Beauty /Ghost War/ Chapter 15 discussion - Dark Magic /Fleur/Umbridge/Ginny

[Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)]

No: HPFGUIDX 152185

Susanne wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/151944>:

<< So, no, I don't think Hermione is supposed to be a beauty and I'm
very happy about that, because there is too much of this idea that she
just "has to be beautiful" going around. As if only people with
physical beauty are worthy... >>

To which, "bigdaddy999197" replied in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/152037>:

<< In the first description of Hermione JKR seems to make it a point
that Hermione is rather plain. Then again she describes the reaction
to her appearance when the boys saw her dressed for the ball. The word
I would use is surprised. So maybe it is a matter of the ugly duckling
maturing into a beautiful swan.>>

I *hated* that scene of Hermione being beautiful at the ball. I
consider it to be an unrealistic wish-fulfillment fantasy that proves
Hermione is a Mary-Sue character. And implies that being beautiful is
so very important. It would have been just as good a one-up on the
other girls for them to see plain but well-groomed and happy-looking
Hermione dancing with the Quidditch World Cup MVP, him smiling at her
and laughing at her jokes.

The story "The Ugly Duckling" seems to be a necessary metaphor for
nerds and geeks who become billionaires and juvenile delinquents who
become big movie stars, and maybe it is a comfort to homely
girlchildren (I can't remember if I felt comforted by it), but my
observation of the real world shows more pretty children growing into
homely adults than homely children growing into pretty adults. 

"Lazy Days" wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/151998>:

<< Was there an actual wizard named Hogwart, that the school was named
after, or is everyone still banking on the fact that Hogwarts is an
anagram of "Ghost War?" >>

I never even noticed that Hogwarts is an anagram of Ghost War!

My theory is the Lake is really named Hoglake and the Forbidden 
Forest is really named Hogwood and the mountain behind the town is
really named Hogmount and the location of the town was originally
named Hogwald and the location of the school, beside the lake, was
originally named Hogmeadow, all named after a legendary Caledonian Hog
who lived on that mountain. And the Founders chose that site, but were
slightly confused and got the names Hogwald and Hogmeadow messed up as
Hogsmeade and Hogwald, so they were going to call it Hogwald School.
But then Salazar Slytherin got bent out of shape because the proposed
name included Godric and Helga's initials but not his, and Rowena said
'Nor mine'. So they all agreed to change it to HoGwaRS. 

The T may have been added by someone who thought the name referred to
a plant named hogwort that I haven't been able to find out anything
about. But in my wilder flights of fancy, it came from a fifth
Founder, Tavish Tartanwool, who was a lesser mage than the others, 
but he provided the real estate -- his family traditionally lived in
Hogwald, keeping the Hog from getting off its mountain and the Muggles
from finding this place. And he has been lost to history because
Salazar murdered him (the reason would depend on whether Salazar was
already evil) and the others agreed to cover it up.

Carol discussed Chapter 15 in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/152046> and
Ceridwen replied in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/152057>:

Carol: << When Harry asks how the [love] potions can be smuggled into
the school despite the new precautions, Hermione explains that they're
not Dark or dangerous >>

Ceridwen: << Love spells and potions are `dark', in my opinion,
because they remove a person's will.  What is the difference between
Imperius, which forces someone to do the bidding of the caster, and 
a love potion which forces the victim to do the bidding of the
potioner? >>

Catlady: The listies have mentioned ways in which love potions can be
dangerous, but a pencil can be dangerous if someone stabs someone with
it: a Detect Danger spell should either highlight *everything* or only
things that, like unstable explosives, are a danger at that very moment.

It seems to me that a Detect Dark Magic spell depends on the
definition of Dark Magic. If intention were what made a spell Dark 
(so an AK in defense of the helpless from a murderer would not be
Dark, but Levitating a heavy object with the intention of dropping it
on someone's head would be Dark), it would have to be a Detect Bad
Intention spell. 

But there are theories that what makes magic Dark is not the intention
but the technique. One theory was offered that Dark Spells are those
that require killing (an animal or a human) as an ingredient. But I
think the only spells with killing as an ingredient that we've seen
are some potions in class with formerly alive insects as ingredients
and making wands with dragon heartstrings.

Another theory was that, before the invention of wands, all magic was
done by channelling the magic power through the wizard's body, which
gradually wore out his nervous system (optional subtheories: it wore
out conscience and compassion before it wore out agility and memory,
it ended up by the wizard turning into a tree). Wand magic is done by
channelling the magic power through the wand, and therefore doesn't
damage the wizard's nervous system (maybe damages it a little bit,
which is why they all seem to be slightly mad and a little bit stupid)
and therefore the other kind of magic was called Dark.

A simpler theory, that every bit of Dark Magic one does makes one more
evil (removes another piece of one's conscience and compassion), is
marred by that also happens with totally non-magical behavior, even
with non-bad behavior: Every time one does a thing (e.g. gives up
smoking) makes it a little easier to do next time.

Carol: << In Transfiguration the next day, they attempt in front of
mirrors to change the color of their eyebrows. Ron sprouts a handlebar
mustache at which Hermione laughs unkindly >>

Catlady: I kind of wondered if that had something to do with
Movie!Lupin's moustache.

Carol: << Draco reacts by calling DADA a "joke" and an "act" and
sneering that "we" don't need protection against the Dark Arts. >>

Ceridwen: << Draco doesn't think that knowing how to defend against
Dark Arts is for people who use Dark Arts. >>

Catlady: I thought that was amazing stupid of Draco, to think that
being a Death Eater would prevent Dark Beasts, rival Death Eaters, 
and Dark Wizards from outside the club, from attacking him.

Catherine wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/152096>:

<< Once Molly sees that Fleur is *really* in it for the long haul,
that she truly loves Bill for who he is, and not just his looks, she
changes immediately.>>

I'm sure Rowling INTENDED that scene to show that Fleur truly loved
Bill for himself, but it quickly occured to me (I think I've posted
this before) that it could just as well depict Fleur wanting to marry
Bill for his money (not inherited money, money that he earned as a
curse-breaker or as a Gringotts executive).

Nikkalmati wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/152157>:

<< She is also the one who IMHO who abuses Harry, when she forces him
to cut himself by magically writing on his own hand over and over and
again and again.(OTP pp. 267-69, 270-75).  When I read that part I
felt  sick to my stomach (and I don't remember ever having that
reaction to a book before). >>

Yes, that was disgusting abuse. When I read it, I exclaimed out loud:
"That quill is a Dark Magic Artifact." (which implies that I have some
theory of what makes magic Dark. Oh well.) 

I expect some reply pointing out that cases of much worse child abuse
occur frequently in real life (e.g. pouring gasoline on the child and
setting him on fire is worse than cutting the back of his hand to draw
blood). They cannot be Dark Magic because they aren't magic at all.

Pippin wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/152176>:

<< Voldemort could not leave the pages of the diary, not until it 
had almost consumed Ginny at the end. There was no way he could leave
part of himself in Ginny and part in the diary. As we know, souls
cannot be split except through an act of murder, and the diary didn't
kill anyone. 

When she threw the Diary away, she was free, except for her fear that
what she had done would be found out and she would have to leave
Hogwarts. In a way she's more culpable than Draco, because she knew
that what she was doing was wrong, and yet she did it anyway. >>

As for souls, canon: "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. . ."

So even though Diary!Tom's soul couldn't split in two and Diary!Tom
could not leave the diary in bodily form, he could put part of his
soul out of the diary into Ginny (part of his soul which is still
connected to the other part of his soul, not split). And that part of
his soul controlled her by possession, not by threats.

As for possession, canon: "Of course, she didn't know what she was
doing at first. It was very amusing. I wish you could have seen her
new diary entries ... far more interesting, they became .... Dear
Tom,"he recited, watching Harry's horrified face, `I think I'm losing
my memory. There are rooster feathers all over my robes and 1 don't
know how they got there. Dear Tom, l can't remember what 1 did on the
night of Halloween, but a cat was attacked and I've got paint all down
my front. Dear Tom, Percy keeps telling me I'm pale and I'm not
myself. I think he suspects me... There was another attack today and I
don't know where I was. Tom, what am I going to do? I think I'm going
mad... I think I'm the one attacking everyone, Tom!" >>