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span
In-Reply-To: <26f.887b793.3159da77@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20060328004739.82036.qmail@web61316.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150152

Julie:
>> The thing is, it's not an either/or situation. One person doesn't 
have to be good while the other is bad. Fact is, it's very probable 
Snape was a nasty little git during his school years at Hogwarts, 
doing his fair share of hexing those who annoyed him. But we also 
now know factually that James was an arrogant prick at least some of 
the time during his years at Hogwarts. <snip> <<
   
Joe: 
I would argue that there were real differences between the behavior 
of the two but I can agree with a good bit of what you are saying.
  
Julie:
>> <snip> James isn't GOOD and Snape isn't BAD (especially if he 
turns out to be DDM), just as very few people in the real world are 
GOOD or BAD but a mix of both positive and negative traits and 
tendencies. <snip> <<

Joe: 
Now here I have to disagree with the good/bad issue. For one I think 
there are a number of good people in the world and I think there are 
a number of bad people in the world as well. Now are there any 
totally flawed or totally perfect, no probably not.
   
Snape is almost certainly a bad person. Note, I'm not saying he is 
on Voldemort's side. However you don't add up his actions that we 
know of and get the sum of a good person. James was a good man who 
has had some of his teenage errors blown way out of proportion. I 
would also like to say that I don't think Snape's jinking of James 
and others are part of his character issue. I have a feeling that it 
happened all the time in a school divided by Houses and that somewhat 
encouraged rivalries. Add into that picture that Snape and James were 
what the other more than likely most disliked.
   
kchuplis:
>> <snip> We have no idea how much bias colors a pensieve memory.
And seeing anything in isolation can be deceiving. I really can't
see everyone calling James a great guy (and everyone HAS except
Snape) if he was really as big of a git all the time as the pensieve
scene showed. <snip> <<

Joe:
Thanks, I thnk you put it better than I did. You don't get almost
universally loved by being horrible. You can get that way having made
a few mistakes though. 

Catherine now:
>> There's another perspective missing here. This is "Snape's worst 
memory". Not "James' worst" or "Sirius' worst". This is the worst 
thing that, according the JKR, ever happened to Snape. <snip> I have 
a feeling that the parallels from the marauders' time is more James-
Draco, and Snape-Harry. I have a feeling that there will be 
redemption for Draco as there was for James. Lily saw the best in
people, even James. <<

Joe:
I don't think James was as much redeemed as he grew up. I am a bit
curious about your James/Draco parallel. James showed off too much
and his pranks went too far sometimes. Draco tried to murder someone
repeatedly with his only excuse being incompetence. Then he let
Death Eaters into Hogwarts.

So honestly am am really intriuged as to the similarities you see.

I also wonder why no one talks about Bellatrix's redemption. Of all
the evil being done by Death Eaters hers may be the most forgivable
if she went mad before she tortured the Longbottoms.

Draco and Snape were both (IMO) fully in control of their facilities 
when they did the things they did. Bellatrix could well have been off 
her nut for quite a long time.






From belviso at attglobal.net  Tue Mar 28 02:08:45 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 21:08:45 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span.
References: <20060327231038.27562.qmail@web37004.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E6E8002-9C9A-4AD8-9644-C62E15470E9A@alltel.net>
Message-ID: <009b01c6520c$8c2bbe40$7bb4400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 150153

> kchuplis:
>
> I keep coming back to this too. How much of this is because it is how
> SNAPE saw it. In the other pensieve memories we have seen, the
> subjects have not had necessarily any kind of bias or at least not
> anything like what we know of Snape. We have no idea how much bias
> colors a pensieve memory.  And seeing anything in isolation can be
> deceiving. I really can't see everyone calling James a great guy (and
> everyone HAS except Snape) if he was really as big of a git all the
> time as the pensieve scene showed. If one were to describe many of
> Harry's adventures, he would or could sound like an arrogant show off
> and yet we know that is never in his intentions. Perspective
> perspective perspective.

Magpie:
Actually, we do know that the Pensieve memories are accurate.  But I just 
wanted to comment on how interesting I find this whole idea, especially 
paired with this example from another thread:

Catherine Higgens:
Actually, Ginny wasn't walking down the corridor jinxing everyone who got in 
her way, she jinxed 1 person (wasn't it Zacharias again? Sorry I can't fing 
HBP at the moment) because he wouldn't stop annoying her about what happened 
at the MoM? And it was also him she crashed into, you'd have thought he 
would have learned not to get on her bad side by now. Ginny isn't perfect, 
but at least she's not wishy-washy. She can defend herself (she does have 6 
older brothers!).

   I think we can pretty much say by now that getting jinxed by a friend is 
a pretty common thing in the WW. One of the twins told Harry not to be on 
the receiving end of her bat-boogey hex, to me it sounded as though they had 
been on the receving end of one. I don't think that this is mean, aggressive 
or bad-natured on Ginny's part, but rather being a teenager with magical 
abilities...

Magpie:
See, I find it immediately funny that one would pair "And it was also him 
she crashed into, you'd have thought he would have learned not to get on her 
bad side by now. Ginny isn't perfect, but at least she's not wishy-washy. 
She can defend herself (she does have 6 older brothers!)" with "I don't 
think that this is mean, aggressive or bad-natured on Ginny's part, but 
rather being a teenager with magical abilities..."

To me, yes, this is mean and aggressive and bad-natured.   It's not 
defending herself, either. Good for Zach for not just "learning not to get 
on her bad side." I couldn't figure out why everybody seemed to hate Zach 
from the year before.

I bring it up because I think this is something that's getting lost here, 
which is that somebody can be a great guy and a grade-A jerk at the same 
time. It happens all the time.  I thought ever since PoA the Marauders 
clearly taunted Snape cruelly (they tease him through the map and I assumed 
that's the way they spoke to him in school), but I never thought this didn't 
fit with the James who became an animagi to keep his friend company or threw 
himself in front of the door to protect his family.  James' jerk qualities 
go right along with this heroic ones.  What's great about the Pensieve is 
it's not even just James being a bully (and nothing in this scene is taken 
out of context--he's not being framed and there's no bit of Snape "starting 
it" that's cut out) it's James being vain and an idiot, ruffling his hair 
and looking to see if the girls were watching etc.  Harry has to forgive him 
for that too.  Yet Harry himself could easily come across badly in a 
snapshot from an enemy's pov too.

So it's not necessarily that James had to change all that much at all. 
McGonagall, imo, is a perfect example of the kind of thing that's being 
denied in the OP of the thread.  She gets positively misty over the 
Marauders being such little scamps, and this is apparently when she's 
remembering the kids who picked on Snape, not the Order members. People just 
have personalities that strike other people differently--and it's not always 
connected to them doing the right thing or not.  I liked James a lot more 
after the Pensieve scene because he made me laugh in the way he was a jerk. 
Ginny I can't stand.  In a book full of bullies she's the one I have no 
warmth for.  Some people think Sirius is a jerk no matter what his tragedies 
are. For some people Snape could turn out to be Aslan in disguise and still 
be a jerk.

For Snape, James was a jerk and he never changed, no matter what he did--and 
you know, Snape was probably right, because I don't think James ever really 
changed fundementally. He was always a hero as well as the guy who hexed 
people.  The only way they could have gotten together, imo, would be if they 
had a serious conversation and got to see how the other person saw them and 
understood the other person.  Basically, they would need exactly the type of 
thing that Rowling loves to write about, where they saw their past 
interactions differently knowing how the other person was feeling. I think 
Harry is primed to do this where James and Snape never did.  They need to 
get beyond the self-satisfied idea that all the people who count think 
they're great and all the people who don't think they're great don't count/ 
he started it because what I do is justified and what he does is just him 
being a jerk.

-m







From djklaugh at comcast.net  Tue Mar 28 02:15:24 2006
From: djklaugh at comcast.net (Deb)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 02:15:24 -0000
Subject: The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span.
In-Reply-To: <e0a343+p817@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0a67s+f9rg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150154


(Snip)
 Ceridwen:
> According to Rowling, a Pensieve memory is an objective recording 
of 
> an event.  From the Leaky Cauldron/Mugglenet interview:
> 
> ***MA: One of our Leaky "Ask Jo" poll winners is theotherhermit, 
> she's 50 and lives in a small town in the eastern US. I think this 
> was addressed in the sixth book, but, "Do the memories stored in a 
> Pensieve reflect reality or the views of the person they belong 
to?"
> 
> JKR: It's reality. It's important that I have got that across, 
> because Slughorn gave Dumbledore this pathetic cut-and-paste 
memory. 
> He didn't want to give the real thing, and he very obviously 
patched 
> it up and cobbled it together. So, what you remember is accurate 
in 
> the Pensieve.***
> http://www.mugglenet.com/jkrinterview3.shtml


Deb here:
  What has been puzzling me about "Snape's Worst Memory" is - how is 
it possible for Harry - being within Snape's memory as he is - hear 
what James, Sirius, Remus, and Peter are talking about at the end of 
the DADA OWL exam?  During that conversation they are talking about 
doing so well on the question of werewolves and Lupin admits he is a 
werewolf. Yet this memory is alleged to have occurred before "the 
Prank" so Snape would not have known that Remus is a werewolf at 
that time. And, as I read the scene, Snape was not close enough to 
them when this conversation was taking place to overhear it. So - 
how could Harry hear this conversation in the midst of Snape's 
memory????  JKR says that Penseive memories are reality and I take 
that to mean that they are exactly what the owner of the memory 
experienced. So did (does) Snape have extraordinarily good hearing 
and actually knew before the Prank that Remus is a werewolf? Or has 
he also doctored his memory to include things he learned later? Or 
is this another FLINT?   

Deb (aka djklaugh) -     









From joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 27 19:54:48 2006
From: joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com (Joe Goodwin)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 11:54:48 -0800 (PST)
Subject: James Potter and the Dark Arts (was Re: The Huge overreactions
In-Reply-To: <e09e5c+dkvq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060327195448.32857.qmail@web61323.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150155

Potioncat:
>> Hysteria? Yeah, I think I went hysterical the first time I read 
this chapter. James did such a thing? *James?* Wonderful, heroic, 
brave James Potter? (I'm not being sarcastic here. This was my 
reaction.) <snip> <<

Joe: 
I thought some of those very same things honestly. I also wondered 
why no one stood up for Snape until Lily. If it had been Neville or 
Luna as you mention lower someone would have done something. How do 
you end up with no one in an entire school liking you? Is the problem 
everyone else in the school or is it you?

Potioncat:
>> Can you provide the location for that quote? <snip> <<  

Joe: 
I might be confusing the two things here so I will go back and take 
a look.

Potioncat:
>> Let's go back to chapter 28, after Severus calls Lily a Mudblood, 
she says to James, "...walking down corridors and hexing anyone who 
annoys you just because you can..."

So we have Lily, paragon of virtue, saying that James hexes people 
just because he can. <snip> <<
   
Joe: 
Well at that point I imagine Lily was a bit embarassed at being 
insulted by someone she was trying to help. I don't deny that James, 
Sirius and probably dozens of others cast hexes and jinks at the drop 
of a hat. In fact I would be surprised had it been otherwise.

Potioncat:
>> <snip> Apparently that upside down jinx was used a lot. (From 
Lupin, in HBP) <snip> Some kids would never take that joke very well 
and of course, no one would laugh at being completely exposed. <<
   
Joe: 
Of course it was Snape who invented it. So a ton of my sympathy for 
him goes out the window. I mean if you invent a spell designed to 
embarrass people then it is sort of fitting that you get embarrassed 
by it.

Potioncat:
>> This is the point where the discussion turns to "When is a hex a 
hex and when is it Dark Art?" I don't know. But I wonder if James's 
association with Dorea Black Potter has anything to do with his hate 
for the Darks Arts? <<
   
  Joe: 
I am guessing that James hated the Dark Arts from the start and then 
(probably) being exposed to Sirius's family made it worse.
   
Neither James or Sirius was perfect my any means. My main objection 
is when someone attempts to make Snape look better by attempting to 
make James look worse than he was. 
   
Only one of them ended up with a Dark Mark on his arm.







From AllieS426 at aol.com  Tue Mar 28 02:40:18 2006
From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 02:40:18 -0000
Subject: Why wasnt Harry sent to either a lightsided wizarding family or a muggle fam
In-Reply-To: <e09lcj+jdn7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0a7mi+qupg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150156

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:
>

> Since we don't know how the Blood Protection Charm works, we, also,
> can not determine with certainy, it's boundaries. It is limited to 
the
> house, or is it limited to any and all land that the Dursley's 
own? Is
> it concentrated on that one place, and gradually diminishing as you
> move away, or does it end at the boundary of the property? 

Allie:

We don't know for sure, but it does seem to extend at least to their 
front yard.  Uncle Vernon tries to strangle Harry through the window 
and suffers some type of electric shock that stops him.  I suppose 
this could have been unintentionally generated by Harry himself, but 
then we would have had the Ministry swooping down on him.  

I've asked many times, and never receieved a satisfactory answer - 
if this excellent protection is ONLY in effect while Harry is in 
that house, why is he not told to STAY IN THE STUPID HOUSE after the 
graveyard in GoF?  Voldemort arises from a cauldron, and then a 
month later Harry's out wandering around his neighborhood alone at 
night, with nobody but a useless idiot and a squib following him?  
It makes no sense!!  Dumbledore could have told him to stay indoors 
as much as possible until someone comes for him.  Only AFTER the 
Dementor attack does someone finally tell Harry not to leave the 
house.  Well done, Order of the Phoenix.  You guys are just as on 
the ball as the Death Eaters.  






From kchuplis at alltel.net  Tue Mar 28 02:48:14 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 20:48:14 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why wasnt Harry sent to either a lightsided wizarding family or a muggle fam
In-Reply-To: <e0a7mi+qupg@eGroups.com>
References: <e0a7mi+qupg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <811C08CE-3450-4CDA-AB62-1EBBCD26E232@alltel.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 150157



On Mar 27, 2006, at 8:40 PM, allies426 wrote:

> I've asked many times, and never receieved a satisfactory answer -
> if this excellent protection is ONLY in effect while Harry is in
> that house, why is he not told to STAY IN THE STUPID HOUSE after the
> graveyard in GoF?


kchuplis:

Mostly because ....well.... they don't tell Harry ANYTHING. THAT IS  
WHY HE BECOMES CAPSLOCK!Harry. To tell you the truth, I have never  
blamed him for being CAPSLOCK. I sure would have been.



From celizwh at intergate.com  Tue Mar 28 02:52:14 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 02:52:14 -0000
Subject: Pensieve memories (was Re: The Huge overreaction)
In-Reply-To: <e0a67s+f9rg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0a8cu+cqvc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150158

Ceridwen:

> > [...]
> > JKR: It's reality. It's important that I have got 
> > that across because Slughorn gave Dumbledore this pathetic 
> > cut-and-paste memory. He didn't want to give the real 
> > thing, and he very obviously patched  it up and cobbled 
> > it together. So, what you remember is accurate in  the 
> > Pensieve.***
> > http://www.mugglenet.com/jkrinterview3.shtml

Deb here:
>   What has been puzzling me about "Snape's Worst 
> Memory" is - how is  it possible for Harry - being 
> within Snape's memory as he is - hear  what James, 
> Sirius, Remus, and Peter are talking about at the end 
> of  the DADA OWL exam?  [...] so Snape would not 
> have known that Remus is a werewolf at that time. 
> And, as I read the scene, Snape was not close enough 
> to them when this conversation was taking place to 
> overhear it. So - how could Harry hear this conversation 
> in the midst of Snape's memory????

houyhnhnm:

If wizards do have keener hearing than muggles, then they would also
have to have a greater ability to filter out excess stimuli or they
would find themselves in the condition that is said to afflict people
with autism.

The interview continues:
*************************
ES: I was dead wrong about that.

JKR: Really?

ES: I thought for sure that it was your interpretation of it. It
didn't make sense to me to be able to examine your own thoughts from a
third-person perspective. It almost feels like you'd be cheating
because you'd always be able to look at things from someone else's
point of view.

MA: So there are things in there that you haven't noticed personally,
but you can go and see yourself?

JKR: Yes, and that's the magic of the Pensieve, that's what brings it
alive.

ES: I want one of those!

JKR: Yeah. Otherwise it really would just be like a diary, wouldn't
it? Confined to what you remember. But the Pensieve recreates a moment
for you, so you could go into your own memory and relive things that
you didn't notice the time. It's somewhere in your head, which I'm
sure it is, in all of our brains. I'm sure if you could access it,
things that you don't know you remember are all in there somewhere.    
*************************

I don't think real human memories work that way at all, so this is a
magical phenomenon we are dealing with, not something we can relate to
our own experience.

However, Rowling is very clear about the way that Pensieve memories
work.  Whether it makes sense or not that someone could have a memory
of a conversation that was too far away to hear, we have Herself's own
word that what you see in a Pensieve is the way it happened.

Except that now I am wondering about the pov of the person visiting
the Pensieve. Could two people observe the same memory and see things
differently?  Could you go back in the Pensieve  to view the same
memory for a second time and see things you missed before?  








From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 28 03:04:34 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 03:04:34 -0000
Subject: CHAP DISC: HBP 13, The Secret Riddle
In-Reply-To: <e09so3+c0do@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0a942+pq9d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150159

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" <stevejjen at ...> 
wrote:
>
> CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, 
Chapter
> 13, The Secret Riddle
<SNIP of the greatest summary ever :-))
>> Questions:
>  
> 1. What reaction did you have to Hermione, Ron and Dumbledore 
> refusing to talk to Harry about his theory that Draco was behind 
the 
> incident with Katie?

Alla:

Others already called it odd, me too, but I also found it incredibly 
annoying. I mean, here we go - Harry doing the right thing, TALKING 
about his suspicions to adults and his friends and what do they do, 
erm... not much, IMO.

I mean, yes Arthur supposedly checks something and DD says he knows, 
but to me the fact that Draco was able to get DE into school, almost 
killing two people in process proves that they did not do enough and 
yes, Ron and Hermione not believing Harry WAS odd, IMO.


> 3. How do you think Dumbledore plans to stop Mundungus from 
> pilfering the Black family heirlooms?

Alla:

I don't know, but Dung really went down on my list of good people 
after that episode . Selling dead people's things - not cool, not 
cool at all.

I mean, he is a thief, but to steal from dead, nah.... Not cool.



> 5. Dumbledore offers Harry his interpretation of why Merope did 
not 
> use magic to get the things she needed to survive. Do you think 
> Merope chose not to perform magic after Riddle, Sr. left her, or 
> that she was incapable of doing so?

Alla:

I don't think she chose it, I agree with Karen, I think we had 
enough hints in canon that emotional pain weakens witch or wizard 
abilities.
  

  
> 8. Why do you think Dumbledore drew attention to the fact that 
Harry 
> was 'possibly [ ] feeling sorry for Lord Voldemort?' 

Alla:

I agree that feeling pity for his enemies will prove to be very 
important, but I also again want to say how much I love JKR's 
writing sometimes. That was so skillfully done, IMO. Not preaching 
or anything like that, IMO Harry's pity came very naturally. Of 
course it was brief, very brief and Harry is sort of embarassed, but 
IMO that was an amazing thing to feel even brief pity for the man 
who killed one's parents.

I am not sure I would be able to do that, G-d forbid.


> 9. After learning Merope died rather than live for her son, Harry 
> expressed anger that she made a poor choice compared to Lily, 
> who 'didn't have a choice'. Dumbledore corrected him gently, 
saying 
> Lily *did* have a choice. Why do you think Harry didn't believe 
Lily 
> had a choice when he heard the memory in POA of Voldemort telling 
> her to 'step aside'?
erm?

Alla:

 I understand his thinking. He does not think that Voldemort is the 
type who lets his enemies live for any reason, IMO. And I think it 
is reasonable to think so.

But I used to agree with you and still am - I do think that 
Voldemort was prepared to let Lily live especially since JKR pretty 
much confirmed it in the interview.

 
> 12. As Harry leaves the office he notices the ring is gone and 
> wonders whether the mouth organ Riddle had stowed in the cardboard 
> box might be of importance. Dumbledore beams at him and 
says, "very 
> astute Harry, but the mouth organ was only ever a mouth organ." 
Was 
> there any reason Dumbledore answered Harry's question so 
> cryptically? And why was he pleased to hear Harry say that? On a 
> side note, do you think that was a JKR message to fans? :)
> 

Alla:

Confession - I had NO clue what DD meant here, still don't, but your 
explanation about it being message to us is just fine with me :-)

Sometimes that is indeed so :)

Thanks, Jen.






From AllieS426 at aol.com  Tue Mar 28 03:06:29 2006
From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 03:06:29 -0000
Subject: Why wasnt Harry sent to either a lightsided wizarding family or a muggle fam
In-Reply-To: <811C08CE-3450-4CDA-AB62-1EBBCD26E232@alltel.net>
Message-ID: <e0a97l+6ip6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150162

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Karen <kchuplis at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> On Mar 27, 2006, at 8:40 PM, allies426 wrote:
> 
> > I've asked many times, and never receieved a satisfactory 
answer -
> > if this excellent protection is ONLY in effect while Harry is in
> > that house, why is he not told to STAY IN THE STUPID HOUSE after 
the
> > graveyard in GoF?
> 
> 
> kchuplis:
> 
> Mostly because ....well.... they don't tell Harry ANYTHING. THAT 
IS  
> WHY HE BECOMES CAPSLOCK!Harry. To tell you the truth, I have 
never  
> blamed him for being CAPSLOCK. I sure would have been.

Allie:

But if Dumbledore is concerned enough about Harry's safety to put a 
tail on him, he should have told him to stay in the house before all 
the reformed OoTP nonsense, before Harry even left school.  Or as 
first priority once the OoTP reforms:  Keep Harry in his house.  Ron 
and Hermione send him owls, so we know they haven't stopped all 
communication to Privet Drive.  









From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Tue Mar 28 03:21:05 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 03:21:05 -0000
Subject: Young James v Older James WAS: Re: The Huge overreactions .
In-Reply-To: <e0a3us+bsrv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0aa31+d5ci@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150164

Alla:
> 
> Sorry, I have to disagree - not in a sense of sixteen year old 
James 
> being perfect, but in a sense that people say good things only 
about 
> after school James, more mature James. I think already at that age 
> James had enough good in him, and enough bad of course, but no, I 
am 
> not buying the "after" only good things :)

Ceridwen:
(I think this might be my fourth post - I'll iron quietly if no one 
mentions it!  If I can type on this for another hour or two, it might 
become my first post for tomorrow... *wish*)

James was not a paragon of virtue.  He had his faults.  By the time 
Harry goes into Snape's memory in OotP, he has built up a saint of a 
man in his mind, the way orphans do.  The same way young Tom Riddle 
built up the idea of a Wizarding father rather rapidly after learning 
of his background.  Tom was brought down immediately, Harry had five 
years of adding to the myth.

What Harry sees is what people who don't associate intimately with 
the Marauders saw in school.  He doesn't see the monthly midnight 
transformations or serious discussions, he sees preening pretty-boys 
who are athletically inclined, trying to impress the girls and each 
other with their prodigious skills, out of boredom after exams.

I know you didn't mention it, but others have, so I'll go there ;) - 
the memory begins during the written portion of the exam and 
continues out to the lake.  There is nothing immediately before this 
point that wasn't seen, or couldn't be assumed from the situation.  
We know from OotP and Harry's own O.W.L.s that the test takes some 
time, and from the Pensieve scene, that Snape took quite a bit of 
time to answer his questions.  There was nothing immediate that MWPP 
were answering with the hexing.  Sirius is bored, so the hexing 
begins.

I think that one thing the books have shown, whether intentional or 
not, is that qualities have both good and bad sides.  The same 
quality which has James, Sirius and Peter learning to be Animaguses 
(Animagi?) to keep Lupin company on full moon nights, also has James 
trying to relieve Sirius's boredom in a less than stellar way by 
hexing Snape.  James is being a friend to his friends in both cases.  
I think it was you who said that James didn't change in any 
fundamental way?  I don't think this particular reading of the two 
sides of friendship and loyalty would go against that.

Alla:
> Dumbledore speaks  here of teenage James too, no?
> 
> "I knew your father very well, both at Hogwarts and later, Harry," 
> he said gently. "He would  have saved Pettigrew too, I am sure 
> not." - PoA, p.427.
> 
> Wouldn't you agree that DD does not just say here that James would 
> have saved his friend Pettigrew? I think he says  metaphorically 
> that James would have showed mercy to the enemies and James " both 
> in Hogwarts and later".

Ceridwen:
I do think that Dumbledore meant that James, like Harry, would prefer 
objective justice over vigilantism.  I don't see this as a 
contradiction to a preening, arrogant, hexing James.  People are 
complex.  And we know from Sirius that James had a strong dislike for 
the Dark Arts, and that Snape was probably the closest schoolmate to 
a Dark Wizard they had.

I do think James is setting himself up as judge and jury here if 
Sirius is correct about the motivation behind the rivalry from 
James's point of view.  I think we can see this in real life, in the 
quandry of when to sit back and let the system take its course, v. 
becoming an activist and perhaps breaking laws to get a cause 
noticed.  I think this is more the arena of the young, who are also 
impatient.  This quality is the downside of a strong moral compass.  
Again, two sides of the same quality being manifest.  Again, James 
does not fundamentally change.

The changes in James, which prompt the later praise from people who 
knew him, was in refining his qualities and redirecting them into 
more productive channels.  It is easy to look back on James's 
friendship and overlooking the negative manifestations for the core 
quality itself, or looking back on his sense of moral direction and 
overlooking his misuse of this compass.  He 'made mistakes' as 
someone said.  He learned, he grew, he refined, and he became the 
person we hear about.  I don't think it's inconsistent.  I just think 
that time, and seeing through to the root quality, makes a difference 
in the way people talk about him now.

Which doesn't mean that he wasn't a 'toerag' or that he should get a 
pass for what we have seen him do.

Someone mentioned (I'm sorry, I read so many of these posts that I 
don't always remember who said what) that Lupin fastened his eyes on 
his book apparently because he knew what was going to happen.  He was 
staring at the page, but Harry noticed that his eyes were not moving, 
and a frown line appeared on his forehead.  So Lupin was used to this 
behavior.  Lupin gave it a pass for whatever reason, and plenty of 
reasons have been advanced.  Lupin is one of the people who praise 
James now.  Lupin was the recipient of James's friendship and loyalty 
on the good side of the quality.  Here he is, ignoring the downside 
of the quality.

I'm not sure if I'm being very clear.  Bravery is good, unless it is 
stupid.  Being a friend is good, unless it is used to harm other 
people for real or imagined slights.  Loyalty is good, unless it is 
used to cover up criminal misdoings.  And so on, and so on.  And 
James has certain traits which made him a good man, but which also 
made him a bratty teenager.

Alla:
> Nag, I think that even young James had plenty good qualities and 
> hopefully Harry will get a chance to hear about them and not just 
> about his dad's heroic death.

Ceridwen:
Hopefully, Harry will learn more about both of his parents.  He 
deserves to know them as well as he can.  I don't think that learning 
that his father was occasionally a bratty twit will lessen his 
experience.  I do think it will make his father more human to him.  
He isn't much different from Harry, who dislikes Draco on a visceral 
level, which is what I imagine James felt for Snape, based on what 
Dumbledore has said.

I don't think it's a service to Harry to paint his parents as 
impossibly perfect people.  I think that's what Augusta Longbottom 
does to Neville.  Poor kid can't ever live up to Gran's idealized 
version of Frank and Alice.  I don't think that's right because then, 
every failure lets his parents down.  It can get to the point where 
it's just better not to try.  This is another thing orphaned kids 
miss about having their parents around.  People do talk about the 
good and allow time to blur the bad.  These kids never get the chance 
to break away from the parental bonds and become people in their own 
right because how can you break away from perfection?

I don't get why James being mean in this scene is some threat to his 
later achievements, or to the way he supports Lupin in his monthly 
change.  I don't understand why it seems to boil down to either 
supporting Noble!James (not saying 'perfect') or DDM!Snape, but not 
both.  I honestly don't see that choice being forced in the books.  
JKR's characters are flawed and, therefore, human.

Ceridwen, who is off on a tangent, probably because it is late and 
she ought to be in bed.






From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 28 03:23:05 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 03:23:05 -0000
Subject: The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span.
In-Reply-To: <009b01c6520c$8c2bbe40$7bb4400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <e0aa6p+om2q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150165

Maybe what we are seeing in James as an adult verses the 
insensitive, selfish, bigshot, jerk he was at 15 is the influence of 
Lily in his life.  Maybe one of the lessons for us is that even 
someone like James, who came from a good family and should have know 
better, but didn't, can change.  (I don't want to say that all he 
needed was the love of a good woman, because that is not enough as 
many good women have discovered.  So we will not go there.)

It is one thing to look at a DE like Snape and say "I am not like 
that, never was, never will be, so this doesn't speak to me".  But 
if someone actually identifies with James, maybe there is hope for 
them too.

Personally I could never treat someone like that when I was a child 
and I simply can not understand someone who could unless they were 
even more evil that LV.  That is just how I feel about mean people 
who are so arrogant and uncaring that no one matters but them. There 
are people who enjoy torturing others.  In this scene James has a 
lot in common with Bella.   James had no empathy for anyone else; or 
at least that is how I feel about him when I see Snape upside down 
in the air.  I know that James cared for Lupin. But in the scene 
with Snape, James seems like a clueless baboon.  

It doesn't matter how bad Snape was.  This scene is not about Snape, 
it is about James.  It is about someone who has no understanding or 
caring about how his actions affect someone else.  Even if Snape was 
mean to James, that is no reason for James to behave as he has.  The 
lesson here is that we must control our own behaviors and do what is 
right because it is right.  James did was easy over what was right.  
Even if he hates Snape, that is no reason to act like an ass.  It is 
not Snape's fault that James is behaving in this manner, it is 
James' choice. And James actions do not tell us anything about 
Snape, but they speak volumes about the type of person young James 
was. 

If somehow James was able to develop empathy for others and 
understand that what we do to ANYONE, even our enemy, we do to 
ourselves, then James did some serious growing up between this scene 
and the time Lily married him.  I like to think that maybe he had a 
little chat with DD somewhere along the line.

Tonks_op








From exodusts at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 28 03:33:51 2006
From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 03:33:51 -0000
Subject: Harry as Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <c595a5e65681.5681c595a5e6@rdc-kc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <e0aaqv+391a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150166

> > Alcuin:
> >
> > However, the possibility remains open that Voldemort 
_unwittingly_ 
> > made Harry a horcrux.  Perhaps he intended to murder Harry as 
part 
> > of a horcrux-making spell while planning to use some other object 
for 
> > the actual horcrux, but when his killing curse backfired, Harry 
> > somehow became the horcrux, bearing a part of Voldemort's soul.  
> > This would explain why Harry is a parselmouth, as Dumbledore 
hints at at 
> > the end of CoS. 


> Mosaicwench:
> 
> The more I've gone back and read and re-read, I don't think LV
> unwittingly made Harry a Horcrux, I think it was deliberate.   
<SNIP>


Exodusts:

One far-fetched idea that I had a while ago was that Voldy 
deliberately planned to make Harry into a Horcrux as the ultimate 
insurance. By making his arch-enemy his life-guarantor he could never 
lose. Something went wrong at the time, he was blown up, DD realises 
what has happened, and has a terrible choice. He could kill Harry and 
destroy Voldemort forever, or let the boy grow and see the return of 
the Dark Lord come about, with only the hope that the boy can beat 
Voldy at the final showdown. This might explain Voldy's taunting of 
DD saying "if death is nothing, kill the boy" etc in OotP.






From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 28 03:51:22 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 03:51:22 -0000
Subject: James Potter and the Dark Arts (was Re: The Huge overreactions
In-Reply-To: <20060327195448.32857.qmail@web61323.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <e0abrq+kl3i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150167

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Joe Goodwin 
<joegoodwin1067 at ...> wrote:
> I thought some of those very same things honestly. I also wondered 
> why no one stood up for Snape until Lily. If it had been Neville 
or Luna as you mention lower someone would have done something. How 
do you end up with no one in an entire school liking you? Is the 
problem everyone else in the school or is it you?

> Snip)
> Joe: 
> Of course it was Snape who invented it. So a ton of my sympathy 
for him goes out the window. I mean if you invent a spell designed 
to embarrass people then it is sort of fitting that you get 
embarrassed by it.
> 

Tonks:
Ceridwen, when you are finished with that iron, I will need to use 
it too.

Point 1. How do we know that no one liked Snape and did not want to 
come to his aid? Maybe it was that no one dared to oppose James and 
Sirius.  How many people, even if the had pitty for the victim would 
take on a bully? Or 2 bullies?  Lily was the brave one here, the 
only brave one.

Point 2. It is said in spell casting that one should be careful what 
one send out because it will come back to you. So here we see what 
the Wicca's call the rule of 3, that is the bad that you give out 
comes back to you 3 time more powerful than what you sent.

Tonks_op







From clark.kentjr at gmail.com  Tue Mar 28 03:28:10 2006
From: clark.kentjr at gmail.com (Clark Kent)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 22:28:10 -0500
Subject: Why wasnt Harry sent to either a lightsided wizarding family or a muggle fam
In-Reply-To: <e09lcj+jdn7@eGroups.com>
References: <e0817n+7o13@eGroups.com> <e09lcj+jdn7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <6ac0e4d60603271928m75d03014r11777ac04adfc1e4@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150168

bboyminn:

>  It would have been too much of a coincidence for
> Harry to disappear one day, and for some non-pregnant family to have a
> new baby the next.

Clark Kent:
 I thought I made that clear, only four people knew of his survival.
Dumbledore, Minerva, Hagrid, and Sirius.  The way JKR wrote it, Voldemort
went there alone.  I don't recall any mention of him bringing Death Eaters,
otherwise they would probably have attacked Hagrid and Sirius when they
showed up.  Besides, if the darkest wizard of the time was killed by a baby
you would probably think, as the students in CoS believe, that he is
destined to be a powerful wizard.  Why not mold him to your own ideals?

How many children do you think had their parents killed during the war?  To
quote HPL "*The Death Eaters use the Unforgivable Curses and the years of
his ascent to power are marked by disappearances, deaths, torture, terror
and atrocities in both the wizarding and Muggle worlds."

*How hard would it be to find a family that was killed, and say that he was
their orphaned son?  Hell, if you wanted to put him in the muggle world
where he could grow up in a LOVING household, he'd be a hell of a lot safer
than in the Dursleys home where the corrupt Ministry knows where he is. *
*
bboymin:
>Yes, you can take precautions and build a cover story, but that is
> just what they did with Harry living in the muggle world, yet, in his
> early life, wizards like Dedalus Diggle were able to find him.


Which is why I asked who the idiot was that gave out his description to the
public.  How is it that everybody in the wizarding world knows about Harry's
scar before he shows up to Hogwarts when nobody has survived the curse
before and only four people knew of it?

> Next, regardless of the presence of his Godfather, Petunia is > > > Harry's
> nearest living relative and that gives her some legal priority in
> determining Harry's disposition. Likely, if challenged in a /fair/
> court; Petunia would have gotten custody.


We've never  heard the Potters' will , but I would be willing to bet that in
the event of their death Lily and James would want to send Harry to his
Godfather rather than a sister that despises her and (she would assume)
Harry because of their ability to perform magic.

bboyminn:
>
> Well, let us look at the 'Blood Wards' as you call them. First,
> Dumbldedore clearly says that the protection of 'blood' was the
> strongest protection that he could give Harry. Now listen carefully;
> as long as Harry is in the /place/ where his mother's blood dwells,
> there he can not be harmed.

> He can not be attacked or harmed by anyone intent on doing him harm.
> Whether that person or persons are Voldemort, his death eaters, random
> fanatics, or the Ministry itself. No one can truly harm him while he
> is at the Dursley.


Except for the beatings Dudley and his 'gang' gave him and whatever the
Dursleys did to him both emotionally and physically (She tried hitting him
in the head with a frying pan in OoTP, I doubt that was the first time he
was hit/almost hit, not to mention the malnourishment and practical
enslavement), other children who would doubtlessly have bullied him for fear
of Dudley.

>You mention the Basiliks and assorted other people who acted against
> Harry in the books, implying that Harry didn't seem very well
> protected by the 'Blood Wards'. Yet you will notice that Harry escaped
> from every enemy he faced. Who's to say the 'blood wards' were not
> responsible?
>

Fawkes saved Harry after the Basilisk bit him, his blood protection
apparently wasn't enough to stop the venom.  The same with the Dementors
when he was AT the Dursleys.  The reason he survived was the Patronus, the
same as all the other times he was in contact with them.  Nothing seemed to
be special about this encounter versus any of the other encounters, and
compared to other people he's even more susceptible to their effects, which
if the Blood protect did work you would think he'd have a higher resistance
than others, no matter his past (and how much do YOU remember about your
first year of life?).

>The second level of Blood Protection, is the additional protection
> that Dumbledore put on Harry, to protect him while he is at the
> Dursley; the /place/ where his mother's blood dwells. So, the place,
> that house, is a safe haven for Harry. Until the blood charm expires,
> Harry can always retreat to that house, and there he can not be harm.
> Voldemort himself says that he can't touch Harry while Harry is at the
> Dursley's; more protect by Dumbledore than Harry can possibly realize.
>
> Now, we don't know the nature of that "Place where his mother's blood
> dwells' protection. We don't know how it would manifest itself if it
> were ever called on. Would it act like the Fidelus Charm, hiding the
> house? Would it act like Protego Shield Charm and rebound or repell
> any attack? Would it act like the Patronus Charm and sent out Avatars
> to defend Harry and the house? We don't know. All we know is that
> while Harry is at the location, he is absolutely safe.


We DON'T know that,  he has been attacked in (by his "family") and around
(by those blasted dementoids!) the house, and no protection has been shown.

Since we don't know how the Blood Protection Charm works, we, also,
> can not determine with certainy, it's boundaries. It is limited to the
> house, or is it limited to any and all land that the Dursley's own? Is
> it concentrated on that one place, and gradually diminishing as you
> move away, or does it end at the boundary of the property? What if
> Harry is with the Durselys, which would imply under their protection,
> but none of them are on Dursley owned property, say they are at the
> shopping mall, is Harry still fully protect, limited protection, or no
> protection? We can speculate, but with out further information, which
> I believe we will have in the next book, we can't really say.
>
> None the less, it seems that Harry's protection at Privet Drive is
> absolute.


If, as you presume, Harry is untouchable at the Dursleys, why not set him up
with a private tutor there so that he is absolutely safe and yet still has
the knowledge to defeat Voldemort?  If it is supposed to work outside the
Dursleys' as well, why immobilize him in HBP when he would be untouchable
and none of the death eaters would be able to harm him?  Why not create a
portkey Harry could use anytime he's in trouble to take him back to the
Dursleys where nobody could harm him?

>Further still, we have evidence that the Ministry is closely
> monitoring the Dursley's in case any illegal magical activity should
> occur there. That close monitoring would serve as an early warning to
> the Ministry should there be an attack on Harry.


As was shown in OoTP, the Ministry is corrupt.  If Lucius truly wanted to,
how much of a problem do you think it'd be to find out where Harry lived
when he had Fudge in his pocket?

>That combine level of absolute and secondary protection could not be
> offerred to Harry under any other circumstances. Dumbledore clearly
> says that the 'Protection of Blood' is the strongest protection that
> Dumbledore could devise.


Of course it could have been offered, and the solution is simple...Nobody is
going to target a dead man.  Who is going to be more of a target, Harry
Potter, boy who lived, defeater of Voldemort, only person to survive AK
spell or Harry Longbottom, Harry Diggory, etc who would just be another
orphan from Voldemort's reign of terror?  Harry and his parents went into
hiding once he was born, so I doubt many people would've known about his
green eyes and untameable hair, which seem to be the strongest resemblance
he has to his parents.  It would've been easy for him to disappear, even if
he was going to stay in the relatively small wizarding world.

Clark Kent






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 28 04:03:12 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 04:03:12 -0000
Subject: James Potter and the Dark Arts (was Re: The Huge overreactions
In-Reply-To: <e0abrq+kl3i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0aci0+hb87@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150169


> > Joe: 
> > Of course it was Snape who invented it. So a ton of my sympathy 
> for him goes out the window. I mean if you invent a spell designed 
> to embarrass people then it is sort of fitting that you get 
> embarrassed by it.
> > 
> 
> Tonks:
> Ceridwen, when you are finished with that iron, I will need to use 
> it too.
> 
> Point 1. How do we know that no one liked Snape and did not want 
to 
> come to his aid? Maybe it was that no one dared to oppose James 
and 
> Sirius.  How many people, even if the had pitty for the victim 
would 
> take on a bully? Or 2 bullies?  Lily was the brave one here, the 
> only brave one.

Alla:

Yep, me too will use that iron, I think. You are right Tonks, we 
don't know that nobody liked Snape, and what you said is of course 
possible, but isn't it also possible that nobody rushed to defend 
him against James and Sirius who were clearly in the wrong of course 
( or it looks so), because Snape was known as a member of Slytherin 
gang, who did not do many nice things to other Hogwarts students?

Isn't it possible that the people were laughing because the inventer 
of the jinx who got people upside down was finally getting the taste 
of his own medicine?

I think my speculation is just as valid. I think with showing Snape 
as creator of that curse and the curse that can cut people and make 
people bleed to death, JKR hinted rather strongly that maybe just 
maybe Snape WAS getting the taste of his own medicine.

It was wrong, of course it was wrong, but I can only say what Joe 
said - when you are going around creating curse that will embarass 
people, it is no wonder that you may get it back. Universe behaves 
interestingly sometimes, IMO.

Tonks:
> Point 2. It is said in spell casting that one should be careful 
what 
> one send out because it will come back to you. So here we see what 
> the Wicca's call the rule of 3, that is the bad that you give out 
> comes back to you 3 time more powerful than what you sent.

Alla:

Yes, exactly.







From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Tue Mar 28 03:56:01 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 22:56:01 EST
Subject: CHAP DISC: HBP 13, The Secret Riddle
Message-ID: <2a7.adabba.315a0dd1@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150170

>Jen R.
Questions:

>1. What reaction did you have to Hermione, Ron and  Dumbledore 
>refusing to talk to Harry about his theory that Draco was  behind the 
>incident with Katie?

Nikkalmati:
I have been wondering about the necklace incident.  First, as has been  
pointed out, Filch was investigating everything coming into the castle, so how  did 
Katie plan (even under Imperio) to get it inside?  Also, Draco was  having 
detention that weekend, so how was Rosimerta Imperiused?  I also  wonder how 
Katie could ever have given DD a necklace anyway.  Did he  collect them?  Was she 
supposed to leave it on the teacher's table next to  his plate?  Was she 
going to hang around the gargoyle until he let her in  his office? My point here 
is was this Draco's plan at all?  I wonder if the  help he was receiving 
outside was dear Aunt Bella and she came up with the plan  for the necklace and the 
mead.  
I know Draco on the Tower did not deny his association with the attempted  
murders to DD, but it was not exactly a good time for a long explanation and he  
was trying to look tough anyway.  It would explain why DD did not consider  
Draco beyond redemption, if he had not actually planned the necklace and mead  
incidents.
 
It also would make HG and RW right here.  Draco was not  the person to blame 
in this case.  Harry of course is right that Draco  is up to something on his 
own, but DD at least already knows that and doesn't  want Harry to take any 
action lest he endanger himself and Draco too.
Nikkalmati    








From celizwh at intergate.com  Tue Mar 28 04:05:37 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 04:05:37 -0000
Subject: James Potter and the Dark Arts (was Re: The Huge overreactions
In-Reply-To: <e0abrq+kl3i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0acmh+fjah@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150171

<joegoodwin1067@> wrote:

> > How do you end up with no one in an entire school 
> > liking you? Is the problem everyone else in the 
> > school or is it you?

Tonks:

> Point 1. How do we know that no one liked Snape and did not want to 
> come to his aid? Maybe it was that no one dared to oppose James and 
> Sirius.  How many people, even if the had pitty for the victim would 
> take on a bully? Or 2 bullies?  Lily was the brave one here, the 
> only brave one.

houyhnhnm:

"At school, Harry had no one.  Everybody knew that Dudley's gang hated
that odd Harry Potter in his baggy old clothes and broken glasses, and
nobody like to disagree with Dudley's gang" (PS/SS2)






From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 28 04:16:55 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 04:16:55 -0000
Subject: The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span.
In-Reply-To: <20060327175441.23794.qmail@web61318.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <e0adbn+4084@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150172


> Joe: 
 
> Not to mention we have no idea why James was willing to hex Snape. 
Did they have an altercation earlier, who Knows? I suspect at this 
point both of them feel perfect justified in hexing the other.

zgirnius:
There was no time to have an altercation earlier that day. The boy s 
lived in different dorms, and spent their whole morning taking the 
DADA OWL exam. Not to mention, that if James had some recent 
grievance, why did he not offer this to Lily as a reason, when she 
asked him what Snape had done to him?

But that really is not the point. I don't doubt James and Snape had 
probably hexed each other a numnber of times based on the 
descriptions we are given by other characters of their relationship. 
The Worst Memory incident is just not in the same category. It is 
such a deliberate thing. the way James and Sirius take turns casting 
spells, the casual way James jokes with Snape lying at his feet, ans 
the final threat (especially if it was carried out) are just not the 
same as taking magical pot shots at one another in the hallways.

> >Ceridwen:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> >As an adult, he withholds information about Sirius's Animagus 
status >even though he does suspect or wholeheartedly believe that 
Sirius >was the one who betrayed the Potters to Voldemort.  
> <snip>  
>  
> Joe: 
> 
> Do we know that he didn't tell anyone about Sirius being an 
Animagus? Since they were both in the first Order I suspect that at 
the very least Dumbledore knew. I would also imagine Dumbledore had 
known since Sirius told Snape about the Williow.

zgirnius:
Ceridwen is right, Dumbledore says so himself. At the end of PoA, in 
his conversation with Harry, Dumbledore states that (paraphrased, my 
book is hiding from me) the Marauders' learning of the Animagus 
transformation was an impressive achievement especially as they did 
it under his very nose without his knowing.







From clark.kentjr at gmail.com  Tue Mar 28 03:43:21 2006
From: clark.kentjr at gmail.com (Clark Kent)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 22:43:21 -0500
Subject: Why wasnt Harry sent to either a lightsided wizarding family or a muggle fam
In-Reply-To: <e08tcd+dggr@eGroups.com>
References: <e0817n+7o13@eGroups.com> <e08tcd+dggr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <6ac0e4d60603271943l1344bdd6o82f5025b47df099f@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150173

Amiable Dorsai:

> Aside from the fact that Dumbledore isn't King of the Wizards, and
> can't just decide to kidnap Harry and place him anywhere he wants?
> (Petunia, after all, is Harry closest living relative,  On paper, at
> least, she's the logical one to give Harry shelter.)


But he did!  If something happened to my parents while I was a baby, I
would've gone to my Godparents, no matter their relation since that's what
my parents' will specified.  I don't doubt that whatever will James and Lily
had drawn up, they would've specified that Sirius would be in charge of
Harry and not a sister that hated her for what she was.  Think of what
would've happened if Sirius had raised Harry instead of rushing off to find
Peter?  Harry wouldn't have been abused AND he would've ended up with a
somewhat normal family life.

The Longbottoms, good choice!  They're Aurors.  No Death Eaters are
> going to mess with them!


Frank and Alice weren't the only Longbottoms alive, and Neville was
apparently untouched even while his parents were tortured...   Hell, send
him to live with Neville's Great Uncle Algie, he'd be a lot more prepared
and SAFER than he ever was at the Dursleys.

Of course, I'm sure it would have been nicer for Harry at the
> Weasleys' home, after all, one of his parents' old friends, Wormtail,
> was soon to be living with the Weasleys too. Surely Peter would never
> sell out the son of the Potters.


Once Voldemort was defeated, Peter had plenty of opportunities to attack
Harry while he was sleeping at the Weasleys'.

Hey, I've got it, why not send him to live with the Crouches?  Old
> Barty Crouch is a ruthless foe of the Death Eaters, he'll have no
> trouble protecting Harry!


Once Barty Jr was locked up, Barty Sr's wife was distraught over losing her
only child, leading to Jr's release.  Suppose she was able to adopt a child
and put all her attention onto him, she would have something to do with her
life besides mope about her insane son.

As for Sirius, well, the Potters were Dumbledore's comrades-in-arms.
> Dark lords, blood wards, and Prophecies aside, it's possible that
> Dumbledore might have felt he owed it to them to keep their son out
> of the hands of their betrayer, a man who had, so far as anyone knew,
> conspired to kill him.


He had no proof that Sirius was the betrayer, besides believing that Sirius
was the secret keeper.  Legilmency, Veritaserum, Muggle Truth Serums, etc
etc could have all proved that Sirius wasn't the true secret keeper.

Bit of a problem there--the Ministry apparently never recovered
> Voldy's wand--at least, he had it later on in Little Hangleton.  So
> someone must have taken it. Voldemort himself being a little shy on
> hands at that point, it must have been some else.  Likely that person
> would have noticed a squalling baby.  Likely that person was a Death
> Eater.


Then why didn't they notice Harry in the first place?  Just like I said in
my response to bboyminn, If a Death Eater saw his master killed by a baby,
you would assume he is destined for great power, so why not raise him as
your own and have him bring more power to your family line?

Who were we keeping Harry's survival a secret from?


Everybody but the four people who KNEW that Harry survived.

Am I the only one that ever wondered why the entire wizarding world knew
what Harry looked like when he went into hiding right after he was born, and
knew about a scar that nobody has ever had before?

Clark Kent






From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 28 04:48:40 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 04:48:40 -0000
Subject: CHAP DISC: HBP 13, The Secret Riddle
In-Reply-To: <e09so3+c0do@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0af78+v2ah@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150174

> Jen R
> Questions:

> 2. Where do you think Dumbledore was over the weekend of Katie's 
> attack and why did Draco plan the attack when Dumbledore was away?

zgirnius:
I don't think Draco knew Dumbledore was away. I assume Dumbledore was 
off looking for Horcruxes.

> 4. Phineas continues to play a role in HBP which is more active 
than 
> the other portraits in Dumbledore's office. Presumably he overhears 
> all the vital information Dumbledore shares with Harry during the 
> course of their lessons and he is also able to visit the Black 
> house. Do you see JKR giving Phineas a more important role in Book 
7?

zgirnius:
I think it is possible he will play some role in Book 7, yes. He does 
have a portrait in both Hogwarts and 12 GP, which might be handy. And 
there is the comment he made when Harry was arguing with Dumbledofre 
about Snape in a previous chapter. But I think it is also somewhat 
natural for Phineas to speak up around Harry because they know each 
other a little-they had that conversation at 12 GP in OotP. So maybe 
that is all there is to it.

> 8. Why do you think Dumbledore drew attention to the fact that 
Harry was 'possibly [ ] feeling sorry for Lord Voldemort?' 

zgirnius:
I think he feels this is important. Because it is Harry's 
feelings/love that will in some way allow him to triumph.

> 9. After learning Merope died rather than live for her son, Harry 
> expressed anger that she made a poor choice compared to Lily, 
> who 'didn't have a choice'. Dumbledore corrected him gently, saying 
> Lily *did* have a choice. Why do you think Harry didn't believe 
> Lily had a choice when he heard the memory in POA of Voldemort 
> telling her to 'step aside'?

zgirnius:
First, he might not believe Voldemort would let her live. Or, he 
might not consider it a real choice, stepping aside would be a choice 
Harry, with his saving people thing, would not consider.

> 10. Dumbledore seems to have an ongoing battle with young boys not 
> using the proper etiquette of referring to teachers as 'Professor' 
> or 'Sir'.  What did you think about the way Riddle talks to 
> Dumbledore compared to how Harry talks to Snape, erm, Professor 
> Snape?

zgirnius:
Riddle is a quick learner, he sees he's not pleasing Dumbledore, and 
adapts. We see him sound very smooth, polite, and correct in the 
later memory with Slughorn. (Not that it works with DUmbledore, but I 
am sure it is not for lack of slightly older Tom trying to behave 
very nicely indeed where Dumbledore can see him). Harry does not make 
an effort to please Snape. He's much more honest about his feelings.


Thanks, Jen R. for your fine summary and discussion questions!







From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Tue Mar 28 04:52:07 2006
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 20:52:07 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span
In-Reply-To: <20060328004739.82036.qmail@web61316.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <26f.887b793.3159da77@aol.com>
	 <20060328004739.82036.qmail@web61316.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <700201d40603272052r5edc8c79l108c187c8983c31@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150175

Joe wrote:
>
> Julie:
> >> <snip> James isn't GOOD and Snape isn't BAD (especially if he
>
> turns out to be DDM), just as very few people in the real world are
> GOOD or BAD but a mix of both positive and negative traits and
> tendencies. <snip> <<
>
> Joe:
> Now here I have to disagree with the good/bad issue. For one I think
> there are a number of good people in the world and I think there are
> a number of bad people in the world as well. Now are there any
> totally flawed or totally perfect, no probably not.
>
> Snape is almost certainly a bad person. Note, I'm not saying he is
> on Voldemort's side. However you don't add up his actions that we
> know of and get the sum of a good person. James was a good man who
> has had some of his teenage errors blown way out of proportion. I
> would also like to say that I don't think Snape's jinking of James
> and others are part of his character issue. I have a feeling that it
> happened all the time in a school divided by Houses and that somewhat
> encouraged rivalries. Add into that picture that Snape and James were
> what the other more than likely most disliked.

Kemper now:
I appreciate that you're not identifying Snape as with V, but it makes
me think like we need to define Good v. Bad.  Do we mean Light v.
Dark?  Or Charasmatic v. Charmless?  Or something else.

I don't think knowing a dark spells makes one dark.
Snape seems the person, at eleven or as an adult, to know the counter
spell to a dark spell  That said, he may have come to Hogwarts knowing
more Dark spells than most 7th years, but I bet he knew the counter
spells to them as well.  And I'm guessing those counter spells are
mostly Light.  (e.g., the singsong charm he did for Draco which he was
sure to have developed)

Peter probably knew no dark spells upon his admission into Hogwarts. 
And that mofo is super Dark as far as I'm concerned.


>
> kchuplis:
> >> <snip> We have no idea how much bias colors a pensieve memory.
> And seeing anything in isolation can be deceiving. I really can't
> see everyone calling James a great guy (and everyone HAS except
> Snape) if he was really as big of a git all the time as the pensieve
> scene showed. <snip> <<
>
> Joe:
> Thanks, I thnk you put it better than I did. You don't get almost
> universally loved by being horrible. You can get that way having made
> a few mistakes though.

Kemper now:
>From the Leaky/Muggle interview last year with JKR:
Q: Do the memories stored in a Pensieve reflect reality or the views
of the person they belong to?
A:  It's reallity.

Might be time for a rethink on this one.

Kemper



From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 28 05:08:37 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 05:08:37 -0000
Subject: The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span
In-Reply-To: <700201d40603272052r5edc8c79l108c187c8983c31@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e0agcl+7j40@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150176

> Kemper now:
<SNIP>
> I don't think knowing a dark spells makes one dark.
> Snape seems the person, at eleven or as an adult, to know the 
counter
> spell to a dark spell  That said, he may have come to Hogwarts 
knowing
> more Dark spells than most 7th years, but I bet he knew the counter
> spells to them as well.  And I'm guessing those counter spells are
> mostly Light.  (e.g., the singsong charm he did for Draco which he 
was
> sure to have developed)

Alla:

Okay, midnight here.
I think in Potterverse leaning to Dark Magic absolutely symbolises 
one's character, although I do wish that JKR would define clearer 
what dark magic is. DD is the Leader of Light, Voldemort is the 
leader of Dark. Voldemort does not get the ancient magic, the 
deepest magic of light, magic of love, no?

Hogwarts does not teach Dark Arts, only Defense against them. As Joe 
said, Ministry makes raids to collect Dark objects.

Snape IMO developed Sectusemptra countercurse when he was an adult, 
although just speculating here.
 
> > kchuplis:
> > >> <snip> We have no idea how much bias colors a pensieve memory.
> > And seeing anything in isolation can be deceiving. <snip>
> > Joe:
> > Thanks, I thnk you put it better than I did. You don't get almost
> > universally loved by being horrible. You can get that way having 
made
> > a few mistakes though.
> 
> Kemper now:
> From the Leaky/Muggle interview last year with JKR:
> Q: Do the memories stored in a Pensieve reflect reality or the 
views
> of the person they belong to?
> A:  It's reallity.
> 
> Might be time for a rethink on this one.


Alla:

Well, we also know for a fact that one's memory could be changed and 
since Slugghorn did a bad job out of it, who says that Snape could 
not have done better job?

For the record, I don't think that Snape did it, since it meant to 
be glimpse in Marauders and Snape relationship. I think it was 
correct, but I am ready to bet that it was an incomplete glimpse.

Let me say it again, put the GoF train incident into pensieve from 
the moment Draco gets hexed and Draco would be innocent victim of 
big bad Gryffindors and it would be one again six....  Yeah, big bad 
bullies they are, no matter that Harry is recovering from horrible 
ordeal and the last thing anybody wants to hear is Draco threats and 
mockery of Voldemort's victim.

Just speculating here,
Alla







From sydpad at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 28 05:44:33 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 05:44:33 -0000
Subject: Kant and Snape and Ethics and Everything
Message-ID: <e0aig1+rcl7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150177

First, a disclaimer-- I'm not a philosophy student, aside from
general-audience reading and your basic 101 courses in university.  My
husband does have a degree in philosophy, though, so I braved much
embarassment to run this by him for rough accuracy!  He does say that
anyone who claims to understand Kant is mistaken;  so take everything
here with a bucket of salt.

The second disclaimer is that most of this post appeared in various
posts over that the Sugarquill forums a couple of years ago.  I've
clipped and rearranged and added some stuff.  I'm sorry it's so long
and rambly, I had not time, as they say, to make it shorter.  Now, on
to the post!

***************
It's only after typing out most of this post, that I discover, through
yahoo's search (possibly the first time anything's been discovered
with that), that Snape and Kant have been brought up here before, and
more than once!  In fact, a challenge was issued:

Ellecain:

>Can anyone accept
> my challenge to prove to me that Snape's thinking goes along the
> lines of Kantian philosophy?

I don't know about Snape's thinking, but there's a good reason why
Kant's thinking is often brought up in connection with Snape. There's
certain passages in Kant that are almost impossible to read (for a
Harry Potter fan, anyways!) without thinking of Snape.  When people
think of Kant, the first thing is probably the categorical imperative,
or the 'rules' thing.  But that's not the only thing Kant talked
about.  The Kant thing with Snape is the 'duty' thing.

Although this post is (*sigh* of course) a bit Snape-centric, I hope
it can lead to a broader discussion on the series generally.  Rowling
is bringing up, again and again, questions about personality, choice,
and goodness.  Her characters are constantly faced with the choice
between "what is right and what is easy"-- a choice between their duty
and their inclinations.  This choice appears to each character in a
different way, depending on their inclinations-- Lupin, for example,
is faced with a choice between his duty to protect the students vs.
his inclination to be liked, to not disappoint Dumbledore.  So at the
very heart of the series, is a question of what you might call Virtue
Ethics.

A few years ago, I was listening to a discussion on BBC Radio about
Virtue Ethics (believe it or not, I've stumbled on-line across more
than one person who listened to this program and thought about Harry
Potter!)-- that is, what do we mean when we say that someone is a good
person? How can we tell? And how can we develop ourself to become good
people? They had a first-rate panel of philosophy professors on, and
they boiled the main two diverging strands of thought down to the
Aristotelian and the Kantian.  

Aristotle was very interested in balance and had a point of view we
might call holistic-- he felt that virtue or goodness flowed naturally
from being a flourishing person generally. Virtue was a set of
conditions-- emotional and material-- that would produce good actions.
For him, you couldn't separate doing a good deed from also having
emotions of good will:


"...to experience these emotions [fear, courage, desire, anger, pity,
and pleasure] at the right times and on the right occasions and toward
the right persons and for the right causes and in the right manner is
the mean or the supreme good, which is characteristic of virtue."

and

"The virtue or excellence of man will be such a moral state as makes a
man good and able to perform his proper function well."  (The
Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle, trans. by J.E.C. Weldon (1892))

Incidentally, he also thought that having the power to take action on
one's good intentions was equally essential to the 'good man'-- so a
man automatically could be more good than a woman, because of his
greater power of action!  In Harry Potter terms, I'd use Dumbledore
the example of an Aristotelean 'virtuous man', because of Rowling's
emphasis on his balance and moderation, which was so important to
Aristotle (I'm experimenting with lining up the books to the Tarot
sequence, on account of the Tower card, and I'd associate Dumbledore's
heavy presence in this book with the Temperance card).  Dumbledore is
very powerful, mentally, magically, even physically; he is a leader of
his community; he tends to express appropriate emotions-- stern with
the Dursleys, twinkling and playful with the kids, repelled but
dignified with the DE's, etc. etc.  So, his good actions and his
well-ordered mind and feelings are in tandem.

Now Kant (who wrote in the late 18th century) at first accepted
Aristotle's model of virtue; but later in life he began to question
it. If you did a good deed out of friendship, was really a good deed,
or was just a way of getting pleasure, the animal pleasure of helping
a friend? Even if you were doing good deeds out of a desire to be a
better person, that still came back to a kind of self-gratification.
This worried Kant not because he was against pleasure, but because it
seemed shaky basis for a system of ethics. Can you really trust your
personal feelings not to lead you astray-- for instance, if you
dislike someone?  And were people with bad emotions not expected to be
capable of acting well?  Surely there had to be a sounder, more
universal basis for ethics, one that was not dependent on a person's
individual feelings?  As he put it:

"Feelings which naturally differ infinitely in degree cannot furnish a
uniform standard of good and evil, nor has
any one a right to form judgments for others by his own feelings."
(Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Ethics)

Kant lived at a time of great scientific progress and wondered if you
could isolate what made a truly good action, the way you could isolate
what made a gas burn in a chemical experiment. You had to imagine a
situation where you removed all external self-interest from the person
doing the action-- liking people, wanting to be thought of as good by
their neighbours, even wanting to think of themselves as good.
Ultimately, he decided, the only PURELY good action would be done out
of sheer duty to 'supreme law', a rational moral code accessible to
all human beings who gave the matter enough thought. It had nothing to
do with having nice feelings:

"Morality is not properly the doctrine of how we may make ourselves
happy, but how we may make ourselves worthy of happiness."  (Critique
of Practical Reason)

In other words, the professor on the radio panel said, Kant's ideal
ethical actor would be a miserable bastard with an iron will and a
devotion to duty.  Kant goes into quite an extended description of
this hypothetical person.  First, he describes the common idea of a
'good man'-- a jolly, good-natured, philanthropic sort.  Then Kant
continues,

???Suppose then that the mind of this friend of man were overclouded by
sorrows of his own which extinguished all sympathy with the fate of
others, but that he still had power to help those in distress, though
no longer stirred by the need of others because sufficiently occupied
with his own; and suppose that, when no longer moved by any
inclination, he tears himself out of this deadly insensibility and
does the action without any inclination for the sake of duty alone;
then for the first time his action has its genuine moral worth.

"Still further: if nature had implanted little sympathy in this or
that man???s heart; if (being in other respects an honest fellow) he
were cold in temperament and indifferent to the sufferings of
others??"perhaps because, being endowed with the special gift of
patience and robust endurance in his own sufferings, he assumed the
like in others or even demanded it; if such a man (who would in truth
not be the worst product of nature) were not exactly fashioned by her
to be a philanthropist, would he not still find in himself a source
from which he might draw a worth far higher than any that a
good-natured temperament can have? Assuredly he would. It is precisely
in this that the worth of character begins to show??"a moral worth and
beyond all comparison the highest??"namely, that he does good, not from
inclination, but from duty.??? (Groundwork of a Metaphysics of Morals)

I don't know about you, but, well, I just can't NOT think of Snape
when I read this!  I think Snape is exemplifying something important
about Rowling's moral philosophy that she shares with Kant (assuming,
as I always do, DDM!Snape), and that the 'source from which he draws
worth higher than a good-natured temperament' what she was talking
about when she said in an interview about Snape:

MA: Oh, here???s one [from our forums] that I???ve really got to ask you.
Has Snape ever been loved by anyone?
JKR: Yes, he has, which in some ways makes him more culpable even than
Voldemort, who never has.

To me this makes perfect sense, and also hits on the flaw in Kant's
'supreme law' that is supposedly accessible through pure reason. 
Psychopaths like Riddle are not deficient in reason, so why are they,
amongst the human race, incapable of moral understanding?  Surely what
they lack is not reason, but love. 

There's an interesting book, "A Short Treatise on the Great Virtues"
by Andre Compte-Sponville, where the author posits that Kant's
ultimate moral force would be better understood by love, rather than
reason, at least to begin with. It is through love that we really
conclude that another person is as magical and special as we are
ourselves. Only then, now using reason, can this feeling of the
importance of the individual life be extended outwards. Even if we
don't feel love for humanity in general, we can ground our feelings of
duty to other people on this initial experience of recognizing the
importance of someone outside ourselves.  The example that pops into
my head for this is "Casablanca"-- Rick "sticks his neck out for no
one", until his renewed love for Ilsa awakens his moral sense, even to
the point of giving her up for the greater good. 

Snape is more culpable than Voldemort because, in a Kantian sense, he
ought to have known better than to join the Death Eaters, as someone
with both an experience of love, and the strenth of will and reason to
extrapolate it.  Voldemort, in a way, isn't culpable at all, because
as someone with no love at all he has no way to access the universal
law that's the source of moral action.  This is why I root so hard for
Snape loving Lily as solving the central Snape mysteries-- because it
seems really important that Love should be a central mover in the
books, particularily to inspire moral action, and particularily in
people not otherwise inclined to it!

I wonder if this doesn't tie in with what the Life Debt is all about
as well-- there does seem to be a whiff of Kant's 'perfect good
action' in both Harry's and James' saving of their respective debtees,
in that neither of them really WANTED to save them, they just felt
they had a duty to a higher principle.  

This is mostly what I meant a while back when 'paged Dr. Kant' in a
discussion about Snape, but to get a little deeper into Kant's ethical
system- because it's been brought it up before, and because it does
tie into the 'right vs. easy' thing-- I should clarify (as far as my
limited understanding goes!) what Kant meant by 'duty to the supreme
law'.  For Kant, the supreme law, which anyone could understand by
excercize of reason, was that all human beings are important and equal.

You can recognize this strain of Enlightenment thought in the US
Declaration of Independence which was written around the same time:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created
equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inailenable
rights...".  These rights were not based on anybody's feelings, they
weren't begged of the King or of those in power because of their
benevolence and generosity-- the rights were simply inherent in the
individual by virtue of them being human.

>From this principle Kant derived two rules of thumb: that one should
treat all people as ends rather than as means; and (in a variation on
the Golden Rule), that no action could be considered right unless it
would be right if done by everyone, all the time, either BY you or TO
you.  This is where Kant's famous, terrible example comes in, that if
lying is wrong, it is ALWAYS wrong, and that if, for example, a man is
being pursued by a murderer, and the murderer asks you where his
vicitim is hiding, you should tell him.  Along with nearly everyone
else in the world, I think this is going a little far, and that
obviously he's ignoring the also universal principle that one should
try to protect people from murderers.  Kant's moral philosophy, while
laying an essential groundwork for Enlightenment ideas, especially on
the subject of human rights and liberties, is not exactly helpful as a
handbook for day-today moral behaviour.  Precisely HOW one goes about
treating people as ends, not as means, or how one balances competing
moral claims isn't part of what he talks about.  He also doesn't talk
much about what he means by 'actions'-- is Snape's meaness to his
students an 'action' or is it just a style of acting? His ideal
duty-bound misanthropist is bound not to be spreading a whole lot of
joy and laughter around, does that not factor into the moral equation?
 This is the part of Kant's moral's philosophy that Nora has an issue
with in relation to Kantian!Snape in post #146146 (I can't find her
more recent one that replied directly to one of my posts.. curse you,
yahoo search funciton, curse youuuuuu!!):

Nora:

>It was a
>lot easier, immediately following the shocking revelations of the end
>of GoF (which really have lost most of their kicker by now, haven't
>they?) to argue for Snape as the Believer In What Is Right Regardless
>of Personal Cost Or Inclinations.  The evidence for this was his
>turning away from the DEs, without any other information to
>complicate it.

>I'd say that it done be complicated by now, and furthermore, Snape
>has been revealed as a character driven by personal issues
>(regardless of whether Rowling ultimately puts a broadly-phrased
>white or black hat on them) to a degree that Kant doesn't apply well
>any more.


So, it's hard to say, depending on how you read Kant.  In the sense
that DDM!Snape is driven pretty much entirely by duty, his having
personal issues that react against that make him even MORE of Kant's
ideal actor.  The DDM interpretation of the Tower scene, for example,
is that Dumbledore's "Severus... please..."  is an appeal to Snape's
duty to protect the kids and the mission over his personal inclination
for martyrdom.  On the 'rules' thing, and the 'ends vs. means' things,
Snape runs into the same problems that Kant himself runs into, of
definintions and of not dealing with competing claims.  I think, for
example, that Snape would consider that he is treating his students as
'ends' as opposed to 'means', in that he's cramming their heads full
of Potions knowledge out of his duty to make them into people who
understand potions (treating them as an end), not to gratify any love
he has for teaching (using them as means to enjoy interacting with
kids, at the expense of their learning).  And I do think that it's
significant that the thing Snape constantly harps on about James, is
not his cruelty, but that he thought "rules didn't apply to him"-- so
rules, according to JKR, seem to be very important to Snape's
understanding of ethics.  In general though Snape's, er,
results-oriented approach to life, and most obviously the fact that as
a double-agent he practically lies for a living, prevents him from
being the perfect Kantian.  Although, as Kant himself said, "Out of
the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made"!  So
maybe he can be a crooked Kantian.

More running out of steam now, than actually concluding...

The Potter books are so incredibly rich in personalities and
situations you could find a philosopher to fit all the characters-- 
Sirius makes me think of Rousseau, and the romantic Natural man who
follows his noble-savage impulses.  Hermione's starting to edge
alarmingly towards a Nietzchean view of herself as a Superwoman whose
superior intelligence gives her dominion over lesser mortals...

Sydney-- why yes, I do have a storyboard due in a couple of days, why
do you ask?







From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Tue Mar 28 04:57:58 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 23:57:58 EST
Subject: SS and Life Debt again
Message-ID: <246.964fecb.315a1c56@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150178

> <snip>

>Neri:
>The Life Debt I
>suspect,  is the Potterverse magical representation of remorse. It
>forces itself on  Snape the same way that RL remorse can "force" itself
>on us. The fact  that throughout the series Snape repeatedly fails in
>repaying his Debt  strongly suggests that he still denies his remorse.
>
>Snape seems  to treat the Debt as a mechanistic magic ? if he just
>manages to repay it  he'll be free and can choose Voldemort's side
>again.  <snip>


Nikkalmati:
I wrote a longer post to this but lost it  Maybe it is for the best .<g>.  It 
comes down to I respect the  symmetry of the LID Snape theory, but it seems 
to be just an attempt to explain  away any action which would support DDMSnape, 
not really a theory in  itself.  As long as PP is not bound to help and save 
Harry in the same way  as LIDSnape, I can't buy it.  The theory has to be 
consistent.  Note  that P cuts Harry, ties up Harry and assists in bring to life a 
man who is going  to kill Harry - right now.  This behavior is by a man who 
owes Harry a  direct personal life debt, not a second-hand transferred life 
debt from  James.

>Neri:
>But if so, how do you explain Snape stopping the  Occlumency lessons
>because of, as Dumbledore himself admits, his feelings  about James?
>How do you explain Snape refusing even to hear Sirius' story  before he
>turns both him and Lupin in to the dementors for a fate worse  than
>death? The view of Snape as a person who does not care about  feelings,
>only about saving lives, simply doesn't work with the  canon.

Nikkalmati:
I don't see how anyone can blame SS for stopping  the Occlumency lessons.  We 
know Harry did not want to learn Occlumency; he  wanted the dreams to 
continue so he could learn what was behind the door in the  MOM.  He didn't practice; 
 he lied to HG when he told her he was  practicing on his own because he had 
been given permission by SS.  He  ignored Sirius and Lupin when they told him 
he must tell DD he was not taking  lessons any more.

Harry's behavior with the Pensive was outrageous.   How would you react if 
you left a teenager in your office and came back to find  him going through your 
desk reading your letters?  Oh wait! It is  worse.  Harry knew the memories 
had been placed in the Pensive just so he  would not see them.  (Even if SS 
intentionally left Harry there, he should  not and cannot be excused for looking 
in the Pensive and, by the way, confirming  SS's bad opinion of Harry).  SS 
had every reason to throw Harry out as  untrustworthy.  If SS is to be blamed 
for anything here, it would be for  not telling DD, and I am not sure he didn't 
tell him.  
Another thought:  DD tells Harry he was mistaken in thinking SS could  put 
aside his hatred of James and teach Harry (more or less, not an actual  quote).  
I wonder if DD is speculating here because he lacks crucial  information.  
Maybe SS never told DD what Harry did.  Maybe he just  told DD he wasn't going 
to put up with Harry's attitude or maybe DD learned in  some other way that 
Harry was not getting lessons (after it was too late) and  never knew about the 
Pensive incident at  all. 

>Neri
>It's James who is the consistent example of  valuing lives over
>feelings. Even when he bullies Snape he uses harmless  jinxes in
>response to Snape's potentially lethal curse. He saves Snape's  life
>despite (or maybe because) the feelings between them. And  Dumbledore,
>who knew James well, ensures Harry that James would have  spared
>Peter's life too.

Nikkalmati
I am not sure this jinx is  so harmless since this is SS's worse memory and 
Sirius tells Harry this sort of  thing went on continuously while they were in 
school.  As for the cut, if  this was the cutting curse we see used on Draco, 
we know it can cut a boy  open.  I would say, SS was very restrained.  We know 
why Harry spared  PP; it was so his father's friends would not become 
murderers.  SS  attributes a similar motive to James; it was so he or his friends 
would not be  expelled for murder.

Nikkalmati (Who doesn't think SS is a fluffy bunny  or even nice, but thinks 
he should be judged fairly and in a way consistent with  canon)







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






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Mar 28 05:48:31 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 05:48:31 -0000
Subject: James Potter and the Dark Arts (was Re: The Huge overreactions
In-Reply-To: <20060327195448.32857.qmail@web61323.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <e0ainf+vr72@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150179


>   Joe: 
> I am guessing that James hated the Dark Arts from the start and then 
> (probably) being exposed to Sirius's family made it worse.
>    
> Neither James or Sirius was perfect my any means. My main objection 
> is when someone attempts to make Snape look better by attempting to 
> make James look worse than he was. 
>    
> Only one of them ended up with a Dark Mark on his arm.
>

Pippin:
You are probably just thinking of James and Sirius here, but in fact
one of the Marauders did end up with a Dark Mark on his arm. According
to Sirius, Pettigrew was always on the side of the biggest bully in
the playground.

While I'm sure Snape was no angel, Peter's sycophantic devotion as
seen in the pensieve is a pretty good indicator that James was 
indeed a bigger bully than Snape in those days. Crouch Sr shows
that even those who are fanatically opposed to the Dark Arts can still
abuse their power.

Pippin







From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca  Tue Mar 28 05:48:50 2006
From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 05:48:50 -0000
Subject: The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span.
In-Reply-To: <009b01c6520c$8c2bbe40$7bb4400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <e0aio2+2a6o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150180

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" <belviso at ...> wrote:
<snip>
> Magpie:
> See, I find it immediately funny that one would pair "And it was 
also him 
> she crashed into, you'd have thought he would have learned not to 
get on her 
> bad side by now. Ginny isn't perfect, but at least she's not wishy-
washy. 
> She can defend herself (she does have 6 older brothers!)" with "I 
don't 
> think that this is mean, aggressive or bad-natured on Ginny's 
part, but 
> rather being a teenager with magical abilities..."
> 
> To me, yes, this is mean and aggressive and bad-natured.   It's 
not 
> defending herself, either. Good for Zach for not just "learning 
not to get 
> on her bad side." I couldn't figure out why everybody seemed to 
hate Zach 
> from the year before.
> 
> I bring it up because I think this is something that's getting 
lost here, 
> which is that somebody can be a great guy and a grade-A jerk at 
the same 
> time. It happens all the time.  I thought ever since PoA the 
Marauders 
> clearly taunted Snape cruelly (they tease him through the map and 
I assumed 
> that's the way they spoke to him in school), but I never thought 
this didn't 
> fit with the James who became an animagi to keep his friend 
company or threw 
> himself in front of the door to protect his family.  James' jerk 
qualities 
> go right along with this heroic ones.  What's great about the 
Pensieve is 
> it's not even just James being a bully (and nothing in this scene 
is taken 
> out of context--he's not being framed and there's no bit of 
Snape "starting 
> it" that's cut out) it's James being vain and an idiot, ruffling 
his hair 
> and looking to see if the girls were watching etc.  Harry has to 
forgive him 
> for that too.  Yet Harry himself could easily come across badly in 
a 
> snapshot from an enemy's pov too.
> 
> So it's not necessarily that James had to change all that much at 
all. 
> McGonagall, imo, is a perfect example of the kind of thing that's 
being 
> denied in the OP of the thread.  She gets positively misty over 
the 
> Marauders being such little scamps, and this is apparently when 
she's 
> remembering the kids who picked on Snape, not the Order members. 
People just 
> have personalities that strike other people differently--and it's 
not always 
> connected to them doing the right thing or not.  I liked James a 
lot more 
> after the Pensieve scene because he made me laugh in the way he 
was a jerk. 
> Ginny I can't stand.  In a book full of bullies she's the one I 
have no 
> warmth for.  Some people think Sirius is a jerk no matter what his 
tragedies 
> are. For some people Snape could turn out to be Aslan in disguise 
and still 
> be a jerk.

I'd like to thank you for that post it was something that I've tried 
to say so many times on another site.

Isn't it Harry that mentions how Ron ruffles his hair exactly like 
James did in the memory? And doesn't it bring a smile to Harry's 
face. I think that Harry may be closer to realizing the above point 
then some people think. 

Quick_Silver







From mail_to_jutika at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 28 05:00:28 2006
From: mail_to_jutika at yahoo.com (Jutika Gehani)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 21:00:28 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Why wasn't Harry sent to either a lightsided wizarding family or a muggle family?
In-Reply-To: <6ac0e4d60603271206v2e8b852ch228d5b6744c7dfb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20060328050028.39781.qmail@web38712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150181

  Jutika previously:

> As far as living with the Dursleys' is concerned, that was the 
> only way Dumbledore could assure that Lily's sacrifice would act 
> as his protection. If Petunia would have refused to take Harry in, 
> the charm wouldn't have been sealed, leaving Harry unprotected.


John wrote:

> Harry's love for others was what drove off Voldemort from possessing 
> him and IMO is what prevented Quirrel from touching him, not the blood 
> wards.


Jutika:
    Heres how I analyze the whole thing.....
  Harry's ability to love protects him from Voldemort. But IMO this protection comes from the blood ward itself. Even Ron and Hermione have lived with loving families and even they have the ability to love (sometimes even more than Harry's ability..), but they still are not protected by that ability.
  On the other hand, Lily's sacrifice (i.e. her love for Harry) is what Dumbledore keeps referring to as old magic which Voldemort can never understand....
  Just IMO....
   
  Jutika.
  






From juli17 at aol.com  Tue Mar 28 05:58:45 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 00:58:45 EST
Subject: The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span
Message-ID: <2b9.77db04b.315a2a95@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150182

 


Julie:
>> <snip> James isn't GOOD and Snape  isn't BAD (especially if he 
turns out to be DDM), just as very few people in  the real world are 
GOOD or BAD but a mix of both positive and negative  traits and 
tendencies. <snip> <<

Joe: 
Now here I have  to disagree with the good/bad issue. For one I think 
there are a number of  good people in the world and I think there are 
a number of bad people in the  world as well. Now are there any 
totally flawed or totally perfect, no  probably not.
 
Julie:
Right, I meant no one is wholly good or bad. But based on their  overall
actions we can classify them as good or bad. Clearly Voldemort is a
bad person, as is Umbridge, and Bellatrix (though she might be  able
to cop an insanity plea), and Peter (though he may pull through  with a
good act and save Harry--that life debt thing--it won't really balance  out 
his dozen plus murders and assorted other crimes). 

Joe:
Snape is almost certainly a bad person. Note, I'm not saying he is  
on Voldemort's side. However you don't add up his actions that we 
know  of and get the sum of a good person. James was a good man who 
has had some  of his teenage errors blown way out of proportion. I 
would also like to say  that I don't think Snape's jinking of James 
and others are part of his  character issue. I have a feeling that it 
happened all the time in a school  divided by Houses and that somewhat 
encouraged rivalries. Add into that  picture that Snape and James were 
what the other more than likely most  disliked.
 
Julie:
The problem with judging Snape is that we really don't *know* the 
entire sum of his actions. We know he was greasy and unpopular 
in school and probably hexed kids (so did James though), we know
he joined the Death Eaters and almost certainly does have blood
on his hands (whether by direct killing or by brewing  potions/poisons
that brought about suffering and/or death of Voldemort's enemies--
it's really much the same). We also know he has some responsibility
in the Potters' deaths. And we know he's verbally abusive to his 
students. 
 
That's the tally on the bad side. But we don't know the tally on  the
good side, which could include protecting the students from physical
harm, saving Harry more than once, spying for Dumbledore for 14
years at great risk to himself, saving Dumbledore from the first 
horcrux curse and two other students from Draco's misdirected
curses/poisons, and so on.
 
Then there are the things that are completely ambiguous, such as
why Snape killed Dumbledore. To rid himself of a hated  oppressor,
to return to Voldemort triumphant, to save himself, or to save the
lives of Harry and Draco and the rest of the students? We don't
know about Snape and Lily's connection, if they have one. We  don't
know the whole story of the prank. We don't know all of  Snape's
family connections, which may or may not be relevant. We don't
even know if Snape really helped kill Emmaline Vance, or if he
helped hide her. 
 
Yes, I'm going off into speculation area here, but the point is that  we
are likely to learn more about Snape's actions and motives in Book
7 (most certainly why he killed Dumbledore on the Tower) and there
is more than enough uncertainty about him for the scale of good 

versus bad to tip either way when it comes to Snape. IMO, anyway.  

kchuplis:
>> <snip> We have no idea how much  bias colors a pensieve memory.
And seeing anything in isolation can be  deceiving. I really can't
see everyone calling James a great guy (and  everyone HAS except
Snape) if he was really as big of a git all the time as  the pensieve
scene showed. <snip> <<

Joe:
Thanks, I  thnk you put it better than I did. You don't get almost
universally loved by  being horrible. You can get that way having made
a few mistakes though. 


 
Julie:
I agree that seeing something in isolation doesn't give the whole 
picture. Certainly there was a long history of enmity between James
and Snape, even though they were only fifteen. However, there is 
no bias, and no perspective shown in the Pensieve scene. It is a
completely objective account of what happened, per JKR. Which
makes sense, as we observed the Marauders in conversation even
when Snape was a good distance away. So James and Sirius really
acted that badly, and it wasn't Snape's hatred of them coloring his
memory. 
 
Julie
(Who thinks putting memories in a Pensieve to view them would be
fascinating, even if it would no doubt alter some of  my long-cherished
memories, since we humans have notoriously subjective recall!)
 


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




From h.m.s at mweb.co.za  Tue Mar 28 06:22:48 2006
From: h.m.s at mweb.co.za (H.M.S)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 08:22:48 +0200
Subject: The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span
Message-ID: <003201c65230$2695d7e0$12d117c4@Sharon>

No: HPFGUIDX 150183

I'm not going to snip arguments for or against James being a horrible person
who somehow shaped Snape into the horrible person he is now.  I feel that in
our search for deeper, meaningful understanding of the characters, we are
losing track of JKR's story (and it IS JKR"S STORY - she can do as she likes
without explanation)

Just remember this - the hatred Harry has for Snape dates back to the first
time Harry met him in first year; and nothing in the following years has
caused Harry to change his mind.  He may have briefly felt sympathy for
Snape after watching the scene in the pensieve, but it didn't last.

Also, (based on watching the behaviour of my 15 year old daughter) sometimes
teenagers try to hide their attraction for the opposite sex by a type of
"converse behaviour".  I.e. they project that they are "turned off" by the
very person they like.  Lily used this opportunity to show everyone that she
"did not like James Potter". In this very convoluted and not very clear
reasoning, I'm trying to say that my gut feeling is that I therefore don't
believe that we know Lily's true feelings for James or that he EVER had to
use any type of underhand means!


Sharon
(who has it all clear in her head, but frustratingly can't always translate
it into logical writing!!!But that's why I'm not JKR))




From h.m.s at mweb.co.za  Tue Mar 28 07:20:28 2006
From: h.m.s at mweb.co.za (H.M.S)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 09:20:28 +0200
Subject: Fw: WAS The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span
Message-ID: <005701c65238$6590c330$12d117c4@Sharon>

No: HPFGUIDX 150184



> > Kemper, who's wondering where all the detention/punishment forms are
> > for Snape in Filch's filing cabinet.
>
> I doubt it.  They might have been, but I think Snape would have made sure
to
> remove them before setting Harry to re-write all the damaged cards in HBP.
> He wanted the opportunity to pull down Harry's estimation of James - not
> show himself in an equally bad light.
>
> Sharon
>




From finwitch at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 28 09:09:55 2006
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 09:09:55 -0000
Subject: Maligning Lupin/werewolves
In-Reply-To: <e02kgt+7m6v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0auh3+6fdb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150185

Lizzie:
 
> It looks to me like Snape fulfulled his obligation, even personally 
> delivered the potion. 

Finwitch:

Quite. Snape delivered it to Lupin. I'd say that there was an 
agreement which required that Snape prepare and deliver the potion. 
Probably because that way it's more fresh or something like that. That 
night Lupin hadn't yet recieved it (Snape was only just bringing it) -
didn't exactly forget his potion, now did he? There never was any 
obligation for Lupin to get it from Snape, was there?

Possibly Snape was a bit *late* when Lupin saw Peter on the map. And, 
Lupin did leave the map OPEN onto his desk so if Snape came early 
enough with the potion, he'd know where to bring it.

Snape did see where Lupin went (the shrieking Shack where he used to 
transform in his youth) but he did NOT bring the potion. Why not?

And then came that *huge* irresponsibility - what, take the werewolf 
into the castle undrugged? Did Snape plan to do that in order to 
create circumstances where he can kill Lupin so that it can't be 
objected, because it saves the students?

Finwitch








From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Tue Mar 28 09:57:38 2006
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 01:57:38 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span.
In-Reply-To: <e0a38a+tvsm@eGroups.com>
References: <700201d40603271040h510fdaffi481e834cc4937c9e@mail.gmail.com>
	 <e0a38a+tvsm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <700201d40603280157i584262dexa042d62e2705c4b4@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150186

> > Kemper wrote:
> > The truth is that James and Sirius were the cool crowd, and Snape
> > was gigantic nerd.  Jocks against the D&D kid.  No where in the
> > scene do we see status as equal.
>
> Nora responded:  As I've brought up before, I'm wary of projecting the whole "jocks
> and nerds" paradigm wholescale onto Hogwarts' social structure.  You
> do that and you start getting people making statements like "The
> Marauders are the kids responsible for Columbine", which strikes me
> as...slightly hyperbolic.
>
> For one thing, the poor D&D geeks don't usually have any means of
> recourse: they *can't* fight back.  Certainly not Snape's situation
> in all aspects, because he's the one who does the most physical
> damage with a toned-down use of the very nasty cutting curse he seems
> to have invented.  When all the kids are running around with wands
> and everyone can do magic, the scales are potentially much more
> equal.  (And there's always more equality present amongst classmates
> than between students and teachers.)  A situation that strikes me as
> *genuinely* unequal is Neville in the earlier books versus his
> tormentors.

Kemper now:
Not all D&D geeks are quad/paraplegics.  Many of them have working
hands and legs that can easily clench or kick... make-do wands for the
Muggle youth. But why doesn't this crowd typically fight back?  They
have the power, but they don't realize or believe it.  Much like
Neville has had the power all along.

But ok... How about Prep v Goth? Or Jerk-kids-in-AstoriaOregon v. the
Goonies?  Is that less overly exaggerated?

(I smile at parenthetical phases that bring briefly adult!Snape's
actions into a teen!Snape post)


> Nora continues: ...  But surely all of
> us have known some types in our lives (since we've pulled in 'I was a
> geeky youngster' into the argument already) who managed to
> continually get away with evading their eminently merited official
> punishment.  Tended to be the sneaky passive-aggressive types...
>

Kemper now:
I think most if not all nerd/geeks are/were passive-aggressive types. 
I haven't met one that was assertive to their tormentors.  Can you
imagine that exchange?  I can.

Nerd: Tormentor, when you ridicule me in public for reading Harry
Potter, it makes me feel belittled.  In the future, I would appreciate
if I was left alone to read Potter in peace.
Tormentor: Stop right there.  Why don't you go home and write me a
feelings letter that you can later burn for closure, and while you're
at it, eat another cookie, you fat eff.

Kemper.



From mauranen at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 28 10:41:04 2006
From: mauranen at yahoo.com (jekatiska)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 10:41:04 -0000
Subject: Harry as Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <e0aaqv+391a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0b3s0+sk3h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150187


> > Mosaicwench:
> > 
> > The more I've gone back and read and re-read, I don't think LV
> > unwittingly made Harry a Horcrux, I think it was deliberate.   
> <SNIP>
> 
> 
> Exodusts:
> 
> One far-fetched idea that I had a while ago was that Voldy 
> deliberately planned to make Harry into a Horcrux as the ultimate 
> insurance. By making his arch-enemy his life-guarantor he could 
never 
> lose. Something went wrong at the time, he was blown up, DD 
realises 
> what has happened, and has a terrible choice. He could kill Harry 
and 
> destroy Voldemort forever, or let the boy grow and see the return 
of 
> the Dark Lord come about, with only the hope that the boy can beat 
> Voldy at the final showdown. This might explain Voldy's taunting 
of 
> DD saying "if death is nothing, kill the boy" etc in OotP.
>

Jekatiska: 

Great theory. There's just one flaw: if Voldemort knowingly made 
Harry a Horcrux, why on earth would he try to kill him? And he has 
tried to kill him twice since the events in Godric's Hollow: at the 
end of GoF and at the end of OotP (CS doesn't count, since Tom 
Riddle as a past version of Voldemort wouldn't know about it). Maybe 
my mind is 'hopelessly mundane' but I just fail to see the logic 
here. The theory of Harry accidentally becoming a Horcrux, though 
otherwise dodgy, can at least still hold the attempts on his life.

Jekatiska







From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Tue Mar 28 10:45:23 2006
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 05:45:23 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: But DID James listen? (was LID!Snape rides again )
Message-ID: <BAY101-F10F29B05A1FE21A08199EC91D30@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 150188


Carol:

>Naturally, as you say, Black would not have made the suggestion nor JP
>accepted it if either suspected that Pettigrew was the spy, but that's
>not what I'm saying. As I interpret the quoted phrase from your
>earlierpost, you're saying that the DEs would have known about the
>Fidelius Charm, or at least suspected its existence, but I don't think
>that's the case.

>The DEs didn't know about the Prophecy, so in their view, the Potters
>would have no more reason to hide than any other Order members, who
>were being "picked off one at a time." Obviously, those who were
>murdered on LV's orders had not been protected by Fidelius Charms. Why
>not, if Fidelius Charms were a standard method of protection? And if
>Fidelius Charms were routinefor people going into hiding, why did it
>take DD so long to suggest one and why didn't the Potters think of it
>themselves?

PJ:

I see the Fidelius Charm sort of like a magical version of our Witness 
Protection Program.  Not everyone who testifies in court needs it, but for 
those who do make use of it, it's as a last resort.

That said, while I don't for a minute believe the DE's had information on 
the prophesy at that time (but they about a year before the battle at the 
MoM I think) Voldemort did and his spy had already informed him that the 
Potters were ready to disappear.  His first thought once the Potters became 
non existent would be the same as the assumption by the Mob.... 
Fidelius/WPP.  Know what I mean?  Then he can make use of Peter who is 
conveniently both spy and SK...

Since that connection is so suspiciously fortuitous for Voldemort, do you 
think maybe Sirius could have been bewitched into suggesting Peter for the 
SK job?


Carol:

>Because the Charm was only in effect for a week and because the
>DEsdidn'tknowabout the Prophecy, I doubt very much thatthe existence
>of  a Secret Keeper was common knowledge among the Death Eaters, and,
>that being the case, "DE common knowledge" couldn't be the reason for
>the switch.

PJ:
Ok, I think I understand what happened now.  I made a comment about James 
knowing Snape had DE sympathies and you thought I meant the DE's knew about 
the prophesy.  No, I don't believe Snape or Voldemort shared that 
information with anyone.  Once he began planning how to hear this prophesy 
himself I think he told the DE's that showed up at the MoM that night, so... 
maybe a year before the battle at the MoM?

I mistakenly snipped a question you asked on whether there's canon for 
Sirius having been the actual sk for awhile before giving the job to Peter.  
Not that I know of... I read it as James had wanted Sirius to do it but that 
Sirius had thought Peter a better candidate.

PJ





From finwitch at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 28 11:30:50 2006
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 11:30:50 -0000
Subject: Pensieve memories (was Re: The Huge overreaction)
In-Reply-To: <e0a8cu+cqvc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0b6pa+k5bi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150189

> 
> houyhnhnm:
> 
> If wizards do have keener hearing than muggles, then they would also
> have to have a greater ability to filter out excess stimuli or they
> would find themselves in the condition that is said to afflict people
> with autism.

Finwitch:

We all filter things we see and hear. You know, the difference between 
seeing and observing.

I believe the subconcious records all as it happens, whereas our 
concious mind recalls only a filtered memory, if even that. The 
subconcious will have influence, though... a feeling of familiarity, 
perhaps.

Remember how Vernon, in the very first chapter, more or less 
deliberately alters his memory about the cat reading a map? This sort 
of process happens quite often I believe. We tend to ignore the things 
we don't understand.

Of course, the TT-trip in PoA shows quite clearly how much a 
*perspective* can change your interpreting of things!

Finwitch






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Mar 28 12:26:15 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 12:26:15 -0000
Subject: James Potter and the Dark Arts (was Re: The Huge overreactions
In-Reply-To: <20060327195448.32857.qmail@web61323.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <e0ba17+bu5i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150190

 
> Joe: 
> I thought some of those very same things honestly. I also wondered 
> why no one stood up for Snape until Lily. If it had been Neville or 
> Luna as you mention lower someone would have done something. How do 
> you end up with no one in an entire school liking you? Is the 
problem 
> everyone else in the school or is it you?

Potioncat:
Of the students who were around, "Some looked apprehensive, some 
entertained." So I'd say the apprehensive ones didn't want to cross 
the Marauders. The ones being entertained either didn't care who the 
object was or liked the idea it was Severus.

We don't know where the other 5th year Slytherins were and it doesn't 
seem students from the other years would have been around there 
anyway. 
 
People steal Luna's belongings and she has to post requests for them 
back on the boards. Who is helping her? Being in the DA made her feel 
as if she had friends. 

This one is less certain, but when Draco performed the leg-locking 
curse on Neville, and he had to hop to the Common room. Who helped 
him? (He may have been in an empty corridor, and I'm not sure which 
book it was in.)In the current Gryffindor class, Harry and Ron are 
rarely hanging out with Seamus, Dean or even Neville. (It seems that 
Neville is the odd one out, as Seamus and Dean are called best 
friends.) 


We know Severus came up with some nasty hexes/curses; although we 
don't know if he used them at school and we don't know what motivated 
him to create them. I'm not trying to make Snape look better. He is 
what he is. But so is James. There is certainly a history between 
Snape and the Marauders by this point. But nothing has happened in 
the half hour or so before hand to justify what happens at this 
particular time. 

Compare this to the time Draco insulted both Lily and Molly. He had 
been taunting the Weasleys and Harry so much for so long, that I 
think the "attack" on Draco was justified. Even when she heard the 
whole story, McGonagall did not find it at all justified and was 
furious. I think she would have been even more upset at the Marauders.

    
> Joe: 
> Well at that point I imagine Lily was a bit embarassed at being 
> insulted by someone she was trying to help. I don't deny that 
James, 
> Sirius and probably dozens of others cast hexes and jinks at the 
drop 
> of a hat. In fact I would be surprised had it been otherwise.

Potioncat:
So, you think everyone at Hogwarts was hexing people just because 
they could? No wonder Severus creates those hexes! 

Sorry, couldn't resist. I'll grant you this, with people like Ginny 
and her bat-bogey hex and Hermione with her "sneak" hex, no one looks 
very good.
> 
    
>   Joe: 
> I am guessing that James hated the Dark Arts from the start and 
then 
> (probably) being exposed to Sirius's family made it worse.


> Joe:   
> Neither James or Sirius was perfect my any means. My main objection 
> is when someone attempts to make Snape look better by attempting to 
> make James look worse than he was. 
>    
> Only one of them ended up with a Dark Mark on his arm.

Potioncat:
Look, if you add up the points over time, James comes out ahead. I'm 
going to go out on a limb with this one: if (IF) **if** it turns out 
that Snape has been serving the Order all this time and if DD's death 
was in some way a continuation of that and Snape is still serving the 
Order...then pleasant guy or not, he is also being a hero to the 
cause. He made a very serious mistake (as did Regulus) and he had 
tried to make up for it. At the most he was a DE for a year or two, 
he's served the Order for much longer.



Potioncat:
I should have made this part a different post, but it ties in to this 
event. Sirius has said that James hated the Dark Arts, and it sounds 
as if he hated them at 11. Looking at the Black Family Tree as it 
appears at the Lexicon:
http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/blackfamilytree.html

There is a Charlus Potter who marries a Dorea Black and they have one 
son. I don't think this couple is James's parents, but it could be an 
aunt and uncle. I wonder if something about Dorea led to James's hate 
for Dark Arts. Of course, we have no real idea how closely related 
James is to Charlus and there may be no connection at all. I just saw 
it as a possible explanation. Dorea is Sirius's great-aunt, but I 
wasn't looking at it as someone James met through Sirius, but someone 
he knew or had heard about at home.











From nrenka at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 28 13:48:20 2006
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 13:48:20 -0000
Subject: Kant and Snape and Ethics and Everything
In-Reply-To: <e0aig1+rcl7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0ber4+44g7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150191

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" <sydpad at ...> wrote:

> So, it's hard to say, depending on how you read Kant.  In the sense
> that DDM!Snape is driven pretty much entirely by duty, his having
> personal issues that react against that make him even MORE of Kant's
> ideal actor.

I think the problem here is that you're taking the 'duty' aspect of 
Kant and trying to work with it alone, when it's built out of a 
number of very specific assumptions and arguments, especially the one 
about the perfectly good will.  He starts in the Foundations (oh, 
bless my old marked-up copy from first year) using duty as a way to 
illustrate precisely what he means by the perfectly good will, until 
you get (around 402 or something) "I should never act in a way that I 
could not also will that my maxim should be a universal law."  That's 
the core statement right there.

> The DDM interpretation of the Tower scene, for example, is that 
> Dumbledore's "Severus... please..."  is an appeal to Snape's duty 
> to protect the kids and the mission over his personal inclination
> for martyrdom.

But still, for Kant, unless Snape's actions are done with a good 
will, there can be nothing good about them.  I still don't buy the 
whole 'martyr' thing either, but it's not essential to strands of the 
DDM argument.

> And I do think that it's significant that the thing Snape 
> constantly harps on about James, is not his cruelty, but that he 
> thought "rules didn't apply to him"-- so rules, according to JKR, 
> seem to be very important to Snape's understanding of ethics.

But on the other hand, Snape has absolutely no problems with a 
somewhat...haphazard enforcement of rules for the students and such 
under his control.  He makes it personal, and he lets his favoritism 
out of the bag.  I think Neri's charge of Snape being somewhat 
mechanistic (there, describing a hypothetical perception of the Life 
Debt magic) has some teeth to it.  Rules enforced, but probably not 
with the Kantian awareness of the deep metaphysical nature and 
meaning of the rules--otherwise he wouldn't be inconsistent as he is.

For instance, remember that Kant's perfectly good will is perfectly 
rational, which is how Kant gets around the objection that "Each 
person *thinks* he's doing the objectively right thing."  From a 
Kantian perspective, showing cruelty to students in the pursuit of 
their education is not acceptable.

The thing that you cannot, cannot escape with Kant is how much he 
privileges consistency, and refuses the tendency to classify actions 
into the more and less important for moral evaluation.  He says 
pretty early on that that would be inconsistent and illogical.

-Nora is too lazy to type out Kant's fourth example of the dutiful 
man in the second section, but will only offer that it indicts 
someone for indifference and not using all of his faculties in the 
best way possible to actively help other people






From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 28 15:28:36 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 15:28:36 -0000
Subject: The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span
In-Reply-To: <e0agcl+7j40@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0bkn5+kjm3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150192

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
<dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:> 
> Alla:
> 
> Okay, midnight here.
> I think in Potterverse leaning to Dark Magic absolutely symbolises 
> one's character, although I do wish that JKR would define clearer 
> what dark magic is. DD is the Leader of Light, Voldemort is the 
> leader of Dark. Voldemort does not get the ancient magic, the 
> deepest magic of light, magic of love, no?
> 
> Hogwarts does not teach Dark Arts, only Defense against them. As 
Joe said, Ministry makes raids to collect Dark objects.
> 

Tonks:
Knowing Dark Magic does not make one a Dark Wizard. Remember what 
McGonagall said to DD in the first chapter of the first book about 
his being too noble to use it.  Of course DD knows Dark Magic; he is 
a very powerful wizard and did not get that way by studying only 
Love. But, and here is the difference, DD chooses not to "use" Dark 
Magic.  Or at least he has never to our knowledge used an 
unforgivable. There are other forms of Dark Magic and if you really 
look closely, IMO, the fact that the pictures do the bidding of the 
headmaster is very close to one of them. They are not because the 
pictures have apparently taken an oath to do that. But if DD had 
conjured them up and not given them a choice, that is the darkest 
form of Dark Magic. And it is very dangerous.

I am sure that JKR must have, as part of her research, learned a bit 
of Dark Magic herself. Being a Christian, I am sure that she has 
chosen not to use any of it.

Tonks_op
I know some Dark Magic, but I don't use it, and I an not a DE.








From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Mar 28 16:39:22 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 16:39:22 -0000
Subject: CHAP DISC: HBP 13, The Secret Riddle
In-Reply-To: <e09so3+c0do@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0borq+jnor@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150193

Jen wrote:
> Questions:
 
> 3. How do you think Dumbledore plans to stop Mundungus from 
> pilfering the Black family heirlooms?

Potioncat:
I'm not sure that Mundungus isn't playing a part with DD's approval. 
He's stolen something from 12GP, sold(?) it to DD's brother, a fellow 
member of the Order. Perhaps there was a "good" reason he gave teh 
item to aberforth. Later he's arrested and sent to Azkaban. Now, 
could he be doing something for the Order in Azkaban?
>  
> 4. Phineas continues to play a role in HBP which is more active 
than 
> the other portraits in Dumbledore's office. Presumably he overhears 
> all the vital information Dumbledore shares with Harry during the 
> course of their lessons and he is also able to visit the Black 
> house. Do you see JKR giving Phineas a more important role in Book 
7?

Potioncat:
Oh, I hope so! He has what Snape doesn't: a wicked tongue AND good 
grooming. Of course, in book 7 we'll have 2 important portraits: PNB 
adn DD.
>  
> 5. Dumbledore offers Harry his interpretation of why Merope did not 
> use magic to get the things she needed to survive. Do you think 
> Merope chose not to perform magic after Riddle, Sr. left her, or 
> that she was incapable of doing so?

Potioncat:
As many others have noted, we've been shown that dispair can weaken a 
witch/wizard. Now I'm wondering if that fact will play into the 
Eileen/Tobias dynamic and Snape's opinion of "fools who wear their 
hearts on their sleeves."



> 
> 10. Dumbledore seems to have an ongoing battle with young boys not 
> using the proper etiquette of referring to teachers as 'Professor' 
> or 'Sir'.  What did you think about the way Riddle talks to 
> Dumbledore compared to how Harry talks to Snape, erm, Professor 
> Snape?

Potioncat:
I thought there was an amazing parallel between DD/Riddle and 
Snape/Harry. It's almost too close for comfort. You could take quite 
a bit of DD's description of Riddle's school days and switch the 
names for Snape/Harry and it would just about work. I wonder if a bit 
of Riddle isn't sending off alarm bells for Snape just as Riddle did 
for DD.

> 
> 12. As Harry leaves the office he notices the ring is gone and 
> wonders whether the mouth organ Riddle had stowed in the cardboard 
> box might be of importance. Dumbledore beams at him and says, "very 
> astute Harry, but the mouth organ was only ever a mouth organ." Was 
> there any reason Dumbledore answered Harry's question so 
> cryptically? And why was he pleased to hear Harry say that? On a 
> side note, do you think that was a JKR message to fans? :)

Potioncat: I think you're on to something here. Actually, it was 
driving me crazy! 

Very good discussion! Wish I had more to contribute.
> 







From meriaugust at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 28 16:47:49 2006
From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 16:47:49 -0000
Subject: CHAP DISC: HBP 13, The Secret Riddle
In-Reply-To: <e09so3+c0do@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0bpbl+510s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150194

>Jen's Questions:
>  
> 1. What reaction did you have to Hermione, Ron and Dumbledore 
> refusing to talk to Harry about his theory that Draco was behind 
the 
> incident with Katie?

Meri: It didn't really surprise me that much. DD after all knew 
pretty much all along what was going on with Draco and after the 
whole Polyjucie Potion incident in COS I can't really blame Ron and 
Hermione for disregarding any suspiscions about Malfoy. Besides, 
Harry played the "Blame Malfoy" game for five years; wouldn't you be 
sick of hearing "Draco did it!" by now, too? 
 
> 2. Where do you think Dumbledore was over the weekend of Katie's 
> attack and why did Draco plan the attack when Dumbledore was away?

Meri: I always thought that Draco had no idea where DD was so he 
probably didn't mean to attack when the Headmaster was away from the 
castle. 
 
> 3. How do you think Dumbledore plans to stop Mundungus from 
> pilfering the Black family heirlooms?

Meri: Well, he's Dumbledore, isn't he...erm, wasn't he? There must 
be spells of some sort that can prevent items from being removed 
from a house. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if old Mr. Black had 
placed some of those spells on his super protected home. If RAB is 
who I think he is maybe that's why he chose to keep the locket 
there. 
snip
  
> 5. Dumbledore offers Harry his interpretation of why Merope did 
not 
> use magic to get the things she needed to survive. Do you think 
> Merope chose not to perform magic after Riddle, Sr. left her, or 
> that she was incapable of doing so?

Meri: I felt really bad for Merope when I finished this book; here 
was an abused young girl who was hated by those who should have 
loved her and was basically denied any chance at a normal life. But 
I still can't really picture her as completely helpless, and I don't 
know why. Maybe it is because of the fact that she was able to cast 
that love spell over Tom Riddle. That is, by any definition, an 
underhanded thing to do (even to a berk like Riddle) but she was 
strong enough to do it. I think that even if, as DD says, Merope was 
not as strong as Lily, she might have been strong in her own way. I 
can almost picture her hanging on through the pain of childbirth 
just long enough to cast some sort of spell on her son, though I 
don't really want to imagine this (because that would be a far too 
simplistic reason for LV's evilness; his mom made him do it). But I 
think she had a strength that we don't really get to see. After all, 
she too in a sense died for her son like Lily did for Harry. 
  
snip

> 7. JKR made a statement prior to HBP that we would know more about 
> the 'circumstances of Riddle's birth'. Was there anything about 
his 
> birth or life in the orphanage that surprised you or was it pretty 
> much the story you were expecting?

Meri: Creepy, creepy, creepy. I knew how much Tom Riddle hated the 
orphanage but I thought that that was just because he was different 
out there and the other students tortured him. Come to find out he 
hated them and tormented them. When I read that scene about the 
rabbit being hanged I literally shuddered; cruelty to anmials is 
usually a sign of a serious disturbance in the RW. Even as a kid he 
was scary and the fact that that disturbed little boy could grow up 
into the manipulative and slick young man that we met in COS just 
shows how he could change himself and fool people, which is 
frightening. 
  
> 8. Why do you think Dumbledore drew attention to the fact that 
Harry 
> was 'possibly [ ] feeling sorry for Lord Voldemort?' 

Meri: For the same reason, I think, that we were shown Snape's Worst 
Memory; not even the worst of us is all bad nor are they beyond 
understanding. Tom Riddle is (despite his magical transformations 
and delvings into the blackest of magic) a human being not some 
monster that sprung fully formed from the depths of hell. This was 
almost like seeing snapshots of a young Hitler. As much as you 
loathe what he became, you can't help but see a person in front of 
you. 

snip 
> 11. Harry is surprised to see Dumbledore set the wardrobe on fire. 
> Why did Dumbledore choose to show a boy whose 'magic had run away 
> with him' such a spectacular and destructive-looking 
demonstration? 

Meri: Perhaps to impress upon him the seriousness of magic and the 
depth of DD's own powers. A flock of doves or a flash bang of sparks 
would not have made the same impression on a little boy who can hurt 
students to the point of changing them and speak to snakes. 
 
Sorry for the ramblings, just needed to put my two cents in. 

Meri 








From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 28 18:07:49 2006
From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 18:07:49 -0000
Subject: Why wasnt Harry sent to either a lightsided wizarding family or a muggle fam
In-Reply-To: <6ac0e4d60603271928m75d03014r11777ac04adfc1e4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e0bu1l+s35l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150196

Clark Kent:
  I thought I made that clear, only four people knew of his survival.
Dumbledore, Minerva, Hagrid, and Sirius.  

Amiable Dorsai:
You made it clear.  JKR did not.

She's been very cagey about telling us exactly what happened in
Godric's Hollow that night and during the subsequent 24 hours. We know
that word of Harry's survival spread quickly, very quickly?perhaps too
quickly for Sirius and Hagrid, both of whom had other things to do
than tell tales, to have been the only witnesses.

Clark Kent:
The way JKR wrote it, Voldemort  went there alone.
I don't recall any mention of him bringing Death Eaters,
otherwise they would probably have attacked Hagrid and Sirius when
they showed up.

Amiable Dorsai:
Or they would have left in a big hurry, knowing that they had just
lost the war.  The books say nothing about this: Harry's
Dementor-invoked memories don't show him anyone else, but they don't
show him Voldemort either; Harry just recalls his voice.

Clark Kent:
  Besides, if the darkest wizard of the time was killed by a baby
you would probably think, as the studets in CoS believe, that he is
destined to be a powerful wizard.  Why not mold him to your own ideals?

AD: Because they needed to: a) bug out and hide, b)establish alibis,
c)destroy evidence, or d)have panic attacks--pick as many as you like,
and lumbering themselves with a baby at that point might have been
counter-productive?  How would Dumbledore know?  Why would Dumbledore
care?  All he has to know is that there was a possibility that a Death
Eater, or someone who might tell a Death Eater, had seen Harry alive.
 If so, pretending Harry was dead would be worse than useless?the
Death Eaters would know that he was out there, somewhere, and Harry
would be deprived of the protection he gets from Petunia.

Clark Kent:
*How hard would it be to find a family that was killed, and say that
he was their orphaned son?  Hell, if you wanted to put him in the
muggle world where he could grow up in a LOVING household, he'd be a
hell of a lot safer than in the Dursleys home where the corrupt
Ministry knows where he is. *

AD: If Dumbledore just takes Harry and spirits him away without the
Ministry's knowledge, he's a felon--a kidnapper. So is Hagrid, so is
any Wizarding couple that takes him in, unless Dumbledore doesn't tell
them that he's handing them a live grenade.  Of course, if he does
that, they have no reason to take any extraordinary precautions, so
there's a fair chance they'll end up like the Longbottoms?if they're
lucky.  

Again, if there are any unaccounted witnesses, the chance that this
will blow up in Dumbledore's face, leaving him in Azkaban, and Harry
completely unprotected, is quite high--and there was at least one
witness outside of Dumbledore's control that morning: Sirius Black.

If he tries to hide Harry with the collusion of the Ministry?well, as
you say, the Ministry is corrupt.

<Snip a bunch of speculation about how "blood wards" (a term that
never appears in the books) protect Harry?I know, let's ask Dumbledore
about it.>


Amiable Dorsai: "Didn't you realize that the Dursley's were lousy
guardians?"

Albus Dumbledore: "I knew I was condemning (Harry) to ten dark and
difficult years."

Amiable Dorsai: "So why did you do it?  Are you a sadist?"

Albus Dumbledore: " My answer is that my priority was to keep (Harry)
alive. (Harry was) in more danger than perhaps anyone but I realised.
Voldemort had been vanquished hours before, but his supporters - and
many of them are almost as terrible as he - were still at large,
angry, desperate and violent. And I had to make my decision, too, with
regard to the years ahead. Did I believe that Voldemort was gone for
ever? No. I knew not whether it would be ten, twenty or fifty years
before he returned, but I was sure he would do so, and I was sure,
too, knowing him as I have done, that he would not rest until he
killed (Harry).
 
"I knew that Voldemort's knowledge of magic is perhaps more extensive
than any wizard alive. I knew that even my most complex and powerful
protective spells and charms were unlikely to be invincible if he ever
returned to full power."

Amiable Dorsai: "So you put Harry in with a bunch of Muggles?  Are you
nuts?"

Albus Dumbledore: "
 I knew, too, where Voldemort was weak. And so I
made my decision. (Harry) would be protected by an ancient magic of
which he knows, which he despises, and which he has always, therefore,
underestimated - to his cost. I am speaking, of course, of the fact
that (Harry's) mother died to save (Harry). She gave (Harry) a
lingering protection he never expected, a protection that flows in
(Harry's) veins to this day. I put my trust, therefore, in (Harry's)
mother's blood. I delivered (Harry) to her sister, her only remaining
relative."

Amiable Dorsai:  Dammit, Dumbledore, she hates the kid
"

Albus Dumbledore: `But she took (him)
 She may have taken (him)
grudgingly, furiously, unwillingly, bitterly, yet still she took
(him), and in doing so, she sealed the charm I placed upon (him).
(His) mother's sacrifice made the bond of blood the strongest shield I
could give (him)."

Amiable Dorsai:  "Shield?  What shield?"

Albus Dumbledore: " `While (Harry) can still call home the place where
(his) mother's blood dwells, there (he) cannot be touched or harmed by
Voldemort. He shed her blood, but it lives on in (Harry) and her
sister. (Lily's)  blood became (Harry's)  refuge. (He) need(s) return
there only once a year, but as long as (Harry) can still call it home,
whilst (he) are there (Voldemort) cannot hurt (him)

Amiable Dorsai:  So the "shield" protects Harry from Voldemort's
machinations (presumably, since Dumbledore also needed to protect
Harry from stray Death Eaters, that includes his servants'
machinations) when Harry is in the place where his "mother's blood
dwells."  Dumbledore is pretty ambiguous about what "place" means,
exactly. Is it just #4 Privet Drive?  Little Whinging?  Surrey? England?

Since Dumbledore did not warn Harry to stay in the house after the
Tri-Wizard, we can deduce that the "place where his mother's blood
dwells" includes more than just #4.  Yeah, Dumbledore set a guard
there, but Mrs Figg implies that the guard is there to keep Harry out
of trouble with the Ministry.  

I think the shield failed to protect Harry from the Dementors, because
Umbridge sent them, not Voldemort.   

Amiable Dorsai







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 28 18:52:54 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 18:52:54 -0000
Subject: But DID James listen? (was LID!Snape rides again )
In-Reply-To: <e04vj6+s25t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0c0m6+keos@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150198

Alla:
<snip>
>
> You probably know that I am fond of speculation that since
> Slytherin's gang all graduated by that time ( they are older than
> Snape, I think it is pretty much canon now when Lucius and Bella's
> ages are specified, no?), Snape was left all alone to deal with
> Marauders.

Carol responds:
I agree with you here. The DEs whose ages we know (except for Barty
Jr. and Regulus Black) are older than Snape, and it's logical that the
Lestrange brothers and other members of the gang would be closer in
age to Lucius Malfoy than to Severus Snape, who seems to have been the
youngest member of that gang. (There's no indication that Barty Jr. or
Regulus were part of it.) And the apparent absence of any sympathizers
or defenders of Severus (except Lily) in the "worst memory" scene
suggests that none of the gang members was in his year. I think the
gang must have disintegrated after Lucius Malfoy left. (Even though SB
doesn't name him as a member, Malfoy leads the DEs at the MoM and
would surely have performed a similar role as a boy,just as his son
Draco leads his own little gang in Harry's time at Hogwarts.)
>
Alla:
> <snip> And of course we have that "Malfoy's lapdog". I am dying to
know whether this refers to Snape school years and what did Sirius
mean. <snip>

Carol:
Considering that AFWK Black never saw Snape after their graduation (he
didn't know that Snape had been a DE, that he had spied for DD during
VW1, or that he was a teacher at Hogwarts), this snide little epithet
almost certainly refers to their school years. And since Malfoy is
canonically five or six years older than Snape, it refers to the
relationship between a little boy and a big one.

Almost certainly, sixth-year Lucius would have taken note of any
Slytherin first-year who came to school knowing as many hexes as he
did and taken the little boy under his wing, at least once Bellatrix
was out of the way. (JKR shows her as being born in 1953, which can't
be right. Canonically, she was a member of the Slytherin gang that
adopted Severus, so she's probably a year older than Malfoy.) Sirius,
hating Severus, would see Severus hanging around with much older kids,
particularly with Malfoy, and think the worst. Hence "lapdog": "A
dependent or servile follower" (but also, literally, a small pet).

It's quite likely, IMO, that little Severus at eleven or twelve
admired the suave pureblood teenager, who may have epitomized
Slytherin values for him. And knowing what we know of the adult Snape,
I think it's likely that little Severus appreciated having such a
paragon (his view,not mine!) appreciate his talents, and he would hang
around him as much as the older boy would tolerate. Black, as an
adult, looks back on what he remembers of this relationship as the
little boy servilely following the big one. I think it's more likely
that Lucius was amused by him and that there was a brotherly affection
between them, which would account for Snape's continuing bond with the
Malfoys and the affection that he, in turn, shows to Draco.

I agree with a snipped portion of your post that it was Lucius Malfoy
who recruited young Snape to join the DEs, but I see no reason to
think that he did so before Severus left school. Sirius Black had no
idea that Snape was a Death Eater even though he knew that most of the
Slytherin gang had done so. Surely if Severus had come to school with
a Dark Mark, behaving strangely and neglecting his studies like Draco
in HBP, the Marauders would have noticed?

Severus, unlike Draco, was a studious boy. I imagine that he put his
best efforts into his NEWTs as he seems to have done with his OWLs.
But he was already, I think, disappointed that he had not been made
Head Boy (the hated James got the position instead), and he may have
expected to be swamped with job offers based on his marks and his many
OWLs and NEWTs (I'm assuming here, based on what we know of his
talents, his apparently photographic memory, and his known interest in
books). If that didn't happen, he'd have been an easy mark for
recruitment. His dear and trusted friend Malfoy would have promised
him recognition and rewards and the opportunity to do research
involving the Dark Arts--not the sort of career that the MoM was
likely to offer.

Speculation here: If he wasn't sent out on missions to torture Muggles
and the like, instead being entrusted with special projects like
making potions to immunize the Dark Lord against the ravages of time
and other mortal ills, it may have been some time before he became
disillusioned. Only when he realized that the Dark Lord meant to
murder an infant who posed a dim future threat would his loyalty have
  begun to waver (helped, perhaps, by the murder before Severus's eyes
of Regulus Black). We have no evidence that he committed murder
himself before he killed DD, only the assumption that as a DE he must
have done so, contradicted IMO by the evidence of specialization among
the DEs. Karkaroff would have mentioned it had Snape done so. He was
desperate to free himself at his fellow DEs' expense.

To return to the main point of this post, the limited evidence we have
does not support the assumption that SS joined the DEs while he was
still in school. The Marauders would surely have suspected it had he
done so, and neither Black nor Lupin knew that Snape had been a DE
until he revealed his Dark Mark to Fudge in front of Black in GoF.

Carol, wondering if there's a connection between Malfoy ("bad faith")
and "warlock" (lit. "one that breaks faith" or "oathbreaker")







From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 28 19:14:40 2006
From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 19:14:40 -0000
Subject: Why wasnt Harry sent to either a lightsided wizarding family or a muggle fam
In-Reply-To: <6ac0e4d60603271943l1344bdd6o82f5025b47df099f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e0c1v0+jgds@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150199


> Amiable Dorsai:
> 
> > Aside from the fact that Dumbledore isn't King of the Wizards, and
> > can't just decide to kidnap Harry and place him anywhere he wants?
> > (Petunia, after all, is Harry closest living relative,  On paper,
> > at least, she's the logical one to give Harry shelter.)

Clark Kent: 
> But he did!  

Amiable Dorsai:  
But he didn't.  He took Harry to his closest relative, a situation
that was apparently legal under Wizarding law--at least, any challenge
to that action apparently failed.  On paper, it was a logical, even
commendable, thing to do. 

Dumbledore took Harry to his aunt, not some random couple with no
close relationship to the Potters.  Had he done that, I'm sure a
custody battle of some sort would have erupted. No matter who won it,
Harry would lose.

Look at it this way, the war, up to that point, was almost lost, the
Ministry was in disarray, and no one was in charge.  Dumbledore had a
golden moment of opportunity to take Harry and put him in a place he
might have ended up at anyway, had Lily and Petunia not been estranged.

Clark Kent:
  Think of what would've happened if Sirius had raised Harry instead
of rushing off to find Peter?  

Amiable Dorsai: 
My guess is that Bella and her merry men would have gone after Sirius,
rather than the Longbottoms. In Sirius' care, Harry would have had no
special protection.

<Snip a bunch of my objections to various wizard couples, and Clark
Kent's rebuttals>

My point was, Dumbledore was not omniscient, and he knew it.  He knew
there were threats out there, but he didn't who they were or where
they were--he said as much at the end of GoF.  *Any* wizard couple was
vulnerable--the Longbottoms, both Aurors, are proof of that.

Without the shield of Lily's blood, available only if Harry lives with
Petunia, Harry probably would not have made it to nursery school.

It's a devil's bargain--Dumbledore can't even do much to dissuade
Petunia from mistreating Harry.  Since the shield is contingent on her
acceptance of Harry into her home, all Petunia has to do is tell Harry
to leave.  Once he can no longer call the place where his mother's
blood dwells "home", he's toast.

The shield, so powerful against Voldemort and his Death Eaters, is as
fragile as a soap bubble to one Muggle woman.

Amiable Dorsai










From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca  Tue Mar 28 19:24:58 2006
From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 19:24:58 -0000
Subject: But DID James listen? (was LID!Snape rides again )
In-Reply-To: <e0c0m6+keos@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0c2ia+u8h1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150200

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" 
<justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
<snip>
> Speculation here: If he wasn't sent out on missions to torture 
Muggles
> and the like, instead being entrusted with special projects like
> making potions to immunize the Dark Lord against the ravages of 
time
> and other mortal ills, it may have been some time before he became
> disillusioned. Only when he realized that the Dark Lord meant to
> murder an infant who posed a dim future threat would his loyalty 
have
>   begun to waver (helped, perhaps, by the murder before Severus's 
eyes
> of Regulus Black). We have no evidence that he committed murder
> himself before he killed DD, only the assumption that as a DE he 
must
> have done so, contradicted IMO by the evidence of specialization 
among
> the DEs. Karkaroff would have mentioned it had Snape done so. He 
was
> desperate to free himself at his fellow DEs' expense.
> 
<snip>

If Snape was the Dark side's potion expert that may not have been a 
good thing for him
especially if Snape was testing and/or designing 
anti-aging potions. Quite simply Snape's methods seem to involve 
some trial and error (the frequent rewrites in the HBP potion book) 
and if one is trying to design something to stop human aging the 
best way to test the trail versions would be on other humans. We 
know that Fred and George experienced unpleasant side-effects when 
experimenting on themselves...Snape could avoid that by testing 
things on muggles and enemies of the Dark side. 

Quick_Silver








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 28 21:21:23 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 21:21:23 -0000
Subject: UV/Baptism parallel
Message-ID: <e0c9cj+bvmt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150201

The UV that Snape takes has been compared to a wedding ceremony, with
Bella the Bonder as the officiating minister (except that she doesn't
speak, so the resemblance IMO is to a couple who speaks their own
vows). But it seems to me that there's also a resemblance to the
baptism of a child (or a baptism by proxy, if such a thing exists)
with Snape in the position of godparent, at least for the first two
provisions of the vow.

Narcissa: Will you, Severus, watch over my son, Draco, as he attempts
to fulfill the Dark Lord's wishes?

Snape: I will.

Narcissa: And will you, to the best of your ability, protect him from
harm?

Snape: I will.

Compare this excerpt from the Anglican liturgy for the baptism of a
(male) child:

Minister: Will you pray for this child, draw him by your example into
the community of faith and walk with him in the way of Christ?

Godparents: With the help of God, we will.
  	  	 
Minister: In baptism this child begins his journey in faith. You speak
for him today. Will you care for him, and help him to take his place
 	within the life and worship of Christ's Church?

Godparents: With the help of God, we will.

I realize that the parallels are not absolute, and that Narcissa is
asking Snape to watch over and protect Draco, but she is nevertheless
placing Snape (willynilly) in a position analogous to that of a
godfather as Draco begins his "journey" as a follower of the Dark
Lord, almost as if she expects Snape to act not only as Draco's
protector but as his guide in a dark imitation of the role
traditionally assigned to a godparent. At the same time, she's 
infantilizing Draco, placing him in the position of an infant or child
too young to speak his own vows.

In place of water and ritual cleansing, we have bonds of (hell)fire(in
seeming contradiction to the association of Slytherin with water and
Gryffindor with fire but consistent, perhaps, with devil worship.

I'm not discussing Snape's motives here, only the Darkness of the
magic and its distorted mirroring of the Christian liturgy. Does
anyone else see Snape in the role of godfather--or should I say
darklordfather--here? We already know that Snape is bound by ropes of
fire to keep his word or die. If this ritual is the antithesis of
Christian baptism (which provides for a child's protection and
guidance on his journey toward salvation), how would that add to our
understanding of Narcissa's expectations and Snape's predicament, as
well as his relationship with Draco?

Or maybe I'm reading in too much, and the significance is not in the
dark ritual but in the ropes of fire, symbolizing coercion and bondage
rather than free choice (and, of course, in the words themselves, the
vows that Snape is putting his life on the line by making).

Carol, certain that the UV is Dark magic and that Dumbledore would
never have bound Snape or anyone else to his will by compelling them
to obey him or die







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Mar 28 22:00:34 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 22:00:34 -0000
Subject: Kant and Snape and Ethics and Everything
In-Reply-To: <e0ber4+44g7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0cbm2+a2k5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150202

Nora:
> But on the other hand, Snape has absolutely no problems with a 
> somewhat...haphazard enforcement of rules for the students and such 
> under his control.  He makes it personal, and he lets his favoritism 
> out of the bag.  I think Neri's charge of Snape being somewhat 
> mechanistic (there, describing a hypothetical perception of the Life 
> Debt magic) has some teeth to it.  Rules enforced, but probably not 
> with the Kantian awareness of the deep metaphysical nature and 
> meaning of the rules--otherwise he wouldn't be inconsistent as he is.
> 
> For instance, remember that Kant's perfectly good will is perfectly 
> rational, which is how Kant gets around the objection that "Each 
> person *thinks* he's doing the objectively right thing."  From a 
> Kantian perspective, showing cruelty to students in the pursuit of 
> their education is not acceptable.

Pippin:
I know almost nothing about Kant, but from what you and Sydney
are saying, it sounds like Snape could be a  satirical critique of this 
philosophy. He's someone who *thinks* he's utterly rational, 
except for those occasional moments of CAPSLOCK rage when
his mighty powers of occlumency fail him, but he has no idea 
that his subconcious emotions and biases are influencing him
*all the time*. 

So when he says that he tries to treat Harry like any other
student, he is being completely  honest, as far as he knows.  
He doesn't let his *conscious* hatred of Harry influence him, but
he's wholly and hilariously unaware that his *unconscious* hatred
makes him view everything Harry does in the worst possible light.

While he thinks he is showing no more than the normal favoritism
to his own House, he has no idea that his subconscious biases make
every Slytherin misdeed  look like kidstuff, best ignored, while
each instance of  Gryffindor rulebreaking looks like incipient criminality 
to be nipped in the bud at once.

Seen in this light, his worry that Dumbledore will make trouble over
Sirius is understandable -- he doesn't get  Dumbledore's 
emotional style of decision-making and thinks that the old guy's
soft-heartedness and squeamishness over dementors might keep
Sirius from facing his just deserts.

That this is comic is shown by the lack of serious consequences:
Harry's psyche is not squashed to jelly, Sirius gets away,
Neville's hopes of being an Auror would have failed anyway, 
Harry's attempts at occlumency would have failed anyway, Lupin 
would have been outed anyway, and so on.

I'm not quite sure how this relates to the scene on the tower, but it
could be that Dumbledore was pleading for Snape to open his heart.  
Of course we all have our little differences of opinion on what 
Snape would find if he did that. But Dumbledore, at any rate, believed
in DDM!Snape through and through.

IIRC, current thinking is that a normal person cannot be completely
rational anyway. Brain-damaged people whose ability to feel is 
compromised do not make perfectly rational decisions. They can 
hardly make decisions at all because they have no preference for 
any particular outcome.

Pippin






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 28 22:25:04 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 22:25:04 -0000
Subject: CHAP DISC: HBP 13, The Secret Riddle
In-Reply-To: <e09so3+c0do@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0cd40+igea@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150203

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" <stevejjen at ...> wrote:
>
> CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter
> 13, The Secret Riddle
> 
> ...
>  
>  
> Questions:
>  
> 1. What reaction did you have to Hermione, Ron and Dumbledore 
> refusing to talk to Harry about his theory that Draco was behind the 
> incident with Katie?
>  

bboyminn:

One of the great things about these Chapter Discussions is that we all
get to express our opinions on a common experience. Again, and I know
your getting tired of hearing it, I am reminded of the blind men
examining the elephant; they are each right, but they are all wrong.
Of course, that doesn't imply that every opinion in this group is
wrong, just multiple and varied, and that's what makes it interesting.

I don't think Ron and Hermione were refusing to believe Harry. They
both knew that Draco was up to no good because Draco is always up to
no good. So, they accept that Draco is up to something, there
objection is a matter of degree. They accept that Draco is up to
something, but they can't quite let themselves believe that Draco has
become a full-fledged Death Eater and in intimately in league with
Voldemort. They don't think Draco is that smart, and they don't think
Voldemort is that dumb; even though, in a way, both are true.

As far as Dumbledore, I will only speak to my impression. I get the
sense that Dumbledore intends to say that he knows and is dealing with
it. Yet, he does a pretty poor job of conveying this to Harry. He
takes, very much, a don't trouble yourself, the adults are handling it
attitude, and that does a great disservice to both Harry and
Dumbledore. Once again, Dumbledore is /saving/ Harry from information,
saving him from being burdened with /knowledge/. Yet, that 'saving',
as it always happens, is the very thing that prevents Harry from
responding in the appropriate manner. A little explanation now and
then would go a long way.

I have two ideas about this tendency from Dumbledore. One is that
Dumbledore just assumes that others are operating at the same level of
genius that he is, and assumes that they understand unspoken
information. The other is that this is a caculated tendency that has
become somewhat ingrained in Dumbledore. He only tells people what
they need to know to accomplish the task at hand, and sometimes less. 

Unfortunately, that doesn't give them the resources they need to
recongise important and valuable information and occurrences when they
appear. Further, not having full information and a clear objective,
doesn't allow much room for innovation when things don't go according
to plan. If you only give your 'helpers' a very small view of the
world, then you can only expect very small responses from them. Small
responses rarely achieve great things, and clearly  great thing need
to be achieved.

> 2. Where do you think Dumbledore was over the weekend of Katie's 
> attack and why did Draco plan the attack when Dumbledore was away?
> 

bboyminn:

Well, I think we can assume that throughout this book, Dumbledore was
off gathering information. It seems that Dumbledore is always gone,
and it seems as if every trip is related to gathering information that
will help him and Harry understand and find both the Horcruxes and
Voldemort; the two being very much intertwined.


> 3. How do you think Dumbledore plans to stop Mundungus from 
> pilfering the Black family heirlooms?
>  

bboyminn:

I'm sure somehow Mundungus was able to rationalize his actions in his
own mind. I'm sure he convinced himself that Harry didn't want or need
all this 'junk' cluttering up his life. Of course, his reaction when
he met Harry outside the Three Broomsticks, shows us that his
rationalization was not complete; it was simply enough to convince him
to act. When he meets Harry, Mundungus clearly feels guilty. 

I suspect Mundungus has 'gone to ground' as they say. He has gone into
hiding, and desperately does not want to face Harry or Dumbledore's
wrath. I think that fear alone is enough to break down his
rationalized excuses, and keep him from stealing any more.


> 4. Phineas continues to play a role in HBP which is more active than 
> the other portraits in Dumbledore's office. ... Do you see JKR 
> giving Phineas a more important role in Book 7?
>  

bboyminn:

I don't think it is so much will he have a role, but whether that role
will be critical or significant. I don't think it will. Phineus is
related to Sirius, and has a protrait at the Black House and at
Hogwarts. That alone is enough to insure his role in the last book,
but I don't think he will act in an enhanced way, he will just
continue his role as it already is.


> 5. Dumbledore offers Harry his interpretation of why Merope did not 
> use magic to get the things she needed to survive. Do you think 
> Merope chose not to perform magic after Riddle, Sr. left her, or 
> that she was incapable of doing so?
>  

bboyminn:

I think Tonks was our first clue as to 'state of mind' affecting
magical characteristics. This was the clue that this was possible. I
agree with others that Merope was in a state of heart-broken despair.
She was not just feeling a little depressed. I think this is reflected
in her selling the Slytherin Locket for such a paltry sum. At that
point she had given up on life, and only need enough money to get
through her child's birth. I don't think her despair allowed he to see
the future beyond that.

So, I think the dark cloud of utter despare broke her will. If you've
ever been in such or a similar dark cloud, you know that simple tasks
become next to impossible. So, I think she lack the will to do magic,
which is far more than simply not being willing to do magic.

> 6. Just out of curiosity, we never learned what happened to 
> Caractacus Burke. Any speculation?
>  

bboyminn:

I would have assumed that Burke either retired or died a natural
death. Though others have pointed out (I think) that Dumbledore had a
memory of Burke's, which would imply that he was still alive. So, now
I suspect he either sold his protion of the business and retired, or
he became a retired silent partner in the enterprise. 


> 7. JKR made a statement prior to HBP that we would know more about 
> the 'circumstances of Riddle's birth'. Was there anything about his 
> birth or life in the orphanage that surprised you or was it pretty 
> much the story you were expecting?
>  

bboyminn:

I think I was totally open to whatever came; I had no preconceived
notions. I was surprised that the orphanage was so nice. I expected a
very Dickens Oliver Twist stlye orphanage. While this place was plain,
it was clear the staff treated the orphans kindly and tried to do
their best. 

It was a little scary to me with regards to young Tom though. It was
clear he was already a bit twisted. I shuttered when Tom commanded
Dumbledore to 'tell the truth' and the way he greedily wanted a wand.


> 8. Why do you think Dumbledore drew attention to the fact that Harry 
> was 'possibly [ ] feeling sorry for Lord Voldemort?' 
> 

bboyminn:

I think it was Dumbledore subtly (as usual) showing Harry how he
differed from Voldemort. In the previous book, we found Harry feeling
sorry for Snape. In this book, we find him feeling sorry for
Voldemort. It show that Harry has compassion and empathy, two things
that are sadly and greatly lacking in Voldemort. I'm sure this is
important, but I can't imagine how this whole 'love' angle is going to
 play out in the final resolution of the story.


> 9. After learning Merope died rather than live for her son, Harry 
> expressed anger that she made a poor choice compared to Lily, 
> who 'didn't have a choice'. Dumbledore corrected him gently, saying 
> Lily *did* have a choice. Why do you think Harry didn't believe Lily 
> had a choice when he heard the memory in POA of Voldemort telling 
> her to 'step aside'?
> 

bboyminn:

Lily did have a choice. As I've said before, Voldemort had his
objective in sight, and Lily was just a minor annoyance. Kill her, not
kill her, it didn't matter, he had Harry and that was his primary
focus and objective.

That said, neither I nor Harry could imagine that any mother would
ever make such a choice. They would always die defending their
children. So, the fact that Lily had only one ACCEPTABLE choice
doesn't mean that she literally had only one choice. She could have
been a coward and stepped aside, and then she may or may not have
lived. But 'may or may not' is a far better chance of life than
absolutely 'not'.


> 10. Dumbledore seems to have an ongoing battle with young boys not 
> using the proper etiquette of referring to teachers as 'Professor' 
> or 'Sir'.  What did you think about the way Riddle talks to 
> Dumbledore compared to how Harry talks to Snape, erm, Professor 
> Snape?
>  

bboyminn:

This could have some deeper meaning in the story. For example, it
could have an indirect corrolation to Harry feeling sorry for
Voldmort. Dumbledore is trying to teach that all people have good in
them, and they still deserve your respect even if you don't like them.

On the other hand, Dumbledore is teaching a universal lesson that
every schoolboy has drilled into him; showing tokens of respect for
authority. I suspect there isn't a schoolboy alive who hasn't had a
hundred reminders to address people with respect.


> 11. Harry is surprised to see Dumbledore set the wardrobe on fire. 
> Why did Dumbledore choose to show a boy whose 'magic had run away 
> with him' such a spectacular and destructive-looking demonstration? 
> 

bboyminn:

Young Tom seems pretty confident in his secret and special powers. He
can hurt people, he can control people, he can 'do' things, he can
command the truth from people, and he can talk to snakes. I think
Dumbledore is pointing out to young Tom that he has a lot more to
learn. I also think it is note worthy that Dumbledore created the
illussion of fire rather than actual flames. When Dumbledore stops the
flames, the wardrobe is undamaged; everything is normal.

Somehow knowing that Tom has his box of trophies, Dumbledore
threatened the things the Tom valued the most. When you are that poor,
even small things like stones, slips of paper, and other worthless
trinkets become your treasure. I very much think Dumbledore was trying
to subtly intimidate Tom.


> 12. As Harry leaves the office he notices the ring is gone and 
> wonders whether the mouth organ Riddle had stowed in the cardboard 
> box might be of importance. Dumbledore beams at him and says, "very 
> astute Harry, but the mouth organ was only ever a mouth organ." Was 
> there any reason Dumbledore answered Harry's question so 
> cryptically? And why was he pleased to hear Harry say that? On a 
> side note, do you think that was a JKR message to fans? :)
> 

bboyminn:

Again, I respond to my underlying impression of what I saw. I think
Dumbledore it please to see that Harry is 'getting it'. That Harry is
starting to think the way Dumbledore is trying to teach Harry to
think. Harry's not quite there yet, but he is on the right track.

Dumbledore wants to teach Harry that Voldemort placed great emphasis
on the power of places and things. That places and things that are
significant to him hold the clues to finding and destroying the
Horcruxes. 

Again, we are seeing Dumbledore annoying subtility. I have always said
that Revelation is a far better teacher than Explanation, and
Dumbledore seems to subscribe to a similar philosophy. The one thing
he forgets is that occassionally a little explanation goes a long way
toward revelation.

As I said above, I don't know if Dumbledore's tight-lippedness is an
artifact of his level of genius; he simply can't comperhend life on
the low level that most people live it, or whether he is afraid that
too much information is a dangerous thing. In some ways he is right,
too much information is dangerous if it is held by the wrong people,
but of all the people, Harry certianly needs more information than
most. I see Dumbledore and the other adults around Harry leaving him
wholely unprepared for the task ahead. I hope Harry sees it as well,
and starts long hard training to improve his skill in all the areas he
needs.

Yes, in the end 'love may conquer all'; but from Harry's immediate
perspective, that is not a practical approach to anything.

For what it's worth.

Steve/bboyminn

PS: 
Has anyone noticed when they are about to send a post at the groups
website, that there is a drop-down box just below the text window that
allows you to select the language you are posting in? So what does
that do? Is it literal translation into the selected language, or just
character conversion? It's something I never noticed before.







From nrenka at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 28 22:45:11 2006
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 22:45:11 -0000
Subject: Kant and Snape and Ethics and Everything
In-Reply-To: <e0cbm2+a2k5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0ce9n+2m4s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150204

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> 
wrote:

<snip>

> That this is comic is shown by the lack of serious consequences:
> Harry's psyche is not squashed to jelly, Sirius gets away,
> Neville's hopes of being an Auror would have failed anyway, 
> Harry's attempts at occlumency would have failed anyway, Lupin 
> would have been outed anyway, and so on.

Where I'd disagree with your general summations here is that it's 
always and entirely comic.  These Snape-centered situations were more 
comic than not in the beginning of the series, but many things which 
were more comical have become increasingly serious.  For one, it's 
funny to laugh at Snape's open rage at the end of PoA until you 
realize how that may have rebounded with Fudge's opinions and 
willingness to act at the end of GoF.  (I'm not going to take the 
Wanderer's position of 'alles ist nach seiner Art' here, because I 
prefer the perspective that events actually have effects and thus 
matter.)  Snape and Harry's hostility is somewhat comic until it has 
profound effects, contributing to the tragic denoument of OotP.  
Neville may never have been Auror material, but it's taken him long 
enough to realize who and what he could be instead.

No, I think the Ordinary Vices, the little everyday evils which 
characters do to each other, these things begin to add up, and they 
certainly do matter.  Wouldn't that be your general argument 
regarding the Twins, as well?  Actions read as generally comic in one 
book taking on different ramifications and with definite consequences 
in the next?

-Nora raises the bar of expectations for characters in positions of 
authority, probably wrongly







From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 28 23:02:37 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 23:02:37 -0000
Subject: Maligning Lupin/werewolves
In-Reply-To: <e0auh3+6fdb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0cfad+mle8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150205


> Lizzie:
>  
> > It looks to me like Snape fulfulled his obligation, even 
personally 
> > delivered the potion. 
> 
> Finwitch:
> 
> Quite. Snape delivered it to Lupin. I'd say that there was an 
> agreement which required that Snape prepare and deliver the potion. 
> Probably because that way it's more fresh or something like that. 
That 
> night Lupin hadn't yet recieved it (Snape was only just bringing 
it) -
> didn't exactly forget his potion, now did he? There never was any 
> obligation for Lupin to get it from Snape, was there?

zgirnius:
I agree with Lizzie here. Since we have no idea what agreement there 
was, it could be that 1) Lupin WAS supposed to pick it up, but tended 
to put it off, causing Snape to seek him out in his office, as we saw 
once before.
Or 2) that actually they would agree to a time in advance, and Snape 
WAS on time. Or, that you are right and Snape was running late. 

Finwitch:
> Possibly Snape was a bit *late* when Lupin saw Peter on the map. 
And, 
> Lupin did leave the map OPEN onto his desk so if Snape came early 
> enough with the potion, he'd know where to bring it.
> 
> Snape did see where Lupin went (the shrieking Shack where he used 
to 
> transform in his youth) but he did NOT bring the potion. Why not?
> 
> And then came that *huge* irresponsibility - what, take the 
werewolf 
> into the castle undrugged? Did Snape plan to do that in order to 
> create circumstances where he can kill Lupin so that it can't be 
> objected, because it saves the students?

zgirnius:
I think that the magical ropes (or whatever they were) that Snape 
used to tie up Lupin might well have held through the transformation. 
If so, Snape did take steps necessary to ensure that Lupin posed no 
threat. He simply chose to do so in a way that was less pleasant for 
Lupin than taking a potion would have been.







From hickengruendler at yahoo.de  Tue Mar 28 23:17:42 2006
From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 23:17:42 -0000
Subject: CHAP DISC: HBP 13, The Secret Riddle
In-Reply-To: <e0cd40+igea@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0cg6m+8hnp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150206

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:
 
> bboyminn:
> 
> I would have assumed that Burke either retired or died a natural
> death. Though others have pointed out (I think) that Dumbledore had a
> memory of Burke's, which would imply that he was still alive. So, now
> I suspect he either sold his protion of the business and retired, or
> he became a retired silent partner in the enterprise. 

Hickengruendler:

Dumbledore also had a memory of Morfin Gaunt, who died some decades 
ago. And he had one of Bob Ogden, who he said died as well. Therefore 
it is still possible that Burke died some time after Dumbledore got the 
memory. I still think Voldemort offed him.  






From sydpad at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 28 23:20:23 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 23:20:23 -0000
Subject: Kant and Snape and Ethics and Everything
In-Reply-To: <e0cbm2+a2k5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0cgbn+52a6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150207


> Pippin:
> I know almost nothing about Kant, but from what you and Sydney
> are saying, it sounds like Snape could be a  satirical critique of this 
> philosophy. He's someone who *thinks* he's utterly rational, 
> except for those occasional moments of CAPSLOCK rage when
> his mighty powers of occlumency fail him, but he has no idea 
> that his subconcious emotions and biases are influencing him
> *all the time*. 


Yeah!  See, I should have kept going.. I think Snape is an example of
both the strengths and the weaknesses of the duty-bound theory of
ethics.  On the one hand, what I find so compelling about it is the
idea, which I feel quite strongly about, that there's a critically
important distinction between niceness and goodness.  And I agree
wholeheartedly with Kant that anybody, regardless of their feelings or
culture, has a way to know the difference between right and wrong and
the capacity to act accordingly.  On the other hand, there's a great
many difficulties with acting exclusively out of duty, particularily
in terms of living a flurishing life.

Nora:
>I think the problem here is that you're taking the 'duty' aspect of
>Kant and trying to work with it alone, when it's built out of a
>number of very specific assumptions and arguments, especially the one
>about the perfectly good will.  He starts in the Foundations (oh,
>bless my old marked-up copy from first year) using duty as a way to
>illustrate precisely what he means by the perfectly good will...<snip>
>But still, for Kant, unless Snape's actions are done with a good
>will, there can be nothing good about them. 

I'm not completely clear from your post, but I think you're confusing
what Kant means by 'good will', with an idea of 'benevolence', which
is natural as that's what most people mean by 'good will'.  Kant, by
the perfectly good will, meant that one was acting exclusively out of
a sense of duty to moral law.  He explicity excluded from the good
will things like being spiritually full of goodness.  The passage I
quoted in my first post about the guy who was cold and lacking in
sympathy and acts morally solely out of a sense of duty to do so, is
from the whole 'good will' section.  There's a super-clear and concise
little essay here: 
http://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~sobel/Mystery_Glory/m_g6.pdf (sorry, it's
a pdf) distinguishing Kant's idea of Good Will from Hume's idea of
benevolence (actually, I think I've just found James' philosopher: 
Hume, who valued justice and benevolence)  

I do think Snape is at least ATTEMPTING to have a good will-- that
he's trying to be on the good side and to find a system of rules that
will enable him to do this, without actually being an instinctively
good person.  I think this is exactly the source of Snape's
frustrations with how the people who break rules all the time somehow
wind up being considered by everyone to be more on the good side than
he is.  

The eternal issue with Snape's teaching unfortunately merely re-raises
everything we've ever hashed out about what makes a good teacher and
what the definition of child abuse is etc etc, and we're unlikely to
resolve it here.  Suffice to say, I think in Snape's mind, he is 
putting considerable effort into fullfilling his duty as a teacher,
against his natural inclinations.  Your view of what the duties of a
teacher are obviously aren't the same as his. 

In a way this ties into the place Occlumency had thematically.  We've
been looking at this from the side of motivation to do good things,
but what about methods for coping with bad impulses?  Snape rants to
Harry that without learning Occlumency, Voldemort will penetrate his
mind and Harry will have no defence against his powers.  It's pretty
clear to me that Snape is talking about himself here, and that
learning to close his mind off to negative feelings by sheer
will-power was important in allowing him to leave Voldemort. Harry on
the other hand is just plain crap at closing his mind to begin with,
and a good thing to because in the end Voldemort and his dark feelings
were driven away by the blinding heat of love alone.  To me this whole
subplot is about how repressing and controlling dark feelings is ONE
way, and can be an important way, to cope, in the end the only way to
really deal with them is to bring them out into the light and overcome
them with loving feelings.  In the same way, doing the right thing out
of duty certainly has it's place, and it's by no means an
insignificant place, but in the end you'd be better off connecting
with the ultimate source of goodness which is love.

Pippin:
> So when he says that he tries to treat Harry like any other
> student, he is being completely  honest, as far as he knows.  
> He doesn't let his *conscious* hatred of Harry influence him, but
> he's wholly and hilariously unaware that his *unconscious* hatred
> makes him view everything Harry does in the worst possible light.

Which is exactly the problem with Kant.  Trying to act out of the Good
Will alone, without any feelings of benevolence to help out, leaves
duty and reason to swim upstream against a torrent of emotion.  It's
just bound to exhaust you. I think Aristotle is my favorite
philosopher because he would have taken this into account, being a
practical man;   but I really appreciate Kant as plug-in to explain
the idea that it's not just good-hearted people that we expect to act
well.  I guess that's why I'm so fascninated by Snape!  

-- Sydney









From nrenka at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 29 00:00:51 2006
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 00:00:51 -0000
Subject: Kant and Snape and Ethics and Everything
In-Reply-To: <e0cgbn+52a6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0cinj+uu0l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150208

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" <sydpad at ...> wrote:

> I'm not completely clear from your post, but I think you're 
> confusing what Kant means by 'good will', with an idea 
> of 'benevolence', which is natural as that's what most people mean 
> by 'good will'.  Kant, by the perfectly good will, meant that one 
> was acting exclusively out of a sense of duty to moral law.

Your bitter and duty-bound Snape is very much the approach to duty 
which Kant is talking about as being inadequate, though.  He starts 
things off "For it is not sufficient to that which should be morally 
good that it conform to the law; it must be done for the sake of the 
law."

Then, when talking about duty, he says "duty does not rest at all on 
feelings, impulses, and inclinations; it rests merely on the relation 
of rational beings to one another..."  This leads directly into the 
discussion about dignity--the intrinsic worth of the human being, 
which the person acting according to the Categorical Imperative 
cannot violate (no, really, it's impossible if you're genuinely 
acting according to the CI and your will is thus never in conflict 
with itself).

The idea of respect for dignity has a great deal of force in Kant's 
moral system; there's something incredibly high and beautiful about 
it.  It's what holds us together as a community of rational beings, 
when we have respect for those things which must apply to all of us 
and thus connect all of us.

> Suffice to say, I think in Snape's mind, he is putting considerable 
> effort into fullfilling his duty as a teacher, against his natural 
> inclinations.  Your view of what the duties of a teacher are 
> obviously aren't the same as his. 

Well, unless Snape were to by his will make his treatment of his 
students into a universal law and see perfectly rationally that it 
would hold valid, he's failing the CI in that case.  (And it does 
fail that test because of how it treats other people, such as the 
favoritism.  It's irrational to will favoritism into being a 
universal law--I trust the contradiction is obvious.)

The "in Snape's mind" is the kicker.  That's not good enough for 
Kant, as he explicitly discusses throughout even such a short work as 
the Foundations.

> In the same way, doing the right thing out of duty certainly has 
> it's place, and it's by no means an insignificant place, but in the 
> end you'd be better off connecting with the ultimate source of 
> goodness which is love.

I think you are really, really shortchanging the beauty and 
complexity of Kant's concept of duty and everything which goes into 
generating it.  But that's probably going to take us totally OT.

-Nora herself thinks that Rowling tends to be a virtue ethicist, and 
that's part of why she's *totally OK* with what comes across to 
listies as unfair double standards







From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Wed Mar 29 00:22:38 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 00:22:38 -0000
Subject: CHAP DISC: HBP 13, The Secret Riddle
In-Reply-To: <e09so3+c0do@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0ck0e+p8jb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150209

Jen Reese, HBP 13, The Secret Riddle:
>
Questions:
>  
> 1. What reaction did you have to Hermione, Ron and Dumbledore 
> refusing to talk to Harry about his theory that Draco was behind 
the 
> incident with Katie?

Ceridwen:
I thought it was a case of 'prove it'.  They've all heard Harry going 
on about Draco since SS/PS.  He's made accusations that haven't 
panned out, he says things with only his suspicions and no evidence.  
I think Ron and Hermione may be tired of being dragged down yet 
another emotional course to find no pay-off (concrete evidence) at 
the end.  Dumbledore is probably more on top of what's going on than 
Harry is.  But he isn't letting Harry in on it, and I think he may 
also believe that the lessons he's giving Harry should be paramount, 
not what Draco Malfoy's doing.

Jen Reese:
> 2. Where do you think Dumbledore was over the weekend of Katie's 
> attack and why did Draco plan the attack when Dumbledore was away?

Ceridwen:  I thought Dumbledore was on another expedition to either 
find the cave or the hiding place of another Horcrux, or he was 
seeing about more memories.  Definitely something to do with the 
lessons he's giving Harry throughout the book.

Jen Reese:
> 3. How do you think Dumbledore plans to stop Mundungus from 
> pilfering the Black family heirlooms?

Ceridwen:
Speak to him.  Impress Mundungus with DD's apparent omnipotence.  Ask 
PNB to check in occasionally and at random.  Ask other Order members 
to stop in, or check up on Mundungus.  Threaten or exact a promise 
from Mundungus.  Any combination of the above.

Jen Reese: 
> 4. Phineas continues to play a role in HBP which is more active 
than 
> the other portraits in Dumbledore's office. Presumably he overhears 
> all the vital information Dumbledore shares with Harry during the 
> course of their lessons and he is also able to visit the Black 
> house. Do you see JKR giving Phineas a more important role in Book 
7?

Ceridwen:
I am hoping PNB has some role in book 7.  I am sincerely hoping JKR 
has written enough about him that she won't be able to keep him out 
of it.  I think he's been in on most of the Deep Dark Secrets 
discussed in the headmaster's office, even if he *appears* to be 
sleeping like the other portraits.  He's given hints that he knows 
more than we or Harry do and could be a source of information.

Jen Reese: 
> 5. Dumbledore offers Harry his interpretation of why Merope did not 
> use magic to get the things she needed to survive. Do you think 
> Merope chose not to perform magic after Riddle, Sr. left her, or 
> that she was incapable of doing so?

Ceridwen:
I think she gave up.  Everything she has tried on her own has gone 
wrong.  Everything in her life with her father and brother was 
depressing and degrading.  When she finally did get to test out her 
powers out from under Daddy Dearest's thumb, she makes the wrong 
choice, she ruins her own and someone else's life.  At this point, 
she must think that she's nothing but bad news and her baby will be 
much better off without a screw-up like her raising him.  She doesn't 
have the will to try.  She probably couldn't do magic now if she did 
try.  Despair?  Sure.  Guilt and remorse?  Absolutely.  A tragic end 
of a tragic life.

Jen Reese:
> 6. Just out of curiosity, we never learned what happened to 
> Caractacus Burke. Any speculation?

Ceridwen:
Dead.  Killed by LV for what he did to Merope.  This looks like 
bragging on Burke's part, not unexpected, but not smart if he only 
knew who he was talking about!  And it looks like he wasn't coy about 
admitting the poor pay-out to anyone who asked.  Nice case of foot-in-
mouth, with fatal outcome.

Jen Reese: 
> 7. JKR made a statement prior to HBP that we would know more about 
> the 'circumstances of Riddle's birth'. Was there anything about his 
> birth or life in the orphanage that surprised you or was it pretty 
> much the story you were expecting?

Ceridwen:
I never expected the Gaunts.  Eww.  Poor Salazar!  And I never 
expected Downtrodden!Merope.  I did somewhat expect BadSeed!Tom.  I 
think Voldemort's not human, really, he's the avatar of Pure Evil.  I 
don't really see a direct correspondence for this on the Good Guy's 
side, unless Dumbledore started out perfect and learned how to be 
more human as he aged.  The orphanage is pretty much what I expected, 
from old Shirley Temple movies.  I didn't quite expect Dumbledore's 
suit.

Jen Reese:
> 8. Why do you think Dumbledore drew attention to the fact that 
Harry 
> was 'possibly [ ] feeling sorry for Lord Voldemort?'

Ceridwen:
To make sure that Harry realized it and didn't set it aside.  I think 
that Harry's compassion will figure prominently in the end of the 
series, so he has to take it out and examine it.  He didn't follow 
through with that in Snape's Worst Memory, nor did he follow through 
thoroughly with the Sectumsempra he used on Draco.  I think 
Dumbledore is making sure he will understand that he must do this as 
a part of his training.

Jen Reese:
> 9. After learning Merope died rather than live for her son, Harry 
> expressed anger that she made a poor choice compared to Lily, 
> who 'didn't have a choice'. Dumbledore corrected him gently, saying 
> Lily *did* have a choice. Why do you think Harry didn't believe 
Lily 
> had a choice when he heard the memory in POA of Voldemort telling 
> her to 'step aside'?

Ceridwen:
Lily was given a choice, but really, she only had one choice.  Not 
too many people could live with themselves after taking 
the 'opportunity' Voldemort offered.  I think that Harry's tendency 
toward heroics informs him of this.

Jen Reese:
> 10. Dumbledore seems to have an ongoing battle with young boys not 
> using the proper etiquette of referring to teachers as 'Professor' 
> or 'Sir'.  What did you think about the way Riddle talks to 
> Dumbledore compared to how Harry talks to Snape, erm, Professor 
> Snape?

Ceridwen:
I agree with whoever posted (pippin?) that there seems to be an 
imperfect mirror here between DD/TR and SS/HP.  I also agree that 
this is a common thing that authority figures go through (steve?) 
with their charges.  It's almost a running gag through the books.

Jen Reese:
> 11. Harry is surprised to see Dumbledore set the wardrobe on fire. 
> Why did Dumbledore choose to show a boy whose 'magic had run away 
> with him' such a spectacular and destructive-looking demonstration? 

Ceridwen:
I actually went through all these questions just to get to this one.  
Reading the question, and the responses, it seems to me that Fire is 
a theme in HBP.  We have Dumbledore setting the wardrobe on fire, we 
have the fire in the Inferi Cave, and we have the fire at the funeral 
which seems to send a white phoenix into the sky.  I was operating on 
the assumption that HBP was the Slytherin book, characterized by 
water - the Inferi Cave, swimming in the ocean to reach it, the 
liquid potion, Trelawney's apparently intuitive (water quality) 
readings, the potions on display in Slughorn's first class, the 
riverside where Narcissa and Bellatrix Apparate to visit Snape, the 
poisoned mead, the elf-made wine.  But then, there's the other fire, 
the bonds of the UV, which are red, a Gryffindor (the Fire house) 
color.  So, what's up?

On why Dumbledore set the wardrobe on fire, this was Tom's entire 
stock, all of his belongings.  He had the things he had taken from 
the other students - his trophies - in there.  This was indeed a 
spectacular display (Moses and the Burning Bush, anybody?).  This was 
Dumbledore showing his power, and giving Tom a reality check.

Jen Reese:
> 12. As Harry leaves the office he notices the ring is gone and 
> wonders whether the mouth organ Riddle had stowed in the cardboard 
> box might be of importance. Dumbledore beams at him and says, "very 
> astute Harry, but the mouth organ was only ever a mouth organ." Was 
> there any reason Dumbledore answered Harry's question so 
> cryptically? And why was he pleased to hear Harry say that? On a 
> side note, do you think that was a JKR message to fans? :)

Ceridwen:
Harry gets the idea of the trophies.  He knows the ring is 
significant.  He also knows the mouth organ was significant to young 
Tom.  Tom's ideas of significant changed, went upscale, as he got 
older.  But the basic idea is still the same.  I wouldn't be 
surprised if Harry understood this.  Message from JKR?  Maybe.

> Jen R., thanking Petra for her editing help and the other chapter 
> discussion leaders for posts she could review before before writing 
> her own!

Ceridwen:

Thank you for your time, and for some thought-provoking questions!

Ceridwen.






From sydpad at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 29 00:41:12 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 00:41:12 -0000
Subject: Kant and Snape and Ethics and Everything
In-Reply-To: <e0cinj+uu0l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0cl38+praf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150210

Nora:

> Your bitter and duty-bound Snape is very much the approach to duty 
> which Kant is talking about as being inadequate, though.  He starts 
> things off "For it is not sufficient to that which should be morally 
> good that it conform to the law; it must be done for the sake of the 
> law."

Well, exactly.  I don't understand how this conflicts with my view of
duty-bound Snape.  He's doing what he's doing for the sake of moral
law, and not for any other reason.  By it 'not being sufficient that
it conform to law', Kant was referring to someone who had ulterior
motives for his good deed, not to the person doing it solely out of
duty.  

> 
> Then, when talking about duty, he says "duty does not rest at all on 
> feelings, impulses, and inclinations; it rests merely on the relation 
> of rational beings to one another..."  This leads directly into the 
> discussion about dignity--the intrinsic worth of the human being, 
> which the person acting according to the Categorical Imperative 
> cannot violate (no, really, it's impossible if you're genuinely 
> acting according to the CI and your will is thus never in conflict 
> with itself).
> 
> The idea of respect for dignity has a great deal of force in Kant's 
> moral system; there's something incredibly high and beautiful about 
> it.  It's what holds us together as a community of rational beings, 
> when we have respect for those things which must apply to all of us 
> and thus connect all of us.

I totally agree that it's beautiful and high; that's why I like it so
very much myself.  And I think we're having the same difficulty as we
always run into with Snape.  You can't get past his manner;  I see
someone struggling to do the right thing.  The idea of the struggle
was very important to Kant.  

I think Snape is trying to conform to the categorical imperative, in a
human as opposed to a perfect way, in that he doesn't treat anyone in
a way that his reason tells him is incompatible with it.  This is the
difficulty with Kant.  Just exactly what IS a CI is hardly universally
agreed on by everyone, and it runs you into oddities like helping
murdrers find their victims.  To the very beautiful idea of the
rational communtiy: I see Snape as treating his students as ends, and
respecting at least their potential ablities to keep up with the
difficulties of his class; that he's mean to them you can argue is bad
technique, but I don't think it clashes with his recognizing his
students importance anywhere near as much as you think it does.  If
Snape didn't think Neville was important, he wouldn't care if his
potions worked or not.
 
> > Suffice to say, I think in Snape's mind, he is putting considerable 
> > effort into fullfilling his duty as a teacher, against his natural 
> > inclinations.  Your view of what the duties of a teacher are 
> > obviously aren't the same as his. 
> 
> Well, unless Snape were to by his will make his treatment of his 
> students into a universal law and see perfectly rationally that it 
> would hold valid, he's failing the CI in that case.  (And it does 
> fail that test because of how it treats other people, such as the 
> favoritism.  It's irrational to will favoritism into being a 
> universal law--I trust the contradiction is obvious.)

As Pippin said, Snape is hampered by his very human brain.  I'm not
positing Snape as a Kantian saint, if such a thing were even possible.
 I'm saying there's a reason Kant is often brought up in relation to
this character, because it's all about how someone can be a not
kind-hearted person but do good things at the same time.  That is, to
me, the beauty of Kant-- that our obligations to each other as human
beings is something nobler and higher than animal affections, and that
it's demanded of us even if it goes against our feelings, and that
even if we possess damaged souls our will and reason can allow us to
aspire to something better.  


> I think you are really, really shortchanging the beauty and 
> complexity of Kant's concept of duty and everything which goes into 
> generating it.  

Well, obviously I don't think I am.  I think you are.  But there you
go.  Typical HP for Grownups discussion!


> -Nora herself thinks that Rowling tends to be a virtue ethicist, and 
> that's part of why she's *totally OK* with what comes across to 
> listies as unfair double standards

--Sydney, who thinks JKR is, more than anything, someone who is aware
that we live in a fallen world, and is asking herself all sorts of
interesting and unsolvable questions about how we all can live in it.








From enlil65 at gmail.com  Tue Mar 28 21:09:52 2006
From: enlil65 at gmail.com (Peggy Wilkins)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 15:09:52 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry as Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <c595a5e65681.5681c595a5e6@rdc-kc.rr.com>
References: <20060327233308.24070.qmail@web52810.mail.yahoo.com>
	 <e09ufg+igjm@eGroups.com> <c595a5e65681.5681c595a5e6@rdc-kc.rr.com>
Message-ID: <1789c2360603281309u5cdfb53ewd98dd1e31f32b4fc@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150211

On 3/27/06, mosaic at wi.rr.com <mosaic at wi.rr.com> wrote:
> Mosaicwench:
> When the sorting hat sorted Harry it said "Are you sure? (Not Slytherin)
> You could be great you konw, it's ALL HERE IN YOUR HEAD (emphasis mine),
> and Slytherin will help you on the way to greatness . . ."  I don't
> believe there is anything in Harry's background or past that would point
> the hat to a Slytherin placement - unless he had a little piece of Voldy
> in him . . . It would explain the parselmouth, and the dream Harry had
> the very first night at Hogwarts when Quirrel's turban was telling him
> to switch to Slytherin at once because it is his destiny.

Peggy:
I think Harry's scar can account for the "all here in your head"
comment.  The scar is on his head and seems to be some kind of active
connection to Voldemort.  Voldemort is the Heir of Slytherin;
therefore the scar is potentially a direct connection to Slytherin (or
rather, Slytherin's blood line).

I think the scar is very interesting.  It seems to act like an
endpoint on a network.  There are quite a variety of networks in the
WW, that is, nodes connected together in one way or another that allow
travel between/among the nodes.  All these things act like networks:
the portraits (portrait subjects travel between nodes); Floo Network
(endpoints can be added and deleted from the network); Vanishing
Cabinets; Portkeys; and probably some other things I am not
remembering just now.  I like the idea of Harry's scar as an endpoint
on a network that connects him to Voldemort; and both he and Voldemort
are able to travel along the network, between its two endpoints. 
There seems to be energy held in this network, and it's quite
interesting that Harry's scar is shaped as a lightning bolt which is a
common symbol of power (as in "Danger: High Voltage").  The scar is an
active connection, not just a sign of a long-ago accident.

The Sorting Hat must have seen the connection.

--
Peggy Wilkins






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 29 00:55:36 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 00:55:36 -0000
Subject: The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span.
In-Reply-To: <e07l90+k902@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0clu8+snp8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150212

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > I totally agree.  There's nothing in canon to suggest Snape was
> > ever a fluffy bunny. 
> > <snip>
 
> >>Alla:
> I will rephrase it in order to help you not to confuse my
> speculation with animagus theories. I am speculating that Severus
> Snape was not completely innocent "human being" in his interactions
> with Marauders.

Betsy Hp:
Sorry, I should have stated that I was being tongue-in-cheek up 
there. <g>  I'm quite amused by all the energy that goes into 
arguing that Snape is not a fluffy bunny, not a teddybear, not a 
Saint, etc.  Especially since I've never seen anyone *make* that 
particular argument.  At least, not here.

No, Snape wasn't entirely innocent.  But that doesn't mean that he 
deserved to be so humiliated, or that James, and his little friends 
too (yes I'm looking at you, Lupin!), were not behaving badly.

> >>Alla:
> Let me say it again, put the GoF train incident into pensieve from
> the moment Draco gets hexed and Draco would be innocent victim of
> big bad Gryffindors and it would be one again six....  Yeah, big   
> bad bullies they are, no matter that Harry is recovering from      
> horrible ordeal and the last thing anybody wants to hear is Draco 
> threats and mockery of Voldemort's victim.

Betsy Hp:
But I *do* think the Gryffindors behaved badly here and that Draco 
and friends did *not* deserve to be physically attacked as they 
were.  It doesn't mean I think Draco is a sweet, innocent, fluffy 
little bunny.  It does mean that I've never been a fan of 
overwhelming force and attacking from behind.  (Unless we're talking 
actual war, in which case, damn the torpedoes, etc., etc., <g>)

So while context helps, it doesn't guarantee everyone will see a 
scene the same way.


> >>Kemper:
> > Not all D&D geeks are quad/paraplegics.  Many of them have      
> > working hands and legs that can easily clench or kick... make-do 
> > wands for the Muggle youth.

> >>Nora:
> Not the same.  The D&D geek may have fists, but I generally doubt 
> he knows how to fight--and if we're going with the athletic jocks 
> vs. the nerdy geeks paradigm, he's almost certainly at a profound
> physical disadvantage.
> That's just not the case with wands; instead we have conditions of
> magical power and skill taking the place of the physical.

Betsy Hp:
I think it's safe to say the Snape was more than a match for either 
James or Sirius.  There's a reason the two of them went after him 
together, especially since I'd imagine both boys would describe 
themselves as decent or honorable.  Sirius knew James would need the 
backup, and so he provided it.  As the reader is shown, Sirius was 
right.  One on one, Snape would have overpowered James eventually.  

> >>Kemper:
> > I think most if not all nerd/geeks are/were passive-aggressive
> > types.  I haven't met one that was assertive to their tormentors.

> >>Nora:
> The point is then, I think, that the passive-aggressive mode of
> response can be just as unpleasant and deserving of scorn as the
> other.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Snape wasn't really passive-aggressive in this scene though, was 
he?  I'd say he was pretty darn aggressive.  Which is why it took 
the two boys to successfully hold him down.  Moreover, I think this 
is the reason James and Sirius went so far with Snape.

This scene is one of escalation.  James didn't immediately whip 
Snape into the air and rip off his clothes, he gradually built up to 
that final attack.  Because Snape would not submit; would not stay 
down.  And I suspect, this has been true of Snape since he first 
climbed aboard the train to Hogwarts.

I think James and Sirius were probably "good natured" bullies.  They 
wanted their alpha status recognized, but they probably didn't abuse 
it.  Much.  I base that on McGonagall's misty-eyed remembrance of 
them.  Only there was one boy that wouldn't give them their due.  A 
greasy little oddball of no consequence but an unfortunate level of 
magical skill.

I think there was a negative sort of alchemy that occured when 
Sirius and James clashed with Snape, and I think it brought out the 
very worst in the two boys.  Even after James is blessed with the 
special magic of Lily's love <g> he *still* fought with Snape.  And 
was ashamed enough of it to hide it from her.

[Ironically, I think this is yet another area where Snape and Harry 
are like peas in a pod.  Harry isn't very good at the staying down 
thing either, as seen in his very first Potions class.]

So Snape, in his refusal to submit, goaded James and Sirius into 
ever more cruel acts of bulling until finally Sirius nearly killed 
Snape.  This is the reason I shudder to think what might have 
happened if James and Sirius had gotten Snape alone somewhere.  Not 
that I think either James or Sirius would actually *think* about 
seriously injuring Snape, but what might they have done to force 
Snape to stay down? You know, before their thinking kicked in?

Betsy Hp






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Mar 29 01:07:55 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 01:07:55 -0000
Subject: Maligning Lupin/werewolves
In-Reply-To: <e0cfad+mle8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0cmlb+tp5q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150213


> zgirnius:
> I think that the magical ropes (or whatever they were) that Snape 
> used to tie up Lupin might well have held through the transformation. 
> If so, Snape did take steps necessary to ensure that Lupin posed no 
> threat. He simply chose to do so in a way that was less pleasant for 
> Lupin than taking a potion would have been.
>

Pippin:
Also a way that's safer for Snape. JKR tells us that a clever wizard might
be able to transfigure veritaserum  into something else.
Presumably that could be done with wolfsbane too, if the werewolf
wanted an excuse to attack.

Pippin






From adzuroth at hotmail.com  Tue Mar 28 20:44:18 2006
From: adzuroth at hotmail.com (Adzuroth)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 20:44:18 -0000
Subject: DD's death scene revisited and other side notes
Message-ID: <e0c772+diqh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150214

Hey Everyone!

I havn't been on this site in several weeks so this may or may not 
have already been discussed.  Anyway, in my last post I mentioned 
some of the anomalies behind Snape supposedly murdering Dumbledore, 
but there were a couple of angles I overlooked.

First of all, why didn't Dumbledore summon the house elves to his 
side when he was in trouble up on that tower rooftop?  For that 
matter, Harry could have done the same with Dobby.  You don't need a 
wand to summon any house elves, you just have to call them by name, 
like Harry did in the "house elves" chapter of HBP.  Even one house 
elf would've been more than a match for Severus, just like Dobby was 
when he wuss-slapped Lucius when Lucius tried to attack Harry at the 
end of Chamber of Secrets.

That lends further credence to the theory that Dumbledore wanted 
everyone to think he was dead.  It seems very unlikely, IMO, that 
Dumbledore got so tired of living that letting Snape kill him was 
part of his grand plan to defeat Voldy.  It makes more sense for DD 
to fake his death so that Voldy would become so confident that he 
would leave himself vulnerable for DD to set up Harry to kill Voldy 
once and for all.  Unless of course JKR wants DD to come back as a 
ghost and help Harry ala Obi-Wan Kenobi style.

Second of all, why didn't DD go straight to Madame Ponfrey if he knew 
he was in such bad shape?

On a couple of side notes, does anyone else besides me suspect that 
Rufus Scrimgeour is an animagus, or possibly a werewolf?  There was 
that mention of a "mane" of hair and him looking like an old lion.

Finally, doesn't Snape know by now you cannot give or take away 
points from any of the houses until the school term officially 
starts?  Snape tried doing that in CoS when Harry and Co. came to 
school in the flying car, but Minerva overturned that because the 
term hadn't started yet (it starts, I assume, the day after the 
sorting hat does its thing).  I guess in HBP Snape mentioned point 
taking out of spite and it wasn't a real threat.

Speaking of which wouldn't the point system have some sort of appeal 
procedure?  If so, the books never mentioned anything about it.  
Without such regulations the point system would be wide open to abuse 
as the the heads of house would go about sabotaging each other to get 
the house cup (I can see it now: Snape taking 50 points from 
Gryffindor because Harry looked at him funny, and McGonagal taking 50 
points from Slytherin because Draco forgot to brush his teeth that 
day)

Adzuroth







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 29 01:35:42 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 01:35:42 -0000
Subject: Lily' sacrifice v James' sacrifice WAS: Perfect Lily
In-Reply-To: <e08sj6+ok35@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0co9e+m3mb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150215

Alla:
Welll, yes, I know this reason and cannot wait to find out why Lily 
was valuable to Voldemort. <snip>

Carol:
I don't think that Voldemort's motive, if any, is important. He merely
tells her to stand aside. (JKR compares this to a RL criminal telling
a person to get out of the way--basically, let me kill your baby and
you won't get hurt.) It's Lily's choice that distinguishes her from
James, who also died bravely defending his family. But since he pulled
out a wand and offered to fight instead of standing between his child
and Voldemort, he "had" to die in Voldie's view. If Lily had tried to
fight him, it's most unlikely that he would have ordered her to stand
aside. Unfortunately for her and Harry, she'd have died exactly as
James did, and there would have been no sacrifice to protect Harry.

Alla:
> > I  got the impression that Lily sacrifice vs James sacrifice is 
different for  JKR not just because of different outcome the ancient 
> > magic invoked, but  that James' sacrifice was some how less 
> > significant, less conscious, less  worthy of respect from the
readers  since James was going to die  anyway.
> > 
Carol:
I get the same impression. She does see James's death, which is not a
sacrifice but a death in battle, one armed opponent against another,
as being of a different order than Lily's genuine self-sacrifice, not
because James was less conscious that he was going to die but because
Lily didn't have to. I know it's inconceivable that any normal parent,
mother or father, would have allowed their child to die, but the
difference is that *she didn't fight back.* Instead, she offered
herself in her son's place after Voldemort told her to stand aside.
That's what makes her different from James (who, being armed and ready
to fight, was offered no such choice). She could have stood aside and
watched her son die (and Voldie, no doubt, would have felt additional
pleasure in her guilt and suffering when it was all over). But  she
chose not to, and, for JKR, that's a different kind of courage, the
courage to sacrifice yourself for your child rather than the courage
to fight to protect your (wife and) child.

> Pippin:
> James may have had little hope of defeating Voldemort in battle;
> nevertheless if he'd won, he'd have saved his own life too. I think 
> that may lessen his sacrifice in JKR's eyes, make it less pure. 
> Lily did not even have a hope of saving herself.

Carol:
Maybe. James was armed, a skilled wizard fighting a much more powerful
wizard, with the disadvantage of being unwilling or unable to cast a
Killing Curse, but theoretically he had some small chance of
surviving, at least inhis own view. But again, it's the element of
*choice* that matters to JKR. James didn't have the choice of laying
down his wand or running away. To do so would be sheer cowardice, and
for James, that wasn't an option. He had to fight, and since it was
Voldie he was fighting, he had to die. Had Lily been armed and ready
to fight, she would never (IMO) have been offered a chance to stand
aside. But since she had that chance and chose not to take it, she,
unlike James, did not have to die. She chose to do so, to trade her
life for her son's--or at least, to make the attempt and hope that
Voldie didn't kill Harry as well as her. She didn't just step in front
of Harry and take the AK for him, as Fawkes did for Dumbledore in OoP.
She willingly offers herself as a sacrifice to save Harry.

It's the difference between the *hero*, whose courage is duplicated
every time a soldier fights valiantly in hand-to-hand combat, and the
*martyr*, who gives his or her life willingly, without a fight, for a
cause or principle that he or she believes in. A hero who fights a
losing battle against a merciless enemy has to die; a martyr who gives
up her own life in exchange for her child's does not. She dies because
she chooses to die, out of pure love, not heroism. Heroes have a
hundred faces in the HP books; martyrs, apparently, have just one.

Carol, trying to explain that James's defense of his family, however
valiant, does not qualify as self-sacrifice, and that it took an act
of martyrdom, not of heroism, to activate the ancient magic 









From bartl at sprynet.com  Wed Mar 29 01:48:05 2006
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 20:48:05 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Huge overreactions from a five minute time
 span.
In-Reply-To: <20060327133929.24890.qmail@web61318.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20060327133929.24890.qmail@web61318.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4429E755.9090504@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150216

Joe Goodwin wrote:
> Were Sirius and James both guilty of a lot of pranks? Absolutely. Did
> they get punished? Well we see Harry having to go through all the
> dentenion forms, including many of James and Sirius. The truth is
> that they were mostly normal boys who often tease, prank and pick on
> each other. They were not nasty and if Sirius is nasty to Snape after
> they left, well frankly I think it is totally understandable. Snape
> is nasty to everyone.
	
Bart:
	And, of course, if you have a good student who is also a prankster, you 
have a problem on your hands. In spite of Hermoine's pooh-poohing, Fred 
and George Weasely are first class artificers (that's not a canon word, 
but it fits). Anybody here see the movie, REAL GENIUS? It's an 
exaggeration, but you might be surprised how little an exaggeration...

	Bart






From nrenka at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 29 01:56:40 2006
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 01:56:40 -0000
Subject: Kant and Snape and Ethics and Everything
In-Reply-To: <e0cl38+praf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0cpgo+ilog@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150217

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" <sydpad at ...> wrote:

> Well, exactly.  I don't understand how this conflicts with my view 
> of duty-bound Snape.  He's doing what he's doing for the sake of 
> moral law, and not for any other reason.  

Dumbledore doesn't seem to think so, at least in PS--the whole "go 
back to hating your father's memory in peace" thing.  If Snape is 
acting as he does out of search for his own freedom from the 
obligation, then he's not a good actor according to Kant.  He's more 
like Petunia--taking in baby Harry furiously and unwillingly, but 
doing it nonetheless.  (Anyone want to take that comparison and run 
with it?)  The proper embrace of duty, doing it for the sake of moral 
law in and of itself, requires doing it in complete freedom and out 
of no other motivation than respect and love for the law and the 
freedom of all other human beings.

> You can't get past his manner;  I see someone struggling to do the 
> right thing.  The idea of the struggle was very important to Kant.  

The problem is that both manner and motivation are of intrinsic 
concern to Kant.  Manner is what the whole Kingdom of Ends thing is 
about, after all.  That's part of what makes his philosophy so hard 
to follow, and one case where there is a potential analogy to virtue 
ethics: both theories care a great deal about why something is done, 
maybe even more than what precisely *is* done.  'Right' action for 
the wrong reason is not good, according to (a substantial 
foreshortening and compression of) both theories.  If that ends up 
obtaining in the series, interesting results--to say the least.

> I think Snape is trying to conform to the categorical imperative, 
> in a human as opposed to a perfect way, in that he doesn't treat 
> anyone in a way that his reason tells him is incompatible with it.

But if he were genuinely reasonable and rational, he would realize 
that his treatment of Harry (for instance) is irrational, and 
decidedly incompatible with the categorical imperative.  Same thing 
for his treatment of Neville, and for things like the temper tantrum 
at the end of PoA.
 
> If Snape didn't think Neville was important, he wouldn't care if his
> potions worked or not.

I don't think that's a given; he could value the correctness of the 
potion regardless of consideration of the student learning to do it 
correctly himself.  Being annoyed when things are done correctly does 
not necessarily mean that you have a concern for the ability of 
someone to do it thus--there's a gap in there which is bridgeable, or 
not.

-Nora finds Rowling's embrace of certain double standards 
particularly un-Kantian, but what can you do?







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 29 02:13:41 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 02:13:41 -0000
Subject: The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span.
In-Reply-To: <e0clu8+snp8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0cqgl+dfgl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150218

> Betsy Hp:
<SNIP>
> No, Snape wasn't entirely innocent.  But that doesn't mean that he 
> deserved to be so humiliated, or that James, and his little 
friends 
> too (yes I'm looking at you, Lupin!), were not behaving badly.

Alla:

And nowhere in my post I said that he deserved to be humiliated or 
that James and Sirius were not behaving badly. I said that IMO there 
hints that Pensieve scene is a VERY incomplete view of Marauders and 
Snape relationship and I stand by it, I said that there is a 
possibility that even though in that scene Snape did nothing to 
provoke James and Sirius bullying, it is possible that in a "cosmic 
justice" sense, he was getting back what he was dishing out, namely 
being humiliated with his own creation. Does it mean that he 
deserved it? Surely not, but neither did many other Hogwarts 
students who were being turned upside down BECAUSE Snape created 
that curse, so maybe just maybe Universe was throwing the bad thing 
that Snape did back at him.

So, "he deserved to be humiliated " is an incorrect interpretation 
of what I said.

 
> > >>Alla:
> > Let me say it again, put the GoF train incident into pensieve 
from
> > the moment Draco gets hexed and Draco would be innocent victim of
> > big bad Gryffindors and it would be one again six....  Yeah, 
big   
> > bad bullies they are, no matter that Harry is recovering 
from      
> > horrible ordeal and the last thing anybody wants to hear is 
Draco 
> > threats and mockery of Voldemort's victim.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> But I *do* think the Gryffindors behaved badly here and that Draco 
> and friends did *not* deserve to be physically attacked as they 
> were.  It doesn't mean I think Draco is a sweet, innocent, fluffy 
> little bunny.  It does mean that I've never been a fan of 
> overwhelming force and attacking from behind.  (Unless we're 
talking 
> actual war, in which case, damn the torpedoes, etc., etc., <g>)
> 
> So while context helps, it doesn't guarantee everyone will see a 
> scene the same way.

Alla:

Please answer me this question - do you think that Draco is a victim 
in that scene, not whether Gryffindors overreacted, etc, do you 
think that in that scene Draco is a victim, because if you do, well, 
then yes, my example does not hold water for you, but for many 
people it does, IMO, because while it is possible to say that 
Gryffindors overreacted ( I don't think for a single second that 
they did - I don't see any other way how Harry's friends could react 
after he had been through the hell and here Draco shows up with his 
threats and mockery), but I can see an interpretation that they 
could do a little less hexing on "poor" Draco.

But I honestly don't see how ANYBODY can argue that Draco was a 
victim here, because with context we see that he came and provoked 
Gryffindors very badly and that was my initial point that with 
context Draco is not a victim, but someone who had no business being 
in gryffs compartment.

THAT was the point I was trying to make with pensieve scene, NOT 
that Gryffs did not behave badly, but that it is possible that we 
did not see Snape also behaving badly before or after that scene, 
thus his behaviour would look differently in different context.

Some posters argued that there was no place to have the 
confrontation, since memory started right after the exam. True, it 
did, but by context I did not even mean immediate context, just 
other episodes of their confrontation.








From joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 29 01:50:59 2006
From: joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com (Joe Goodwin)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:50:59 -0800 (PST)
Subject: The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span.
In-Reply-To: <e0clu8+snp8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060329015059.34381.qmail@web61321.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150219


Betsy Hp:
But I *do* think the Gryffindors behaved badly here and that Draco 
and friends did *not* deserve to be physically attacked as they 
were.  It doesn't mean I think Draco is a sweet, innocent, fluffy 
little bunny.  It does mean that I've never been a fan of 
overwhelming force and attacking from behind.  (Unless we're talking 
actual war, in which case, damn the torpedoes, etc., etc., <g>)

Joe: 
Wasn't it Draco, Crabbe and Goyle that first attempted to use overwhelming force as you call it on Harry? Really the only thing that stopped them was their poor choice of location. It wasn't just Gryffindors either if I remember rightly. Most people would agree that when you gang up on someone unfairly then you can expect the out numbered party's friends to intervene. The Slytherins set the terms of this engagement even if they didn't know they were doing it at the time. So yeah I feel comfortable in saying that got exactly what they deserved. In a real school they would have gotten beaten down.

Betsy Hp:
I think it's safe to say the Snape was more than a match for either 
James or Sirius.  There's a reason the two of them went after him 
together, especially since I'd imagine both boys would describe 
themselves as decent or honorable.  Sirius knew James would need the 
backup, and so he provided it.  As the reader is shown, Sirius was 
right.  One on one, Snape would have overpowered James eventually.  

Joe: 
What exactly are you basing that on? I know we find out that Snape was quite inventive at Hogwarts in HBP just as we earlier discovered that James was as well. Snape was obviously a gifted wizard but we hear the same thing about both James and to perhaps a lesser extent Sirius. I would be willing to wager that at least part of the reason they both disliked each other is that they were the two closest in terms of magical power in their peer group. It would be hard for two boys in such a situation not to have a fierce rivalry. Think about it, two boys well matched in ability but from rival houses and almost polar opposite personalities. One of who is(IMHO) slowly isolated for his fellow students and another who is very sports minded and at least moderately popular if not more. It is a reciepe for conflict. This is why I don't think badly of Snape for any fights he might have had with James. Really they didn't have much of a chance not to fight given the circumstnces.













From Sherry at PebTech.net  Wed Mar 29 02:47:56 2006
From: Sherry at PebTech.net (Sherry)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 02:47:56 -0000
Subject: CHAP DISC: HBP 13, The Secret Riddle
In-Reply-To: <e09so3+c0do@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0csgs+j0pj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150220

I have many of the same ideas that others have already posted (and
expressed better than I could), so I'll stick to those that I see with
a slightly different twist.
>
> CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter
> 13, The Secret Riddle
> 
Large snip of an excellent chapter summary!
>  
> Questions:
>  
> 1. What reaction did you have to Hermione, Ron and Dumbledore 
> refusing to talk to Harry about his theory that Draco was behind the 
> incident with Katie?
>  
Amontillada:
I agree with others that Ron's refusal is the most puzzling. Maybe his
feelings for Hermione play a part, in that he's trying to understand
her point of view. But I also think that Ron and Hermione are both
reacting partly to all their memories of Harry and Draco's long
rivalry, and the Draco's-conspiring theory seems too familiar.

> 
> 3. How do you think Dumbledore plans to stop Mundungus from 
> pilfering the Black family heirlooms?
>  
Amontillada:
Dumbledore must know plenty about Mundungus' less-than-legal
operations and secret hideaways. He plans to use this knowledge like a
leash or a set of reins, to make Mundungus stop pilfering relics that
can still hurt living people.

> 4. Phineas continues to play a role in HBP which is more active than 
> the other portraits in Dumbledore's office. Presumably he overhears 
> all the vital information Dumbledore shares with Harry during the 
> course of their lessons and he is also able to visit the Black 
> house. Do you see JKR giving Phineas a more important role in Book 7?
>  
Amontillada:
I don't expect him to become more important overall, but he might give
Harry an important bit of specific information or two.

> 5. Dumbledore offers Harry his interpretation of why Merope did not 
> use magic to get the things she needed to survive. Do you think 
> Merope chose not to perform magic after Riddle, Sr. left her, or 
> that she was incapable of doing so?
>  
Amontillada:
She couldn't arouse the magic in herself anymore. We've seen that her
emotional state as a girl in her father's home made her unable to do
more than a little bit of magic. Her love (misguided as it was) for
the elder Tom Riddle enabled her to pull herself out of this mire, but
she fell back into that apathy when Tom left her; it wasn't really
something she chose.

> 8. Why do you think Dumbledore drew attention to the fact that Harry 
> was 'possibly [ ] feeling sorry for Lord Voldemort?' 
> 
In feeling even a bit of compassion for his adversary, Harry is doing
something that is utterly impossible for Voldemort. I'm not saying
anything new there, but it can't be stressed too much. Harry's feeling
shows that he's capable of a more subtle, complex concept than
Voldemort's "either followers or enemies" outlook can absorb.

> 9. After learning Merope died rather than live for her son, Harry 
> expressed anger that she made a poor choice compared to Lily, 
> who 'didn't have a choice'. Dumbledore corrected him gently, saying 
> Lily *did* have a choice. Why do you think Harry didn't believe Lily 
> had a choice when he heard the memory in POA of Voldemort telling 
> her to 'step aside'?
>
Amontillada:
Harry was thinking on the obvious level: an enemy was threatening his
mother with a wand, while no one was doing that do Merope. Lily may
not have *felt* that it really was a choice. "Save myself" or "help my
child at all cost"--her love for Harry and all her maternal instincts
said that there was only one true course of action. Dumbledore was
reminding Harry that Lily's situation was more subtle, she did have an
option of some kind, and she STILL chose to put Harry's life ahead of
her own.

> 
> 11. Harry is surprised to see Dumbledore set the wardrobe on fire. 
> Why did Dumbledore choose to show a boy whose 'magic had run away 
> with him' such a spectacular and destructive-looking demonstration? 
> 
Amontillada:
Dumbledore sized young Tom up quickly and deduced that only a
"spectacular and destructive-looking demonstration," as you well
phrase it, would impress him. But he also showed Tom that he(D.) could
UNDO the damage he had apparently caused. We've seen Voldemort do vast
damage, but has he every truly repaired any of it? 
(Wormtail's silver hand was a "substitution," replacing the hand with
a magical prosthesis, but not restoring what he'd taken.)

> 12. As Harry leaves the office he notices the ring is gone and 
> wonders whether the mouth organ Riddle had stowed in the cardboard 
> box might be of importance. Dumbledore beams at him and says, "very 
> astute Harry, but the mouth organ was only ever a mouth organ." Was 
> there any reason Dumbledore answered Harry's question so 
> cryptically? And why was he pleased to hear Harry say that? On a 
> side note, do you think that was a JKR message to fans? :)
> 
Amontillada:
I didn't read it as especially cryptic, more tongue-in-cheek (American
English expression for a type of humor). He was pleased to hear Harry
that Harry was exploring possibilities, looking beyond obvious
explanations and eye-catching, overtly magical objects.

Once again, Jen, this is a fascinating chapter discussion, provoking a
lot of thought about some important material in the story.

Amontillada







From dontask2much at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 29 03:15:15 2006
From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 22:15:15 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lily' sacrifice v James' sacrifice WAS: Perfect Lily
References: <e0co9e+m3mb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <019401c652df$0065e420$6401a8c0@MITRE.ORG>

No: HPFGUIDX 150221

> Carol:
> <snip>
> It's Lily's choice that distinguishes her from
> James, who also died bravely defending his family. But since he pulled
> out a wand and offered to fight instead of standing between his child
> and Voldemort, he "had" to die in Voldie's view. If Lily had tried to
> fight him, it's most unlikely that he would have ordered her to stand
> aside. Unfortunately for her and Harry, she'd have died exactly as
> James did, and there would have been no sacrifice to protect Harry.
>
Rebecca:

I'm not sure about this, based on JKR's own words in her Q&A session with 
Mugglenet/Leaky last year when she answered the question of "why did 
Voldemort offer Lily so many chances to live? Would he actually have let her 
live?".  From the transcript:

JKR: [silence] Can't tell you. But he did offer, you're absolutely right. 
Don't you want to ask me why James's death didn't protect Lily and Harry? 
There's your answer, you've just answered your own question, because she 
could have lived and chose to die. James was going to be killed anyway. Do 
you see what I mean? I'm not saying James wasn't ready to; he died trying to 
protect his family but he was going to be murdered anyway. He had no - he 
wasn't given a choice, so he rushed into it in a kind of animal way, I think 
there are distinctions in courage."

The way in which she has phrased this response in order to answer the 
question, along with what I'd call the premier slight-of-hand topic change 
to James, has always made me wonder and vacillate between one viewpoint and 
another on this topic.  On the one hand, I can dig what you're saying, 
Carol, but on the other, I'm just not all the way *there*,  if you know what 
I mean.

What I infer from JKR's answer is that Voldemort really *did* offer her a 
choice, when I read it after the transcripts came out, I was a little 
stunned because while I had seen and understood what Dumbledore and the rest 
were saying about Lily's sacrifice, I thought "well, it's rumor, who would 
know if LV actually offered and how?" But it also begets the question why 
Voldemort, who has no respect for anyone else's life whether Muggle or 
wizard but his own,  gave Lily *a choice*? It's not because she was a 
Muggleborn - he killed Frank Bryce for example, no choice at all and didn't 
care how many Muggles were killed on the Brockdale Bridge (according to 
Fudge he threatened a mass Muggle killing in HBP and apparently did it with 
the bridge.) Why should someone with so much disregard for human life (other 
than his own) give another human *a choice*?

I'm sure I'm posing more questions than I'm answering, but now you know what 
goes on in my suspicious little mind :)

rebecca








From kking0731 at gmail.com  Wed Mar 29 03:33:47 2006
From: kking0731 at gmail.com (Kathy King)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 22:33:47 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAP DISC: HBP 13, The Secret Riddle
In-Reply-To: <e09so3+c0do@eGroups.com>
References: <e09so3+c0do@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a1ee8d580603281933w4402382fy152f044fbadd8c22@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150222

CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter
13, The Secret Riddle





[snipped]



Questions:

1. What reaction did you have to Hermione, Ron and Dumbledore
refusing to talk to Harry about his theory that Draco was behind the
incident with Katie?



Snow:



Really not sure about Ron but Hermione likes to have clear evidence and
Draco was back at the castle when the incident occurred so even though Harry
has verbal evidence of Draco being in cahoots with the Dark Lord, Draco's
physical presence at Hogsmeade during the alleged crime was a big deterrent
to his ironclad guilt over this instance. Hermione and probably Ron
underestimated Draco's ability to either Imperious someone to do what he
required or was capable of enticing someone else to do the deed for him.

Dumbledore on the hand had a totally different motive for his reaction to
Harry's suspicions, which was to protect Draco from the Dark Lord. Allowing
Harry any clue to his suspicions would not only put Draco in harms way but
also Harry (a little knowledge is a dangerous thing you know and Dumbledore
can't or won't tell him everything).

2. Where do you think Dumbledore was over the weekend of Katie's
attack and why did Draco plan the attack when Dumbledore was away?



Snow:



Dumbledore was out hunting for memories from persons who knew Riddle info.
It seems Draco didn't realize his target was missing at the time the attack
was planned because it would have been futile to engage the plan and not
have the recipient of the necklace in position. Or Draco did know and was
using the opportunity of Dumbledore's absence to smuggle the necklace past
Filch for later use when he would be better positioned to bare the necklace
(with hole-less gloves of course) in a most vulnerable place to attack an
unsuspected Dumbledore. (Which by the way would be quite impossible seeing
as Dumbledore can detect hidden magic, like in the cave?but then again Draco
doesn't know that about Dumbledore anymore than Harry did when he saw this
awesome display of Dumbledore's abilities in the cave).





3. How do you think Dumbledore plans to stop Mundungus from
pilfering the Black family heirlooms?



Snow:



Change the address of the Order!

No one from the Order can go to 12 Grimmald now because of the protection
that Sirius' Dad placed on the property. The reason The Order could see 12
Grimmald was that Dumbledore was Secret Keeper for the Order's hiding place,
which was Sirius' house, when the Order's hiding place changed so did the
availability to the house for Order members.

4. Phineas continues to play a role in HBP which is more active than
the other portraits in Dumbledore's office. Presumably he overhears
all the vital information Dumbledore shares with Harry during the
course of their lessons and he is also able to visit the Black
house. Do you see JKR giving Phineas a more important role in Book 7?



Snow:



I really thought he would have been more significant in this book given the
many conversations that Phineas has overheard in the past, primarily the one
with Kreacher's treachery. He's been on that wall a long time and heard many
other conversations with many other headmasters. I quite expect him to be of
significance.


5. Dumbledore offers Harry his interpretation of why Merope did not
use magic to get the things she needed to survive. Do you think
Merope chose not to perform magic after Riddle, Sr. left her, or
that she was incapable of doing so?

Snow:



'Incapable' is a very good guess given Merope's lack of magical performance
under stress from her Dad. Merope had to have been extremely depressed as
well, in fact most of her life, so losing the illusion of a life with Tom
Sr. had to have been crushing; makes me wonder why she chose to hang on to
life just long enough to ensure Tom Sr.'s son would live and give him a name
that would represent him perfectly; Tom Sr. on the outside but Marvalo on
the inside.




6. Just out of curiosity, we never learned what happened to
Caractacus Burke. Any speculation?



Snow:



No, but it is interesting where Dumbledore obtained this memory. We hear the
memory as though Burke is speaking to someone asking him a question about
the necklace but I don't think he told Dumbledore directly?because?The very
next pencieve scene Dumbledore tells Harry that this one is from his own
memory, so where did Dumbledore get Burke's memory?

7. JKR made a statement prior to HBP that we would know more about
the 'circumstances of Riddle's birth'. Was there anything about his
birth or life in the orphanage that surprised you or was it pretty
much the story you were expecting?



Snow:



I would have to say that I was not expecting lil' Tom to be so advanced at
magic given his age. Tom was already using a raw form of Legilimency on his
victims by saying, "tell me the truth" with a glare. This is most advanced
magic (for any wizard) even though young Tom clearly had not been capable of
commanding his victims nonverbally?yet. I thought this was the most stunning
of the revelations at the orphanage.

8. Why do you think Dumbledore drew attention to the fact that Harry
was 'possibly [ ] feeling sorry for Lord Voldemort?'



Snow:



This is Harry's greatest combative; Harry's greatest strength; the reason
Harry saved Pettigrew; the reason Harry responded the way he did when he
unintentionally could have killed Draco with a spell he didn't know. Harry
cares; "You care so much you feel as though you will bleed to death with the
pain of it." OOP 824

But even more than that?for the least deserving of such compassion.

It's easy to love the lovable but you are truly tested when you can love the
undeserved.


 9. After learning Merope died rather than live for her son, Harry
expressed anger that she made a poor choice compared to Lily,
who 'didn't have a choice'. Dumbledore corrected him gently, saying
Lily *did* have a choice. Why do you think Harry didn't believe Lily
had a choice when he heard the memory in POA of Voldemort telling
her to 'step aside'?



Snow:



For Harry and the type of Love he has whether or not he recognizes he has
it, is incapable of fathoming a mother who would not do as Lily had done for
him. I think Harry sees it as human nature for a mother to protect their
child. If anything Harry learned from the Dursley's (even if it was not in
Dudley's best overall interest) was to protect their child. All mothers at
least protect their 'own' children. So to Harry, Lily didn't really have a
choice.

10. Dumbledore seems to have an ongoing battle with young boys not
using the proper etiquette of referring to teachers as 'Professor'
or 'Sir'.  What did you think about the way Riddle talks to
Dumbledore compared to how Harry talks to Snape, erm, Professor
Snape?



Snow:



To me, Dumbledore seems to demand respect from the boys who are having a
problem giving respect. With young Tom it was a case of respect for
Dumbledore himself and his position. With Harry, it is a case of earnest
disrespect towards Snape that promotes Dumbledore's reminding Harry
continuously that Professor Snape deserves respect.

Tom learned immediately to address authority with respect even if he didn't
respect Dumbledore's authority but Harry wants to know why he has to respect
Snape; give Harry a reason to give the man respect. The problem appears to
be that Tom can appear to play by the rules and address even his most
contemptible teachers with a title of respect without distress to himself.
Harry on the other hand refuses to give title to someone he deems to be
little deserving of respect without adequate reasoning for doing so.

11. Harry is surprised to see Dumbledore set the wardrobe on fire.
Why did Dumbledore choose to show a boy whose 'magic had run away
with him' such a spectacular and destructive-looking demonstration?



Snow:



I saw this as Dumbledore looking for a reaction from Riddle, which he
certainly obtained. Plus Dumbledore needed a way in which to approach the
subject of the hidden treasures that little Tom procured; Dumbledore is a
master at detecting hidden magic.

12. As Harry leaves the office he notices the ring is gone and
wonders whether the mouth organ Riddle had stowed in the cardboard
box might be of importance. Dumbledore beams at him and says, "very
astute Harry, but the mouth organ was only ever a mouth organ." Was
there any reason Dumbledore answered Harry's question so
cryptically?



Snow:



Yes, Dumbledore needed to find out whether Harry was paying attention
without directly approaching the subject.



>And why was he pleased to hear Harry say that?



Snow:



Dumbledore pleasingly recognized Harry was attempting to connect the dots
and steered Harry away from any further thought in the future (once he found
out about the Horcruxes) that any of these objects held any true value to
Voldemort's mission.



>On a side note, do you think that was a JKR message to fans? :)



Snow:



If there was one other than what I observed, I guess I missed it





Great summary, Jen, loved the questions!


Snow


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




From richter at ridgenet.net  Wed Mar 29 03:48:45 2006
From: richter at ridgenet.net (richter_kuymal)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 03:48:45 -0000
Subject: Young James v Older James WAS: Re: The Huge overreactions .
In-Reply-To: <e0aa31+d5ci@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0d02t+mr33@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150223

Ceridwen :< snip> the memory begins during the written portion of 
the exam and continues out to the lake.  There is nothing 
immediately before this point that wasn't seen, or couldn't be 
assumed from the situation.  

PAR: there is the problem of Peter.  "Every time James made a 
particularly difficult catch, Wormtail gasped and applauded.  After 
five minutes of this,...." There is at least a possible suggestion 
here that Peter is under the influence of something on the order of 
a love potion. And who is our "potions master"?  Potioning peter 
during OWLS would be something a "DE" groupie might do.  And if so, 
the levicorpus event takes a slightly different meaning.  Not nicer. 
I agree with Ceridwen that James wasn't perfect and that his 
behavior here is hardly admirable.  But it might be more 
understandable if it's in direct response to something else.  

I don't think it's a service to Harry to paint his parents perfect 
(either one of them) either.  But neither is it a service to paint 
James as evil or seriously bad.  Cultural norms change both in time 
and space.  What was a "serious hazing" is now something that 
justifies calling the police. I think that we are meant to have an 
assumption about James and Sirius here, just as we were meant to 
have one about Peter prior to the revelation in the Shack in POA.  
JKR is good about making us think one thing and then revealing the 
actual facts later.  

I for one would like to see Lupin's memory of this same event and 
any relevant things two days before and after.  It's too bad we 
can't have James' or Sirius', but Lupin might provide some 
perspective on just how bad (or not) James really was.  


PAR






From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 29 04:20:02 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 04:20:02 -0000
Subject: Snape's Potions and the Downfall of LV
Message-ID: <e0d1ti+scga@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150224

I have been thinking about Snape's skill at potions. It has been 
suggested that potions genius Snape would have been used by LV in 
much the same way as the German scientist were used by Hitler.  I 
think that there are many deliberate parallels in JKR's work between 
the DE and the Nazi SS.  (This may be a forbidden topic, if so 
forgive me elves.)

Keeping in mind Snape's great ability in potions, I am wondering if 
maybe what we have always been lead to believe about why Snape never 
got the DADA job was just a smoke screen.  Maybe Snape has been 
doing some potions work for DD all of these years and now the summer 
of HBP he was successful.  So now he doesn't need to hide in the 
dungeon anymore.  Think about it, we are lead to believe that DD 
wanted Slughorn in that position to protect him and to get the 
memory out of him. But did DD really need that memory?  DD was 
already looking for and found a horcrux, so he already knew about 
what LV did. Maybe Snape has a secret brew of ???  for LV, to aid in 
his downfall. Maybe for Harry to help him survive.  Or ???   Are we 
going to see a special potion in book 7?  One that will help Harry 
overcome LV?  Maybe something that Lily was working on that Snape 
took over and now has succeeded in making.  I am probably wrong, but 
I will just fall off my chair if I am right.

Tonks_op










From Nanagose at aol.com  Wed Mar 29 04:26:51 2006
From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 04:26:51 -0000
Subject: Maligning Lupin
In-Reply-To: <dvvsdq+10e0r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0d2ab+sf6l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150225

> Pippin:
> You're entitled to your opinion of course, but adult Sirius and 
> Lupin do seem to be sharing secrets. They give each other a look 
> before Sirius starts telling Harry about what Voldemort is after --
> a look that appears to tell us there's something just between the 
> two of them (and no, I don't think it's a ship. Sorry.)

Christina:

I agree that Lupin and Sirius's shared look is a "how much do we tell
him?" look.  I just don't believe that it is necessary to presume any
extra information is being shared - there is a lot of information that
Order members know that Harry does not.


> Pippin:
> If Sirius was told that the purpose of the secrecy was to keep the 
> DE's from using  Harry to go after the prophecy, he would think 
> there was no need for secrecy any more. 

Christina:

But would Sirius buy that explanation?  Lupin would also have to make
sure that Sirius wouldn't blab to other members of the Order,
including Dumbledore.  I find it tough to think of a reason for Lupin
to give to Sirius to keep him from talking to DD about the prophecy -
a dangerous possibility, considering we know that Sirius and DD have
corresponded.


> > > Pippin:
> > > In any case, Dumbledore hasn't been able to do much to provide 
> > > the werewolves with education and jobs. 

> > Christina:
> > And Voldemort has done more?

> Pippin:
> Fenrir doesn't look sick or starving.

Christina:

Fenrir is a "leader of the pack" of sorts.  We know nothing about his
followers, who *steal* to eat.  And Hagrid and the House Elves are
well-fed also.  Even slaveowners feed their slaves.

I guess I just see Dumbledore's contributions as longer-lasting and
more meaningful.  Give me a loaf of bread and I'll eat for a day. 
Teach me to read and I hold that power for a lifetime.  Also, by
giving education and jobs, Dumbledore ensures that the werewolves can
feed themselves.  Even if all the werewolves were given a wonderful
buffet by Voldemort, they'd still be knowledge-less and unproductive. 


> Pippin:
> Denying someone the full range of human emotion is what the
> Uncle Tom stereotype is all about. It needn't apply just to American
> slaves, but to any group whose "good" members are made to seem
> too weak and passive to harbor anger against their oppressors.

Christina:

There really *are* people out there who are not passionate people.  It
isn't denying somebody "the full range of human emotion" to describe
that attribute in a character.  It's a character trait.  And you might
think that anger is the way to respond to prejudice, but that doesn't
mean that everybody does.  There is no "right" way to respond to a
situation like that.  You are also assuming that there is no way to
oppose prejudice without the use of anger, which is untrue.  A key
component of the Uncle Tom stereotype is an accommodation of prejudice
and a lack of desire to fight against it.  That's why I see the House
Elves as embodying that particular stereotype more readily than Lupin
- the "yes, ma'am, we love being slaves!" attitude sharply contrasts
with Lupin's work for the Order.


> > Christina:
> > Your theory also requires that Voldemort be making nice with the  
> > werewolves in the first war.  Is there evidence that this was even 
> > the case?  I've dug around a bit and haven't found anything.
 
> Pippin:
> It's only suggestive, but Hermione does assume immediately that 
> if Sirius and Lupin are working together, it's because Lupin the
> werewolf is on Sirius's, ie Voldemort's side.

Christina:

I see that as just going to show that even somebody as fair-minded as
Hermione has deeply hidden prejudices.  Does Hermione really know
anything about the last war?  I realize that she's our go-to girl for
wizarding information, but has she ever piped up before with
information from that time period?  People don't even like saying LV's
name - I can't imagine there would be many books about the subject,
seeing how little people like talking about those horrible times in
the first place.


> > Christina:
> > I understand the concept of the lesser of two evils.  But I still 
> > fail to see how *Voldemort* ends up being the lesser of two evils.  
 
> Pippin:
> I refer you to Lupin's speech in OOP where he explains why the
> goblins are going to be tempted to join Voldemort. And yet the
> goblins are materially better off than werewolves and far more
> numerous and influential.

Christina:

Which was my point earlier - the Goblins won't go over to Voldemort
for money; they want their freedom.  Fenrir Greyback may be as
well-fed as a prize pig, but that doesn't mean that Voldemort has done
a thing for werewolf freedom.

I don't doubt that Voldemort is *offering* the werewolves a certain
kind of freedom.  However, he has been very clear about the freedom he
is offering, and I don't believe that's what Lupin is looking for.  I
also don't believe he would fall for lies of any nature from
Voldemort's camp, as I've stated in the past.


> Pippin:
> He says he felt pity before he found out the identity of the 
> werewolf who bit him. He apparently assumed it wasn't Greyback, or
> somone like him, which seems a bit naive to me. 

Christina:

Lupin was just a kid when he was bitten.  It's like calling that kid
who goes off with the stranger to help "look for his puppy" naive.  It
is naive, but children have to learn more about their world before
they can overcome it.  And I'm sure Mr. Lupin wasn't too keen on his
son finding out that Fenrir bit him purposefully, and with hostility,
considering it was Mr. Lupin who offended Fenrir in the first place.


> Pippin:
> Lucius Malfoy did not know the diary was a horcrux, Voldemort did 
> not authorize the diary plot, yet JKR's answer implies that someone
> did know what the diary would do and planned to make Voldemort 
> stronger. 

Christina:

Lucius Malfoy didn't know that the diary was a Horcrux, but that
doesn't mean that he didn't know a little bit of what it could do. 
And just because Tom's escape from the diary meant that LV would be
stronger, doesn't mean that there weren't other benefits from the
diary plot as well - namely, the use of the Basilisk to rid the school
of Muggleborns, and the potentially very embarrassing situation for
Arthur.  And of course, your point falls under evidence for an ESE
plot, but not Lupin in particular.


> > Christina:
> > You seem to really like this bit as evidence for ESE!Lupin.  Why?  
> > Being evil doesn't give Lupin control over when he transforms.  No 
> > werewolf has that.

> Pippin:
> ...Fenrir's ability to position himself near potential victims also
> argues that a werewolf can predict when he will transform.
> 
> You can certainly argue that even though Lupin should have known 
> exactly when he would transform, he lost track of the time and was 
> taken by surprise, inadvertently allowing Peter to escape.
> 
> But if he did know exactly when he would transform, then he could
> also have positioned himself so that his transformation would
> *allow* Peter to escape.

Christina:

I'll buy that each werewolf is different in terms of when they
transform, but that doesn't mean that they control when it happens. 
They just know when it will be.  Or they may know approximately when
it would be.

I don't understand how this is any different than the status quo
explanation.  Whether Lupin changes at the full moon or five minutes
after the full moon or an hour after the full moon, it's still a
predictable time.  And we're back to the debate we had several months
ago, where having the means to do evil served as evidence for evildoing.

As for JKR's usual tendency to admit to a flub-up, she's also fairly
good about letting us know when we're sniffing in the right spots. 
She hasn't been shy about refusing to answer a question or telling us
there's more there (Petunia's "awful boy" comment, the possibility of
others at GH, etc).  And then there are those infamous
coke-can-tapping and Mr. Burns-laughing moments in the most recent HBP
chat.


> > > Pippin:
> > > How are Order members once again being picked off one by one?

> > Christina:
> > Spies aren't needed for Order members to die.  
 
> Pippin:
> But Lupin says it will be different this time, and yet it isn't.
> I wonder why.<g>

Christina:

Sure it is!  Look at who dies - there's Sirius, whose death does not
require a spy (it's also inferred that his death in battle was
atypical in the old days, when Order members were picked off
privately).  Dumbledore is killed, but we don't really have enough
information to really make a judgement about that one (and even if we
did, it'd be Snape's issue, not Lupin's).  Amelia Bones is killed, but
she was a politician and not part of the Order.  The only real
old-style murder of an Order member is the case of Emmeline Vance
(which, curiously enough, Snape takes credit for).  Compare that to
the mound of dead bodies from the last war.

Also, Lupin says it will be different this time because the Order is
more well-prepared.  Lupin says that the old days were unique because
they were so outnumbered, not because of the traitor in their midst. 
While I suppose Peter could have been sharing a lot of information,
he's never really accused of passing on information on anybody but the
Potters.


> > Christina:
> > In your opinion.  I think Lupin has shown ample remorse.  Lupin 
> > doesn't exist in a bubble; take out your measuring stick and look
> > at the other characters.  

> Pippin:
> Except for Hagrid's drinking, I can't think of another character
> who explicitly said or showed guilt about something and then did it
> again. Please show me some canon. There are plenty of characters who
> do things they *ought* to feel guilty about, but who else actually 
> says they know they did wrong, but they overcame their guilty 
> feelings and went right on doing it?

Christina:

You have stated that it is Lupin's ability to put aside his guilty
feelings that would enable him to do evil.  A post or two back, you
claimed that his remorse was not genuine because he repeated the
offenses that he was supposedly sorry for.  I guess I am a bit
flabbergasted because you seem to be saying that showing false remorse
is more predictive of evildoing than not showing remorse in the first
place.  Would you feel better about Lupin if he ought to show remorse
but didn't?  Would you feel better about Lupin if he came right out to
Harry and said, "Thank goodness James and Sirius taught Snape a
lesson, that ugly git"?

When I made my comment about comparing Lupin to other characters, I
was referring to the amount of remorse he shows for his ills in
comparison to other people.  You split hairs about wanting Lupin to
apologize to Harry when a great many characters have refrained from
apologizing for their wrongs (examples given in previous post, and
there are dozens more).  You focus on whether or not Lupin meant his
remorse and repeats his crimes when other characters repeat their old
crimes also.

I see those issues as relevant because you are using Lupin's remorse
(or arguable lack thereof) as predictive of evildoing.  If you think
that he is capable of evil because he has not shown "true" remorse,
than I shiver to think what you see in other characters (Sirius,
Snape, Lupin).  When trying to predict evildoers, who do you suppose
is the most likely suspect - the boy that tolerates bullying by two of
his only friends, or the two boys that are actually doing the
bullying?  Or, and I suppose this is the most telling detail, the boy
who thoroughly enjoys himself at the scene?  You spoke earlier about
Lupin turning off his conscience, but shouldn't James Potter - who
doesn't really seem to be sorry about bullying Snape at all - find
turning to evil much easier?  After all, he apparently doesn't even
have a conscience to argue with.


> Pippin
> noting that anyone who sticks to "official mysteries" --  things
> Harry explicitly wonders about -- would never decode the Mirror
> of Erised's  message

Christina:

The "official mysteries" of the books are in no way related to what
Harry wonders about.  Harry is pathetically dim a good portion of the
time.  While we quibble about Snape's true allegiance, Harry has never
wondered about Snape's loyalty.  We also wonder about Lily's "big
secret" and the Potters' professions, which don't seem to be
curiosities to Harry.

ESE!Lupin answers a couple of side questions, perhaps - but this is
the *last book*.  JKR has questions that she cannot end the series
without answering.  Side questions are just a bonus.  Also, a lot of
the appeal of ESE!Lupin is in the bang (I mean, Heck - Everybody Loves
Lupin, right?).  I don't see JKR introducing a hugely bangy device to
answer a couple of small quibbles.  The answers to the big questions
would fizzle in comparison.

Christina






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 29 06:22:04 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 06:22:04 -0000
Subject: Why wasn't Harry sent to either a lightsided wizarding family or a muggle fa
In-Reply-To: <20060328050028.39781.qmail@web38712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <e0d92c+v0tm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150226

John wrote:
> 
> > Harry's love for others was what drove off Voldemort from possessing 
> > him and IMO is what prevented Quirrel from touching him, not the
blood wards.

Carol responds:
Can someone please tell me where this term "blood wards" comes from
and what it means? Is it a Briticism? I don't recall seeing it
anywhere in canon.

I take it to mean both the blood protection that Harry received from
his mother's death (partially diluted by the addition of his blood to
the potion that restored Voldemort) and the protective charm that
Dumbledore  placed on the Dursley's house, but surely there's some
other term we can use that fits with JKR's terminology?

With regard to the point above, you're correct that love is what
prevented Voldemort from possessing Harry for more than a few moments
in the MoM, but according to Dumbledore, it was Lily's blood
protection that protected him from Quirrell (who of course was being
possessed by Voldemort at the time).

As for the blood protection not protecting him from the Dementors, of
course it doesn't. He's on Magnolia Crescent, not Privet Drive, at the
time,IIRC. At any rate, he's walking home from the play park, not
inside the house. Dumbledore and the Order tell him not to leave the
house for any reason; he's safe there (as Dumbledore reminds Petunia
in his Howler). But if the Dementors return, or if the Death Eaters
show up (DD wrongly assumes that these Dementors are outside Ministry
 control), Harry will not be safe.

The blood protection does apparently protect Harry at the Dursleys
from physical abuse: Aunt Petunia's frying pan misses him and Uncle
Vernon feels an electrical surge when he tries to choke Harry. No such
protection would be available to Harry at a nonrelative's house, and I
for one agree with Dumbledore's secondary reason for placing Harry
with the Dursleys: It would have been very hard to keep him from
growing up as a pampered prince, a la James, in a wizarding household.
And if James as Quidditch champion was an "arrogant little berk,"
imagine James's son growing up knowing that he was The Boy Who Lived.

You undoubtedly don't agree, but I think Dumbledore did what was best
for Harry given very limited choices, and I'm pretty sure that the
safety of the Dursleys' house, which is about to expire, is not
illusory. (I think we'll see the Battle of Privet Drive early in Book 7.)

With regard to the number of people who knew about Harry's survival,
at least one DE knew about it: Wormtail, who picked up Voldemort's
wand and hid it after the debacle (evidently he was afraid to try to
kill Harry after what had happened to his master). I don't know who
leaked the story to the press, unless it was Hagrid, who didn't get
away in time to escape the questions of the Aurors and reporters. Or
it could have been Wormtail in the role of bereaved friend, leaking
the story of Black's supposed betrayal and Harry's miraculous
survival, scar and all, as part of his plot to frame his dear friend
Padfoot.

Carol, who thought this would be a two-line post, asking Ceridwen,
Tonks, and Alla to please pass the iron when they're through with it
(maybe it will have cooled off by then!)








From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 29 08:13:58 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 08:13:58 -0000
Subject: Blood Wards of Privet Drive Clarification... (was: Re: Why wasn't Harry sent.. )
In-Reply-To: <e0d92c+v0tm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0dfk6+21nq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150227

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...>
wrote:
> 
> Carol responds:
> Can someone please tell me where this term "blood wards" comes 
> from and what it means? Is it a Briticism? I don't recall seeing
> it anywhere in canon.
> 
> I take it to mean both the blood protection ...
> 

bboyminn:

Well that's exactly what 'wards' means; protection. I first
encountered the term here in this group when people spoke in shorthand
referring to the 'wards' that protect Hogwarts. I think the use of the
term 'Blood Wards' was just another quick shorthand all-encompassing
term to describe the subject at hand. It seems clear enough, and don't
see any reason why we should adhere only to correct canon terms. We
frequently refer to the 'Prank', yet I don't recall that term in canon. 

> Carol continues:
> ...
> 
> As for the blood protection not protecting him from the Dementors,
> of course it doesn't. He's on Magnolia Crescent, not Privet Drive, 
> ... Dumbledore and the Order tell him not to leave the house for 
> any reason; he's safe there .... 

bboyminn:

This much I agree with, however, I have a problem with the next part.

> Carol continues:
>
> But if the Dementors return, or if the Death Eaters show up ..., 
> Harry will not be safe.
> 

bboyminn: 

Do you really believe that? I know, as previously quoted by others,
Dumbledore specifically mentions Voldemort when he explains the
protection of blood to Harry. But Dumbledore also mentions Death
Eaters and Voldemort supporters in similar conversations about the
Blood Protection.

Perhaps, I am reading your statement wrong, you seem to imply that
Harry is only protected from Voldemort while at the Dursleys. I say,
or at least I think, that Harry is protected from /anyone/ wanting to
do him REAL harm.

Yes, yes, as you point out below (now snipped), the Dursleys abuse
Harry and that could be considered harm. But I think we need to look
at the term 'harm' in context and perspective. Compared to what
Dementors, Death Eaters, fanatic Voldemort supporters, and Voldemort
himself intend to do to Harry, I don't see the Dursley's actions as
'harm' in that context. Yes, they are mean to him, but I don't think
the Dursley want any legal enquiries into Harry's health and status,
so they reasonably do not cross the line, based on their view of where
the line is.

I mean, I could give myself a paper cut, and one could logically,
though not so reasonably, say that I 'harmed' myself. While that is
techincally true, it is not true in any reasonable context.

My point is that when viewed in context, the Dursleys actions, as
unpleasant as they were, don't constitute 'grave' harm. 

Not trying to be a rabble-rouser or anything, I just wanted to clear
up the one point about the extent of protection at Privet Drive;
Voldemort only or anyone intent on doing Harry 'grave' harm?

I pretty much agreed with everything else you said.

Steve/bboyminn







From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com  Wed Mar 29 08:19:59 2006
From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 08:19:59 -0000
Subject: Young James v Older James WAS: Re: The Huge overreactions .
In-Reply-To: <e0d02t+mr33@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0dfvf+npul@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150228

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "richter_kuymal" <richter at ...>
wrote:
>
> Ceridwen :< snip> the memory begins during the written portion of 
> the exam and continues out to the lake.  There is nothing 
> immediately before this point that wasn't seen, or couldn't be 
> assumed from the situation.  
> 
> PAR: there is the problem of Peter.  "Every time James made a 
> particularly difficult catch, Wormtail gasped and applauded.  After 
> five minutes of this,...." There is at least a possible suggestion 
> here that Peter is under the influence of something on the order of 
> a love potion. And who is our "potions master"?  Potioning peter 
> during OWLS would be something a "DE" groupie might do.  And if so, 
> the levicorpus event takes a slightly different meaning.  Not nicer. 
> I agree with Ceridwen that James wasn't perfect and that his 
> behavior here is hardly admirable.  But it might be more 
> understandable if it's in direct response to something else. 

Valky:
Hehe! Oh how I would love to just agree with that proposition and run
with it. *glancing over her shoulder at the eager Snapeoholics
salivating for the chance to rip the James lover limb from limb <bg>*  

LOL, I won't, sorry PAR, as much as I love James, I think his main
motivation was arrogant fascism, which in the times that were, in the
midst of VWI, may have been construed justified protestation against
Dark Arts faith and conniving soon to be DE ba**ar*s <g>, but arrogant
and fascist all the same. He was young and idealistic, and so was
Sirius, and that, I think, explains what they did. Not justifies it,
explains it. *winks at the Snapeoholics* 

 
Valky
settling back in her old chair at the Tbay bar and ordering a round of
 firewhiskeys ;)









From h.m.s at mweb.co.za  Wed Mar 29 09:30:47 2006
From: h.m.s at mweb.co.za (H.M.S)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 11:30:47 +0200
Subject: Lily' sacrifice v James' sacrifice WAS: Perfect Lily
Message-ID: <008f01c65313$a1dee020$d8d117c4@Sharon>

No: HPFGUIDX 150229

(Parts snipped)
Carol:
"It's Lily's choice that distinguishes her from
James, who also died bravely defending his family."

Has anyone considered that Lily positively KNEW (in herself) that Voldy
would kill Harry regardless of any bargain that she might strike with him
and so (sort of) committed suicide because she could not bear the loss of
her baby.  A sort of "I can't be with him in life, but I will be with him (&
James) in death".  We hear of these sort of suicide pacts in the news all
the time.

Sharon
(who doesn't really believe this theory - but thought to stir the pot a bit)




From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com  Wed Mar 29 10:43:16 2006
From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 10:43:16 -0000
Subject: Lily' sacrifice v James' sacrifice WAS: Perfect Lily
In-Reply-To: <019401c652df$0065e420$6401a8c0@MITRE.ORG>
Message-ID: <e0doc4+ulq4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150230

Carol wrote:
> > <snip>
> > It's Lily's choice that distinguishes her from
> > James, who also died bravely defending his family. But since he 
> > pulled out a wand and offered to fight instead of standing between 
> > his child and Voldemort, he "had" to die in Voldie's view. If Lily 
> > had tried to fight him, it's most unlikely that he would have 
> > ordered her to stand aside. Unfortunately for her and Harry, she'd 
> > have died exactly as James did, and there would have been no 
> > sacrifice to protect Harry.

> Rebecca:
> What I infer from JKR's answer is that Voldemort really *did* offer 
> her a choice, <snip>


Valky (hoping Saraquel is around to help with this one):
I think he offered her three choices. ;) In another JKR quote we are
told definitely *not* to look at Dumbledore as a christ figure. Okay
so I could be reading too much into it but if not Dumbledore then
isn't there only one choice left? Perfect, spotless Lily. 

And Lily has plenty of Christ figure canon to be going with while we
are at it - dying to bequeath the lasting legacy of Love through her
own sacrifice and blood, 'kicking over tables' in the church of the
most righteous James Potter and Sirius Black and standing up for the
downtrodden ungodly societal outcast, even her name is a christ symbol!

Yep, I pick Lily as the christ figure, and as a christ figure she may
well have been tempted by the satan figure of the story, Voldemort.
Tempted three times if I recall correctly. :)

Okay I have laid my premise, now I run! Here's the three offers
Voldemort made to Lily in Godrics Hollow, drawn from parallel of the
thre temptations of christ.

First we need a lemma, half speculative - Lily was famous (well thats
canon but.. I mean) She was really really famous, super famous. The
procurer of a very powerful and rare form of magic in the WW so rare
and wonderful that even Dumbledore would envy it if he had so much as
a green bone in his gentle old quirky self. And Lily was very well
known for her majestic benevolent magic, the ministry, the DE, the WW,
and Voldemort.

So now we have Super-Lily, and I would like you to imagine her in
Godrics Hollow face to face with Voldemort, he says to her -

Show me your famous magic, let me be impressed by your genius. (Turn
stones to bread)

Lily answers No.

Okay then, Duel me with your famous magic, you won't die. (Cast your
self down and you'll be protected.)

Lily answers No

Alright Mrs Potter, if you will not be tempted with those things then
let me see you pass this up, I know how great you are and I want you
for myself. Give up the child and I will give you the world, you and I
will be one great ruler of all things. 

No.

Comments anyone?

Valky












From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Wed Mar 29 11:33:54 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 11:33:54 -0000
Subject: Young James v Older James WAS: Re: The Huge overreactions .
In-Reply-To: <e0d02t+mr33@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0drb2+c7o4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150231

PAR: 
> there is the problem of Peter.  "Every time James made a 
> particularly difficult catch, Wormtail gasped and applauded.  After 
> five minutes of this,...." There is at least a possible suggestion 
> here that Peter is under the influence of something on the order of 
> a love potion. 

Ceridwen:
I can't see Peter being under the influence of a potion (love, fan, 
whatever) here.  For one thing, when did he take it?  The memory 
begins during the last portion of a long written exam.  The students 
get up to leave when they're done.  Snape doesn't go wandering out of 
the hall *with* MWPP, so when did he slip the potion to Peter?

For another thing, Peter as an adult comes off as acting similar.  He 
fawns and blathers over LV in the graveyard, he cuts off his own hand 
so LV can live.  The young Peter acts no differently, with 
adjustments for age.  He fawns and salivates over James's prowess.

PAR:
> And who is our "potions master"?  Potioning peter 
> during OWLS would be something a "DE" groupie might do.  And if so, 
> the levicorpus event takes a slightly different meaning.  Not 
nicer. 
> I agree with Ceridwen that James wasn't perfect and that his 
> behavior here is hardly admirable.  But it might be more 
> understandable if it's in direct response to something else.

Ceridwen:
And how did Snape potion Peter during a monitored test?

James and Snape have a history going back to well before this 
particular memory.  We have this from Sirius and Remus.  James hated 
the Dark Arts, Snape knew a lot about them as a first-year.  Lily 
says that James goes around hexing people, and Sirius says that James 
continued to hex Snape after this incident, though he was careful not 
to let Lily find out.  Remus said something along the lines of them 
having been... ?a bit over the top?.. or something.  Sirius as an 
adult blythely admits that Snape was just some twit who deserved to 
be hexed. Alla mentioned that there was a history here, and by canon 
evidence, there was.  Nothing needed to happen during the O.W.L.s to 
bring up any righteous anger.  The case is presented objectively per 
JKR as Pensieve memories are objective records.  Sirius was bored, 
James did something about it.

PAR:
> I don't think it's a service to Harry to paint his parents perfect 
> (either one of them) either.  But neither is it a service to paint 
> James as evil or seriously bad.  Cultural norms change both in time 
> and space.  What was a "serious hazing" is now something that 
> justifies calling the police. I think that we are meant to have an 
> assumption about James and Sirius here, just as we were meant to 
> have one about Peter prior to the revelation in the Shack in POA.  
> JKR is good about making us think one thing and then revealing the 
> actual facts later.

Ceridwen:
James is being painted as a juvenile-acting... juvenile here.  He's a 
teenaged boy.  He's acting like a teenaged boy.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that cultural norms have changed and 
that's why so many people see more 'modern' problems, or at least tag 
them with more 'modern' names, in several areas of canon.  Sexual 
harassment for pantsing, which is definitely emasculation, but that 
term seems to have gone the way of the 'older' cultural norms.  
Or 'abuse' for 'strictness' in another world.  I could go off on a 
rant here about emasculating the human population, but I won't.  *g*

But, back to James being painted.  I don't think anyone would say, or 
has said, that James is evil.  Or that he was evil.  We all know what 
he grew up to do.  And we all seem to agree that the seeds of Hero!
James were present in Berk!James.  But that's no reason to start 
painting Snape as anything other, or worse, than James's adversary at 
Hogwarts, either.

PAR:
> I for one would like to see Lupin's memory of this same event and 
> any relevant things two days before and after.  It's too bad we 
> can't have James' or Sirius', but Lupin might provide some 
> perspective on just how bad (or not) James really was.

Ceridwen:
I think, based on Lupin's behavior in this particular scene, that 
you'll see more of the same.  If you start taking random memories 
from Lupin, you might see Snape starting something at a different 
time, too.  You could see the text of the book he's reading, and you 
might get a glimpse of what it's like to be there when a werewolf 
transforms.  The Pensieve memories are objective, so the only color 
on the events will be that placed by the viewer.

Ceridwen.







From lizzy1933 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 29 05:20:03 2006
From: lizzy1933 at yahoo.com (lizzy1933)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 05:20:03 -0000
Subject: Maligning Lupin/werewolves
In-Reply-To: <e0auh3+6fdb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0d5e3+m1ma@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150232

> Finwitch:
> 
> Quite. Snape delivered it to Lupin. I'd say that there was an 
> agreement which required that Snape prepare and deliver the 
potion. 
> Probably because that way it's more fresh or something like that. 
That 
> night Lupin hadn't yet recieved it (Snape was only just bringing 
it) -
> didn't exactly forget his potion, now did he? There never was any 
> obligation for Lupin to get it from Snape, was there?
> 
 

Lizzie:
Aah, for the good old days when the pharmicist delivered my meds to 
my door!  Nowadays I must get in my little Ford and pick them up 
myself. ;-( 

Since we are in the depths of speculation, Lupin could just as 
easily have an appointment to pick up his potion, and forgets at 
least twice.  

Evil!Snape:  "Headmaster, isn't enough I have to make the potion for 
the werewolf, you're asking me to deliver it?  Shall I stand and 
watch him drink it?"  (Sorry about that!)

Lizzie











From lizzy1933 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 29 06:42:05 2006
From: lizzy1933 at yahoo.com (lizzy1933)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 06:42:05 -0000
Subject: Young James v Older James WAS: Re: The Huge overreactions .
In-Reply-To: <e0d02t+mr33@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0da7t+vmri@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150233

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "richter_kuymal" <richter at ...> 
wrote:
> 
> <serious snip>
> I for one would like to see Lupin's memory of this same event and 
> any relevant things two days before and after.  It's too bad we 
> can't have James' or Sirius', but Lupin might provide some 
> perspective on just how bad (or not) James really was.  


You'd probably get the memory from a different angle/view, but it 
would still be the same scene.  It's been mentioned a couple of 
times already that JKR says pensieve memories are objective rather 
than the actual memory of a particular individual.

Lizzie










From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net  Wed Mar 29 15:03:06 2006
From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 15:03:06 -0000
Subject: Lily' sacrifice v James' sacrifice WAS: Perfect Lily
In-Reply-To: <e0doc4+ulq4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0e7ja+tro6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150234

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" <Aisbelmon at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Valky (hoping Saraquel is around to help with this one):
> I think he offered her three choices. ;) In another JKR quote we 
are
> told definitely *not* to look at Dumbledore as a christ figure. 
Okay
> so I could be reading too much into it but if not Dumbledore then
> isn't there only one choice left? Perfect, spotless Lily. 
> 
> And Lily has plenty of Christ figure canon to be going with while 
we
> are at it - dying to bequeath the lasting legacy of Love through 
her
> own sacrifice and blood, 'kicking over tables' in the church of the
> most righteous James Potter and Sirius Black and standing up for 
the
> downtrodden ungodly societal outcast, even her name is a christ 
symbol!
> 
> Yep, I pick Lily as the christ figure, and as a christ figure she 
may
> well have been tempted by the satan figure of the story, Voldemort.
> Tempted three times if I recall correctly. :)
> 
> Okay I have laid my premise, now I run! Here's the three offers
> Voldemort made to Lily in Godrics Hollow, drawn from parallel of 
the
> thre temptations of christ.
> 
> First we need a lemma, half speculative - Lily was famous (well 
thats
> canon but.. I mean) She was really really famous, super famous. The
> procurer of a very powerful and rare form of magic in the WW so 
rare
> and wonderful that even Dumbledore would envy it if he had so much 
as
> a green bone in his gentle old quirky self. And Lily was very well
> known for her majestic benevolent magic, the ministry, the DE, the 
WW,
> and Voldemort.
> 
> So now we have Super-Lily, and I would like you to imagine her in
> Godrics Hollow face to face with Voldemort, he says to her -
> 
> Show me your famous magic, let me be impressed by your genius. 
(Turn
> stones to bread)
> 
> Lily answers No.
> 
> Okay then, Duel me with your famous magic, you won't die. (Cast 
your
> self down and you'll be protected.)
> 
> Lily answers No
> 
> Alright Mrs Potter, if you will not be tempted with those things 
then
> let me see you pass this up, I know how great you are and I want 
you
> for myself. Give up the child and I will give you the world, you 
and I
> will be one great ruler of all things. 
> 
> No.
> 
> Comments anyone?


Marianne:
Aside from my own personal preference to not have any completely 
saintly, godly or Christly characters rattling around Potterverse, I 
do have some questions.  Are you posing the three rejections of 
Voldemort by Lily as what JKR meant when she said the Potters defied 
Voldemort three times?  (I'm pretty sure she said "Potters" plural, 
so that implies to me that James was part of this defiance.)  Also, 
the Longbottoms, too, are described as having defied or rejected 
Voldemort three times.  I guess Voldemort might be using different 
questions, methods, temptations or persuasive arguments with each 
set of parents, and may also have a second set of the same designed 
especailly for the two mothers of the boys in which he's interested, 
but that strikes me as too convoluted. OTOH, Evil Overlords 
frequently get tripped up by their own over-the-top planning. 

I guess what I'm saying is that there seems to be canon that covers 
Vmort's interest in not just Lily, but the other 3 parents of Harry 
and Neville.  Maybe he was just covering all his bases even though 
he suspected that Super-Lily might be the correct mother to target, 
and thus designed a test just for her. Which would mean that she and 
James defied Vmort three times, and then Lily threw in another 3 
renounciations right before Vmort killed her.

By the way, although JKR said that DD should not be considered a 
Christ figure, did she imply that someone else fills that position 
in her story?  Or are the fans making the assumption that someone 
has to fill that role?

Marianne








From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Mar 29 16:21:09 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 16:21:09 -0000
Subject: Young James v Older James WAS: Re: The Huge overreactions .
In-Reply-To: <e0drb2+c7o4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0ec5l+3gh8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150235

Carol:
> I wholeheartedly agree with you that cultural norms have changed and 
> that's why so many people see more 'modern' problems, or at least tag 
> them with more 'modern' names, in several areas of canon.  Sexual 
> harassment for pantsing, which is definitely emasculation, but that 
> term seems to have gone the way of the 'older' cultural norms.  
> Or 'abuse' for 'strictness' in another world.  I could go off on a 
> rant here about emasculating the human population, but I won't.  *g*

Pippin:
The term 'sexual harassment' was first used by feminists in the
sixties. The  UK  Equal Opportunities Commission has a thirty year 
history. However,  peer to peer sexual harassment among schoolchildren
seems to have been considered as such from the 1990's on. 
I  agree with Carol  that in the 19070's many people (though not all) 
would  have  seen James's behavior as bullying and not sexualized it. 

However,  JKR is not writing for people in the 1970's, she's 
writing for people now, who perceive James's actions in the
context of the present time, when schools have anti-harassment
policies and students are expected to be familiar with them.
And perhaps that's the point, to show
that just as peoples' attitudes towards this behavior have changed,
James's own attitudes  could change too.


Pippin







From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 29 16:44:04 2006
From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 16:44:04 -0000
Subject: Blood Wards of Privet Drive Clarification... (was: Re: Why wasn't Harry sent.. )
In-Reply-To: <e0dfk6+21nq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0edgk+73pv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150236



> bboyminn:
> 
> Well that's exactly what 'wards' means; protection. I first
> encountered the term here in this group when people spoke in
> shorthand referring to the 'wards' that protect Hogwarts. I think
> the use of the term 'Blood Wards' was just another quick shorthand
> all-encompassing term to describe the subject at hand. It seems
> clear enough, and don't see any reason why we should adhere only
> to correct canon terms. 

Amiable Dorsai:
My only problem with the term, is that, for me, it conjurs an image of
a sort of force field around #4.  This may be what JKR has in mind, it
may not.  I think it's more subtle than that.

> > Carol continues:
> >
> > But if the Dementors return, or if the Death Eaters show up ..., 
> > Harry will not be safe.
> 
> bboyminn: 
> 
> Do you really believe that? I know, as previously quoted by others,
> Dumbledore specifically mentions Voldemort when he explains the
> protection of blood to Harry. But Dumbledore also mentions Death
> Eaters and Voldemort supporters in similar conversations about the
> Blood Protection.
> 
> Perhaps, I am reading your statement wrong, you seem to imply that
> Harry is only protected from Voldemort while at the Dursleys. I say,
> or at least I think, that Harry is protected from /anyone/ wanting
> to do him REAL harm.

Amiable Dorsai:
I have the idea that the shield (Dumbledore calls it that) only works
against Lily's murderer--Voldemort, and his agents, and that it
protects Harry pretty much anywhere, so long as he's actually living
in Petunia's house. 

That would explain why the young Harry was not in danger from stray
Death Eaters while attending primary school, or on other occasions
when he was not physically on the Dursley's property.  Stretching a
point, it might still protect him while he was "visiting" the Burrow
over the summer, though I'm less convinced of that. 

That less localized protection would be why, after Voldemort returned,
 Harry was allowed to leave the house until it was clear he was under
physical atack from some other source.

The guards placed on the house, were, I think, intended to prevent him
from doing anything that would give the Ministry an excuse to do what
they did--bring him up on charges.  Mrs. Figg says something of the
sort.  Mundungus Fletcher might be up to that, if he could stay on the
job, but he'd be pretty much useless in the event of an attack by a
group of Death Eaters.  About all he could hope to do would be to call
for help.  By the time it got there, Harry could be dead or Portkeyed
away.

Why could the Dementors attack him?  They weren't sent by Voldemort.

I started thinking this way after Dumbledore asked the Dursleys to
take Harry in one more time.  Why would he bother?  Dumbledore had to
be expecting that Harry would be busy hunting Horcruxes by the next
summer.  Time spent cowering at Privet drive would just be
wasted--unless there was some additional benefit.

If Harry could spend a few days at #4, then be protected wherever he
goes until his birthday, that would be worth losing those few days, I
think.

What do you think?

Amiable Dorsai







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Mar 29 17:40:43 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 17:40:43 -0000
Subject: Kant and Snape and Ethics and Everything
In-Reply-To: <e0cpgo+ilog@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0egqr+lhdr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150237

Nora:
> Dumbledore doesn't seem to think so, at least in PS--the whole "go 
> back to hating your father's memory in peace" thing.  If Snape is 
> acting as he does out of search for his own freedom from the 
> obligation, then he's not a good actor according to Kant. 

Pippin:
But this is Dumbledore's analysis, not Snape's. It could be that Snape has
no idea that he's doing this, any more than Harry realizes that he's
blaming Snape for Sirius's death to take the edge off his own guilt.

The humor for me is in imagining Snape as trying to live according to
this extremely lofty and noble but utterly impractical vision of law and
perfect rationality. He *thinks* he's acting out of respect and love
for the law and the freedom of all other Beings. He can suppress
his conscious emotions and  so, as far as he knows, he is acting with
pure rationality. But he ain't. Nobody can, because it's impossible
to keep your subconscious emotions from affecting your behavior.
As the WW seems to be as pre-Freudian as Kant himself, Snape 
wouldn't know that.

IMO,  because Snape does have noble motives, Rowling takes pity
on him and grants him grace, allowing him to escape what would
otherwise be the results of his folly, or, as the books grow darker,
at least to let it be subsumed in the much greater folly of the 
consciously self-interested. If  Fudge wasn't  going to believe 
Dumbledore or anyone else if it meant he'd lose power, his
opinion of Snape scarcely mattered. 

If you think about it, what could Snape have said to support 
Sirius's story? He *didn't* see any sign of Pettigrew in the shack. 
(And why would a rational human being
take his eyes off a  Death Eater  to look at a rat anyway?) 

I suppose he could have told Fudge that Lupin could testify  that 
Sirius was an illegal animagus, and that Lupin himself had  confessed
to escaping Hogwarts while in werewolf form and menacing people
in the village.  I'm not clear on how that would have helped.<g>

Pippin
interested to hear  Get Snape brigade  version of why Snape
kept this important information to himself







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Mar 29 18:00:57 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 18:00:57 -0000
Subject: Maligning Lupin
In-Reply-To: <e0d2ab+sf6l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0ei0q+evek@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150238

Christina:

I agree that Lupin and Sirius's shared look is a "how much do we tell
him?" look.  I just don't believe that it is necessary to presume any
extra information is being shared - there is a lot of information that
Order members know that Harry does not.

Pippin:
Arthur and Bill are also at the table, but they're not included
in the look, which makes it seem to me that they're not included
in the information that Sirius and Lupin are agreeing not to share.
Otherwise wouldn't they need a warning glance as well? 



Pippin:
If Sirius was told that the purpose of the secrecy was to keep the
DE's from using  Harry to go after the prophecy, he would think
there was no need for secrecy any more.


Christina:

But would Sirius buy that explanation?  Lupin would also have to make
sure that Sirius wouldn't blab to other members of the Order,
including Dumbledore.  I find it tough to think of a reason for Lupin
to give to Sirius to keep him from talking to DD about the prophecy -
a dangerous possibility, considering we know that Sirius and DD have
corresponded.

Pippin:
 "Dumbledore doesn't think I should tell you this but..."


Christina:

I guess I just see Dumbledore's contributions as longer-lasting and
more meaningful.  Give me a loaf of bread and I'll eat for a day.
Teach me to read and I hold that power for a lifetime.  Also, by
giving education and jobs, Dumbledore ensures that the werewolves can
feed themselves.  Even if all the werewolves were given a wonderful
buffet by Voldemort, they'd still be knowledge-less and unproductive.

Pippin:
What good is knowing how to fish if they won't let you near the
river?

Lupin was taught to use magic, but paid work was not forthcoming. 
Why should other werewolves want to follow in his footsteps? Why
should he want them to? 

The lifetime of power he was promised was withheld. Lupin wouldn't
be the first young man to become radicalized under such conditions.



Pippin:
Denying someone the full range of human emotion is what the
Uncle Tom stereotype is all about. It needn't apply just to American
slaves, but to any group whose "good" members are made to seem
too weak and passive to harbor anger against their oppressors.


Christina:

There really *are* people out there who are not passionate people.  It
isn't denying somebody "the full range of human emotion" to describe
that attribute in a character.  It's a character trait.  And you might
think that anger is the way to respond to prejudice, but that doesn't
mean that everybody does.

Pippin:
I'm afraid your disagreement is with Jo:

"It's not possible to live with the Dursleys and not hate them,"
said Harry. "I'd like to see you try it." -- CoS ch 11


Christina:

I see that as just going to show that even somebody as fair-minded as
Hermione has deeply hidden prejudices.  Does Hermione really know
anything about the last war? 

Pippin:
She's read "Modern Magical History", "The Rise and Fall of
the Dark Arts" and "Great Wizarding Events of the Twentieth
Century." (PS/SS ch 6)


Christina:
I understand the concept of the lesser of two evils.  But I still
fail to see how *Voldemort* ends up being the lesser of two evils.



Pippin:
I refer you to Lupin's speech in OOP where he explains why the
goblins are going to be tempted to join Voldemort. And yet the
goblins are materially better off than werewolves and far more
numerous and influential.


Christina:

Which was my point earlier - the Goblins won't go over to Voldemort
for money; they want their freedom.  Fenrir Greyback may be as
well-fed as a prize pig, but that doesn't mean that Voldemort has done
a thing for werewolf freedom.

I don't doubt that Voldemort is *offering* the werewolves a certain
kind of freedom.  However, he has been very clear about the freedom he
is offering,

Pippin:
You don't think the Goblins know that?  They're supposed to
be a very shrewd sophisticated bunch. Voldemort has killed their
families. And yet they are tempted. Even if
they don't believe that Voldemort would really give them
their freedom, they still may think it would be easier to control him,
or wizards led by him,  than it would be to wrest their freedom
from the ministry.

Christina:

I'll buy that each werewolf is different in terms of when they
transform, but that doesn't mean that they control when it happens.
They just know when it will be.  Or they may know approximately when
it would be.


I don't understand how this is any different than the status quo
explanation.  Whether Lupin changes at the full moon or five minutes
after the full moon or an hour after the full moon, it's still a
predictable time.  And we're back to the debate we had several months
ago, where having the means to do evil served as evidence for evildoing.


Pippin:
>From Harry's PoV, Lupin transformed because the moon appeared 
unexpectedly from behind a cloud. Yet the evidence shows that 
Lupin regularly transformed while he was in the Shrieking Shack, 
hidden from the moonlight.

Confronted with this contradiction, JKR answered shortly that the
moon wasn't up when Lupin went out to the shack, evading the
question. As you say, she's only evasive when she's got something
to hide. Why hide that Lupin can predict the time of his
transformations unless it's important to the plot?


Christina:

You have stated that it is Lupin's ability to put aside his guilty
feelings that would enable him to do evil.  A post or two back, you
claimed that his remorse was not genuine because he repeated the
offenses that he was supposedly sorry for.  I guess I am a bit
flabbergasted because you seem to be saying that showing false remorse
is more predictive of evildoing than not showing remorse in the first
place. 


Pippin:
Well, there is a rather famous plea that those who
know not what they do should be forgiven. But pleading 
for those who know, rationalize, ignore the lion's share 
of the harm they've done  and continue to do as they 
please sounds, erm,  enabling, to say the least.

Lupin shows a whole lot of remorse, but if it doesn't
change his behavior what good is it? You seem to hope
he'll do better next time, but how many next times is
he supposed to get?

Christina:
 You spoke earlier about
Lupin turning off his conscience, but shouldn't James Potter - who
doesn't really seem to be sorry about bullying Snape at all - find
turning to evil much easier?  After all, he apparently doesn't even
have a conscience to argue with.

Pippin:
 James wasn't the first or the last young 
wizard to let his powers run away with him. He was
as drunk with his power and conceit as Crouch Sr, IMO, 
and if  he had stayed on that path he might have ended 
up just like him -- as cruel and ruthless as any Death 
Eater for all his loathing of the Dark Arts. 

But he didn't. It seems he realized
where he might end up and turned away.

Lupin is different because Lupin knew at the time that 
what James and Sirius were doing was wrong. But he did little
to stop it. He made them feel guilty sometimes, but
that's not enough. If all that traffic cops could do is
make you feel guilty, there'd be a lot more speeding, no?

Christina:

ESE!Lupin answers a couple of side questions, perhaps - but this is
the *last book*.  JKR has questions that she cannot end the series
without answering.  Side questions are just a bonus.  

Pippin:
The questions that must be answered are  not necessarily 
the ones that readers ask. Most of us didn't spend 
our first read of PS/SS wondering who was trying to steal 
the Stone. We thought we knew. The only "official" mystery
about Quirrell as the book neared its end was a minor one --
we didn't know why he'd lied about the turban.

A great many readers are not trying to figure out
who killed Sirius or who betrayed Dumbledore. 
They think they know. But *if* those are mysteries,
they're certainly major ones. 

Will the next book be about how Harry
destroys the horcruxes and defeats Voldie? Nominally, yes.
But if PS/SS had been just about getting past the obstacles and
saving the Stone, few people would have read it more
than once. 


When Hagrid was explaining to Harry about Voldemort, he 
didn't say the problem was that Voldie couldn't be beaten. 
After all, he had been.

The big problem was that no one knew who to trust.

If Lupin dunnit it isn't just about the Bang.
It  goes to the heart of friendship and bravery,
and how Harry perceives his own ability to distinguish good from
evil and choose the good,  which is what the story 
is about.  I wouldn't call that a fizzle.

Pippin






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 29 19:00:44 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 19:00:44 -0000
Subject: CHAP DISC: HBP 13, The Secret Riddle
In-Reply-To: <e09so3+c0do@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0elgs+uemj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150239

> CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter
> 13, The Secret Riddle

<snip most of Jen's very concise and objective summary> 
> The memory is from Caractacus Burke, who appears as a revolving
figure <snip>

Carol:
I think this is DD's own memory. He talked to Burke at some point
after Tom Riddle's birth (time frame is unclear). A minor point, sorry!
  
> 1. What reaction did you have to Hermione, Ron and Dumbledore 
refusing to talk to Harry about his theory that Draco was behind the 
incident with Katie?

Carol:
I can't remember my original reaction to Ron and Hermione (maybe
satisfaction that they were agreeing with each other for once), but
now, thinking about it, I don't think it's surprising that they
underestimate Draco's mission and doubt that he's a DE. After all, to
this point, he's been more a nuisance than a danger, making "Potter
Stinks" badges, writing and conducting "Weasley Is Our King," trying
to get Hagrid fired, and, in OoP, leading the Inquisitorial Squad--not
their friend, obviously, fond of insulting and annoying all of them,
but still in some respects an ordinary spoiled rich kid who gets
decent marks and plays Quidditch. It's too early for them to notice
that Draco looks tired and ill or for Hermione to grasp the
significance of his receiving detention for not doing homework (when
has that happened before? Surely it hasn't). They should realize,
perhaps, that he no longer has his chief weapon ("Wait till my father
hears about this!") and that he's humiliated by his father's arrest
and public exposure (by Harry) as a DE, but they don't know him well
enough to understand that he's suffered a real blow that would lead
him to desperate measures like trying to kill somebody. (If they knew
about the plan to repair the Vanishing Cabinet, they might understand
and accept that and try to thwart it, but they don't.) And there's
Harry as well--Ron and Hermione have only months before gone on a
rescue mission to save Sirius Black from an imaginary kidnapping, only
to have him die at the hands of Bellatrix Lestrange, as he would not
have done if Harry had not believed him to be kidnapped. It's no
wonder that they hesitate to believe what seems to be another wild
story. (Yes, Draco is up to something, but a Death Eater? Give it a
rest, Harry!)

As for Dumbledore, I thought and still think that he knows all about
Draco and LV from Snape: murder plot, UV, and all (everything except
the Vanishing Cabinet, which Snape doesn't know about, either). But DD
can't tell Harry without endangering both Draco and Snape, and
possibly Harry if he tries to stop Draco himself. He believes, I
think, that he and Snape can handle it, and that it's best for Harry
to focus on learning about LV and the Horcruxes.

> 2. Where do you think Dumbledore was over the weekend of Katie's 
> attack and why did Draco plan the attack when Dumbledore was away?

Carol:

Since he seems to have gathered all of his memories (except
Slughorn's) long before, part of a longterm plan, evidently, he must
be finding the location of the cave, where he suspects that a Horcrux
is hidden. As for Draco, he couldn't have known that DD, his intended
victim, would be gone, but he's chosen the first Hogsmeade weekend to
get the necklace into the school. Possibly, he expects the Imperio'd
person to give the wrapped necklace to Filch to be delivered to
Dumbledore without being unwrapped, but it seems likely to backfire
and kill Filch. (Maybe Draco subconsciously hoped that would happen?)
But the whole sequence of events involving the necklace is so obscure
that I don't know what to think. How do the coins work? How did he get
either the coin or the necklace to Rosmerta? What, if anything, did
Blaise have to do with it? If the coins were merely enchanted with a
Protean Charm, why does Rosmerta act as if she, too, is under an
Imperius Curse? I don't get it, JKR! It doesn't make any more sense to
me than it does to Hermione.
> 
> 3. How do you think Dumbledore plans to stop Mundungus from 
pilfering the Black family heirlooms?

Carol:
Appealing to his nonexistent conscience? I really don't know. Maybe
it's all part of DD's plan, assomeone suggested, yet DD can't possibly
know at this point that the real locket Horcrux is possibly among the
items that Mundungus stole, so that seems unlikely. But I do strongly
suspect a link between Dung and Aberforth as members of the Order,
both apparently disreputable and both part of DD's spy network, but
again, I don't know what's going on. Besides, Dung has probably
already taken everything of value that hasn't been hoarded by
Kreacher, so there may be nothing left to pilfer.
>  
> 4. Phineas continues to play a role in HBP which is more active than 
> the other portraits in Dumbledore's office. Presumably he overhears 
> all the vital information Dumbledore shares with Harry during the 
> course of their lessons and he is also able to visit the Black 
> house. Do you see JKR giving Phineas a more important role in Book 7?

Carol:
I like Phineas and the fact that he provides a link between 12 GP and
Hogwarts has to be important. Certainly he knows about the Horcruxes
since he overhears most of Harry's lessons with DD (I don't know
whether it's significant that he misses their return from the Pensieve
this time or not). More important, IMO, he shares DD's trust in Snape,
and he must have overheard most of their conversations as well
(except, unfortunately, the argument in the forest). He could prove
important, possibly as a source of information for Lupin and the other
Order members if Harry won't listen. Or that's what I hope will
happen. He's more than a wall decoration, that much I'm sure of.
>  
> 5. Dumbledore offers Harry his interpretation of why Merope did not 
> use magic to get the things she needed to survive. Do you think 
> Merope chose not to perform magic after Riddle, Sr. left her, or 
> that she was incapable of doing so?

Carol:
Given what happens to Tonks, I think she was incapable of it. But what
bothers me is that DD doesn't correct Harry when he suggests that she
could have kept herself alive through magic. We're led to believe in
the interviews and in canon that you can't conjure real money or
substantial food--it will disappear. Maybe she could magically clean
or repair her robes if she knew how, but how was she supposed to eat?
She had no education that we're aware of, no means of earning a
living. She managed to find Knockturn Alley to sell the necklace to
the heartless skinflint Burke, but apparently it never occurred to her
 to ask for a job earlier in her pregnancy. How *did* she stay alive
till that point? Anyway, I find her a thoroughly pitiable figure
whether the loss of magic was a conscious choice, reflecting her
repentance for tricking the man she loved into marrying her, or the
result of her despair. No one ever loved her; all she ever had was the
brief illusion of love resulting from the so-called love potion, and
her confession of the truth was followed by rejection. No one ever
taught her right from wrong; she was neglected and psychologically and
physically abused; she was dismissed as ugly and incompetent probably
from early childhood onward. Maybe her mother loved her, but her
mother died and left her with her monster of a father and a brother
who wasn't much better. Yes, she was weak, but I agree with Dumbledore
that she deserves pity, not condemnation.
>  
> 6. Just out of curiosity, we never learned what happened to 
> Caractacus Burke. Any speculation?

Carol:
It's possible that, as hounyhymm (sp!) suggested, he was murdered by
Voldemort at some point after Dumbledore's memory of him, which I'm
guessing was obtained soon after the memory from the house-elf.
However, Dumbledore doesn't imply that he was murdered, so I'm
guessing that it was a natural death. Interestingly, there are Burkes
on the Black Family Tree, so he may be one of the two sons of Phineas
Nigellus' daughter Belvira Black (1886-1962) and Herbert Burke.
Caractacus is the Latinized form of Carthach (Welsh "Caradawc"), the
last British (Brythonic Celt) leader to resist Rome. So Caractacus
Burke and Caradoc Dearborn (Order member murdered in VW1) share a
variation of the same name. I'm guessing that Caractacus shared the
pureblood ideology of the Blacks, but he strikes me as a heartless
miser as well. He reminds me of an unredeemed Ebenezer Scrooge,
placing a high value on money and shrewd business deals, with no
concern for pitiable figures like Merope Gaunt. Ten galleons for a
priceless locket! I can't picture him as a family man, so I'm guessing
that he died childless, helping to reduce the number of pureblood
families. Whether his wealth went to his brother's or sister's
descendants or to his business partner, Borgin, I can't guess. I'm
surprised, though, that we haven't yet encountered any DEs named Burke.
>  
> 7. JKR made a statement prior to HBP that we would know more about 
> the 'circumstances of Riddle's birth'. Was there anything about his 
> birth or life in the orphanage that surprised you or was it pretty 
> much the story you were expecting?

Carol:
I was expecting something very different: Marvolo Gaunt as a famous
Dark wizard and known descendant of Salazar Slytherin; his daughter as
a Juliet figure who fell in love with the handsome Muggle Tom Riddle,
who deserted her after finding out that she was a witch--not because
she was ugly and had tricked him with a love potion, only because of
prejudice against magic. I certainly never anticipated Morfin or
inbreeding or any of it. I can almost empathize with Tom Jr.'s
disappointment--but not, of course, with his decision to murder his
father and frame poor Morfin, who, as DD says, did not deserve *that*
whatever else he was and had done. As for the birth and the orphanage,
they were pretty much what I expected. Mrs. Cole was a bit of a
surprise, a colorful minor character expertly drawn, and
eleven-year-old Tom Jr. made my blood run cold--the kind of child who
in RL would pull the wings off butterflies at age three and be an
incorrigible delinquent, perhaps an arsonist, by twelve--a true
sociopath with the potential to become a mass murderer, but with
powerseven he doesn't understand. I don't know what I expected, but if
I'd thought about it based on the glimpse of TR at sixteen provided by
CoS, I suppose it would have been something like this, minus the
hanged rabbit and stolen trophies.
>  
> 8. Why do you think Dumbledore drew attention to the fact that Harry 
> was 'possibly [ ] feeling sorry for Lord Voldemort?' 

Carol:
Because compassion is essential if Harry is to fulfill his role as
LV's nemesis and antithesis. LV doesn't know his enemy or understand
him; Harry must do both if he is to defeat LV through Love. But first,
IMO, he must feel compassion for Snape. . . .
> 
> 9. After learning Merope died rather than live for her son, Harry 
> expressed anger that she made a poor choice compared to Lily, 
> who 'didn't have a choice'. Dumbledore corrected him gently, saying 
> Lily *did* have a choice. Why do you think Harry didn't believe Lily 
> had a choice when he heard the memory in POA of Voldemort telling 
> her to 'step aside'?

Carol:
I don't think Harry saw "Stand aside" as a choice. It was
incomprehensible to him that she might do so. Even Petunia Dursley
would have stood in front of her child (but not in front of Harry!) to
defend him. It's hard for Harry to understand that LV actually sees
standing aside as a viable option, perhaps based on his own experience
of having been "deserted" by his mother. (Again, I've read JKR's
interview on the subject, and I think the choice is just that, to get
out of the way and save her own life at the expense of her child's or
to die with him, with no motive on LV's part except to get to Harry
and kill him to thwart the Prophecy. Lily in herself is unimportant to
him. Lily turns that choice into something more when she offers her
life in exchange for Harry's; that, IMO, is the point at which her
situation becomes one that has not happened before and invokes the
ancient magic that saves Harry.)
> 
> 10. Dumbledore seems to have an ongoing battle with young boys not 
> using the proper etiquette of referring to teachers as 'Professor' 
> or 'Sir'.  What did you think about the way Riddle talks to 
> Dumbledore compared to how Harry talks to Snape, erm, Professor 
> Snape?

Carol:
I definitely saw the parallel, and I'm glad that Snape is not the only
one who insists on being treated with respect. It also, of course,
reflects DD's insistence on manners and courtesy even when dealing
with Death Eaters, as well as his complete trust in Severus Snape
throughout the series. Not a good sign that Harry is behaving like
Riddle, though. Maybe he'll learn in Book 7 that Snape, like DD,
really deserves to be called "Sir"? I'd like to see DD proven right on
this point, but we'll see.
>  
> 11. Harry is surprised to see Dumbledore set the wardrobe on fire. 
> Why did Dumbledore choose to show a boy whose 'magic had run away 
> with him' such a spectacular and destructive-looking demonstration? 

Carol:
As others have said, the demonstration had to be both spectacular and
scary to impress Tom and convince him that this strange bearded man in
a velvet suit had powers at least as great as his own over which he
had far more control and that he was not someone to fool around with.
"The only one he ever feared" originated at this point, I think. But
Tom also saw that DD could undo his destructive magic. To set the
wardrobe on fire and let it burn to ashes would have been scary but
would have alienated Tom; to destroy it and then restore it was more
impressive and yet less dark, showing courtesy to Tom by restoring his
possessions (an example that he wants Tom to follow) and demonstrating
that magic can be used for good as well as evil. Whether the point
fully registered is hard to say.
> 
> 12. As Harry leaves the office he notices the ring is gone and 
> wonders whether the mouth organ Riddle had stowed in the cardboard 
> box might be of importance. Dumbledore beams at him and says, "very 
> astute Harry, but the mouth organ was only ever a mouth organ." Was 
> there any reason Dumbledore answered Harry's question so 
> cryptically? And why was he pleased to hear Harry say that? On a 
> side note, do you think that was a JKR message to fans? :)

Carol:
I think DD is glad that Harry is taking note of seemingly minor
details and of Tom's hoarding tendencies, hinting that they might be
important later but not wanting to reveal the Horcrux concept quite
yet. And any message to Harry from DD is a message to readers as well.
But, yes, I think there's a sly wink to us from JKR. Sometimes a
ten-year-old Muggle boy named Mark Evans is just a ten-year-old Muggle
boy named Mark Evans and not a surprise Muggleborn Gryffindor relative
of Harry's. (Sigh!) Not every reference to an object or person is a
clue or even a red herring. Still, though, the Vanishing Cabinet
incident was a clue; the Hand of Glory reference in CoS was a clue;
the unopenable locket in OoP was a clue; "young Sirius Black" in SS/PS
was a clue (or at least a foreshadowing). So the mouth organ
(harmonica?) was only ever a mouth organ. One down, several hundred to go.

Carol, thanking Jen for not asking yes-or-no questions!







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 29 19:31:26 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 19:31:26 -0000
Subject: Maligning Lupin/werewolves
In-Reply-To: <e0cmlb+tp5q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0enae+t3r4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150240

zgirnius:
> > I think that the magical ropes (or whatever they were) that Snape
 used to tie up Lupin might well have held through the transformation. 
> > If so, Snape did take steps necessary to ensure that Lupin posed
no  threat. He simply chose to do so in a way that was less pleasant
for Lupin than taking a potion would have been.
> >
> 
> Pippin:
> Also a way that's safer for Snape. JKR tells us that a clever wizard
might be able to transfigure veritaserum  into something else.
Presumably that could be done with wolfsbane too, if the werewolf
wanted an excuse to attack.
> 
> Pippin
>

Carol adds:
IIRC, the potion must be drunk steaming hot. Snape sees a werewolf
running to aid a "murderer" and he's supposed to run outside, past the
Whomping Willow, without this steaming potion spilling all over him
and onto the ground, and then persuade the werewolf to drink what's
left of it when he reaches the end of the tunnel? Of course he puts it
down and runs off to catch the renegades before they harm any
students, intending to use the conjured ropes to hold down the
werewolf while he turns in the "murderer" to the authorities. It would
be absurd to try to take the potion to Lupin, who must have known that
it was coming but chose not to wait two more minutes, and expect him
to calmly drink the cooled dregs that Snape presented to him. Snape
thinks he's dealing with a pair of criminals and is treating them
accordingly.

Carol, agreeing with zgirnius and to some extent with Pippin but
adding her two cents







From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Wed Mar 29 19:49:23 2006
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 11:49:23 -0800
Subject: Dementors in the Privet neighborhood
Message-ID: <700201d40603291149o47313ff7i614b44708facdeac@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150241

Amiable Dorsai posed:
Why could the Dementors attack him?  They weren't sent by Voldemort.

Kemper now:
Much like House Elves and Phoenixes are able to Dis/Apparate in
Hogwarts, perhaps something similar can be said about Dementors being
able to attack Harry within his home (here meant not only #4 but the
neighborhood of #4, as home may mean more than just a house.)

So whatever ward/shield charm protects Harry's Home, it doesn't seem
as though that charm includes any Patronus derivatives, nor a
derivative of whatever Snape endorses to deal with Dementors.

-Kemper



From belviso at attglobal.net  Wed Mar 29 20:00:41 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 20:00:41 -0000
Subject: Young James v Older James WAS: Re: The Huge overreactions .
In-Reply-To: <e0drb2+c7o4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0ep19+h9rb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150242

> Ceridwen:
> And how did Snape potion Peter during a monitored test?

Magpie:
Somehow I have a hard time imagining Snape wanting to slip Peter this 
Potion (which apparently makes no difference to his personality since 
no one notices a change in him).  Does Snape really think that what 
the world needs is more James Potter love?  Particularly from his 
friends and partners in crime?  What was the point of this trick of 
Snape's?  Raising James' self-esteem by trickery?  Validating his high 
opinion of himself?  Snape might as well have slipped an anti-love 
Potion against himself into the Pumpkin juice at breakfast.  This 
seems to be a pretty normal day for everyone involved.

-m






From enlil65 at gmail.com  Wed Mar 29 15:46:11 2006
From: enlil65 at gmail.com (Peggy Wilkins)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 09:46:11 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] DD's death scene revisited and other side notes
In-Reply-To: <e0c772+diqh@eGroups.com>
References: <e0c772+diqh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1789c2360603290746g4340d46bj4f9d068dce84ffa6@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150243

On 3/28/06, Adzuroth <adzuroth at hotmail.com> wrote:
[re: Dumbledore on the tower in HBP]
Adzuroth:
> Second of all, why didn't DD go straight to Madame Ponfrey if he knew
> he was in such bad shape?

I think this characterization of Madame Pomfrey in Order of the
Phoenix is relevant:

OOTP p. 464:
"He [Harry] had never been so pleased to see her [McGonagall]; it was
a member of the Order of the Phoenix he needed now, not someone
fussing over him and prescribing useless potions."

Dumbledore is very clear that he wants Snape.  I'd say Harry's
sentiment above pretty much accounts for this: Dumbledore wants an
Order member (specifically Snape), not Hospital staff.

In my opinion, Dumbledore's favoring Snape over Pomfrey doesn't
necessarily tell us anything more revealing about his death; I don't
consider his preference for Snape to be particularly unusual,
especially since Harry himself had already expressed a similar
preference (Order member over Pomfrey).  While it might be telling of
some pre-arrangement with Snape, I don't think it's telling enough.

--
Peggy Wilkins
enlil65 at gmail.com





From mrs_weasley2004 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 29 18:16:03 2006
From: mrs_weasley2004 at yahoo.com (mrs_weasley2004)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 18:16:03 -0000
Subject: Give Credit Where Credit is due
Message-ID: <e0eit3+hlg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150244

I have been tempted to submit this as an editorial to MuggleNet but 
want some feedback first.  My actual books are in storage except for 
OotP and HBP. I have all the books on tape at my house so it's hard 
to look up page numbers for the quotes so it makes it hard to follow 
their rules for submission. 

I keep finding a theme in reading editorials lately so I have felt 
compelled to write this.  I read time and time again where Draco 
couldn't have done this or Regulus couldn't have done that or known 
what they did because they were too young.  Or that Voldemort 
wouldn't trust someone that young with something like that.

Stop and think about what we are doing.  It's the same kind of thing 
Hermione campaigns against for House Elves.  Adults tend to think 
kids aren't as smart as they are. Let's look at Harry and crew. They 
know a lot of stuff about Hogwarts and the magical community in 
general that the grownups around them don't know they know. 

1.	Fred and George: Knew enough to invent enough stuff in one or 
two summers to start a joke shop and the shield charm stuff they 
invented was good enough that the Ministry of Magic ordered some for 
use in combat. They were smart enough at age 7 or 8 to almost get Ron 
to enter into an unbreakable vow. Remember why Ron says he is afraid 
of spiders?  One of the twins turned his teddy bear into a spider 
when he was a little kid.  

2.	James, Sirius, and Peter Pettigrew were smart enough to learn 
how to become animagi while still in school and managed to keep it 
from Dumbledore.  He seemed quite impressed by that in POA.  They 
also made the maurader's map.  Pettigrew even managed to keep his 
spying a secret from James and Sirius.

3.	Snape: Is given credit as the Half-Blood prince so he either 
authored the changes in the potions book that Harry used or at least 
was smart enough not to let on what he was doing with his mother's 
old potions book.  Being a double agent or not he was also at least 
competent to be given the job as potions master at the school just a 
short time after getting out of school himself.  He would have had to 
have been at least good enough at it to look like he deserved the 
job. 

4.	Barty Crouch  Jr. was sent to Azkaban fresh out of Hogwarts 
it looks like for helping torture the Longbottoms into insanity.  
He also knew a lot of magic in Goblet of Fire, I'm sure he didn't 
learn all that while in Azkaban or at his family home under the 
imperius curse.  I still want to know what his motivation was in 
teaching Harry and company about unforgivable curses you would think 
he would want to send Harry to Voldemort as unprepaired as he could 
so why teach them anything about them in the first place? 

5.	Malfoy: May be a jerk but he manages to fix the broken 
vanishing cabinet, right under Dumbledore's nose, without Snape's 
help (granted he may have had help from Voldemort since the other 
half was in Knockturn Alley at the old shop where Voldemort used to 
work
hmmm I wonder if there is any other significance to that?) and 
steals enough Polyjuice potion to keep his lookouts hidden for most 
of the year.  I wonder what else could be hiding in that room where 
the cabinet was and Harry's stolen potions book is.  Wonder if any of 
Tom Riddle's old school things could be there too? 

I think Voldemort would have a good reason to want to influence 
students at Hogwarts what a great time to get kids young and 
impressionable and away from their parents who may be able to teach 
them something different, remember Hitler's youth?  What about the 
gangs we see news stories about and the stuff they do, stealing 
property or worse, just to feel included. That would seem out of the 
realm of normal, but they still happen so obviously the young people 
are capable of doing them.  Even Dudley and his gang run around 
beating up kids in the neighborhood and his parents are too blind to 
see what is going on. 

In conclusion I think that we as adults need to stop thinking that 
these kids are not able to perform on the level as adults.  They seem 
to prove time and time again that isn't the case.

mrs_weasley2004







From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Wed Mar 29 21:29:59 2006
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 13:29:59 -0800
Subject: Contrasting Harry's and Tom's beginnings
Message-ID: <700201d40603291329l80ed1aeh12ac92d1c9b4a3e2@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150245

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 MeropeandTom 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.

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 a parent's 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.

-Kemper, not knowing what these thoughts suggest to the plot, if anything



From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 29 22:00:22 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 22:00:22 -0000
Subject: Blood Wards of Privet Drive Clarification... (was: Re: Why wasn't Harry sent.. )
In-Reply-To: <e0dfk6+21nq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0f01m+jmlg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150246

Carol earlier"
> > ...
> > As for the blood protection not protecting him from the Dementors,
of course it doesn't. He's on Magnolia Crescent, not Privet Drive, 
... Dumbledore and the Order tell him not to leave the house for 
> > any reason; he's safe there .... 
> 
> bboyminn: 
> This much I agree with, however, I have a problem with the next part.
> 
> > Carol continues:
> > But if the Dementors return, or if the Death Eaters show up ..., 
Harry will not be safe.
> > 
> 
> bboyminn: 
> 
> Do you really believe that? I know, as previously quoted by others,
Dumbledore specifically mentions Voldemort when he explains the
protection of blood to Harry. But Dumbledore also mentions Death
Eaters and Voldemort supporters in similar conversations about the
Blood Protection.

Carol again:
Oy! I meant if they return and he's outside, he wouldn't be safe,
which is why he was ordered to stay in the house,where no one--LV,
DEs, Dementors, or even the Dursleys themselves--can hurt him (until
the protection expires on his seventeenth birthday).

> 
Steve:
> Perhaps, I am reading your statement wrong, you seem to imply that
Harry is only protected from Voldemort while at the Dursleys. I say,
or at least I think, that Harry is protected from /anyone/ wanting to
do him REAL harm.

Carol:
Apparently you misunderstood my argument, which I admit was unclearly
worded. I think he's only safe *in the house*, which is why both
Sirius Black and Mr. Weasley ordered him not to leave the house for
any reason ("A Peck of Owls," OoP). But the protection, as I'm sure I
said, extends beyond LV to anyone inside the house, including the
Dursleys. (I mentioned Aunt Petunia's frying pan not hitting Harry and
Uncle Vernon receiving an electric shock when he tries to choke Harry.)

Also, DD says, "While you can still call home the place where your
mother's blood dwells, *there* you cannot be harmed." No mention of
any place else. (But in that context, the protection seems to refer to
Voldemort alone, which makes no sense in connection with the orders to
stay in the house.)

Carol, who really didn't want to post again on this topic but felt
compelled to clarify her response






From hickengruendler at yahoo.de  Wed Mar 29 22:08:41 2006
From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 22:08:41 -0000
Subject: Contrasting Harry's and Tom's beginnings
In-Reply-To: <700201d40603291329l80ed1aeh12ac92d1c9b4a3e2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e0f0h9+3sma@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150247

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kemper <iam.kemper at ...> wrote:
>
<snip> 
> 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.
> 
> 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 a parent's 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.
> 
> -Kemper, not knowing what these thoughts suggest to the plot, if 
anything
>

Hickengruendler:

I agree with you and I see it mostly as symbolical. Since love is the 
power Voldemort doesn't know, according to the prophecy, it makes 
sense in a metaphorical way, that even his conception was without 
love.

Hickengruendler, who apologizes for the short post, but really 
doesn't know what else to add







From mgrantwich at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 29 22:03:13 2006
From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 14:03:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore MAY be alive.... and his name may be Godric Gryffindor
In-Reply-To: <e033v7+tcjd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060329220313.7822.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150248

--- Adriana <glykonix at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Now I do realize I have made up a theory worthy of Dan Brown here.
> But I hold strong to it as it does seem to explain a lot, and makes

> a loot of sense, to me at least. 
> And to the few friends with which I have discussed it.
> One of them says that it makes perfect sense and that she buys it,
> but 
> that she is sure that J.K. Rowling never thought of it.  
> If you have anything to say on this pro or contra (especially
> contra, 
> I want to see if there are things I have not thought about) please 
> write to me (soon).
> 
> Glykonix 


I haven't seen anyone else respond (all you people tired of Snape
posts, where are you?) so I will.

It's an interesting theory and you've made quite a case, but I can't
help thinking that it just isn't really necessary for the plot. 
There are enough connections between a headmaster and the various
founders - especially one who still seems fond of his own house when
he was a student - to explain the connections between Dumbledore and
GG.

Maybe other people will feel differently.

Magda

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com  Wed Mar 29 22:07:39 2006
From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 22:07:39 -0000
Subject: Lily' sacrifice v James' sacrifice WAS: Perfect Lily
In-Reply-To: <e0e7ja+tro6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0f0fb+iljb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150249


> 
> Marianne:
> Aside from my own personal preference to not have any completely 
> saintly, godly or Christly characters rattling around Potterverse, I 
> do have some questions.  Are you posing the three rejections of 
> Voldemort by Lily as what JKR meant when she said the Potters defied 
> Voldemort three times?  (I'm pretty sure she said "Potters" plural, 
> so that implies to me that James was part of this defiance.)  Also, 
> the Longbottoms, too, are described as having defied or rejected 
> Voldemort three times.  I guess Voldemort might be using different 
> questions, methods, temptations or persuasive arguments with each 
> set of parents, and may also have a second set of the same designed 
> especailly for the two mothers of the boys in which he's interested, 
> but that strikes me as too convoluted. OTOH, Evil Overlords 
> frequently get tripped up by their own over-the-top planning. 

Valky:
Hahaha, Marianne :) 

but seriously my proposition is not that convoluted. No I don't mean
to imply that these are the prophecy's three defiances, I am
specualting only on what precisely was different about Lily's
sacrifice compared to any other person who has died to save someone
else from Voldemort. 

It occurs to me that, well it's actually almost a given, that
Voldemort is his own undoing, and besides it was *his* powers that
were transferred to Harry, not Lily's or anyone elses, so it stands to
reason to say that something big was on offer in Godrics Hollow, I
don't think Voldemorts powers donation was charitable. <g>

I understand your aversion to the perfect saintly white dot
'blemishing' (LOL) the horizon of the otherwise colourful and very
real WW. That's fair enough, I appreciate you qualifying that for me
in your comment. :)


> Marianne:
> I guess what I'm saying is that there seems to be canon that covers 
> Vmort's interest in not just Lily, but the other 3 parents of Harry 
> and Neville.  Maybe he was just covering all his bases even though 
> he suspected that Super-Lily might be the correct mother to target, 
> and thus designed a test just for her. Which would mean that she and 
> James defied Vmort three times, and then Lily threw in another 3 
> renounciations right before Vmort killed her.

Valky:
Well yeah. But not in such a way that it was a clunking machine of
allegorical defiance. I would rather to assume that the scene was very
much more fluid and natural than that. More along the lines of
Voldemort expecting Lily to flaunt her super powers at him, because
he's just so worth it, you know, in the typical and narcissistic way
Voldemort does things. So in some respects her last defiances come
across more as a surprise to him than anything.


> 
> By the way, although JKR said that DD should not be considered a 
> Christ figure, did she imply that someone else fills that position 
> in her story?  Or are the fans making the assumption that someone 
> has to fill that role?
> 
> Marianne
>

Valky:
LOL, no just me taking a stab at something for the sheer heck of it. 

:)








From juli17 at aol.com  Wed Mar 29 22:22:33 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 17:22:33 -0500
Subject: Lily' sacrifice v James' sacrifice WAS: Perfect Lily
In-Reply-To: <1143621125.1050.93479.m19@yahoogroups.com>
References: <1143621125.1050.93479.m19@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <8C8219669348263-1CAC-26C@FWM-R03.sysops.aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150250

 Carol wrote:
 
 It's the difference between the *hero*, whose courage is duplicated
every time a soldier fights valiantly in hand-to-hand combat, and the
*martyr*, who gives his or her life willingly, without a fight, for a
cause or principle that he or she believes in. A hero who fights a
losing battle against a merciless enemy has to die; a martyr who gives
up her own life in exchange for her child's does not. She dies because
she chooses to die, out of pure love, not heroism. Heroes have a
hundred faces in the HP books; martyrs, apparently, have just one.

Carol, trying to explain that James's defense of his family, however
valiant, does not qualify as self-sacrifice, and that it took an act
of martyrdom, not of heroism, to activate the ancient magic 

 
Julie:
I do see your distinction between the two, and it makes sense. I can
also see how Lily's sacrifice as martyrdom invoked the ancient magic
while James's heroic death didn't. Where I guess I disagree with JKR
(and that's if this is even what she was saying) is in believing that 
Lily's death was more courageous or noble than James's death.
 
Let me put it this way. If I was in Harry's situation and knew both of
my parents died putting themselves between me and someone intent
on killing me, that both sacrificed their lives to save me, I would see no
difference in their inherent courage and love for me based on exactly
how they died (heroically or as a martyr). Either could have abandoned
me one way or the other (and Lily standing aside and letting Voldemort
kill her son isn't any less "sheer cowardice" to me than James running 
away). I would consider both of them to be equally noble and courageous,
and I suspect this is what Harry thinks of James and Lily. He doesn't think
"Wel, my dad died for me, but he was going to die anyway, but my mom
could have lived yet died for me, so she is truly loved me best." And that
is because it's not true, IMO.
 
 
Julie


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




From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 29 22:26:00 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 22:26:00 -0000
Subject: The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span.
In-Reply-To: <e0cqgl+dfgl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0f1ho+4i2s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150251

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <SNIP>
> > No, Snape wasn't entirely innocent.  But that doesn't mean that 
> > he deserved to be so humiliated, or that James, and his little 
> > friends too (yes I'm looking at you, Lupin!), were not behaving 
> > badly.

> >>Alla:
> And nowhere in my post I said that he deserved to be humiliated or 
> that James and Sirius were not behaving badly.
> <snip> 
> So, "he deserved to be humiliated " is an incorrect interpretation 
> of what I said.

Betsy Hp:
Oh, I wasn't commenting on any of your statements by this point.  
This is my own personal opinion, not an attempt to interpert any of 
your opinions.
 
> >>Betsy Hp:
> > But I *do* think the Gryffindors behaved badly here and that    
> > Draco and friends did *not* deserve to be physically attacked as 
> > they were.
> > <snip>
 
> >>Alla:
> Please answer me this question - do you think that Draco is a     
> victim in that scene...
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I do.  Draco, Crabbe and Goyle are physically attacked from several 
directions at once by five wizards, two of whom were a couple of 
years older than them.  It don't get much plainer than that.

> >>Alla:
> ...it is possible to say that Gryffindors overreacted ( I don't    
> think for a single second that they did - I don't see any other   
> way how Harry's friends could react after he had been through the 
> hell and here Draco shows up with his threats and mockery)...

Betsy Hp:
Yeah, that just doesn't work for me.  Draco was being unspeakably 
rude and unkind.  But if everyone was allowed to pound the rude and 
unkind into the ground we'd have sunk back into pure barbarism a 
long time ago.

The Gryffindors behaved like common thugs in this scene.  They may 
have felt justified.  Others may feel they were justified.  But the 
fact remains that they responded to words with fists.  That's the 
mark of an uncivilized man, and it's something I tend to think 
little of. (Poor Crabbe and Goyle hadn't even said anything.)

> >>Joe:
> Wasn't it Draco, Crabbe and Goyle that first attempted to use     
> overwhelming force as you call it on Harry?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
No. The Slytherins didn't even draw their wands.  There have been so 
many different occasions where Draco gets stomped by mindless hordes 
it get's difficult to tell them apart, I know <g> but this scene 
took place at the end of GoF and all Draco did was speak.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > I think it's safe to say the Snape was more than a match for     
> > either James or Sirius.
> > <snip>

> >>Joe:
> What exactly are you basing that on?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
The pensieve scene.  James goes after Snape with Sirius providing 
backup, and Sirius needs to step forward at one point to keep Snape 
on the ground.  I don't think it had to do with Snape being 
*stronger* than either James or Sirius; they all struck me as being 
well matched as far as basic skill level.  But Snape was (is?) 
*majorly* determined.  To borrow a motto, he fights until he can't.  
And I mean that quite literally.  I think Snape, even if victory 
seemed impossible, would struggle and struggle and struggle until he 
was literally, physically unable to struggle any more.  Which is why 
the fight escalated as it did.

> >>Joe:
> I would be willing to wager that at least part of the reason they 
> both disliked each other is that they were the two closest in     
> terms of magical power in their peer group. It would be hard for   
> two boys in such a situation not to have a fierce rivalry. Think   
> about it, two boys well matched in ability but from rival houses   
> and almost polar opposite personalities.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Hmmm, I see what you're saying here, but it doesn't ring quite true 
to me.  There's a bit of healthy competition included in your 
scenario, I think.  It's something more along the lines of Draco and 
Harry, where the two boys can pour their rivalry onto the quidditch 
pitch and possibly (if Harry were more inclined) into the classroom.

James vs. Snape just doesn't strike me as having even a smidgeon of 
that healthiness to it.  It brought out the very worst in James, I 
think, as we see in the pensieve.  And I suspect it also brought out 
the very worst in Snape.  Neither boy gained, in other words.

I know my comparison isn't perfect because there is a lot that's 
unhealthy about Harry vs. Draco.  But if politics were removed, at 
least with those two they're pushing each other on the quidditch 
pitch to fly better, faster, be more alert, etc.  And I think it 
gives them each an extra reason to help their respective houses do 
well in the house competition, which means doing well in class, etc.

I think maybe James and Snape were *too* different for their rivalry 
to have anything positive to it.  James was too well-loved and good-
looking and charming, and Snape was too awkward and uncared for and 
angry.

Yeah, I'm not sure this makes any sort of sense. I'm kind of riffing 
off a not quite fully formed thought.  But I'll leave it as is to 
see what happens. <g>

Betsy Hp







From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 29 23:09:36 2006
From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 23:09:36 -0000
Subject: The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span.
In-Reply-To: <e0f1ho+4i2s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0f43g+5m42@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150252

-
> > >>Alla:
> > Please answer me this question - do you think that Draco is a     
> > victim in that scene...
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> I do.  Draco, Crabbe and Goyle are physically attacked from several 
> directions at once by five wizards, two of whom were a couple of 
> years older than them.  It don't get much plainer than that.

AD: 
In the opening days of a shooting war, with fresh blood on the ground,
Draco invaded the Trio's compartment with a couple of bully boys and
started issuing death threats.

"Victims"?

Amiable Dorsai






From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 29 23:10:25 2006
From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 23:10:25 -0000
Subject: The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span.
In-Reply-To: <e0f1ho+4i2s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0f451+ho1n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150253

-
> > >>Alla:
> > Please answer me this question - do you think that Draco is a     
> > victim in that scene...
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> I do.  Draco, Crabbe and Goyle are physically attacked from several 
> directions at once by five wizards, two of whom were a couple of 
> years older than them.  It don't get much plainer than that.

AD: 
In the opening days of a shooting war, with fresh blood on the ground,
Draco invaded the Trio's compartment with a couple of bully boys and
started issuing death threats.

"Victims"?

Amiable Dorsai






From nrenka at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 29 23:20:05 2006
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 23:20:05 -0000
Subject: Kant and Snape and Ethics and Everything
In-Reply-To: <e0egqr+lhdr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0f4n5+1ekl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150254

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> 
wrote:

<snip>

> The humor for me is in imagining Snape as trying to live according 
> to this extremely lofty and noble but utterly impractical vision of 
> law and perfect rationality. 

Hey, I'm not the one who brought up Kant as an explanatory model for 
Snape's actions--I'm the one who thought "That doesn't sound like the 
Kant I had to read, struggled with, and loved back in college..." :)

It's an interesting moral model to try out in different situations.  
It's one that, a few books ago, I thought was more integral or 
applicable to the Potterverse than it turns out to have been.  YMMV.

<snip>

> If you think about it, what could Snape have said to support 
> Sirius's story? He *didn't* see any sign of Pettigrew in the shack. 
> (And why would a rational human being take his eyes off a Death 
> Eater to look at a rat anyway?) 

For one thing, he could have shut up and stayed disengaged from the 
situation in the Hospital Wing.  It's never been resolved (and may 
never be brought up again in the books), but the language he uses in 
trying to shut up Hermione, both in the Shack itself (refusal to 
listen and consider other possibilities) and afterwards in the 
Hospital Wing...well, "silly girl" does ring a bell, doesn't it?  And 
then his commentary to Fudge reeks (at least to me) of someone who's 
trying to go behind Dumbledore's back to get something done.  It's 
his active engagement in the situation which leads me to doubt his 
more sterling motivations, although there's room for that possibility.

-Nora remembers those halcyon days when the DISHWASHER made a modicum 
of sense, because Snape couldn't have possibly just gone crazy with 
rage or be acting primarily out of self-interest






From juli17 at aol.com  Wed Mar 29 23:29:37 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 23:29:37 -0000
Subject: Give Credit Where Credit is due
In-Reply-To: <e0eit3+hlg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0f591+d96u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150255

mrsweasley wrote:
> 
> In conclusion I think that we as adults need to stop thinking that 
> these kids are not able to perform on the level as adults.  They seem 
> to prove time and time again that isn't the case.
> 
> mrs_weasley2004
>

Julie:
I agree that these kids (teenagers) are able to perform on the same 
level as adults. Where I would qualify that is whether they perform 
with the same *understanding* as adults. It's a scientific fact that 
the brain continues to develop throughout the teens and well into the 
twenties, as does a person's way of making decisions, calculating risks 
and understanding consequences. I think here of several different real 
life teenagers/young adults who were involved in various crimes in the 
US, from Charles Manson followers, to abortion clinic bombers, to a 
young man who killed a police officer. They each disappeared after 
their crimes, started a new life that eventually led to career, home, 
family, community and church involvemnt, living those new lives for 20, 
30 even 40 years as model citizens, never again committing any crimes. 
They *had* committed serious crimes, including murder, in their youth, 
yet they subsequently lived lives as normal as yours or mine.

BTW, I'm not arguing that these people, who were eventually captured 
and tried many years after their crimes, no longer deserved punishment. 
I'm just pointing out that people make rash, stupid, even evil choices 
in their youth, yet can repudiate those choices by going on to live a 
normal life without incident, even making valuable contributions to 
society. Shades of Snape, perhaps? Or the future Draco? Or even the 
transformation of Berk!TeenageJames into Noble!AdultJames?

So I would agree that we can't underestimate what teenagers will do, 
from the Maurader's nastier pranks to Draco's attempted murder. But we 
also should remember they don't have mature thought processes yet, and 
perhaps this is why Dumbledore sees them as salvageable even when they 
are at their worst. 

Julie 











From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 29 23:50:34 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 23:50:34 -0000
Subject: Kant and Snape and Ethics and Everything
In-Reply-To: <e0aig1+rcl7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0f6ga+ftu4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150256

> >>Sydney:
> <snip>
> My husband does have a degree in philosophy, though, so I braved   
> much embarassment to run this by him for rough accuracy!  He does 
> say that anyone who claims to understand Kant is mistaken;...
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Thank goodness!  I tried to dip into Kant when he was first brought 
up with Snape.  My left eyeball melted.  I'm glad to see that he 
really *can* be that difficult to unpack. <g>

I do think Snape acts according to a rather strict moral code.  It 
is why, I think, he sees Lupin as being so very weak.  Lupin, time 
and again, goes for the surface choice, the choice that will make 
him look good to those he wishes to please, even if he knows it to 
be morally wrong.

Having read that essay comparing Kant's Good Will to Hume's 
benevolence I think it could be said that while Lupin has been 
blessed with benevolence (he seems naturally pleasing) he's had a 
struggle with achieving Good Will.  While Snape, maybe *because* 
he's not naturally benevolent, has pushed himself so hard to achieve 
Good Will.  IOW, I would sooner hire Snape as a babysitter, than 
Lupin; though Lupin would be a nicer dinner companion.

> >>Pippin:
> I know almost nothing about Kant, but from what you and Sydney
> are saying, it sounds like Snape could be a  satirical critique of 
> this philosophy. He's someone who *thinks* he's utterly rational,
> except for those occasional moments of CAPSLOCK rage when
> his mighty powers of occlumency fail him, but he has no idea
> that his subconcious emotions and biases are influencing him
> *all the time*.
> <snip>
> That this is comic is shown by the lack of serious                
> consequences...<snip>

Betsy Hp:
And suddenly I wonder if this doesn't suggest that Snape may well 
survive book 7.  Because if Snape *is* supposed to illustrate the 
struggle to be good in a more comic than tragic way, then doesn't 
that mean he must live, must learn whatever philosophical fact he's 
failed to grasp (the impossibility of achieving pure rationality) in 
order to stay true to the comic story?

[As a clarification: I'm using comic as the opposite of tragic 
rather than comic as funny, which might not have been how Pippin was 
using it, but I'm totally shanghai-ing this idea and running with 
it. <g>]

> >>Sydney:
> As Pippin said, Snape is hampered by his very human brain.  I'm not
> positing Snape as a Kantian saint, if such a thing were even      
> possible.
> I'm saying there's a reason Kant is often brought up in relation to
> this character, because it's all about how someone can be a not
> kind-hearted person but do good things at the same time.  That is, 
> to me, the beauty of Kant-- that our obligations to each other as 
> human beings is something nobler and higher than animal           
> affections, and that it's demanded of us even if it goes against   
> our feelings, and that even if we possess damaged souls our will   
> and reason can allow us to aspire to something better.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
The interesting thing is that this is exactly what Snape's 
detractors don't seem to get.  They don't see the struggle.  They 
see a teacher being mean to a student for no good reason, while 
Snape's supporters (or me, at least <g>) see a teacher struggling to 
pull a student beyond what that student thinks he's capable of.

The Occlumency lessons are another example.  Rather than someone 
doing a bad job, deliberatly or otherwise, I see Snape trying so 
darn hard to get past his issues with Harry and teach the boy.  It's 
the old struggle of nice vs. good.

I think this is why I see the more negative flavors of Snape (ruled 
by self-interest or overall evilness) as so flat and boring, while 
DDM!Snape has such depth and movement and soul to him.  It's the 
struggle that makes him human. 

> >>Sydney:
> The Potter books are so incredibly rich in personalities and
> situations you could find a philosopher to fit all the characters- 
> Sirius makes me think of Rousseau, and the romantic Natural man who
> follows his noble-savage impulses.  Hermione's starting to edge
> alarmingly towards a Nietzchean view of herself as a Superwoman    
> whose superior intelligence gives her dominion over lesser        
> mortals...

Betsy Hp:
I'll nominate Sartre for Draco Malfoy, based on this excellent essay 
here:
http://community.livejournal.com/hp_essays/86380.html

That whole thing with choice, and Draco finally having to (I think!) 
make his own choice, and Dumbledore doing everything in his power to 
give Draco a *chance* to choose strikes me as very true to the story 
JKR is trying to tell.

Betsy Hp, in way over her head, but loving it <g>







From merrillsyndrome at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 29 22:21:01 2006
From: merrillsyndrome at yahoo.com (merrillsyndrome)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 22:21:01 -0000
Subject: Isaac Newton - Shades of HP?
In-Reply-To: <e095qs+g6sd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0f18d+flff@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150257

> Tonks_op:
> OK, even I think that I have gone a bit loopy here.  HP "is" in 
> everything.  Maybe I should just get a life.


em: 

Don't worry Tonks, you're not loopy yet. :)

It's a very interesting thought.  At the very least JKR could have been 
intrigued by Newton from a young age and decided to include some of 
his theories into her works as a tribute.  I had to do a report on 
Hitler in 6th grade (years ago now) but I found him and his life so 
intriguing that I have continued studying him throughout my life.  

And for the record.  I see HP in everything as well. :)

em












From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 30 03:02:55 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 03:02:55 -0000
Subject: Draco as Victim in GoF (was: Re: The Huge overreactions...)
In-Reply-To: <e0f451+ho1n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0fhov+9kmn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150258

> >>Amiable Dorsai: 
> In the opening days of a shooting war, with fresh blood on the      
> ground, Draco invaded the Trio's compartment with a couple of bully 
> boys and started issuing death threats.
> "Victims"?

Betsy Hp:
Legally?  You bet.  At least, here in the United States.  Words don't 
count.  And, considering the fact Crabbe and Goyle didn't say 
anything, you're going to be hard pressed to convince me they deserved 
to be hit so hard with magic hexes they were knocked out.

Betsy Hp







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 30 05:22:04 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 05:22:04 -0000
Subject: The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span.
In-Reply-To: <e0f1ho+4i2s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0fpts+1uof@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150259

> > >>Alla:
> > Please answer me this question - do you think that Draco is 
a     
> > victim in that scene...
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> I do.  Draco, Crabbe and Goyle are physically attacked from 
several 
> directions at once by five wizards, two of whom were a couple of 
> years older than them.  It don't get much plainer than that.

Alla:

I am speechless here, I confess, but before I agree to disagree on 
this part of the debate, could you please answer me two more 
questions, if you don't mind of course. Do you think Draco had a 
right to do what he did and do you think that what he did deserved 
ANY kind of the reaction or in your opinion Gryffindors were 
obligated to not react at all to his provocation ( or what I call 
provocation)


> Betsy Hp:
> Yeah, that just doesn't work for me.  Draco was being unspeakably 
> rude and unkind.  But if everyone was allowed to pound the rude 
and 
> unkind into the ground we'd have sunk back into pure barbarism a 
> long time ago.

Alla:

So, let me ask again. Gryffindors in your opinion behaved badly and 
should not be allowed to do what they did ( that how I interpret 
your opinion, sorry if I am wrong). Should Draco be allowed to do 
what he did?


Betsy Hp: 
> The Gryffindors behaved like common thugs in this scene.  They may 
> have felt justified.  Others may feel they were justified.  But 
the 
> fact remains that they responded to words with fists.  That's the 
> mark of an uncivilized man, and it's something I tend to think 
> little of. (Poor Crabbe and Goyle hadn't even said anything.)

Alla:

Yeah, they did. If someone would have mocked the dead classmate 
which death I just witnessed or issued death threats to the girl my 
brother likes, I have a feeling I would be very tempted to respond 
to such words with fists. Tempted, that is for sure, I am too old 
probably to respond to such words with fists, but I cannot be sure 
that I would not. I guess that makes me the person who can behave 
unciwilized sometimes, or at least have uncivilized impulses. Oh, 
well.
 
> > >>Joe:
> > Wasn't it Draco, Crabbe and Goyle that first attempted to 
use     
> > overwhelming force as you call it on Harry?
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> No. The Slytherins didn't even draw their wands.

Alla:

They CAME there with their wands, three of them. Do I think that it 
is unreasonable assumption after what Draco said that they can drew 
their wands at any minute? No, I think it is a reasonable one.



 







From joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 30 02:08:04 2006
From: joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com (Joe Goodwin)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 18:08:04 -0800 (PST)
Subject: The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span.
In-Reply-To: <e0f1ho+4i2s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060330020804.55224.qmail@web61320.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150260

  

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > But I *do* think the Gryffindors behaved badly here and that    
> > Draco and friends did *not* deserve to be physically attacked as 
> > they were.
> > <snip>
   
  Joe: 
I went back and checked. It wasn't Gryffindors who did the hexing it was Hufflepuffs and Ravenclaws who had been in the DA.



Betsy Hp:
Yeah, that just doesn't work for me.  Draco was being unspeakably 
rude and unkind.  But if everyone was allowed to pound the rude and 
unkind into the ground we'd have sunk back into pure barbarism a 
long time ago.
   
  Joe: 
I have to disagree, if we were allowed to do that we would live in a world where people were much more polite. The very best thing that could have happened to Draco Malfoy is for someone he tormented to have taken him out behind one of the Greenhouse and kicked the crap out of him. Fighting at an early age teaches boys many things. That even if you win a fight you almost always get hurt, thet you are going to lose some times and that you should never judge someone by their size. Draco could have used that knowledge but he didn't have it. Plus I don't remember malfoy being attacked by a crowd before.

Betsy Hp:
No. The Slytherins didn't even draw their wands.  There have been so 
many different occasions where Draco gets stomped by mindless hordes 
it get's difficult to tell them apart, I know <g> but this scene 
took place at the end of GoF and all Draco did was speak.
   
  Joe: 
Must disagree here as well. After rereading the incident JKR uses the word "advancing" to describe how Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle approach Harry. Also it should be noted that Malfoy goes for his wand before Harry and that it is only because Harry is fast that his is out first.

Betsy Hp:
Hmmm, I see what you're saying here, but it doesn't ring quite true 
to me.  There's a bit of healthy competition included in your 
scenario, I think.  It's something more along the lines of Draco and 
Harry, where the two boys can pour their rivalry onto the quidditch 
pitch and possibly (if Harry were more inclined) into the classroom.

James vs. Snape just doesn't strike me as having even a smidgeon of 
that healthiness to it.  It brought out the very worst in James, I 
think, as we see in the pensieve.  And I suspect it also brought out 
the very worst in Snape.  Neither boy gained, in other words.

I know my comparison isn't perfect because there is a lot that's 
unhealthy about Harry vs. Draco.  But if politics were removed, at 
least with those two they're pushing each other on the quidditch 
pitch to fly better, faster, be more alert, etc.  And I think it 
gives them each an extra reason to help their respective houses do 
well in the house competition, which means doing well in class, etc.
<snip>

Joe: 
I agree with you for the most part. Well, except that I think Harry and Draco are just like James and Snape. True if you took out the politics than Draco and Harry's rivary might not be so bitter but I think you can say the same thing about James and Snape. Take out the Dark Arts/Rise of Voldemort and it might not be as bad.
   
  I also think Snape brought out the worst in James. The real question is did James bring out the worst in Snape. What do we really know about Snape at Hogwarts beyond he was intensely disliked by people who were mostly loved? I think this might be part of the key for.
   
  Joe












From kchuplis at alltel.net  Thu Mar 30 05:30:00 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 23:30:00 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Isaac Newton - Shades of HP?
In-Reply-To: <e0f18d+flff@eGroups.com>
References: <e0f18d+flff@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <E602623A-3927-4BCB-8D03-DB1D0BDC120D@alltel.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 150261


On Mar 29, 2006, at 4:21 PM, merrillsyndrome wrote:

> > Tonks_op:
> > OK, even I think that I have gone a bit loopy here.  HP "is" in
> > everything.  Maybe I should just get a life.
>
>
> em:
>
> Don't worry Tonks, you're not loopy yet. :)
>
> It's a very interesting thought.  At the very least JKR could have  
> been
> intrigued by Newton from a young age and decided to include some of
> his theories into her works as a tribute.  I had to do a report on
> Hitler in 6th grade (years ago now) but I found him and his life so
> intriguing that I have continued studying him throughout my life.
>
> And for the record.  I see HP in everything as well. :)
>
kchuplis:

<in my best Ron imitation> "Yeah...me too"

Please forgive me elves. I can't help it. I can hear it so plainly in  
my head that even if it IS a me too post, I hope you do your best to  
let it pass :D



From joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 30 03:15:18 2006
From: joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com (Joe Goodwin)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 19:15:18 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Draco as Victim in GoF (was: Re: The Huge overreactions...)
In-Reply-To: <e0fhov+9kmn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060330031518.3593.qmail@web61322.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150262



Betsy Hp:
Legally?  You bet.  At least, here in the United States.  Words don't 
count.  And, considering the fact Crabbe and Goyle didn't say 
anything, you're going to be hard pressed to convince me they deserved 
to be hit so hard with magic hexes they were knocked out.

Joe: 
Most States and municipalities have statutes that taken into acount just this sort of provocation as well. Also if we are going to bring real world law into it then we should mention that Malfoys words could also be considered both "menacing" which is a crime. Note: Goyle and Crabbe using their size in the manner they do is the legal deffinition of "menacing". They could also be considered many "hate crime" statutes.
   
Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle got exactly what they deserved. I have not once ounce of pity for them. They should have leaned not to let their actions write checks their rear ends coudn't cash.
   
Joe
  











From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Thu Mar 30 02:12:28 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 21:12:28 EST
Subject: Kant and Snape and Ethics and Everything
Message-ID: <2cf.657aa6c.315c988c@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150263

Pippin:
> If you think about it, what could Snape have said to support 
>  Sirius's story? He *didn't* see any sign of Pettigrew in the shack. 
>  (And why would a rational human being take his eyes off a Death 
> Eater  to look at a rat anyway?) 

Nora:
>For one thing, he could have shut up and stayed disengaged from the  
>situation in the Hospital Wing.  <snip>.  It's  
>his active engagement in the situation which leads me to doubt his  
>more sterling motivations, although there's room for that  possibility.
 
Nikkalmati:

I am sure this has been stated before, but here goes.  I doubt  that Fudge 
could have been moved from his position by Snape.  In any case,  at this point, 
Snape thinks Sirius is a murderer (Muggles), a traitor (James and  Lily), an 
attempted murderer (Harry and himself) and an escaped convict.   In all 
probability, Sirius was an "outlaw", that is, literally 
beyond the law in the Shrieking Shack, and Snape could have killed Sirius  
without any consequences to himself at that time.  Yes, I'm sure Snape  wants 
Fudge to execute Sirius.  However, I think, as I thought when I first  read it, 
he is trying to protect the students in his comments to Fudge "They  weren't 
responsible for their actions."  (POA paperback 386).    They were open to 
being charged not only with attacking Snape but with aiding  and abetting an 
escaped killer.  From what we have seen of due process in  the WW (or lack thereof, 
see Sirius and Stan Shunpike ) expulsion would  have been the least of their 
problems.  However, if they were Confunded,  they were not responsible. Fudge 
buys it. 
 
 Yes, Snape goes on to list Harry's peccadilloes and special  treatment, but 
he is venting here; Fudge can't suspend Harry and Snape knows it.  He has what 
he thinks at first is a sympathetic ear and is making the most of  it.  And 
he has personal issues with Sirius that he hopes will be settled  by Sirius' 
death.  I am not necessarily proposing any but practical motives  for Snape, so 
don't accuse me of painting a NobleSnape.  After all, he  wants LV out of the 
way and if Harry is the "chosen one", Harry can't do much  from Azkaban.
 
Nikkalmati 









From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 30 06:08:07 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 06:08:07 -0000
Subject: Draco as Victim in GoF (was: Re: The Huge overreactions...)
In-Reply-To: <20060330031518.3593.qmail@web61322.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <e0fsk7+oo62@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150264

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Joe Goodwin 
<joegoodwin1067 at ...> wrote:

> Betsy Hp:
> Legally?  You bet.  At least, here in the United States.  Words 
don't count.  And, considering the fact Crabbe and Goyle didn't say 
> anything, you're going to be hard pressed to convince me they 
deserved to be hit so hard with magic hexes they were knocked out.
> 
> Joe: 
> Most States and municipalities have statutes that taken into 
acount just this sort of provocation as well. Also if we are going 
to bring real world law into it then we should mention that Malfoys 
words could also be considered both "menacing" which is a crime. 
Note: Goyle and Crabbe using their size in the manner they do is the 
legal deffinition of "menacing". They could also be considered 
many "hate crime" statutes.
>    
> Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle got exactly what they deserved. I have 
not once ounce of pity for them. They should have leaned not to let 
their actions write checks their rear ends coudn't cash.

Tonks:
I tend to agree with Betsy. But there is another point as well.
If a person responds to verbal abuse with physical abuse they have 
lowered themselves at least as low if not lower than the verbal 
abuser. If I were in Harry's position I would probably say something 
nasty back since I am not a physically violent person. I can be very 
nasty verbally, but that would be just as wrong. And I would have 
allowed the other person to dictate my response and my emotional 
reaction. In that case, I would not be in control of me, they would 
have been. I think a wizard needs to be in control of himself and 
not allow others to control his emotions and from that his 
behaviors.  There are people like Draco that want to push your 
buttons, and a wizard especially has to learn self control otherwise 
there could be even more serious consequences. Remember the snake in 
the zoo when Harry was younger.

I think we need to ask ourselves in a situation like that, what 
would DD do?  I don't think he would have been violent and not nasty 
either. I do wonder what he would have done. It is hard to not let 
someone push your buttons, and I am as guilty of it as the next 
person. But I think that there is a better way and I do wonder what 
DD would have modeled for us. What would he have done???

Tonks_op







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 30 06:19:43 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 06:19:43 -0000
Subject: Draco as Victim in GoF (was: Re: The Huge overreactions...)
In-Reply-To: <e0fsk7+oo62@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0ft9v+2jco@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150265

> Tonks:
> I tend to agree with Betsy. But there is another point as well.
> If a person responds to verbal abuse with physical abuse they have 
> lowered themselves at least as low if not lower than the verbal 
> abuser. If I were in Harry's position I would probably say 
something 
> nasty back since I am not a physically violent person. I can be 
very 
> nasty verbally, but that would be just as wrong. And I would have 
> allowed the other person to dictate my response and my emotional 
> reaction. In that case, I would not be in control of me, they 
would 
> have been. I think a wizard needs to be in control of himself and 
> not allow others to control his emotions and from that his 
> behaviors.  There are people like Draco that want to push your 
> buttons, and a wizard especially has to learn self control 
otherwise 
> there could be even more serious consequences. Remember the snake 
in 
> the zoo when Harry was younger.
> 
> I think we need to ask ourselves in a situation like that, what 
> would DD do?  I don't think he would have been violent and not 
nasty 
> either. I do wonder what he would have done. It is hard to not let 
> someone push your buttons, and I am as guilty of it as the next 
> person. But I think that there is a better way and I do wonder 
what 
> DD would have modeled for us. What would he have done???


Alla:

What puzzles me in Betsy's response is not the reaction to 
Gryffindors reaction, although as I said I don't blame them one 
single bit. They are teenagers, who as far as I am concerned reacted 
to violent, horrible, horrible provocation and I also think that 
Draco and his goons were one moment from issuing the fight, had 
Gryffindors not reacted faster, but that is of course the 
speculation.

Draco's provocation is NOT an interpretation, it is a fact, Draco's 
death threat to Hermione is NOT an interpretation, it is in my 
opinion an absolute fact and Draco is considered a victim? I truly 
find it impossible to understand.

Whether Gryffindors reacted with appropriate force to me is not 
exactly the point, because it is not possible IMO when faced with 
provocation to calculate your reaction appropriately. We should 
strive to do it, yes, but Dumbledore is 150 years old and those guys 
are sixteen. I think that in his youth DD may had experienced 
similar reactions, moreover as I said had I been faced with 
provocation like this, I would have surely experienced the 
temptation to punch the person who said it and I am in my early 
thirties and a lawyer. :-)

Now, I would probably not have done it, precisely because I am in my 
early thirties and a lawyer and last time when I punched somebody I 
was seven, I think :)

But I find such reaction to be very very understandable.

IMO of course.

Alla






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Thu Mar 30 06:39:12 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 06:39:12 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore MAY be alive.... and his name may be Godric Gryffindor
In-Reply-To: <e033v7+tcjd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0fueg+3vvk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150266

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Adriana" <glykonix at ...> wrote:

Glykonix:
> Who really is Albus dumbledore.

<snipped>

> Yes I know that by now you deem me worthy of a place in St Mungo, but 
> hear me out. It all starts with the first book when Dumbledore hid the 
> philosophers stone in Erised's mirror. Now even though at the time he 
> seemed omniscient there was no way he could have predicted exactly how 
> things would occurred.(if he wasn't so manipulative as to orchestrate 
> it all) And I don't know who else but Harry in the state in which he 
> was, could have taken the stone back from the mirror. It's hard to 
> believe that there is somebody, who not for one moment would think of 
> using the stone for himself, a stone that grants immortality and 
> immeasurable wealth
 With the possible exception of somebody who IS 
> immortal already. And this brings me back to good old Dumbledore. He 
> is immortal thus he could get the stone out if he wanted since he did 
> not need it for himself. 

> Not yet convinced
 not even by half you tell me.  
> 
> I do find the friendship between Nicholas Flamel and Dumbledore a bit 
> odd. There is a 500 hundred year gap between then, but then again 
> there is no one as old as Flamel so it should not be so surprising.
> 
> Passing on to how could Dumbledore be immortal when we have just seen 
> him die. Yes it's true we saw him being hit by the killing curse, but 
> then again we also saw in book five, how Fawkes swallowed the killing 
> Curse aimed at Dumbledore and in a way he did die but then as he is a 
> Phoenix was born again from his ashes. And that people is what I 
> believe Dumbledore did. He was hit by the killing curse he died and 
> then at his burial he was on fire, a fire in which Harry was able to 
> see a white Phoenix. And that is what I think Dumbledore is
 a human 
> Phoenix. 


Geoff:
A couple of thoughts

(1) The Philospher's Stone does not "grant" immortality. the extension of life comes from 
taking the Elixir but, as we know from PS, if a person ceases to take it, then they die.

(2) On what grounds does you assume that Dumbledore is immortal? There is no 
indication in canon that he has been taking the Elixir himself and , when we meet him, his 
age seems to be within the normal parameters for a wizard. The theory for him being a 
phoenix is an interesting one but, again, much of your interesting hypothesis is 
speculative and hasn't got the underpinning from canon - yet(?).








From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 30 07:37:33 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 07:37:33 -0000
Subject: Draco as Victim in GoF - Monsters and Demons, Oh My!
In-Reply-To: <e0fhov+9kmn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0g1rt+8d9a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150267

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03"
<horridporrid03 at ...> wrote:
>
> > >>Amiable Dorsai: 
> > In the opening days of a shooting war, with fresh blood on the      
> > ground, Draco invaded the Trio's compartment with a couple of 
> > bully boys and started issuing death threats.
> > "Victims"?
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Legally? You bet. At least, here in the United States. Words don't
> count.  And, considering the fact Crabbe and Goyle didn't say 
> anything, you're going to be hard pressed to convince me they 
> deserved to be hit so hard with magic hexes they were knocked out.
> 
> Betsy Hp
>

bboyminn:

I'm not sure whether I want to step into this can of worms or not,
but, I guess, here I am.

Words DO COUNT. If you are familiar with the concept of 'Assault and
Battery', then you know that the minute you feel threatened, the
minute you feel endangered, Assault has occurred even if no physical
contact is made. When a threatening person makes physical contact,
even if it causes no harm or does not fall into the realm of physical
assault (punches, etc...), they have committed Battery.

If it comes to exchanging punches, then the provoking, threatening
person has committed a /higher/ degree of assault.

Recently, we had discussions here about 'blackmail' and 'extortion',
mostly, and most recently, regarding Hermione's actions toward Rita
Skeeter. Yet, those we just words. When a schoolyard bully says, give
me your lunch money OR ELSE, that is extortion; eliciting monetary
payment under threat of violence. Just words, yet it is still illegal,
even if no violence accually occurred.

The same with blackmail. Just words, yet illegal.

Now, I assume this conversation started with a reference to the gang
of Gryffindors attacking Draco on the train ride home after Cedric's
death. 

First, note that each Gryffindor acted independently. They did not
/conspire/ to ALL attack Draco all at once. None of them knew the
others were about to act. Individually, they can't be held responsible
for the combine effect of spells they had no way of knowing would be cast.

Second, look at the nature of the spells they cast. These were all
schoolyard harassment spells. None of them were intended to do any
real or lasting damage, despite the fact that everyone there could
certainly have choosen far more damaging spells.

Further note, that no physical harm or damage was done. Once the
counter charms were applied off-page, Draco and his friends were fine.
Given that Draco has made a joke (of sorts) out of the death of one
person, and threatened the life of another, their response, while it
may have been emotionally provoked, was reasonably restrained.

'Reasonable restraint' being a concept related to self-defense. You
can do whatever is necessary to stop an attack, but no more. If you go
beyond what is necessary to stop the attack, then you too become
quilty of assault. This isn't related to this discussion of Draco.
It's more tangental, but real none the less.

So, words do count, and even non-words count. If a person who doesn't
speak, but engages in threatening and intimidating behavior (Grabbe &
Goyle), then again, if you feel the threat is real, then it is real.
Again, somewhat tangental, but still related.

As readers and as writers in this group, we all sometimes inflame our
statements to make a point. But we should try to be aware of the point
that is being made, and not run off on the inflamed aspect of it.
Further, those making inflamed points should be aware of the fine line
between inflamed to a point, and just plain inflame.

Arguements have been made here that attempted to show that Fred and
George are monsters. That Hermione is practically a crime lord. That
Harry is a nasty rule-breaking little boy who should be locked up for
his horrible crimes. Those are not enflamed to a point, they are just
plain (hysterically in my opinion) enflamed.

It's all about perspective and maintaining it. 

Pardon my rant.

Steve/bboyminn






From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Thu Mar 30 02:56:59 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 21:56:59 EST
Subject: Kant and Snape and Ethics and Everything
Message-ID: <2b2.7b06222.315ca2fb@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150268

This thread started with Sydney's post at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/150177
 

Nikkalmati:

I love this thread and I'm sorry I had to snip so much good  discussion.  I'm 
afraid I can't offer much on the philosophical analysis,  but this discussion 
opened my mind up to why I am willing to accept Snape as  essentially good 
and why other listees are clamoring for more!  To me, if  SS is pursuing a good 
end through discipline and adhering to his duty, he is a  good character 
(Kant).  He doesn't need redemption; he is redeemed from the  minute he came back 
and changed sides.  His redemption through the pursuit  of the right path may 
have yet to be recognized by certain characters  <g.>, but he can fulfill his 
role in the story as DDM without  changing.  On the other side, we see a 
variety of comments such as "why  can't he be more like Dumbledore, if he really is 
on the side of the Light" or  "he will have to change and admit his mistakes 
to be good." These kind of  comments confused me because I did not see the 
basis for them.  Now I  get it.  These listees are Aristotelian in their outlook 
and desire the  "emotions of good will."  Thanks for helping me see another 
point of view  and where its coming from. :=)
Nikkalmati








From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 30 12:07:22 2006
From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 12:07:22 -0000
Subject: Draco as Victim in GoF (was: Re: The Huge overreactions...)
In-Reply-To: <e0fhov+9kmn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0ghlq+9gqn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150269


Amiable Dorsai: 
In the opening days of a shooting war, with fresh blood on the      
ground, Draco invaded the Trio's compartment with a couple of
bully boys and started issuing death threats. 
"Victims"?
 
 Betsy Hp:
Legally?  You bet.  At least, here in the United States.  Words don't 
count.  And, considering the fact Crabbe and Goyle didn't say 
anything, you're going to be hard pressed to convince me they deserved 
to be hit so hard with magic hexes they were knocked out.

Amiable Dorsai:
I don't understand.  Draco and the Drakettes clearly tried to provoke
a reaction.

How does success beyond their wildest dreams make them victims?

Amiable Dorsai








From junk_mail_100 at yahoo.com.au  Thu Mar 30 09:47:55 2006
From: junk_mail_100 at yahoo.com.au (junk_mail_100)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 09:47:55 -0000
Subject: Questions
Message-ID: <e0g9gb+huu0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150270

Is Harry A Hocrux???

Is that the reason Harry did not die on that fateful night.  Was 
Voldermort turning him into a hocrux - not attempting to kill him.

Why was Dumbledore so protective of Harry? - Why would he care? Why was 
he present at Privet Drive on that fateful night?

Maybe the curse gave Harry some of Voldermorts powers, but maybe it is 
because part of voldermort is inside of Harry

Maybe Voldermort didn't mean to turn Harry into a hocrux?

junk_mail






From sherriola at earthlink.net  Thu Mar 30 13:06:07 2006
From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 05:06:07 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco as Victim in GoF (was: Re: The Huge overreactions...)
In-Reply-To: <e0fsk7+oo62@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <E1FOwqt-00072W-51@smtpauth07.mail.atl.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 150271

Tonks:
I tend to agree with Betsy. But there is another point as well.
If a person responds to verbal abuse with physical abuse they have lowered
themselves at least as low if not lower than the verbal abuser. If I were in
Harry's position I would probably say something nasty back since I am not a
physically violent person. I can be very nasty verbally, but that would be
just as wrong. And I would have allowed the other person to dictate my
response and my emotional reaction. In that case, I would not be in control
of me, they would have been. I think a wizard needs to be in control of
himself and not allow others to control his emotions and from that his
behaviors.  There are people like Draco that want to push your buttons, and
a wizard especially has to learn self control otherwise there could be even
more serious consequences. Remember the snake in the zoo when Harry was
younger.



Sherry now:

I think that almost any so-called civilized person would react in similar
ways as the Gryffindors, especially kids.  They are not adults with wisdom
and very clear reasoning ability.  I've never struck another human being in
my life, and I'm 48, but I can't imagine me sitting there calmly letting
someone threaten my friend or implying it was good another person died.  I
don't think we can expect the kids in the scene to sort out their justified
emotional reactions from a calm reasonable response.  I certainly do not
believe Draco and crew were poor innocent victims in the scene.  They wanted
to provoke trouble, and they did.  Harry was 14, had just been through
something truly terrible and frightening.  The others had almost lost their
best friend, had a classmate die, a nice kid who never hurt anyone, and they
knew a terrible evil had returned to their world and they were now all at
risk.  and here this Draco was mocking the one who died and threatening the
rest.  Yeah, I think they reacted exactly as could have been expected for
even reasonable people to react.  

As for Draco, I have hope for him since HBP.  I've said before, I think he
will be the character who is redeemed, if there is to be a redemption plot
in the last book.  He's the kid antagonist.  He's the one who lowered his
wand and felt badly about greyback being in his school with his friends.
so, what I said above doesn't mean I don't see changes ahead for him and
hope that really happens in the last book.  But neither does that mean I
think he is the innocent helpless victim in all his previous nasty behavior.

sherry




From aceworker at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 30 06:37:37 2006
From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 22:37:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Grey Lady (Lady Jane Grey)/Dudley. Hermione & Ravenclaw/Marietta Edgecomb
In-Reply-To: <1143673836.1898.45429.m35@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060330063738.3457.qmail@web30212.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150272

I'm going to throw up a theory and see if anybody likes it. This has to do with the  Grey  Lady ghost which belongs to the House of Ravenclaw and also Hermione, Dudley and the Dursley's; also some Marietta Edgecomb.

Some of this may have been posted before, I'm sort of new to the list and could not find many references to the Grey Lady, or the search function was not cooperating on the home page for this list.  Plus somebody needs to talk about anything other then Snape or Lupin. 

1) First it is pretty obvious to me that The Grey Lady ghost of Ravenclaw seems to have been intentionally ignored thought the first 6 books by JKR, mentioned just enough that readers are dimly aware of her.  Also I'm suspicious that so much was made of it in the first movie, much more then in the book. I'm always suspicious of plot points or char. that JKR seems to just string along. 

2) If you research the Grey Lady the description of of the character. as JKR told the actress Nina Young playing her in the SS/f (as posted on the Lexicon): "the Grey Lady is "a highly intellectual young lady" and a woman with strong scholarly or literary interests. "She never found true love as she never found a man up to her standards." Here is the link: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/ghosts.html#hw closely matches the description of Lady Jane Grey as described at wikipedia and other sources. Lady Jane Grey was very intelligent and always has a book with her, which I believe the Grey Lady is portrayed in the movie as having. Here is the link from Wikipedia on her: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Jane_Grey

As well as a couple of others:   http://www.ladyjanegrey.org/                                              http://englishhistory.net/tudor/relative/janegrey.html#Biography.

One reason given for Lady Jane Grey not being the Grey Lady is that the Grey Lady is not a member of the Headless Haunt, since she executed by beheading, but do we know this for sure number one, and two: Might it be optional for a ghost to join the headless haunt? Might they cohose to do otherwise?  The Grey Lady doesn't seem the hunting type to me or even really the haunting type <G>. 

3)  Lady Jane Grey was forced to marry a: Guilford Dudley. The Dudley of the books seems to  be a combination of the extreme traits of  both Lord Dudleys, Guilford and his father. Also Hermione's parents seem to have some similar aspects to Lady Jane Grey's parents, although apparently less cruel, but Lady Jane Grey was also estranged from them.   

4) Hermione's middle name is said by JKR to be Jane so you find in her name the following: HERmione  JANE GRAnger  or:  Her Jane GraY

5) Hermione closely resembles some of the physical descriptions of Lady Jane Grey, though I think  Ginny is closer.  

6) Lady Jane Grey was born in October though the date is not known. It would be possible for JKR to use her license to make it October 31st. Which as we know is a significant date in HP.  

7) the whole Lady Jane Grey drama was infused with religion and in one interview JKR does say he books will turn out to be surprisingly Christian when they are done. 

8) There must be some reason why at the close of HBP there is no indication  that the curse  Hermione placed on Marietta has been lifted.  Marietta Edgecomb's initials are M.E.  These initials could stand for Mary and Elizabeth, the two rivials  with Jane for the throne. Actually there were two Marys. Also the beginning of Marietta's name is similar to Mary.  

9) In OOP in the battle in the DOM Hermione is hit by Dolohov by a  sort of frill, misty purple curse which almost kills her. This could be foreshadowing of  Hermione's  "Royal Death".  

10) Lady Jane Grey was imprisioned in the Tower of London. The tower of London is infested with Ravens. It is said that if the Ravens leave England will fall. Might something  be at the Tower of  London?  Yes the symbol of Ravenclaw is an  Eagle, not  a Raven. But, still is something guarded by Ravenclaws at the tower?  I think this analogy would be too tempting for JKR to pass up. 

11) Finally, JKR uses a lot of the Tudor names around this drama for char. there is a Lord Neville for instance and a Browne. Many others. And I remember reading somewhere in my studies that one of the principle people in the real life drama owned a "SNAPE MANOR" .  Reading about the Tudors seems very profitable in understanding the symbology in HP. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   

Two possible theories for book 7 based on all this: 

1) Hermione and Marietta will end up in some sort of struggle over becoming the heir of Ravenclaw and/or the Ravenclaw Horcrux. Hermione will initially win, but Marietta will prevail which will  cause the death of Hermione (Hermione is Jane Grey, so she must die and Marietta is Queen Mary I).
 
This will also somehow have to do with the Dursleys and/or Draco as a sub  Dudley. 

2) Alternatively the trio and Marietta (Luna/Cho also) may have to time travel to Tudor England, where it will turn out the Lady Jane Grey not only is the Ravenclaw ghost but was a powerful witch who tried to decline the throne not only due to religious reason but also because she did not want to add wizard blood to the royal line.  In order to find the Ravenclaw Horcux and or become Ravenclaw heir they will have to do something there and or help Lady Jane Grey.

In both of these, if there is a Ravenclaw Horcrux, it is prob a tiara of Ravenclaw, either from the room of requirments or the tiara Molly was going to get from her Aunt for Fleur and Bill's wedding in HBP. The Grey Lady's ghost will somehow be involved in revealing this all. 

Sorry this is long. Wanted to cover all my points. What do you think?

D.A Jones
  





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Mar 30 13:56:59 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 13:56:59 -0000
Subject: Draco as Victim in GoF (was: Re: The Huge overreactions...)
In-Reply-To: <e0ghlq+9gqn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0go3b+eqno@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150273

> Amiable Dorsai:
> I don't understand.  Draco and the Drakettes clearly tried to provoke
> a reaction.
> 
> How does success beyond their wildest dreams make them victims?

Pippin:
Compare Harry and Co's reaction to Dumbledore's
in a similar situation and look at the results.


Harry and his friends reacted to offensive language and the threat 
of violence with violence.

Result: Draco became more embittered and violent.
 
OTOH, Dumbledore instructed Draco not to use offensive language in 
front of him, and mildly pointed out that if Draco truly wished to kill 
him, he would have done so already. 

Result: Draco realized he was not a killer.

I think canon shows that while it's perfectly understandable that Harry
and his friends reacted the way they did, their choice was less beneficial
than Dumbledore's and they were unwise to make Draco the victim of their
aggression. If they had truly understood Draco, they would not have
felt threatened by him, still less by Crabbe and Goyle.

Pippin 






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Mar 30 14:28:53 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 14:28:53 -0000
Subject: Kant and Snape and Ethics and Everything
In-Reply-To: <e0f4n5+1ekl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0gpv5+e48g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150274

Pippin: 
> > The humor for me is in imagining Snape as trying to live according 
> > to this extremely lofty and noble but utterly impractical vision of 
> > law and perfect rationality. 

Nora:
> 
> Hey, I'm not the one who brought up Kant as an explanatory model for 
> Snape's actions--I'm the one who thought "That doesn't sound like the 
> Kant I had to read, struggled with, and loved back in college..." :)

Pippin:
Did I not make myself clear? I'm playing with the idea that Snape is
a deliberate parody of Kant's moral model, and finding the parody 
amusing. I'm saying it *is* applicable. And very funny. Though
perhaps a devotee of Kant would disagree <g>


Pippin previously:
> > If you think about it, what could Snape have said to support 
> > Sirius's story? He *didn't* see any sign of Pettigrew in the shack. 
> > (And why would a rational human being take his eyes off a Death 
> > Eater to look at a rat anyway?) 

Nora: 
> For one thing, he could have shut up and stayed disengaged from the 
> situation in the Hospital Wing. 

Pippin:
But a Kantian wouldn't, would he? He would be obliged to tell everything
he knew. What I'm trying to say is, it'd be fortunate for our heroes that
Kantian!Snape *didn't* believe Sirius and Lupin, because if he had, he'd have
had to tell Fudge everything -- all about Sirius being an illegal animagus
and Lupin's unauthorized excursions back in the day. Fudge would then
have believed that while disregarding Sirius's claims to be innocent.


Nora:
 And  then his commentary to Fudge reeks (at least to me) of someone who's 
> trying to go behind Dumbledore's back to get something done.  

Pippin:
But wouldn't a Kantian be obliged to warn Fudge that Dumbledore might
make trouble? Just as he would be obliged to relate the prophecy to Lord
Voldemort  and equally obliged to warn James that Voldemort was
planning to kill him? And obliged to relate his conviction that Harry had
something to do with Sirius's escape?

I should be clear  that I don't see Snape's capslock rages as Kantian.
There are  times when passion breaks through his Kantian emotional
lockdown. On the other hand, if emotions are not real, then they can
never convey any truth, and KantianParody!Snape would have no trouble
arranging his face in an expression of hatred and revulsion while not
feeling them at all.

That doesn't make it easy to reconcile a devotion to perfect honesty with
Snape's career as a spy, but then again, the WW's concept of truth is so
elastic that it just might be possible.


> -Nora remembers those halcyon days when the DISHWASHER made a modicum 
> of sense, because Snape couldn't have possibly just gone crazy with 
> rage or be acting primarily out of self-interest

Pippin:
Hey, I was one of DISHWASHER's more constant and vocal opponents. If
your comment is meant to remind me that elaborate canon-based 
theories can come to naught, I know it only too well. But I might remind
you that Faith-based theories have come acropper too. Remember
Snape manor?

Pippin






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Mar 30 14:51:11 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 14:51:11 -0000
Subject: Snape as infidel was Re: Kant and Snape and Ethics and Everything
In-Reply-To: <e0f6ga+ftu4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0gr8v+15d2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150276

> Betsy Hp:
> And suddenly I wonder if this doesn't suggest that Snape may well 
> survive book 7.  Because if Snape *is* supposed to illustrate the 
> struggle to be good in a more comic than tragic way, then doesn't 
> that mean he must live, must learn whatever philosophical fact he's 
> failed to grasp (the impossibility of achieving pure rationality) in 
> order to stay true to the comic story?
> 
> [As a clarification: I'm using comic as the opposite of tragic 
> rather than comic as funny, which might not have been how Pippin was 
> using it, but I'm totally shanghai-ing this idea and running with 
> it. <g>]

Pippin:
Credit for spotting Snape as a comic character should go to
Pip!Squeak  (those plumbing the archives should be aware BTW
that we are not the same person.) She commented that only
a comic character would have been chased away by an enraged
hippogriff.

 I've always hoped Snape would survive, and in a more or less
unreformed state -- I mean, I'd like to see him change his mind 
about Harry, but  in accordance with *his* moral code, not because
he decided his moral code was deficient. 

Snape to me is less a sinner than an infidel -- an unbeliever with
respect to the Gryffindor chivalric ideal which I suspect is Rowling's
stand-in for Christianity and with respect to enlightened methods
of instruction. I would not like to be told that the
only good infidel is a dead infidel, much less a converted one.  Not
by someone who says her message is tolerance, anyway.

Not that Snape is a complete buffoon: that wouldn't be very
tolerant either. I think we're being led to a reversal in which
we cease to take Snape's bullying seriously, but see that his
life and his dignity are as precious as any other sinner's.

Pippin






From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Thu Mar 30 15:09:26 2006
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 07:09:26 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco as Victim in GoF - Monsters and Demons, Oh My!
In-Reply-To: <e0g1rt+8d9a@eGroups.com>
References: <e0fhov+9kmn@eGroups.com> <e0g1rt+8d9a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <700201d40603300709s5647c107n3370d554779f1fb7@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150277

> bboyminn:
>
> ...snipped...
>  ------------------------------
>

Kemper now:
To help clarify, the threat not only needs to be 'felt',  it has to be real.
As an example, Seventh year Fred and George can't legitimately say they feel
threatened should Dennis Creevey roll up to them and threaten to kick their
collective asses.

Kemper, apologizing to Steve for snipping everything because he (kemper)
is hella late for work. hella.


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




From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net  Thu Mar 30 15:36:27 2006
From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 15:36:27 -0000
Subject: Lily' sacrifice v James' sacrifice WAS: Perfect Lily
In-Reply-To: <e0f0fb+iljb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0gttr+qrep@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150278

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" <Aisbelmon at ...> 
wrote:


 No I don't mean
> to imply that these are the prophecy's three defiances, I am
> specualting only on what precisely was different about Lily's
> sacrifice compared to any other person who has died to save someone
> else from Voldemort. 
> 
> It occurs to me that, well it's actually almost a given, that
> Voldemort is his own undoing, and besides it was *his* powers that
> were transferred to Harry, not Lily's or anyone elses, so it 
stands to
> reason to say that something big was on offer in Godrics Hollow, I
> don't think Voldemorts powers donation was charitable. <g>

<snip> 
> 
> > Marianne:
> > I guess what I'm saying is that there seems to be canon that 
covers 
> > Vmort's interest in not just Lily, but the other 3 parents of 
Harry 
> > and Neville.  Maybe he was just covering all his bases even 
though 
> > he suspected that Super-Lily might be the correct mother to 
target, 
> > and thus designed a test just for her. Which would mean that she 
and 
> > James defied Vmort three times, and then Lily threw in another 3 
> > renounciations right before Vmort killed her.
> 
> Valky:
> Well yeah. But not in such a way that it was a clunking machine of
> allegorical defiance. I would rather to assume that the scene was 
very
> much more fluid and natural than that. More along the lines of
> Voldemort expecting Lily to flaunt her super powers at him, because
> he's just so worth it, you know, in the typical and narcissistic 
way
> Voldemort does things. So in some respects her last defiances come
> across more as a surprise to him than anything.


Marianne:

Okay, I have a better picture of what you're going for here.  And, I 
have to say that this last bit rings true for me.  I can perfectly 
understand Voldemort expecting Lily to flaunt her powers at him, not 
only because of his own opinion of himself and how he expects people 
to react to him, but also because it's what he would do if the 
tables were turned.  I can't imagine him ever not trying to out-
magic someone, so of course he might assume that anyone else with 
considerable magical powers would not hesitate to use them as a 
weapon.

I don't remember who suggested that perhaps what Lily had been 
studying or working at after Hogwarts dealt with immortality or 
death or research on what that portal behind the Veil led to. It's 
certainly a reason for Vmort to have more than a passing interest in 
Lily. 

Perhaps she took on a branch of magic that added something to her 
innate skills and knowledge, which, when combined with her 
willingness to sacrifice herself for her son, imbued Harry with 
something that combined or interacted with whatever powers Vmort 
inadvertently transferred to Harry, making him similar but 
ultimately very different than Vmort. I have no idea where I'm going 
with this and my head is starting to hurt, so I'll stop now.

Marianne






From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 30 15:47:08 2006
From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 15:47:08 -0000
Subject: Draco as Victim in GoF (was: Re: The Huge overreactions...)
In-Reply-To: <e0go3b+eqno@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0guhs+3hqs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150279


> Pippin:
> Compare Harry and Co's reaction to Dumbledore's
> in a similar situation and look at the results.

Amiable Dorsai:
I dunno, Pippin.  Are you sure that appeasement of an agressor, flush
with dreams of murder and rapine, is comparable to offering a lifeline
to a potential asset who is floundering beyond his depth?

In any case, my question was one of definition, not strategy:

Draco marched into the lion's den and declared war.

He was promptly accommodated.  You might even say he got service with
a smile.

Is "victim" the right word here?

Amiable Dorsai







From belviso at attglobal.net  Thu Mar 30 15:50:03 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 15:50:03 -0000
Subject: Draco as Victim in GoF (was: Re: The Huge overreactions...)
In-Reply-To: <e0ft9v+2jco@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0gunb+usqp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150280

I hope this doesn't go through twice, but my post seems to have been 
eaten:

>   Joe:
> I went back and checked. It wasn't Gryffindors who did the hexing
it was Hufflepuffs and Ravenclaws who had been in the DA.

Magpie:
You checked the wrong book.  She's talking about the end of GoF,
you're talking about the end of OotP. In OotP Draco, Crabbe and
Goyle try to get Harry on the train and the kids from the DA rise up
and hex them into slugs.  At the end of GoF Draco, Crabbe and Goyle
come into Harry's compartment and taunt them with Voldemort's
return.  The Trio and Fred and George hex them unconscious.

> Alla:

> 
> Draco's provocation is NOT an interpretation, it is a fact, 
Draco's 
> death threat to Hermione is NOT an interpretation, it is in my 
> opinion an absolute fact and Draco is considered a victim? I truly 
> find it impossible to understand.

Magpie:
I'm going to have to disagree that the death threat is not an 
interpretation because I don't see it.  What Draco is doing here is 
far more effective than making death threats that everyone knows he 
can't make.  He is taunting Harry with the situation at hand: 
Voldemort's back and you're all in trouble now.  He himself is not 
going to do anything.  He certainly has no power to get Voldemort or 
the DEs to do anything.  What he is saying to Harry is that *Harry* 
has put his friends in danger.  It's common knowledge that 
Muggleborns and "blood traitors" are Voldemort's natural prey, so 
he's telling Harry that his actions are going to bring Voldemort 
right to the doors of these particular Muggleborns and "blood 
traitors."  It's a far more effective thing to say precisely because 
it isn't about Draco threatening them.  He's telling it like it is.  
It's much more chilling to Harry, imo, hitting the mark.  A death 
threat wouldn't--we maybe see that in OotP when Draco does threaten 
Harry and Harry isn't afraid at all. 

Now, as to whether it's a provocation, yes it is.  What on earth did 
Draco expect going into their car and saying that?  (Perhaps he 
didn't think at all--Draco does seem to feel some need to make 
scenes like this in response to the reality of Voldemort.)  I don't 
have a problem with calling him a victim since he winds up 
unconscious.  I also don't have a problem with saying he provoked 
the attack.  One can intend to victimize and wind up being the 
victim.  Within canon it seems a non-issue.  There are things that 
Malfoy brings up when he's felt wronged and I don't think this is 
one of them.  It seems he pretty much has to accept that he did 
something stupid here and take his lumps. And the Trio doesn't have 
to stew over it because they came out on top.  Nothing seems to be 
festering about this scene (or any of the train fights).


Pippin:
Compare Harry and Co's reaction to Dumbledore's
in a similar situation and look at the results.


Harry and his friends reacted to offensive language and the threat
of violence with violence.

Result: Draco became more embittered and violent.

OTOH, Dumbledore instructed Draco not to use offensive language in
front of him, and mildly pointed out that if Draco truly wished to 
kill him, he would have done so already.

Result: Draco realized he was not a killer.

I think canon shows that while it's perfectly understandable that 
Harry and his friends reacted the way they did, their choice was 
less beneficial than Dumbledore's and they were unwise to make Draco 
the victim of their aggression. If they had truly understood Draco, 
they would not have felt threatened by him, still less by Crabbe and 
Goyle.

Magpie:
Exactly.  I wouldn't expect the kids to act like Dumbledore here, 
but we don't have to stop there.  Harry eventually learning that 
there would have been a better way to handle people like this, and 
that Draco isn't quite what Harry think she is does not mean Draco 
can't also learn what he did was wrong and accept his own part in 
it.  You've referenced what I thought was an important moment in the 
Tower, the moment where Dumbledore tells Draco not to use the word 
Mudblood.  I get the feeling that just might come up later.  Because 
if there's going to be any change in the way Draco and the other 
characters interact this issue obviously has to be addressed.  It 
needs to be addressed if there's to be a healing between the houses, 
and by "addressed" I mean that the "Mudblood" attitude is wrong.  
Beating him up when he says the word doesn't change anything and 
sometimes makes it worse.  (In fact, that goes across the board with 
Malfoy, really.  People often say that what he needs is for someone 
to finally rise up and beat him, but that happens all the time.)  I 
think we've seen in the series that Draco isn't entirely incapable 
of learning or changing his behavior.  It just remains to be seen if 
this will lead to anything significant.

-m








From bartl at sprynet.com  Thu Mar 30 16:08:30 2006
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 11:08:30 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Questions
In-Reply-To: <e0g9gb+huu0@eGroups.com>
References: <e0g9gb+huu0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <442C027E.207@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150281

junk_mail_100 wrote:
> Is Harry A Hocrux???

Bart:
	No. If he were, then there would have been no way the Dursley's would 
have been able to push him around the way they did in his first 10 
years. Just to give one of MANY examples. If Harry is a horcrux, then 
JKR is a MUCH worse writer than she appears to be.

	Bart




From littleleah at handbag.com  Thu Mar 30 16:45:06 2006
From: littleleah at handbag.com (littleleahstill)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 16:45:06 -0000
Subject: Grey Lady (Lady Jane Grey)/Dudley. Hermione & Ravenclaw/Marietta Edgecomb
In-Reply-To: <20060330063738.3457.qmail@web30212.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <e0h1ui+q53m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150282

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, career advisor <aceworker at ...> 
wrote:
>
> I'm going to throw up a theory and see if anybody likes it. This 
has to do with the  Grey  Lady ghost which belongs to the House of 
>Ravenclaw and also Hermione, Dudley and the Dursley's; also some 
>Marietta Edgecomb.

> Some of this may have been posted before, I'm sort of new to the 
>list and could not find many references to the Grey Lady, or the 
>search function was not cooperating on the home page for this >list.

Leah:

I've never learned to cope with the search function.

>Plus somebody needs to talk about anything other then Snape or 
>Lupin.

Leah:

That's true enough
 
 
>> 2) If you research the Grey Lady the description of of the 
>character. as JKR told the actress Nina Young playing her in the 
>SS/f (as posted on the Lexicon): "the Grey Lady is "a highly 
>intellectual young lady" and a woman with strong scholarly or 
>literary interests. "She never found true love as she never found a 
>man up to her standards." Here is the link: http://www.hp-
>lexicon.org/wizards/ghosts.html#hw closely matches the description 
>of Lady Jane Grey as described at wikipedia and other sources. Lady 
>Jane Grey was very intelligent and always has a book with her, 
>which I believe the Grey Lady is portrayed in the movie as having. 
> 

Leah:

I have actually seen a discussion on Mugglenet about whether the 
Grey Lady could be Lady Jane and your theory is interesting and well 
thought out.  However, I don't think you're right for this reason: 
JKR's website allows you to 'collect' various scrapbook items. One 
of these is a picture she drew of Nearly Headless Nick looking 
rather like Charles II (or Captain Hook, if you prefer).  In her 
accompanying note to the picture, JKR apologises that NHN's 
hair 'does not look very Elizabethan'.  Since we know from the Death 
Day Party that NHN died in 1492, he's not Elizabethan, he didn't 
quite make it through to be Tudor.  This makes me think that JKR is 
not a Tudor history buff and therefore is unlikely to base 
characters on historical personalities from that period. (I could be 
wrong though, since it has been suggested that Hagrid's reference in 
OOTP to travelling to Dee-John is a reference to the C16 alchemist, 
John Dee).


> Two possible theories for book 7 based on all this: 
> 
> 1) Hermione and Marietta will end up in some sort of struggle over 
>becoming the heir of Ravenclaw and/or the Ravenclaw Horcrux. 
>Hermione will initially win, but Marietta will prevail which will  
>cause the death of Hermione (Hermione is Jane Grey, so she must die 
>and Marietta is Queen Mary I).

Leah: I do see Marietta being involved in the hunt for the Ravenclaw 
horcrux, and conflict with Hermione, because I think the Sneak jinx 
storyline is not yet played out.  I do hope that Hermione does not 
die, but I think she may have to do some rethinking. I can't see why 
Hermione would be the heir of Ravenclaw, as she is  a muggle born 
Gryffindor, but it is possible that Marietta is (although Luna would 
be much more enjoyable) 
  
> This will also somehow have to do with the Dursleys and/or Draco 
>as a sub  Dudley. 

Leah: The Dudleys had their faults but they were an able family who 
helped rule the country effectively. I'm not sure they really 
deserve comparison with Master Dursley, (A touch of the Lucius 
Malfoys perhaps)    
 
> 2) Alternatively the trio and Marietta (Luna/Cho also) may have to 
>time travel to Tudor England, where it will turn out the Lady Jane 
>Grey not only is the Ravenclaw ghost but was a powerful witch who 
>tried to decline the throne not only due to religious reason but 
>also because she did not want to add wizard blood to the royal 
>line.  In order to find the Ravenclaw Horcux and or become 
>Ravenclaw heir they will have to do something there and or help 
>Lady Jane Grey.

Leah:
I honestly don't think there will be time in book seven for this 
sort of extensive time travel, involvement in historical plots etc. 
I know fiction wouldn't necessarily have to be historically 
accurate, but you suggest character parallels; Jane was fiercely 
religious, and would I think have been quite dismayed to find 
herself with magic powers ('thou shalt not suffer a witch to live' 
etc).  She was also, amazingly so considering her age, very prepared 
for death and the afterlife, and I think it unlikely she would have 
become a ghost even if offered the wizarding possibility of becoming 
one, so although she was definitely an intellectual, I don't think 
she is the Grey Lady.   
 
> In both of these, if there is a Ravenclaw Horcrux, it is prob a 
>tiara of Ravenclaw, either from the room of requirments or the 
>tiara Molly was going to get from her Aunt for Fleur and Bill's 
>wedding in HBP. The Grey Lady's ghost will somehow be involved in 
>revealing this all. 

Leah:
I agree there is a distinct possibility that the Ravenclaw horcrux 
is the tiara in the Room of Requirements, and Harry may think of it 
again when looking at Auntie Muriel's (hope she kisses Ron).  It's 
possible the Grey Lady could assist.

I think your ideas actually work better without Lady Jane.

Leah.









From Sherry at PebTech.net  Thu Mar 30 16:46:07 2006
From: Sherry at PebTech.net (Sherry)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 16:46:07 -0000
Subject: Maligning Lupin
In-Reply-To: <e0ei0q+evek@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0h20f+cin4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150283

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:
>
> Christina:
> 
> I agree that Lupin and Sirius's shared look is a "how much do we tell
> him?" look.  I just don't believe that it is necessary to presume any
> extra information is being shared - there is a lot of information that
> Order members know that Harry does not.
> 
> Pippin:
> Arthur and Bill are also at the table, but they're not included
> in the look, which makes it seem to me that they're not included
> in the information that Sirius and Lupin are agreeing not to share.
> Otherwise wouldn't they need a warning glance as well? 
> 
Amontillada:
Two thoughts come to my mind:
1) Sirius and Lupin are longtime close friends, nearly brothers. At
this time, Lupin seems to be staying with at 12 Grimmauld Place when
his Order missions don't require him to be elsewhere. Members of the
Order, especially Molly (See #2) have discussed what to tell Harry,
and Sirius and Lupin have probably talked about at length in private
as well. The glance says "This is what we've been discussing."

2) Just as they've discussed the topic between themselves, they think
it likely that Molly has discussed it with Arthur and possibly Bill.
Sirius hasn't discussed it one-on-one with Molly's husband and son. 

> 
> 
> Pippin:
> If Sirius was told that the purpose of the secrecy was to keep the
> DE's from using  Harry to go after the prophecy, he would think
> there was no need for secrecy any more.
> 
> Christina:
> ...I find it tough to think of a reason for Lupin to give to Sirius
to keep him from talking to DD about the prophecy
> 
> Pippin:
>  "Dumbledore doesn't think I should tell you this but..."

Amontillada:
And soon after that: "Lupin told me this...Why have you been keeping
this secret from me? Surely you know how much I care about Harry!"
 
> 
> Christina:
> 
> There really *are* people out there who are not passionate people.  It
> isn't denying somebody "the full range of human emotion" to describe
> that attribute in a character.  It's a character trait.  
> 
> Pippin:
> I'm afraid your disagreement is with Jo:
> 
> "It's not possible to live with the Dursleys and not hate them,"
> said Harry. "I'd like to see you try it." -- CoS ch 11
> 
Amontillada:
There's a wide range of ways to handle emotions like anger and hatred.
Harry may hate the Dursleys, but he's certainly had to swallow his
anger and hide it inside himself on many occasions. And he still comes
to the defense of Dudley in OoP, when he couldhave simply left him to
the Dementors.

> 
> Christina:
> 
> I see that as just going to show that even somebody as fair-minded as
> Hermione has deeply hidden prejudices.  Does Hermione really know
> anything about the last war? 
> 
> Pippin:
> She's read "Modern Magical History", "The Rise and Fall of
> the Dark Arts" and "Great Wizarding Events of the Twentieth
> Century." (PS/SS ch 6)
> 
Amontillada
All written by members of the Wizarding World, most of whom said "LV"
under their breaths. We know that VERY few witches or wizards thought
it was important to improve relations with magical folks like Giants
and Gnomes, who had taken Voldemort's side the first time. Most
magical folk, including those who remember the last war, were
desperate to deny LV's return, so I doubt they were ready to question
their other prejudices.

Amontillada,
who can't bear the idea of Lupin turning against the good






From nrenka at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 30 17:05:08 2006
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 17:05:08 -0000
Subject: Snape as infidel was Re: Kant and Snape and Ethics and Everything
In-Reply-To: <e0gr8v+15d2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0h345+1ksg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150284

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> 
wrote:

> I've always hoped Snape would survive, and in a more or less
> unreformed state -- I mean, I'd like to see him change his mind 
> about Harry, but in accordance with *his* moral code, not because
> he decided his moral code was deficient. 
> 
> Snape to me is less a sinner than an infidel -- an unbeliever with
> respect to the Gryffindor chivalric ideal which I suspect is 
> Rowling's stand-in for Christianity and with respect to enlightened 
> methods of instruction. I would not like to be told that the
> only good infidel is a dead infidel, much less a converted one.  Not
> by someone who says her message is tolerance, anyway.

Now this is an interesting perspective, because I think it does make 
a lot of sense.  However, I have to say that I think Rowling thinks 
that Snape's moral code *IS* deficient, and that's a good word for 
it.  It lacks something, it's missing something, it's not totally 
wrong but there's something notably off about it.

I do find it interesting that pretty much all DDM!Snape theories 
depend heavily upon Snape's actions somehow having been validated by 
Dumbledore's will, that he's still fundamentally acting with 
Dumbledore's wishes in mind.  If he were not to be, it's just too 
uncomfortably close to being evil, isn't it?  I don't recall too many 
arguments for Snape's own morality being independently superior or 
moral.

And for all of Rowling's talk of tolerance of persons and the like, I 
think that's knotted together with the necessity that those walking 
an inferior path (and not all paths are equal--this is not a 
relativistic world) has to recognize this.  Draco lowers his wand and 
does not kill--an admission that the path he was following was 
wrong.  This involves an acknowledgement of method and manner being 
important, not only the actions but how one carries them out.

I get the suspicion that if Snape is to live, he's going to have to 
have some kind of concession scene.  This is a little like what Neri 
has been arguing for in the moral relationship of Dumbledore and 
Snape: Dumbledore wants Snape to independently realize why and what 
that Snape has been doing or acting upon is wrong.  There are 
fictional universes where compromise would be thematic, but this 
doesn't strike me as one of them.

> Not that Snape is a complete buffoon: that wouldn't be very
> tolerant either. I think we're being led to a reversal in which
> we cease to take Snape's bullying seriously, but see that his
> life and his dignity are as precious as any other sinner's.

I'd still love an answer to my general contention that Snape has 
actually become *less* comic in many ways as the series has 
progressed.  At least that's my impression; the further we go along 
and see how deep his grudges go, the less they seem to inhabit the 
world of comedy (the nasty teacher figure) and the more they become 
pathological, more than a little bit scary.  Neidisch, with a 
surprisingly deep level of obsession on certain topics.  After all, 
the progression has been to steadily darken Snape's character, 
revealing more and more negative things (along with pulling in some 
positive highlights and other complexities).

(Structurally in comedy, it tends to be the hero who removes the 
senex/mentor from the scene in order to surpass him and reintegrate 
the fabric of society in time for the wedding scene at the end.  I 
can't think of any comedies which involve violent removal of the 
mentor by an antagonistic character--anyone got any?)

And to grant the fundamental dignity of another human being is not 
necessarily to approve of all of what they do: if you take some 
models, there is a responsibility to help someone change and realize 
the error of their ways.

-Nora wonders who all the characters would be if they were suddenly 
dropped into the world of New Comedy






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 30 17:32:57 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 17:32:57 -0000
Subject: Draco as Victim in GoF (was: Re: The Huge overreactions...)
In-Reply-To: <E1FOwqt-00072W-51@smtpauth07.mail.atl.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <e0h4o9+ldi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150285

Sherry wrote:
><snip> 
> As for Draco, I have hope for him since HBP.  I've said before, I
think he will be the character who is redeemed, if there is to be a
redemption plot in the last book.  He's the kid antagonist.  He's the
one who lowered his wand and felt badly about greyback being in his
school with his friends. so, what I said above doesn't mean I don't
see changes ahead for him and hope that really happens in the last
book.  But neither does that mean I think he is the innocent helpless
victim in all his previous nasty behavior.

Carol responds:
I'm not going to get into the discussion of whether verbal provocation
merits physical retaliation (though I do think that as long as the
provocation was verbal, the reaction ought to have been verbal as
well, like Lily's resorting to the nasty nickname "Snivellus" in
retaliation for Severus's calling her "Mudblood"), nor do I think that
Draco's insult to Cedric's memory is in any way defensible. But I do
want to point out that it *was* the Gryffindors who cast the hexes,
not the DA members, as Joe suggested upthread (wrong book; the DA
didn't exist yet): it was HRH aided and abetted by Fred and George,
the only ones who come out of nowhere and attack from behind. (Whether
their intervention was necessary or justified I'll leave to other
posters to discuss.)

To return to Draco, who at the end of HBP has what may be his only
chance to choose a path different from his father's, my hope is that
Snape will steer him in the right direction. He doesn't seem capable
of choosing for himself. (Lowering the wand ever so slightly to me
indicates wavering and indecisiveness, not an admission that he has
chosen the wrong side. DD is still in his mind a "Mudblood lover" and
"a stupid old man" and the enemy he ought to be killing if he were
doing his job. Draco just can't get up the nerve to kill him in cold
blood.) Nor do I see his statement that he didn't invite Greyback as
anything more than grasping at straws, the one crime of which he can
truthfully claim to be innocent (as opposed to two murder attempts,
manipulating Rosmerta into becoming an accessory to attempted murder,
and letting the DEs into Hogwarts). It's interesting, though, that he
would even want to defend himself to DD and that his defense consists,
in essence, of "I do too intend to murder you, but I didn't mean to
let *him* in!")

I don't much like Draco, and unlike young Snape, he was never on "our
side" and consequently can't "return" to it (to quote DD in GoF, "The
Pensieve"), but this is (ostensibly) a children's series, so it seems
likely to me that Draco will be redeemed as a message to young readers
that even bad kids can be turned away from the path to evil. The only
way I can see for that to happen, though, is for DDM!Snape to be the
agent of Draco's redemption. I don't think Draco's going to do it on
his own.

Carol, who wonders if Redeemed!Draco will be the means of
communication between HorcruxHunter!Harry and Godfather!Snape






From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Thu Mar 30 18:07:37 2006
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 18:07:37 -0000
Subject: Isaac Newton - Shades of HP?.
In-Reply-To: <e0f18d+flff@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0h6p9+kmr2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150286

Actually the comparison between Newton and Snape has occurred to me
too, both were unpopular British teachers, both were interested in
alchemy, and both were extremely unpleasant people. As a boy Newton
fantasized about burning down his house with his mother and stepfather
still in it, and later in life when he was Master of the Mint he seems
to have enjoyed sending counterfeiters to the gallows. Newton was
selfish petty sarcastic and conceited, but then he had a lot to be
conceited about; Newton was quite possibly the greatest genius the
Human Race has ever produced, and he knew it. I don't know if Snape's
mental machinery is quite in that league but he's pretty damn smart.

Eggplant    







From belviso at attglobal.net  Thu Mar 30 18:54:13 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 18:54:13 -0000
Subject: Draco as Victim in GoF (was: Re: The Huge overreactions...)
In-Reply-To: <e0h4o9+ldi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0h9gl+ddb1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150287

Carol:
> To return to Draco, who at the end of HBP has what may be his only
> chance to choose a path different from his father's, my hope is 
that
> Snape will steer him in the right direction. He doesn't seem 
capable
> of choosing for himself. (Lowering the wand ever so slightly to me
> indicates wavering and indecisiveness, not an admission that he has
> chosen the wrong side. DD is still in his mind a "Mudblood lover" 
and
> "a stupid old man" and the enemy he ought to be killing if he were
> doing his job. Draco just can't get up the nerve to kill him in 
cold
> blood.) Nor do I see his statement that he didn't invite Greyback 
as
> anything more than grasping at straws, the one crime of which he 
can
> truthfully claim to be innocent (as opposed to two murder attempts,
> manipulating Rosmerta into becoming an accessory to attempted 
murder,
> and letting the DEs into Hogwarts). It's interesting, though, that 
he
> would even want to defend himself to DD and that his defense 
consists,
> in essence, of "I do too intend to murder you, but I didn't mean to
> let *him* in!")

Magpie:
I disagree this is just "wavering" on Draco's part, and I think 
that's why Harry recalls it at the end of the book and JKR said 
outside the text that Harry was right and he "wouldn't have killed" 
Dumbledore.  I think what we are seeing with Draco in the Tower is 
the moment that the Tower card often represents--the death of old 
orders and the start of the new.  It's too much to say that Draco 
has changed sides or committed himself to Dumbledore, but I think it 
is too little to say he's still locked in his delusions.  
*Something* happens in Draco's story, and I think this is it.  
Dumbledore does, imo, crack him.  It's the last thing he does in his 
life. Up until then Draco is certainly fighting him, but that's why 
I don't think we have to believe that, for instance, Draco's calling 
DD a "stupid old man" during the scene means that that's what he 
feels at the end of the scene.  

Dumbledore (or JKR through Dumbledore) seems very intent on getting 
Draco to the point where he has to make a choice about killing or 
not.  Throughout the scene all his delusions and denials are taken 
away until we're finally down to the most basic truth of the scene: 
it's the threat to his family that's the real reason he has to kill 
Dumbledore. Dumbledore offers him a choice, a way out.  Draco goes 
over the reasons *not* to take the offer--he's come this far, 
Dumbledore is at his mercy. So I just can't see the lowering of the 
wand as a non-moment, just yet another sign of indecision.  The 
scene leading up to it is about indecision.  The lowering of the 
wand is a sign of *some* realization.  It's not a total change of 
sides, but it's a point of no return just the same, which is why 
it's referenced again later, imo.  We and Draco know at the end of 
HBP what Draco *isn't.*  We/he just don't yet know what he is.

To go back to the idea of Draco's problem being that he's not able 
to kill Dumbledore in person seems to me again a step back.  Draco 
attempted to kill from a distance earlier in the year.  I think 
getting him face to face with a helpless Dumbledore where literally 
all he has to do is point a stick and say the word to wish him dead 
(leaving aside the question of whether he could actually cast the 
spell) is an attempt, imo, to make the killing as easy as possible, 
not harder.  It reduces the whole thing, magically, to the desire, 
because that's what the magic is.  Does he desire to kill DD or 
not?  He doesn't.

Carol:
Nor do I see his statement that he didn't invite Greyback as
> anything more than grasping at straws, the one crime of which he 
can
> truthfully claim to be innocent (as opposed to two murder attempts,
> manipulating Rosmerta into becoming an accessory to attempted 
murder,
> and letting the DEs into Hogwarts). It's interesting, though, that 
he
> would even want to defend himself to DD and that his defense 
consists,
> in essence, of "I do too intend to murder you, but I didn't mean to
> let *him* in!")

Magpie:
I don't see that line that way at all.  It takes place *after* 
Dumbledore's line about mercy and the fractional lowering of the 
wand.  Draco is not here saying that he does intend to murder 
Dumbledore, he's not speaking about killing DD at all.  I'd say it's 
more than interesting that Draco would even want to defend himself 
to Dumbledore--I think it's the whole reason the line is important.  
Not only did Draco never claim to be innocent of the near-murders of 
Ron and Katie, he insisted he was committed to the attempts at 
Dumbledore's life that resulted in them.  This Greyback line is a 
complete change of perspective.  He could claim to be fine with 
Greyback's presence (what a DE should do) or just keep quiet (also 
acceptable).  Instead surrounded by the people he supposedly wants 
to impress as a murderer he pipes up to assure DD he didn't know 
Greyback was coming.  Either it's important enough that DD know that 
he didn't do this that he speaks up or he's working out the kinds of 
bad consequences his actions can have.  

Either way Draco is DDB here--by which I don't mean he's switched 
sides in the war.  I mean that the connection made between them on 
the Tower has not broken.  Dumbledore is influencing him even in the 
midst of the DEs (I believe his eyes never leave him, he's like a 
lifeline). Draco's spent all of canon wanting to appear a DE.  This 
is the first time I can remember he's ever shown a more normal 
desire to be seen as less than heartless and he's got every reason 
not to do it.

Carol:
> 
> I don't much like Draco, and unlike young Snape, he was never 
on "our
> side" and consequently can't "return" to it (to quote DD in 
GoF, "The
> Pensieve"), but this is (ostensibly) a children's series, so it 
seems
> likely to me that Draco will be redeemed as a message to young 
readers
> that even bad kids can be turned away from the path to evil. 

Magpie:
Snape was never "on our side" either before leaving the DEs that I 
can see.  I think when Dumbledore talks about Snape "returning" he 
means that all his children/students start out as on his side as far 
as he's concerned because no child can be born to Voldemort.  Snape 
was always associated with the Dark Arts and even if it wasn't until 
fifth year or so that he started using blood superiority rhetoric I 
don't see how he can be said to have *chosen* Dumbledore's side 
first. I think the language here is slippery--obviously Draco has 
always identified himself as being on the DE side, something that 
Snape presumably only ever did later, but while their backgrounds 
make the two of them different I don't see that it's that big of a 
deal.  Either one of them seems to me equally able to show that bad 
kids can be turned away from the path to evil.  We just don't see 
Snape as the bad kid because we're not reading MWPP-era Hogwarts. 

Carol:
The only way I can see for that to happen, though, is for DDM!Snape 
to be the agent of Draco's redemption. I don't think Draco's going 
to do it on his own.

Magpie:
Snape has always been an important influence on Draco and whatever 
he chooses I think Snape will figure into it, but it seems like 
you're saying here that Draco can only be a passive project of 
heroic DDM!Snape and I think that goes against the way Rowling sees 
and does things.  No one can redeem another person or be their agent 
of redemption, really--not enough for the person to avoid doing it 
on their own.  Particularly in HBP Dumbledore seems determined to 
give Draco *freedom* because he feels this is the only way he can 
possibly get the experience, courage and wisdom to be able to make a 
choice.  It's only through rejecting help that Draco becomes someone 
who might be valuable later.

Maybe this just goes back to what I was saying earlier, but the 
adults in this series have made their choices and have to live with 
them.  The heroes are not going to be the adults fixing things for 
the kids.  The whole concept of "Bad Faith" is about making our own 
choices and so I'd agree that this is a challenge for Draco.  His 
very name says that he's tempted to define himself as "one of them" 
instead of making true choices, but it seems like HBP put him on the 
path of waking up out of that. And I think Rowling enjoys doing that 
to him.:-)

Really, I just can't think of any adults in this series who are 
really in any position to fix the kids.  They're all trapped by 
their own natures, their own mistakes and choices, all the things 
they *didn't* fix about themselves--and of all the adults, Snape is 
probably the one who's fixed the least about himself.  To have DDM!
swoop in and be responsible for saving Draco seems to go completely 
backwards to me. It's this generation that will heal the last. In 
fact, it seems to me that Draco has already avoided some of Snape's 
own pitfalls (and even if Snape's own actions have contributed to 
that, so does Snape seem to contribute to the ways that keeps Draco 
on the wrong path). Adults often feel they should be the ones acting 
and try to just influence the kids or work around them, but that 
seems to always fail.  I really can't see how Snape could be the 
agent of Draco redemption in a way that did not require Draco to be 
the one making his own choices.  How do you see this playing out?

-m







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 30 20:30:59 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 20:30:59 -0000
Subject: Draco as Victim in GoF (was: Re: The Huge overreactions...)
In-Reply-To: <e0h9gl+ddb1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0hf63+gclv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150288

Magpie:
<snip>
I really can't see how Snape could be the 
> agent of Draco redemption in a way that did not require Draco to be 
> the one making his own choices.  How do you see this playing out?

Carol responds:
As I said in different words in the post I'm snipping, I see Draco
teetering on the edge of a precipice: What his father stands for and
he has always believed in vs. the glimpse of another path offered by
"the stupid old man" he has been trying to kill all year. He has
committed a number of crimes that make him a wanted "man" in the WW
(two attempted murders, accessory to murder, letting murderers into
Hogwarts, as well as a possible Imperius Curse which, if he really
cast it, is enough in itself to send him to Azkaban for life). He's on
the cusp of what the WW considers to be adulthood (he turns or turned
seventeen on June 5, and I can't tell from the narrative whether
that's before or after the events on the Tower).

As I see it, DDM!Snape (and of course this scenario applies *only* if
he's DDM!) will consider himself still bound to protect Draco, whether
or not the UV still holds. This obligation could play out in two ways:
Either he returns with Draco to LV and convinces the Dark Lord that
Draco succeeded in his mission of bringing the DEs into Hogwarts and
should not be punished because without his efforts, DD would not be
dead, or he goes into hiding with Draco. I think the first is more
likely since where else could or would Draco go when he Apparated
except back to LV. (Alternatively, Draco could have run home to
Narcissa and Snape could have offered to find him and not returned.)

At any rate, if their story arcs are going to continue into Book 7 as
appears to be the case, neither of them is going to be killed by LV
after the events in Book 7, so as I see it, Snape's protection of
Draco must come into play in some form. Also, surely Draco must
realize, after having been saved by Snape twice (not counting the
hypothetical third time), that Snape is on his side and is not trying
to steal his "glory." So Draco has, IMO, three choices; 1) Stay with
Snape to be protected and guided by him (in which case, Legilimens
Snape has the perfect opportunity to indoctrinate him in the virtues
and benefits of being DDM! 2) Run home to mama and Aunt Bella to hide
in the room that Harry knows exists but Mr. Weasley has failed to find
(not a very promising or "manly" option and with little chance for
redemption unless the Malfoys and Madame Lestrange are caught there,
with Bella sent to Azkaban and the Malfoys hidden by the Order) and 3)
Claim that he's a "man" now and doesn't need adult help, in which
case, he really has nowhere to run except perhaps to Theo Nott (whose
DE father is in Azkaban with Lucius, who mercifully abandoned him to
his fate in OoP but Theo doesn't know that, and whose mother is dead).
Draco really has no other options that I can see. He certainly can't
return to Hogwarts or even walk openly in Diagon Alley or Hogsmeade.
He has committed very real crimes and has a price on his head. 

The only adult who has any way of helping him is Snape, to whom he
owes his life whether there's a formal Life Debt or not (and I don't
think there is). If Snape is DDM!, and if he takes his obligation to
help Draco seriously (like a godfather, as I pointed out in another
post), he can help put Draco on the right path. Neither Narcissa nor
Bellatrix is likely to do that. So unless he turns himself in to the
Order, goes into hiding, and disappears from the story, he has to
either understand what Snape was really doing and why and accept his
values in place of loyalty to the undeserving Voldemort, or arrive at
those conclusions on his own despite being seventeen years old and a
wanted fugitive. Maybe he and Theo, who apparently has chosen not to
become a DE despite being in a situation very much like Draco's, can
figure things out together, but Theo is also seventeen and mentorless
and has not played a major role till now, whereas Snape is a major
character with strong bonds to Draco which the events of HBP ought to
strengthen, not, erm, sever.

It also seems to me that DDM!Snape (if and only if he's really DDM!)
needs a go-between to help him communicate wih Harry, especially if
his skill in combatting the Dark Arts is to come into play in
destroying the Horcruxes. While I would prefer that go-between to be
Lupin, I can see it being Draco, with whom Harry is beginning to
develop an understanding.

Carol, who still sees Draco teetering on the edge and not yet
converted to DDB!Draco









From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 30 21:22:57 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 21:22:57 -0000
Subject: Young Snape's cutting curse (Was: LID!Snape rides again)
In-Reply-To: <335.d3c367.315858cf@aol.com>
Message-ID: <e0hi7h+ngm8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150289

Nikkalmati wrote:
><snip>
> Also, if SS was defending himself at the end with his cutting 
> curse, he was being careful about it, because he made a small cut 
> on James' face, while we know that curse can produce dramatic 
> injuries.  <snip>

Carol responds:
I agree that *if* this curse or hex is Sectum Sempra, Severus did a
remarkable job of controlling it under the circumstances and given his
emotional state. We see in HBP what Sectum Sempra could have done if
Severus had pointed at James's chest or abdomen and waved the wand
around as Harry did. No flesh wound to the skull; James would have
died unless Sevvie had already invented the countercurse (and was
willing to chant it in front of the entire fifth-year class). I
don'tthink he was willing to risk James's death and his own expulsion
(or arrest) despite his fury at his humiliation. At any rate, as you
say, if the cutting curse *was* Sectum Sempra, it was a tightly
controlled and limited version.

However, I don't think the curse or hex was Sectum Sempra,for a
variety of reasons. "Sectum Sempra" doesn't just mean "cut," it means
"cut always," and there's no indication that James is suffering from
wand-induced hemophilia, a cut that won't stop bleeding and could
prove fatal if not staunched. And who could have stopped the bleeding
from a Sectum Sempra curse other than its own inventor, Severus Snape?
Nor is there any indication in canon of a serious wound that left a
scar, as a Sectum Sempra curse would have done. (Snape advisesDraco to
take dittany to avoid scarring--not advice that he'd be likely to give
to Berk!James.) Surely the characters who are so fond of pointing out
the resemblance of Harry to James would not have failed to point out
that James also had a curse scar on his forehead?

Also, Harry finds the Sectum Sempra curse, marked "for enemies" and
minus the complicated countercurse, in his *sixth-year* Advanced
Potions book (near the end, IIRC). So Sectum Sempra appears to have
been invented after the so-called Prank, when Severus had reason to
believe that Sirius Black (and perhaps the other Marauders) had tried
to kill him. The "worst memory" scene, however, occurs at the end of
fifth year, before Severus was using that book. 

It's interesting, too, that the earliest spells in that book are
relatively innocent, and that Levicorpus is listed as <nvbl>. Maybe,
up to that point, it had been an ordinary verbal hex. Otherwise, it's
hard to see how it could have been used by James or become a fad at
Hogwarts. But the toenail hex is no worse than Densuageo, used by
Draco against Harry and deflected to Hermione, and Muffliato would be
useful to any kid who didn't want, say, Madam Pince to overhear his
conversation. So Sectum Sempra marks a shift from creative hexes and
jinxes to a genuinely Dark spell--prompted, IMO, by what Severus
regarded as an attempted murder by "enemies."

At a guess, the cutting curse or hex used in the Pensieve scene is
some other form of "Sectum" (cut) and Severus derived Sectum Sempra
("cut always") from that basic form in a moment of anger and hatred as
 vengeance against those who had dared to hurt him. (Clearly he never
used it in this form or he'd be expelled and they'd be dead.) I
suspect that in a cooler, more intellectual moment, he developed that
complicated and unDark countercurse, which he could only have done in
secret, perhaps as an adult.

BTW, I refer to young Snape as "Severus" to match "James," "Sirius,"
"Remus," and "Peter." The narrator's use of "Snape" for the teenage
boy reflects Harry's perspective, as does the use of "Sirius" for the
adult Black (in contrast to "Snape" and "Lupin"). Wormtail, IIRC, is
always referred to by his nickname. I don't think we need to speculate
as to why.

Carol, imagining Sevvie's sixth-year Slytherin roommates walking in on
him as he crooned a healing chant over a bleeding Puffskein






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 30 23:36:26 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 23:36:26 -0000
Subject: Draco as Victim in GoF (was: Re: The Huge overreactions...)
In-Reply-To: <20060330031518.3593.qmail@web61322.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <e0hq1q+407m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150290

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Legally?  You bet.  At least, here in the United States.  Words 
> > don't count. 
> > <snip>

> >>Joe: 
> Most States and municipalities have statutes that taken into      
> acount just this sort of provocation as well. Also if we are going 
> to bring real world law into it then we should mention that       
> Malfoys words could also be considered both "menacing" which is a 
> crime. Note: Goyle and Crabbe using their size in the manner they 
> do is the legal deffinition of "menacing". They could also be     
> considered many "hate crime" statutes.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Draco's words are provocative. They do not constitute a "hate crime" 
(there'd have to be a specific statute regarding the use of the 
word "mudblood" or attacks against "muggleborns" or "blood traitors" 
which, obviously there's not) but they could constitute "terroristic 
threatening".  If no one physically assulted Draco, Harry and 
friends could have pressed charges, and at that point they would be 
considered the victims.

But Draco and Crabbe and Goyle were attacked.  And if police had 
been called to the scene to find five armed wizards standing over 
three unconcious wizards with wands holstered, the three on the 
ground would be considered victims.  Harry and friends would be 
taken into custody and Draco and friends would be taken to a 
hospital.  Harry and friends might protest that they were provoked, 
but it wouldn't stop the legal wheel from turning.

Once the case went in front of a judge, the most important 
consideration would be, who threw the first punch.  That Draco and 
friends hadn't even drawn their weapons would matter much more than 
any words spoken.  In fact, at this stage of the game, the words 
wouldn't count.

> >>bboyminn:
> <snip>
> Words DO COUNT. If you are familiar with the concept of 'Assault   
> and Battery', then you know that the minute you feel threatened,  
> the minute you feel endangered, Assault has occurred even if no   
> physical contact is made.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
That doesn't give you a legal right to physically assault the person 
doing the threatening.  No matter the verbal provocation you cannot 
legally physically attack another person. (Living in a right to 
carry State, I'm grateful for that. <g>)  Of course, if Harry and 
friends had *not* responded with physical force, than yes, a case 
could be made that Draco's language constituted terroristic 
threatening and that they were victims.  But they chose to raise the 
bar to physical assault and at that point, the words don't count.

Where the words *would* count, and where your argument, Steve, would 
belong is in the sentencing phase of the case.  Was there a 
mitigating reason for the attack, etc.?  And this is where Draco's 
statements would come into play.  But as to the facts of was there 
an attack and who attacked whom, and who attacked first, only the 
physical would count.  

> >>Sherry:
> <snip>
> I certainly do not believe Draco and crew were poor innocent      
> victims in the scene.
> <snip>
> But neither does that mean I think he is the innocent helpless    
> victim in all his previous nasty behavior.

Betsy Hp:
I totally snipped your post, Sherry, but I think your above 
statements cut right down to the main sticking point.  I think Draco 
and friends were the victims in this scene.  *However* I do not 
think they were "poor" "innocent" or "helpless".  

There's a tendency to try and paint a victim as a sweet, innocent, 
flower.  But that is rarely, if ever, the case.  Especially in cases 
of physical assault the victim probably did say some rather 
provocative things and may well be a skunk of person who needed a 
good beating.  Doesn't mean the beater was legally correct (or 
morally, for that matter) in delivering the beating.

I was asked, do I see Draco as the victim in this scene.  Well, yes 
I do.  It doesn't mean I think he behaved well, it doesn't mean I 
don't understand why Harry and friends did what they did.  I *do* 
think Harry and friends behaved badly and conceded the moral high 
ground.  But I also think Draco was highly idiotic (and rude, and 
cruel) to poke them as he did.

> >>Tonks:
> I tend to agree with Betsy. But there is another point as well.
> If a person responds to verbal abuse with physical abuse they have
> lowered themselves at least as low if not lower than the verbal
> abuser.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I totally agree.  I'd add that if someone uses verbal abuse in an 
argument, they've lowered themselves and weakened (if not destroyed) 
their argument.  So Draco really starts off low on the moral totem 
pole, as it were.  But Harry and his friends managed to find that 
lower point, bless them.  (I wonder why JKR wrote the scene this 
way?  Why take Draco down *so* hard and over the top?)  They managed 
to turn Draco, spewing the vitrol that he was spewing, into a 
victim.  I mean, that takes effort! <g>

> >>Tonks:
> I think a wizard needs to be in control of himself and
> not allow others to control his emotions and from that his
> behaviors.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Exactly!  Of course, Harry is young, and so he's still learning.  
But this idea that of course physical violence is the correct, if 
not only response to such provokation...  Isn't that just a recipe 
for chaos?

As I said, I live in a right to carry State.  My husband came back 
from court laughing one day because he'd found out he was the only 
person in the courtroom not carrying a gun.  And that included the 
court reporter!  There have been plenty of times that irrate family 
members spewed all sorts of filth at the attorneys and judge for one 
reason or another.  Imagine if instead of just having them removed 
from the courtroom the judge decide to open fire!

Betsy Hp






From joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 31 00:52:28 2006
From: joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com (Joe Goodwin)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 16:52:28 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Draco as Victim in GoF (was: Re: The Huge overreactions...)
In-Reply-To: <e0hq1q+407m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060331005228.39262.qmail@web61320.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150291


Betsy Hp:
Draco's words are provocative. They do not constitute a "hate crime" 
(there'd have to be a specific statute regarding the use of the 
word "mudblood" or attacks against "muggleborns" or "blood traitors" 
which, obviously there's not) but they could constitute "terroristic 
threatening".  If no one physically assulted Draco, Harry and 
friends could have pressed charges, and at that point they would be 
considered the victims.

But Draco and Crabbe and Goyle were attacked.  And if police had 
been called to the scene to find five armed wizards standing over 
three unconcious wizards with wands holstered, the three on the 
ground would be considered victims.  Harry and friends would be 
taken into custody and Draco and friends would be taken to a 
hospital.  Harry and friends might protest that they were provoked, 
but it wouldn't stop the legal wheel from turning.
   
  Joe: 
That isn't entirely true. If in their minds the words were threats that were reasonable and they had reason to believe that the speaker would harm them then they could act legally. Remember the phrase "I was afraid for my life officer." is what is important. Draco, Crabbe and Goyle all have weapons on them capable of killing and the trio know this. I can very easily see people getting away with a modern day version of this.
  
Victim also implies powerlessness where in fact Draco and his ilk had to go out of their way to get beat down. Muggle law aside I have no doubt that Harry and pals did the absolutely right thing. People will treat you as you let them and Draco's little speach went way beyond tolerable. Some things cannot be borne and sometimes you have to stand up for your selves.
   
  Here's the real test though. I bet if you took a thousand good kids and put them in Harry's position they would have done the same thing. Not letting Malfoy make a mockery of what happened was the right thing to do the only wrong thing was that they had to do it in the first place.
   
  As people sometimes say in my region "He needed beating."
   
  Joe










From joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 30 14:48:39 2006
From: joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com (Joe Goodwin)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 06:48:39 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Draco as Victim in GoF (was: Re: The Huge overreactions...)
In-Reply-To: <e0go3b+eqno@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060330144839.92135.qmail@web61317.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150292

  
Pippin:
<SNIP>

Harry and his friends reacted to offensive language and the threat 
of violence with violence.

Result: Draco became more embittered and violent.

OTOH, Dumbledore instructed Draco not to use offensive language in 
front of him, and mildly pointed out that if Draco truly wished to kill 
him, he would have done so already. 

Result: Draco realized he was not a killer.
   
   
Joe: 
That is what you see. I see a boy who realized he didn't have the stones to do it. Not that he was above it or too good for it but that deep down he is a coward. This is the same Draco Malfoy who kicks a helpless Harry in the face right? There are plenty of people in the world who will not murder you but who would be willing to beat you up pretty bad because they wanted to. Draco Malfoy is one of them.

Pippin:
I think canon shows that while it's perfectly understandable that Harry
and his friends reacted the way they did, their choice was less beneficial
than Dumbledore's and they were unwise to make Draco the victim of their
aggression. If they had truly understood Draco, they would not have
felt threatened by him, still less by Crabbe and Goyle.
  

Joe: 
Harry and Co. would be idiots to think that Draco, Crabbe and Goyle would not harm anyone if they had the upperhand. See face kicking statement above.










From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 31 01:48:25 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 01:48:25 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore MAY be alive.... and his name may be Godric Gryffindor
In-Reply-To: <e0fueg+3vvk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0i1p9+botc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150293

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" 
<gbannister10 at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Adriana" <glykonix@> wrote:
> 
> Glykonix:
> > Who really is Albus dumbledore.
(Snip>
 then again we also saw in book five, how Fawkes swallowed the 
killing 
> > Curse aimed at Dumbledore and in a way he did die but then as he 
is a Phoenix was born again from his ashes. And that people is what 
I believe Dumbledore did. He was hit by the killing curse he died 
and then at his burial he was on fire, a fire in which Harry was 
able to see a white Phoenix. And that is what I think Dumbledore is
 
a human Phoenix. 
> 
> 
> Geoff:
> A couple of thoughts
> 
> (2) On what grounds does you assume that Dumbledore is immortal? 
There is no indication in canon that he has been taking the Elixir 
himself and, when we meet him, his age seems to be within the normal 
parameters for a wizard. The theory for him being a 
> phoenix is an interesting one but, again, much of your interesting 
hypothesis is speculative and hasn't got the underpinning from 
canon - yet(?).
>

Tonks:
I have often wondered about Albus. Of course I think he is a Christ 
figure and as such will rise again. But I have also wondered if he 
were a Phoenix too. Canon: His arm is burnt.. maybe a sign that he 
is approaching his "burning time".  He has all of those names. I 
have suggested this before, that with each rebirth he gets another 
name. 

And as Glykonix pointed out DD's tomb burst into flames and there 
was a phoenix coming out of the flames. I know that we have not seen 
the funeral of any other wizard, but I would bet that DD is the only 
one to have one like this. I would not be at all surprized if the 
Centuars knew all about DD too. They never tell what they know.

Also DD says that help will always be available to anyone at 
Hogwarts ... that he will only truly be gone when none .. was it 
believe?  Anyway he said that he was going to be around. He did not 
say until he dies. It implied to me at least that he would alway be 
present. And as Christ, he would. As you know the Phoenix is the 
symbol of Christ.

Tonks_op








From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 31 01:51:59 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 01:51:59 -0000
Subject: Snape as infidel was Re: Kant and Snape and Ethics and Everything
In-Reply-To: <e0h345+1ksg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0i1vv+u4u1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150294

> >>Pippin: 
> > I've always hoped Snape would survive, and in a more or less
> > unreformed state -- I mean, I'd like to see him change his mind 
> > about Harry, but in accordance with *his* moral code, not because
> > he decided his moral code was deficient. 

Betsy Hp:
I think Snape's moral code is okay, in that I think he is a moral 
person.  However I think there is some tweaking that needs to 
occur.  I think Sydney said something upthread about letting love 
into the picture.  Or maybe, to get more specific, I think Snape 
does need to learn how to forgive.  In a sense his moral code is 
*so* demanding there's not a lot of room for error in it.  You screw 
up, you're done.  (This is the reason I think the hardest person on 
Snape is Snape.)

On another thread Carol and Magpie are talking about Draco's 
redemption and Snape's role in it.  I wonder, though, if Draco might 
not have a role in helping Snape learn to forgive.  I have no idea 
how... something to do with the growth that's part of being a 
parent?  Yeah, not fully formed thinking again, sorry.

> >>Pippin: 
> > Snape to me is less a sinner than an infidel -- an unbeliever    
> > with respect to the Gryffindor chivalric ideal which I suspect   
> > is Rowling's stand-in for Christianity and with respect to      
> > enlightened methods of instruction.
> > <snip>

Betsy Hp:
This...  It bothers me a bit.  I think part of it is the idea that 
the Gryffindors are somehow *better* than the other houses.  That 
they've got the best ideals.  Also, it seems to go against the 
healing of the rift concept.  If the houses need to come together, 
shouldn't they all be morally equal?  Are all members of other 
houses infidels?  And wouldn't this suggest that somehow 
Christianity is better?  The faith or ideal of our Hero vs. everyone 
else?

Honestly, if JKR is trying to illustrate Christianity in these books 
wouldn't it be insulting to other religions to have a "lesser than" 
stand-in for them? 

> >>Nora:
> Now this is an interesting perspective, because I think it does   
> make a lot of sense.  However, I have to say that I think Rowling 
> thinks that Snape's moral code *IS* deficient, and that's a good   
> word for it.  It lacks something, it's missing something, it's not 
> totally wrong but there's something notably off about it.

Betsy Hp:
But off enough to make him a stand in for infidels?  There's too 
much of "other" or "not of us" in that word for me to agree that JKR 
is pushing for that view to prevail.  Would she really want the 
children of the world to label anything not Christian as deficient?  
Again, where's the healing?  It's about keeping seperate that which 
is seperate which goes totally against the Sorting Hat's song.

> >>Nora: 
> I do find it interesting that pretty much all DDM!Snape theories 
> depend heavily upon Snape's actions somehow having been validated 
> by Dumbledore's will, that he's still fundamentally acting with 
> Dumbledore's wishes in mind.  If he were not to be, it's just too 
> uncomfortably close to being evil, isn't it?  I don't recall too   
> many arguments for Snape's own morality being independently       
> superior or moral.

Betsy Hp:
Yes, of course it does.  Dumbledore is the moral standard of the 
books.  Those on the right side of things stand with Dumbledore.  
Therefore, a good Snape would be in agreement with Dumbledore.

I don't think it means that Dumbledore is the stand in for Snape's 
own moral sense.  Snape has his own independent morality.  And it 
must be a morality that Dumbledore trusts.  I wouldn't say it was 
superior to Dumbledore's.  Again, there's a lack of forgivness to 
it, a lack of gentleness.  But I don't think Snape is so lacking in 
morals he depends on someone else to do his choosing for him.  For 
one, that goes against Dumbledore's own code; for another, it's 
hardly the mark of a trustworthy man.

> >>Nora: 
> And for all of Rowling's talk of tolerance of persons and the      
> like, I think that's knotted together with the necessity that      
> those walking an inferior path (and not all paths are equal--this 
> is not a relativistic world) has to recognize this.  Draco lowers 
> his wand and does not kill--an admission that the path he was     
> following was wrong.

Betsy Hp:
I think it also points to Draco realizing that there is another path 
available.  That he *can* make a choice.  Something Dumbledore is 
very big on.

> >>Nora:
> This involves an acknowledgement of method and manner being 
> important, not only the actions but how one carries them out.

Betsy Hp:
Really?  There was a better method or manner to killing Dumbledore?  
That's where too much dependence on methods and manner strikes me as 
missing the main point.  The old nice is better than good argument, 
I guess.  It's not that Draco is being offered a chance to change 
his method and manner.  He's being offered a chance to change (or 
finally choose) his moral code.  A much more profound choice, I 
think.

I haven't gotten the sense that there's more importance in how a 
thing is done compared to it just being done.  Do you have a scene 
in mind that might illustrate that point?

> >>Nora:
> <snip>
> Dumbledore wants Snape to independently realize why and what 
> that Snape has been doing or acting upon is wrong.

Betsy Hp:
Does he?  Where are you getting this from?  I've never gotten the 
sense that Dumbledore was waiting for some great aha! moment from 
Snape.

Betsy Hp






From belviso at attglobal.net  Fri Mar 31 02:08:03 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 21:08:03 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco as Victim in GoF (was: Re: The Huge overreactions...)
References: <e0hf63+gclv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00a901c65467$f3b79fe0$e36c400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 150295

> Carol, who still sees Draco teetering on the edge and not yet

> converted to DDB!Draco


Magpie:

Oh, I don't think he's converted to DDB in that sense either--I just meant 
in that scene he was still connected to DD, more than the DEs, after they 
arrived.  I agree he still could fall any number of ways in the future.  I 
think DD had an effect on him there, not that he's converted to anything.


Carol:

The only adult who has any way of helping him is Snape, to whom he owes his 
life whether there's a formal Life Debt or not (and I don't think there is).


Magpie:

Okay, this definitely seems like a possibility for the next book, that Snape 
will be helping Draco by hiding him or convincing Voldemort not to kill him. 
He'd be physically protecting him, helping to keep him alive and free. But 
that isn't redemption.

Carol:

If Snape is DDM!, and if he takes his obligation to help Draco seriously 
(like a godfather, as I pointed out in another post), he can help put Draco 
on the right path. Neither Narcissa nor Bellatrix is likely to do that. So 
unless he turns himself in to the Order, goes into hiding, and disappears 
from the story, he has to either understand what Snape was really doing and 
why and accept his values in place of loyalty to the undeserving Voldemort, 
or arrive at those conclusions on his own despite being seventeen years old 
and a wanted fugitive.



Magpie:

But that's my question: how is Snape going to help put him on the right path 
and what does it mean that Draco will simply exchange loyalty to Voldemort 
for Snape's values?  How is Snape going to do this? How is Draco not going 
to be coming to his own conclusions?  Is Snape going to be sitting him down 
and telling him about right from wrong?  How is he adopting Snape's values? 
What are Snape's values--hasn't Snape been teaching Draco values by example 
for six years now?

Presumably Draco is going to come to learn that the Snape he has known for 
years--the one who's a DE and was trying to steal his glory (since what 
other motivation is there for a DE other than competing for Voldemort's 
favor?)--is false and Snape has really always been working for Dumbledore 
and not after any dark glory.  But how does that lead to actual redemption 
where Dumbledore's actions and words and Draco's own experiences couldn't? 
How is it different than Draco coming to his own conclusion based on 
information and events he experiences--which would include stuff related to 
Snape?

And above all, perhaps, how does this happen in a way that leads to a boy 
becoming a man and growing up and this generation healing the last, rather 
than leading to separating the men from the boys, and children letting 
adults handle things, and a stunted morality that leaves moral decisions to 
someone else and the past generation continuing on without handing over the 
reins? Obviously I don't expect you to write book VII for me to explain how 
it works, I just don't think I'm seeing what you mean about what Snape would 
be needed to do.

Carol responds:

I agree that *if* this curse or hex is Sectum Sempra, Severus did a 
remarkable job of controlling it under the circumstances and given his 
emotional state.



Magpie:

What's gained by this not being Sectumsempra?  I mean, when I read it I 
never thought it was anything else--I actually mistakently thought we 
already knew the name of the curse Snape used against James so when I read 
"Sectumsempra" and "for enemies" I said, "Oh, it's that razor blade spell 
Snape used on James."  I guess I just logically thought that if Levicorpus 
was the upsidedown spell of course the mystery spell Harry had seen before 
too--JKR tends to work that way.

In the Pensieve scene that razor blade spell is nasty and seems to work just 
the way Sectumsempra does.  Snape flicks his wand and Harry waves his, and 
that seems to account for the differences in effect.  We don't know that 
Snape didn't do a counterspell later on James (for a smaller cut the 
counterspell might be less elaborate) or that James didn't use dittany any 
more than we know James' lacking a scar means it couldn't be Sectumsempra (I 
would think even a regular razor-blade cut without the "sempra" part would 
scar), but it seems like the simplest solution: two spells from the same 
book made up by the same boy in the same scene with basically the same 
effects as another spell from the same book by the same boy.  It seems like 
the whole reason that spell even appears in OotP is to show it before Harry 
uses it--that tends to be JKR's style.  The only thing gained from assuming 
the spell used in the Pensieve isn't Sectumsempra that comes to my mind 
immediately is that it puts more distance between Snape and the incredibly 
violent spell from HBP and adds a self-defense note to it.  It suggests 
Snape didn't make a really bad spell until Sirius tried to kill him. To me 
the spell looks deadly in both cases.

-m







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 31 02:25:23 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 02:25:23 -0000
Subject: Draco as Victim in GoF /Sectusemptra  or not in Pensieve
In-Reply-To: <00a901c65467$f3b79fe0$e36c400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <e0i3uj+lmq0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150296

> Carol responds:
> 
> I agree that *if* this curse or hex is Sectum Sempra, Severus did 
a 
> remarkable job of controlling it under the circumstances and given 
his 
> emotional state.
> 
> 
> 
> Magpie:
> 
> What's gained by this not being Sectumsempra?  I mean, when I read 
it I 
> never thought it was anything else--I actually mistakently thought 
we 
> already knew the name of the curse Snape used against James so 
when I read 
> "Sectumsempra" and "for enemies" I said, "Oh, it's that razor 
blade spell 
> Snape used on James."  I guess I just logically thought that if 
Levicorpus 
> was the upsidedown spell of course the mystery spell Harry had 
seen before 
> too--JKR tends to work that way.
<SNIP>

Alla:

Oh, I also said that it was Sectusemptra right away and of course I 
don't think that Snape was exercising any kind of restraint. My 
first thought was that Snape simply did not develop the spell well 
enough yet by that time, so called "work in progress", you know, 
which became deadlier in time.

Speculating here, of course.

> Joe:
<SNIP> 
> Victim also implies powerlessness where in fact Draco and his ilk 
had to go out of their way to get beat down. Muggle law aside I have 
no doubt that Harry and pals did the absolutely right thing. People 
will treat you as you let them and Draco's little speach went way 
beyond tolerable. Some things cannot be borne and sometimes you have 
to stand up for your selves.

Alla:

Not only that, I just don't get how somebody who IMO literally ASKED 
for something bad to happen to him can be called a victim. I think 
maybe I am running into language problem again, but someone who is 
going to provoke people is not a victim in my book. He is a 
provocateur who got a bit more than he bargained for.

To me victim means "the innocent party". I have no problem calling 
Draco "physically injured party" for example, but victim ( and I am 
talking primarily morally, not legally) to me implies "wronged 
party".
    
I mean, even Draco positioning himself in the corridor of the train 
and screaming his death threats in order for the whole vagon to hear 
and Gryffs coming out of the appartment and hexing Draco would have 
have a bit more ambiguous to me. Like I can see argument that Draco 
was exercising his "free speech" right, although I agree that a good 
lawyer can make a case that this IS a hate speech and should not be 
allowed (of course as metaphor for RW, not word by word "mudblood"), 
etc.

But Draco invaded their space with his goons on his sides and their 
wands ready to be drawn out.

Yes, IMO Draco totally got what he asked for.

Alla,

laughs when she remembers arguments in defense of the Draco in this 
scene long time ago that he was really .... warning Hermione here 
that danger is coming, because he secretly likes her.








From whitetyger69_20002000 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 30 14:46:47 2006
From: whitetyger69_20002000 at yahoo.com (Mike Bradshaw)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 14:46:47 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore MAY be alive.... and his name may be Godric Gryffindor
In-Reply-To: <e033v7+tcjd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0gr0n+j341@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150297

Glykonix <glykonix at ...> wrote:
> Who really is Albus Dumbledore? Albus Dumbledore is the Headmaster 
> of Hogwarts school of witchcraft and magic, considered by most as 
> the most powerful wizard of modern time <snip>. But is he really 
> that "modern"?
> <snip>
> Why did Harry choose Gryffindor? Because that's what Albus 
> Dumbledore wanted. How could Dumbledore have made Harry go to 
> Gryffindor when he had not even spoken to the kid you'll say. By 
> sending Hagrid, that's how. He could have sent a number of people 
> far more prepared to dealing with hysterical muggles. <snip>
> But he chose a half giant, half oaf, wizard who isn't even allowed 
> to do magic and who looks considerably ill-placed in the muggle 
> world. Why did he choose him? Because if there was anybody in the 
> world who could get Harry to want to be in Gryffindor, then that 
> was Hagrid. 
> <snip>
> But let us get back to my main idea, Harry is a Gryffindor and 
> extremely loyal to Dumbledore. <snip> By thinking of Dumbledore, 
> Harry managed to summon two objects that had once belonged to 
> Gryffindor, and now belong to Dumbledore. And here is where I go 
> one step further and say that all three: Fawkes, the sorting hat 
> and the sword once belonged to Gryffindor
 and still do
 As 
> Dumbledore is in fact Gryffindor. <snip>
 

Mike:
Okay so here we go.  You make an extremely good point.  It is true 
that there are amazing similarities in the two.  But and here is 
where I will be disagreeing with you -- in book 5 when Sirius died 
didn't Harry inherit the house from a magical will and in doing so 
he inherited all that was in it including the house elf that hated 
Harry.  Thus the hat, the sword, and Fawkes could have been passed 
to Big D in that way.  Also in book 2 Fawkes came to Harry just 
because of how faithful he was to Big D.  I think that the Hat and 
Sword were the same: I don't believe that Fawkes could have brought 
them without the items consenting.  I don't think Big D is Godric 
though it is entirely possible that he is related.  That is the 
reason for the similarities in appearance.  It is also possible that 
the White phoenix that Harry saw was Big D just in a different from 
and that he is now a phoenix.  Instead of dying he was transformed 
just as Godric may have well been and he is Fawkes.  

Next your theory on why Hagrid fetched Harry, well that is very 
easy.  One, the person needn't blend in with the muggles since the 
Dursleys went to someplace secluded.  Next Big D knew that they 
wouldn't let Harry go very easily and that none of the teachers 
would use magic on muggles for fear of the ministry.  Hagrid however 
didn't care about that since he never graduated from wizarding school 
in the first place.  Also he was much more ferocious looking and Big 
D knew he would have the least trouble getting Harry.

And if Big D were Godric then why is Godric not one of his names?  
B/c if what you say were true then would it not make sense that all 
of Big D's names were his past identities?  Also if he were Godric 
why would he not want people to know? I mean don't you think that 
Lord V would be a little scared going up against one of the most 
powerful wizards of all time?  

Now I have a question for you:  if indeed Big D is Godric then where 
are the other three founding wizards?  If one of them were immortal 
then would it not make sense that the others were as well, and if so 
then who could they be?







From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Fri Mar 31 02:22:43 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 21:22:43 EST
Subject: Draco as Victim in GoF (was: Re: The Huge overreactions...)
Message-ID: <35e.100e982.315dec73@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150298

>Betsy Hp:
>Draco's words are provocative. They do not constitute  a "hate crime" 
>there'd have to be a specific statute regarding the use of the  
>word "mudblood" or attacks against "muggleborns" or "blood traitors"  
>which, obviously there's not) but they could constitute "terroristic  
>threatening".  If no one physically assaulted Draco, Harry and  
>friends could have pressed charges, and at that point they would be  
>considered the victims.
 
Nikkalmati:
 
At common law there were recognized certain so-called "fighting words",  
which if spoken could constitute a reason for assault.  No one was expected  to 
endure such speech without physical retaliation (in proportion of  course).  









From whitetyger69_20002000 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 30 15:10:28 2006
From: whitetyger69_20002000 at yahoo.com (Mike Bradshaw)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 15:10:28 -0000
Subject: Grey Lady (Lady Jane Grey)/Dudley. Hermione & Ravenclaw/Marietta Edgecomb
In-Reply-To: <20060330063738.3457.qmail@web30212.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <e0gsd4+8et7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150300

D.A Jones <aceworker at ...> wrote:
> 4) Hermione's middle name is said by JKR to be Jane so you find in 
> her name the following: HERmione  JANE GRAnger  or:  Her Jane GraY
> <snip> 
> 9) In OOP in the battle in the DOM Hermione is hit by Dolohov by a  
> sort of frill, misty purple curse which almost kills her. This could 
> be foreshadowing of  Hermione's  "Royal Death".  
> <snip>
> Two possible theories for book 7 based on all this: 
> 
> 1) Hermione and Marietta will end up in some sort of struggle over 
> becoming the heir of Ravenclaw and/or the Ravenclaw Horcrux. Hermione 
> will initially win, but Marietta will prevail which will  cause the 
> death of Hermione (Hermione is Jane Grey, so she must die and 
> Marietta is Queen Mary I). <snip>


Mike:
All very interesting points.  I think you might be on to something 
but if it were to turn out that way I believe that history will be 
rewritten (well, at least in the book).  I do not think that JKR 
would allow Hermione to die.  Though the idea of royal blood is an 
intriguing one.  I'll have to think some more on this and get back 
to you.







From xxneuman07xx at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 31 03:29:34 2006
From: xxneuman07xx at yahoo.com (xxneuman07xx)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 03:29:34 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore MAY be alive.... and his name may be Godric Gryffindor
In-Reply-To: <e0gr0n+j341@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0i7mu+f2q2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150302

> Glykonix <glykonix@> wrote:
<Snip? Yeah.>
> > But let us get back to my main idea, Harry is a Gryffindor and 
> > extremely loyal to Dumbledore. <snip> By thinking of Dumbledore, 
> > Harry managed to summon two objects that had once belonged to 
> > Gryffindor, and now belong to Dumbledore. And here is where I go 
> > one step further and say that all three: Fawkes, the sorting hat 
> > and the sword once belonged to Gryffindor
 and still do
 As 
> > Dumbledore is in fact Gryffindor. <snip>

This has shades of DDM!Voldemort and Vampire!Snape...

> Mike:
<One More Time!>
> Now I have a question for you:  if indeed Big D is Godric then where 
> are the other three founding wizards?  If one of them were immortal 
> then would it not make sense that the others were as well, and if so 
> then who could they be?

Simple enough.

Hufflepuff: Poppy Pomfrey(I aways imagine her as a nurse.)
Ravenclaw: Irma Pince (Never could get her face out of those books...)
Slytherin: Argus Filch (The greatest actor in the WW!)
 

-Neuman








From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 31 04:47:07 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 04:47:07 -0000
Subject: Draco as Victim in GoF (was: Re: The Huge overreactions...)
In-Reply-To: <e0ibog+t9qh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0ic8b+rhqh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150303

> >>Joe:
> That isn't entirely true. If in their minds the words were threats
> that were reasonable and they had reason to believe that the
> speaker would harm them then they could act legally.

Betsy Hp:
But is there a reasonable expectation of violence here?  You'd have
to show that Draco is not only capable, but has a tendency towards,
that sort of violence.  It's a hard argument to make.  I can't think
of an example in canon to support it, especially to this particular
date.

> >>Joe:
> Remember the phrase "I was afraid for my life officer." is what is
> important. Draco, Crabbe and Goyle all have weapons on them
> capable of killing and the trio know this. I can very easily see
> people getting away with a modern day version of this.

Betsy Hp:
Oh, police hear it all the time I'm sure.  But everyone involved is
armed, only the attackers have weapons drawn, the attackers are
larger in number, two (the older two) attacked from behind.  The
amount of danger a reasonable person could claim to be in gets
smaller and smaller as the facts are examined.

And there's been nothing to suggest Draco or Crabbe or Goyle are
capable of killing anyone.

> >>Joe:
> Victim also implies powerlessness where in fact Draco and his ilk
> had to go out of their way to get beat down.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Not the way I'm using it.  It just denotes who was the wronged
party.  And that would be the three boys lying unconscious on the
floor getting kicked by the other parties.

> >>Joe:
> Muggle law aside I have no doubt that Harry and pals did the
> absolutely right thing. People will treat you as you let them and
> Draco's little speach went way beyond tolerable. Some things
> cannot be borne and sometimes you have to stand up for your selves.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Mob justice.  Might makes right?  I understand that there are people
who feel justice is delivered by fists, law of the jungle and all
that.  I don't.  I've lived in places where the law was winked at.
Seen the bodies.  It ain't a good thing.  At least in my opinion.

> >>Joe:
> <snip>
> As people sometimes say in my region "He needed beating."

Betsy Hp:
Yup.  Those are the folks that keep us in groceries. <g>

> >>Alla:
> Not only that, I just don't get how somebody who IMO literally
> ASKED for something bad to happen to him can be called a victim.

Betsy Hp:
Well, yes, if Draco has said, "please hex me and my friends into
unconsciousness, and ooh, if you could kick us while we're out,
that'd be extra special!" then I'd see your point.  But Draco went
in ready to trade insults.  He behaved horribly, I agree.  But he
was the one lying unconscious on the floor, so therefore, he was the
victim.

> >>Alla:
> I think maybe I am running into language problem again, but
> someone who is going to provoke people is not a victim in my book.
> He is a provocateur who got a bit more than he bargained for.
> To me victim means "the innocent party".

Betsy Hp:
You're attaching too much to the word victim.  A victim is the one
injured, the wronged party.  There's no need to prove purity or
sweetness or blamelessness.  And yes, Draco victimized Hermione by
calling her a mudblood.  But that was trumped by the physical
attack.  And suddenly Harry and friends are the ones having to
explain *their* actions.  In other words, they lost the higher
ground.

> >>Alla:
> <snip>
> But Draco invaded their space with his goons on his sides and their
> wands ready to be drawn out.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
That's an assumption, Alla.  There's nothing in the text to suggest
Darco or his friends were ready to draw their wands.  *Harry* was
fingering his wand, but we've no idea what Draco was doing.
Frankly, from what I've seen of Draco, I think pulling a wand was
the last thing on his mind.  It hadn't gotten personal yet.  And
Draco doesn't think physically.

> >>Alla:
> I have no problem calling Draco "physically injured party" for
> example, but victim ( and I am talking primarily morally, not
> legally) to me implies "wronged party".

Betsy Hp:
Legally, the injured party *is* the victim.  Morally... well we get
to a grey area (at least for me <g>).  Because I really, really,
really, *hate* mob violence.  I mean, I know Harry was in a very bad
place and I guess Hermione and Ron caught his mood (and the twins
are just evil little hooligans looking for an excuse to smack down
*something*).  And Draco was being a complete idiot.  But, oh my
God!  FIVE!!  Against three!  And two of them attacked from behind!
Where's the heroism?  Where's the vaunted Gryffindor chivalry?  I'm
just glad none of the Weasley boys riffled Draco's robes for spare
change.

****************
Edited to add this in:

> >>Nikkalmati:
> At common law there were recognized certain so-called "fighting   
> words", which if spoken could constitute a reason for assault.  No 
> one was expected  to endure such speech without physical           
> retaliation (in proportion of  course).

Betsy Hp:
Is that the same time period where a man was only allowed to beat 
his wife with a rod as thick as his thumb?  We're a bit more 
civilized now.  I hope, anyway. <g>

Though, I will say, Draco was an absolute idiot (and cruel and rude) 
saying the things he said when he said it.  A retaliation of some 
sort shouldn't have been unexpected.  It's just, I don't think it 
was something to cheer for. 

Betsy Hp






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 31 04:49:14 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 04:49:14 -0000
Subject: Draco as Victim in GoF (was: Re: The Huge overreactions...)
In-Reply-To: <00a901c65467$f3b79fe0$e36c400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <e0icca+639t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150304

> Magpie:
>
> What's gained by this not being Sectumsempra?  <snip>  The only
thing gained from assuming the spell used in the Pensieve isn't
Sectumsempra that comes to my mind immediately is that it puts more
distance between Snape and the incredibly violent spell from HBP and
adds a self-defense note to it.  It suggests Snape didn't make a
really bad spell until Sirius tried to kill him. <snip>

Carol:
Exactly. I wouldn't strenuously object to the idea that the spell used
in the Pensieve was a very controlled Sectum Sempra, but it doesn't
fit the chronology, and we don't see the bleeding and scarring from it
that we'd see with Sectum Sempra. There's no indication that James
could have died from that cut or that it's any more dangerous than a
stinging hex.

For good or ill, I don't think that Severus had invented the true
Sectum Sempra curse yet--either that or JKR has messed up her maths
again. And the explanation that works best for me is that he invented
SS as retaliation for the so-called Prank, with the cutting hex he'd
used on James the previous year as a precursor to the darker, deadlier
model that was prompted by the Prank, which we know he saw as a murder
attempt. What cause he might have had before that to develop a truly
Dark curse I can't imagine. I don't think he did.

Carol





 






From jsfigiel at aol.com  Thu Mar 30 17:20:02 2006
From: jsfigiel at aol.com (jsfigiel at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 12:20:02 EST
Subject: Lily/James
Message-ID: <2f1.26485d3.315d6d42@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150305

 
Sharon <h.m.s at ...> wrote:
> Also, (based on watching the behaviour of my 15 year old daughter) 
> sometimes teenagers try to hide their attraction for the opposite 
> sex by a type of "converse behaviour".  I.e. they project that they 
> are "turned off" by the very person they like.  Lily used this 
> opportunity to show everyone that she "did not like James Potter". 
> In this very convoluted and not very clear reasoning, I'm trying to 
> say that my gut feeling is that I therefore don't believe that we 
> know Lily's true feelings for James or that he EVER had to use any 
> type of underhand means!



Hi, I am new here and this is my first post. Let me first say that I 
have had a great time reading all of the opinions expressed on this 
board. I am happy to see there are other people as Potter-obsessed as 
I am. Also, you have all presented opinions that have really made me 
think about the books in ways I never thought about them and for that
I thank you all!
 
I have been thinking about the Lily/James thing for awhile and Sharon 
has said exactly what I had been thinking. What if the scene between 
them was really just a "dance" that teens often do in order to get 
the other sex to notice them.  It is obvious to me in the scene that 
James wanted Lily to see the altercation  and sometimes any response,
even a neagtive one, is a good response. If nothing else it opens 
the door for future conversation.
 
I also have to say that I have never been a Snape fan. I didn't see 
the scene as sexual harassment but simply as a school prank designed 
to elicit attention. Kids do this all of the time so it didn't strike 
me as abnormal in any way. I am not saying that James or Sirius were 
necessarily right to do it, but I agree that there was a history 
between the students here that we really don't know about.
 
Ok, so I've gotten my first post out. When I catch up on the reading 
I will try to voice my opinion about some of the other topics. Thanks,
 
Jamie (who is glad she finally got to post  something)









From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 31 05:28:47 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 05:28:47 -0000
Subject: Young Snape's cutting curse (Was: LID!Snape rides again)
In-Reply-To: <e0hi7h+ngm8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0iemf+hg9c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150307

> Carol responds:
<SNIP>
> Also, Harry finds the Sectum Sempra curse, marked "for enemies" and
> minus the complicated countercurse, in his *sixth-year* Advanced
> Potions book (near the end, IIRC). So Sectum Sempra appears to have
> been invented after the so-called Prank, when Severus had reason to
> believe that Sirius Black (and perhaps the other Marauders) had tried
> to kill him. The "worst memory" scene, however, occurs at the end of
> fifth year, before Severus was using that book. 
> 

Alla:

I don't think that necessarily points to anything for the simple 
reason that Levicorpus was also found in the same six year book and we 
KNOW that it was invented earlier than that.

I think same thing can easily happen with Sectusemptra.

Carol:

<SNIP>

And the explanation that works best for me is that he invented
> SS as retaliation for the so-called Prank, with the cutting hex
he'd
> used on James the previous year as a precursor to the darker,
deadlier
> model that was prompted by the Prank, which we know he saw as a
murder
> attempt. What cause he might have had before that to develop a
truly
> Dark curse I can't imagine. I don't think he did.


Alla:

I will take a bite speculating what cause Snape may had to invent
truly Dark curse before Prank ever happened. Could it be that Snape
was always attracted to Dark deadly curses, could it be that he
indeed knew many Dark curses when he arrived at school?

Could it be that Snape interest in Dark magic is what drew him to
Voldemort? Oh, yes and with every book I see more and more support
for that.

After all, Sirius just could not have been right in anything Snape
related matters, even if he simply delivers facts, and Snape had
nothing to do with dark curses whatsover, except of course we know
now that he did.

I think it could be so. I think Snape inventing Dark curses WAS one
of the reasons of his rivalry with James, who always hated Dark
Arts, but after all I believe that Snape had always had very Dark
nature.

Alla, speculating here, but happy that HBP did not disillusion her
speculation, on the contrary.




 

 







From belviso at attglobal.net  Fri Mar 31 05:37:24 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 00:37:24 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco as Victim in GoF (was: Re: The Huge overreactions...)
References: <e0icca+639t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <010a01c65485$311a0450$e36c400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 150308

> Carol:
> Exactly. I wouldn't strenuously object to the idea that the spell used
> in the Pensieve was a very controlled Sectum Sempra, but it doesn't
> fit the chronology, and we don't see the bleeding and scarring from it
> that we'd see with Sectum Sempra. There's no indication that James
> could have died from that cut or that it's any more dangerous than a
> stinging hex.

Magpie:
It certainly could be a different hex, but I really don't see anything in 
that scene that makes it impossible it's Sectumsempra.  We just saw 
Levicorpus used in the scene, and that's in Snape's book too, so I didn't 
think we needed to think the book offered a chronology.  Iow, the stuff 
written in Snape's Advanced Potions book doesn't have to be stuff not 
invented before Snape's sixth year.  If Levicorpus can be in the book and in 
the Pensieve scene, I think Sectumsempra can too.

When it comes to what the curse does to Snape I honestly saw no difference. 
It cuts James' cheek with a spatter of blood.  That's exactly what it does 
to Draco.  Only James is only given a small cut with the sword and Draco is 
sliced all over his body, which is why Draco and not James is in danger of 
dying.  I imagined Snape never invented the curse intending to use it to 
murder people; I figured he just created it to use as a weapon.

Carol:
>
> For good or ill, I don't think that Severus had invented the true
> Sectum Sempra curse yet--either that or JKR has messed up her maths
> again. And the explanation that works best for me is that he invented
> SS as retaliation for the so-called Prank, with the cutting hex he'd
> used on James the previous year as a precursor to the darker, deadlier
> model that was prompted by the Prank, which we know he saw as a murder
> attempt. What cause he might have had before that to develop a truly
> Dark curse I can't imagine. I don't think he did.

Magpie:
I think he had very good reasons for creating a truly Dark curse before 
that: he had a dark imagination and people he hated, especially those who 
bullied him.  Snape could have used Sectumsempra without it getting the kind 
of attention it got in HBP because he knew what he was doing with it--and 
might have invented it before he ever used it.

I mean, we could also speculate that there was fallout from that incident in 
the Pensieve that included Snape's curse coming to the attention of the 
Mediwitch and he got in trouble for it and didn't use it again, nor did 
anyone else before Harry's sixth year.  Harry easily connects Levicorpus 
from the DEs, to James, to himself when he uses it because it seems the 
same, so it seemed natural to do the same thing with this curse.

-m 





From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com  Fri Mar 31 05:58:01 2006
From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 05:58:01 -0000
Subject: Sectumsempra in the pensieve / or not
Message-ID: <e0igd9+s2g1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150309


> Carol:
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
> And the explanation that works best for me is that he invented
> > SS as retaliation for the so-called Prank, with the cutting hex 
> > he'd used on James the previous year as a precursor to the darker, 
> > deadlier model that was prompted by the Prank, which we know he 
> > saw as a murder attempt. What cause he might have had before that 
> > to develop a truly Dark curse I can't imagine. I don't think he 
> did.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> I will take a bite speculating what cause Snape may had to invent 
> truly Dark curse before Prank ever happened. Could it be that Snape 
> was always attracted to Dark deadly curses, could it be that he 
> indeed knew many Dark curses when he arrived at school?
> 
> Could it be that Snape interest in Dark magic is what drew him to 
> Voldemort? Oh, yes and with every book I see more and more support 
> for that.
> 
> After all, Sirius just could not have been right in anything Snape 
> related matters, even if he simply delivers facts, and Snape had 
> nothing to do with dark curses whatsover, except of course we know 
> now that he did.
> 
> I think it could be so. I think Snape inventing Dark curses WAS one 
> of the reasons of his rivalry with James, who always hated Dark 
> Arts, but after all I believe that Snape had always had very Dark 
> nature.
> 
> Alla, speculating here, but happy that HBP did not disillusion her 
> speculation, on the contrary.
>


Hi Carol and Alla :)

Of course you know I agree with Alla on this one, especially on the
point - Snape inventing Dark curses WAS one of the reasons of his
rivalry with James, who always hated Dark Arts - I'd be so bold as to
call this canon, myself, by virtue of Lupin in OOtP saying 

"- 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." 

IMNHO this is Lupin's plain reply to what happened in the Pensieve, I
don't think it's given as a random general comment about Snape and
James, and it's not in the least bit supporting of a Post Prank Dark
Arts dealing Snape, it is categorically pre-prank pensieve incedent
commentary context, if you get my drift (at least I think so), and so
to me it is disambiguous unwavering canon, one of the things James
hated about Snape was the Dark Arts. 

I think the main grey area lies in exactly how did Snape come across
to James (who's best friend came from the WW most notorious Dark Arts
family and had Dark Wizard stigma painted across his brow all his
life) as a Dark Arts Wizard? I for one would think it really stupid to
jump to the conclusion that James was guilt of blind prejudice in
assuming guilt by association on Sevvie. What I mean by that is if
James was the kind of guy who generalised people according to who they
hung with or where they came from then why oh why was his best friend
Sirius Black? 

I won't say James didn't have any prejudices, he did of course, but I
would draw the line before accusing him of prejudging Sevvie based on
unknown factors. IMO its only logical to assume that James pegged
Snapey for Dark Arts Baby on something he personally observed, IMO
that would be the only way to really get on James bad side, he'd have
to *see* for himself that you do wrong by his standards or are bad by
his standards, I think his three friends are testimony to that. 

You see, if Peter fooled James for over a decade that he was such a
nice guy, and Sirius had the worst family reputation of any kid in
Hogwarts, and Lupin came out of nowhere and had a very dark secret,
well it stands to reason James didn't judge people on things he hadn't
seen for himself, right?

So *that* James, canon James IMO, hating Snape because (at least
partly) he was a Dark Arts Student, means James had to see Snape doing
this first hand or else it is OOC and I won't buy it.

As far as I am concerned, Snape was a Dark Arts Boogey boy before the
prank, and that's canon. 

By extension I think its highly likely that the spell he used in the
Pensieve incedent was Sectumsempra, but I don't think it matters
either way. 

According to Sirius Snape connived against the Marauders, so we can't
say he was really *in the habit* of minding his own business all the
time, and Canon!James hated him, which to me means there was a
tangible reason behind that other than some blind arbitrary
narrow-mindedness. 

Valky







From joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 30 19:46:01 2006
From: joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com (Joe Goodwin)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 11:46:01 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Draco as Victim in GoF (was: Re: The Huge overreactions...)
In-Reply-To: <e0h9gl+ddb1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060330194601.24434.qmail@web61320.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150310

Magpie:
>> <snip> Dumbledore (or JKR through Dumbledore) seems very intent 
on getting Draco to the point where he has to make a choice about 
killing or not. <snip> So I just can't see the lowering of the 
wand as a non-moment, just yet another sign of indecision.  The 
scene leading up to it is about indecision.  The lowering of the 
wand is a sign of *some* realization.  It's not a total change of 
sides, but it's a point of no return just the same, which is why 
it's referenced again later, imo.  We and Draco know at the end of 
HBP what Draco *isn't.*  We/he just don't yet know what he is. <<
   
   
  Joe: 
But we do know what he is, at least to a large degree. He is an 
attempted murderer and responsible for Dumbledore's death. Let's be 
honest here, Draco knew people would get hurt and most likely die 
when he let the D.E.s in. The only thing he didn't like was Greyback 
showing up. He reacted when Dumbledore mentioned he didn't think 
Draco would let Greyback in where his friends lived, correct? He 
might not want his friends being eaten but you can be fairly sure he 
wouldn't bat an eye at one of the Trio being eaten.
  
Magpie:
>> <snip> I think getting him face to face with a helpless Dumbledore 
where literally all he has to do is point a stick and say the word to
wish him dead (leaving aside the question of whether he could 
actually cast the spell) is an attempt, imo, to make the killing as 
easy as possible, not harder.  It reduces the whole thing, magically,
to the desire, because that's what the magic is.  Does he desire to 
kill DD or not?  He doesn't. <<
   
  Joe: 
Or he can't do it himself. He is still just as responsible as he is 
the one who let murderers in the school.


Magpie:
>> <snip> To have DDM! swoop in and be responsible for saving Draco 
seems to go completely backwards to me. It's this generation that 
will heal the last. <snip> I really can't see how Snape could be the 
agent of Draco redemption in a way that did not require Draco to be 
the one making his own choices.  How do you see this playing out? <<

Joe: 
This even aussume that Draco can be redeemed. I know that now in the 
oh so trendy how about a hug world that it seems everybody get more 
chances than they deserve. Still there isn't anything that Draco can 
do to be redeemed. Dumbledore will still be dead and Bill Weasley 
will still me scarred.
   
Can Draco help the Order against Voldemort? Oh I am certain he could. 
Can he be redeemed? No, there are some things that you cannot make 
amends for. 







From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 31 06:44:08 2006
From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 06:44:08 -0000
Subject: The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span
In-Reply-To: <20060328004739.82036.qmail@web61316.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <e0ij3o+52m9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150311

  Hi, haven't posted in a while, but I have a comment to make on the 
following -- if I can find the exact quote, I'll post a link.

>    
> kchuplis:
> >> <snip> We have no idea how much bias colors a pensieve memory.
> And seeing anything in isolation can be deceiving. I really can't
> see everyone calling James a great guy (and everyone HAS except
> Snape) if he was really as big of a git all the time as the pensieve
> scene showed. <snip> <<

Actually, we do know that bias does not color a pensieve memory at 
all.  JKR was asked this question (I really want to say it was the 
Mugglenet/Leaky Cauldron interview -- but I'm sure someone will correct 
me if I'm wrong!), and she said that the pensieve memories are fact, 
not colored by the individual's bias at all.  That is the great benefit 
of a pensieve -- to be able to look back and examine the facts to see 
clearly what happened.  ;0)






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Fri Mar 31 06:49:23 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 06:49:23 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore MAY be alive.... and his name may be Godric Gryffindor
In-Reply-To: <e0gr0n+j341@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0ijdj+7us1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150312

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike Bradshaw" 
<whitetyger69_20002000 at ...> wrote:
 
Mike:

> Next your theory on why Hagrid fetched Harry, well that is very 
> easy.  One, the person needn't blend in with the muggles since the 
> Dursleys went to someplace secluded.  Next Big D knew that they 
> wouldn't let Harry go very easily and that none of the teachers 
> would use magic on muggles for fear of the ministry.  Hagrid however 
> didn't care about that since he never graduated from wizarding school 
> in the first place.  Also he was much more ferocious looking and Big 
> D knew he would have the least trouble getting Harry.

Geoff:
I don't follow your arguments here....

The Dursleys are not in a secluded place. They are in a small suburban development; the 
road which is used in the "media which dare not speak its name" is very typical of housing 
developments on the periphery of many towns and cities in the UK. Also, the meeting 
between Dumbledore, McGonagall and Hagrid occurs in the dark.

On the matter of using magic, Hagrid tells Harry after he gives Dudley a pig's tail:
'"Be grateful if yeh didn't mention that ter anyone at Hogwarts", he said. "I'm - er - not 
supposed to do magic, strictly speakin'. I was allowed ter do a bit ter follow yeh an' get 
your letters to yeh an' stuff - one o' the reasons I was so keen to take on the job -"'
(PS "The Keeper of the Keys" p.48 UK edition)

He obviously had Dumbledore's authority to use some magic; but it was use of this spell 
and the one used to get the boat back to the mainland where he fears he may be 
exceeding his dispensation.

The fact that Hagrid is a daunting character had no bearing on the arrival of Harry at Privet 
Drive; this particular talent wasn't needed until he came to the Hut-on-the-Rock ten years 
later.






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Fri Mar 31 10:22:07 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 10:22:07 -0000
Subject: Draco as Victim in GoF (was: Re: The Huge overreactions...)
In-Reply-To: <20060330194601.24434.qmail@web61320.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <e0ivsf+negv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150313

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Joe Goodwin <joegoodwin1067 at ...> wrote:

> Joe: 
> This even aussume that Draco can be redeemed. I know that now in the 
> oh so trendy how about a hug world that it seems everybody get more 
> chances than they deserve. Still there isn't anything that Draco can 
> do to be redeemed. Dumbledore will still be dead and Bill Weasley 
> will still me scarred.
>    
> Can Draco help the Order against Voldemort? Oh I am certain he could. 
> Can he be redeemed? No, there are some things that you cannot make 
> amends for.

Geoff:
Sorry to disagree but redemption is /not/ a trendy huggy thing.

Speaking as a Christian, I see redemption is the very core of Christian fbelief. I have said 
on several occasions that no one is irredeemable unless they make themselves so by 
refusing to see their need for it. Jesus taught that he would not turn away anyone who 
comes to him in faith - wherever they are coming from. That is the key; the willingness to 
seek a change.

Just to underline my point, I will finish by repeating part of what I wrote in post 149543:

<quote>
Moving on to a different topic, there has been a lot of discussion over the months as to 
who, on Harry's side, might turn traitor and defect to the dark side. I often wonder if there 
will be a counter-defection from Voldemort to the Wizarding World's side. This sort of 
situation is not unknown in fiction, or real life for that matter. Those of you who follow my 
ramblings will know that I have a (surprising) weak spot for Draco. I have often written that 
I believe he is not irredeemable and this came back to me when Nikkalmati made reference 
to this in message 149494. I feel that we were seeing the beginning of an epiphany in
respect of his world view when he confronted Dumbledore on the tower at the end of HBP 
? another of a series of happenings which would cause him to think. Since I have been 
writing in Biblical terms, I would again do so and refer to the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, 
who became St.Paul. OK, he was a lot older than Draco but he came up against events
which challenged his point of view. He was a Pharisee, highly trained in the Jewish 
Scriptures, who set out to stop early Christians by any method. The turning point seems to 
have come when he witnessed the death of Stephen and it was soon afterwards that he 
had his experience of meeting Christ on the road to Damascus. Taking the line of parallels
between real Christian experience and the events of the Harry Potter books, I would like to 
see something happen to young Mr.Malfoy and would also be interested to know whether 
there are other candidates who members of the group feel might be put forward to be 
"turned" to the good.
</quote>






From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 31 13:20:20 2006
From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:20:20 -0000
Subject: Draco as Victim in GoF (was: Re: The Huge overreactions...)
In-Reply-To: <e0ic8b+rhqh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0jaak+pfls@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150314

> > >>Joe:
> > That isn't entirely true. If in their minds the words were threats
> > that were reasonable and they had reason to believe that the
> > speaker would harm them then they could act legally.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> But is there a reasonable expectation of violence here?  You'd have
> to show that Draco is not only capable, but has a tendency towards,
> that sort of violence.  It's a hard argument to make.  I can't think
> of an example in canon to support it, especially to this particular
> date.

Amiable Dorsai:
Other than that whole First Voldemort War thing, of course.

This isn't schoolyard taunting, this is the KKK Junior Auxiliary
trying out their new cross-burning kit on the Gryffindor's front lawn,
and all eight of the people involved knew it.  

And all five Gryffindors knew in their bones where this was going,
knew that Draco was exulting over the return of evil so foul that few
dared speak its name.

Fred and George may be too young to remember their Uncles Gideon and
Fabian, and Ron certainly is, but they're all old enough to know their
mother's sorrow.

Hermione learned, almost as soon as she learned she was a witch, that
there were those who would kill her over an accident of birth.

And Harry... well, I don't need to tell you about Harry do I?

What do you do in the face of such evil?  Sign a petition?  

Not if you're a Gryffindor.  

Amiable Dorsai









From saberbunny at yahoo.ca  Fri Mar 31 13:40:37 2006
From: saberbunny at yahoo.ca (catherine higgins)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 08:40:37 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco as Victim in GoF (was: Re: The Huge overreactions...)
In-Reply-To: <e0ic8b+rhqh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060331134037.72319.qmail@web37003.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150315


    Betsy Hp:  But, oh my
God!  FIVE!!  Against three!  And two of them attacked from behind!
Where's the heroism?  Where's the vaunted Gryffindor chivalry?  I'm
just glad none of the Weasley boys riffled Draco's robes for spare
change.

  Catherine now:
   
  I agree that 5 against 3 is a little crummy, but HRH didn't know that FG were outside in the hallway, and FG didn't know that HRH had their wands out and ready. So they weren't ganging up on Malfoy and his croonies. They just all attacked at the same time. It's a little different.
   
  In fact, in the part of your post that I snipped you had mentiones that Malfoy doesn't think physically. I however disagree. Crabbe and Goyle are not his backup for their magical talent. They are big and intimidating. Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle are the ones who went to HRH's cabin, not the other way around. Malfoy is an instigator who likes getting other people in trouble, keeping his own hands clean. 
   
  Personally, I have to question his intelligence doing what he did....did he not expect HRH to draw their wands and try something? Magically speaking, Draco, Crabbe and Goyle are far behind HRH as a team of talent. So why even go there? I don't understand it at all. There are no teachers on the train for HRH to get in trouble for using magic, and all Draco has is muscle behind him. Personally, I akin Draco's actions to poking a sleeping lion in the eye. It was a stupid thing to do. What did he expect to gain?
   
  Catherine
  (who now has 145 messages to read....when will the housework ever get done????)

		
---------------------------------
7 bucks a month. This is Huge Yahoo! Music Unlimited  

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




From nrenka at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 31 13:55:08 2006
From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:55:08 -0000
Subject: Snape as infidel was Re: Kant and Snape and Ethics and Everything
In-Reply-To: <e0i1vv+u4u1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0jcbs+26ta@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150316

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" 
<horridporrid03 at ...> wrote:

> Betsy Hp:
> This...  It bothers me a bit.  I think part of it is the idea that 
> the Gryffindors are somehow *better* than the other houses.  That 
> they've got the best ideals.  Also, it seems to go against the 
> healing of the rift concept.  If the houses need to come together, 
> shouldn't they all be morally equal?

Not necessarily.  Gryffindor may benefit from the counterbalance of 
other houses and some of their traits, but that in no way has to 
imply moral equality.  I think it's simply a fact of the books and 
the author that she values the Gryffindor traits the most highly.  
It's a world-view built into them strongly enough that trying to go 
against it and still incorporate all of the text is very, very hard.  
You may not *like* it, but I think there's a point where you have to 
shrug and just note that it's there.

> Again, where's the healing?  It's about keeping separate that which 
> is separate which goes totally against the Sorting Hat's song.

The healing is in change.  After all, so many of our arguments right 
now really come down to finding out the factual answer to the 
question of whether Snape changed or not, or whether he's changed 
again.
 
> Betsy Hp:
> I think it also points to Draco realizing that there is another 
> path available.  That he *can* make a choice.  Something Dumbledore 
> is very big on.

Yes, but it still means that Draco has to abandon the path that he 
was on, that it was wrong.

> It's not that Draco is being offered a chance to change his method 
> and manner.  He's being offered a chance to change (or 
> finally choose) his moral code.  A much more profound choice, I 
> think.

Method and manner are essential components of many moral codes, such 
as the argument we were having with Mr. Kant, who wants you to treat 
every person as an end in and of himself, not as a means.

> I haven't gotten the sense that there's more importance in how a 
> thing is done compared to it just being done.  Do you have a scene 
> in mind that might illustrate that point?

Dumbledore's denial of Dark Magic, and McGonagall's statement that 
he's too noble to use it.  It's probably stuff that would make 
anyone's life easier in some ways--powerful magic, but something 
Dumbledore will not do.  [The strong onus against certain kinds of 
magic in various other places speaks to this; the repugnance at 
unicorn blood drinking as a wrong way to extend life, as compared to 
the (at least I think) benign Philosopher's Stone.]

There's some emphasis on manner of competition in the Triwizard 
Tournament, where Harry and Cedric agree to share rather than 
continually engaging in the sneaky (yet undeniably effective) 
oneupmanship of the cheaters.  Harry is rewarded for method in the 
underwater task, because he thought he needed to rescue everyone.  
Neville is rewarded the determinative points at the end of PS for 
doing the right thing in an honest and straightforward way, even 
though the thing he did had no actual effectiveness or results--it 
was a reward for method.  Nice contrast to the gloating of the 
Slytherins in that book, who gained their advancement from the 
Gryffindor blunders and openly congratulated the Gryffindors for it 
in the hall.  Mmmm, bad sportsmanship is rarely rewarded in this 
genre.

> Betsy Hp:
> Does he?  Where are you getting this from?  I've never gotten the 
> sense that Dumbledore was waiting for some great aha! moment from 
> Snape.

The whole "I hoped Professor Snape would be able to get over..." 
speech at the end of OotP seemed to me, at least, to be a hope not 
only for the specific actions (that Snape would come to see Harry as 
a person in and of himself and maybe even love him like Dumbledore 
obviously does), but that those actions would actually be a deep 
change in Snape's perspective on life.  So yes, I think Dumbledore 
*has* been waiting for an 'aha!' from Snape on a number of things, 
but in his Dumbledorean way, he's not going to push or force him.  I 
think he has this benign belief that Snape will eventually figure 
things out for himself about how to be a better person.  Alas.

-Nora wakes up to the sun...go away, sun...






From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Fri Mar 31 14:18:41 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:18:41 -0000
Subject: Young Snape's cutting curse (Was: LID!Snape rides again)
In-Reply-To: <e0iemf+hg9c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0jdo1+qe6t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150317

Alla:
> 
> ...Levicorpus was also found in the same six year book and we 
> KNOW that it was invented earlier than that.
> 
> I think same thing can easily happen with Sectusemptra.

Ceridwen:
If there is any reason for the book's publish date to have been 
noted, then Snape could have had this book from his mother and could 
have been writing in it all along.  The problem I have with this is 
the corrections on the potions in the text.  Those seem to point to a 
sixth-year use.  The spells, jinxes and so on are scattered 
throughout the pages, implying their being written as sixth year 
progresses.  Of course, he could just have rewritten them during 
sixth year.  When the situation is looked at closely, it gets more 
complicated.

I tend to think it is the cutting curse we saw in the Pensieve 
scene.  It does the same thing, only it is more controlled.  The 
inventor would certainly know how to control it, I think, while 
Harry, who has no idea what it does, flings his wand around in broad 
arcs, with the results we saw.  The only difference seems to be in 
the execution of the spell.

Alla:
*(snipping again)*
> I think it could be so [that Snape was inventing curses all along]. 
I think Snape inventing Dark curses WAS one
> of the reasons of his rivalry with James, who always hated Dark
> Arts, but after all I believe that Snape had always had very Dark
> nature.

Ceridwen:
I won't argue about Snape's dark nature.  I think he has one, too.  I 
think this is part of what makes him a fascinating character.  We 
expected him to be the one in PS/SS who was after the stone, and so 
forth.  When we find out that it wasn't Snape each time, we are 
surprised.

Sirius said Snape came to Hogwarts knowing more dark curses than the 
seventh years (or was it half of the seventh years? either way, 
that's impressive).  I suspect, given that Snape was eleven coming 
in, that the curses he knew then were standard curses that were 
available to anyone who wanted to find them.  And as he got older, 
and learned more in school, he began to try inventing some of his 
own.  Maybe modifying an existing spell at first, then being bolder, 
and making something uniquely his own.  His lack of revusion at the 
Dark Arts would certainly cause contention with James, and probably 
Sirius, too.

Snape called Sectumsempra dark, and he should know.  He later 
admitted to it being his own curse.  This also supports Snape's 
activities while a student.  It doesn't shed any light on whether the 
curse we saw in the Pensieve is the same one.  But I still suspect 
that it is.  JKR said that some of the plot was moved from CoS to 
HBP.  If this is part of it, then she might not have cleaned it up as 
well as if it had originally been meant for sixth year.

Ceridwen.








From kchuplis at alltel.net  Fri Mar 31 14:38:00 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 08:38:00 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span
References: <e0ij3o+52m9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000c01c654d0$b5a29660$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local>

No: HPFGUIDX 150318


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Lisa 
  To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 12:44 AM
  Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Huge overreactions from a five minute time span


    Hi, haven't posted in a while, but I have a comment to make on the 
  following -- if I can find the exact quote, I'll post a link.

  >    
  > kchuplis:
  > >> <snip> We have no idea how much bias colors a pensieve memory.
  > And seeing anything in isolation can be deceiving. I really can't
  > see everyone calling James a great guy (and everyone HAS except
  > Snape) if he was really as big of a git all the time as the pensieve
  > scene showed. <snip> <<

  Actually, we do know that bias does not color a pensieve memory at 
  all.  JKR was asked this question (I really want to say it was the 
  Mugglenet/Leaky Cauldron interview -- but I'm sure someone will correct 
  me if I'm wrong!), and she said that the pensieve memories are fact, 
  not colored by the individual's bias at all.  That is the great benefit 
  of a pensieve -- to be able to look back and examine the facts to see 
  clearly what happened.  ;0)


  kchuplis:

  Someone posted it. I guess interviews are considered canon (although, I"m not sure I agree with that. Once something leaves an artist, part of it's life is it's own two feet).  However, I still think everything was portrayed exactly, but I cannot say that seeing an incident in isolation is not bias in itself. We still think of it without connection to anything else. I still wonder if there isn't a memory somewhere of Snape bullying a first year with something really evil and James coming across it and stopping him, for instance, which makes the pensieve scene look completely different. I can actually see even another level where Snape, who is pretty brilliant, and obviously an unhappy child (ok, there are only two scenes supporting this but still, I would guess that makes it pretty canon or JKR would have given us a look see at least at ONE happy Snape memory);  crying as his parents fought and alone in a room shooting flies out of the air (which, sorry but to me that is not real far off from pulling wings off butterflies just because of the description - he was bored, not being annoyed by them), and maybe he caused nasty things to people he didn't like even without trying or meaning to (ala Tom Riddle minus the intention) and James caught him at it or was the recipient of it. That's, IMO, a type of bias when you see a pensieve scene.

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




From belviso at attglobal.net  Fri Mar 31 15:46:42 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 15:46:42 -0000
Subject: Draco as Victim in GoF (was: Re: The Huge overreactions...)
In-Reply-To: <20060330194601.24434.qmail@web61320.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <e0jit2+li6n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150319

>   Joe: 
> But we do know what he is, at least to a large degree. He is an 
> attempted murderer and responsible for Dumbledore's death. 

Magpie:
But "responsible" in a very secondary way. That's not a way of 
getting him off the hook for what he's done.  His not killing 
Dumbledore in the Tower isn't meaningless.  Snape killed Dumbledore, 
and Draco certainly had a hand in the situation, but when it came 
down to the choice of whether to kill or not Draco did not choose to 
kill and Snape did. 

Joe:
Let's be 
> honest here, Draco knew people would get hurt and most likely die 
> when he let the D.E.s in. The only thing he didn't like was 
Greyback 
> showing up. He reacted when Dumbledore mentioned he didn't think 
> Draco would let Greyback in where his friends lived, correct? He 
> might not want his friends being eaten but you can be fairly sure 
he 
> wouldn't bat an eye at one of the Trio being eaten.

Magpie:
I think he would bat an eye at it, actually.  Part of the theme of 
HBP is the difference between fantasy and reality, and talking the 
talk vs. walking the walk.  I'm not making him out to be admirable 
or a hero here.  I just really feel like it's an important plot 
point that he's not able to take this stuff casually when it comes 
down to the real thing.  That's also why I question the whole idea 
of him just being "a coward."  I'm not claiming he's brave, but what 
does that refer to, specifically?  He's got a helpless Dumbledore 
where he just has to point his wand and say the word--even if the 
word doesn't work.  But he doesn't.  So what is he afraid of?  A 
coward is someone showing ignoble fear in the face of danger and 
pain. Peter Pettigrew seems to me the best example of a coward--when 
push comes to shove he'll kill anybody to protect himself.  Draco is 
facing danger and pain if he doesn't kill Dumbledore, so what's 
holding him back?  If it's fear, fear of what, exactly, when the 
danger is weighted towards not killing him?  
    
>   Joe: 
> Or he can't do it himself. He is still just as responsible as he 
is 
> the one who let murderers in the school.

Magpie:
Yes, he is responsible for letting the DEs in the school.  But I 
think Dumbledore's last scene was dedicated to something significant 
to him (Dumbledore).  Again I think in my mind this comes back to 
the reality versus the fantasy.  I see his crimes as leading towards 
his understanding of the reality.  The other reading seems to stay 
in the mindset he had before.  One can argue that Sirius "knew Snape 
would get hurt and most likely die when he went to the Shack" and 
technically it's true, but no, I don't think it reality for Sirius.  

 
> Joe: 
> This even aussume that Draco can be redeemed. I know that now in 
the 
> oh so trendy how about a hug world that it seems everybody get 
more 
> chances than they deserve. Still there isn't anything that Draco 
can 
> do to be redeemed. Dumbledore will still be dead and Bill Weasley 
> will still me scarred.>    
> Can Draco help the Order against Voldemort? Oh I am certain he 
could. 
> Can he be redeemed? No, there are some things that you cannot make 
> amends for.

Magpie:
I am assuming that Draco CAN be redeemed because that's just true.  
I'm not assuming he WILL be.  What I was saying in that context was 
that if he is redeemed it will be a case of the present generation 
going forward in a better way.  It won't, imo, be about him being 
protected by Snape, because I don't think that's something that 
shows real learning.  Your reference the trendy "hug world," there's 
the equally trendy "I'm not afraid to judge who's bad and kill 'em!" 
world, both proudly represented on the list.  Obviously I'm more on 
the hug side because it reflects what I see, and I don't really buy 
all the tough talk judgments on the other side--and I would hope 
that if put in the same situation as Draco that most of the people 
who claim they'd kill those who deserve it without a second thought 
would be "cowards" too.  

Canonically, Draco has not done anything he can't make amends for, 
imo. I think Rowling carefully made sure of it--as she has done with 
all the kids of Harry's generation.   (Also, although I've been 
using the word redeemed, frankly I don't think making amends is that 
important anyway.  If someone changes their attitude and becomes a 
better person, that's more important than paying up some cosmic 
debt.  Holding out for people to make amends, imo, usually just 
means making yourself bitter because that's what you want to do.) 
The DEs have presumably murdered people in the past, but they did 
not murder anyone as a result of Draco letting them into Hogwarts. 
Dumbledore was murdered by someone already in Hogwarts.

But even if I didn't think this was a point the author was making, 
and something Dumbledore actually says in canon, I still don't agree 
that redemption becomes impossible after bad deeds. I think this is 
one of the main ideas of Christianity--though one that doesn't need 
a religious context for it to make sense.   Just as perhaps the one 
side sees the "huggy" types as interfering with victory for good, I 
see this attitude as interfering with victory for the good.  I don't 
think I'm a very loving person; my belief in the importance of 
compassion is very pragmatic.  You can be realistic while still 
being compassionate.  Peter Pettigrew, for instance, I don't think 
has much chance for redemption based on his attitude as expressed by 
his words and actions.  I don't think Draco is such a clear case 
yet.  Draco has never come across to me exactly the way he comes 
across to Harry (unlike with Peter).  So no, I don't think Draco's 
redemption is inevitable, but it seems counterproductive to assume 
it's impossible.  In fact, stating that there's no way he can make 
amends seems to put the problem more on the good side than Draco's.  
I wouldn't want any more enemies if I can avoid it.  Draco would 
have to want to change and make the effort.  But if the good side 
just decides they will not allow him to be forgiven no matter what 
he does, that's their problem.

Amiable Dorsai:
And all five Gryffindors knew in their bones where this was going,
knew that Draco was exulting over the return of evil so foul that few
dared speak its name.


Magpie:
Yes--and that's exactly what's going on.  The train hexing is a form 
of STFU.  It's not anybody feeling that their lives are in immediate 
danger from the three kids in their compartment.  

-m







From pegdigrazia at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 31 16:07:50 2006
From: pegdigrazia at yahoo.com (Peg DiGrazia)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 08:07:50 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco as Victim in GoF (was: Re: The Huge overreactions...)
In-Reply-To: <e0ivsf+negv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060331160750.43434.qmail@web42209.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150320

Geoff wrote:
>Sorry to disagree but redemption is /not/ a trendy huggy >thing.

>Speaking as a Christian, I see redemption is the very core of >Christian fbelief. I have said on several occasions that no >one is irredeemable unless they make themselves so by 
>refusing to see their need for it. Jesus taught that he would >not turn away anyone who comes to him in faith - wherever >they are coming from. That is the key; the willingness to 
>seek a change.

Peg:
  Agreed, Geoff, and to me this makes much more sense in terms of JKR writing a Christian story than the "Dumbledore will come back to life because he's the Christ figure" theory.  As a Christian, I find the idea of a literal Christ figure in the story a bit blasphemous -- if JKR does go that way, she'll have to handle it VERY carefully.  But the redemption theme works perfectly.  Draco as the lost sheep, as the prodigal, I would accept wholeheartedly.  Much rejoicing over the return of the lost one and all that.  And for the record, I can't stand the kid. :-)  I also have less trouble with DD as Christ figure if his comparison to Christ ends on the tower with his love and kindness planting the seed in Draco's mind that maybe he's been wrong all this time (I don't think Draco has changed his mind about things yet, but I do think DD made him uncomfortable enough that it's started niggling at his mind.)

Peg

		
---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger?s low  PC-to-Phone call rates.

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




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 31 18:34:02 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 18:34:02 -0000
Subject: Young Snape's cutting curse  (Was: LID!Snape rides again)
In-Reply-To: <e0jdo1+qe6t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0jsmq+c206@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150322

Ceridwen wrote:
 <snip>
> Sirius said Snape came to Hogwarts knowing more dark curses than the 
> seventh years (or was it half of the seventh years? either way, 
> that's impressive).  I suspect, given that Snape was eleven coming 
> in, that the curses he knew then were standard curses that were 
> available to anyone who wanted to find them.  And as he got older, 
> and learned more in school, he began to try inventing some of his 
> own.  Maybe modifying an existing spell at first, then being bolder, 
> and making something uniquely his own.  <snip>

Carol responds:
I agree with this paragraph but I want to make one quick note. Yes, it
was Sirius Black, not Remus Lupin, who said these words. (For some
reason, the quote keeps getting misattributed, maybe because posters
think, rightly, that Lupin is a more objective witness than Black.)
But Black does not say that eleven-year-old Severus came to school
knowing more *Dark* curses than half (and, yes, it is half) the
seventh years. He only says that he knew more "curses" than half the
seventh years. JKR is a bit inconsistent in distinguishing curses from
hexes and jinxes (and hexes and jinxes from each other; IMO,
throughout OoP she uses "jinxes" for "hexes," but that's another post.
I agree that these so-called curses were schoolyard variety hexes and
jinxes, some of them perhaps of his own invention (like the toenail
jinx he later invented).

And I agree that his knowledge of so many hexes and jinxes at such a
young age is impressive, whether he invented them or not. Assuming
that he got his wand on his eleventh birthday or soon afterwards, he
would have had not quite seven months to learn more than most Hogwarts
students had learned in six years. It's possible, of course, that he
used his mother's wand to teach himself before he acquired his own,
but that's still impressive considering that he would have been ten
years old or less.

What makes no sense to me is that he could have done so without
detection in a Muggle neighborhood with an abusive Muggle father. (I
tend to think that Spinner's End was not his childhood home.)

It's interesting, too, that his name, Severus Snape, fits the
alliterative pattern so common in the WW, going back at least to the
time of the four Founders (Salazar Slytherin, Godric Gryffindor.
Rowena Ravenclaw, Helga Hufflepuff) and also seen in witches and
wizards as diverse as Filius Flitwick, Minerva McGonagall, and Dedalus
Diggle. The Latin first name, that of a Roman emperor, also suggests
WW (and pureblood) practice: Compare Lucius Malfoy, Cornelius Fudge,
Rufus Scrimgeour, even Sirius Black (though the Black tradition of
naming children after constellations seems to be unique to them).
Tobias, in contrast, is a biblical name, the Greek form of the Hebrew
Tobiah meaning "Yahweh is good," not a Latin one. To me that suggests
that his witch mother chose his name, perhaps without informing his
Muggle father of her reasons. I'm wondering if perhaps she had more of
an influence on his naming and upbringing than the memory revealed in
the Occlumency lesson seems to suggest.
 
Carol, noting that mid-twentieth-century working class British Muggles
did not ordinarily name their children Severus






From mauranen at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 30 15:34:10 2006
From: mauranen at yahoo.com (jekatiska)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 15:34:10 -0000
Subject: Give Credit Where Credit is due
In-Reply-To: <e0f591+d96u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0gtpi+fikp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150323

> Julie:
> I agree that these kids (teenagers) are able to perform on the same 
> level as adults. Where I would qualify that is whether they perform 
> with the same *understanding* as adults. 

  <snip>

> So I would agree that we can't underestimate what teenagers will do, 
> from the Maurader's nastier pranks to Draco's attempted murder. But 
we 
> also should remember they don't have mature thought processes yet, 
and 
> perhaps this is why Dumbledore sees them as salvageable even when 
they 
> are at their worst. 

Jekatiska:

Children are capable of unbelievable cruelty, as can be seen from for 
example child soldiers, or the brutal killings committed by children 
and teenagers you sometimes hear of in the media. Children make very 
good soldiers: they don't care, because they don't understand. (Lord 
of the Flies comes to mind...) However, Draco did NOT kill Dumbledore, 
and I think this is significant. Nor did Harry kill Sirius in the 
Shrieking Shack scene in PoA, though this is less significant, owing 
to the fact that Harry did not really know how to kill someone, nor 
had he been immersed in a culture of killing and torture like Draco. 
After all, his father is a Death Eater, they have all sorts of dark 
stuff at home, and he's been brought up in a DE environment ("Auntie 
Bellatrix taught you Occlumency?"). And yet he could not bring himself 
to kill Dumbledore, the headmaster of his school, someone he has 
known, though remotely, for several years. This, I find, is a sign of 
a kind of maturity. But then, this lot are now of age, or like Harry, 
very nearly, so you would expect some maturity by now. Can we treat 
them as kids?

Jekatiska






From saberbunny at yahoo.ca  Fri Mar 31 19:13:01 2006
From: saberbunny at yahoo.ca (catherine higgins)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:13:01 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why wasnt Harry sent to either a lightsided wizarding family or a muggle fam
In-Reply-To: <e0bu1l+s35l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060331191301.10307.qmail@web37004.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150324



amiabledorsai <amiabledorsai at yahoo.com> wrote:

Albus Dumbledore: "
 I knew, too, where Voldemort was weak. And so I
made my decision. (Harry) would be protected by an ancient magic of
which he knows, which he despises, and which he has always, therefore,
underestimated - to his cost. I am speaking, of course, of the fact
that (Harry's) mother died to save (Harry). She gave (Harry) a
lingering protection he never expected, a protection that flows in
(Harry's) veins to this day. 
   
  Catherine:
   
  This has probably been duscussed...but how on earth does Dumbledore know that Lily sacrificed her life? How does he know that she was given a choice to live, but rather chose to die for her son? 
   
  Catherine (wondering why I wasn't puzzled by this before...)

__________________________________________________
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 justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 31 19:17:24 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 19:17:24 -0000
Subject: Severus's memories and schoolyard curses (Was: Huge overreactions .. . .)
In-Reply-To: <000c01c654d0$b5a29660$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local>
Message-ID: <e0jv84+stmc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150325


>   kchuplis:
> 
>   Someone posted it. I guess interviews are considered canon
(although, I"m not sure I agree with that. Once something leaves an
artist, part of it's life is it's own two feet).  However, I still
think everything was portrayed exactly, but I cannot say that seeing
an incident in isolation is not bias in itself. We still think of it
without connection to anything else. I still wonder if there isn't a
memory somewhere of Snape bullying a first year with something really
evil and James coming across it and stopping him, for instance, which
makes the pensieve scene look completely different. I can actually see
even another level where Snape, who is pretty brilliant, and obviously
an unhappy child (ok, there are only two scenes supporting this but
still, I would guess that makes it pretty canon or JKR would have
given us a look see at least at ONE happy Snape memory);  crying as
his parents fought and alone in a room shooting flies out of the air
(which, sorry but to me that is not real far off from pulling wings
off butterflies just because of the description - he was bored, not
being annoyed by them), and maybe he caused nasty things to people he
didn't like even without trying or meaning to (ala Tom Riddle minus
the intention) and James caught him at it or was the recipient of it.
That's, IMO, a type of bias when you see a pensieve scene.

Carol responds:
Yes and no. The Pensieve scene itself is an objective recreation of
the incident in which Harry can walk around and see and hear more than
Severus himself did. But, yes, we're seeing only one memory out of
many, evidently the one that the adult Snape finds most painful.
Still, that memory is complete in itself, and the point of it appears
to be that Severus did nothing to instigate that particular attack. It
was two on one, unprovoked, for the entertainment of Bored!Sirius.

I would say that the third memory, of the unknown girl laughing at the
boy Severus (who at a guess is about eleven years old) riding what
appears to be a hexed broomstick is not indicative of a happy
childhood, either.

I object to the comparison of the magical equivalent of swatting flies
to pulling the wings off butterflies, however. One is done out of
boredom (flies are annoying pests that even Muggles kill without a
thought), the other out of sheer cruelty. I'm guessing that he's
stunning the flies (IIRC, Harry does something similar to a wasp in
Trelawney's class), not AKing them. Or maybe the WW has a bug-killing
curse that's not illegal. Surely they don't let flies settle on their
food or buzz annoyingly around their heads any more than Muggles do.

And it's James, not Severus, whom Lily pointedly accuses of hexing
people in corridors when they annoy him or just because he can.

On a sidenote about James and Sirius, we keep hearing (from Lupin)
that they kept him company on full moon nights out of friendship, but
we also hear from Black that "the risk would have made it fun." Sirius
himself wishes it were a full moon night, to which Remus grimly
replies that he doesn't. Sirius, IMO, wants adventure and is
completely indifferent to the suffering he undergoes during his
transformations, and the guilt he feels at all the near-misses. And
note that he arrogantly refuses to help Remus study Transfiguration,
stating that *he* already knows that stuff.James's joking about the
werewolf question, in a voice loud enough to cause Remus concern, and
his dismissal of Remus's lycanthropy as "your furry little problem" do
not connote compassion in my view.

So while I don't deny an early interest in the Dark Arts on Severus's
part, rather odd on the part of a half-blood with a Muggle father if
that father had any part in his upbringing, I see the memories as
objective indicators that Severus was unhappy, that he hated James
with good reason, and that James and Sirius really were arrogant,
thoughtless little berks with no consideration even for the friend
they ran with on full moon nights. And again, there's no indication
that the curses Severus came to school knowing are any darker than,
say, the Leg Locker curse or Ron's "Eat slugs!" But knowing those
hexes, being placed in Slytherin, and having the attention of the
older Slytherin gang members may have added up to "an interest in the
Dark Arts" from age eleven. We know that he excelled in *Defense
Against* the Dark Arts, but the only really Dark curse that we know he
invented is Sectum Sempra, and he invented (or discovered) a
thoroughly unDark countercurse to that. (I still think, for reasons
posted earlier, that the cutting curse in the Pensieve scene, which
does *not* cause James to bleed unstoppably, is only a precursor of
Sectum Sempra, which was invented for use against "enemies," IMO
because those "enemies" had tried to murder him--at least in his view,
an opinion no doubt helped by the fact that Sirius Black remained
unrepentant for the rest of his life. Only Severus knew the
countercurse to Sectum Sempra. Does anyone *really* think that he sang
that countercurse to stop James's bleeding or that the bleeding could
have been stopped in any other way if it really was Sectum
Sempra--"cut *always*"?)

Carol, agreeing that we're seeing only snippets of Severus's past but
noting that he seems more unhappy than evil whereas James and Sirius
look like inconsiderate, self-centered, arrogant bullies--perhaps, as
you indicate, only one side of their otherwise charming personalities






From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Fri Mar 31 19:32:46 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 19:32:46 -0000
Subject: Severus's memories and schoolyard curses (Was: Huge overreactions .. . .)
In-Reply-To: <e0jv84+stmc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0k04u+tm6p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150326

Carol:
> Does anyone *really* think that he sang
> that countercurse to stop James's bleeding or that the bleeding 
could
> have been stopped in any other way if it really was Sectum
> Sempra--"cut *always*"?)

Ceridwen:
I've been thinking about the meaning of Sectum Sempra.  'Cut 
always'.  I don't see that as meaning that the cut, or its scar, 
remains always, as Bill's werewolf scars apparently will.  I see it 
as a guarantee that Sectum Sempra will always cut, without fail.  It 
certainly worked for Harry the very first time!

Draco's cutting was much worse than James's.  So it would be 
reasonable to assume heavy scarring, and to advise medication or 
herbs to lessen that possibility.  And Draco's cutting was life-
threatening.  I don't think, as I said, that the cut remains to allow 
the victim to bleed to death with a more judicious application.

I would like to think that we'll hear more about the effects of 
Sectumsempra in book 7, but with so many other things to address 
which are more important and more intriguing, the only hope we 
probably have of getting this answered is if JKR answers it as a poll 
question.

Ceridwen.






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 31 19:57:05 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 19:57:05 -0000
Subject: Draco as Victim in GoF (was: Re: The Huge overreactions...)
In-Reply-To: <e0jit2+li6n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0k1ih+gs49@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150327

Magpie: 
> <snip> Canonically, Draco has not done anything he can't make amends
for, imo. <snip>
> The DEs have presumably murdered people in the past, but they did 
> not murder anyone as a result of Draco letting them into Hogwarts. 
> Dumbledore was murdered by someone already in Hogwarts. <snip>

Carol responds:
Ah. Here's where we differ, at least primarily. IMO, Dumbledore would
not have died if Draco had not let the DEs into Hogwarts, activating
the UV and forcing Snape's hand. If Snape had wanted to kill DD, he
had plenty of other chances--sixteen years' worth--notably the ring
Horcrux curse, which he could have allowed to kill DD with no blame
attached to himself. Neither Snape nor DD believed that Draco could
kill DD, nor did they think that DEs could get into the castle thanks
to the protections that DD had placed on it. But Draco got past those
protections, confronting DD in an attempt to kill him, and the
presence of the DEs threatened Draco's life as well as Dumbledore's,
activating all three provisions of the UV. When Snape entered the
room, the stage was set. He had no choice but to fulfill the UV (save
Draco and "do the deed") or die, taking Dumbledore, Draco, and
probably Harry with him.

Even if Snape had not killed Dumbledore himself, he could not have
saved DD from the Death Eaters, who would have murdered him if Snape
had died from the UV. (That was their assignment: to make sure that DD
died.) So even though Draco did not kill Dumbledore himself, he made
Dumbledore's death inevitable. The fact that Snape was already in
Hogwarts has nothing to do with it.

I'm not arguing that Draco is irredeemable. I agree with you that he
will be redeemed, as befits the child antagonist in a children's
series by a Christian author (cf. Edmund Pevensey in the first Narnia
book). But I do think that Draco has committed very real crimes, the
greatest of which is setting up the circumstances that led inevitably
to the murder he could not bring himself to commit with his own wand
but nevertheless did nothing to prevent. I still think he stands on
the brink, and that only a full knowledge of what really happened,
courtesy of DDM!Snape, can lead him to choose the path that Dumbledore
showed him as opposed to the path he thought was destined for him. It
will, however, be his own choice.

Carol, who hopes that the adults, including Lupin and the Weasleys as
well as Snape, will make important contributions before the
kids--through luck and courage and loyalty and destiny and, of course,
Love--eventually save the day







From kchuplis at alltel.net  Fri Mar 31 20:14:14 2006
From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:14:14 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Severus's memories and schoolyard curses (Was: Huge overreactions .. . .)
References: <e0jv84+stmc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001001c654ff$ae90b2b0$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local>

No: HPFGUIDX 150328


  Carol responds:

  Still, that memory is complete in itself, and the point of it appears
  to be that Severus did nothing to instigate that particular attack. It
  was two on one, unprovoked, for the entertainment of Bored!Sirius.
  kchuplis:

  True, I am just trying to point out that "bias" does not necessarily have to be in the form of "how Snape see's it" thus being true to JKR saying that pensieve memories are exact.

  carol:
  I would say that the third memory, of the unknown girl laughing at the
  boy Severus (who at a guess is about eleven years old) riding what
  appears to be a hexed broomstick is not indicative of a happy
  childhood, either.

  kchuplis:
  Agreed. I wonder if Snape was ever happy. Or laughed. Or smiled.

  Carol:
  I object to the comparison of the magical equivalent of swatting flies
  to pulling the wings off butterflies, however. One is done out of
  boredom (flies are annoying pests that even Muggles kill without a
  thought), the other out of sheer cruelty. I'm guessing that he's
  stunning the flies (IIRC, Harry does something similar to a wasp in
  Trelawney's class), not AKing them. Or maybe the WW has a bug-killing
  curse that's not illegal. Surely they don't let flies settle on their
  food or buzz annoyingly around their heads any more than Muggles do.

  kchuplis:
  My point was, it does not seem that the flies are bugging him in those ways but rather like he is taking his unhappiness out on them. I guess that is my completely objective view, but something like that which is actually retained as a memory that Harry had access too indicates to me more than swatting at flies. There is a difference. (and I'm a muggle who usually attempts to merely capture any insects that annoy her and put them outside. So I guess I have a different view). Still, yes, I have swatted flies (hate doing it though uck uck uck!) but I can't recall specific instances of it. There is more to that memory than meets the eye.

  Carol:
  And it's James, not Severus, whom Lily pointedly accuses of hexing
  people in corridors when they annoy him or just because he can.

  kchuplis:
  That does not mean Severus doesn't do it. It means it really irritates Lily that *James* does. I suspect it is one of those cases of "if he wasn't such a prick I could really like him" and perhaps makes her more irritated with him than others.

  Carol:
  On a sidenote about James and Sirius, we keep hearing (from Lupin)
  that they kept him company on full moon nights out of friendship, but
  we also hear from Black that "the risk would have made it fun." Sirius
  himself wishes it were a full moon night, to which Remus grimly
  replies that he doesn't. Sirius, IMO, wants adventure and is
  completely indifferent to the suffering he undergoes during his
  transformations, and the guilt he feels at all the near-misses. 

  kchuplis:

  Agreed. I am not,nor ever have been a Sirius fan. Unlike others, I was not overly saddened by his death except that it was so hard on Harry. I think Sirius continued could have had a very bad effect on Harry or else, brought down another crushing blow at some point in the future to Harry by not being the "parent/friend" Harry was perceiving him as. But we all have friends that others can't care for. For whatever reason, James and Sirius were friends. I sometimes wonder if it would have lasted past Harry's babyhood.

  Carol:
  And
  note that he arrogantly refuses to help Remus study Transfiguration,
  stating that *he* already knows that stuff.James's joking about the
  werewolf question, in a voice loud enough to cause Remus concern, and
  his dismissal of Remus's lycanthropy as "your furry little problem" do
  not connote compassion in my view.
  kchuplis:
  Now I see "your furry little problem" as just a way to try to lighten Remus' load. I do not perceive that as being crass or mean. Just a silly way to refer to it in code. 

  Carol:
  So while I don't deny an early interest in the Dark Arts on Severus's
  part, rather odd on the part of a half-blood with a Muggle father if
  that father had any part in his upbringing, I see the memories as
  objective indicators that Severus was unhappy, that he hated James
  with good reason, and that James and Sirius really were arrogant,
  thoughtless little berks with no consideration even for the friend
  they ran with on full moon nights. 

  kchuplis:
  Hmm. Well, I don't see them that harshly. I do think they had thought for Remus, despite the fact that, yes, it was also fun to take risks. I do agree there is probably plenty of reasons for Snape and James to hate each other. I certainly don't see James as an angel and as stated above I definitely don't think Sirius was. In fact, Sirius was probably a distinctively bad influence on James IMO.

  Carol:
  And again, there's no indication
  that the curses Severus came to school knowing are any darker than,
  say, the Leg Locker curse or Ron's "Eat slugs!" 

  kchuplis:
  Snape up to his eyebrows in dark arts has to indicate that Snape had some kind of Dark Art knowledge beyond what most students had. I just can't interpret that any other way. Since they don't teach it at Hogwarts, I have to believe he learned it elsewhere. That is canon.

  Carol:
  (I still think, for reasons
  posted earlier, that the cutting curse in the Pensieve scene, which
  does *not* cause James to bleed unstoppably, is only a precursor of
  Sectum Sempra, which was invented for use against "enemies," IMO
  because those "enemies" had tried to murder him--at least in his view,
  an opinion no doubt helped by the fact that Sirius Black remained
  unrepentant for the rest of his life. Only Severus knew the
  countercurse to Sectum Sempra. 
  kchuplis:
  Possibly, but I think it is the sectumsempra curse that was badly aimed because Snape was off balance due to the whole incident or, perhaps, knowing what it did, Snape deliberately made it just a passing cut or was able to control it to a high degree. Harry not knowing just blasted full bore. I don't necessarily believe that the sectumsempra creates unstoppable bleeding. I think Malfoy got a full hit because Harry had no idea what it did. 
  Carol:

  Carol, agreeing that we're seeing only snippets of Severus's past but
  noting that he seems more unhappy than evil whereas James and Sirius
  look like inconsiderate, self-centered, arrogant bullies--perhaps, as
  you indicate, only one side of their otherwise charming personalities

  kchuplis:
  I don't believe Sirius had that charming a personality. I mean, yes, maybe in a certain way, but I don't htink I'd have liked him. I have to believe James was more charming than seen in that memory at least part of the time and certainly as he got older or people who knew him would have not touted him as such a good person. They would have been more neutral. Heck, most people really like me, but I can be a real bitch sometimes. *shrug*




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




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 31 20:45:39 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 20:45:39 -0000
Subject: Severus's memories and schoolyard curses (Was: Huge overreactions .. . .)
In-Reply-To: <001001c654ff$ae90b2b0$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local>
Message-ID: <e0k4dj+undv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150329

Carol earlier:
>   And again, there's no indication that the curses Severus came to
school knowing are any darker than, say, the Leg Locker curse or Ron's
"Eat slugs!" 
> 
kchuplis:
>   Snape up to his eyebrows in dark arts has to indicate that Snape
had some kind of Dark Art knowledge beyond what most students had. I
just can't interpret that any other way. Since they don't teach it at
Hogwarts, I have to believe he learned it elsewhere. That is canon.

Carol:
It's canon that *Sirius* made that remark (in contrast to the other
statement about the curses he knew at age eleven, which is spoken by
the more objective Lupin). 

And I still say that JKR uses the term "curses" very loosely and that
the curses designated as such in the books, e.g., the Conjunctivitis
Curse or the Impediment Curse or the Leg-Locker Curse, are not
necessarily Dark, however unpleasant most of them may be. Also, it's
unlikely that any eleven-year-old, even a gifted one, would know
really Dark curses, and certainly his Muggle father was no Death
Eater. (Not so sure about Grandpa Prince, whom I see as being like the
Blacks, with a pureblood ethic but no Dark Mark.) I very much doubt
that little Sevvie came to school knowing how to cast Unforgiveables.
Serpensortia and Densuageo, maybe. Certainly Leg-Locker, Jelly Legs,
and all the other hexes and jinxes we see being cast in the hallways
of Hogwarts by Gryffindors and Slytherins alike. (Funny how we never
see Hufflepuffs or Ravenclaws joining in the fun.) 

Also, note that the other "useful little jinxes and hexes" in the
HBP's Potions book are *not* Dark. Levicorpus was a fad and was used
by James himself. (Ron thinks it's amusing when it's used on him, once
he's had time to think about it.) The toenail hex is normal kid stuff.
Muffliato is useful and hurts no one. The potions hints are also
useful (though Harry shouldn't be taking credit for them, to go off
topic for a moment).

There's no evidence other than Sectum Sempra for anything Dark
invented by teen!Snape, and the countercurse is clearly *not* Dark.
Nor is the hint on Bezoars, despite the smartaleck schoolboy tone. (It
saved Ron's life, as we know.)

Carol, who agrees with a snipped statement by kchuplis that Sirius was
a bad influence on James but doubts that we can find enough evidence
to make a convincing case






From quigonginger at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 31 21:06:25 2006
From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 21:06:25 -0000
Subject: FILK;  Muggle Love
Message-ID: <e0k5kh+gv1p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150330

Sorry, no midi for this one.  I came up empty.

Muggle Love to the tune of Jungle Love by the Steve Miller Band.

Molly Weasley sings:

He's running all over the Islands*
Collecting odd trinkets to hoard.
He brought home ipods and a vacuum
And part of a '69 Ford.

He made sure they wouldn't remember-
He made sure that they would forget.
Muggle love and a bit of "Obliviate"
Just how nuts can a man get?

Muggle love
It's driving me mad.
It's making me crazy.
Muggle love
It's driving me mad.
It's making me crazy.

He wanted to live like a Muggle
But couldn't use a fellytone.
He got a job where he can dabble
And maybe some skills he can hone.

He questions each time he encounters
A Muggle-born child and its kin.
He cannot refrain, 
Nor excitement contain
Whilst digging around in their bin.

Muggle love
It's driving me mad.
It's making me crazy.
Muggle love
It's driving me mad.
It's making me crazy.

He has a shed out in the garden
With objects of all size and form.
It's lit with eclectical torches
And kerosene heat keeps it warm.

He keeps there his crockpots and routers,
His decor is a Muggle theme.
But one more of those 8-track players,
And I think I'm just gonna scream.

Muggle love
It's driving me mad.
It's making me crazy.
Muggle love
It's driving me mad.
It's making me crazy.

*referring to the British Isles 


Ginger, thinking Molly just might understand internal combustion






From belviso at attglobal.net  Fri Mar 31 22:41:59 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 22:41:59 -0000
Subject: Draco as Victim in GoF (was: Re: The Huge overreactions...)
In-Reply-To: <e0k1ih+gs49@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0kb7n+7d4m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150332

> Carol responds:
> Ah. Here's where we differ, at least primarily. IMO, Dumbledore
would
> not have died if Draco had not let the DEs into Hogwarts,
activating
> the UV and forcing Snape's hand. If Snape had wanted to kill DD, he
> had plenty of other chances--sixteen years' worth--notably the ring
> Horcrux curse, which he could have allowed to kill DD with no blame
> attached to himself. Neither Snape nor DD believed that Draco could
> kill DD, nor did they think that DEs could get into the castle
thanks
> to the protections that DD had placed on it. But Draco got past
those
> protections, confronting DD in an attempt to kill him, and the
> presence of the DEs threatened Draco's life as well as
Dumbledore's,
> activating all three provisions of the UV. When Snape entered the
> room, the stage was set. He had no choice but to fulfill the UV
(save
> Draco and "do the deed") or die, taking Dumbledore, Draco, and
> probably Harry with him.



Magpie:
I see what you're saying and I agree with what's going on in the
situation. It's just that to be honest, it seems like this goes
beyond Draco being responsible for his own actions and subsumes
Snape's actions into Draco's.  You seem to speak of Draco's actions
actively while Snape's are passive.  Draco is a free person while
Snape is only acted upon, his actions forced upon him by
circumstances.

Draco is given the job of killing Dumbledore, which he accepts.  He
creates a way to breach Hogwarts' defenses and bring DEs into the
castle.  The DEs are supposed to be "backup," people who will
guarantee him an open shot at Dumbledore.  This is exactly what they
do.  Only once given that shot, Draco does not want to kill
Dumbledore.  Now the people he himself has called to the castle are
going to "back him up" to the point where he can't back down.  He's
created this situation and that's the situation he's in when Snape
arrives.  What would have happened if Snape hadn't arrived?

I imagine Dumbledore would be killed by one of the DEs.  Draco would
be killed by one of the DEs.  Draco's not killing Dumbledore would
have little practical value, since Dumbledore would die anyway by
the hand of someone Draco brought to the castle.  Draco would be an
accessory to the murder, but would not be the murderer, and he would
pay for it with his life.  A bleak ending, but an ending to the
story of Draco Malfoy, the Boy Who Cried Mudblood and Lived To
Regret It.  Draco would have lived and died by his choices.
Dumbledore would be murdered by a DE.

Instead Snape arrives, kills Dumbledore, and hustles everyone away
including Draco.  Obviously a much better outcome overall.  But how
is Draco responsible for Snape's actions?  Because of the vow?  That
was completely Snape's choice.  For putting Snape in a sticky
situation by not being as incompetent as Snape thought?  Well, yeah,
he did do that but I don't see how that makes him literally
responsible for how Snape deals with the situation.  One could also
point to Lucius for putting Draco in the sticky situation to which
he responds by getting DEs into the castle, after all. Snape sure
does Draco a great service here, but he's not forced into it by
Draco, and he's still a free agent. I think the look of hatred and
revulsion on his face is due to the fact that he knows he is
actively killing here.  And I think Dumbledore's pleading indicates
what's going on here is something between him and Snape and not just
a Rube Goldberg Draco's set in motion.

So I just think we have to look at everyone's courses of actions as
free choices even as we acknowledge the things influencing them.
Maybe I'm reading something into it that isn't there, but it just
seems like this: "IMO, Dumbledore would not have died if Draco had
not let the DEs into Hogwarts, activating the UV and forcing Snape's
hand" hides a little fancy footwork.  Dumbledore died because
Draco "activated the Vow," but that would be the Vow that Snape
willingly made in Chapter Two.  Yes Draco's bringing the DEs into
the castle may have activated the UV, but the UV was something Snape
willingly took on himself for some reason, it's not something that
just exists without Snape's having anything to do with it.  And it's 
a Vow that *had* to end in either Snape's death or Snape killing 
Dumbledore.  It wasn't open ended, like it could go on forever 
without Snape ever having to kill Dumbledore or die.  Even if Draco 
had not brought the DEs into the castle, the Vow would be activated 
by Draco not being able to kill Dumbledore.  The Vow is activated by 
Draco, but not by Draco's taking an action.  It would be activated 
whenever it became clear he wouldn't/couldn't do it.  I do think 
that if Snape had never appeared in the room Dumbledore would
have probably wound up dead anyway in the scenario I outlined above,
but still that scenario didn't happen.  Once Snape willingly
involved himself he changed the scene and made himself an active
player. Had the scenario I described happened it seems DD would be 
killed by a DD, Draco would be killed by a DE and Snape would have 
dropped dead for no other reason than he took that Vow back in 
Chapter Two.

In terms of the themes of the book, I want to be careful to be clear
that I'm not making Draco out to be a passive pawn in the situation--
he does have responsibility for his own actions, which include
agreeing to try to kill DD, taking steps to do that which result in
Katie and Ron being hurt, and letting DEs into the castle which
gives him some responsibility for what they do when they get there.
I do see Draco as actively following his own course and plan
throughout the year, one that leads to the scene in the Tower. But
Draco is also a kid being acted upon, being used as a pawn due to
the actions of adults in his life. And his actions in HBP, though
they're reflected in a dark mirror, just seem completely correct in
terms of his development to me just as Harry's are in OotP, no
matter how much trouble they cause.

As strange as it sounds, Draco's "success" with the Cabinet may wind
up to be more of an asset than the short term better outcome of his
failure.  He's just one more person who turns out to not be able to
be controlled or counted on to act according to Dumbledore's or
Voldemort's plans.  That causes trouble in the short run, but I
think ultimately it's the unexpected that makes this world more
hopeful, not less.  Whatever happens, Harry's going to win, and when
we look back whatever happened may seem like the best thing that
could have happened, because it lead to that victory.

-m







From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com  Fri Mar 31 22:47:07 2006
From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 22:47:07 -0000
Subject: Young Snape's cutting curse  (Was: LID!Snape rides again)
In-Reply-To: <e0jsmq+c206@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0kbhb+k787@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150333

 Carol wrote:
> I agree with this paragraph but I want to make one quick note. Yes, 
> it was Sirius Black, not Remus Lupin, who said these words. (For 
> some reason, the quote keeps getting misattributed, maybe because 
> posters think, rightly, that Lupin is a more objective witness than
> Black.)


Valky responds:
Hi Carol, just for the record since this thread is in alignment with
the other I posted to yesterday, the quote I used in my previous post
was most definitely a Lupin Quote and not misattributed. The comment
by Sirius about Snape in first year and Lupin's statement that Snape
was "this little oddball up to his neck in Dark Arts" are not one and
the same as far as I am concerned, for the benefit of anyone listening
in who may have gotten confused by that.

On the point of Lupin being a more objective witness, I agree that you
say rightly so, Carol. Sirius, we know, has a bundle of dark emotions
influencing his every interaction with Snape, and it seems to go way
back, I don't think he's entirely objective, but I do think he's very
honest, and my opinion there is well qualified by the fact the
statements by Lupin (our objective witness) never contradict what
Sirius says about Snape. 


Carol:
> But Black does not say that eleven-year-old Severus came to school
> knowing more *Dark* curses than half (and, yes, it is half) the
> seventh years. He only says that he knew more "curses" than half the
> seventh years. JKR is a bit inconsistent in distinguishing curses 
> from hexes and jinxes (and hexes and jinxes from each other; IMO,
> throughout OoP she uses "jinxes" for "hexes," but that's another 
> post. I agree that these so-called curses were schoolyard variety 
> hexes and jinxes, some of them perhaps of his own invention (like 
> the toenail jinx he later invented).

Valky:
I have given this some pondering myself since we last spoke about it,
Carol, and I think I have a good theory about the difference between
curses and hexes/jinxes. Just going on the Bat Bogey Hex and the Eat
Slugs examples, it seems that Hexes and Jinxes are temporary in
nature, once cast they will eventually wear off after some discomfort
so they are in esscence basically innocuous, inconvenient and
uncofortable rather than dangerous.  Curses, OTOH, it seems to me
always need to be professionally countered by some expert in healing
arts, they seem more permanent and by extension of that hence rather
more a danger than hexes or jinxes. 

Thats my rough estimate at the moment from what I have been looking
through, I haven't really put it under any rigour yet, but I am sure
you guys will ;)

Valky







From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 31 22:52:18 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 22:52:18 -0000
Subject: Snape as infidel was Re: Kant and Snape and Ethics and Everything
In-Reply-To: <e0jcbs+26ta@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0kbr2+5ulg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150334

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > This...  It bothers me a bit.  I think part of it is the idea    
> > that the Gryffindors are somehow *better* than the other         
> > houses.  That they've got the best ideals.  Also, it seems to go 
> > against the healing of the rift concept.  If the houses need to  
> > come together, shouldn't they all be morally equal?

> >>Nora: 
> Not necessarily. Gryffindor may benefit from the counterbalance of 
> other houses and some of their traits, but that in no way has to 
> imply moral equality.

Betsy Hp:
So, you're okay with a popular childrens series classifying any 
religion that isn't Christianity as less moral?  Because *that's* 
what I was talking about in the above statement.  I'm uncomfortable 
with Gryffindor specifically standing for Christianity while the 
other Houses take on the role of infidels.  It starts down an ugly 
path, to my mind.

> >>Nora:
> I think it's simply a fact of the books and the author that she    
> values the Gryffindor traits the most highly.  

Betsy Hp:
I agree.  Which is why I don't think JKR meant for Gryffindor to 
stand for Christianity.  I think she's used the four houses to stand 
for different moral strengths that together make a strong and 
complete person, but I don't think she's divided the four houses 
into four different religions with mighty Gryffindor as the blessed 
Christians and the other three as infidels.

> >>Nora:
> It's a world-view built into them strongly enough that trying to   
> go against it and still incorporate all of the text is very, very 
> hard. You may not *like* it, but I think there's a point where you 
> have to shrug and just note that it's there.

Betsy Hp:
I do think JKR sees the Gryffindor traits of bravery and strength as 
maybe the guiding morals.  But I don't think she's dismissive of 
intelligence, cunning or hard work.  Actually, she'd be 
contradicting herself if she is.  There's a *reason* the four houses 
are invoked in the horcrux hunt.  And there's a reason Slytherin has 
been given outsider status.  I don't think it's because JKR wants to 
maintain the current Hogwarts status quo.

> >>Nora:
> The healing is in change. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Exactly!

> >>Betsy Hp: 
> > I haven't gotten the sense that there's more importance in how a 
> > thing is done compared to it just being done.  Do you have a     
> > scene in mind that might illustrate that point?

> >>Nora: 
> Dumbledore's denial of Dark Magic, and McGonagall's statement that 
> he's too noble to use it.  
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Okay, I think I see where you're coming from here.  With regards to 
magic, I've found this series in particular to be incredibly weak in 
differentiating between good magic and bad.  I mean, sure, 
desecrating a grave is bad, but how is a sword cutting curse dark 
but a face branding curse not dark?  Plus, there's no evidence, that 
I've seen, that using the so-called dark arts affects the user all 
that much.  Harry didn't feel a surge of evilness from *using* the 
dark curses he used.  He felt bad about nearly killing Draco, but it 
wasn't the magic that brought it out.  He'd have felt bad if he'd 
cut Draco with the Gryffindor sword, I'd imagine.

Since I can't see a clear pattern of good magic versus bad magic my 
conclusion is that it isn't that important.  JKR will let us know if 
a curse is dark or merely effective and we'll go from there.  Which 
makes it a poor way of teaching the morals of method, which leads me 
to conclude that JKR isn't using it in that way.

> >>Nora:
> Mmmm, bad sportsmanship is rarely rewarded in this genre.

Betsy Hp:
Hee!  And see, I think the "good guys" display bad sportsmanship all 
the time.  The twins *always* fight with the odds on their side.  
The Gryffindors spy on the Slytherin quidditch practice and are 
pleased as punch that their Seeker has the most expensive broom 
money can buy.  Hagrid took his anger at Vernon out on Vernon's 
child.  The Potterverse has never struck me as all that favorable to 
good sportmanship.  I get the sense JKR thinks it's a bit old-
fashioned.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > I've never gotten the sense that Dumbledore was waiting for some 
> > great aha! moment from Snape.

> >>Nora: 
> The whole "I hoped Professor Snape would be able to get over..." 
> speech at the end of OotP seemed to me, at least, to be a hope not 
> only for the specific actions (that Snape would come to see Harry 
> as a person in and of himself and maybe even love him like        
> Dumbledore obviously does), but that those actions would actually 
> be a deep change in Snape's perspective on life.

Betsy Hp:
I actually agree with this.  I think Dumbledore would like for Snape 
to get to a point where he can finally forgive.  And I get the sense 
that he'd like both Harry and Snape to wake up and realize they're 
like seperated twins. <g>

> >>Nora:
> So yes, I think Dumbledore *has* been waiting for an 'aha!' from   
> Snape on a number of things, but in his Dumbledorean way, he's not 
> going to push or force him.

Betsy Hp:
Someone, somewhere (was it Carol?) pointed out that Dumbledore is 
actually quite hard on his adult Order members.  Sirius is forced to 
confront the family he ran away from.  Lupin is forced to confront 
the werewolf who made him.  And Snape is forced to confront being a 
Death Eater.

I don't think Dumbledore has been gently waiting for Snape to 
develop a moral sense.  For one, how do you trust 
someone "completely" who has no moral sense?  For another, 
Dumbledore doesn't gently wait.  Not with his adult charges.  Not if 
he needs them.

I think the waiting with Harry (the forced waiting) was actually one 
of Dumbledore's mistakes.  Usually he's a bit better at realizing 
that his people can take more than they think.  I guess it was 
Harry's youth that threw him off.

> >>Nora:
> I think he has this benign belief that Snape will eventually       
> figure things out for himself about how to be a better person.     
> Alas.

Betsy Hp:
I do think Dumbledore hopes that eventually Snape will learn how to 
forgive.  (I'm getting more and more stuck on the forgiveness thing, 
but it fits with a character following such a demanding moral 
code.)  And of course that would make Snape a better person.  
However, by entangling Snape in the Tower killing, Dumbledore is 
hardly being benign.  He's forcing (again) Snape into a position 
that if Snape cannot learn how to forgive (himself and Dumbledore) 
could very well destroy him.

Betsy Hp






From glykonix at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 31 15:11:16 2006
From: glykonix at yahoo.com (Adriana)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 15:11:16 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore MAY be alive.... and his name may be Godric Gryffindor
In-Reply-To: <e0i7mu+f2q2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e0jgqk+a6t7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150335

Glykonix:

I am surprised so many people responded to my half baked theory. 
But as Magda said, maybe you did it just so that you could escape the 
ever present Snape talk. Which is fascinating by the way.
I also have to agree with Magda that my theory is not really necessary 
for the plot, is highly improbable, and very much based on 
speculation. (Though one could certainly write a very original fanfic 
using the theory).

There is room in my theory for DD's school years as well. I never said 
that once he was rebirth he would be fully grown or anything of the 
kind. We see Fawkes been reborn out of his ashes as an ugly chick. So 
each time DD would be rebirth as a baby and would grow up all over 
again (still possessing all his knowledge but probably not able to 
understand everything that he knows at an early age).

This is why I don't actually see the need for him to keep his name or 
at least part of his name. From one "burning" to another. And maybe he 
doesn't want to interfere that much with the wizarding world. He was 
enough of an important figure as DD, if he was to assume the name of 
Gryffindor he would be regarded probably like a good. 
 Oh my, I'm giving myself a headache. So I'll stop here.

> Geoff: (said)
> (1) The Philospher's Stone does not "grant" immortality. The 
extension of life comes from taking the Elixir but, as we know from 
PS, if a person ceases to take it, then they die.

Glykonix:
I did not say he had used the stone to lengthen his life. I said 
something far more ludicrous I said he is a human phoenix for all of 
the reasons mentioned in my previous
post. Because if his life had been extended by the use of the elixir 
then it would mean that he still needed the stone for further use for 
himself in other words that he could not take the stone out of the 
mirror.

As for the second thought I looked for all the cannon evidence I could 
find (very little, most of it speculation). I like my theory/
speculation but that doesn't mean I believe myself. 
After all Einstein himself said he did not believe in the game of 
dice, as in probability.

To answer to Mike. That's all I was trying to do, make a good point. I 
did ask for suggestions at the and I'm delighted people answered and 
came up with ideas of their own. It's curious how a lot of us think 
that DD is a phoenix. Initially that's what my theory was all about, 
but then I remembered the part about the hat and sword I couldn't help 
going further with the speculation. Now of course since the paintings 
in the headmasters office are bond to the present headmaster it would 
not be far fetched to say that about the rest of the objects.

> Mike:
> Now I have a question for you:  if indeed Big D is Godric then where
> are the other three founding wizards?  If one of them were immortal
> then would it not make sense that the others were as well, and if so
> then who could they be?

Hufflepuff: Poppy Pomfrey(I aways imagine her as a nurse.)
Ravenclaw: Irma Pince (Never could get her face out of those books...)
Slytherin: Argus Filch (The greatest actor in the WW!)
-Neuman

Glykonix:
LOL never though of going that far with the theory. I only focused on 
DD/Gryffindor because I could associate him with the phoenix, with 
rebirth.

Glykonix,

For everybody who hasn't seen the theory: (or up thread)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/150022

(I hope I got it right this time)









From sugaranddixie1 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 31 16:39:45 2006
From: sugaranddixie1 at yahoo.com (sugaranddixie1)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 16:39:45 -0000
Subject: Blood & predjudice...or what makes for strange bedfellows? (Long....)
Message-ID: <e0jm0h+dicd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150336

Starting with LV- the head of the organization.  Acceptable to his 
followers because he renounced his father? Seems ironic to think of 
Lucius Malfoy in a organization headed by a half-muggle.  It presents 
a problem for me because being from the southern U.S., the closest 
analogy I conjure up is a man who's half-black heading the Klu Klux 
Klan.  In other words, denial of parentage wouldn't solve the blood 
problem for the other members of the organization- the predjudice 
would still exist & saying "I renounce my Dad" doesn't change the 
facts...  (I seem to remember reading somewhere that Hitler had some 
Jewish blood in him so perhaps there's some sort of historical 
precedent for the storyline there.)

Now on to Snape- also of mixed parentage.  Accepted as a Death-eater 
& highly-thought of/friends with the Malfoys.  Again, why would 
Lucius Malfoy deign to fraternize with a non-pureblood when it seems 
to be such a huge issue for him?  Is he not aware of Snape's 
lineage?  Is Draco not aware of it?   It seems like it would be the 
first thing the Malfoy family would want to ascertain before letting 
someone into their circle....  When it comes to LV and Snape that 
doesn't pose as much of a problem to me...their mixed-parentage would 
be a grounds on which they could really relate.  I do think Snape had 
mixed feelings ( at least during his teen years) about his own 
lineage-  he never defaced the words "..Half-Blood Prince..." in the 
textbook- left them there for posterity.  Yet he called Lily 
a "..Mudblood..." when she came to his aid in OOP.

So my point is this- How can the Malfoys profess to be so obsessed 
with people's bloodlines & still do the things they do?  The ultimate 
irony? The irrationality of prejudice? So few pure-bloods left that 
they'd be sitting home alone if they didn't bend the rules a bit?   
Any thoughts?
   
E.T.

 








From orgone9 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 31 13:51:59 2006
From: orgone9 at yahoo.com (Len Jaffe)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 05:51:59 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Draco as Victim in GoF (was: Re: The Huge overreactions...)
In-Reply-To: <20060331134037.72319.qmail@web37003.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20060331135159.5623.qmail@web80602.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 150344


>   Catherine now:
>    
>   I agree that 5 against 3 is a little crummy, but
> HRH didn't know that FG were outside in the hallway,
> and FG didn't know that HRH had their wands out and
> ready. So they weren't ganging up on Malfoy and his
> croonies. They just all attacked at the same time.
> It's a little different.
   

L: 
Karma. Draco got what he deserved.

I also think Harry got off lightly in HBP when all he
got for spying in Draco's compartment was a broken
nose.

L.





From bawilson at citynet.net  Fri Mar 31 20:31:20 2006
From: bawilson at citynet.net (bawilson at citynet.net)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 15:31:20 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Words have consequences
Message-ID: <27659046.1143837080087.JavaMail.SYSTEM@webmail>

No: HPFGUIDX 150374

"> >>Joe:   
> Victim also implies powerlessness where in fact Draco and his ilk 
> had to go out of their way to get beat down.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Not the way I'm using it.  It just denotes who was the wronged 
party.  And that would be the three boys lying unconscious on the 
floor getting kicked by the other parties."

I think we are getting into Humpty-Dumpty territory here.

"> >>Alla:
> Not only that, I just don't get how somebody who IMO literally    
> ASKED for something bad to happen to him can be called a victim.

Betsy Hp:
Well, yes, if Draco has said, "please hex me and my friends into 
unconsciousness, and ooh, if you could kick us while we're out, 
that'd be extra special!" then I'd see your point.  But Draco went 
in ready to trade insults.  He behaved horribly, I agree.  But he 
was the one lying unconscious on the floor, so therefore, he was the 
victim."

Then you say that it is reasonable to go around saying horrid things to and 
about people and not expect a negative reaction?  That one should be able to go 
into a barbershop in an African-American neighborhood and call the customers 
n*gg*rs and walk away unscathed?  Or tell a group of Jews that Hitler had the 
right idea?  Or yell 'death to faggots!' in certain neighborhoods of San 
Francisco?  I would say that anyone who did something like that deserves 
whatever happens to him, and what Draco said certainly approaches that level. 

BAW